I recently looked up the executive management group of Google and discovered that the company practices an unspoken type of discrimination and racism. Of the 13 top executives at Google forming the executive management, there is only 1 woman and 3 non-whites (an African, an Asian, and a Hispanic American). Does Google represent America? And more importantly, does it represent Silicon Valley?
Google Executive Management Distribution by Race
10 Caucasian (79%)
1 African (7%)
1 Asian (7%)
1 Hispanic (7%)
Google Executive Management Distribution by Gender
12 Males (93%)
1 Female (7%)
Contrast this with America.
America Distribution by Race
201 million Caucasian (68.4%)
41 million Hispanics (14%)
39 million African (12.7%)
13 million Asian (4.6%)
Look at the disparity. Caucasians are overpresented by 10%. Hispanics are underrepresented by 7%. African Americans are underrepresented by 5.7%. What is interesting is that Asian Americans, while seemingly overrepresented, are actually significantly underrepresented. Does Google represent America? No. Not even close.
Contrast this with Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley by some estimates has townships which are 30-50% Asian American. It is common knowledge that the bulk of the blood and sweat equity in Silicon Valley is provided by this group of hard working individuals. Asians are probably the largest group of engineers. Within Google, Asians probably represent 20-30% of employees. Yet, within the executive management, there is only 1 Asian American. Some of the hardest working, most creative, and inspiring people I know are Asian, and I find it hard to believe that they are not worthy of being represented. Not only does Google not represent America, but also the executives at Google don't even represent their employees. Google, why are you so racist?
The disparity doesn't end there. Look no further than the gender distribution.
America Distribution by Gender144 million Males (49.2%)
149 million Females (50.8%)
I find it alarming that there is 1 woman who is part of Google's executive management team (7%) when in America 50.8% of Americans are women. Eric, please help me understand why. At Stanford, the number of women engineers is probably between 20-40%. Why is it that only 1 woman sits on the executive management group Eric? Google, why are you so sexist?
I live only a few minutes from the Googleplex and there are plenty of co-eds Eric. I can attest to that personally. And some of the smartest and most accomplished people I know, managers and engineers, are women. They are of my generation. The Internet generation. If you read this post, Eric, I urge to defend your actions to the rest of America when the numbers clearly show that the hiring practices at Google box out women and minorities from leadership roles and are clearly tilted in the favor of Caucasian males.
Mr Wave Theory
posted by MR WAVETHEORY at 7:18 PM
21 Comments:
lets see...2 college guys found a company, hire some friends that happen to be guys....seems pretty reasonable to me, then eventually over time sine its a now publicly traded company, the staff will change. Doesnt seem like discrimination to me, stop making an issue out of a non issue.
The numbers really tell the whole story here. They speak for themselves. When there is such a big gender and race gap, I think you really have to ask: Why is the gap so large? I am not saying it is right or wrong. Just that the numbers really tell you how this company operates.
This is such a non-issue. Take any 13 people from the population, go into a highschool anywhere and pick 13 randoms, the numbers will not always tally with the national percentages.
you might happen to pick 13 caucasians..doesn't mean they are overepresented...it just means that u happened to pick the thirteen caucasians.
Google picks people based on how well they fit the job description, as all companies do. It might just happen that the best person for the job was a male, besides, males are over represented in the IT industry.
They aren't going to pick a female for the panel over a better qualified male just because shes female. Or vice versa.
I dont think any pool of 13 ppl is going to give an accurate depiction of the state. A 10% disparity is not unexpected, it could have gone any way.
This is stupid. Caucasians are off with an error of 1 person, as are hispanics. You take such a small sample size from such a huge population, you're not going to get a representative sample. Furthermore, are you trying to say that to be fair, you need to cut half the asian executive off the board, and hire half a black man?
Get a life...
hahaha, this is the stupidest thing ive ever seen.
This article is moving around the WWW pretty quick.
I have only one question.
What is it like to be known asone of the STUPIDEST people on the Internet?
I think the nintendo zapper mod was cool. Why am I posting this here?! Well, because your stupid article and comments were posted on Engadget! This article is biased too. You can't compare percentages based on MILLIONS of people, with percentages based on THIRTEEN PEOPLE!!!! It is IMPOSSIBLE to make those numbers match and equal out. You also have to take into account the number of "hispanics" in executive positions at any company and at IT related companies. What is that percentage. In the industry, Google might be better than any other company. You're accusations of racism and sexism is messed up and errored.
Let me guess, Mr. wave theory is probably a non-caucasian woman. Seriously, would you want to lose your job because "all the numbers didn't match up?" Would you be willing to hire someone less qualified for a position because of numbers? that's the stupidest thing in the world. Why do you think America is slowly falling behind in technology? One reason is that we care more about what people look like than what they can do. At the University of Michigan a caucasian who recieves a 36 (perfect) on his ACT and does perfect on their entrance essay recieves 18 or 19 entrance points while a minority recieves 20 points just because of their genetic makeup. Now let me ask you: When Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Do you think "looking at the numbers" judges charachter or the color of skin?
A sample of 13 data points, even if it is the entire population is too small to be considered a random sample and use any sort of normal statistics.
What you need to do is select the sample from all management/supervisory staff at Google. That sample may be statistically significant.
Let's not forget, the founders and Eric are running their own good old boy network and selling their zero cost stock to the drones who happen to be buying Google on the open market to the tune of 50-100 MILLION dollars per week.
So, the three stooges and Shemp (I mean George) are going to ride this one out, selling stock every week and then leave a bunch of bagholders wondering where all of their money went.
shut up you fuckin fag
arguing online is like being in the special olympics, even if you win your still retarded. retarded much like the ass that wrote the article. Shut the fuck up and leave google alone, right now there the best thing on the net.
God, this is the most horribly written article ive ever seen.
Absolutely no regard for any statistical analysis. Since when does an executive board comprised of 13 people need to be compared to the 250 million people in America that have nothing to do with Google?
And stop spamming on completely unrelated articles. It jsut makes me hate you very much.
But congratulations on your whole collection of 3 rss readers!
Thanks for the all the comments. Rather than making this a debate about ideology, I would like to see more arguments based on facts and figures. The numbers don't lie. And I am sure you can make a good case against my position. But I have yet to see anything that uses any facts in response.
By the way, I find it interesting that no one has brought up the stark fact that there is only 1 woman on the executive management committee. This is actually where the disparity the greatest. 7% (google) vs 51% (America) Does this imply that there is only 1 woman who is qualified to be a Google executive?
Mr wavetheory,
How many women applied for an executive position at google and were rejected? If you can provide me that number, maybe there is some sexism going on.
Also provide me the percentage of women in executive positions in other companies. And, the percentage of women in executive positions in IT related fields. In general it would be nice to know the percentage of women in the IT industry. There are other factors that you're CHOOSING to ignore because they don't match up with a THEORY you had. You've said other people haven't given you FACTS to match up with statements they are saying. YOU haven't given enough facts to match up with the statements you're making.
I can make a study that shows 100% of American's eat peanut butter even though 1% to 2% are allergic and would die from it. All I have to do is conduct the survey during a peanut butter factory tour. "mr wavetheory said... 'The numbers really tell the whole story here.'" That survey would be biased and INCORRECT, but I can give you the numbers to show it's correct. In the end, YOU haven't proven that Google is racist or sexist, you've just found numbers to support an assumption; just like I can find numbers to support the assumption that everybody eats peanut butter.
According to your numbers, the asian population is over represented on the executive board. I think they should fire the asian guy and give the job to a hispanic because that would even things out more. Oh wait, then the asians would be UNDER-represented. No that wouldn't be fair. I know, find an asian midget, and only count a part of his vote when they make desicions.
Nobody applies to be an executive. Executives are promoted and recruited. If the hiring manager or the board decides to hire a woman then she is hired. If they have a preference towards males, then the guy is hired. More men are being hired than women.
The woman would have to be in a position to be hired or recruited then. How many women are in similar positions at other IT related companies that they would recruit from. They won't want someone without experience. So, if the industry percentage is low, then the recruitment pool is low. And you still haven't given the other numbers that I mentioned that would provide an UNBIASED answer. I don't see any posts applauding your theory, only ones against it. Why do you think that is?
I agree the numbers posted by Mr Wave Theory. I know lots of women who would love to be executives. However, the mathcamp culture at Google really works against women. About 43% of the IT workforce is women according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics in 2005. In terms of data, more women use computers than men.
84%: Proportion of women who used a computer at home in 2003, 2 percentage points higher than the corresponding proportion for men. This reverses the computer use "gender gap" exhibited during the 1980s and 1990s. Women's Internet use at home also exceeded men's (83% versus 81%).
go white guys lol
Please do not feed the blog spammer.
So, how many women and minorities, that were more qualified, were turned away by Google?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home