Twitter's only black engineer in leadership quits(medium.com)
medium.com
Twitter's only black engineer in leadership quits
https://medium.com/@shaft/thought-on-diversity-part-2-why-diversity-is-difficult-3dfd552fa1f7
226 comments
* "over 20 years in tech ... I can count on 1 hand the number of direct coworkers that were black ... I don't believe this is due to any sort of racism, but rather due to the education system in general. ... The only way you will hit higher-than-normal diversity numbers is to reduce hiring standards, which is wrong. *
WOW. Haven't time to unpack all that is wrong with your response but mainly: Black people in the US can be found across all strata of society, including top/good schools. The implication that they must all be poor and in inadequate schools is ludicrous.
Part of why the diversity issue is so aggravating is because the # of qualified candidates may be relatively small, but it still significantly exceeds the # of Black candidates hired.
Likewise, stating that the only way to improve diversity is by lowering of standards is wrong. It communicates your obviously flawed perspective that Black candidates in tech are inferior.
WOW. Haven't time to unpack all that is wrong with your response but mainly: Black people in the US can be found across all strata of society, including top/good schools. The implication that they must all be poor and in inadequate schools is ludicrous.
Part of why the diversity issue is so aggravating is because the # of qualified candidates may be relatively small, but it still significantly exceeds the # of Black candidates hired.
Likewise, stating that the only way to improve diversity is by lowering of standards is wrong. It communicates your obviously flawed perspective that Black candidates in tech are inferior.
Where did I state that "they" must all be poor and in adequate schools?
I agree there is a diversity problem, and my proposed solution is to increase investment in education in disadvantaged areas. And somehow I'm vilified as a closet, biased racist. It's hilarious.
It's responses like this that make any discussion on increasing diversity completely impossible and futile.
I agree there is a diversity problem, and my proposed solution is to increase investment in education in disadvantaged areas. And somehow I'm vilified as a closet, biased racist. It's hilarious.
It's responses like this that make any discussion on increasing diversity completely impossible and futile.
An actual black person in tech responds to points you and others make:
https://twitter.com/polotek/status/662312638324469761
https://twitter.com/polotek/status/662312638324469761
Unless I misread it, I didn't read a single thing that will help a black person today get hired.
It likely will. You revealed an unconscious bias you have. You think that focusing on diversity is lowering the hiring bar. This is a fundamentally biased position -- it assumes minorities are worse tech workers. You're the top comment on a popular HN thread, many people are rebutting you, and are getting linked from many external sources.
All it takes is one hiring manager to read this thread, realize their unconscious bias, and then realize that focusing on diversity does not compromise employee standards. Then a black person gets hired.
All it takes is one hiring manager to read this thread, realize their unconscious bias, and then realize that focusing on diversity does not compromise employee standards. Then a black person gets hired.
[deleted](1)
I too think it begins with parents, attitudes and elementary school. Parents need to steer or at least inform their children about the workforce.
I'd like to see how minority owned or run small to mid size enterprises even large have fared in hiring minorities (their own, as well as outside their own) in the "tech" field. If they can who higher rates, then it may indicate that non minority owned and run are to some extent racist, or at least not actively seeking minorities.
I'd like to see how minority owned or run small to mid size enterprises even large have fared in hiring minorities (their own, as well as outside their own) in the "tech" field. If they can who higher rates, then it may indicate that non minority owned and run are to some extent racist, or at least not actively seeking minorities.
This is exactly the same as saying that the reason women had little power in America before 1920 was because they couldn't vote. Which is true, but completely overlooks why women didn't have the right to vote.
Women didn't have power because they were oppressed by men for centuries. Black people don't have "as good an education" because they've been systematically abandoned by the most powerful parts of society for centuries.
You could spend 100 million on a program just in my city alone to try to give disadvantaged kids tech lessons. You know what would happen?
Nothing, because you haven't addressed the fact that they have to sell dope, hustle or work multiple jobs just to put food on their family's table; that they're watching their baby sibling while mom and dad go out to score junk; that their friends need them to join the local gang to protect their neighborhood; that they don't have access to transportation to get to the classes; that the rest of the city needs money and will steal from the education fund as it always does, because why try to teach the kids when they're not going to learn anyway; and of course, because their parents gave up on their future a long time ago and give zero shit about trying to help them make something of themselves.
Women didn't have power because they were oppressed by men for centuries. Black people don't have "as good an education" because they've been systematically abandoned by the most powerful parts of society for centuries.
You could spend 100 million on a program just in my city alone to try to give disadvantaged kids tech lessons. You know what would happen?
Nothing, because you haven't addressed the fact that they have to sell dope, hustle or work multiple jobs just to put food on their family's table; that they're watching their baby sibling while mom and dad go out to score junk; that their friends need them to join the local gang to protect their neighborhood; that they don't have access to transportation to get to the classes; that the rest of the city needs money and will steal from the education fund as it always does, because why try to teach the kids when they're not going to learn anyway; and of course, because their parents gave up on their future a long time ago and give zero shit about trying to help them make something of themselves.
[deleted]
So the fix is to lower hiring standards? What exactly are you promoting as a fix here?
"Lower hiring standards" is a myopic fallacy. You don't hire Jeff the amazing coder who likes to punch people in the face.
Discounting the value of culture is a huge mistake. Humans work best when they are not treated as replaceable units of quantified productivity.
Diverse cultures can attack problems with a broader perspective than homogenous cultures.
Discounting the value of culture is a huge mistake. Humans work best when they are not treated as replaceable units of quantified productivity.
Diverse cultures can attack problems with a broader perspective than homogenous cultures.
It's still not clear what you would have a hiring manager do today. I usually have several positions open at any given time; I don't even recall the last black applicant we've seen.
I have talented co-workers of many different races (specifically including black), but even without visiting our office, you could guess the percentage breakdown and you wouldn't be far off.
I can't hire applicants that don't exist and I can't hire applicants that aren't qualified.
I have talented co-workers of many different races (specifically including black), but even without visiting our office, you could guess the percentage breakdown and you wouldn't be far off.
I can't hire applicants that don't exist and I can't hire applicants that aren't qualified.
You can shift your notions of "qualified".
You can hire junior engineers and mentor and train them to be successful.
Then you can proactively advertise your positions to programs and organizations that have more minority participation.
Of course this takes more work for you, the hiring manager, in sourcing and on boarding. But there should be a burden on every hiring manager to correct the systemic diversity problems.
A success will be extremely impactful for the individuals you hire and for the overall health of the team.
You can hire junior engineers and mentor and train them to be successful.
Then you can proactively advertise your positions to programs and organizations that have more minority participation.
Of course this takes more work for you, the hiring manager, in sourcing and on boarding. But there should be a burden on every hiring manager to correct the systemic diversity problems.
A success will be extremely impactful for the individuals you hire and for the overall health of the team.
"Qualified" will always mean "can make a computer do things we need done" and that's not negotiable.
We do hire at all experience levels and several of our successful squad leads are original college hires (having only worked with us), so we have some demonstrated track record of mentoring and retention.
Even in college recruiting (where I'd expect the greatest diversity of candidates), I can't recall any recent black applicants, and except for a somewhat higher ratio of women to men than the industry average, the ratios of college grads seem to track the industry ratios reasonably closely.
I concede that there is a bias towards college grads in industry and stated above, and that nothing is legally barring me from crafting some kind of Cinderella program to seek out possibly qualified candidates who avoided college or who failed to graduate. There would no doubt be some successful candidates that emerged from such a program.
The practical bar to that is my belief that any such single-company program would be utterly uncompetitive versus other efforts I could make in staffing. Opening an out of country office, while hard, is probably much less work per successful candidate, has a higher success rate, and often presents much more compelling economics.
If the above is remotely true, the shortest path to better prospects for minorities is to increase their college attendance, STEM majors, and graduation rates. It also has the practical advantage of having a high level of self-determination and influence; rather than waiting for me to fix their problem (where I necessarily have many competing priorities), they can take initiative to address their problem (where they naturally have more focus and vested interest in the specific outcome).
There is unlikely to emerge a single-company Cinderella type program that will markedly change the industry. The overhead costs are too much and the successes too few. A regional (or even national) charitable or educational institution may be able to move the needle (but even there, the shorter path might well be "encourage college and STEM participation rates")
We do hire at all experience levels and several of our successful squad leads are original college hires (having only worked with us), so we have some demonstrated track record of mentoring and retention.
Even in college recruiting (where I'd expect the greatest diversity of candidates), I can't recall any recent black applicants, and except for a somewhat higher ratio of women to men than the industry average, the ratios of college grads seem to track the industry ratios reasonably closely.
I concede that there is a bias towards college grads in industry and stated above, and that nothing is legally barring me from crafting some kind of Cinderella program to seek out possibly qualified candidates who avoided college or who failed to graduate. There would no doubt be some successful candidates that emerged from such a program.
The practical bar to that is my belief that any such single-company program would be utterly uncompetitive versus other efforts I could make in staffing. Opening an out of country office, while hard, is probably much less work per successful candidate, has a higher success rate, and often presents much more compelling economics.
If the above is remotely true, the shortest path to better prospects for minorities is to increase their college attendance, STEM majors, and graduation rates. It also has the practical advantage of having a high level of self-determination and influence; rather than waiting for me to fix their problem (where I necessarily have many competing priorities), they can take initiative to address their problem (where they naturally have more focus and vested interest in the specific outcome).
There is unlikely to emerge a single-company Cinderella type program that will markedly change the industry. The overhead costs are too much and the successes too few. A regional (or even national) charitable or educational institution may be able to move the needle (but even there, the shorter path might well be "encourage college and STEM participation rates")
Be careful with the term "Cinderella program".
My direct experience here is working with Hackbright Academy to meet more women than I was getting through the standard job application channels.
Hackbright works attracts women from all backgrounds, science but no computer science, college drop outs, and junior CS. It teaches practical programming skills in the 3 months class, then helps connect the women to companies.
The program works. Smart women can learn programming and be successful at any subsequent job in the industry with adequate time, mentorship and training.
This is of course true for people of all genders, race and college background.
There are many similar programs that cater to diverse hiring pipelines. Dev Bootcamp for first time web developers, Jopwell for black, latino, hispanic and native american candidates.
But all these still depend on a hiring manager valuing mentorship over "pre-qualified".
Of all the things in my career, I am most proud of helping engineers be successful at tasks that they weren't "qualified" to do. This has been hiring junior candidates for roles beyond their current experience (with clear discussions on both sides about how it will be challenging), and rotating and promoting engineers into new roles and responsibilities.
My direct experience here is working with Hackbright Academy to meet more women than I was getting through the standard job application channels.
Hackbright works attracts women from all backgrounds, science but no computer science, college drop outs, and junior CS. It teaches practical programming skills in the 3 months class, then helps connect the women to companies.
The program works. Smart women can learn programming and be successful at any subsequent job in the industry with adequate time, mentorship and training.
This is of course true for people of all genders, race and college background.
There are many similar programs that cater to diverse hiring pipelines. Dev Bootcamp for first time web developers, Jopwell for black, latino, hispanic and native american candidates.
But all these still depend on a hiring manager valuing mentorship over "pre-qualified".
Of all the things in my career, I am most proud of helping engineers be successful at tasks that they weren't "qualified" to do. This has been hiring junior candidates for roles beyond their current experience (with clear discussions on both sides about how it will be challenging), and rotating and promoting engineers into new roles and responsibilities.
I was using Cinderella with the Bill Murrary Caddyshack scene in mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQTXFJL8lo (implying a non-traditional background experiencing uncommon success, as in the fairy tale).
Until you pointed it out, I hadn't even considered the gender-specificity of Cinderella herself. Thanks and upvoted for pointing that out; it's obvious in retrospect, but wasn't intended.
Until you pointed it out, I hadn't even considered the gender-specificity of Cinderella herself. Thanks and upvoted for pointing that out; it's obvious in retrospect, but wasn't intended.
Did I just read that your company doesn't try harder to hire black people because it would make your company less competitive?
I could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure I just read that your company intentionally avoids hiring disadvantaged black people in your own country because hiring minorities overseas is cheaper and easier.
I could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure I just read that your company intentionally avoids hiring disadvantaged black people in your own country because hiring minorities overseas is cheaper and easier.
I did not intend to say any such thing, do not believe that is true, and IMO, it takes a fairly tortured reading of my words to reach your conclusion.
We hired some remote engineers from South Africa through stack overflow. Now we have a permanent office in Cape Town. Give that a go maybe. A lot more bang for the buck comparatively than hiring remote engineers from the U.S., and the programmers there (shouldn't even be surprise) are as good as from any country including the U.S.
Awesome.
I can think of a ton of reasons a hiring manager would say "I can't do that." Not about race, but about remote and time zones.
So kudos to you for trying something that opened you up to far more candidates, finding them, making them successful, and sharing this example for others to learn from.
I can think of a ton of reasons a hiring manager would say "I can't do that." Not about race, but about remote and time zones.
So kudos to you for trying something that opened you up to far more candidates, finding them, making them successful, and sharing this example for others to learn from.
The reason why you're not getting black applicants may include:
- It's hard to get hired by white companies, so a lot of black people stay within black-owned companies and communities.
- There are a lot of ways to search for and hire applicants; waiting for people to come to you will not necessarily result in the best candidate.
- Transportation is not as easy or available for poor or rural communities. It may be necessary to hire remote, or pay for relocation, or in the extreme cases open remote offices.
- The 'qualifications' may need to be revisited. What are you requiring as a qualification? Is it something a poor black person would have significantly more difficulty in achieving compared to a white person, due to socioeconomic disparities? Is it possible you could find other qualities that work as similar qualifications that black people might be more likely to have?
In order for there to be more black applicants, we need to help there to be more black applicants. This can mean many things, such as contacting local black communities and asking them what your company can do to help adults achieve a job at your company, or helping to improve the roadblocks for young kids to get a good education.
I know, I know; actually trying to help people can be a burden. But it will help people who continue to be oppressed by a society that does not care about them. You could continue to just wait for black people to work around the huge pitfalls society has set up for them, or you could help work to remove those pitfalls. It's up to you. Unfortunately.
- It's hard to get hired by white companies, so a lot of black people stay within black-owned companies and communities.
- There are a lot of ways to search for and hire applicants; waiting for people to come to you will not necessarily result in the best candidate.
- Transportation is not as easy or available for poor or rural communities. It may be necessary to hire remote, or pay for relocation, or in the extreme cases open remote offices.
- The 'qualifications' may need to be revisited. What are you requiring as a qualification? Is it something a poor black person would have significantly more difficulty in achieving compared to a white person, due to socioeconomic disparities? Is it possible you could find other qualities that work as similar qualifications that black people might be more likely to have?
In order for there to be more black applicants, we need to help there to be more black applicants. This can mean many things, such as contacting local black communities and asking them what your company can do to help adults achieve a job at your company, or helping to improve the roadblocks for young kids to get a good education.
I know, I know; actually trying to help people can be a burden. But it will help people who continue to be oppressed by a society that does not care about them. You could continue to just wait for black people to work around the huge pitfalls society has set up for them, or you could help work to remove those pitfalls. It's up to you. Unfortunately.
You sound like someone who hasn't ever tried to hire people in Silicon Valley.
I think you are being purposefully obtuse. Of course Jeff the amazing coder who punches people in the face does not meet hiring standards. No one is discounting the value of multiculturalism, but you have to acknowledge the cultural diversity of tech companies mirrors the cultural diversity of tech workers. The cultural diversity of tech workers mirrors the cultural diversity of tech students in college, which mirrors the cultural diversity of high-achieving high school students.
The problem exists in parts of the society that technology can't fix, but law and education might. It doesn't help that the criminal justice system is statistically racist and that lack of cohesive families due to the consequences of povertous conditions causes children from those families to perform less well in school.
If you want better diversity in better-paying fields, the most impactful change would be to end the war on drugs, which contributes the most to poverty and incarceration. I don't see how the tech community can do that by themselves and the full effect won't even be measurable in the tech community until a generation later.
The problem exists in parts of the society that technology can't fix, but law and education might. It doesn't help that the criminal justice system is statistically racist and that lack of cohesive families due to the consequences of povertous conditions causes children from those families to perform less well in school.
If you want better diversity in better-paying fields, the most impactful change would be to end the war on drugs, which contributes the most to poverty and incarceration. I don't see how the tech community can do that by themselves and the full effect won't even be measurable in the tech community until a generation later.
A "fix"? This isn't a compile-time error. This is the total disenfranchisement of entire classes or groups of people. There is no patch. The "fix" involves lots of difficult work.
First, we have to get people like you to understand what the problem is, which apparently is difficult to do. Then, we have to build empathy for the problems facing black people so you want to actually help them. Then we have to invest in developing social and economic equality within disadvantaged communities.
And hiring more diversely will not lower hiring standards. Please try to understand that.
First, we have to get people like you to understand what the problem is, which apparently is difficult to do. Then, we have to build empathy for the problems facing black people so you want to actually help them. Then we have to invest in developing social and economic equality within disadvantaged communities.
And hiring more diversely will not lower hiring standards. Please try to understand that.
I understand the problem to be way beyond hiring in tech, so I'm trying to understand why lack of diversity in tech is being blamed on the tech community.
Because the tech industry is dragging its feet.
The explanation tech companies have for not having a more diverse workforce is that the applicants are just not out there to hire. Of course, any good tech worker could take an additional five minutes to think about the problem and discover that there are ways to create the applicants, by improving the communities that will grow the applicants.
But that takes time, and money, it's hands-on and it's not easy. And overseas workers are cheap.
The explanation tech companies have for not having a more diverse workforce is that the applicants are just not out there to hire. Of course, any good tech worker could take an additional five minutes to think about the problem and discover that there are ways to create the applicants, by improving the communities that will grow the applicants.
But that takes time, and money, it's hands-on and it's not easy. And overseas workers are cheap.
Because, when we see a flower growing in the desolation, we should try not to step on it.
Role models matter tremendously too, and that's something that we don't see much, something that's a real problem.
Now, I'm biased toward capability. I think progress is made almost entirely by people who possess both talent and will to power. But that's innate, and evenly distributed across racial and gender lines. So differences in outcomes are, broadly, due to privilege (specifically, resources). If someone has access to education and support, they'll do better than someone who does not, all other things being equal. Racist and sexist results are because of our failure as a society, not racial or gender inadequacy.
But anyway, about role models. For an ambitious child, the limits of "success" are the limits of what they see. That's what they see in their parents and their parents' friends, their neighborhood, etc. Their role models. If the most successful people you see growing up are doctors and lawyers and engineers, you imagine your own success as being a doctor or lawyer or engineer. If the most successful people you see are drug dealers and slumlords... well.
There are very few black engineers in this country. They're underrepresented. Because of this, smart and ambitious young black kids don't get "engineer" as a role model. They may have never met an adult who makes software or hardware for a living. So they have no frame of reference, no concept that this is "success". It's a big problem.
Now, I'm biased toward capability. I think progress is made almost entirely by people who possess both talent and will to power. But that's innate, and evenly distributed across racial and gender lines. So differences in outcomes are, broadly, due to privilege (specifically, resources). If someone has access to education and support, they'll do better than someone who does not, all other things being equal. Racist and sexist results are because of our failure as a society, not racial or gender inadequacy.
But anyway, about role models. For an ambitious child, the limits of "success" are the limits of what they see. That's what they see in their parents and their parents' friends, their neighborhood, etc. Their role models. If the most successful people you see growing up are doctors and lawyers and engineers, you imagine your own success as being a doctor or lawyer or engineer. If the most successful people you see are drug dealers and slumlords... well.
There are very few black engineers in this country. They're underrepresented. Because of this, smart and ambitious young black kids don't get "engineer" as a role model. They may have never met an adult who makes software or hardware for a living. So they have no frame of reference, no concept that this is "success". It's a big problem.
> For an ambitious child, the limits of "success" are the limits of what they see. That's what they see in their parents and their parents' friends, their neighborhood, etc.
I've once saw of glimpse of this first hand and it was really depressing. Knew a waiter at a restaurant my family frequented. One day he was making chit-chat with us and talking about his son (who would have been rather young, 4-8) and that his dream for his son was to be a restaurant manager or a supervisor at a lawn care business or something like that. That was how high that family was dreaming, I guess that was as high as they could see being reasonable (unless they kid was a genius/pro-athlete).
From hearing stories of women in the industry seeing that one person that looks like them that shows the 'you can be this too' seems like it's often a huge help or an important moment.
I've once saw of glimpse of this first hand and it was really depressing. Knew a waiter at a restaurant my family frequented. One day he was making chit-chat with us and talking about his son (who would have been rather young, 4-8) and that his dream for his son was to be a restaurant manager or a supervisor at a lawn care business or something like that. That was how high that family was dreaming, I guess that was as high as they could see being reasonable (unless they kid was a genius/pro-athlete).
From hearing stories of women in the industry seeing that one person that looks like them that shows the 'you can be this too' seems like it's often a huge help or an important moment.
I grew up poor, what they call "white trash" in the south. I saw this firsthand. I knew I wanted out, so I went to college at an excellent private liberal arts school. One of the most amazing eye-openers there was meeting the parents of other students, and meeting alumni, people who had done amazing things with their lives. A few years earlier, success to me meant owning your own motorcycle dealership.
Today, I've shook the hands of multiple billionaires. I could not have even imagined that as a child. But I'm lucky. I'm very intelligent, talented, lack major health issues, and I'm white, male, and American. The combination of innate talent and privilege opened a lot of doors for me.
Today, I've shook the hands of multiple billionaires. I could not have even imagined that as a child. But I'm lucky. I'm very intelligent, talented, lack major health issues, and I'm white, male, and American. The combination of innate talent and privilege opened a lot of doors for me.
> Role models matter tremendously too, and that's something that we don't see much, something that's a real problem.
Definitely. I'm probably in tech because my dad was. He started programming in the late 60s. How did he get the job? His dad was an executive at an insurance company; they'd just gotten a computer and didn't really know what to do with it. Not that my dad had any experience, but he was a quick study.
I'm sure that wasn't an option open to black people at the time. Their city still had segregated pools.
Definitely. I'm probably in tech because my dad was. He started programming in the late 60s. How did he get the job? His dad was an executive at an insurance company; they'd just gotten a computer and didn't really know what to do with it. Not that my dad had any experience, but he was a quick study.
I'm sure that wasn't an option open to black people at the time. Their city still had segregated pools.
> I don't believe this is due to any sort of racism, but rather due to the education system in general.
You might consider reading the excellent paper, "Are Emily And Greg More Employable Than Lakisha And Jamal? A Field Experiment On Labor Market Discrimination": http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
My take is that if tech really, truly has no race or gender discrimination problems, that would be remarkably different than a lot of other US industries. One quick way to check is to ask your friends in those groups whether that's case. The ones I've talked to mostly disagree with you.
> The real way to solve it is at the bottom of the funnel [...]
I am strongly opposed to the notion that there is one real way to solve this problem. That you believe you have a plausible solution that might help is great. Definitely do it. But that's no reason to discourage people from trying other solutions.
You might consider reading the excellent paper, "Are Emily And Greg More Employable Than Lakisha And Jamal? A Field Experiment On Labor Market Discrimination": http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
My take is that if tech really, truly has no race or gender discrimination problems, that would be remarkably different than a lot of other US industries. One quick way to check is to ask your friends in those groups whether that's case. The ones I've talked to mostly disagree with you.
> The real way to solve it is at the bottom of the funnel [...]
I am strongly opposed to the notion that there is one real way to solve this problem. That you believe you have a plausible solution that might help is great. Definitely do it. But that's no reason to discourage people from trying other solutions.
It is remarkably different. The amount of Asians/South Asians in tech is very high. If there were material racism, then you wouldn't see this. I don't know anyone who wouldn't hire a smart person based on their race. I'm sure it exists in small quantities, just like everywhere else, but I believe it's much smaller in tech than any other industry. The reason why there aren't a lot of blacks and Hispanics in tech I believe is because there simply aren't a lot going to school for it. Again, this was my experience in college, and the experience of most of my colleagues. Which again is because the poor education system especially in poor areas, not because companies are racist against blacks and Hispanics.
I gave my opinion. This is what a discussion consists of. Nowhere did I discourage people from trying other solutions.
I gave my opinion. This is what a discussion consists of. Nowhere did I discourage people from trying other solutions.
> If there were material racism, then you wouldn't see this.
This shows a very poor understanding of both the history of racism and modern-day racism.
> Nowhere did I discourage people from trying other solutions.
When you say "X is not the right way to solve the problem" and "The real way to solve the problem is Y" you are definitely saying other solutions are less legitimate than yours.
Given that this is a topic where you know little and admittedly aren't doing anything yet, maybe you could try listening to the people who have spent their lives studying and working on the problem?
> This is what a discussion consists of.
Not really. You making a series of bold, uninformed assertions doesn't make for much of a discussion. Indeed, your assumed mantle of superior insight harms the discussion.
This shows a very poor understanding of both the history of racism and modern-day racism.
> Nowhere did I discourage people from trying other solutions.
When you say "X is not the right way to solve the problem" and "The real way to solve the problem is Y" you are definitely saying other solutions are less legitimate than yours.
Given that this is a topic where you know little and admittedly aren't doing anything yet, maybe you could try listening to the people who have spent their lives studying and working on the problem?
> This is what a discussion consists of.
Not really. You making a series of bold, uninformed assertions doesn't make for much of a discussion. Indeed, your assumed mantle of superior insight harms the discussion.
[deleted]
The article itself says that only 4.5% of CS graduates from the top universities are black, so if you're only hiring graduates of those universities then you're never going to have a diverse workforce.
Exactly. There are numerous HBCUs that have very well structured CS programs. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that those graduates don't even get a second look. Valley people are too preoccupied with the optics of having a BIG SCHOOL NAME to actually care if an employee without the school name can do the job just as well or better.
This is generally false in Silicon Valley, both currently and in the past. The only company that made having a big school name important was Google, and even then it's only a factor. The vast majority of Silicon Valley companies don't care where you come from, or even if you graduated from college. All they care about is if you're smart and if you can contribute quickly.
Half my current team at a well-known company doesn't even have CS degrees. The youngest one never went to college, but he's one of the smartest members of our team. I was recently hired, and I'm in my 40s and there's another guy who's older than me. My boss was a high school teacher, and he was one of the instrumental programmers in the entire company for the last several years.
Over the last several years, I've been intimately involved in hiring, and I can tell you straight up that no one looks at schools, and anyone who has half a chance at passing a phone screen will get a call. People might get more excited if they have a good name on the resume, but we called everyone that seems like a decent candidate.
Half my current team at a well-known company doesn't even have CS degrees. The youngest one never went to college, but he's one of the smartest members of our team. I was recently hired, and I'm in my 40s and there's another guy who's older than me. My boss was a high school teacher, and he was one of the instrumental programmers in the entire company for the last several years.
Over the last several years, I've been intimately involved in hiring, and I can tell you straight up that no one looks at schools, and anyone who has half a chance at passing a phone screen will get a call. People might get more excited if they have a good name on the resume, but we called everyone that seems like a decent candidate.
[deleted]
"All they care about is if you're smart and if you can contribute quickly."
You do realize that both of those descriptors are immensely subjective, right? How you assess "smart" is different from how I do, and there's no guarantee that the environment you create will allow me to contribute quickly compared to another one.
You do realize that both of those descriptors are immensely subjective, right? How you assess "smart" is different from how I do, and there's no guarantee that the environment you create will allow me to contribute quickly compared to another one.
Sure. Except that the OP of this on Medium went on to detail a very different scenario, outlining behavior that mirrors exactly what I said. You assert that the companies you've worked for do it differently? Ok, that may be so. But you're also not the bellwether for the entire industry, no matter how you may characterize your 20 years of work. I've been in it half as long, and as a person of color I can tell you unequivocally that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to exposure, opportunity or lack thereof, or general desire to be involved in technology as a profession from that community.
> I don't know anyone who wouldn't hire a smart person based on their race.
You know lots of people who won't say they base decisions on race, and who think they're not basing decisions on race, but I bet if you double blind tested them with fake resumes you'd find bias.
You know lots of people who won't say they base decisions on race, and who think they're not basing decisions on race, but I bet if you double blind tested them with fake resumes you'd find bias.
Exactly. I wasn't aware of the decree that excluded Asians from white racism in school/work.
Given the number of Asians in tech, it appears white racism is lacking.
Given the number of Asians in tech, it appears white racism is lacking.
This is a remarkably facile understanding of racism, one that ignores both the model minority phenomenon as well as the fact that Asians are significantly underrepresented in management positions in the tech industry [1].
1. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/17/407478606/often-employees-rare...
1. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/17/407478606/often-employees-rare...
There's probably a language factor involved as well. An otherwise brilliant programmer can scrape by with spotty English, but it's a lot harder for a founder or an executive.
Well, then I should have said Indians.
You're doubling down on the "remarkably facile" thing. It's not a good look.
It's both. The sad fact is that it doesn't take very strong forces to diminish the presence of people of color in tech, just widespread ones that exist at all layers. A slight increase in resumes being passed over for phone screens. A slight preference against hiring due to nearly indescribable "culture fit" reasons. It doesn't require explicit, objective racism at any point.
It's absolutely necessary to kill the myth of tech hiring as a perfect meritocracy. It is not, it's far from it. It's a dirty and incredibly flawed process that barely even works, let alone represents any pretense of egalitarian perfection.
It's absolutely necessary to kill the myth of tech hiring as a perfect meritocracy. It is not, it's far from it. It's a dirty and incredibly flawed process that barely even works, let alone represents any pretense of egalitarian perfection.
If you're in NYC you can check out the Academy for Software Engineering, a cs focused high school. We do mentorship there via iMentor. There's also CSNYC.org which works to support cs education programs to get spread within the school system and to train more teachers on cs topics
> The real way to solve it is at the bottom of the funnel, at the elementary, middle and high school levels.
The way I see it, the biggest beneficiaries of "affirmative action" aren't the people getting jobs because of diversity policies. It's younger, impressionable kids who get to benefit from role models in their likeness.
"Forced diversity" may be the best hack possible to foster persistent diversity down the line, and fix vicious cycles.
The way I see it, the biggest beneficiaries of "affirmative action" aren't the people getting jobs because of diversity policies. It's younger, impressionable kids who get to benefit from role models in their likeness.
"Forced diversity" may be the best hack possible to foster persistent diversity down the line, and fix vicious cycles.
I see many people here being skeptical about the arguments for diversity, and asking what the utility is for Twitter. But part of the question is about the utility for minorities as well. This debate is really about minorities being shut out of yet another high-paying industry because they [didn't have a computer growing up/couldn't get in to some brand-name college/didn't have a supportive childhood environment/other systemic inequalities]. By the time the white kid and the black kid get to the bar, the game is already rigged in favor of the white kid.
So maybe the bar is right, in that it selects the most high-performing asset to execute the requisite keystrokes in a cost-effective manner. But maybe the world we should strive for is not one where people spend their lives in anxiety honing their resumes, getting into the right schools, the right clubs, getting the right internships, and having the right connections through daddy. God forbid there are any complications in your life along the way, or if you were born in a place which set you up for failure from the get-go.
I think one great thing about tech is that you can learn it, if you're intelligent and you get shit done. Maybe all you need is somebody to give you a shot to set you off on a trajectory toward the moon.
So maybe the bar is right, in that it selects the most high-performing asset to execute the requisite keystrokes in a cost-effective manner. But maybe the world we should strive for is not one where people spend their lives in anxiety honing their resumes, getting into the right schools, the right clubs, getting the right internships, and having the right connections through daddy. God forbid there are any complications in your life along the way, or if you were born in a place which set you up for failure from the get-go.
I think one great thing about tech is that you can learn it, if you're intelligent and you get shit done. Maybe all you need is somebody to give you a shot to set you off on a trajectory toward the moon.
The free-market shapes it to be this way. A company as big as Twitter is simply a result of such system. In fact the free market is the opposite of racist/sexist/whatever... it strives entirely on performing the best it can - ironically, even at the cost of the worker's mental health - thereby not giving a shit about who it hires as long as they can perform at the maximum capacity.
I share the same perspective too.
Capital should be blind to all these qualitative descriptors like race, biological gender, age etc. Successful capitalists are always looking to maximize the return on their investment and they don't subscribe to these inconsequential notions, all what they care for is making money for them. If you're a Martian and are capable of doubling their profits every two years or so, they would be all over you and discard any prejudices toward you.
Money $$$ talks after all esp with the capitalists.
Capital should be blind to all these qualitative descriptors like race, biological gender, age etc. Successful capitalists are always looking to maximize the return on their investment and they don't subscribe to these inconsequential notions, all what they care for is making money for them. If you're a Martian and are capable of doubling their profits every two years or so, they would be all over you and discard any prejudices toward you.
Money $$$ talks after all esp with the capitalists.
What I'm hearing is that we should get Ben Horowitz and Lil Wayne to make an album together.
We should get that just because it'd be awesome.
What is wrong with the statement "We won't lower the bar"? Some people criticize that that statement is racist, but they aren't thinking about the context. When people ask companies to do something about diversity, they're normally asking to carve out more quota for certain minority group, just like how universities carve out certain portion of their student quota for people who donate large amount of money to get in. I guess it works for universities, but a company like Twitter which desperately needs focused group of talented employees, why would/should they do this? It's stupid that someone saying what's right gets taken out of context and is criticized by all the idiots on the internet. Also, isn't asking for this kind of treatment racist/sexist/whatever in itself? I am appalled by this idea as much as I am appalled by the idea of universities accepting students from rich families via donation.
What is wrong with the statement "We won't lower the bar"?
It is the legacy of the famous Griggs vs Duke Power case.
Requiring IQ tests to filter employees was found to have "disparate impact" with respect to different identifiable groups.
Silicon Valley does a lot of different IQ test proxies in order to filter their prospective employees in a hopefully-not-racist way: programming tests, seeking college degrees, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
It is the legacy of the famous Griggs vs Duke Power case.
Requiring IQ tests to filter employees was found to have "disparate impact" with respect to different identifiable groups.
Silicon Valley does a lot of different IQ test proxies in order to filter their prospective employees in a hopefully-not-racist way: programming tests, seeking college degrees, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
The consequences of Griggs v. Duke more complicated than that: the problem with IQ tests is that they are slippery. An employer can say "we want the best and brightest." And they can decide that a degree from Stanford meets that criteria, even if the impact is disparate.
But if they use an IQ test, suddenly there's a slippery slope: Why is the cutoff 130? The error range on IQ tests is non-zero, so what if a black candidate with 129 comes in? How do you defend that disparate impact in court? You can't.
But if they use an IQ test, suddenly there's a slippery slope: Why is the cutoff 130? The error range on IQ tests is non-zero, so what if a black candidate with 129 comes in? How do you defend that disparate impact in court? You can't.
The only problem I see with a statement like 'we won't lower the bar' is you might accidentally set the bar at a very difficult to achieve level. If it's based on the number of startups you've worked at or which ivy league school you went to etc. then candidates who are technically just a qualified (or could learn to be in very short order) may get passed.
Unintentional sampling bias, I guess.
Unintentional sampling bias, I guess.
Their bar factors in things like going to a top school, which (according to the article) means you now have a much less diverse recruiting pool.
> What is wrong with the statement "We won't lower the bar"?
1. Assuming hiring a more diverse workforce would lower the bar.
The statement precludes that a more diverse workforce would implicitly lower the bar. This makes no sense. Increased diversity means increasing the many ways one can look at a problem, which improves problem solving and improves creativity. If the very first thing this guy thinks about is that hiring more women or black people would lower the bar, that's fucked up.
2. Assuming non-diverse workforce would not lower the bar.
If you hire shitty people, you lower the bar. There's plenty of white male tech workers who could lower the bar; keeping your workforce from being more diverse does not guarantee you won't hire a bar-lowering white male.
So at the very least it's inaccurate and misleading, and at the worst it is classist, racist, and sexist.
> Some people criticize that that statement is racist, but they aren't thinking about the context.
People who haven't had the advantages of white males have a harder time getting the same job, so an attempt is made to 'level the playing field' for someone who probably has exactly the same job competency but not the same socioeconomic advantages. That's the actual context.
> When people ask companies to do something about diversity, they're normally asking to carve out more quota for certain minority group, just like how universities carve out certain portion of their student quota for people who donate large amount of money to get in.
It is illegal in the United States for any employer, university, or other entity to have a quota for a certain race. Furthermore you're also assuming that donations preclude acceptance, which it doesn't inherently. The fact that the kid's parents could afford to pay for the best education up to that point gets them farther than the money alone.
1. Assuming hiring a more diverse workforce would lower the bar.
The statement precludes that a more diverse workforce would implicitly lower the bar. This makes no sense. Increased diversity means increasing the many ways one can look at a problem, which improves problem solving and improves creativity. If the very first thing this guy thinks about is that hiring more women or black people would lower the bar, that's fucked up.
2. Assuming non-diverse workforce would not lower the bar.
If you hire shitty people, you lower the bar. There's plenty of white male tech workers who could lower the bar; keeping your workforce from being more diverse does not guarantee you won't hire a bar-lowering white male.
So at the very least it's inaccurate and misleading, and at the worst it is classist, racist, and sexist.
> Some people criticize that that statement is racist, but they aren't thinking about the context.
People who haven't had the advantages of white males have a harder time getting the same job, so an attempt is made to 'level the playing field' for someone who probably has exactly the same job competency but not the same socioeconomic advantages. That's the actual context.
> When people ask companies to do something about diversity, they're normally asking to carve out more quota for certain minority group, just like how universities carve out certain portion of their student quota for people who donate large amount of money to get in.
It is illegal in the United States for any employer, university, or other entity to have a quota for a certain race. Furthermore you're also assuming that donations preclude acceptance, which it doesn't inherently. The fact that the kid's parents could afford to pay for the best education up to that point gets them farther than the money alone.
The fact that the VP's first reaction to the author's question was to assume that hiring more diverse candidates somehow directly equates to lowering their hiring standards is what's wrong with the statement.
I can't see what one has to do with the other.
I can't see what one has to do with the other.
It's factually wrong.
If you (try to) eliminate race from hiring, you don't lower the bar. You raise it, because suddenly there's a group of so-so engineers who now can't get a job just because they're white.
If that feels uncomfortable, replace "white" with "MIT student". Or any other in-group.
If you almost exclusively hire from a single group, at some point just being part of that group makes it easier for you to get a job.
As far as I can tell, nobody is asking for hiring quotas based on profile. What people are asking for is an equal chance.
For pretty much any group that's not white/asian male, tech has an issue. The percentage of the minority group in the general demographic is higher than the percentage of people in that group graduating. The percentage of graduates is higher than the percentage of people hired. The percentage of people hired is higher than the percentage of people promoted.
All this diversity thing is asking for is that we take a look why the percentages are decreasing.
E.g. for black people: They're 12% of the general work force. 4.5% of CS bachelors are black. 2% of SV tech employees are black. 1% of Fortune-500 CEOs are black.
There's constant attrition going on, while the number of the main demographic increases as you go up the ladder. (This general relationships hold for other minorities as well, but I don't have numbers handy right now)
That's what diversity asks for - stop the steady attrition of anybody who's not in the majority group.
If you (try to) eliminate race from hiring, you don't lower the bar. You raise it, because suddenly there's a group of so-so engineers who now can't get a job just because they're white.
If that feels uncomfortable, replace "white" with "MIT student". Or any other in-group.
If you almost exclusively hire from a single group, at some point just being part of that group makes it easier for you to get a job.
As far as I can tell, nobody is asking for hiring quotas based on profile. What people are asking for is an equal chance.
For pretty much any group that's not white/asian male, tech has an issue. The percentage of the minority group in the general demographic is higher than the percentage of people in that group graduating. The percentage of graduates is higher than the percentage of people hired. The percentage of people hired is higher than the percentage of people promoted.
All this diversity thing is asking for is that we take a look why the percentages are decreasing.
E.g. for black people: They're 12% of the general work force. 4.5% of CS bachelors are black. 2% of SV tech employees are black. 1% of Fortune-500 CEOs are black.
There's constant attrition going on, while the number of the main demographic increases as you go up the ladder. (This general relationships hold for other minorities as well, but I don't have numbers handy right now)
That's what diversity asks for - stop the steady attrition of anybody who's not in the majority group.
That's an interesting perspective. I say this because I have personally encountered people who argue that the value of a presumed-novel viewpoint should be expected to outweigh a sufficiently small difference of technical skill or similar in hiring decisions.
Anyway. Are you sure it's a good idea to compare numbers like recent grad percentages and Fortune-500 CEOs? These two in particular strike me as separated by several decades in which society has changed. Perhaps not the most useful comment on current society.
Anyway. Are you sure it's a good idea to compare numbers like recent grad percentages and Fortune-500 CEOs? These two in particular strike me as separated by several decades in which society has changed. Perhaps not the most useful comment on current society.
> What is wrong with the statement "We won't lower the bar"?
The implicit assumption in that statement is that the current hiring process is not discriminatory, therefore the only way to hire more people of <group X> would be to lower hiring standards. Many people believe the hiring process is discriminatory - and, indeed, there are studies which support that claim.
Leaving aside the issue of discrimination, though, what's curious is that it's widely accepted that hiring in tech is broken. Companies complain that it's extremely difficult to identify talent. Larger companies are willing to risk turning away many qualified candidates if it reduces their risk of a poor hire. It turns out that it's very difficult to reliably identify who is above "the bar" and who is not. There are startups out there trying to solve this problem right now. It's a problem that effects everyone in the industry, too, not just individuals from <group X>.
So, if we lack a reliable way to determine if someone's above "the bar," how on Earth can we say that the reason we don't have more employees in <group X> is because there aren't enough applicants from <group X> who are above the bar? We can't.
The implicit assumption in that statement is that the current hiring process is not discriminatory, therefore the only way to hire more people of <group X> would be to lower hiring standards. Many people believe the hiring process is discriminatory - and, indeed, there are studies which support that claim.
Leaving aside the issue of discrimination, though, what's curious is that it's widely accepted that hiring in tech is broken. Companies complain that it's extremely difficult to identify talent. Larger companies are willing to risk turning away many qualified candidates if it reduces their risk of a poor hire. It turns out that it's very difficult to reliably identify who is above "the bar" and who is not. There are startups out there trying to solve this problem right now. It's a problem that effects everyone in the industry, too, not just individuals from <group X>.
So, if we lack a reliable way to determine if someone's above "the bar," how on Earth can we say that the reason we don't have more employees in <group X> is because there aren't enough applicants from <group X> who are above the bar? We can't.
I thought it was a fascinating argument that 1) Twitter is struggling to gain new users and 2) Twitter is staffed by male caucasians and asians so no wonder it's struggling to gain new users.
It really strikes me that Twitter allows such a high degree of politicization in the workplace given the adverse nature and the risks it entails if left unchecked. Office politics sucks enough already, we don't want to bring another element to the workplace to make matters worse for everyone. I don't want to see the office turned into political front lines where parties form and people take sides especially in challenging and turbulent times when the political discussions heat up and get very nasty.
Also, I'd like to point that this fellow engineer comes across as bit pushy with his agenda (It's very obvious that has one). He's treating Twitter as a political organization where he's using his position as a conduit to further his goals as an activist advocating for change which is in my opinion very troubling and unhealthy for any business.
Also, it is worrisome that he didn't perform his duties as a diversity officer[?] efficiently as it seems to me that he was only concerned about his own people, African Americans. (What about other francophone Africans? Foreigners? People of other ethnicities and regions like MENA ..etc?) He didn't seem impartial to me at all and all what he cared about was lobbying for his own group only and this is not really commendable. You don't join a company and start lobbying for certain outside groups like that and expect a smooth sailing. If you're turning the company into a political battle field, you should be ready to face the consequences of your actions.
This brings to another equally important point which is the apparent feud or problem with the VP of Engineering regarding recruitment decisions. This activist engineer was very ambitious and at the same time shortsighted in his plans to make political gains in the organization and not expect opponents to show resistance or experience friction throughout the process. He clearly wanted to influence the decision making process if not tow and subordinate the whole department to his department which in my opinion is very naive thing of him to do and clearly revealed his motives that what he's after is more power in the organization and not reaching a more egalitarian system or environment.
It was all a power play for from the get go and he wasn't very good at it because you don't expect to encroach on someone's turf and not face a backlash or pushback. Even the most level-headed and good tempered person would turn territorial in these situations of adversity and things get ugly that could lead to tensions and strenuous relations between department within the organization.
Finally, his quitting and cop out sealed it for me as to my assessment of his account because no activist worth his salt would bail out and leave the cause he's fighting for like this. Change doesn't happen overnight and you gotta invest heavily and believe truly in your cause to start seeing progress. So, maybe he's more suited to work inside a political organization that's aligned well with his worldview and affiliation where they favor more chip on the shoulder type but he's certainly not a good material or asset and to have on your pro team or in your business.
Also, I'd like to point that this fellow engineer comes across as bit pushy with his agenda (It's very obvious that has one). He's treating Twitter as a political organization where he's using his position as a conduit to further his goals as an activist advocating for change which is in my opinion very troubling and unhealthy for any business.
Also, it is worrisome that he didn't perform his duties as a diversity officer[?] efficiently as it seems to me that he was only concerned about his own people, African Americans. (What about other francophone Africans? Foreigners? People of other ethnicities and regions like MENA ..etc?) He didn't seem impartial to me at all and all what he cared about was lobbying for his own group only and this is not really commendable. You don't join a company and start lobbying for certain outside groups like that and expect a smooth sailing. If you're turning the company into a political battle field, you should be ready to face the consequences of your actions.
This brings to another equally important point which is the apparent feud or problem with the VP of Engineering regarding recruitment decisions. This activist engineer was very ambitious and at the same time shortsighted in his plans to make political gains in the organization and not expect opponents to show resistance or experience friction throughout the process. He clearly wanted to influence the decision making process if not tow and subordinate the whole department to his department which in my opinion is very naive thing of him to do and clearly revealed his motives that what he's after is more power in the organization and not reaching a more egalitarian system or environment.
It was all a power play for from the get go and he wasn't very good at it because you don't expect to encroach on someone's turf and not face a backlash or pushback. Even the most level-headed and good tempered person would turn territorial in these situations of adversity and things get ugly that could lead to tensions and strenuous relations between department within the organization.
Finally, his quitting and cop out sealed it for me as to my assessment of his account because no activist worth his salt would bail out and leave the cause he's fighting for like this. Change doesn't happen overnight and you gotta invest heavily and believe truly in your cause to start seeing progress. So, maybe he's more suited to work inside a political organization that's aligned well with his worldview and affiliation where they favor more chip on the shoulder type but he's certainly not a good material or asset and to have on your pro team or in your business.
Ok so sorry but this fing bullshit has got to stop. WTF is this BlackLives matter all about? The message was lost when the town was burned down and the entire campaign was started on a thug who robbed the local convenience store for some mini cigars to roll some blunts. Did he have to die? we don't have any video evidence and his homeboy who saw the whole thing isn't going to speak up for fear of being an Uncle Tom / sell out.
Black people in tech? I have worked with and even seen star employees who were black who are in tech. In fact just about the entire IT Dept. where I work is Black. They are senior level IT techs making close to 6 figures. To see the Hashtag posted at twitter #Ferguson is just pure idiocy and some guilt ridden conscience to be down with the cause, whatever that is. You have to be the change, sorry stop with the bullshit. I make 6 figures and I am a high school push out. I am that change. I changed my attitude, I changed my way of thinking and the way I interact with people and hell I even rush across the street when I have the right of way when a car needs to make a turn. yeah you know what I mean. Leadership begins when you take that opportunity to step up and I have seen and experienced plenty of examples.
HN moderators: It would probably be best if you buried my post.
I idiotically misread the chart posted in the post. I originally thought the chart under ( https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*F9MLGQLTU2HZD4In6o... ) wasn't normalized to anything; but upon rereading i found that the top row is the comparison row and represents the percentages of working force age us citizens in the tech industry, which Twitter with its 1% falls far below.
I'm sorry for my mistake.
My original post below for context for the replies made to it, but which is otherwise useless.
------------------------------
It's alway a little confusing when people bring up diversity reports that aren't normalized to an appropiate comparison metric. (Possibly local demographics, or any number of more in-depth metrics. I also earlier suggested applicant demographics, but justizin pointed out those are not feasible.)
Also see: https://xkcd.com/1138/
To bring it into contrast with the article, he says:
"<5% make up engineering and product management combined."
According to this census report: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty....
Race - Black or African American 48,870 6.1%
The twitter numbers are thus a little below average, but not necessarily unexpected given where Twitter's headquarter is located.
Edit:
According to this, Twitter has roughly 30% asians: https://blog.twitter.com/2014/building-a-twitter-we-can-be-p...
Which seems to fit the census as well:
Race - Asian 267,915 33.3%
Another Edit:
To clarify, i am not saying that there is no problem. I'm merely saying that in order to solve a problem, one must both set appropiate goals, as well as correctly identify the root cause. Both of these can only be done usefully by applying statics correctly.
I idiotically misread the chart posted in the post. I originally thought the chart under ( https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*F9MLGQLTU2HZD4In6o... ) wasn't normalized to anything; but upon rereading i found that the top row is the comparison row and represents the percentages of working force age us citizens in the tech industry, which Twitter with its 1% falls far below.
I'm sorry for my mistake.
My original post below for context for the replies made to it, but which is otherwise useless.
------------------------------
It's alway a little confusing when people bring up diversity reports that aren't normalized to an appropiate comparison metric. (Possibly local demographics, or any number of more in-depth metrics. I also earlier suggested applicant demographics, but justizin pointed out those are not feasible.)
Also see: https://xkcd.com/1138/
To bring it into contrast with the article, he says:
"<5% make up engineering and product management combined."
According to this census report: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty....
Race - Black or African American 48,870 6.1%
The twitter numbers are thus a little below average, but not necessarily unexpected given where Twitter's headquarter is located.
Edit:
According to this, Twitter has roughly 30% asians: https://blog.twitter.com/2014/building-a-twitter-we-can-be-p...
Which seems to fit the census as well:
Race - Asian 267,915 33.3%
Another Edit:
To clarify, i am not saying that there is no problem. I'm merely saying that in order to solve a problem, one must both set appropiate goals, as well as correctly identify the root cause. Both of these can only be done usefully by applying statics correctly.
Based on my own cursory observations of the population flux in the Bay Area, I believe your analysis and thus conclusion is based on a false premise.
That analysis assumes that the hiring base is predominately drawn from local people. Speaking anecdotally, I know many people who graduated from college and headed to the Bay Area to look for a job. I myself moved to Mountain View for a job, then later moved away.
A more complete analysis along the lines you took would look at where people in engineering and product management were, say, 1 or 5 years previous. That are would likely better characterize the relevant population statistics.
As an obviously contrived example, suppose people in engineering and product management are only in the Bay Area for 4 years, burn out, and leave, and suppose the companies offer free relocation from anywhere in the US. Then it doesn't make sense to look at the local demographics.
As a more real-world case, consider a place like Los Alamos National Labs, which has a large number of people from around the world working there, with a relatively high turnover rate partially due to interns, post-docs, and visiting professors. Los Alamos county was carved out for the lab, so the demographics of the county reflect the lab, but most of the people working at the lab are not from Los Alamos.
I do not have access to these sorts of numbers, merely pointing out how it's not easy to interpret the numbers you gave, or the certainty of your conclusion that it's a "not unexpected" result. I suspect the uncertainty is actually very high, and a shot-in-the-dark/back-of-the-envelope estimate isn't likely to be useful.
That analysis assumes that the hiring base is predominately drawn from local people. Speaking anecdotally, I know many people who graduated from college and headed to the Bay Area to look for a job. I myself moved to Mountain View for a job, then later moved away.
A more complete analysis along the lines you took would look at where people in engineering and product management were, say, 1 or 5 years previous. That are would likely better characterize the relevant population statistics.
As an obviously contrived example, suppose people in engineering and product management are only in the Bay Area for 4 years, burn out, and leave, and suppose the companies offer free relocation from anywhere in the US. Then it doesn't make sense to look at the local demographics.
As a more real-world case, consider a place like Los Alamos National Labs, which has a large number of people from around the world working there, with a relatively high turnover rate partially due to interns, post-docs, and visiting professors. Los Alamos county was carved out for the lab, so the demographics of the county reflect the lab, but most of the people working at the lab are not from Los Alamos.
I do not have access to these sorts of numbers, merely pointing out how it's not easy to interpret the numbers you gave, or the certainty of your conclusion that it's a "not unexpected" result. I suspect the uncertainty is actually very high, and a shot-in-the-dark/back-of-the-envelope estimate isn't likely to be useful.
I did express the thought of "normalized to an appropiate" metric badly. I don't know what that metric is, and don't presume to know. Local demographics were just one example to me. I'll correct the post.
I quoted your use of "not unexpected" because it suggests that you have some expectation. I would call the the basis for that expectation part of a presumption that you know.
Yeah, i can see how it could be interpreted like that. I didn't have any strong expectation of how it should be. Merely a number of guesses as where that number could end up. To me it seems reasonable that the number would end up somewhere between half of the local percentage and 1.5x of the us percentage (assuming foreigners are not statistically significant), which would put it somewhere between 2.5% and 25%. To me numbers outside of that would be unexpected and surprising.
Interestingly, the 30% number seems to indicate that twitter actually does pretty good user-wise.
Interestingly, the 30% number seems to indicate that twitter actually does pretty good user-wise.
Your own statistics reference indicates that 36% of the Bay Area population is foreign born, and 16% do not have US citizenship, so you cannot assume that "foreigners are not statistically significant."
Why not look at the areas where people in engineering and product management came from? It takes very few steps before we start expecting all metrics to resemble global metrics.
Does Twitter hire only from the local area? If they have a relocation program, the local demographics are a lot less relevant.
Very fair point, and a little hard to tackle. I have no solid answer either as to how to get fully correct statistics that actually help in evaluating just how bad the situation is, and where to start working on it. But, as you point out: One must take into account many factors in detail in order to get anything related to reality.
There are also many factors that have no bearing on a given matter. Bringing up local statistics in this instance can be interpreted as deliberate equivocation, which could explain some of the strong reactions to your comment.
Possible.
Personally i was thinking along the lines of: Maybe the real problem is whichever property of the area they are headquartered in prevents higher amounts of black people from living there. Which may, among others, turn out to be: Companies there are biased against black people, so they're relocated less often. However without looking at the situation closely, any conclusions drawn are premature.
Personally i was thinking along the lines of: Maybe the real problem is whichever property of the area they are headquartered in prevents higher amounts of black people from living there. Which may, among others, turn out to be: Companies there are biased against black people, so they're relocated less often. However without looking at the situation closely, any conclusions drawn are premature.
Without fully correct statistics, how can anyone objectively say that there is a problem in the first place?
Twitter definitely has a relocation program. And in general, engineers move to the Bay Area in order to work at companies like Twitter.
Alameda county right across the bridge is 12.6% black or african american, and Oakland in particular is 28%. Of course I think all this bears little relevance to a company that recruits candidates from pretty much anywhere.
Most bay area tech workers have moved here after getting a job so the local census doesn't mean much.
It's even actually reenforcing itself based on the bias
That's a solid point. I don't know that that data is so accessible to anyone outside of a given companies HR department.
Your numbers break down for the Hispanic\Latino population according to your own sources. The 2010 census says San Francisco has a 15.1% Hispanic population and Twitter has 3% Hispanic employees.
They only break down if you assume i'm saying there is no problem. ;)
justizin(1)
> in 2013, 4.5% of CS graduates from the top 25 schools were African-American, and 6.5% were Hispanic/Latino.
That's a problem. Hiring corps not only need to screen more applicants in order to find more applicants above their quality bar, but they also need to engage the community to get more kids interested in their fields and encouraged through school.
It's the long view, the generation long kind. Public corp cost accounting idiotry will not support investment like that, so it's up to the private corps.
That's a problem. Hiring corps not only need to screen more applicants in order to find more applicants above their quality bar, but they also need to engage the community to get more kids interested in their fields and encouraged through school.
It's the long view, the generation long kind. Public corp cost accounting idiotry will not support investment like that, so it's up to the private corps.
Fix the demographics and STEM interest in elementary and pre-K, then we might get a more diverse tech field. Until people start looking at the start of the problem, fixes at the end are limited.
You're right there are problems earlier, but things can still be improved now while the rest of the pipe is fixed.
Improved, maybe, but the fundamental problem is at the beginning. If we had a need for concert violinists, encouraging college students to take up violin is pretty late in the game. We need a technical prodigies and the people who can start late are few and far between.
Why is that? Just a personal observation, but I only actually started to understand programming my junior year of college and would find myself to be pretty technically proficient, and I know plenty of terrific developers who started of programming after a career in something completely unrelated (selling phones, painting, vet school).
Yeah it's hard to start learning how to program and become efficient at it, but there is no reason that we can't attack the issue at later stages in the pipeline.
Yeah it's hard to start learning how to program and become efficient at it, but there is no reason that we can't attack the issue at later stages in the pipeline.
Because by the late stages, people's loves and hates have already been defined. Things are cool or "I don't like X" has set in. If you don't love STEM early, you won't want to do it late. Attacking the issue later in the educational pipeline is like adding a cron job to restart the web servers because of crappy programming. The correct answer is to actually fix the problem. We've tried enough patches by now and it disgusts me that we are talking about diversity in tech when we are not talking about diversity in pre-K and K-8.
I don't understand. Sure, the name idea wasn't perfect but the VP had good intentions. Is this really that upsetting?
I imagine it was upsetting because it showed the depth and breadth of the VP's ignorance. How many times have you wanted to leave a job because you just couldn't deal with the stupidity any longer? It's no fun to be a domain expert who's constantly surrounded by people who know nothing about your area of expertise.
I think it was really because of frustration that this VP was so willfully ignorant about the issue; the author talks about how they kept focusing on the hiring pipeline even after the data clearly showed that the problem is that diverse candidates are never even entering the pipeline.
Yes I think this is heading in the right direction. "Willfully ignorant" Let's assume this person (the SVP) is very bright if only based on the fact he is an SVP at Twitter. So you know from experience that if he puts his mind to it he is capable of solving complex problems. Here's a problem you care about deeply and your super bright problem solving SVP comes back with such a flawed approach to tackle it. It would be disheartening.
Yeah, I'd agree with the OP's reasoning about why the idea wasn't very good, but if that mistaken attempt to help is grounds for quitting, they're going to really struggle at a corporation that's less interested in identity politics.
As ksenzee alludes to in a parallel reply, it could be (to use an American cliche) the straw that broke the camel's back, coming on the heels of a whole host of stupid decisions. I've been there, where no single decision or behavior is enough to quit over, but enough of those add up and one starts looking for the door.
Sure, it's also possible that said VP arrogantly insisted his idea was a panacea and/or vetoed the OP's other ideas to help. We weren't in the meeting.
But I can only go by the arguments the poster who was in the meeting made, and he seemed insistent that Dorsey is sincere about diversity, and decided to focus on why the "tech visionary" VP's idea was notionally sensible but had practical limitations rather than lambast their general attitude. And it's not an idea that ranks particularly high on an ignorance scale, or particularly shocking that a "tech visionary" not expected to have any particular expertise in the area of diversity might gravitate towards a tech solution. Ironically, it sounds like precisely the sort of misguided suggestion a VP is likely to propose after reading articles about name-based studies of hiring biases and being shocked by their findings them rather than the sort of idea that gets proposed out of ignorance or dismissive attitudes towards diverse hiring policies. Certainly sounds like a better response than "go and talk to HR about it. After finishing your work, obviously" that he might find all too common a response elsewhere...
Normally when we're discussing quitting over straws that broke the camel's back it's allegations of subtle workplace bullying rather than not thinking an engineer's idea would work...
But I can only go by the arguments the poster who was in the meeting made, and he seemed insistent that Dorsey is sincere about diversity, and decided to focus on why the "tech visionary" VP's idea was notionally sensible but had practical limitations rather than lambast their general attitude. And it's not an idea that ranks particularly high on an ignorance scale, or particularly shocking that a "tech visionary" not expected to have any particular expertise in the area of diversity might gravitate towards a tech solution. Ironically, it sounds like precisely the sort of misguided suggestion a VP is likely to propose after reading articles about name-based studies of hiring biases and being shocked by their findings them rather than the sort of idea that gets proposed out of ignorance or dismissive attitudes towards diverse hiring policies. Certainly sounds like a better response than "go and talk to HR about it. After finishing your work, obviously" that he might find all too common a response elsewhere...
Normally when we're discussing quitting over straws that broke the camel's back it's allegations of subtle workplace bullying rather than not thinking an engineer's idea would work...
Agreed. It seems like this particular idea could have been abandoned, without aborting the entire endeavor (or quitting the company). The words "feasibility study" come to mind...
As an aside, I ran the names Miles Davis, Ray Charles, Morgan Freeman, Ben Carson, and Charlie Rangel against one the tools the author mentioned [1] and also got no correct answers.
1. http://www.textmap.com/ethnicity/
As an aside, I ran the names Miles Davis, Ray Charles, Morgan Freeman, Ben Carson, and Charlie Rangel against one the tools the author mentioned [1] and also got no correct answers.
1. http://www.textmap.com/ethnicity/
I ran a few. I wouldn't rate it highly.
George Washington GreaterEuropean, British
John Smith GreaterEuropean, British
Barack Obama GreaterAfrican, Africans
Mike Brown GreaterEuropean, British
Tamir Rice GreaterEuropean, Jewish
Eric Garner GreaterEuropean, British
John Crawford GreaterEuropean, British
Akai Gurley GreaterEuropean, British
Ezell Ford GreaterEuropean, British
Cynical Oogaboogoo Asian, IndianSubContinentYa, the idea sounds terrible if you just think about it for a split second:
Most Black Americans are descended from slaves. And their slave owners forced their family name on them. Slave owners were white. So these names will register as white names.
Completely destroys any accuracy concerning Black people.
Most Black Americans are descended from slaves. And their slave owners forced their family name on them. Slave owners were white. So these names will register as white names.
Completely destroys any accuracy concerning Black people.
Anyone else get the strong feeling that articles like this are a detriment to equal rights movements? If you're misrepresenting facts and statistics people will eventually catch on and simply not trust you anymore, skewering any ability you have to raise awareness and make a difference..
I don't think that's why it's a detriment, but I think twitter took a step back in terms of diversity by losing this guy, which I think is a detriment.
Please provide examples of misrepresented facts and statistics in this article.
Amazon not bothering to separate out engineering from their fulfillment centers (it's in the chart).
Granted, that isn't by the author, but it shows a company trying to dodge the diversity issue.
Granted, that isn't by the author, but it shows a company trying to dodge the diversity issue.
Yeah. A lot of white men get that sense.
That's an ad hominem attack of the exact kind that (I'm guessing) jonesb6 would argue against. If you have some concrete non-racist criticism of jonesb6's post let's hear it. Ideas should be judged on their own merits not the skin color of the originator ... much like Twitter VPs.
Is it ad hominem if it's true? "articles like this are detrimental to equal rights movements" (phrased as a question, not as a statement, but that's a cheap rhetorical trick) is a position taken almost exclusively by the beneficiaries of racial and gender privilege. And jonesb6 did not address the substance of the article, but rather the tone.
What it really boils down to is this: "As a beneficiary of privilege, it makes me uncomfortable when people point out that racism and sexism exist. I can't say they're factually wrong, so I'll talk about the tone instead. If they would just stop being so uppity and find a way to solve the problems of racism and sexism that do not make white men uncomfortable or take any action, everything would be fine. But they haven't, and it's their fault."
Does that seem like a "concrete, non-racist criticism" to you? Sorry if I can't magically remove race as a factor in the tone argument, but reality interferes. The tone argument is made almost exclusively by whites. You can call it "racist", but you can't change the fact. Calling it racist is a cop-out, a convenient dismissal of a valid and problematic point.
What it really boils down to is this: "As a beneficiary of privilege, it makes me uncomfortable when people point out that racism and sexism exist. I can't say they're factually wrong, so I'll talk about the tone instead. If they would just stop being so uppity and find a way to solve the problems of racism and sexism that do not make white men uncomfortable or take any action, everything would be fine. But they haven't, and it's their fault."
Does that seem like a "concrete, non-racist criticism" to you? Sorry if I can't magically remove race as a factor in the tone argument, but reality interferes. The tone argument is made almost exclusively by whites. You can call it "racist", but you can't change the fact. Calling it racist is a cop-out, a convenient dismissal of a valid and problematic point.
Yea, this is a much better criticism because this comment actually allows for the the conversation to move forward.
For what it's worth (i.e. not much) I didn't get the same sense from jonesb6's comment that you did. It would have been nice if jonesb6 went into a little more detail about the supposed misrepresentations, but talking about misrepresentations of facts and statistics (should they actually exist) is a far cry from complaining of tone.
Finally:
> Is it ad hominem if it's true?
Definitely. Most ad hominem arguments are true -- that's not what's wrong with them.
For what it's worth (i.e. not much) I didn't get the same sense from jonesb6's comment that you did. It would have been nice if jonesb6 went into a little more detail about the supposed misrepresentations, but talking about misrepresentations of facts and statistics (should they actually exist) is a far cry from complaining of tone.
Finally:
> Is it ad hominem if it's true?
Definitely. Most ad hominem arguments are true -- that's not what's wrong with them.
Yeah, I can agree on the ad hominem part.
But for the rest, the complaining about misrepresentations felt like rationalization to support the tone argument (much like making it a question rather than a statement). It's a very common pattern. My bluntness was a vent of frustration with that style of argument. If he'd wanted to make a substantial criticism, he'd have pointed to specific examples of misleading or incorrect statistics. He did not.
More to the point, quibbling about the numbers doesn't change the fundamental truths of the original article - first, that black engineers are badly underrepresented at Twitter, and second, that Twitter's attempts to address the issue have been misguided and ineffective. If the core point doesn't change, then why the quibble?
Which brings us back to tone. Which in turn brings us back to privilege.
But for the rest, the complaining about misrepresentations felt like rationalization to support the tone argument (much like making it a question rather than a statement). It's a very common pattern. My bluntness was a vent of frustration with that style of argument. If he'd wanted to make a substantial criticism, he'd have pointed to specific examples of misleading or incorrect statistics. He did not.
More to the point, quibbling about the numbers doesn't change the fundamental truths of the original article - first, that black engineers are badly underrepresented at Twitter, and second, that Twitter's attempts to address the issue have been misguided and ineffective. If the core point doesn't change, then why the quibble?
Which brings us back to tone. Which in turn brings us back to privilege.
[deleted]
>As a beneficiary of privilege, it makes me uncomfortable when people point out that racism and sexism exist.
Such as the privilege of being the majority race in the local neighborhood even if you are a minority at the national level or the privilege off being the majority of the voting population.
What bothers me the most about conversations dealing with privilege is that the louder someone talks about others, the greater their denial and downplay of their own.
Such as the privilege of being the majority race in the local neighborhood even if you are a minority at the national level or the privilege off being the majority of the voting population.
What bothers me the most about conversations dealing with privilege is that the louder someone talks about others, the greater their denial and downplay of their own.
I saw a kind of disturbing statistic recently... white males are only 31% of the population, but they're 66% of police officers, and 95% of prosecutors. Not to mention 85% of elected officials.
That's a lot of concentration of power.
That's a lot of concentration of power.
>white males
This means I get to throw out your entire point, right? /s
>That's a lot of concentration of power.
Depends if you are talking race or sex. For sex, you just need to look at areas like the Duluth model of domestic violence or the disparity in sentencing favoring women even when adjusted for the same crime to see that this doesn't do a thing for the average male.
Compared this to how the rich, regardless of race or gender, have an unfair advantage within the legal system to see that sex/gender doesn't matter much.
This means I get to throw out your entire point, right? /s
>That's a lot of concentration of power.
Depends if you are talking race or sex. For sex, you just need to look at areas like the Duluth model of domestic violence or the disparity in sentencing favoring women even when adjusted for the same crime to see that this doesn't do a thing for the average male.
Compared this to how the rich, regardless of race or gender, have an unfair advantage within the legal system to see that sex/gender doesn't matter much.
The one thing that he never explains is exactly what "diversity" he is looking for at Twitter. It seems that the only thing that matters to him is the color of the person's skin. In other words, an African-American MIT CS grad that grew up in Iowa is somehow going to come at problems differently than a white guy from the same town and school and with the same background. I wouldn't really call that diversity, that's just racism in that one man's view on a technical matter is somehow different because of his race.
What they should look to do is recruit people who got to programming or designing through paths other than MIT or Stanford. Hire the guy that was a painter and then started building website UIs when he saw how those skills transferred. Hire the guy that graduated from the small state school and spent all of his free time web programming. That - at least to me - is the kind of diversity that comes at problems from various angles.
The VP idea with names was stupid, but if I walked away from a job every time one guy had a stupid idea i'd be locked in a closet somewhere howling at the world's stupidity.
My 2 cents. I got to get back in my closet.
What they should look to do is recruit people who got to programming or designing through paths other than MIT or Stanford. Hire the guy that was a painter and then started building website UIs when he saw how those skills transferred. Hire the guy that graduated from the small state school and spent all of his free time web programming. That - at least to me - is the kind of diversity that comes at problems from various angles.
The VP idea with names was stupid, but if I walked away from a job every time one guy had a stupid idea i'd be locked in a closet somewhere howling at the world's stupidity.
My 2 cents. I got to get back in my closet.
In point of fact, an African-American guy and a white guy from the same neighborhood and school will have had different experiences growing up. For example, the white guy probably never had the cops called on him for wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie. He probably also got more job interviews, if his name sounds white and his friend's doesn't. These experiences will have shaped the two men differently.
That doesn't mean they'll give different answers to a question on how to traverse a linked list. But they'll give different answers on how to build a content moderation feature, how to prevent abuse, how to protect freedom of expression on the platform.
That doesn't mean they'll give different answers to a question on how to traverse a linked list. But they'll give different answers on how to build a content moderation feature, how to prevent abuse, how to protect freedom of expression on the platform.
Huge upvote here. As much as we would like to forget about race in America, the fact is: Race Matters.
The way people look at you, talk to you (or ignore you), talk about you, extend invites, etc..that ALL changes with your race.
The way people look at you, talk to you (or ignore you), talk about you, extend invites, etc..that ALL changes with your race.
Yes - I'm treated very differently from most of my coworkers on account of race. I could give lots of mildly interesting examples - it certainly means my dating life is very different.
But how does it affect me on the job? I write quantitative software, and spend lots of time thinking about bayesian hierarchical models and multiple comparisons. You are suggesting I have some unique power. I'd really like to know how I can use this power.
But how does it affect me on the job? I write quantitative software, and spend lots of time thinking about bayesian hierarchical models and multiple comparisons. You are suggesting I have some unique power. I'd really like to know how I can use this power.
If you're in the (to me, enviable) position of never building a user-facing feature in a piece of software -- if you purely get to think algorithms all day, and you never draw on any knowledge or experience you've gained outside a classroom or a book -- then who knows. Maybe it doesn't matter what life experiences you've had. I personally have never had a job like that. My interests, personality, experience, and wisdom gained outside of work have always made a difference to what I do.
I think about user facing features all the time. For example, should we display midpoint estimates, or just stick to credible intervals? Can we give an empirical conversion rate %, or will customers misunderstand and make a bad decision based on it?
But ok, lets say I'm a typical software engineer, building a CRUD app used by banks to set up a new customer with an HSA. What's my unique non-Indian perspective on that?
I can understand how there might be a useful purpose for token diversity on the UX teams for some consumer products. That's an exceedingly small part of the tech world.
But ok, lets say I'm a typical software engineer, building a CRUD app used by banks to set up a new customer with an HSA. What's my unique non-Indian perspective on that?
I can understand how there might be a useful purpose for token diversity on the UX teams for some consumer products. That's an exceedingly small part of the tech world.
A very, very good answer. However, in this case the diversity the man at twitter should be looking for has everything to do with a person by person case and nothing to do with race.
I do not understand the latter half of your 2nd paragraph as I do not see the parent was suggesting you have unique powers. It seemed to me he was just acknowledging that race plays a part in professional America.
As far as how it affects you on the job.... well, in the subject under discussion, they candidates are not even considered for the job because of their race. We have not got to the point where they are even 'on the job'. Per the article, when a diverse candidate was bought in, they performed well.
Perhaps I misread and misunderstood your response and my reply just builds on the confusion.
As far as how it affects you on the job.... well, in the subject under discussion, they candidates are not even considered for the job because of their race. We have not got to the point where they are even 'on the job'. Per the article, when a diverse candidate was bought in, they performed well.
Perhaps I misread and misunderstood your response and my reply just builds on the confusion.
I'm replying to: "That doesn't mean they'll give different answers to a question on how to traverse a linked list. But they'll give different answers on how to build a content moderation feature, how to prevent abuse, how to protect freedom of expression on the platform."
The article and the comments here don't even begin to support the claim "candidates are not even considered for the job because of their race".
The article and the comments here don't even begin to support the claim "candidates are not even considered for the job because of their race".
>In point of fact, an African-American guy and a white guy from the same neighborhood and school will have had different experiences growing up.
The differences between their experiences is smaller than the differences between that black individual (sidenote: I was recently told by a black guy that African American is worse than black when used as an identifier) and someone of the same race who grew up in a significantly different socioeconomic class. If we want to increase diversity, the best would be to do so by class first, gender second, and race third.
The differences between their experiences is smaller than the differences between that black individual (sidenote: I was recently told by a black guy that African American is worse than black when used as an identifier) and someone of the same race who grew up in a significantly different socioeconomic class. If we want to increase diversity, the best would be to do so by class first, gender second, and race third.
I agree, but socioeconomic class is already highly correlated with race (and sometimes gender), leading to race being used as a possible signal for class.
I think their point was that passive racial biases lead to class differences that can't be summed up in a hypothetical comparison.
I think their point was that passive racial biases lead to class differences that can't be summed up in a hypothetical comparison.
How would socioeconomic class be highly correlated with gender?
Is there some strange biologic selection mechanism at play?
Is there some strange biologic selection mechanism at play?
Sometimes correlated with gender, such as the gender income gap. I don't know what you mean by biological selection.
>Sometimes correlated with gender, such as the gender income gap.
You mean the one that has been shown to not exist?
You mean the one that has been shown to not exist?
> "There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent."
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Department of Labor
So that is 4.8 to 7.1 percent which can be explained by any of the following:
- Any attributes not accounted for in part or in full. (Of which there are quite a lot.)
- Past sexism which impacts income in the modern day. (Sexism 30 years ago would have impacted starting incomes of people, which would have reflected up til today because one's initial compensation greatly impacts future compensation through many different factors.)
- Modern day sexism.
Given evidence such as looking at just the youngest generation and what they earn, you begin to see women not only equalizing with men in earnings, but out pacing them. This means that 5 to 7% gap is far more likely to be the first and second. And once you compare pay gaps to things like danger of the jobs chosen, you see there are many more factors that are hard to account for because people differ so much in how they view the worthiness of these factors.
Also some things often aren't accounted for. Consider that many studies looking at the pay gap compare full time work to full time work, not differentiating the difference between 37.5 hours a week (full time in government) and 80 hours a week (or even worse at a startup). BUT... even in the studies that do try to compare these, they don't compare the relevant experience gains (the person working 60 hours a week average will gain 1.5 times the experience of someone working 40 hours a week, to say nothing of the potential differences in those who go home and work on related not-work projects).
In short, once you account for all of these and look at those entering the work force, it turns out the pendulum has already swung the other way.
On a side note, there are even reports coming out that this may be impacting the dating market due to social pressures on both men and women to pair up in specific patterns (namely that the man should be making no less than the woman that he is dating and that he should be no less educated than her). While these social pressures are definitely weakening compared to past generations, they are not by any means gone yet.
- Any attributes not accounted for in part or in full. (Of which there are quite a lot.)
- Past sexism which impacts income in the modern day. (Sexism 30 years ago would have impacted starting incomes of people, which would have reflected up til today because one's initial compensation greatly impacts future compensation through many different factors.)
- Modern day sexism.
Given evidence such as looking at just the youngest generation and what they earn, you begin to see women not only equalizing with men in earnings, but out pacing them. This means that 5 to 7% gap is far more likely to be the first and second. And once you compare pay gaps to things like danger of the jobs chosen, you see there are many more factors that are hard to account for because people differ so much in how they view the worthiness of these factors.
Also some things often aren't accounted for. Consider that many studies looking at the pay gap compare full time work to full time work, not differentiating the difference between 37.5 hours a week (full time in government) and 80 hours a week (or even worse at a startup). BUT... even in the studies that do try to compare these, they don't compare the relevant experience gains (the person working 60 hours a week average will gain 1.5 times the experience of someone working 40 hours a week, to say nothing of the potential differences in those who go home and work on related not-work projects).
In short, once you account for all of these and look at those entering the work force, it turns out the pendulum has already swung the other way.
On a side note, there are even reports coming out that this may be impacting the dating market due to social pressures on both men and women to pair up in specific patterns (namely that the man should be making no less than the woman that he is dating and that he should be no less educated than her). While these social pressures are definitely weakening compared to past generations, they are not by any means gone yet.
Those variables you listed account for 65.1 and 76.4 percent of raw gender wage gap [1]. The real 4.8 to 7.1 percent wage gap is what is left over after removing factors, and is attributed to gender.
You first claimed that there is no gender wage gap, and in the face of the evidence you're creating hypotheticals to say it's not a true gender wage gap (i.e. no true scotsman). Do you know what confirmation bias is?
[1] http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20...
You first claimed that there is no gender wage gap, and in the face of the evidence you're creating hypotheticals to say it's not a true gender wage gap (i.e. no true scotsman). Do you know what confirmation bias is?
[1] http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20...
I'm saying those aren't accounted for, and as such the gender wage gap (which is taken to mean the differences in wages caused by modern day sexism, and not just a difference in the pay of the average man vs. the average woman ignoring all factors) does not exist.
>Do you know what confirmation bias is?
Thinking that because a small list of factors account for ~70% of the gap that the rest of it must be sexism.
>Do you know what confirmation bias is?
Thinking that because a small list of factors account for ~70% of the gap that the rest of it must be sexism.
Read the research - they are accounted for.
CONSAD, Pew, and the U.S. Dept. of Labor have provided strong statistical evidence from research that the 4.5-7 percent gender wage gap exists. Your fixation on accounted-for factors and unwillingness to accept the facts is textbook confirmation bias.
CONSAD, Pew, and the U.S. Dept. of Labor have provided strong statistical evidence from research that the 4.5-7 percent gender wage gap exists. Your fixation on accounted-for factors and unwillingness to accept the facts is textbook confirmation bias.
RE your side note - in the preface to a study on ethnic politics in America, the authors of the study explain why they use the demographic terms they do. Latino, Asian-American, and black. Their data showed that there was a 1.1% difference of preference in Americans of African descent between being identified as black or African American. They also pointed out that black Americans have been discriminated based on their color, rather than their nationality throughout all of American history, and that's unique to blacks, and is the best identifier for that culture group/identity.
The study is in "Can We All Get Along", by McClain and Stewart. Really interesting book that does a good job of making you think.
The study is in "Can We All Get Along", by McClain and Stewart. Really interesting book that does a good job of making you think.
How is someone who was more likely to be harassed by LEO's going to have a different outlook on the engineering/programming of an internet-based social media service? Not buying it. Is it more diverse? Sure. Does it matter at all for the task they are performing? I don't see how it does.
>(sidenote: I was recently told by a black guy that African American is worse than black when used as an identifier)
For some - it's putting the `African` before the `American`. For others, it is putting `African` at all (not all blacks identify or hail from Africa). Ultimately, offense is taken and not given. You'll also find people who take offense at being called `black` over `African American`.
Either way - I don't think you need to justify your use of calling them `black`, at least in this context.
>(sidenote: I was recently told by a black guy that African American is worse than black when used as an identifier)
For some - it's putting the `African` before the `American`. For others, it is putting `African` at all (not all blacks identify or hail from Africa). Ultimately, offense is taken and not given. You'll also find people who take offense at being called `black` over `African American`.
Either way - I don't think you need to justify your use of calling them `black`, at least in this context.
>How is someone who was more likely to be harassed by LEO's going to have a different outlook on the engineering/programming of an internet-based social media service?
One potential example would be that someone who has unfairly been targeted by the police may have higher privacy concerns and also be more aware of possibilities for the government to abuse information and even violate rights; things that can happen with regards to social media profiles.
For a more concrete example, a gay individual who grew up somewhere where being gay was punished (either codified in law or where the law turns a blind eye to the discrimination) is likely to be far more concerned about systems that can leak sexual orientation, for example an eye tracker/pupil measurer that makes an attempt to determine who a subject finds attractive or not. The average heterosexual may understand that leaking this information could be embarrassing for some, but they may not be as aware it could be life threatening.
Yes, an aware individual not of that background could develop the same concerns after thinking long enough, but they will not have the same immediate concern about any system that interrupts a person's ability to 'pass'.
One potential example would be that someone who has unfairly been targeted by the police may have higher privacy concerns and also be more aware of possibilities for the government to abuse information and even violate rights; things that can happen with regards to social media profiles.
For a more concrete example, a gay individual who grew up somewhere where being gay was punished (either codified in law or where the law turns a blind eye to the discrimination) is likely to be far more concerned about systems that can leak sexual orientation, for example an eye tracker/pupil measurer that makes an attempt to determine who a subject finds attractive or not. The average heterosexual may understand that leaking this information could be embarrassing for some, but they may not be as aware it could be life threatening.
Yes, an aware individual not of that background could develop the same concerns after thinking long enough, but they will not have the same immediate concern about any system that interrupts a person's ability to 'pass'.
I'd like to take the time to thank you for answering in good faith - rather than assuming I had asked in bad faith. So, thank you.
Unfortunately I'm not able, in good faith, to take a stand for or against your argument. Consider this conceding the argument, but not being entirely convinced (allow me to explain).
Initially, I would like to reject it. Because as a libertarian-leaning trans, I fall under both examples you cited. Concern over potential abuse of PII, government overreach, and sexual identity (the concern over gender identity is similar in that regards). But I also fall under the "white, male" label.
However, I do understand the argument that a more targeted individual may be more capable of identifying potential issues. I feel this is contextual and often results in too many "maybes", "potentials", and "possibilities" to be entirely convincing.
"They maybe might have the potential to maybe see a possibility for something that might have the potential to maybe have the possibility of being abused." is not something I find convincing. Though it is technically correct and I have to concede that.
Unfortunately I'm not able, in good faith, to take a stand for or against your argument. Consider this conceding the argument, but not being entirely convinced (allow me to explain).
Initially, I would like to reject it. Because as a libertarian-leaning trans, I fall under both examples you cited. Concern over potential abuse of PII, government overreach, and sexual identity (the concern over gender identity is similar in that regards). But I also fall under the "white, male" label.
However, I do understand the argument that a more targeted individual may be more capable of identifying potential issues. I feel this is contextual and often results in too many "maybes", "potentials", and "possibilities" to be entirely convincing.
"They maybe might have the potential to maybe see a possibility for something that might have the potential to maybe have the possibility of being abused." is not something I find convincing. Though it is technically correct and I have to concede that.
The key thing is that I'm on neither side of the debate. I see merits to both sides and look for a way to work out both. Also, I like to work on arguments for any side even if I don't agree with that side (I have sometimes devil advocated for positions just because no one else would touch them).
Personally, at the current time, I see too many problems with quotas for them to be useful. Namely is the perception problem, where people (including the one hired) will think that their race/gender/etc. had more to do with them getting hired than their skill, causing all sorts of problems. At the same time, I do see merit in fighting against known biases and issues that push out minorities.
I dislike both the over PC nature that leads to Donglegate and the bro-culture that leads to common inappropriate comments and behavior.
Personally, at the current time, I see too many problems with quotas for them to be useful. Namely is the perception problem, where people (including the one hired) will think that their race/gender/etc. had more to do with them getting hired than their skill, causing all sorts of problems. At the same time, I do see merit in fighting against known biases and issues that push out minorities.
I dislike both the over PC nature that leads to Donglegate and the bro-culture that leads to common inappropriate comments and behavior.
So you're essentially where I stand then. :P
I consider myself the "Milo" of transexuals and have a large disconnect with most people who consider themselves part of the "LGBT Movement". Many of which are right up there with PC culture (e.g telling me I can't use the word "tranny", even when referring to myself? Fuck off.)
While I do see the problem and in many places agree - I do not agree with the proposed methods of solving it. That especially includes "quotas" - unofficial or official. Nobody wants to be the "token black guy" (even if there are "40 token black guys") just to improve a diversity number. Which unfortunately is how many tech companies seem to be trying to resolve the "wow that company isn't diverse" criticisms being flung at them.
"If I weren't homosexual, I'd be the largest homophobe." - Milo Yiannopoulos
I consider myself the "Milo" of transexuals and have a large disconnect with most people who consider themselves part of the "LGBT Movement". Many of which are right up there with PC culture (e.g telling me I can't use the word "tranny", even when referring to myself? Fuck off.)
While I do see the problem and in many places agree - I do not agree with the proposed methods of solving it. That especially includes "quotas" - unofficial or official. Nobody wants to be the "token black guy" (even if there are "40 token black guys") just to improve a diversity number. Which unfortunately is how many tech companies seem to be trying to resolve the "wow that company isn't diverse" criticisms being flung at them.
"If I weren't homosexual, I'd be the largest homophobe." - Milo Yiannopoulos
Please keep in mind, Milo's writing is tongue in cheek. It's generally agreed upon that Milo's writing is parody (ref: https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=twosc... ) . He's parodying Men's rights activists. He is like the Onion but harder to distinguish.
That was him during an interview, not writing. Furthermore it's important to distinguish his satire from his viewpoints.
Of course the comment is a tad tongue-in-cheek. It is speaking more that he is against much of the LGBT movement in which he should be a part of. Falling under the "G" and by not conforming to the widely held beliefs he is homophobic. I fall under the "T" but I'm disgusted with half of what the LGBT movement pushes for and have on many occasions been called a transphobe. Especially in regards to my usage of "tranny", as I stated.
A bit tongue-in-cheek myself: If I weren't a transexual I'd be one of the largest transphobes I know. Largely because I refuse to let people police my speech.
Of course the comment is a tad tongue-in-cheek. It is speaking more that he is against much of the LGBT movement in which he should be a part of. Falling under the "G" and by not conforming to the widely held beliefs he is homophobic. I fall under the "T" but I'm disgusted with half of what the LGBT movement pushes for and have on many occasions been called a transphobe. Especially in regards to my usage of "tranny", as I stated.
A bit tongue-in-cheek myself: If I weren't a transexual I'd be one of the largest transphobes I know. Largely because I refuse to let people police my speech.
A good engineer isn't just sitting at a computer coding algorithms they are actively engaged in helping guide the direction of whatever product they are working on. For something like Twitter, I can see any number of ways in which having a diverse view point could make significant impact on the direction of product. Take for instance the existence of "Black Twitter". That is a very unique use of the platform and community that has arisen over the years. It encompasses everything from #BlackLivesMatter to awards show coverage. It drives a lot of the media coverage of the platform but if you aren't a part of that community, if you don't understand the slang, if you have never engaged in any of the conversations, if you don't know what things those users care about how can you make educated inferences on what features those users need, want and care about.
Yes, white and black people will likely have different experiences growing up. Most white people that I know - including myself - were routinely attacked at school because of their race. Every white person that I know has had to look at a job interview and wonder if he didn't get called back because the job was only for certain people.
However, none of this would help the white person build a content moderation feature or prevent abuse or protect freedom of expression better than the black person.
May I ask specifically how a person's belief that their name was the cause of failing to get a job leads them to create a better content moderation feature?
However, none of this would help the white person build a content moderation feature or prevent abuse or protect freedom of expression better than the black person.
May I ask specifically how a person's belief that their name was the cause of failing to get a job leads them to create a better content moderation feature?
> But they'll give different answers on how to build a content moderation feature, how to prevent abuse, how to protect freedom of expression on the platform.
I don't think it's the tech department's job to define those.
I don't think it's the tech department's job to define those.
> These experiences will have shaped the two men differently.
You are implying that those negative experiences are a product of racism and not of simple statistics.
Maybe, only maybe, people _dont have_ as many problems with white guys wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie as they have with black guys wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie, so they dont call the cops on the former and call the cops on the latter.
Youre implicitely ruling out the mere _possibility_ that there maybe, only maybe, _might_ be a problem with blacks, that isnt a problem with whites, asians, indians or hispanics.
You are implying that those negative experiences are a product of racism and not of simple statistics.
Maybe, only maybe, people _dont have_ as many problems with white guys wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie as they have with black guys wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie, so they dont call the cops on the former and call the cops on the latter.
Youre implicitely ruling out the mere _possibility_ that there maybe, only maybe, _might_ be a problem with blacks, that isnt a problem with whites, asians, indians or hispanics.
There's a basic fork in logic. Blacks are observably, measurably treated worse than whites by police and courts. There can only be two causes for this:
1. The system is unjust due to institutional racism. 2. Blacks are inherently more violent and criminal than whites.
You seem to be arguing the latter.
1. The system is unjust due to institutional racism. 2. Blacks are inherently more violent and criminal than whites.
You seem to be arguing the latter.
Their entire argument is a cognitive dissonance with the facts.
Even with non-violent drug use, rates are similar across all races yet blacks are measurably discriminated against in searches, arrests, and sentencing.
Even with non-violent drug use, rates are similar across all races yet blacks are measurably discriminated against in searches, arrests, and sentencing.
Rates for what? Rates for murder and violent crime are not similar across all races. They vary significantly. In order (from highest to lowest) they tend to be as follows: Black, Hispanic, White, Asian. Coincidentally (or not), IQ tends to follow the same pattern, from lowest to highest.
Just looking at murder, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008. Looking at offenders per 100,000, it is 34.4 for blacks versus 4.5 for whites. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
There have been many studies, not just from the arrest, sentencing, and imprisonment side. There are studies in which random people are polled and asked whether they have been victimized. It is not poverty alone. Homicide among impoverished whites is nowhere near the levels seen among blacks.
Just looking at murder, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008. Looking at offenders per 100,000, it is 34.4 for blacks versus 4.5 for whites. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
There have been many studies, not just from the arrest, sentencing, and imprisonment side. There are studies in which random people are polled and asked whether they have been victimized. It is not poverty alone. Homicide among impoverished whites is nowhere near the levels seen among blacks.
>Rates for what?
Non-violent drug use - it's in the same sentence, come on.
Unlike drug use, violence is tied heavily to socioeconomic status and environment [1], which is only correlated with race, not caused by it [2]. You do know what cognitive dissonance is, right?
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449156/
[2] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.74.8.8...
Non-violent drug use - it's in the same sentence, come on.
Unlike drug use, violence is tied heavily to socioeconomic status and environment [1], which is only correlated with race, not caused by it [2]. You do know what cognitive dissonance is, right?
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449156/
[2] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.74.8.8...
[deleted]
So Eric Gardner probably deserved to get choked out because he sold cigarettes illegally on a street? And Michael Brown was probably a thug, so deserved to die?
It's Eric Garner, not Eric Gardner.
There was not any really good reason to try to arrest Garner at the point they tried to restrain him. Chokeholds are banned by that police department, so when they did try to arrest him they went about it in the wrong fashion.
The Garner case raises lots of questions, including whether or not he would have been treated the same way had he been white.
Brown, on the other hand, was walking down the middle of the street with goods he just stole moments ago. Police had good reason to stop him. A white kid doing the same would have been stopped.
Brown attacked the officer and tried to take his gun. A white kid doing the same would have been shot. And a white kid who fled after being shot, then turned around and continued approaching rather than obeying an order to get down would get shot more, just like Brown was.
The forensic evidence combined with the eyewitness accounts provides a pretty clear picture that Brown got what pretty much anyone would get in those circumstances, regardless of their race.
Lumping Garner in with Brown is very disrespectful to Garner and his family.
There was not any really good reason to try to arrest Garner at the point they tried to restrain him. Chokeholds are banned by that police department, so when they did try to arrest him they went about it in the wrong fashion.
The Garner case raises lots of questions, including whether or not he would have been treated the same way had he been white.
Brown, on the other hand, was walking down the middle of the street with goods he just stole moments ago. Police had good reason to stop him. A white kid doing the same would have been stopped.
Brown attacked the officer and tried to take his gun. A white kid doing the same would have been shot. And a white kid who fled after being shot, then turned around and continued approaching rather than obeying an order to get down would get shot more, just like Brown was.
The forensic evidence combined with the eyewitness accounts provides a pretty clear picture that Brown got what pretty much anyone would get in those circumstances, regardless of their race.
Lumping Garner in with Brown is very disrespectful to Garner and his family.
In fact, a white kid in Michigan was shot, in more sympathetic circumstances, months later in Michigan.
In both cases, there was misbehavior by the suspect and misconduct by the officer, but the more important unifying circumstance was the fact that officers on routine patrol in both cases were armed with lethal weapons, so that hand-to-hand conflict was almost guaranteed to escalate instantaneously to deadly force.
In both cases, there was misbehavior by the suspect and misconduct by the officer, but the more important unifying circumstance was the fact that officers on routine patrol in both cases were armed with lethal weapons, so that hand-to-hand conflict was almost guaranteed to escalate instantaneously to deadly force.
> And Michael Brown was probably a thug, so deserved to die?
He didnt "deserve" to die, but the fact that he violently robbed a store minutes before he died, maybe, _only maybe_, contributed to his violent death, dont you agree?
He didnt "deserve" to die, but the fact that he violently robbed a store minutes before he died, maybe, _only maybe_, contributed to his violent death, dont you agree?
Really? Less than 5% of staff are non-white and you're arguing he needs to explain what "diversity" is?
Come on. At under 5% basically ANYTHING ELSE is diversity.
Also, he does touch on this in the article. He says that Twitter relies heavily on a few schools for hiring so even if they get 'diverse' candidates from those schools they've still had a very similar experience compared to people from geographically diverse schools. That alone would add one form of diversity. He said he's seen this resulting in group think, and I can believe that.
But really? You want people to define diversity in this situation? That seems like a 'no true scotsman' setup to me.
Come on. At under 5% basically ANYTHING ELSE is diversity.
Also, he does touch on this in the article. He says that Twitter relies heavily on a few schools for hiring so even if they get 'diverse' candidates from those schools they've still had a very similar experience compared to people from geographically diverse schools. That alone would add one form of diversity. He said he's seen this resulting in group think, and I can believe that.
But really? You want people to define diversity in this situation? That seems like a 'no true scotsman' setup to me.
44% are non-white. There's a table with the numbers right in the article.
Wow, trying to redefine racial diversity as racism.
Having a different skin color makes a HUGE impact on the way you experience life, especially in America. Holding all other things equal, that alone will give you a different outlook on life, and likely different ideas too.
Having a different skin color makes a HUGE impact on the way you experience life, especially in America. Holding all other things equal, that alone will give you a different outlook on life, and likely different ideas too.
> Wow, trying to redefine racial diversity as racism.
If a diversity quota decides about you gettnig a job or not getting a job, then it is indistinguishable from a race quota, i.e. racism.
If a diversity quota decides about you gettnig a job or not getting a job, then it is indistinguishable from a race quota, i.e. racism.
literally never discussed the idea of a quota in this particular thread, so you're jumping to conclusions here.
Yes. This. My company makes a point to hire out-of-field engineers. I'm a self-taught developer with a philosophy degree. My coworker has a degree in astrophysics. We have a linguist, a theater major, some people with diplomas, and a "dropout". Shooting for Diversity with a capital D is misguided.
At one point the author talks about the issue that the majority of Twitter hires come from just a handful of schools.
I assume he (or she, don't remember the name) is looking for any kind of diversity, although their experience (and the chart posted) clearly talk about ethnic diversity, which may be what they have the most direct experience with.
I assume he (or she, don't remember the name) is looking for any kind of diversity, although their experience (and the chart posted) clearly talk about ethnic diversity, which may be what they have the most direct experience with.
> that's just racism in that one man's view on a technical matter is somehow different because of his race.
It's just ethocentrism or more specifically in his case Afro-centrism. Racism as a condemnation shouldn't be bandied about this lightly. The US media already devalued it and made it a joke by their excessive and irresponsible use of the term.
It's just ethocentrism or more specifically in his case Afro-centrism. Racism as a condemnation shouldn't be bandied about this lightly. The US media already devalued it and made it a joke by their excessive and irresponsible use of the term.
This guy sort of sort of undermines the standard case for diversity:
"Twitter as a platform has empowered underserved and underrepresented people. It has fomented social movements and..."
Sounds like twitter is killing it for people of all ethnic groups. It's as if a bunch of White/Asian dudes can actually design algorithms that work for everyone. So, um, why do we need a non-Asian engineer?
It's also worth questioning how a black person would think differently from the (apparently highly effective) white/Asian workforce. I've seen very few meaningful examples of this and I've never experienced it (I'm usually the only person of my race). My current job is mostly Punjabi's, no techies of my ethnic group, and my unique perspective is "lets all be Bayesian cause Frequentism is ass backwards" and "stop the multiple fucking comparisons!"
A naughty question: suppose I'm wrong, and black people actually do think differently. Given that whites/Asians seem to be doing such a great job, why do we think that "different" is actually better or even useful? In statistics terms, given two different functions f and g which are estimators for some truth t, it's unlikely that |f(x)-t(x)| = |g(x)-t(x)|. One of them is probably better.
"Twitter as a platform has empowered underserved and underrepresented people. It has fomented social movements and..."
Sounds like twitter is killing it for people of all ethnic groups. It's as if a bunch of White/Asian dudes can actually design algorithms that work for everyone. So, um, why do we need a non-Asian engineer?
It's also worth questioning how a black person would think differently from the (apparently highly effective) white/Asian workforce. I've seen very few meaningful examples of this and I've never experienced it (I'm usually the only person of my race). My current job is mostly Punjabi's, no techies of my ethnic group, and my unique perspective is "lets all be Bayesian cause Frequentism is ass backwards" and "stop the multiple fucking comparisons!"
A naughty question: suppose I'm wrong, and black people actually do think differently. Given that whites/Asians seem to be doing such a great job, why do we think that "different" is actually better or even useful? In statistics terms, given two different functions f and g which are estimators for some truth t, it's unlikely that |f(x)-t(x)| = |g(x)-t(x)|. One of them is probably better.
The implication is that diversity of experience/background/culture leads to diversity of thought and diversity of ideas. That's fairly logical and noble goal, but it ignores the idea that that same diversity of interests contributes to a different average career path. It simultaneously argues for "the same, but different".
If we're going to blame the employers, can someone show me that there's a disproportionately large number of unemployed minority engineers that are seeking work but not getting it?
If we're going to blame the employers, can someone show me that there's a disproportionately large number of unemployed minority engineers that are seeking work but not getting it?
If we're going to blame the employers, can someone show me that there's a disproportionately large number of unemployed minority engineers that are seeking work but not getting it?
Makes sense, but I'd say it should be a disproportionately large per-capita fraction of minority engineers with similar degrees, experience, geographic location, etc, relative to white engineers with the same characteristics.
For example, if minority engineers with Stanford degrees with 7-10 years experience and living in zip codes [A, B, C, ...] are 10% unemployed and their white classmates have a 5% unemployment rate, that could be evidence of deliberate discrimination. It's important to compare like to like, otherwise you can wind up with all sorts of weird conclusions.
Makes sense, but I'd say it should be a disproportionately large per-capita fraction of minority engineers with similar degrees, experience, geographic location, etc, relative to white engineers with the same characteristics.
For example, if minority engineers with Stanford degrees with 7-10 years experience and living in zip codes [A, B, C, ...] are 10% unemployed and their white classmates have a 5% unemployment rate, that could be evidence of deliberate discrimination. It's important to compare like to like, otherwise you can wind up with all sorts of weird conclusions.
> It's also worth questioning how a black person would think differently from the (apparently highly effective) white/Asian workforce. I've seen very few meaningful examples of this and I've never experienced it (in most of my jobs I'm the only person of my race).
The arguments for diversity usually say that organizations improve when people from different backgrounds are part of them. This is the argument for increasing diversity along gender, orientation, and ethnic lines. If different points of view help then we should be trying for ideological diversity directly.
The arguments for diversity usually say that organizations improve when people from different backgrounds are part of them. This is the argument for increasing diversity along gender, orientation, and ethnic lines. If different points of view help then we should be trying for ideological diversity directly.
(I accidentally down voted you, sorry).
The fact that Twitter enables diversity doesn't mean that they have or understand diversity. It may be that they simply haven't accidentally stepped on it.
If they don't know why what they're doing is working then they can't successfully improve it further, or avoid squashing it unintentionally and irreparably.
Honestly your comment reads very racist to me. "why do we need a non-Asian engineer?", "suppose I'm wrong, and black people actually do think differently. [if twitter is doing good] why do we think that "different" is actually better or even useful?"
So Twitter is doing great, and you've basically reduced it to either 'race/perspective never matters' or 'non white/asians are inferior'. I'm sure you'll say it's the former.
Wow.
(Now that I've re-read your comment, I'm happy with my down vote).
The fact that Twitter enables diversity doesn't mean that they have or understand diversity. It may be that they simply haven't accidentally stepped on it.
If they don't know why what they're doing is working then they can't successfully improve it further, or avoid squashing it unintentionally and irreparably.
Honestly your comment reads very racist to me. "why do we need a non-Asian engineer?", "suppose I'm wrong, and black people actually do think differently. [if twitter is doing good] why do we think that "different" is actually better or even useful?"
So Twitter is doing great, and you've basically reduced it to either 'race/perspective never matters' or 'non white/asians are inferior'. I'm sure you'll say it's the former.
Wow.
(Now that I've re-read your comment, I'm happy with my down vote).
My personal view is that my race doesn't matter for the vast majority of job functions. It's literally never mattered for me. I have no magical non-Indian perspective on statistics or algorithms.
But yes, if different races do behave differently, it's valid question to ask whether you actually want that different behavior. As a silly hypothetical to illustrate the point, humans and leopards behave differently. Turns out one of them is a lot worse for the office environment than the other.
If you want to argue that A != B, you are explicitly allowing for the possibility that A < B. So some argument is necessary why that isn't the case.
But again - I think A == B, which I guess makes me racist.
But yes, if different races do behave differently, it's valid question to ask whether you actually want that different behavior. As a silly hypothetical to illustrate the point, humans and leopards behave differently. Turns out one of them is a lot worse for the office environment than the other.
If you want to argue that A != B, you are explicitly allowing for the possibility that A < B. So some argument is necessary why that isn't the case.
But again - I think A == B, which I guess makes me racist.
[deleted]
You honestly think it's "worth questioning how a black person would think differently"?
Different experiences yield different points of view yield different ideas
Different experiences yield different points of view yield different ideas
Ok, so what's the black perspective on eliminating the fail whale? What's the black idea about how to filter my feed?
Lets be concrete here, rather than appealing to vague platitudes.
Lets be concrete here, rather than appealing to vague platitudes.
What's the black perspective on how to better serve people who are in ferguson?
My belief is that there probably isn't one. I'm still waiting for someone to provide one.
As a Bayesian, I can certainly tell you how my perspective differs from folks like Leonid Pekelis or Evan Miller. As a person who leans towards parametric statistics and modelling, I can tell you how my perspective differs from the machine learning types.
Why is it so difficult to provide the (alleged) black perspective?
As a Bayesian, I can certainly tell you how my perspective differs from folks like Leonid Pekelis or Evan Miller. As a person who leans towards parametric statistics and modelling, I can tell you how my perspective differs from the machine learning types.
Why is it so difficult to provide the (alleged) black perspective?
I think you're only considering the theoretical/mathematical side of software development. Sure, you can argue (and I would agree) that math is isolated from culture, and as such, a programmer's race can have no impact on how well he or she implements bubble sort.
But software development is not just about CS theory. You're selling a product to people, and thus you introduce the human factor. If say, Facebook one day realizes they need to appeal to female users more to promote growth, does it not make sense that having female team members would be useful? That if Apple sees China as a growth market having Chinese team members will help them better target that userbase?
Obviously, there is no binary tree that is more friendly to the Chinese market, or black, or gay markets etc. But you can definitely change the UI, or messaging, or features that better speak to a specific culture. When architecting a feature in Facebook, a hispanic engineer could suggest a family-focused feature since she knows that family is very important in her culture. That's not to say a white male team of devs couldn't do a great job of satisfying a Hispanic user, but that a more diverse team might do an even better job.
That's a very business-centric take on the issue. Another, more noble side to it is that there's very likely a lot of people from underrepresented minorities who could be high quality software devs but because of their socio-economic status they were discouraged from pursing that career. A more diverse workforce, won't lead to quick results, but it helps.
But software development is not just about CS theory. You're selling a product to people, and thus you introduce the human factor. If say, Facebook one day realizes they need to appeal to female users more to promote growth, does it not make sense that having female team members would be useful? That if Apple sees China as a growth market having Chinese team members will help them better target that userbase?
Obviously, there is no binary tree that is more friendly to the Chinese market, or black, or gay markets etc. But you can definitely change the UI, or messaging, or features that better speak to a specific culture. When architecting a feature in Facebook, a hispanic engineer could suggest a family-focused feature since she knows that family is very important in her culture. That's not to say a white male team of devs couldn't do a great job of satisfying a Hispanic user, but that a more diverse team might do an even better job.
That's a very business-centric take on the issue. Another, more noble side to it is that there's very likely a lot of people from underrepresented minorities who could be high quality software devs but because of their socio-economic status they were discouraged from pursing that career. A more diverse workforce, won't lead to quick results, but it helps.
The vast majority of developers, even at twitter, are not building user facing frontend features for the consumer market. They are building ETL jobs to shovel data from postgres to vertica, a CRUD app used to track erroneous shipments, or feeding VaR estimates to the SEC. At most you are arguing that product teams at consumer oriented companies need a few token minorities.
But supposing these affinity effects are real, and extend beyond consumer products, then if your customer base doesn't contain these minorities then their presence on your product team might be harmful. I.e., MongoDB or Washington Square Tech should NOT hire a black guy, since a black guy's experience is significantly different from the (white/Asian) rockstar ninjas and banksters making up the customer base. Is this also a conclusion you would endorse?
But supposing these affinity effects are real, and extend beyond consumer products, then if your customer base doesn't contain these minorities then their presence on your product team might be harmful. I.e., MongoDB or Washington Square Tech should NOT hire a black guy, since a black guy's experience is significantly different from the (white/Asian) rockstar ninjas and banksters making up the customer base. Is this also a conclusion you would endorse?
Consider how the perspective of a director, in charge of a large team of engineers, can effect the entire engineering culture.
If this director has a more human and compassionate perspective, she might help push back on all feature requests to give her team ample time to fix the fail whale during the day because she sees how unfair and stressful it is that they are getting paged at night.
This is hyperbole, but another director with a more analytical bent he might push his staff to work more hours, work harder and smarter, to rewrite the problematic systems.
Perspective of leadership is extremely important.
But this applies to all teams that work collaboratively on solving problems.
If this director has a more human and compassionate perspective, she might help push back on all feature requests to give her team ample time to fix the fail whale during the day because she sees how unfair and stressful it is that they are getting paged at night.
This is hyperbole, but another director with a more analytical bent he might push his staff to work more hours, work harder and smarter, to rewrite the problematic systems.
Perspective of leadership is extremely important.
But this applies to all teams that work collaboratively on solving problems.
ser2k's comment seems pretty concrete to me.
Because the real world doesn't revolve around newtonian physics. It's quantum physics.
Removing barriers to particular ethnicities in hiring? Great. Making it clear in marketing and outreach that all ethnicities are welcomed and encouraged? Great. Establishing a quota of X % of employees should be a certain race? Uh... okay. Should asians be turned down from a job because they've hit the asian quota and need more blacks? I didn't realize companies practiced affirmative action like this.
I'm pretty sure they don't. There are PRs campaigns saying they would like to get closer to those quotas, but I don't think any engineering management is actually going to let their interview process be changed.
At companies I've worked at I've seen the leadership cheerleading race & gender diversity, but not interfering with engineering management's hiring practices. I assume that the leadership is just playing the Public Relations game, because being seen as a proponent for diversity is good press, but not letting it actually change anything. If I'm being even more cynical, then leadership is just clueless, and is also clueless that they shouldn't be averaging engineering with marketing in order to say that we have a good gender ratio.
At companies I've worked at I've seen the leadership cheerleading race & gender diversity, but not interfering with engineering management's hiring practices. I assume that the leadership is just playing the Public Relations game, because being seen as a proponent for diversity is good press, but not letting it actually change anything. If I'm being even more cynical, then leadership is just clueless, and is also clueless that they shouldn't be averaging engineering with marketing in order to say that we have a good gender ratio.
Google actually changed their policy: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/google-hiring-non-graduate...
> I didn't realize companies practiced affirmative action like this.
I'm surprised that you're surprised.
I'm surprised that you're surprised.
I'm Chinese, and I don't appreciate your attempt at pitting Asians against Blacks.
It isn't pitting any race at another. It is a real concern with quotas. One only needs to look at what an Asian needs to score on the SAT compared to what a Caucasian (no need to bring up other races) to see how it can become a problem.
A good reference on this phenomenon: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race...
I'm pretty sure it's a reductio ad absurdum argument.
It was... but check it: If you established targets based on population percentages (or user ethnicity percentages), and (AFAIK) Asians are typically over-represented by population in tech and blacks under-represented, does that mean if they have qualified Asian candidates they turn them down so it doesn't harm their target numbers? Or is that illegal so they focus on reducing Asians early in the pipeline?
I really don't understand how this racial hiring quota stuff works...
I really don't understand how this racial hiring quota stuff works...
I think it's pretty clear. Except in the dramatically unlikely case that the racial quotas are precisely tuned to have no effect at all, then having racial quotas necessarily means that more qualified applicants of one race are rejected in favor of less qualified applicants of another race, explicitly because of their race. If you're in a jurisdiction in which this is illegal (such as the U.S.) then racial quotas or preferences are illegal. Why no one else seems to realize this is illegal (as well as immoral) is beyond me.
Edit: Downvotes are nice, but refutations are better.
Edit: Downvotes are nice, but refutations are better.
But seriously, in order to achieve proper racial quotas, we're gonna fire most of the asians. #getready
> There were also the Hiring Committee meetings that became contentious when I advocated for diverse candidates. Candidates who were dinged for not being fast enough to solve problems, not having internships at ‘strong’ companies and who took too long to finish their degree. Only after hours of lobbying would they be hired. Needless to say, the majority of them performed well.
Why is it needless to say that?
Why is it needless to say that?
Because they have been proven time and time again to have very little affect on the quality of an engineer. Simply put these are often poor indicators of success even among like candidates. When you're specifically talking minority or low income candidates, which unfortunately often go hand in hand it doesn't make sense to think that any of these factors speak to a candidates suitability for a given role.
Because the interviewing process is fundamentally broken most places and that the listed items were irrelevant to actual productivity.
They wouldn't be useful anecdotes if they weren't?
I think this article reads a lot like "we need equal rights, so give us special treatment because we're different".
All that lobbying for people who did not meet the technical criteria, that getting upset at the idea of someone not noticing his differentiating blackness.
He might have a point in the part about how many minorities are using the service, but I don't see how the tech department should be concerned at all with that. Community relations, marketing, sure. Not tech.
All that lobbying for people who did not meet the technical criteria, that getting upset at the idea of someone not noticing his differentiating blackness.
He might have a point in the part about how many minorities are using the service, but I don't see how the tech department should be concerned at all with that. Community relations, marketing, sure. Not tech.
The author mentioned unfair, non-technical criteria being applied to candidates, with the effect being that talented minority engineers were being filtered out of the hiring pipeline.
Tech builds the product that these people use. It makes sense for a representation of those users to be building the product.
It makes sense to have a representative oversee the guidelines for building the product, I don't see how it matters who actually gets to build it.
"As we continued the discussion, he suggested I create a tool to analyze candidates last names to classify their ethnicity."
Tisk. Tisk. It's been well documented that these tools are used to weed out ethnicities.
Tisk. Tisk. It's been well documented that these tools are used to weed out ethnicities.
As a side note, I dislike anti-discrimination laws. For example, the statistical way of proving discrimination probably only works well for certain kinds of jobs like unskilled labor. Limiting these laws to these kinds of jobs by default would probably be a good compromise.
He is offended that he wasn't invited at various events involving African American leaders. I have black friends who would be offended if they were specifically invited to these events because they were African American.
This sums up my issue with this piece: at best, not all his wishes are necessarily shared by other people of color; at worst, some of the things he wants could actually be construed as racist("Just because I'm black doesn't mean I'm interested in Jesse Jackson" my friend often says.)
This sums up my issue with this piece: at best, not all his wishes are necessarily shared by other people of color; at worst, some of the things he wants could actually be construed as racist("Just because I'm black doesn't mean I'm interested in Jesse Jackson" my friend often says.)
The complaint wasn't that black employees weren't individually invited, but that the resource group for black employees wasn't notified.
I find the numbers a little weird. While 'black' and 'hispanic' are underrepresented in the graphs, 'asian' is heavily overrepresented (in yahoo's case, it's triple the percentage), and 'asian' isn't a single ethnicity. Not only are south asians not east asians or west asians (culturally or physically), but Chinese aren't Koreans, who aren't Vietnamese, who aren't Filipino and so forth (these are the groups in the BLS report). The author seems to be using 'diversity' to mean 'proportion of black faces', rather than diversity across the board.
I don't believe this is due to any sort of racism, but rather due to the education system in general. Trying to solve the diversity issue at the hiring end, when the number of qualified candidates is so small, is not the right way to solve the problem. The only way you will hit higher-than-normal diversity numbers is to reduce hiring standards, which is wrong.
The real way to solve it is at the bottom of the funnel, at the elementary, middle and high school levels. By getting more children of all races involved and interested in tech is the only way we truly increase diversity.
And that is on us, those of us that have experience in tech. My goal is to try to volunteer to teach young children in economically disadvantaged areas about technology. Of course, I have no idea how to start doing this, and would love suggestions or pointers.