No, he didn't apologize for the dismissal. Parse the sentence. The "this" in "I'm sorry for this" is not for the dismissal, but for the reaction to it:
"I’ve heard the reaction to Dr. Gebru’s departure loud and clear: it seeded doubts and led some in our community to question their place at Google. I want to say how sorry I am for that, and I accept the responsibility of working to restore your trust."
That is the only use of "sorry" or "apology" in the entire memo.
What does that even mean when leadership is hostile and untrusting to you? IMO it's better for society to provide remedy in terms of opportunity lost than to make people who no longer trust each other work together.
The issue with the WSJ is the editorial board and the obvious mutual contempt between them and the news side. It’s not uncommon for the editorial board to run whackadoodle stuff that ends up being ripped to pieces by the news staff.
NYT in my eyes appears to be of quite low quality, but I don’t have enough history with them to figure out if this is a new trend or not.
Alas, no. I typically cross compare against multiple publications, along with the knowledge of what the short-comings and biases of each source might be.
It really degraded that much. It's always been of the left, but used to be fairly even handed and not as openly ideological.
I know what happened - if you've followed what's happening in our universities the past decade, that mostly explains it (see cases like Weinstein at Evergreen, and Christakis at Yale).
Those students have graduated and are influencing the newsroom at NYT and elsewhere.
Even from a PR standpoint, he should have said nothing. Covid is raging, Facebook is getting sued, a bunch of people will be off of work for a few weeks not thinking about Google... Just let it blow over.
As I understand this saga, Gebru wrote a paper portraying language models and Google negatively. They asked her to change it, she refused to (assuming this), Gebru wrote an email to a wide audience with a series of unprofessional complaints and made an ultimatum to her higher-ups, the ultimatum was declined and rather than work on an end date Gebru was terminated immediately. Unless I'm missing something it hardly seems outrageous.
That's... not especially consistent with the facts that have come to light.
* Timnit pointed out that language models have unavoidable flaws, including reflecting racial biases in their training data. This is sort of an obvious claim if you ask me but google stands to make a lot of money if it isn't true.
* They demanded she take her name off the paper entirely. No changes requested. Research careers advance largely by publishing papers, and this is several months of her work they want disowned.
* She agreed to take her name off provided she could have an explanation of what she was and was not permitted to say. IMO being a researcher and having publications yanked at the last moment based on unspecified criteria is not a tenable position.
On one side, we have an unemployed researcher whose future credibility & employ-ability depend on not being caught lying (the easiest way to do this is not to lie, but who knows).
On the other side, we have a billion-dollar company who have not been shy about spending significant sums of money to push their PR lines.
Obviously either could be telling the truth but one seems markedly more likely than the other to me.
Perhaps I'm wrong about Google asking her to change it versus just telling her it's rejected. That's just how I read Jeff Dean's document posted here the other day.
Assuming I am wrong about that, I'm not sure it changes much about my comment. Presumably Google has the authority to ask for a publication to be pulled, and responding with an unprofessional email to a wide list is not ideal. On the matter of not agreeing on an end date, Gebru raised resignation and Google picked the date.
I just put it in context by thinking about myself. If I acted the way Gebru did when I was upset by a professional setback, would I expect to be fired? Yes, unequivocally.
You mention her having a research career - but she's not in research. She works at Google. Her job, however they try to fancy it up, is to sell ads. Explaining to people that language models are racist and energy inefficient is not a good way to sell more ads, which is why Google wanted her paper pulled (I assume). If Gebru wants to be an academic she should work at a university. If she wants to work at Google she should realize her job is to sell ads. If her paper made Google look good (here's what Google is doing to combat the racism latent in our competitor's language models) then I have zero doubt Google would've been pleased by her work.
I don't disagree with most of you say, except for this:
> You mention her having a research career - but she's not in research. She works at Google. Her job, however they try to fancy it up, is to sell ads. Explaining to people that language models are racist and energy inefficient is not a good way to sell more ads,
She was hired to do research, and her job was explicitly related to ethics, so this is very much in line with her work. My company has a research arm, and people who are hired into it are very much expected to publish papers and will be judged based on their ability to do so. Having disagreements about what the company does in public, and sending sensational emails to coworkers would not be tolerated here either, though.
I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment and we should abandon it" that your company would prefer it not be published, especially not published with the name of the company or the company's researchers attached. I think that's basically Google's stand.
> I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment and we should abandon it" that your company would prefer it not be published
I'm not really sure what your point is. At a very basic level: Of course they would not prefer it published. Just like they would prefer not to have transparency, pay competitive market salaries, give free lunches, have an HR department, etc. We all prefer things if we can get them.
I would, however, expect that if a company hired a researcher to study whether their work is ethical, then it's silly to get in that researcher's way. If my company hired someone to ensure their supply chain for manufacturing does not involve sweatshops, then it certainly wouldn't look good if my company prevents him from saying so. If we aren't prepared for uncomfortable truths, we should not hire people to look into them.
I honestly think there are other reasonable reasons to get rid of this researcher than what you are positing.
I'm not saying that they fired Gebru because of this reason. I'm saying that's why they wanted the paper pulled. Dean says as much in his statement - that the paper lacked the context that explained new efficiencies and what Google was doing to solve these problems.
I think Gebru's reaction, the ultimatum and the email, were what led to her firing. Curious what you think the reasons to fire her were.
She might have been getting managed out over her twitter spat with Yann LeCun, or maybe they just wanted her name off research or the research toned-down to not attract attention.
What she definitely did wrong was misunderstand that a researcher on "Ethical AI" is a PR role, and job is to make Google look good. That doesn't mean she can't ask hard questions, she just has to do it the right way.
It seemed to me that Google handled their reaction to her paper in a very unscientific way. They refused to give her any real feedback on why they wanted the paper pulled and her ultimatum was about how to handle the situation. Maybe it doesn't rise to outrageousness but Google handled it in a very concerning way for employees who publish papers.
What I think is Google's worst sin here is publishing the reason for her termination. I've not seen employers do that before. In my opinion it should be a matter between Gebru and Google.
I get that they wanted to publish their side because they want to avoid being seen as racist, but it strikes me as unprofessional.
That depends on the size of your network and who backs you.
Traditional Hierarchies are floundering about because more and more employees are hooked into networks of influence, that in many cases are larger than the networks of their bosses.
Presumably it would be framed as "I will get my affairs in order and transition my projects to colleagues. This should take about X weeks" (where X gets you past the payout date).
How does the bonus structure work at Google? In my company, you get your prorated share of the annual bonus if you leave during the year, so this is not a factor here.
Gebru [did something Google didn't like] and was terminated immediately.
You got that part right.
Unless I'm missing something it hardly seems outrageous.
What you're missing is the central point of contention here: that Google is claiming she "resigned" when quite plainly she was terminated. Along with the secondary point that Sundar is now trying to make it sort of look like he understands what went wrong and it apologizing for it. Except he doesn't and he isn't, really.
Gebru wrote an email to a wide audience with a series of unprofessional complaints
Would you care to enumerate what these were, specifically?
The difference between resigned and fired doesn't seem that meaningful to me. Is there an agreed on definition of the terms?
As I understand it Gebru said something like I need X, Y, and Z or I can work on an end date. Google then "accepted her resignation" or fired her. However you prefer to say it.
I can see that mattering if she needs to collect unemployment or something, but then it seems like a legal discussion which I'm not equipped for. In the vernacular, it seems like she threatened to resign and Google accepted it. Either way, I don't see why a vocabulary dispute is a big deal.
Finally, regarding Pichai's comments, I've not read them so I don't know what he did or didn't say. You seem to be assuming he should apologize and complaining that he didn't though. I'd start by asking why he should apologize? I'm not really convinced Google did anything wrong here.
My colloquial understanding is that resign is when you end it and fired is when they do. In this situation it seems half and half, which may be why the difference between the terms doesn't matter to much to me.
Using your definition, yes, it seems clear this was a firing, but again, so what? Does a disagreement on terms really necessitate the drama (news articles, petition, protests)? If she was being denied money somehow because of the distinction then I could see it being a legal case, but I haven't heard anything like that. Google said she resigned, she said she didn't, okay.
If anything, saying she resigned sounds a bit nicer to me than saying she was fired. Probably best if Google had not commented on it at all.
She wasn't asked to change it, and she didn't refuse. She was summoned to a meeting where she was informed that the paper must be retracted by her, due to substantive feedback that was provided anonymously, that would not be provided to her. She ask to be given the feedback and a chance to address it so that the publication process could continue. After some discussion, she was told her manager would be allowed to read her the feedback, but she wouldn't be provided a copy; regardless, the paper must be retracted. She was not given an opportunity to edit the paper based on the feedback.
This was the cause of her email to the list. Google hasn't disputed any of these details.
Jeff Dean's document makes it sound like they aren't opposed to Gebru's paper in principle, but are opposed to it without what they consider missing context.
"A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication and were given feedback about why. It ignored too much relevant research — for example, it talked about the environmental impact of large models, but disregarded subsequent research showing much greater efficiencies. Similarly, it raised concerns about bias in language models, but didn’t take into account recent research to mitigate these issues. We acknowledge that the authors were extremely disappointed with the decision that Megan and I ultimately made, especially as they’d already submitted the paper. "
And:
"But the paper itself had some important gaps that prevented us from being comfortable putting Google affiliation on it. For example, it didn’t include important findings on how models can be made more efficient and actually reduce overall environmental impact, and it didn’t take into account some recent work at Google and elsewhere on mitigating bias in language models. Highlighting risks without pointing out methods for researchers and developers to understand and mitigate those risks misses the mark on helping with these problems. As always, feedback on paper drafts generally makes them stronger when they ultimately appear."
I'd be surprised, having read this, if Gebru and coauthors made the requested adjustments, the paper wouldn't have been approved by Google. That's my intuition at least, maybe I'm off.
This is in line with my entire problem with the whole Twitter fiasco: screaming about problems but not offering any solutions.
I don't know the lady well, but given her background I assume she's intelligent. So, this isn't to degrade her but that trait in general - in what job can your role be to just tell people that they're wrong? How long would a roofer last that just stood on the ground and yelled up they were doing it wrong...even if the roofers really were? Or a programmer who denies your PR because it's wrong? Communication is an invaluable life skill. Handling disagreements with tact and real suggestions in hand will always be better received.
You ALWAYS must provide a constructive suggestion. Only criticizing shuts people down. However, rotten leadership can't handle anything less than full loyalty, and this is rampant in companies, and now also politics.
Dean’s explanation makes sense if it is based on a standard that is consistently applied to all research papers coming out of Google. But there are public statements from other Googlers implying that it’s not, as noted in this article:
Gebru's account is that she was first refused the feedback, and then offered only a recitation of the feedback, not the written account. She offered to rewrite to account for the feedback, and was denied. Dean doesn't dispute this.
What do they have to gain by insisting they were right even if they were? Do you think it would change anyone's minds or just make this whole thing last longer in the press?
Even if they could definitively prove their side of the story, it would just make them look like even more of a bully to target an already let go employee.
So, an employee sends an ultimatum to their superiors, is denied and their resignation accepted. Media creates articles claiming the employee was fired because of their race/sex and the company is pressured to apologize for accepting their resignation. Got to love identity-politics..
EDIT: Including this line from the previous NYT article as some seem to be confused: "The company responded to her email, she said, by saying it could not meet her demands and that her resignation was accepted immediately" - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researc...
The previous article on this[0] includes: "The company responded to her email, she said, by saying it could not meet her demands and that her resignation was accepted immediately".
Several white, male researchers at Google told stories of their own ultimatums that lead to a series of discussions with management and ultimately accommodation for them.
But the black woman does the same and is fired. What's different in Gebru's case?
That would of course depend entirely on what the actual ultimatums were, the leverage and value each individual commanded within google, and to a lesser extent their history with the company.
The phrasing of your comment strongly implies you think her race or gender was a factor, which I think is a very odd conclusion to jump to if you don't have detailed information about all of the above. Do you?
I think it's a very reasonable conclusion, as do the white men who offered their stories of their own ultimatums in solidarity with her. Why would you think that it would depend entirely on the ultimatums and the circumstances of each, when we have a long history of racism and sexism, both systemic and individual; when we have a deep body of scholarship on things like unconscious bias and its effect on hiring, job decisions, promotions and punishment; when we have decades of experience successfully mitigating or eliminating the influences of sexism and racism in job actions, and seen the corresponding effects disappear?
Really, we know that racism and sexism exist and have impacts even at places like Google. So when we have a case where the differences with other similar cases are the race and sex of the individual, it would be odd not to conclude that race and sex were probably strong, if not determining, factors.
> So when we have a case where the differences with other similar cases are the race and sex of the individual, it would be odd not to conclude that race and sex were probably strong, if not determining, factors.
Really? The only differences are the race and sex of the individuals? The white men you mentioned held the same job role, had the same history with the company, attempted to publish the exact same paper, were asked to retract it in the exact same way, sent the exact same angry reactionary email to a large group in their capacity as a manager, and threatened to resign if the exact same conditions were not met in the exact same way? There is simply no way this is true, and it is telling to me that you overlook all of that.
We appear to be living in different realities. The "deep body of scholarship" you refer to is highly disputed, generally hard to replicate, falsify, or use predictively, and not anywhere near being the hard scientific fact you are attempting to anoint it as. I don't much care about the opinions of a couple of individuals with unknown biases and ideologies; I consider their thoughts largely irrelevant. The facts and details of their stories are not however, so if you have them I would appreciate it if you could share.
Why would I think it would depend entirely on details and circumstances...? Why on earth wouldn't it!? The main systemic sexism I remember google being accused of recently was actually underpaying all their male employees [0]
You seem to "know" that sexism and racism are responsible for this, but it seems to me you've started with that conclusion and worked backward. If you are correct, the details of the individual stories should support your view. So I ask again, are those details available?
This is the end result of intersectional identity politics - where people can only see things through the lens of "group identity" like sex, race, etc...
I've felt for a long time that this rhetoric makes it harder for marginalised voices to actually be taken seriously.
She didn't resign. She wanted to have a discussion on her difference with the company and would agree to a date of resignation that would give her working colleagues time to adjust or takeover her responsibilities or whatever if they couldn't agree.
When a company arbitrarily sets the date of "resignation" without informing the party involved that is a dismissal.
What are the exact reasons Google stated for her dismissal?
> she wanted to have a discussion on her difference with the company and would agree to a date of resignation that would give her working colleagues time to adjust or takeover her responsibilities or whatever if they couldn't agree.
Unless one is an absolute moron at corporate politics, they'd realize that's a de facto resignation.
HN has definitely been less sympathetic to her (or apologizing for Google) than most media outlets, but I don't see how that stance is necessarily "right wing."
> What are the exact reasons Google stated for her dismissal?
She sent and email saying she'd resign.
> and would agree to a date of resignation that would give her working colleagues time to adjust or takeover her responsibilities or whatever if they couldn't agree.
She sent an inappropriately critical email to too wide of an audience. This isn't someone you give another two weeks of email access to.
I'll grant you that it's not 100% clear it's a "resignation," but in a way, it doesn't matter; neither she nor Google wanted to continue their relationship. Complain about Google all you want when you leave, but don't send an email threatening to resign and act surprised when you don't have a job any more.
Did she "threaten to resign"? "Threatening to resign" implies that you believe you are so critical to the company that the company will suffer in your absence.
There is nothing in the email to suggest that. Disagreeing with company policy doesn't mean that she was not a diligent worker doing the tasks she had been assigned to in good faith.
So far Google hasn't stated the thing she did exactly that led her to being fired, ie the actionable thing she did that would have to be produced if she took it to a tribunal or to court?
Yes. Her words, emphasis added, but probably not the exact words in the email she sent:
> I said here are the conditions. If you can meet them great I’ll take my name off this paper, if not then I can work on a last date. Then she sent an email to my direct reports saying she has accepted my resignation. So that is google for you folks. You saw it happen right here.
A US court of law will find it hard to agree that she was fired.
In the UK and probably the EU there is a type of illegal firing where the employee is effectively forced to resign. Often due to toxicity, bullying etc. If anything this has more weight in this case but I'm not sure it works in the US
Constructive dismissal (could it be called I can't recall)
> Pichai said, “We need to accept responsibility for the fact that a prominent Black, female leader with immense talent left Google unhappily.”
The best way to accept responsibility would be to start with accepting that she didn't leave, but was pushed out.
No matter how many times people say "you can't expect to act like she did and keep her job", it doesn't change the fact that a lot of company rules have selective enforcement, and HR will always find a way to be in the right when they push you out for being a nuissance to the company.
I would immediately seek to fire any employee who gave me an unreasonable set of demands with a resignation threat attached to them.
If you can't negotiate calmly in business, you simply won't last long. If you come to the negotiating table with a bazooka then it's a bad look that reflects bad on you.
She offered to resign if explosive conditions weren't met, and Google said we accept your resignation. I was speaking generally.
If you offer to resign, you must be willing to walk away immediately.
Imagine negotiating with a used car salesman, exclaiming "I'll walk away right now if you don't sell me this car for $X", they call your bluff and then you refuse to walk away. You've lost.
You cannot make threats and expect no repercussions, I don't know why that is even suggested.
> If you offer to resign, you must be willing to walk away immediately.
Of course. But Google has to call that bluff first. They short circuited the process of actually refusing her demands and asking for that resignation letter. If instead they found the ultimatum so offensive that they deemed her worth firing, they should say that. Pretending that she quit without declining her ultimatum and demanding her resignation reeks of bad office politics and bad crisis management.
> You cannot make threats and expect no repercussions, I don't know why that is even suggested
I’m not sure why you’re implying that I suggested that. I did not.
Accepting the resignation explicitly declines the ultimatum.
Again, negotiating with a bazooka is a bad move. It's a highly emotions-driven action from someone who's more angry and upset than they are determined to enact change.
The most effective negotiation involves zero explosive ultimatums.
>If instead they found the ultimatum so offensive that they deemed her worth firing, they should say that
Saying anything opens them up to lawsuits and social media smearing (especially from this individual, who was already in a habit of slandering her colleagues on Twitter).
That should be SOP everywhere under every circumstance. When I quit my prior job on good terms my email was immediately disabled and someone politely kept an eye on me to make sure I actually exited the security doors after my exit interview. And that was with a voluntary exit without acrimony.
Google’s management and HR work here seems incredibly sloppy, especially for handling such a high pressure firing.
> Accepting the resignation explicitly declines the ultimatum.
Hilariously, that is implicitly declining the ultimatum. You have it literally backwards. You have to at least mention the ultimatum for it to be explicit.
They also didn’t “accept her resignation”, they jumped from the ultimatum straight to informing her colleagues without actually declining her request or calling her bluff. That’s precisely the problem I’ve been talking about.
> Again, negotiating with a bazooka is a bad move ... The most effective negotiation involves zero explosive ultimatums.
Sure. But that’s completely unrelated to what I’m talking about.
> Saying anything opens them up to lawsuits
Nonsense. If anything else, lying about the precise terms of her exit increases their legal risk, if any exists. Most states are at-will, if they wanted to reduce their legal risk they should’ve either fired her without explanation, or said “yes, I would like that resignation letter you threatened to provide”.
> and social media smearing
What a ridiculous excuse. If you can’t handle some mean tweets, don’t become an executive at Google. Turn off your notifications or something, seriously.
And since we’re still here talking about it, I think we can all agree that the executives absolutely failed in this goal.
> especially from this individual, who was already in a habit of slandering her colleagues on Twitter
Assuming this is true, then the way they fired her was one of the most bone-headed things I have ever heard. If you have an employee who’s toxic and famous on Twitter, the last thing you should do is get caught in a trivial lie when firing them. It absolutely torches any credibility you have in this context and it gives ammunition to someone that you know has an audience, a willingness to throw flames, and now has a serious axe to grind. The fallout from this should have been predictable to them.
It’s especially stupid since she offered them an easy out on a silver platter. All they had to do was request her resignation! She literally offered it! Then if she tried to claim that she’d been fired, they could produce her resignation letter and make her tank her public credibility. Instead they got caught in a dumb lie which damaged their credibility and gave her an easy way to get out ahead of them on the story and paint herself as the victim.
I’d say “<bleeping> amateurs”, but I happen to know that these executives are getting paid for this, a lot.
"I’ve heard the reaction to Dr. Gebru’s departure loud and clear: it seeded doubts and led some in our community to question their place at Google. I want to say how sorry I am for that, and I accept the responsibility of working to restore your trust."
That is the only use of "sorry" or "apology" in the entire memo.