When I was in high school, our English
(language arts?) teacher taught us to challenge everything we read. See who the author is. Does he or she have the expertise
required? Is there a hidden agenda or
built-in bias? How does this come across
in the story, book or report?
Now here is a story that hit the news
earlier in the week. I picked it up from
Yahoo News, but it also appeared in Forbes, the AP and several other outlets. “Many Google employees have expressed outrage
over a document in which a senior Google engineer reportedly claims that
biological gender differences make women less effective programmers and argues
that the company should not actively work to improve diversity in staffing.”
Wait a minute! This guy is a computer engineer. Do we expect him to know anything about
biological gender differences? I
certainly don’t. In fact, the statement
shows that he is somewhat ignorant on the subject. Later in the article it states: “There is no
evidence that women are inherently less skilled coders than men.” Additionally,
about a year ago the Guardian published the results of a study showing that a
peer review of work “approved code written by women at a higher rate than code
written by men, but only if the gender was not disclosed.”
(This is the same kind of gender bias
that infected many symphony orchestras until they started holding auditions
behind a screen. It also shows up when
we hear of a female visual artist after being overlooked for many years
finally getting recognition. What were
the critics looking at instead of the pictures?
The problem has clearly not been confined to Silicon Valley.)
The conclusion in this case: He doesn’t know what he is talking about. He has no particular expertise in the
field. This is easy – consider the
source. The leaders of the company
should take him aside and require behavior that does not reflect this error in
judgment or if they didn’t think that was possible, fire him. No outrage necessary. Problem solved. (As it turned out, he was fired.)
But also consider this next paragraph
of the story. “The document is a
personal statement not sanctioned in any way by the company, but has been
circulating widely within Google.” Of
course it’s been widely circulated. You
can’t be outraged without sharing your outrage with as many other people as
possible. That’s no fun. And the media likes nothing better than a
case of outrage to feature in headlines to help spread the outrage around. This becomes not a Google issue to deal with,
but another national crisis.
In America, the truth is no longer
something sought out and discovered. The
truth is voted upon – by voice vote, usually shouting. If you are outraged, you tweet or post on
Facebook or start a petition. The point
is to get likes and shares and signatures and others shouting about it. Spread the outrage! That’s how you win for your point of
view. It’s not a matter of a simple
counterargument with better facts. Especially
when there are no legitimate facts to support a particular point of view,
outrage becomes the only avenue. Unfortunately
it has become a habit, even among those who, as in this case, are clearly in
the right and have the facts on their side.
Maybe we need a little less outrage,
which can easily turn into bullying to cut off all debate, and more actual
conversation. Maybe we need Americans to
follow the consider-the-source rule and not cling to the pronouncements of
every actor, musician, politician or scientist with a different field of specialization on subjects they are not in the least bit
qualified to represent, for example, economics, climate, nutrition and
vaccinations. Sure, they have a right to
express opinions, but the fact that their opinion is no more valid than almost
anyone else’s too often goes unchallenged.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment