Former Google manager says anti-diversity manifesto author harmed Google, doesn't understand role of empathy in engineering, and deserves to be fired
You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men … Tweets: @beep , @joshelman , @farriss , @neha , @ekp , and @siracusa Tweets: Ethan Marcotte / @beep : “Engineering is not the art of building devices; it's the art of fixing problems. Devices are a means, not an end.” http://medium.com/... Josh Elman / @joshelman : What I love about @yonatanzunger response is the reminder product engineering is a human problem not a technical one http://medium.com/... Tiffany Farriss / @farriss : “The negative impact on your colleagues you have created by your actions outweighs that tremendously.” 2/2 Neha Narula / @neha : Thanks for putting this so well, @yonatanzunger. Key point: mastery of code is the FIRST step, not the end. http://medium.com/... http://twitter.com/... Ellen K. Pao / @ekp : .@yonatanzunger on why the manifesto is wrong. His arguments show why the writer should be fired: total cluelessness http://medium.com/... John Siracusa / @siracusa : “the rest of the manifesto is basically about optimizing around the existence of this bug” http://medium.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
The day after a manifesto criticizing Google's diversity initiatives began circulating internally, drawing both derision and some support, former Google manager Yonatan Zunger published the most pointed senior-level rebuttal yet: the author damaged the company, misreads engineering as purely technical rather than a human problem, and should be fired. His post was amplified by a wave of industry voices — Ethan Marcotte, Josh Elman, Tiffany Farriss, Neha Narula, John Siracusa, and Ellen K. Pao among them — turning an internal document into a public referendum on what engineering culture rewards.
First-order effects
- Zunger's call for dismissal puts direct pressure on Google leadership to act against the manifesto author rather than treat the memo as protected internal speech.
- The public endorsement from prominent engineers reframes the debate from 'diversity policy' to 'competence,' raising the reputational cost for anyone defending the memo's premises.
Second-order effects
- The episode establishes a repeatable playbook — anonymous-feeling internal memo leaks, senior engineers publicly denounce it, company forced to adjudicate — which recurs a year later when Brian Amerige's Facebook memo accusing the company of political monoculture ignites the same fierce internal debate.
- Inside Google itself, the fight hardens rather than resolves: by early 2018, diversity advocates including queer and transgender staff report being targeted with doxxing and harassment by coworkers.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, internal political speech becomes a standing governance problem for large tech firms, culminating in organized employee action — two years on, walkout organizers at Google describe demotions and changed roles they characterize as retaliation, showing the backlash now runs in both directions.
The trend: Internal memos over diversity and politics are becoming recurring flashpoints that convert tech companies' culture wars into public tests of how management handles employee dissent.