Image 01 Image 03

Lawsuit Alleges YouTube Hiring Discriminates Against White and Asian Men

Lawsuit Alleges YouTube Hiring Discriminates Against White and Asian Men

“A Google spokeswoman said the company will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit”

The video sharing giant YouTube, now owned by search giant Google, is facing a lawsuit which alleges discriminatory hiring practices. According to the suit, YouTube is rejecting certain applicants in its quest for diversity.

Kirsten Grind and Douglas MacMillan report at the Wall Street Journal:

YouTube Hiring for Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Men, Lawsuit Says

YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn’t help the world’s largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee.

The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of Alphabet Inc.’s Google set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims.

A Google spokeswoman said the company will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. “We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” she said in a statement. “At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”

People familiar with YouTube’s and Google’s hiring practices in interviews corroborated some of the lawsuit’s allegations, including the hiring freeze of white and Asian technical employees, and YouTube’s use of quotas.

James Damore, the former Google employee who has been at the center of a firestorm about diversity at the company, commented on Twitter:

Other people on Twitter have weighed in as well. Via Twitchy:

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Poor hiring tactics have been the downfall of a number of companies. It used to be nepotism that harmed them, as they hired relatives who were not talented in the roles they were supposed to do. Now we have widespread “diversity” hiring, over hiring the right person for the jobs. And yet, they would probably face a lawsuit if they hired the person who was more qualified for the job because they were white or Asian men.

We saw many places come on hard times because of affirmative action. We just lived through 8 long years of an affirmative action presidency, a person elected for his race rather than the views and leadership ability possessed.

I think the only way out of a downward spiral like this is to do “blind” interviews, identify the person by a number as names can give a clue to their race and gender, mask the voices to cover their genders, and allow talent and knowledge be the reason they are hired. Of course the whole diversity thing would still come up.

I foresee a day when straight white men might have to dress up as a woman, claim to be transgender, as an effort to get hired for a job they are deserving of. We are rapidly losing sense in this Country, and bowing to some new entitlement programs, which inevitably leads to pogroms against the “enemy” of such programs.

So this must be white privilege at its finest. What a stupid world we live in.

I don’t like that google discriminates, but how does this man have standing in this case?

    DaveGinOly in reply to RodFC. | March 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm

    He’s probably suing for having been fired for opposing the practice. But the practice is getting the exposure in the stories because it’s egregious.

smalltownoklahoman | March 3, 2018 at 1:41 pm

Well speaking of youtube this popped up in my subscriptions the other day.

So YT may be facing some more pressure of a different kind in the near future.

This phenomenon is the predictable end result of the Left’s obeisance to the twin gods of “diversity” and “social justice.” No matter how much the powers-that-be in school admissions, in government contracting awards and in employer hiring might pay lip service to notions of “equality” and “merit” and otherwise profess that they follow state and federal anti-discrimination laws to the letter, the simple realities that are inherent to granting special considerations and preferential treatment to candidates belonging to favored races inevitably leads to discrimination against otherwise meritorious candidates — it is unavoidable. To argue otherwise is utterly dishonest. SCOTUS’s tortured sophistry in justifying the alleged constitutionality of using race preferences in school admissions has proven to be totally unworkable and inequitable in the real world, as opponents have been arguing for decades.

One cannot strive to achieve “equality” in a society until all candidates are evaluated solely on the basis of merit, and, nothing else. The minute that other considerations come into play, no matter how allegedly benevolent they may be, the selection process has become irreparably corrupted. Leftists cannot wrap their heads around this simple concept.

[color] diversity denies individual dignity. Diversity is both liberal (i.e. divergent) and progressive (i.e. monotonic). Institutional diversity has no place in a society where there is a conservation of principles (e.g. dignity, value, merit).

What’s more important, the law or social justice?

The problem is, the people at Google want social justice to be the law.

Paul In Sweden | March 3, 2018 at 3:19 pm

“…where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Albigensian | March 5, 2018 at 9:33 am

“Managers delected all email messages about these goals”

Facilitator at a mandatory Affirmative Action meeting (after someone accidentally let slip the number, and after having denied the company had quotas): “It’s not a quota, it’s a numerical goal!”