STEM

I have worked in and around the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciples my entire adult life. I have been a practicing engineer and consultant specializing in computer and systems applications; I have managed STEM professionals; I have had the privilege of teaching STEM students at the university-level; I have written books intended to help STEM students better understand software engineering, and today, my job focuses on engineering design and product development. Given all of that, I think it's reasonable to conclude that I understand the STEM milieu better than most.

Today, there are many (myself included) who lament that relatively to few women decide on STEM careers. There are many reasons why more men than women enter into STEM—all open to honest debate and discussion—biological differences, cultural differences, lifestyle differences, and yes, oppositional differences in which some STEM institutions are biased against women in the field. There are also many programs designed to encourage women to consider a STEM career and more programs to help them achieve success once they enter the field. All of that is good.

But like all good ideas designed with the best of intentions, some individuals, institutions, and corporations have taken all of this and adopted the meme that a lack of women in STEM is solely a sign of male "oppression," that the solution is diversity programs that not only encourage women in the field but subtly discriminate against male members of the same field, and that brook no dissent from those who question the efficacy of said diversity programs.

A recent open letter, penned by an anonymous Google software engineer, explores the use of diversity programs for encouraging females in STEM. In actuality, the letter is a well-constructed 10-page essay that has been labeled an "anti-diversity screed" by those on the Left. The author dissects Google's diversity programs, addressing the reasons for differences in male/female STEM participation and suggesting that the corporate programs to remedy the differences may not be working. It's fair to state that the author's conclusions are open to debate, but his right to state them should be unquestioned and encouraged.

He begins his essay in this way:

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices ...

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies.

The second paragraph is at the core of his argument here and in many other situations in which PC orthodoxy is questioned. The Left and their trained hamsters in the media demand a "monoculture." Deviation is not only unacceptable, it is labeled "misogynist" (in this case), "racist," or any one of the other tired epithets that are intended to shut down debate and consideration of the points raised. The intent (too often successful in the second decade of the 21st century) is "shaming dissenters into silence."

But some will not be silenced. The Google software engineer should be praised for the courage to state his position, to define the problems as he sees them, to offer structured and cohesive arguments without name-calling, and to suggest potential solutions for the situation as he sees.

When I was teaching, I used to say to my students, "You have to understand the problem before you can craft a solution."

The Google engineer does that well, and I applaud him for it.

UPDATE-1:
--------------
In a despicable move that is not the least bit surprising, The Wall Street Journal reports that Google has fired the software engineer who wrote the essay noted in the body of this post. After all, Google's left-leaning bias is well documented, it's leadership is uber-progressive, and as the software engineer noted, the Left will do almost anything to ensure that its narrative is unquestioned, including, it appears in the case of Google, firing an employee who expressed an honest opinion that in no way hurt the company, but did threaten PC thought. As the now unemployed engineer wrote, Google prefers to remove "any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies." Shame on Google's management!

UPDATE-2
---------------
Bre Payton presents irrefutable evidence of the length to which the trained hamsters of the media will go to be sure that those who question the progressive PC narrative are punished, discredited and shamed. Each of these publications presented blatantly incorrect and dishonest descriptions of the author of the Google essay, who we now know is James Damore, and his intent. They are sad examples of fake news: The Washington Post, CNN, Time Magazine, The Atlantic, Forbes, the Huffington Post, Vanity Fair, Slate and Gizmoto.

Here are just a few of their blatant lies and mischaracterizations:

Time: “Google Has Fired the Employee Who Wrote an Anti-Diversity Tirade, Report Says”. Anyone who read the calm, reasoned piece could not possible argue it was a tirade. It is, of course, possible that the trained hamster at Time doesn't know what a tirade is.

CNN (Tweet): "Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs" A flat out lie. The author NEVER claimed that women "aren't biologically fit" to work in Stem.

WaPo: "Google Engineer says that women are genetically unsuited for tech jobs." A flat out lie. He never said anything of the sort.

The Atlantic: "“The Googler’s complaints assume that all is well in the world of computing technology, such that any efforts to introduce different voices into the field only risk undermining its incontrovertible success and effectiveness.” A complete mischaracterization. The "Googler" expressed concern that the diversity programs weren't working. He expressly stated that he wanted more women in STEM.

I could go on, but what's the point? Fake news all the way down.