Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an article about how female engineers at Facebook have been systematically discriminated against. Richard Epstein at the Hoover Institution described the accusations:
After reviewing five years worth of data, a “longtime” engineer at Facebook, who remained unnamed in the article, found that the work of female engineers was rejected far more often than that of male engineers. Women also waited 3.9 percent longer to have their code accepted and got 8.2 percent more questions and comments about their work. The report added a disparate impact claim: “Only 13 percent of Facebook’s engineers are women.”
An analysis of this report by ThinkProgress concluded, “Facebook’s gender bias goes so deep it’s in the code”—and then drew the further inference that embedded discrimination against women by higher-ups in the firm explains much of the persistence of this disheartening pattern At least as of yet, there has been no effort to convert these charges of social insensitivity into a legal claim. Indeed, Facebook has made every effort to get out in front of the problem: It has climbed unequivocally onto the diversity bandwagon through committing to build "an employee base that reflects a broad range of experiences, backgrounds, races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, abilities and many other characteristics.”
But not so fast. Epstein goes on to explain why this assessment is inaccurate:
The best explanation for the lack of gender parity at organizations like Facebook is that the founders are self-selected from a larger talent pool of males at the far right of the ability distribution, without any affirmative action pressures. In starting new companies, major entrepreneurs—from Bill Gates to Mark Zuckerberg—do not have to share their wealth. But once these superstars create a successful firm, like Facebook, they choose to use some of their profits to subsidize female engineers for a variety of reasons—which, as private firms, they are entitled to do. But any claim that they act with some form of implicit bias against female engineers is, as of yet, not supported by any credible evidence.
It's trendy now for people to accuse men and businesses of a host of things -- gender discrimination is probably one of the least inflammatory. However, political-correctness-run-amok is ruining society. Higher education, for example, is now a joke. (If you don't believe me, these incidents are among those that have been made public just over the past few days: graduates of Bethune-Cookman University literally booed a Trump official; Northern Arizona University officials hung signs outside restrooms to make student feel guilty for not being transgendered; Berkeley Republican have been pushed and spat on for their beliefs, and Stanford students are so indoctrinated by feminist myths about rape they're afraid to walk down the street.) Political correctness is ruining our military, as abandoning traditional gender roles in the armed forces has caused more problems than anticipated. And left unabated, political correctness will attempt to ruin private businesses.
More often than not, the charges that fly at men and organizations are baseless and unsubstantiated... but the damage is done. Social justice warriors know this, and they actually don't care. Their inattention to actual facts caused Ed Driscoll on Instapundit to wryly ask, "Since when do SJWs need actual evidence to agitate? Particularly when the base needs to remain fired up (read: really angry) for 2018 and 2020."
Exactly. Expect more of this insanity between now the next elections. But here's a tip, libs: this overreaction is exactly how you'll get four more years of Donald Trump.