Google’s Diversity Crisis, a Padma Lakshmi Trial, and Anita Hill’s Take on Tech

•  Firing underneath fireThe news that Google has dismissed James Damore, a operative who wrote a anti-diversity memo, is call a flurry of responses.

This morning, Fortune published one such reaction—from Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, that is partial of Google. In a deeply personal piece, Wojcicki talks about how she has had to confront a thought that there are biological factors that reason women behind in tech—a judgment modernized in a Damore’s memo—throughout her career.

“Time and again, I’ve faced a slights that come with that question. I’ve had my abilities and joining to my pursuit questioned. I’ve been left out of pivotal attention events and amicable gatherings,” she writes. “I’ve had meetings with outmost leaders where they essentially addressed a some-more youth masculine colleagues. I’ve had my comments frequently interrupted and my ideas abandoned until they were rephrased by men. No matter how mostly this all happened, it still hurt.”

She doesn’t categorically residence Damore’s firing, though her opinion on a theme is clear: “While people might have a right to demonstrate their beliefs in public, that does not meant companies can't take movement when women are subjected to comments that continue disastrous stereotypes about them formed on their gender.”

Meanwhile,  numerous pieces—including Fortune‘s possess Geoff Smith—have argued that banishment Damore does some-more mistreat than good. Geoff writes that a company’s preference creates dual vital problems. First, “it supports Damore’s topic about Google not being means to stomach open debate” and second, it “created a sufferer who will now be giveaway to march his victimhood on a most bigger stage.” (For some-more on how that could play out, see this Mashable square on how a alt-right is valorizing a engineer.) Other critics of a banishment have been some-more sensitive to some of a writer’s tangible points.

I’m sensitive to some of those views, though we still trust Google done a right choice—and that a association had no choice though to select a side. Allowing Damore to stay on, or even postponing action, would not have been a neutral course; it would have been received, by Googlers and by a open during large, as a summary that a association is usurpation of employees who publicly strengthen stereotypes, explain women are generally biologically unsuitable to certain jobs, and insist that Google’s push to variegate a workforce “lowers a bar”—implying that during slightest some of their womanlike and/or minority colleagues are inferior.

True, a preference to glow Damore outs a association as fanatic of some values and ideas, though because do we design Google—or any company—to be value neutral? If a association chooses to value diversity, a support of a womanlike and minority employees, and a goodwill of consumers, partners, and would-be hires who share a values, that is its prerogative.

Do you have an unusual story to tell? E-mail