Tell HN: DEI initiatives undermine the self esteem of PoC within a company
884 comments
(Black man here)
Two things can be true at once.
I have built great things. I can stand on my own. My merits are great. I do not want to be the token employee that is trotted around for Diversity Points (tm). I do not like the diversity porn that a lot of these DEI groups get off on.
That being said, I do recognize that I have benefited from these groups (at least at their most genuine). There are groups that are aimed at cultivating black people in tech. Prior to this, in the earlier internet age, you had to cut your teeth on IRC and forums. That was where technical people were in the computer tech space.
Do you know VIRULENTLY anti-black (or woman, or gay) these communities were? I can't begin to describe it. That is totally off-putting to someone who has the ability succeed but does not want to deal with the hate. There's also the fact that most (read: all) of the computing pioneers are white. I respect all of those people, but it does help to have someone to look up to. I'm positive that Satya and Sundar are great motivators for indian kids to look up to (as they should be).
These DEI initiatives aren't perfect in any way, but the goal is to give the affected groups the foundations to succeed. To put people in the affected communities out front as role models. I accept the annoyances for the sake of good and progress.
EDIT: In the below thread are many people who personally identify as omnipresent IRC Gods, so my experience must have happened in an alternate universe. My bad.
Two things can be true at once.
I have built great things. I can stand on my own. My merits are great. I do not want to be the token employee that is trotted around for Diversity Points (tm). I do not like the diversity porn that a lot of these DEI groups get off on.
That being said, I do recognize that I have benefited from these groups (at least at their most genuine). There are groups that are aimed at cultivating black people in tech. Prior to this, in the earlier internet age, you had to cut your teeth on IRC and forums. That was where technical people were in the computer tech space.
Do you know VIRULENTLY anti-black (or woman, or gay) these communities were? I can't begin to describe it. That is totally off-putting to someone who has the ability succeed but does not want to deal with the hate. There's also the fact that most (read: all) of the computing pioneers are white. I respect all of those people, but it does help to have someone to look up to. I'm positive that Satya and Sundar are great motivators for indian kids to look up to (as they should be).
These DEI initiatives aren't perfect in any way, but the goal is to give the affected groups the foundations to succeed. To put people in the affected communities out front as role models. I accept the annoyances for the sake of good and progress.
EDIT: In the below thread are many people who personally identify as omnipresent IRC Gods, so my experience must have happened in an alternate universe. My bad.
I see a different risk with DEI, and I’d sure love your perspective if you’re willing to give it. I think there’s a certain class of people (mostly young and white though the fact they are white is explainable as a statistical artifact) who feel empowered by DEI to push for changes that are meaningless and burdensome, but give them a feeling of power and virtuousness. This includes changing away from “master” as a branch name, to creating an extensive list of taboo words such as “whitelist”, “blacklist”, and “subordinate”, to chiding colleagues for saying “brown bag lunch”*.
DEI not only legitimizes, but actually encourages the above behavior. This seems problematic to me for two reasons: first, it creates a positive feedback loop for (at best) actions that make one feel self righteous without adding anything of real value, and second, it undermines the importance of critical thinking and analysis in engineering.
So, all that being said, the justification is these changes help make black people in tech feel more included, a goal I support. In your opinion, do these changes have the intended effect? Are they meaningful and useful?
* For those who don’t know, there used to be a racist practice by some fraternities, etc called a “brown bag test” where a brown bag was used to judge skin color for entry. This made brown bags racist, which in turn made brown bag lunches racist.
DEI not only legitimizes, but actually encourages the above behavior. This seems problematic to me for two reasons: first, it creates a positive feedback loop for (at best) actions that make one feel self righteous without adding anything of real value, and second, it undermines the importance of critical thinking and analysis in engineering.
So, all that being said, the justification is these changes help make black people in tech feel more included, a goal I support. In your opinion, do these changes have the intended effect? Are they meaningful and useful?
* For those who don’t know, there used to be a racist practice by some fraternities, etc called a “brown bag test” where a brown bag was used to judge skin color for entry. This made brown bags racist, which in turn made brown bag lunches racist.
> I see a different risk with DEI, and I’d sure love your perspective if you’re willing to give it. I think there’s a certain class of people (mostly young and white though the fact they are white is explainable as a statistical artifact) who feel empowered by DEI to push for changes that are meaningless and burdensome, but give them a feeling of power and virtuousness.
Yes there are plenty of people who want to sit at the top of the food chain by way of gathering a "diverse" crowd.
> DEI not only legitimizes, but actually encourages the above behavior. This seems problematic to me for two reasons: first, it creates a positive feedback loop for (at best) actions that make one feel self righteous without adding anything of real value, and second, it undermines the importance of critical thinking and analysis in engineering.
This is not a problem with DEI. Look at the landgrab that is enterprise management.
> In your opinion, do these changes have the intended effect? Are they meaningful and useful?
Your premise is off, so I can't answer this.
> * For those who don’t know, there used to be a racist practice by some fraternities, etc called a “brown bag test” where a brown bag was used to judge skin color for entry. This made brown bags racist, which in turn made brown bag lunches racist.
This isn't true. Paper bags were never racist. I don't know where you picked this from. This is a misleading description to make anti-racism seem absurd.
Yes there are plenty of people who want to sit at the top of the food chain by way of gathering a "diverse" crowd.
> DEI not only legitimizes, but actually encourages the above behavior. This seems problematic to me for two reasons: first, it creates a positive feedback loop for (at best) actions that make one feel self righteous without adding anything of real value, and second, it undermines the importance of critical thinking and analysis in engineering.
This is not a problem with DEI. Look at the landgrab that is enterprise management.
> In your opinion, do these changes have the intended effect? Are they meaningful and useful?
Your premise is off, so I can't answer this.
> * For those who don’t know, there used to be a racist practice by some fraternities, etc called a “brown bag test” where a brown bag was used to judge skin color for entry. This made brown bags racist, which in turn made brown bag lunches racist.
This isn't true. Paper bags were never racist. I don't know where you picked this from. This is a misleading description to make anti-racism seem absurd.
> Yes there are plenty of people who want to sit at the top of the food chain by way of gathering a "diverse" crowd.
Woah this suddenly made the behavior of some people who gave me the creeps but were doing "all the right things" make sense. Thanks.
On the brownbag thing, I've had someone tell me we shouldn't say "picnic" because of a racist etymology. When I showed her this etymology wasn't real, she said it didn't matter. We still shouldn't say it because it might harm someone. This doesn't make anti-racism absurd. I think there are real heroes there. But that interaction sure felt absurd.
Woah this suddenly made the behavior of some people who gave me the creeps but were doing "all the right things" make sense. Thanks.
On the brownbag thing, I've had someone tell me we shouldn't say "picnic" because of a racist etymology. When I showed her this etymology wasn't real, she said it didn't matter. We still shouldn't say it because it might harm someone. This doesn't make anti-racism absurd. I think there are real heroes there. But that interaction sure felt absurd.
Anti-racism is a specific and horrid ideological tool.
Don't be anti-racist. Just don't be racist and call it out where you see it.
Don't be anti-racist. Just don't be racist and call it out where you see it.
I think it makes it absurd indeed and even worse I think it has a overall negative impact. It completely disregard intent, a pretty extreme position to take for any form of communication. Now you are not using the definitions of racists, which opinion might be worth disregarding, you are also using fictitious ones.
You won't get through life without being hurt and learning to understand the meaning behind people using words is a skill you cannot skip to acquire. Misunderstanding happen and you need strategies to deal with them. It can but rarely results in conflict. You cannot expect everyone only using thoughts, associations and words you are content with. It is a false strategy without solution.
You won't get through life without being hurt and learning to understand the meaning behind people using words is a skill you cannot skip to acquire. Misunderstanding happen and you need strategies to deal with them. It can but rarely results in conflict. You cannot expect everyone only using thoughts, associations and words you are content with. It is a false strategy without solution.
>This isn't true. Paper bags were never racist. I don't know where you picked this from. This is a misleading description to make anti-racism seem absurd.
What do you mean by 'isn't true'? It's at least real to some extent, without regard to how widespread it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Paper_Bag_Test https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2014/febr...
It's also the case that DEI groups want people to stop using 'brown bag lunch'.
What do you mean by 'isn't true'? It's at least real to some extent, without regard to how widespread it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Paper_Bag_Test https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2014/febr...
It's also the case that DEI groups want people to stop using 'brown bag lunch'.
> What do you mean by 'isn't true'? It's at least real to some extent, without regard to how widespread it was.
The paper bag test doesn't make paper bags racist. It's a shade test.
> It's also the case that DEI groups want people to stop using 'brown bag lunch'.
I can't say that this hasn't happened. But if it has, this is one of the useless things that I take umbrage with in my original post.
The paper bag test doesn't make paper bags racist. It's a shade test.
> It's also the case that DEI groups want people to stop using 'brown bag lunch'.
I can't say that this hasn't happened. But if it has, this is one of the useless things that I take umbrage with in my original post.
Yes! Brown bags aren't racist, fraternities doing things like that were racist, at least as I see it.
I appreciate your response. I think I have been so repeatedly told that the ridiculous elements of DEI (and anti-racism) are the core of those two… movements? by their (ostensible) advocates that I now strongly associate them with silliness, though maybe it is in fact a case of Nazis and the swastika.
> I can't say that this hasn't happened. But if it has, this is one of the useless things that I take umbrage with in my original post.
I sat in a meeting where two young, white colleagues informed another colleague that the term was racist and we should come up with a different one. I tried to push back gently, but I am a white man and as such have no standing in the DEI hierarchy. So it was decided in this meeting full of white people that we would no longer use the term as it might cause offense to someone, maybe. And the two young engineers were satisfied they had made the world a slightly better place. I found it disturbing but don’t know what to do.
> I can't say that this hasn't happened. But if it has, this is one of the useless things that I take umbrage with in my original post.
I sat in a meeting where two young, white colleagues informed another colleague that the term was racist and we should come up with a different one. I tried to push back gently, but I am a white man and as such have no standing in the DEI hierarchy. So it was decided in this meeting full of white people that we would no longer use the term as it might cause offense to someone, maybe. And the two young engineers were satisfied they had made the world a slightly better place. I found it disturbing but don’t know what to do.
Well, it (brown bag lunch) made the Stanford harmful language list. I agree there is enough moronic content on that list to give the impression that the writers were playing false-flag games. But I’m prepared to believe they were sincere.
Just to add some context for that infamous Stanford list, it was a proposed internal list within the IT department about language to use for the text on official Stanford websites. As far as I'm aware that's the only place it was intended to be applied by the authors and it was never implemented. I know your intent wasn't bad but I found a lot of the media coverage massively over the top for what was essentially an overzealous suggestion to modify a website style guide.
It gives us evidence (for the above discussion) that the term “brown bag lunch” has actually been documented as harmful by someone - and wasn’t just made up as a stick to beat diversity initiatives with.
I would argue it also gives an indication of how “mission creep” works.
(A well-used term like “tarball” now being deemed potentially offensive, presumably because it sounds like “tarbaby”, even though it’s obviously just referring to a bundle of files archived with the “tar” command.)
I would argue it also gives an indication of how “mission creep” works.
(A well-used term like “tarball” now being deemed potentially offensive, presumably because it sounds like “tarbaby”, even though it’s obviously just referring to a bundle of files archived with the “tar” command.)
Anyone who thinks tarbaby when they see tarball is a racist and I refuse to let that become my problem.
"tarball (tar archive)
While the term refers to an archive that has been created with the tar command, it can be negatively associated with the pejorative term tarbaby."
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguag...
I'm genuinely fascinated by how this came to be written. Were there brainstorming sessions where people threw out random word associations to show willing, combined with a fear from the rest of the group of accusations of racism for calling it out as arrant nonsense?
While the term refers to an archive that has been created with the tar command, it can be negatively associated with the pejorative term tarbaby."
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguag...
I'm genuinely fascinated by how this came to be written. Were there brainstorming sessions where people threw out random word associations to show willing, combined with a fear from the rest of the group of accusations of racism for calling it out as arrant nonsense?
Sadly, It's not the silliest example I've heard, let me tell you that.
> I think there’s a certain class of people (mostly young and white though the fact they are white is explainable as a statistical artifact) who feel empowered by DEI to push for changes that are meaningless and burdensome, but give them a feeling of power and virtuousness.
A more compelling reason is because demonstrating "leadership" in DEI is a prerequisite to getting a promotion or getting a management job. It's baked into many job listings now and is part of the executive interview process. If you don't check the DEI box on some tangible dimension, you don't progress to the next round, especially if you are white.
A more compelling reason is because demonstrating "leadership" in DEI is a prerequisite to getting a promotion or getting a management job. It's baked into many job listings now and is part of the executive interview process. If you don't check the DEI box on some tangible dimension, you don't progress to the next round, especially if you are white.
This will only be made worse by the ESG/stakeholder capitalism.
> and second, it undermines the importance of critical thinking and analysis in engineering.
I think this is the real harm being done here. Being trained to accept irrationality and poor judgment bleeds into engineering decisions.
I think this is the real harm being done here. Being trained to accept irrationality and poor judgment bleeds into engineering decisions.
The more conspiratorial believe it is deliberate, as it seems to draw parallels with the subterfuge Yuri Besmenov described and that the CCP is perhaps silently continuing.
There is power in victimhood now. If you can prove you're a victim or prove you're submitting to a certain group you've "victimized" then you are put at the top of the order. You become part of essentially a religious cult and given certain "powers" that you can bash the "sinners" over the head with.
I think you're exactly right here, the largest proponents of this stuff tend to be white and left wing (mostly women). In a way I find them extremely racist. To me, they're acting just like OP says. They don't think certain groups are intelligent enough to bring themselves out of squalor and everyone MUST believe like they do; that skin color is an impediment. So, they need the white savior to come rescue them.
I think you're exactly right here, the largest proponents of this stuff tend to be white and left wing (mostly women). In a way I find them extremely racist. To me, they're acting just like OP says. They don't think certain groups are intelligent enough to bring themselves out of squalor and everyone MUST believe like they do; that skin color is an impediment. So, they need the white savior to come rescue them.
>There is power in victimhood now
Anyone who's been to Sunday school can tell you this isn't a new concept, and is at least two millennia old (almost certainly longer, since Judaism has an even longer shared tradition). Christians have continued riding the coattails of their martyrs and "persecution" for centuries after they became the dominant force. If anything, the modern "woke victimhood" is merely the cultural legacy of evangelical Christianity that was (and arguably still is) deeply engrained in US culture.
Anyone who's been to Sunday school can tell you this isn't a new concept, and is at least two millennia old (almost certainly longer, since Judaism has an even longer shared tradition). Christians have continued riding the coattails of their martyrs and "persecution" for centuries after they became the dominant force. If anything, the modern "woke victimhood" is merely the cultural legacy of evangelical Christianity that was (and arguably still is) deeply engrained in US culture.
Clarification please - where do you find "power in victimhood" in Judaism 2000+ years ago?
The argument is probably that Judaism was the first religion to introduce concern for the victim into its moral teachings, and therefore inevitably there would be people hijacking that to differentiate themselves, boost their status through claims to victimhood.
I do think DEI has many religious and dogmatic believes that mirror other religions. It is pretty weak on the absolution part though. That is what a church sells, DEI sells an inquisition, making it even worse in some parts.
It is a bit weird overall. It decries conservatism, but is very heavy on fundamentalism. It is far more conservative than other groups it indicts with sexism/racism. And mostly these accusation are also false.
It is a bit weird overall. It decries conservatism, but is very heavy on fundamentalism. It is far more conservative than other groups it indicts with sexism/racism. And mostly these accusation are also false.
I'm confused... are you endorsing acting this way or against it?
Kinda seems like you're justifying the current action of "woke" people by discussing past injustices? Isn't the whole idea of the "woke" DEI initiative to fix injustices in our society?
Kinda seems like you're justifying the current action of "woke" people by discussing past injustices? Isn't the whole idea of the "woke" DEI initiative to fix injustices in our society?
I think they're just saying this occurrence isn't unique and it doesn't look like they approve of it. Many of us identify with our own struggles in deep ways. If you create an opportunity for people to organize around those struggles then people will, because as was said, there is power there. That power is in representation. The problem is generally in the silo'ing of representation. This is, imo, what things like intersectionality begin to address.
We have an entire country now that was founded based on legitimate religious persecution that devolved in the ~200 years since it's founding to go on to oppress others. We can and should do better.
We have an entire country now that was founded based on legitimate religious persecution that devolved in the ~200 years since it's founding to go on to oppress others. We can and should do better.
Ok, and my point is that doing the exact same thing as those people did in the past isn't doing better. You don't fix oppression by moving that oppression to a new group.
Simply pointing out that victimhood has always existed serves no purpose at all in response to my original comment.
"This is, imo, what things like intersectionality begin to address."
How? All intersectionality does is create a competition for the most oppressed. You will never be enough of a victim. Nothing good comes of a society that focuses specifically on how oppressed they are and vies for the most oppressed group or person.
"We have an entire country now that was founded based on legitimate religious persecution"
Name a country where this hasn't happened. There are many where this is still happening and to a further extent than anything in the US.
Ironically, you're right in weird roundabout way that I do not think you fully comprehend. EVERYONE has been a victim of some sort so it's irrelevant and we shouldn't spend one iota more of our short lives trying to discern who the highest victims of our society are. What a waste and it does nothing to improve the supposed oppressed.
Simply pointing out that victimhood has always existed serves no purpose at all in response to my original comment.
"This is, imo, what things like intersectionality begin to address."
How? All intersectionality does is create a competition for the most oppressed. You will never be enough of a victim. Nothing good comes of a society that focuses specifically on how oppressed they are and vies for the most oppressed group or person.
"We have an entire country now that was founded based on legitimate religious persecution"
Name a country where this hasn't happened. There are many where this is still happening and to a further extent than anything in the US.
Ironically, you're right in weird roundabout way that I do not think you fully comprehend. EVERYONE has been a victim of some sort so it's irrelevant and we shouldn't spend one iota more of our short lives trying to discern who the highest victims of our society are. What a waste and it does nothing to improve the supposed oppressed.
Your description of intersectionality is the exact opposite of what it is. It's entire purpose is to show everyone that playing the operation Olympics is a pointless game that no one wins. It's too show that everyone's struggles don't fit into neat little boxes that define them, and show that social problems are multidimensional that don't have simple solutions, and shows that a lot of DEI initiatives are superficial, and likely won't make any real difference.
Intersectionality? The ideology famous for having a victim heirarchy so you have an ideological rating of how much of a victim someone is?
Could you link me to the source that describes intersectionality in a way even remotely approximating that? Or where this "victim hierarchy" is detailed? I'd love to calculate my victim score™.
AOC isnt exactly a shining light of intersectionalism. In fact, she kind of prides herself in tribalism. Consider this tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/aoc/status/1103163478024601601 Rather than trying to share ground with others she's being reminded that she regularly drowns out other people's voices. She went on to do exactly that after this.
If your point is that not all leftists are intersectionalists and not all people who use intersectionalist words actually have the values, then I'd respond with, "duh".
Intersectionality isn't about telling one person's story or exemplifying one person's pain. It's about showing that these things are interconnected and effect people differently, and ways in which you probably wouldn't expect. It does the absolute opposite of a hierarchy.
If your point is that not all leftists are intersectionalists and not all people who use intersectionalist words actually have the values, then I'd respond with, "duh".
Intersectionality isn't about telling one person's story or exemplifying one person's pain. It's about showing that these things are interconnected and effect people differently, and ways in which you probably wouldn't expect. It does the absolute opposite of a hierarchy.
What’s missing here is a notion of intersectionality, which explicitly is about how people are not just a singular identity, but an “intersection” of many - some of which may confer privilege, some of which may be discriminated against.
Ignoring this body of work makes the linked article a straw man argument with some cherry picked examples that don’t even make a point (why am I supposed to care that AOC tweets about some people at the exclusion of others?)
Ignoring this body of work makes the linked article a straw man argument with some cherry picked examples that don’t even make a point (why am I supposed to care that AOC tweets about some people at the exclusion of others?)
ctrl+f "intersect"
> 0 results
So to answer my question, no you can't provide a source.
Even if it hadn't been the case that the article you linked failed to mention the topic actually under discussion even a single time, a random right wing ("brexiter") blogger is not a "source" for corroborating claims that intersectional egalitarians have a clear "victim heirarchy".
(And to be explicit, identity politics and intersectionality aren't the same thing, despite the right's habit of using them as meaningless scare words)
> 0 results
So to answer my question, no you can't provide a source.
Even if it hadn't been the case that the article you linked failed to mention the topic actually under discussion even a single time, a random right wing ("brexiter") blogger is not a "source" for corroborating claims that intersectional egalitarians have a clear "victim heirarchy".
(And to be explicit, identity politics and intersectionality aren't the same thing, despite the right's habit of using them as meaningless scare words)
"everyone that playing the operation Olympics is a pointless game that no one wins"
Except reality has proven you wrong. We've never lived in a time where people are more well fed, have more personal belongings, longer life spans etc.
It is in fact, objectively, not a pointless game.
Except reality has proven you wrong. We've never lived in a time where people are more well fed, have more personal belongings, longer life spans etc.
It is in fact, objectively, not a pointless game.
"operation Olympics" is pretty clearly an autocorrect typo of "oppression Olympics", which makes this response kind of a non-sequitor.
[deleted]
rayiner(1)
Anyone who has worked in government in a high crime city is aware of this. So many nonprofits bank off crime and destruction of the black community by “studying”, “studying some more”, “evaluating the study”, “working with stakeholders”, “drafting a strategic plan” etc. it’s actually an easy way for white people that have mediocre prospects to advance. It’s a low rigor environment where buzzwords mean a lot and underachievers can profit off of black people
DEI is Latin for God. Is that a mistake? Surely it is.
I've heard this called the racism of low expectations. It's disgusting.
I've heard this called the racism of low expectations. It's disgusting.
> * For those who don’t know, there used to be a racist practice by some fraternities, etc called a “brown bag test” where a brown bag was used to judge skin color for entry. This made brown bags racist, which in turn made brown bag lunches racist.
I think that's a inaccurate and misleading description. I think the correct term is "colorism" not "racism," and it sounds like those distinctions were more significant within the black community than outside of it. I don't think a stereotypical anti-black racist would accept a black person into a social club if his skin was as light as a paper bag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Paper_Bag_Test:
> "The Brown Paper Bag Test" is a term in African-American oral history used to describe a colorist discriminatory practice within the African-American community in the 20th century, in which an individual's skin tone is compared to the color of a brown paper bag....
> The Brown Paper Bag Test was heavily documented and normalized with historically black fraternities and sororities (especially among sororities) and historically black social clubs founded before 1960, whose members selected others who resembled themselves, generally those reflecting partial European ancestry.[8][9] Some privileged multi-racial people of color who came from families freed before the American Civil War attempted to distinguish themselves from the mass of freedmen after the war, who appeared to be mostly of African descent and from less privileged families.
I think that's a inaccurate and misleading description. I think the correct term is "colorism" not "racism," and it sounds like those distinctions were more significant within the black community than outside of it. I don't think a stereotypical anti-black racist would accept a black person into a social club if his skin was as light as a paper bag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Paper_Bag_Test:
> "The Brown Paper Bag Test" is a term in African-American oral history used to describe a colorist discriminatory practice within the African-American community in the 20th century, in which an individual's skin tone is compared to the color of a brown paper bag....
> The Brown Paper Bag Test was heavily documented and normalized with historically black fraternities and sororities (especially among sororities) and historically black social clubs founded before 1960, whose members selected others who resembled themselves, generally those reflecting partial European ancestry.[8][9] Some privileged multi-racial people of color who came from families freed before the American Civil War attempted to distinguish themselves from the mass of freedmen after the war, who appeared to be mostly of African descent and from less privileged families.
colorism is just racism.
I think that in the DEI ideology, racism is not the sane, traditional definition, but rather that postmodern power + prejudice equation that is used to prop up the idea that only whites can be racist.
So in order to keep their ideology consistent in the face of clear and present racism throughout the non white communities as well, they had to invent the term "colorism".
So yes colorism is just racism.
So in order to keep their ideology consistent in the face of clear and present racism throughout the non white communities as well, they had to invent the term "colorism".
So yes colorism is just racism.
It's an embarrassment to HN that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34683200 got flagged to death. IIRC, the author of that comment is from Bangladesh and is a position to actually know something about colorism.
I vouched for it as I'm from India and see it a similar way.
Colorism isn’t racism because racism isn’t about color. Color is merely an imperfect proxy for distinguishing different groups of people. (Many white people, especially Greeks or Italians, are darker than many East Asians, but that doesn’t change the racial categories.)
In some communities, colorism is a byproduct of racial categorization based on color. But in many places it’s just an aesthetic preference. Colorism in Asia and Africa long predates colonialism or contact with white people. An important thing to note is that in these societies, colorism doesn’t imply that white people are seen as the most beautiful. A person can be too light, just as they can be too tall or too skinny.
In some communities, colorism is a byproduct of racial categorization based on color. But in many places it’s just an aesthetic preference. Colorism in Asia and Africa long predates colonialism or contact with white people. An important thing to note is that in these societies, colorism doesn’t imply that white people are seen as the most beautiful. A person can be too light, just as they can be too tall or too skinny.
[deleted]
the brown bag thing was colorism, which while technically a subset of racism is not useful to investigate in the context of popular anti-racism as it pertains to DEI in the west, which would be better labeled as anti-white-supremacism
[deleted]
> I'm positive that Satya and Sundar are great motivators for indian kids to look up to (as they should be).
I'm doubtful about that. At least among my cohort (first generation south asian immigrants to the east coast) there's not a strong sense of racial identity. There's strong identity in the sense of ties to religion, home countries, culture, and traditions, but not group identification or a feeling of collective destiny. I recently told my dad about being at a professional event where there were three south asians "at the table" so to speak. He was like "huh, that's interesting." He had a stronger positive reaction when I mentioned that Chris Sununu (governor of New Hampshire) went to the same high school as my brother and me. I have to think it's similar to Jewish Americans--they're not looking up to Mark Zuckerberg because he's Jewish.
I also disagree that Indian kids "should" look up to Pichai or Nadella because of their ethnicity. Insofar as there is an "us"--a definable group with distinct interests--"representation" will never advance those interests. Pichai or Nadella will run their companies how white shareholders want them to, exactly the same way as a white CEO would. They wouldn't have been selected if that wasn't the case. The "representation" doesn't advance the agenda of the group in any meaningful way.
To the contrary, "representation" is used by white people to obtain the support of minority groups without giving them anything. I see white people pressuring my daughter to look up to Kamala Harris (because Harris "looks like her"). This is just manipulation. Harris will not meaningfully advance the distinct interests of south asian people, nor is she a good model of south asian culture or values.
As to your main point--for sure people on the internet have better manners today. Is that creditable to DEI initiatives? Can we have online spaces and workplaces where nobody is made to feel excluded because of their immutable characteristics without forcing people to write diversity statements or having Robin Di Angelo types come in to lecture white people about their inherent racism?
I'm doubtful about that. At least among my cohort (first generation south asian immigrants to the east coast) there's not a strong sense of racial identity. There's strong identity in the sense of ties to religion, home countries, culture, and traditions, but not group identification or a feeling of collective destiny. I recently told my dad about being at a professional event where there were three south asians "at the table" so to speak. He was like "huh, that's interesting." He had a stronger positive reaction when I mentioned that Chris Sununu (governor of New Hampshire) went to the same high school as my brother and me. I have to think it's similar to Jewish Americans--they're not looking up to Mark Zuckerberg because he's Jewish.
I also disagree that Indian kids "should" look up to Pichai or Nadella because of their ethnicity. Insofar as there is an "us"--a definable group with distinct interests--"representation" will never advance those interests. Pichai or Nadella will run their companies how white shareholders want them to, exactly the same way as a white CEO would. They wouldn't have been selected if that wasn't the case. The "representation" doesn't advance the agenda of the group in any meaningful way.
To the contrary, "representation" is used by white people to obtain the support of minority groups without giving them anything. I see white people pressuring my daughter to look up to Kamala Harris (because Harris "looks like her"). This is just manipulation. Harris will not meaningfully advance the distinct interests of south asian people, nor is she a good model of south asian culture or values.
As to your main point--for sure people on the internet have better manners today. Is that creditable to DEI initiatives? Can we have online spaces and workplaces where nobody is made to feel excluded because of their immutable characteristics without forcing people to write diversity statements or having Robin Di Angelo types come in to lecture white people about their inherent racism?
I was hoping to find a reply like this; glad someone could articulate it better than I could.
Overall, I believe that culturally-same role models is a stand-in for lazy parenting. Children whose parents constantly push their kids to be better, push harder will look towards successful people of any cultural background. Compare that with children with apathetic parents, who I surmise will only have the imagination to self-associate with those who "look" like them.
Overall, I believe that culturally-same role models is a stand-in for lazy parenting. Children whose parents constantly push their kids to be better, push harder will look towards successful people of any cultural background. Compare that with children with apathetic parents, who I surmise will only have the imagination to self-associate with those who "look" like them.
It also robs even involved minority parents and communities of power. If you persuade minority kids to look to “representation” for ethnic role models, then the white people who select those representatives gain tremendous power in defining ethnic identity. Call me crazy, but I want my kids to learn what it means to be Bangladeshi from me and my parents and my extended family, not from teachers or role models selected by white people for that purpose.
It also reduces identity to something that’s offensively shallow. White people think Kamala Harris is a role model for south Asian girls because she has the experience of walking around with dark skin in America. But white people’s reaction is extremely low on the list of things that define south Asian identity.
It also reduces identity to something that’s offensively shallow. White people think Kamala Harris is a role model for south Asian girls because she has the experience of walking around with dark skin in America. But white people’s reaction is extremely low on the list of things that define south Asian identity.
> To the contrary, "representation" is used by white people to obtain the support of minority groups without giving them anything. I see white people pressuring my daughter to look up to Kamala Harris (because Harris "looks like her"). This is just manipulation. Harris will not meaningfully advance the distinct interests of south asian people, nor is she a good model of south asian culture or values.
It's also not hard to receive this behavior as completely fucking racist. Do whites presuppose that just because we have the same skin color, ethnic background, or similar physical features, that we will be aligned on political or philosophical points?
How has it become acceptable to participate in such blatantly racist behavior, while still somehow being able to publicly label one's self as "liberal" or "anti-racist?"
I think it's time we conduct an audit of all self-identifying liberals or DEI advocates to determine which ones are actually free from unconscious bias and implicit associations, and which have merely co-opted the movement to weaponize minorities as part of a political power struggle.
It's also not hard to receive this behavior as completely fucking racist. Do whites presuppose that just because we have the same skin color, ethnic background, or similar physical features, that we will be aligned on political or philosophical points?
How has it become acceptable to participate in such blatantly racist behavior, while still somehow being able to publicly label one's self as "liberal" or "anti-racist?"
I think it's time we conduct an audit of all self-identifying liberals or DEI advocates to determine which ones are actually free from unconscious bias and implicit associations, and which have merely co-opted the movement to weaponize minorities as part of a political power struggle.
> It's also not hard to receive this behavior as completely fucking racist. Do whites presuppose that just because we have the same skin color, ethnic background, or similar physical features, that we will be aligned on political or philosophical points?
Yes. There are many white people who align on skin color. That's how the US Antebellum South, SA Apartheid and WW2 persecution of Jews worked.
Yes. There are many white people who align on skin color. That's how the US Antebellum South, SA Apartheid and WW2 persecution of Jews worked.
Look how far afield those examples had to be drawn from!
It is "anti-racist" because "anti-racist" does not mean against racism. It is a specific ideological term within DEI.
[deleted]
Not sure about where you live but where I am, people (especially direct family) were very proud that Pichai and Nadella were CEOs of famous companies, they pushed us to want to be more like them. I don't see why they wouldn't serve minority interests therefore. As to your white shareholders comment, I am not sure why white shareholders would be any different from other shareholders in that they want to all make money. Go to an Indian company's board and you'll see that they act exactly the same way.
So in other words, without DEI, white people are evil and with DEI, white people are evil. Are you sure "white people" are actually in control?
Yes, by white people who use DEI for power.
so no non-white person has ever profited from DEI? It's all just white people's fault?
Good point.
(Black man here as well)
This is a great way to put it. I mean, I'm a bit older and over time I've been used to actually being that token, because for a lot of places I've been it was me and no one else. So, I didn't much mind the role as something of a pioneer.
So I'd say, anyone who doesn't like it, e.g. DEI, definitely understand the history, please -- and moreover, the difficulty of externally changing culture. It's ultra-clumsy, but at least for a time it was both inevitable and necessary.
I very much don't personally enjoy is at as well -- but I don't think that means it's without value. I suppose I see even the bad parts as a "bug, not a feature," because we're talking about it.
This is a great way to put it. I mean, I'm a bit older and over time I've been used to actually being that token, because for a lot of places I've been it was me and no one else. So, I didn't much mind the role as something of a pioneer.
So I'd say, anyone who doesn't like it, e.g. DEI, definitely understand the history, please -- and moreover, the difficulty of externally changing culture. It's ultra-clumsy, but at least for a time it was both inevitable and necessary.
I very much don't personally enjoy is at as well -- but I don't think that means it's without value. I suppose I see even the bad parts as a "bug, not a feature," because we're talking about it.
> There's also the fact that most (read: all) of the computing pioneers are white
Not refuting this take as it's accurate, but if you're looking for someone that's Black in early computing I'd recommend free software pioneer Brian Fox (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Fox_(computer_programm...) best known for inventing Bash.
Kelsey Hightower is also notable as the man that pioneered the use of Kubernetes at many businesses through his book.
Marian Croak is the pioneer of VOIP and now heads SRE among other things at Google.
Mark Dean pioneered ISA which is still the leading standard today in industrial applications.
(Non-exhaustive list, but these are the programmers that are Black that I know of off the top of my head)
I'll caveat this with my own take: all these folks worked in what is in the industry referred to as Systems Engineering, which is very much still a "working man's" profession when compared to traditional software engineering and prior to things like SRE paid accordingly less. It's also how a lot of vets, POC, and people without degrees enter the industry.
Not refuting this take as it's accurate, but if you're looking for someone that's Black in early computing I'd recommend free software pioneer Brian Fox (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Fox_(computer_programm...) best known for inventing Bash.
Kelsey Hightower is also notable as the man that pioneered the use of Kubernetes at many businesses through his book.
Marian Croak is the pioneer of VOIP and now heads SRE among other things at Google.
Mark Dean pioneered ISA which is still the leading standard today in industrial applications.
(Non-exhaustive list, but these are the programmers that are Black that I know of off the top of my head)
I'll caveat this with my own take: all these folks worked in what is in the industry referred to as Systems Engineering, which is very much still a "working man's" profession when compared to traditional software engineering and prior to things like SRE paid accordingly less. It's also how a lot of vets, POC, and people without degrees enter the industry.
Growing up on IRC, I have very much the same experience as you but quite opposite as I experienced hardly any racism, and nobody knew my identity either.
Nobody wanted to involve their personal lives or details until recently when identity and identifying became the thing.
Nobody wanted to involve their personal lives or details until recently when identity and identifying became the thing.
I'm much much younger than John23832, but I definitely recognized a lot of the same in some of the gaming communities I was a part of in the mid to late 2010s. There wasn't quite as much racism (at least in the places I hung out), but there was plenty of sexism and homophobia. It wouldn't necessarily be explicit, but there were lots of offhand comments and jokes. That's how racism (and sexism, homophobia, ...) tends to present itself; it's a lot more subtle than people straight up going "I hate ${group}".
However, I will say that I first got properly exposed to tech/computing by doing FIRST robotics in high school (2017), and those competitions were very diverse. Everyone I met through FIRST (students and mentors) was very accepting of everyone, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, etc. My college experience (classes, competition team, internships, etc) has thankfully been more of the same.
However, I will say that I first got properly exposed to tech/computing by doing FIRST robotics in high school (2017), and those competitions were very diverse. Everyone I met through FIRST (students and mentors) was very accepting of everyone, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, etc. My college experience (classes, competition team, internships, etc) has thankfully been more of the same.
> It wouldn't necessarily be explicit, but there were lots of offhand comments and jokes. That's how racism (and sexism, homophobia, ...) tends to present itself; it's a lot more subtle than people straight up going "I hate ${group}".
Don't conflate those jokes and offhand comments with hate. You're erasing all sorts of meaningful differences between basically harmless husbands joking about their wives or differences between men and women, and Andrew Tate.
It's also a poor tactic to effect change. If you immediately group basically harmless in-group type behaviours like these with actual devastating harm, you make yourself and your objections look silly causing people to dismiss you, and it's far harder to change behaviour after calling someone a hateful bigot, than it is to ask they tone it down because a joke made someone a little uncomfortable. I think you can easily imagine the difference in defensiveness each response might elicit.
Don't conflate those jokes and offhand comments with hate. You're erasing all sorts of meaningful differences between basically harmless husbands joking about their wives or differences between men and women, and Andrew Tate.
It's also a poor tactic to effect change. If you immediately group basically harmless in-group type behaviours like these with actual devastating harm, you make yourself and your objections look silly causing people to dismiss you, and it's far harder to change behaviour after calling someone a hateful bigot, than it is to ask they tone it down because a joke made someone a little uncomfortable. I think you can easily imagine the difference in defensiveness each response might elicit.
Similarly, don't assume that all racism is expressed as hate. You're erasing all sorts of meaningful difficulties experienced by minorities if you assume that only overtly hateful comments can be disparaging.
> Similarly, don't assume that all racism is expressed as hate.
Who really claims that though? Saying "black people are always late" is racist because it's a racial prejudice, but that's not an expression of hatred towards black people. I think everyone gets that.
I also agree non-hateful comments can be insulting. So we're in agreement: erasing nuance is dumb. My point is that this nuance dictates that we shouldn't group these distinct behaviours all together and respond to them the same way.
Who really claims that though? Saying "black people are always late" is racist because it's a racial prejudice, but that's not an expression of hatred towards black people. I think everyone gets that.
I also agree non-hateful comments can be insulting. So we're in agreement: erasing nuance is dumb. My point is that this nuance dictates that we shouldn't group these distinct behaviours all together and respond to them the same way.
Sure, some racism is expressed as DEI initiatives.
> If you immediately group basically harmless in-group type behaviours like these with actual devastating harm, you make yourself and your objections look silly causing people to dismiss you, and it's far harder to change behaviour after calling someone a hateful bigot, than it is to ask they tone it down because a joke made someone a little uncomfortable.
Sure, some of those things can be harmless. I agree that when calling out bad behavior you shouldn't necessarily go all the way to 100 (ofc depending on severity). The main way to gauge malice is people's reactions to a reasonable request to tone it down. Apologizing and not repeating it? Cool, that's how basically any friend group figures out where the line is drawn. Doubling down and basically saying "grow a pair"? Not ok.
There's also a difference between something like "hah, guess they were on IST" vs "typical street shitter" (using my own ethnicity as an example).
Sure, some of those things can be harmless. I agree that when calling out bad behavior you shouldn't necessarily go all the way to 100 (ofc depending on severity). The main way to gauge malice is people's reactions to a reasonable request to tone it down. Apologizing and not repeating it? Cool, that's how basically any friend group figures out where the line is drawn. Doubling down and basically saying "grow a pair"? Not ok.
There's also a difference between something like "hah, guess they were on IST" vs "typical street shitter" (using my own ethnicity as an example).
The problem is that if you don't personally know the views of the people involved, racist jokes are often indistinguishable from hate.
Outside of a context where the humor is understood by all like a stand-up comedy act, you aren't entitled to how other people perceive your behavior.
If you walk like a racist and talk like a racist, people are just gonna assume you're a racist.
If that's a problem for you, there's a really fucking simple solution.
Outside of a context where the humor is understood by all like a stand-up comedy act, you aren't entitled to how other people perceive your behavior.
If you walk like a racist and talk like a racist, people are just gonna assume you're a racist.
If that's a problem for you, there's a really fucking simple solution.
The point is you don't know how this person walks or talks, you only see a fragment of a conversation typically taken out of context. I hope you see the problem here, to say nothing of the problem with assuming someone is intrinsically evil unless they toe your specific line.
Furthermore I'm entitled to argue for what I think are good practices for communicating online, just like everyone else.
Furthermore I'm entitled to argue for what I think are good practices for communicating online, just like everyone else.
words are actions in a forum where you cant see anything about a person but their words
If people making jokes is a problem for you, there is a really fucking simple solution: don't get offended. You aren't entitled to people going out of their way to accomodate you. If you don't know if someone is doing something out of hate, assume they are not.
[deleted]
Angsty teens trying to push the boundaries of what is socially acceptable are unfortunately heavily overrepresented in Internet culture, from what I've found.
A bit of pushback and people are usually super apologetic. Usually they're just aping someone else who said something counter-culture because they thought it sounded badass, and don't really believe it.
A bit of pushback and people are usually super apologetic. Usually they're just aping someone else who said something counter-culture because they thought it sounded badass, and don't really believe it.
I feel that with gaming communities the main problem is simply having too many teenagers without supervision. It's pretty much like school really, immature people picking on others because of their own insecurity / problems. Eventually most people even in very toxic communities grow up and stop hating people for no logical reason, at least the smart ones.
It was exactly this; I was one of those teenagers for a little bit
It's not about telling people your ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, it's about WHAT IS SAID about your ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
The beauty of the internet is anonymity (to a certain extent), but that doesn't mean that you can't see or hear things that exclude you.
The beauty of the internet is anonymity (to a certain extent), but that doesn't mean that you can't see or hear things that exclude you.
Exactly. The old saying was "The beauty of the Internet is nobody knows if you're a dog."
... except they didn't mean dog, and we never said why it might matter what you are or what other people were assuming you were absent further information.
... except they didn't mean dog, and we never said why it might matter what you are or what other people were assuming you were absent further information.
>> except they didn't mean dog
The quote is from a 1993 New Yorker cartoon which literally has two dogs talking.
See the original image:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog....
'Dog' could be a placeholder, but the cartoon showed dogs.
The quote is from a 1993 New Yorker cartoon which literally has two dogs talking.
See the original image:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog....
'Dog' could be a placeholder, but the cartoon showed dogs.
Dog was used a a euphemism for undesirable. In the more specific case of the image, black. Look at the color of the dogs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
Maybe. Maybe not.
It was newsprint, so the color is not clear.
Maybe the dog was brown:
https://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1862.gif
Not that it matters much.
I agree with the quote from the Wikipedia article:
Sociologist Sherry Turkle elaborates: "You can be whoever you want to be. You can completely redefine yourself if you want. You don't have to worry about the slots other people put you in as much. They don't look at your body and make assumptions. They don't hear your accent and make assumptions. All they see are your words."
It was newsprint, so the color is not clear.
Maybe the dog was brown:
https://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1862.gif
Not that it matters much.
I agree with the quote from the Wikipedia article:
Sociologist Sherry Turkle elaborates: "You can be whoever you want to be. You can completely redefine yourself if you want. You don't have to worry about the slots other people put you in as much. They don't look at your body and make assumptions. They don't hear your accent and make assumptions. All they see are your words."
> All they see are your words.
Correct. And the mistake we made was assuming that that implied they weren't making assumptions.
Correct. And the mistake we made was assuming that that implied they weren't making assumptions.
> It was newsprint
Not in the New Yorker it wasn't.
Not in the New Yorker it wasn't.
> The beauty of the Internet is nobody knows if you're a dog
That comic meant a lot to me. When I was growing up, I found that most adults would treat me with condescension. On the internet, I could engage in conversation as an equal. Anonymity didn't change the prejudices that people held, but it did change my experience.
That comic meant a lot to me. When I was growing up, I found that most adults would treat me with condescension. On the internet, I could engage in conversation as an equal. Anonymity didn't change the prejudices that people held, but it did change my experience.
I agree, and I had a similar formative experience. There's a great quote about being alive during the era of the moon landing that also resonates with me on this topic: "It was as if all of us, all over the world, had been given permission to dream big dreams."
I think it was a strict step forward over the previous status quo but (not unlike the changes to American culture after military necessity broke racial segregation barriers in the military during World War II) it's not the final step.
I think it was a strict step forward over the previous status quo but (not unlike the changes to American culture after military necessity broke racial segregation barriers in the military during World War II) it's not the final step.
Of course they meant dog. Which is a placeholder for _anything else_.
> they meant dog
> which is a placeholder for
... exactly. It's a placeholder; not literal.
It's a placeholder because if the New Yorker had run a comic that said "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a black man," that wouldn't have been funny at all.
> which is a placeholder for
... exactly. It's a placeholder; not literal.
It's a placeholder because if the New Yorker had run a comic that said "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a black man," that wouldn't have been funny at all.
Definitely no hints to that in the cartoon at all. None... none at all... >.> <.< >.>
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog....
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog....
No, we literally meant dog. It was a joke.
Why might it matter? Because the rest of the world was a lot more racist and sexist, but IRC wasn’t.
Why might it matter? Because the rest of the world was a lot more racist and sexist, but IRC wasn’t.
> but IRC wasn’t
No, sorry, I was there. That's the key thing people need to remember about the Old Internet.
Some of IRC was extremely racist and sexist. Almost all of the rest was "regular" racist and sexist. It was pretty closely related to 4chan culture (under-moderated by outside forces that had little power to force any particular standards upon the moderators). The magic of the medium was that since everything was text, nobody knew you were the butt of the joke and you could pretend you weren't.
But go mask-off and admit you were a woman or a minority, and oh boy. Good luck with that. Good thing it's easy to change your handle, right?
There's a reason anonymity as a virtue grew in that space: it protected people from those who hadn't left their IRL baggage behind by letting people pretend to be the "default" (which was almost always white men).
We made a mistake believing the online space wasn't the real world. It was. It was just the real world where you could pretend to be something else. That was good at the time; it let more people participate by donning masks. But we should aim for better.
No, sorry, I was there. That's the key thing people need to remember about the Old Internet.
Some of IRC was extremely racist and sexist. Almost all of the rest was "regular" racist and sexist. It was pretty closely related to 4chan culture (under-moderated by outside forces that had little power to force any particular standards upon the moderators). The magic of the medium was that since everything was text, nobody knew you were the butt of the joke and you could pretend you weren't.
But go mask-off and admit you were a woman or a minority, and oh boy. Good luck with that. Good thing it's easy to change your handle, right?
There's a reason anonymity as a virtue grew in that space: it protected people from those who hadn't left their IRL baggage behind by letting people pretend to be the "default" (which was almost always white men).
We made a mistake believing the online space wasn't the real world. It was. It was just the real world where you could pretend to be something else. That was good at the time; it let more people participate by donning masks. But we should aim for better.
IRC isn’t a place, it’s a platform for speech for lots of diverse groups, some of which were/are racist. Saying IRC was/is racist is like saying the internet is racist.
Yes. It's a generalization.
... but it's also a true generalization, in the sense that if you throw a dart at a random IRC channel across all networks, you'll proabably hit one where the level of tolerated racism and sexism is at least "American standard."
> Saying IRC was/is racist is like saying the internet is racist
I completely agree.
... but it's also a true generalization, in the sense that if you throw a dart at a random IRC channel across all networks, you'll proabably hit one where the level of tolerated racism and sexism is at least "American standard."
> Saying IRC was/is racist is like saying the internet is racist
I completely agree.
Saying we should aim for better sounds nice, but I fear that bias and prejudice based on things that shouldn't matter is an incurable part of human nature, and anonymity, and using text for everything, would be our best defense. I say "would be" because I doubt that I can convince a large enough percentage of people, including my own cofounder, to use anonymized text chat for important things like interviews and work conversations. Especially the "text chat" part since, at least for now, talking is still much faster and smoother for most of us than accurate text input. But I can dream.
The joke is even funnier if you're a furry, and the entire point of your online persona is people knowing you're a dog. (Even if your fursona actually is, say, a cat. The joke is enhanced.)
No, no. You need other people to tell you what you meant. It's how things work now. Don't you dare think otherwise!
And now we're doing this whole "guilty of X by technology choice".
/s
Where and when does this this neurosis stop?
And now we're doing this whole "guilty of X by technology choice".
/s
Where and when does this this neurosis stop?
We focused on technical discussions on technical channels.
I’m sorry if you had a bad time on IRC, but as someone who cut their teeth on IRC in the early 90s, and got their career started through contacts made on IRC, what you describe couldn’t be further from the kind of technical communities I participated in.
I’m sorry if you had a bad time on IRC, but as someone who cut their teeth on IRC in the early 90s, and got their career started through contacts made on IRC, what you describe couldn’t be further from the kind of technical communities I participated in.
Great, that's your experience. But I was sharing mine, and those of the other minorities I know very well.
How do you know the experience of other categories of people very well?
I don't. I only know my experience and the experience of other minorities, that I personally know well, who have convey their experiences to me.
> EDIT: In the below thread are many people who personally identify as omnipresent IRC Gods, so my experience must have happened in an alternate universe. My bad.
There can only be one omnipresent IRC God, and you're talking to them. You can wipe your ass with your experience for all they care.
My lord, the lack of self awareness...
There can only be one omnipresent IRC God, and you're talking to them. You can wipe your ass with your experience for all they care.
My lord, the lack of self awareness...
My experience was a lot of petty interpersonal drama instead of technical discussions, but very little about race.
[deleted]
I was only active on IRC in later years (early 2000's onwards) and there was definitely a lot of casual homophobia. Using 'gay' as a synonym for bad was extremely common, I picked it up as well. Calling someone a fag was done all the time as well, not even always as an insult.
I don't think the majority of people using the words were actually homophobic (I wasn't), just copying other people to "fit in" without even thinking of the possibility it was harming someone. I think it was early 2004-05 that someone private messaged me explaining that it sucks when people use the word that way and I stopped.
I don't recall much racism against black people, but I can totally see the N word being used casually in the same way in some other servers/channels.
I don't think the majority of people using the words were actually homophobic (I wasn't), just copying other people to "fit in" without even thinking of the possibility it was harming someone. I think it was early 2004-05 that someone private messaged me explaining that it sucks when people use the word that way and I stopped.
I don't recall much racism against black people, but I can totally see the N word being used casually in the same way in some other servers/channels.
I don't remember anyone trying to doxx anyone's race on freenode. Perhaps they're talking about USENET/IRC at large as opposed to the tech community which I believe were mostly on freenode (now libera).
Otherwise I can only assume that chats within all-chat appeared to be racist in nature but again, that's not something I've seen (especially unchallenged) in any of the freenode channels I frequented.
Otherwise I can only assume that chats within all-chat appeared to be racist in nature but again, that's not something I've seen (especially unchallenged) in any of the freenode channels I frequented.
I feel like this might be a bit generational. Not freenode, maybe, but EFnet the decade before? Definitely lots of casual -isms.
The key thing is there needs to be a falsifiable condition whereby we agree these programs have achieved their primary goal, and that the risk of scope creep, corruption, or other externalities like the ones the OP mentions has exceeded the potential further benefits, so they should be wound down. I'm not going to state my opinion here, but if such a condition is not identified in any way, we should assume these groups will do what it takes to perpetuate themselves far past their point of utility, like any bureaucracy that doesn't have a way to prove directly how they're contributing to the bottom line.
The falsifiable condition is that the underlying social attitudes driving the racism/sexism/etc have dissolved.
Problem is, this is a social process that takes centuries to complete. You are never going to hit a point in a single institution where you can say "We fixed our diversity problem, let's go home", because it can just come back as you hire more people and older hires leave.
Furthermore, society is frustratingly prone to generating new discriminatory attitudes. America is pretty conscious of a handful of very specific racial minorities, and we have a vague idea of what sexism looks like, but we have little knowledge of things like caste discrimination[0], colorism[1], classism and so on.
To fully explain why this is a problem, try re-reading your original comment, but pretend it's talking about the police instead of DEI initiatives. What's our falsifiable condition where we say "ok, all the crimes are solved, let's abolish the police?"
[0] Discrimination based on the occupation of your ancestors, typically driven by religious beliefs. India is the poster child for this though Japan had a form of it too.
[1] Skin-color discrimination within a specific race. We don't see this in the US or Canada all that often because the mix of European ancestry that we brought over and called "White" is universally one skin color. Latin America has this in droves.
Problem is, this is a social process that takes centuries to complete. You are never going to hit a point in a single institution where you can say "We fixed our diversity problem, let's go home", because it can just come back as you hire more people and older hires leave.
Furthermore, society is frustratingly prone to generating new discriminatory attitudes. America is pretty conscious of a handful of very specific racial minorities, and we have a vague idea of what sexism looks like, but we have little knowledge of things like caste discrimination[0], colorism[1], classism and so on.
To fully explain why this is a problem, try re-reading your original comment, but pretend it's talking about the police instead of DEI initiatives. What's our falsifiable condition where we say "ok, all the crimes are solved, let's abolish the police?"
[0] Discrimination based on the occupation of your ancestors, typically driven by religious beliefs. India is the poster child for this though Japan had a form of it too.
[1] Skin-color discrimination within a specific race. We don't see this in the US or Canada all that often because the mix of European ancestry that we brought over and called "White" is universally one skin color. Latin America has this in droves.
What you have pointed out is the exact opposite of a falsifiable condition. If we can’t disprove the possibility of a regression back to the past, then this is not meeting the test, and we should expect the results I mentioned.
You actually could and should abolish the police in certain kinds of terminal states where crime was eradicated - the eradication may be due to a genuine shift in the way people behave (due to some other underlying reason.) One falsifiable condition would be “surveys show a fundamental shift in sentiment by the public towards the motives that have historically led to crime.” If you’re going to condition the abolishment of the police on a scenario where we need to also prove that this won’t regress, then in a scenario where the underlying motive of crime is systematically gone, the police will exist and seek out ways to regenerate it to ensure they have a purpose, among other toxic phenomena.
You actually could and should abolish the police in certain kinds of terminal states where crime was eradicated - the eradication may be due to a genuine shift in the way people behave (due to some other underlying reason.) One falsifiable condition would be “surveys show a fundamental shift in sentiment by the public towards the motives that have historically led to crime.” If you’re going to condition the abolishment of the police on a scenario where we need to also prove that this won’t regress, then in a scenario where the underlying motive of crime is systematically gone, the police will exist and seek out ways to regenerate it to ensure they have a purpose, among other toxic phenomena.
> the eradication may be due to a genuine shift in the way people behave (due to some other underlying reason.)
For a generation or two, sure, but eventually it will come back unless the cultural training continues. I mean, there's a reason for historic cultural universals such as racism, dueling between men, and talking down to lessers.
I think the best case scenario is that DEI eventually gets rolled up into regular HR.
For a generation or two, sure, but eventually it will come back unless the cultural training continues. I mean, there's a reason for historic cultural universals such as racism, dueling between men, and talking down to lessers.
I think the best case scenario is that DEI eventually gets rolled up into regular HR.
Tribalism is pretty innate but the tribes change. I’d argue if DEI programs had an analog during the reformation era we would be more likely to see Protestant vs Catholic discrimination persist as those programs inflamed it for their own self preservation.
Why do you assume any particular DEI goalpost will persist for years or decades or centuries? It's not as if generalized racism has persisted against the same categories since the late 1500s.
And why do you assume the generalized tribalism will persist based on particular initiatives? The old initiatives used to be hire from the gentry. Attitudes amongst the many do change. It doesn't matter if some vocal minorities keep the same attitudes going.
DEI initiatives and targets are measured periodically: https://hbr.org/2021/02/research-how-companies-committed-to-...
And why do you assume the generalized tribalism will persist based on particular initiatives? The old initiatives used to be hire from the gentry. Attitudes amongst the many do change. It doesn't matter if some vocal minorities keep the same attitudes going.
DEI initiatives and targets are measured periodically: https://hbr.org/2021/02/research-how-companies-committed-to-...
The entire question of this thread is the mechanism by which DEI can unwind a given goalpost. (And if/when the last goalpost evaporates, so would DEI.) It sounds to me like your own perspective there is no way for them to do so, given that any given goalpost could be argued as possibly at risk of regression.
Concretely, if your own perspective is taken as the standard, we ought to expect that without any motive or standard to dictate we unwind DEI goalposts around (for example) racial groups, we should expect those goalposts to persist, regardless of the general presence of the phenomena which motivated their creation in the first place.
Concretely, if your own perspective is taken as the standard, we ought to expect that without any motive or standard to dictate we unwind DEI goalposts around (for example) racial groups, we should expect those goalposts to persist, regardless of the general presence of the phenomena which motivated their creation in the first place.
Irrational bias will always exist, but it will always be a bunch of shifting goalposts.
Once DEI systematizes enough it can be incorporated into whatever HR eventually turns in to, instead of being a separate division.
Once DEI systematizes enough it can be incorporated into whatever HR eventually turns in to, instead of being a separate division.
Purely irrational bias isn’t really the issue since most people of sound mind can be dissuaded from purely irrational acts. The issue is stereotyping of individuals based upon statistical or anecdotal patterns by people imagined to be a member of the same class combined with the usual human natures of otherization and tribalism. This isn’t purely irrational, since stereotypes can provide predictive power beyond pure randomness - if you don’t believe me, consider the fact that there are countless “positive stereotypes” for certain groups we happily tend to accept and make decisions on given it complements the presumed members of that group, as opposed to increasing distrust or hatred of them.
Ironically, programs seeking to reduce discrimination which characterize the former phenomenon as entirely irrational is what helps perpetuate the latter, because it undermines any sense that there is a good faith engagement going on.
Ironically, programs seeking to reduce discrimination which characterize the former phenomenon as entirely irrational is what helps perpetuate the latter, because it undermines any sense that there is a good faith engagement going on.
I didn't use "purely", "entirely", or other otherwise modify "irrational", because I didn't want to be too verbose, but yes, any stereotyping has some degree of irrational underpinnings. Figuring out and teaching people what is irrational (or at least irrelevant) bias and what isn't irrational bias are the difficult parts.
> "Ironically, programs seeking to reduce discrimination which characterize the former phenomenon as entirely irrational is what helps perpetuate the latter, because it undermines any sense that there is a good faith engagement going on."
From what I recall I don't believe these programs generally characterize implicit bias as entirely irrational. I see them characterize it as problematic. So I don't see how the "undermine good faith engagement" follows from this.
On a total tangent I think the main problem with counteracting people's biases is that it can lead to people totally discounting their gut reactions. Which has lead to people getting murdered, raped, etcetera, by bad people.
> "Ironically, programs seeking to reduce discrimination which characterize the former phenomenon as entirely irrational is what helps perpetuate the latter, because it undermines any sense that there is a good faith engagement going on."
From what I recall I don't believe these programs generally characterize implicit bias as entirely irrational. I see them characterize it as problematic. So I don't see how the "undermine good faith engagement" follows from this.
On a total tangent I think the main problem with counteracting people's biases is that it can lead to people totally discounting their gut reactions. Which has lead to people getting murdered, raped, etcetera, by bad people.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Very much agree with this comment, creating and gaming KPIs is at the heart of most DEI departments now.
We do need long term improvements at the start of the funnel, but no-one is adding a 7 year KPI for improving stats of 14 year old girls quitting AP math.
We do need long term improvements at the start of the funnel, but no-one is adding a 7 year KPI for improving stats of 14 year old girls quitting AP math.
I don't know about falsifiable, and I think you never reach a goal as broad as eradicating ethnocentric thinking, but one way to short circuit a lot of this nonsense is to somehow achieve a lot more intermarriage between disparate ethnic groups, as well as mire immigration.
[deleted]
> EDIT: In the below thread are many people who personally identify as omnipresent IRC Gods, so my experience must have happened in an alternate universe. My bad.
For what it's worth, this aligns with what I've seen on IRC as well (in the 00s.) I really think a lot of people just don't see bigotry for what it is when it's not explicit. (E.g. "lol girl = guy irl, there are no girls on the internet" being a common sentiment that might just be easily forgotten.)
For what it's worth, this aligns with what I've seen on IRC as well (in the 00s.) I really think a lot of people just don't see bigotry for what it is when it's not explicit. (E.g. "lol girl = guy irl, there are no girls on the internet" being a common sentiment that might just be easily forgotten.)
My experience growing up as a southeast Asian child in the early 00s is that I suddenly had access to practitioners and even experts in the field who now gave me an audience, as both my age and ethnicity were completely inaccessible to my counterparty on the other side of the chat window.
No one asked, and no one cared. We discussed technical topics, and what mattered was the strength of your ideas and their ability to withstand rebuttal. Your identity did not factor into the discussion, as the medium being used (IRC) abstracted away all notion of geographic location, physical appearance, skin color, accent, tone of voice, gender, sex, etc... into the written word. That's all everyone saw - your words, and your words only.
Now, in our photo and video driven digital landscape, your physical appearance - the way you look, present, the color of your skin, etc. - is front and center. In fact, without a visual representation, you may as well not exist - "pics or it didn't happen."
Which makes the matter all the more aggravating - people are now using media that bring cues for common stereotypes (i.e. judging someone for the way they look [0]) to the forefront, while simultaneously declaring that, no, they are completely free from any and all such bias. Why not remove all doubt, the, and use blind Zoom interviews (which I did myself), text fora (such as this one), and text-only protocols (such as IRC)?
It's fascinating to see just how differently I am treated and perceived on purely textual media vs. other media where my physical appearance is evident. If IRC was racist, then I would say the new media is orders of magnitude more so, as I have been subject to numerous misjudgments of my character and/or microaggressions based on my physical appearance - which simply would not have been accessible in older, text-based protocols.
I can't escape the new "ethnic minority" or "visible minority" label that these DEI initiatives (and related ideologies) have created - they are now automatically and subconsciously applied to me the minute others take a look at me, and as a result all of the associated ideas are subsequently brought to mind - "disadvantaged," "lacking education," "lower socioeconomic status," "hired because of their race," etc.
I'd rather go back to IRC. None of these judgments would be possible there, and I wouldn't have to have the "minority" label applied to me if I chose to simply not to disclose my appearance or ethnic background.
[0] https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impac...
No one asked, and no one cared. We discussed technical topics, and what mattered was the strength of your ideas and their ability to withstand rebuttal. Your identity did not factor into the discussion, as the medium being used (IRC) abstracted away all notion of geographic location, physical appearance, skin color, accent, tone of voice, gender, sex, etc... into the written word. That's all everyone saw - your words, and your words only.
Now, in our photo and video driven digital landscape, your physical appearance - the way you look, present, the color of your skin, etc. - is front and center. In fact, without a visual representation, you may as well not exist - "pics or it didn't happen."
Which makes the matter all the more aggravating - people are now using media that bring cues for common stereotypes (i.e. judging someone for the way they look [0]) to the forefront, while simultaneously declaring that, no, they are completely free from any and all such bias. Why not remove all doubt, the, and use blind Zoom interviews (which I did myself), text fora (such as this one), and text-only protocols (such as IRC)?
It's fascinating to see just how differently I am treated and perceived on purely textual media vs. other media where my physical appearance is evident. If IRC was racist, then I would say the new media is orders of magnitude more so, as I have been subject to numerous misjudgments of my character and/or microaggressions based on my physical appearance - which simply would not have been accessible in older, text-based protocols.
I can't escape the new "ethnic minority" or "visible minority" label that these DEI initiatives (and related ideologies) have created - they are now automatically and subconsciously applied to me the minute others take a look at me, and as a result all of the associated ideas are subsequently brought to mind - "disadvantaged," "lacking education," "lower socioeconomic status," "hired because of their race," etc.
I'd rather go back to IRC. None of these judgments would be possible there, and I wouldn't have to have the "minority" label applied to me if I chose to simply not to disclose my appearance or ethnic background.
[0] https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impac...
> No one asked, and no one cared. We discussed technical topics, and what mattered was the strength of your ideas and their ability to withstand rebuttal. Your identity did not factor into the discussion, as the medium being used (IRC) abstracted away all notion of geographic location, physical appearance, skin color, accent, tone of voice, gender, sex, etc... into the written word. That's all everyone saw - your words, and your words only.
For the most part "there are no girls on the internet" was actually just a snarky way to say exactly this. It could just have easily been "there are no boys on the internet", except people would jump all over themselves to help a girl, so the only reason to bring it up was to get special treatment. The snark was to stop that, it's just really easily misunderstood.
An alternative more-PC version you've probably heard is "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog".
For the most part "there are no girls on the internet" was actually just a snarky way to say exactly this. It could just have easily been "there are no boys on the internet", except people would jump all over themselves to help a girl, so the only reason to bring it up was to get special treatment. The snark was to stop that, it's just really easily misunderstood.
An alternative more-PC version you've probably heard is "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog".
+1. Not just on IRC but all around the internet and online gaming in those days. Back when you had dedicated servers and they would devolve into more of a chat room anyway.
This is why it's so sad/annoying that the word "priviledge" has devolved into a meaning-devoid cudgel, because it's such a useful term in discussions like these. If you're not personally affected by something, it's easy to miss something for what it is or even just not see it, even if it's happening all around you.
To be clear, do you think race-based diversity hiring is good? I can agree that having good role models and educational opportunities is important but I'm not so sure race-aware hiring is a good thing, for the reasons stated by OP and others.
At what point do you think DEI should stop? Is there any metric or threshold at which these programs/events should end? One of the biggest issues for me is that these measures are either argued as good because "diversity is intrinsically good" or because "we are righting historical wrongs", meaning reparations. While one could argue for or against either of these justifications, it would seem that the former would terminate once some ideal demographic composition is achieved, while the latter would end once some calculated total sum of restitution is reached. To me, these details are very important, since race-based hiring is an intrinsically bad thing that should be avoided. After all, it is part of the reason people of color got so screwed over in the 20th century in the first place.
At what point do you think DEI should stop? Is there any metric or threshold at which these programs/events should end? One of the biggest issues for me is that these measures are either argued as good because "diversity is intrinsically good" or because "we are righting historical wrongs", meaning reparations. While one could argue for or against either of these justifications, it would seem that the former would terminate once some ideal demographic composition is achieved, while the latter would end once some calculated total sum of restitution is reached. To me, these details are very important, since race-based hiring is an intrinsically bad thing that should be avoided. After all, it is part of the reason people of color got so screwed over in the 20th century in the first place.
They’ll never end, because 1. The people making money off of running them don’t want them to, and 2. “historically oppressed groups” never (and can never) become “not historically oppressed”; it’s my belief that this is intentional via the choice of words used by the DEI cadre.
> Do you know VIRULENTLY anti-black (or woman, or gay) these communities were? I can't begin to describe it.
That has not been my experience at all, whatsoever, and my involvement in tech communities, both online and in the flesh, dates back to the 1980s.
> There's also the fact that most (read: all) of the computing pioneers are white. I respect all of those people, but it does help to have someone to look up to.
I don't need people with whom I share superficial characteristics to look up to. I can look up to brilliant white men, men from all over the globe, or even women, believe it or not.
That has not been my experience at all, whatsoever, and my involvement in tech communities, both online and in the flesh, dates back to the 1980s.
> There's also the fact that most (read: all) of the computing pioneers are white. I respect all of those people, but it does help to have someone to look up to.
I don't need people with whom I share superficial characteristics to look up to. I can look up to brilliant white men, men from all over the globe, or even women, believe it or not.
> That has not been my experience at all, whatsoever, and my involvement in tech communities, both online and in the flesh, dates back to the 1980s.
Do you believe you have had the same experiences as a person of the races/genders experiencing the -isms, or that you will perceive as -isms the same things they do?
Do you believe you have had the same experiences as a person of the races/genders experiencing the -isms, or that you will perceive as -isms the same things they do?
> Do you believe you have had the same experiences as a person of the races/genders experiencing the -isms
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
> Prior to this, in the earlier internet age, you had to cut your teeth on IRC and forums. That was where technical people were in the computer tech space.
> Do you know VIRULENTLY anti-black (or woman, or gay) these communities were? I can't begin to describe it. That is totally off-putting to someone who has the ability succeed but does not want to deal with the hate.
Wow, thank you. Gives me a new perspective.
> Do you know VIRULENTLY anti-black (or woman, or gay) these communities were? I can't begin to describe it. That is totally off-putting to someone who has the ability succeed but does not want to deal with the hate.
Wow, thank you. Gives me a new perspective.
Yeah I forgot all about this. Also a lot of anti-Semitism. You had to have some thick skin on the old internet.
He’s completely, totally, and absolutely incorrect.
I spent decades on IRC starting in the early 90s, and this is a politically-driven contemporary re-imagination of what existed at the time.
We were open to all because we ourselves didn’t fit in elsewhere.
I spent decades on IRC starting in the early 90s, and this is a politically-driven contemporary re-imagination of what existed at the time.
We were open to all because we ourselves didn’t fit in elsewhere.
Some communities did have a lot of virulently racist and male-chauvinist trolling. The infamous 4chan forum culture didn't just spring up out of thin air, after all. It's a bit harder to tell whether that was anywhere close to representative, of course.
Yeah but 4chan and sites like it are shit. Why even go there? For one of those low tier sites there were hundreds of forums and communities which were normal.
Not a valid data point. You’re picking some fringe element and assuming the whole internet is like that.
Not a valid data point. You’re picking some fringe element and assuming the whole internet is like that.
I think 4chan can hardly be put in the same category as freenode channels. It's just an incredible leap in reasoning in my experience with both (albeit not much experience with 4chan, others than the occasional snippet I've seen online)
This is obviously going to depend on the space, but I suspect many of the white participants simply won't remember it because the bigotry was both casual and just euphemistic enough.
I don't think there are IRC logs from the 90s, apart from bash.org, but we could check Usenet archives to see how inclusive (or not) it was back then.
I was never on IRC much but I spent an awful lot of time on usenet and he's a lot more correct than you are.
That was my experience as well.
> We were open to all because we ourselves didn’t fit in elsewhere.
Yes, totally, most of us were indeed social misfits. But many of us also instead of being empathic and understand what was the real issue there, simply perpetrate the same abuse to someone else who was in a weaker position.
Yes, totally, most of us were indeed social misfits. But many of us also instead of being empathic and understand what was the real issue there, simply perpetrate the same abuse to someone else who was in a weaker position.
[deleted]
dylan604(2)
absolutely not...the amount of homophobia and racism and antisemitism and nationalism etc... was pretty intense compared to what you see in most parts of the current internet.
IRC tended towards super edge humor and was a big piece of like early internet culture generators like somethingawful and 4chan.
IRC tended towards super edge humor and was a big piece of like early internet culture generators like somethingawful and 4chan.
I suppose if that's the goal, we should have a defined goal. I grew up in India and I think we have the problem of a runaway effect of this. I totally agree that it helps, there are remote tribal communities or disadvantaged communities in India (say based on caste that historically, and even currently, face stuff like untouchability) but there's got to be a goal at which point you stop. When I had to pick a college for undergrad in India, there are so many quotas put aside based on caste, tribals, sports, defence, rural/urban, language medium of schooling etc that college quotas available for general merit is roughly 50% (haven't kept up recently, but should be there abouts). Some people game the system to try and get paperwork to show you belong to such a section so that college enrollment, public sector jobs etc get a lot easier.
)))Some people game the system to try and get paperwork to show you belong to such a section so that college enrollment, public sector jobs etc get a lot easier.
Prominent lawmakers in the US also game the system.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690806434/warren-apologizes-t...
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/16/17983250/elizabeth-warren-bar...
VOX: New evidence has emerged [SENATOR!] Elizabeth Warren claimed American Indian heritage in 1986 Warren identified as “American Indian” on a registration card for the State Bar of Texas, according to a Washington Post report.
By Ella Nilsen Updated Feb 5, 2019, 8:29pm EST
(TLDR for those not in the US: wealthy powerful while woman rose in ranks after abusing DEI quotas, now has huge influence over tech industry and always angry about an industry which has real diversity (tech:Asians) but conveniently not angry about lack of diversity at Harvard or Senate.
Prominent lawmakers in the US also game the system.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690806434/warren-apologizes-t...
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/16/17983250/elizabeth-warren-bar...
VOX: New evidence has emerged [SENATOR!] Elizabeth Warren claimed American Indian heritage in 1986 Warren identified as “American Indian” on a registration card for the State Bar of Texas, according to a Washington Post report.
By Ella Nilsen Updated Feb 5, 2019, 8:29pm EST
(TLDR for those not in the US: wealthy powerful while woman rose in ranks after abusing DEI quotas, now has huge influence over tech industry and always angry about an industry which has real diversity (tech:Asians) but conveniently not angry about lack of diversity at Harvard or Senate.
Not disputing your bad experiences, but do you know how virulent some of those communities were to just about everyone? :)
Speaking of 2 things being true at once, what's amazing about BBSs/USENET/IRC/etc. especially in the early years was that they had:
- online discussions where a lot of things just didn't matter. Race, gender, etc. just didn't matter. You got judged on the merit of your ideas, not what you looked like, not what you sounded like. It wasn't white people and black people talking together. It was just people. Genuine friendships developed between people that otherwise probably would have never connected because of societal barriers.
- online discussions where people were insanely cruel. Prior to getting online, I thought I understood how mean people could be. Boy was I wrong. It was a real learning experience to be on the receiving end of vile hatred, bigotry, insults, just... meanness. There are interests I walked away from because the toxicity of the community was too much to deal with.
Speaking of 2 things being true at once, what's amazing about BBSs/USENET/IRC/etc. especially in the early years was that they had:
- online discussions where a lot of things just didn't matter. Race, gender, etc. just didn't matter. You got judged on the merit of your ideas, not what you looked like, not what you sounded like. It wasn't white people and black people talking together. It was just people. Genuine friendships developed between people that otherwise probably would have never connected because of societal barriers.
- online discussions where people were insanely cruel. Prior to getting online, I thought I understood how mean people could be. Boy was I wrong. It was a real learning experience to be on the receiving end of vile hatred, bigotry, insults, just... meanness. There are interests I walked away from because the toxicity of the community was too much to deal with.
I can't speak to not being white, but I can speak to being female and gay in those spaces. I'm a 3rd generation geek/techie/hacker and the hostility really ramped up when I hit puberty. 8 year old me was treated decently: I got a lot of shit for asking stupid questions and me + my intelligence was insulted regularly (since most people didn't know I was a child), but the rape threats and constant sexual comments starting when I was about 11/12 and had the audacity to let people know I was a girl were terrifying. There was also a clear difference in how I was treated when people knew I was female versus when they were assuming I was male. By the time I was 18 and considering what to do with my life, CS and programming weren't options to me because I didn't want to put up with that crap for the rest of my life.
As a father of a daughter, I appreciate you speaking up about this. I'd say the problem with being raised to be respectful toward women I really haven't seen much bad behavior toward women. I just didn't realize what a problem it was. But a regular at the coffee shop my daughter was working at started stalking her. We and the store both got restraining orders against him. Then we were out at dinner one night, sitting outside, and she actually saw him. I was facing my daughter and he came around a corner walking toward her (my back to him) and I saw my daughter's face. It was crushing as a father to see my daughter so utterly devastated so quickly. That is a memory I will carry to my grave.
Guys - be decent. Just, always. Always be decent.
Guys - be decent. Just, always. Always be decent.
This - be decent, and even more importantly - call out "indecentness" when you see it.
Call it out to 'friends', to family, online, in person - even if all you feel you can say is 'that isn't right' - say it - you don't need to get into fights, you don't need to be a saviour, you just need to call it out. You can use that as excuse to leave, or you can use that as a reason to stay.
But don't just ignore it.
Call it out to 'friends', to family, online, in person - even if all you feel you can say is 'that isn't right' - say it - you don't need to get into fights, you don't need to be a saviour, you just need to call it out. You can use that as excuse to leave, or you can use that as a reason to stay.
But don't just ignore it.
As a straight white dude, yeah there were a lot of nerd spaces with white dudes that imagined they were surrounded by other white dudes and some of them felt no need to be inclusive. But I wouldn't judge any profession too deeply solely by the behavior of teenagers who express interest in that profession. They're going to act like teenagers no matter which profession. Find a big enough young hacker space and you'll be able to find the more mature subgroups within.
I know for a fact a lot of the people participating in these communities were fully adults, and the age of the people being racist does little to mitigate the impact it has on the people on the receiving end of it.
I find it really bizarre how many people here are insistent on diminishing or excusing the experience the original commenter had.
I find it really bizarre how many people here are insistent on diminishing or excusing the experience the original commenter had.
I find it bizarre you're diminishing mine. I got roasted by leetcode pros and othered by turbonerds too. That's humanity. I bet they haven't gotten as far as me since then, and that's an attitude that anyone who has faced pointless discrimination should keep in mind.
> I find it bizarre you're diminishing mine. I got roasted by leetcode pros and othered by turbonerds too.
But you weren't targeted for this behavior due to your gender identity or skin color, and you more or less started off with "I don't think your issues as a Black person/as a woman have been that bad because my experience hasn't been bad." Like you immediately centered yourself in a discussion about other people, and have done nothing to show any effort to even hear what they're saying.
Additionally, one person's positive anecdotes do not outweigh another person's negative anecdotes. If I'm thinking about joining some arbitrary group of people and most of my friends say it's a good time, but even one person says "I showed up and all the men either sexually harassed me for being female or witnessed the harassment and did nothing about it", well, that tells me a lot more than the other person who says "They kind of joke around a bit but it's really a mostly positive place!"
But you weren't targeted for this behavior due to your gender identity or skin color, and you more or less started off with "I don't think your issues as a Black person/as a woman have been that bad because my experience hasn't been bad." Like you immediately centered yourself in a discussion about other people, and have done nothing to show any effort to even hear what they're saying.
Additionally, one person's positive anecdotes do not outweigh another person's negative anecdotes. If I'm thinking about joining some arbitrary group of people and most of my friends say it's a good time, but even one person says "I showed up and all the men either sexually harassed me for being female or witnessed the harassment and did nothing about it", well, that tells me a lot more than the other person who says "They kind of joke around a bit but it's really a mostly positive place!"
I think it's nuanced. Women experience way more sexual harassment and being stalked than men online, even though men as slightly more likely to experience any online harassment in general. I can totally understand being specifically stalked or sexually harassed is on a totally different field than being called a retard for a suboptimal leetcode answer.
It's very different.
Being roasted for being a moron was something where it was/is allowed to stand up for yourself. I know that when people thought I was male, I was allowed to give as good as I got as long as I knew how to take an L once in a while and had a thick skin. Arguing and insulting back is accepted and a lot of the arguments can be conclusively settled in some way. Even if you pedantically argue for something incorrect long after you should, you can usually make amends by accepting you acted like a dumbass and letting people clown on you for it.
The shit I got for being female was different because it was a bunch of projection that I had no way of addressing. There are a lot of people who are just plain not okay with the opposite sex and could not handle being turned down. The most vile crap was spewed in private and then it turned into 'he said/she said' or 'I/we can't control what members say or do outside of the channel/forum/newsgroup'. Ambient sexist atmospheres could not be diffused by giving the guff back as places that are 90/10 male to female do not respond well to the women clowning on the men: You can't answer 'get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich' with 'get back to the factory and make me money' because the men fall in line to support each other. You can't answer it by bringing it up seriously because then you're a buzz kill, etc. It's not two equals arguing; it's one side being told to shut the fuck up.
Being roasted for being a moron was something where it was/is allowed to stand up for yourself. I know that when people thought I was male, I was allowed to give as good as I got as long as I knew how to take an L once in a while and had a thick skin. Arguing and insulting back is accepted and a lot of the arguments can be conclusively settled in some way. Even if you pedantically argue for something incorrect long after you should, you can usually make amends by accepting you acted like a dumbass and letting people clown on you for it.
The shit I got for being female was different because it was a bunch of projection that I had no way of addressing. There are a lot of people who are just plain not okay with the opposite sex and could not handle being turned down. The most vile crap was spewed in private and then it turned into 'he said/she said' or 'I/we can't control what members say or do outside of the channel/forum/newsgroup'. Ambient sexist atmospheres could not be diffused by giving the guff back as places that are 90/10 male to female do not respond well to the women clowning on the men: You can't answer 'get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich' with 'get back to the factory and make me money' because the men fall in line to support each other. You can't answer it by bringing it up seriously because then you're a buzz kill, etc. It's not two equals arguing; it's one side being told to shut the fuck up.
I had someone pay money, like $10 to attach a banner to my name on a forum, denying that I had a certification that I revealed I had to back up my claims of knowing a superior answer to some pointless argument. It was unsettling and aggravating for about a month before I found humor in it all. It's still one of my favorite communities and overall far more mature than when that happened ~10 years ago. Most people there are within a few years of my age, currently 30.
That doesn't address my point that women are way more likely to explicitly receive sexual harassment and stalking even when men report receiving more online harassment generally. I'm not arguing that you weren't harassed online, only that harassment is way more nuanced than whether or not everyone was equally victimized.
I mean, I get lots of sexual hate/harassment online for being traumatized from being circumcised, and advocating against it when not absolutely medically necessary, from people who tell me it's not a valid thing to be traumatized by. Most people just don't want to think about it but some people really put in effort to trolling about it. There really isn't a worse form of sexual discrimination than preventing one of the sexes from feeling full sexual pleasure.
That's still not addressing my point that this is more nuanced than "who got victimized more". You're just giving me multiple anecdotes of harassment you experienced personally, which is myopic if we want to talk about harassment on a population level (whether or not early-IRC was incredibly vitriolic towards minorities moreso than what is baseline normal for early-IRC). I'm literally agreeing with you that we have studies that show harassment generally occurs equally to everybody, except that some minorities receive greater proportions of specific kinds of harassment, and maybe that adds some nuance to the conversation. It has nothing to do with you personally.
Nobody diminished your experience since you didn't relate your experience - you simply said that someone else was taking their own too personally.
> Online discussions where a lot of things just didn't matter. Race, gender, etc. just didn't matter. You got judged on the merit of your ideas, not what you looked like, not what you sounded like.
We actually had real diversity and inclusion before these rent-seeking social media corporations and their fake DEI came in and ruined it. On IRC no one knew I was a 14 year old, or an 80 year old retiree, or male or female, or black or white, whatever.
We actually had real diversity and inclusion before these rent-seeking social media corporations and their fake DEI came in and ruined it. On IRC no one knew I was a 14 year old, or an 80 year old retiree, or male or female, or black or white, whatever.
This ignores the rampant racist/sexist comments often made on IRC/BBS, which were a reflection of society. Anyone who spent a good amount of time in these communities know it was a problem - hence why some very small invite-only communities were formed.
So yes, the idealism is there. No one knows who you identify as in a text channel unless you let them. But it does not remove the fact that these communities could often have bigoted pockets.
So yes, the idealism is there. No one knows who you identify as in a text channel unless you let them. But it does not remove the fact that these communities could often have bigoted pockets.
> This ignores the rampant racist/sexist comments often made on IRC/BBS
Nice straw man argument you got there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
But I'll take the bait...
> Anyone who spent a good amount of time in these communities know it was a problem...
Interesting.
I've been on IRC for decades, and while any online forum has the feature where trolls are capable of making awful remarks for the lulz, it's been my observation those are outliers, and NOT an actual problem for focused communities.
> So yes, the idealism is there. No one knows who you identify as in a text channel unless you let them.
hrm... yeah, there is a dichotomy there, but not the false kind, more of the ying/yang kind. The same feature that fosters diversity is the same feature that allows for trolls.
> But it does not remove the fact that these communities could often have bigoted pockets.
There is no reason to practice fatalism here, or characterise rare events as common place. This is probably a variation of another fallacy called reductio-absurdism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Ultimately IRC has admins, moderators, and the ability to mute other people. That is why good prevails over evil on IRC, and why IRC has remained the place for smart people to connect online for so so very long... longer than any other mode of chat communication.
Nice straw man argument you got there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
But I'll take the bait...
> Anyone who spent a good amount of time in these communities know it was a problem...
Interesting.
I've been on IRC for decades, and while any online forum has the feature where trolls are capable of making awful remarks for the lulz, it's been my observation those are outliers, and NOT an actual problem for focused communities.
> So yes, the idealism is there. No one knows who you identify as in a text channel unless you let them.
hrm... yeah, there is a dichotomy there, but not the false kind, more of the ying/yang kind. The same feature that fosters diversity is the same feature that allows for trolls.
> But it does not remove the fact that these communities could often have bigoted pockets.
There is no reason to practice fatalism here, or characterise rare events as common place. This is probably a variation of another fallacy called reductio-absurdism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Ultimately IRC has admins, moderators, and the ability to mute other people. That is why good prevails over evil on IRC, and why IRC has remained the place for smart people to connect online for so so very long... longer than any other mode of chat communication.
I've been on IRC for a similar amount of time, sexual harassment was always done in private so you wouldn't have seen it on main rooms, and victims were often newbies who didn't know reporting channels or didn't feel empowered to report, being the noobs and all. (Think randomly PMing women to ask for feet/boob pictures, or asking to be PMd to help debug something and then use it as an opportunity to pressure for sext)
I used to be part of multiple IRC channels that swear up and down that they're not a bigoted/political community they're just a focused technical chat about .NET or something, and then spout off calling things "faggotry" every day with no self-awareness whatsoever.
I used to be part of multiple IRC channels that swear up and down that they're not a bigoted/political community they're just a focused technical chat about .NET or something, and then spout off calling things "faggotry" every day with no self-awareness whatsoever.
If one wanted to substantiate some of your claims here to be convinced of the problem you suggest, what's the best way to do that?
What are the names of the IRC channels you were part of that said they weren't bigoted but used homophobic slurs every day?
What are the names of the IRC channels you were part of that said they weren't bigoted but used homophobic slurs every day?
I'm just responding to one flimsy anecdote with my own flimsy anecdote. You can believe me or not. But I would suggest you ask yourself why you responded to me with this and not the guy I responded to, who also didn't provide evidence where they were.
Just for other people's benefit: this comment is an excellent example of the kind of harassment women and others face online. When they try to relate their lived experiences, they are questioned relentlessly and asked for proof of things that obviously cannot be proven in a conclusive manner. (And if any proof is given, the goalposts are typically moved.)
If your first response to someone saying "I was harassed" is "I need objective evidence before I believe that this could possibly have happened", you're part of the problem.
If your first response to someone saying "I was harassed" is "I need objective evidence before I believe that this could possibly have happened", you're part of the problem.
4 things (for other people's benefit):
1. This person didn't claim THEY were harassed. They claimed others were harassed. This was not THEIR lived experience. They were talking about harassment secondhand.
2. The secondhand claims of inappropriate language were made on the internet. The internet is different than the physical world. Much text typed on the internet is/can be recorded. It is a very common practice for someone who is being harassed on the internet to share with others the record of their harassment. The internet is perfect for this. It's certainly much messier out in the physical world to prove which is the analogy you seem to be trying to apply to internet communication.
3. I just asked WHERE it happened, not to provide a precise record of the claims. It wasn't a tall ask to respond with an internet location (i.e. channel).
4. Questioning claims is NOT harassment, especially when the cost to produce evidence supporting the claim approaches zero (as on the internet). This is a toxic mentality to employ, though I'm sure you think you are being noble with your #believeallclaims approach. If anything, people who employ a "DON'T QUESTION IT!" approach do themselves a huge disservice, as that is probably the least persuasive tactic to do and immediately signals a huge red flag to any neutral onlookers.
The topic here is asking for where secondhand claims of harassment on a part of the internet happened, with the context of it being contrary to MY lived experience in similar parts of the internet. I'm trying to square how this secondhand claim could be contradictory to MY lived experience, and to update my understanding if given new information.
As a last rhetorical example/hypothetical: Let's say I made a claim that someone replied to a tweet of mine this week calling me the n-word. Do you automatically believe me? If you sought to prove my claim by looking at my tweets, are you a racist that is harassing me? What if there is absolutely no record of the alleged tweet reply happening/existing (even accounting for a potential delete)? Would you ever waver in your belief of my claim?
1. This person didn't claim THEY were harassed. They claimed others were harassed. This was not THEIR lived experience. They were talking about harassment secondhand.
2. The secondhand claims of inappropriate language were made on the internet. The internet is different than the physical world. Much text typed on the internet is/can be recorded. It is a very common practice for someone who is being harassed on the internet to share with others the record of their harassment. The internet is perfect for this. It's certainly much messier out in the physical world to prove which is the analogy you seem to be trying to apply to internet communication.
3. I just asked WHERE it happened, not to provide a precise record of the claims. It wasn't a tall ask to respond with an internet location (i.e. channel).
4. Questioning claims is NOT harassment, especially when the cost to produce evidence supporting the claim approaches zero (as on the internet). This is a toxic mentality to employ, though I'm sure you think you are being noble with your #believeallclaims approach. If anything, people who employ a "DON'T QUESTION IT!" approach do themselves a huge disservice, as that is probably the least persuasive tactic to do and immediately signals a huge red flag to any neutral onlookers.
The topic here is asking for where secondhand claims of harassment on a part of the internet happened, with the context of it being contrary to MY lived experience in similar parts of the internet. I'm trying to square how this secondhand claim could be contradictory to MY lived experience, and to update my understanding if given new information.
As a last rhetorical example/hypothetical: Let's say I made a claim that someone replied to a tweet of mine this week calling me the n-word. Do you automatically believe me? If you sought to prove my claim by looking at my tweets, are you a racist that is harassing me? What if there is absolutely no record of the alleged tweet reply happening/existing (even accounting for a potential delete)? Would you ever waver in your belief of my claim?
Sure, I am being hyperbolic and should not be when presenting my perspective. Use the word rampant was misleading.
My point is that people hail these communities as the golden child of diversity in a community, but back in the late 90s and early 00s internet nerd culture was anything but diverse. Again, I am not saying diversity did not exist, but if you were to measure the amount of say.. white males vs other groups on IRC we all know which way it skews.
My other point was that, back then it was common in internet culture to throw offensive, racist, and sexist terms/jokes back-and-forth with no recourse as a form of trolling. The people using these terms may not even be racist/sexist, but from the perspective of a minority there is no difference.
I enjoyed being on IRC, to the point where most of my free time was spent gaming but then shifted to just chatting with folks on IRC. It was great. I miss it dearly. But I do not see it as some diversity golden child we should all aspire to.
My point is that people hail these communities as the golden child of diversity in a community, but back in the late 90s and early 00s internet nerd culture was anything but diverse. Again, I am not saying diversity did not exist, but if you were to measure the amount of say.. white males vs other groups on IRC we all know which way it skews.
My other point was that, back then it was common in internet culture to throw offensive, racist, and sexist terms/jokes back-and-forth with no recourse as a form of trolling. The people using these terms may not even be racist/sexist, but from the perspective of a minority there is no difference.
I enjoyed being on IRC, to the point where most of my free time was spent gaming but then shifted to just chatting with folks on IRC. It was great. I miss it dearly. But I do not see it as some diversity golden child we should all aspire to.
As an anecdote, I was very active in those communities/networks back in the day, and I don't remember the rampant racism/sexism you suggest.
The main vector that people demeaned others on was based on technical skills.
The main vector that people demeaned others on was based on technical skills.
i'm curious how much of this was actual racism vs spouting off a specific n-word in order to anger as many people as possible via minimal effort
Yes I believe this is the case, and was general internet culture in those days. Many offensive words would be thrown around without understanding of what they meant. But still, from the perspective of a minority, the intention probably does not make a difference to the experience.
[deleted]
Yeah not to defend how bad those spaces were but my memories of technical IRC channels on like Freenode was that they were mostly about helping people and discussing the technology the channel was about.
You never had to disclose any aspect of your identity. Your gender or ethnicity. You were just a username. The only thing someone could find out about you was your general location based on IP address but even that could be masked if you want.
I understand closer relationships formed on IRC I’m just saying, you could go there for help without experiencing prejudice. There was no expectation of revealing your real self.
You never had to disclose any aspect of your identity. Your gender or ethnicity. You were just a username. The only thing someone could find out about you was your general location based on IP address but even that could be masked if you want.
I understand closer relationships formed on IRC I’m just saying, you could go there for help without experiencing prejudice. There was no expectation of revealing your real self.
Man, IRC was so toxic in many regards. Two stories:
On EFnet, there were aggressive racists in positions of authority. References to burning crosses, etc. Many of the earliest bash.org quotes originated there, including the idea that "the bash.org 'worst' quotes list is just "the best racist jokes list." The place was in generally incredibly abusive, and frequent channel and nick takeovers. The expectation of anonymity was a feature that enabled this behavior.
On Freenode, things were better. Pseudonymity let you hide from others but less so admins. But still there was a period of time where everyone was getting PM's about an IRC network where black people were banned (also, the thing was offensively named). It got so bad they had to institute a system to prevent DMs from unregistered accounts. You may also recall that one of Ubuntu's earliest contributions was a Code of Conduct, and that this was relevant because the #debian-* help channels were borderline abusive.
So yea, you didn't have to identify yourself, just humiliate and dissociate.
On EFnet, there were aggressive racists in positions of authority. References to burning crosses, etc. Many of the earliest bash.org quotes originated there, including the idea that "the bash.org 'worst' quotes list is just "the best racist jokes list." The place was in generally incredibly abusive, and frequent channel and nick takeovers. The expectation of anonymity was a feature that enabled this behavior.
On Freenode, things were better. Pseudonymity let you hide from others but less so admins. But still there was a period of time where everyone was getting PM's about an IRC network where black people were banned (also, the thing was offensively named). It got so bad they had to institute a system to prevent DMs from unregistered accounts. You may also recall that one of Ubuntu's earliest contributions was a Code of Conduct, and that this was relevant because the #debian-* help channels were borderline abusive.
So yea, you didn't have to identify yourself, just humiliate and dissociate.
This was what I was thinking. There were lots of jerks on those forums[^1], but I didn't see many racists. Frankly, I don't know how anyone would be able to ascertain others' races in the first place.
[^1]: as far as I can tell, no one was welcome to ask questions unless they could first prove that they were smarter than everyone else about computing, in which case you wouldn't actually need to ask questions in that forum in the first place
[^1]: as far as I can tell, no one was welcome to ask questions unless they could first prove that they were smarter than everyone else about computing, in which case you wouldn't actually need to ask questions in that forum in the first place
> Not disputing your bad experiences, but do you know how virulent some of those communities were to just about everyone? :)
So the opportunity to make many different people feel excluded is better? I'm not sure what you're getting at?
So the opportunity to make many different people feel excluded is better? I'm not sure what you're getting at?
The point was an answer to this question:
> Do you know VIRULENTLY anti-black (or woman, or gay) these communities were? I can't begin to describe it.
The answer is: "in a somewhat limited way, yes, yes I do". I can't know exactly what it was (and is) like, but the diversity of awfulness in some of those communities allowed me to experience meanness on a level I had never experienced before, which in turn has helped me feel more empathy towards those who deal with things like sexism and racism both online and offline.
Before, I had only an intellectual understanding that those things were terrible, which led me to under-appreciate just how much they can hurt. Perhaps I still under-appreciate it (who knows?), but I'm definitely closer to understanding than I was before, and that's a good thing.
> Do you know VIRULENTLY anti-black (or woman, or gay) these communities were? I can't begin to describe it.
The answer is: "in a somewhat limited way, yes, yes I do". I can't know exactly what it was (and is) like, but the diversity of awfulness in some of those communities allowed me to experience meanness on a level I had never experienced before, which in turn has helped me feel more empathy towards those who deal with things like sexism and racism both online and offline.
Before, I had only an intellectual understanding that those things were terrible, which led me to under-appreciate just how much they can hurt. Perhaps I still under-appreciate it (who knows?), but I'm definitely closer to understanding than I was before, and that's a good thing.
> The answer is: "in a somewhat limited way, yes, yes I do".
Prefacing "I know your experience" with "In a (very|somewhat) limited way" is vitally important.
Prefacing "I know your experience" with "In a (very|somewhat) limited way" is vitally important.
Tbf, I miss the former dearly but am happy the latter is gone, particularly from forums. I don't know why people online felt they could be so abusive and harsh to others for no reasons. The taunting and garbage on twitter is mild (yes with "cancel culture" and all that) than the sheer virtriol that was just common place on forums in even the mid to late 00s.
Sure, virulent about everything that differed from the "engineering norm". How often were comments made mocking, stereotyping, or denigrating whiteness and white people? I can tell you not nearly as many as were made punching down at everyone else, and not nearly as harsh or gross.
The argument isn't that there was no good to be had from those communities, it's that you can't dismiss or ignore the bad that they put out as well.
The argument isn't that there was no good to be had from those communities, it's that you can't dismiss or ignore the bad that they put out as well.
I would not disagree, but wouldn't that follow the demographics of the population to a big extent? If we examine other communities in other languages, what were their dispositions, who did they target or not target? Did blondes target blondes or non-blondes, etc.
In other words did it or does it show disproportionality? If it's disproportional then that indicates it's outside the global norm. The above does not mean the global norm is an acceptable norm but helps calibrate and figure out how good or bad things were or are.
In other words did it or does it show disproportionality? If it's disproportional then that indicates it's outside the global norm. The above does not mean the global norm is an acceptable norm but helps calibrate and figure out how good or bad things were or are.
How is that relevant? Yes communities tend to be prejudiced against things outside their assumed norm and the anonymity of the web makes it easy for them to express it without repercussion. That doesn't make the negative impact it had on people in those communities not real.
Furthermore in regards to race specifically I would argue there probably were very few online tech/engineer communities anywhere in the world that widely targeted and denigrated white people until maybe just recently, and even then they are likely not popular or widely participated in.
I'm struggling to understand what the point you and other commenters here are trying to make responding to the original comment.
Furthermore in regards to race specifically I would argue there probably were very few online tech/engineer communities anywhere in the world that widely targeted and denigrated white people until maybe just recently, and even then they are likely not popular or widely participated in.
I'm struggling to understand what the point you and other commenters here are trying to make responding to the original comment.
I think you might want to reflect for a minute on why you thought "but do you know how virulent some of those communities were to just about everyone?" was an appropriate response to a black person talking about their experience of racism. I recognize you believed yourself to be mitigating the effect of your statement by prefacing it with "Not disputing your bad experiences," but I think you'll find that the net effect of your comment is still one of dismissing a black person's lived experience, or at least pulling focus away from it in an unhelpful way.
Hmm... this sounds an awful lot like, "because you're responding to a comment made by a black person, the only acceptable response is one of total agreement". I think you might want to reflect for a minute on the importance of nuance in a discussion, and the net effect of trying to police comments on others' behalf.
I completely believe the commenter's experience, but I also witnessed the opposite a lot (and was deeply encouraged by it), and it's not wrong for me to chime in and point it out. And guess what? Experiencing vitriol on the internet directly contributed to me being more sensitive to things like racism. Although I've been on the receiving end of racist remarks offline, it wasn't until the internet that I caught a glimpse at how hurtful people could truly be. Again, not wrong for me to pipe up about it.
I completely believe the commenter's experience, but I also witnessed the opposite a lot (and was deeply encouraged by it), and it's not wrong for me to chime in and point it out. And guess what? Experiencing vitriol on the internet directly contributed to me being more sensitive to things like racism. Although I've been on the receiving end of racist remarks offline, it wasn't until the internet that I caught a glimpse at how hurtful people could truly be. Again, not wrong for me to pipe up about it.
But it is unclear what you are disagreeing with. They never said that there was nothing positive in those communities. So what is the point of your comment? To make sure no one leaves this thread thinking that those communities were a net negative or something? I understand the desire to defend something you were a part of and got something positive out of, but the original commenter isn't criticizing people for enjoying or benefiting from those communities, they are pointing out that they had a clear negative impact on people who were targeted by those types of awful comments.
It’s unclear because you’ve concocted it. You’re asserting that there’s disagreement when there never was. I don’t strictly blame you for perpetuating ill rhetoric, but at least be aware that you’re responding to a stance that the comment in question never took in a fever to defend a black OP that never asked for any help and frankly IMO doesn't need it based on the high quality of their comment.
This is a discussion site, so not every comment needs to fit neatly in a 'agree' or 'disagree' bucket. That said, I'm in agreement with the comment I was replying to, and not actually defending anything at all - I meant for my comment to be taken at face value, nothing more.
> this sounds an awful lot like, "because you're responding to a comment made by a black person, the only acceptable response is one of total agreement"
This is clearly a strawman. I wrote nothing remotely like what you're describing. I asked you to think about what prompted you to redirect the conversation away from a black person's experience of racism and towards whatever your idea of an injustice was. My hope was that upon such reflection, you might realize that black people experience these sorts of microagressions and dismissals routinely, and that such things add salt to the wounds caused by racism.
Instead, you went the fragility route. There couldn't possibly be something for you to learn here. No, instead, you have to create a strawman to protect your fragile ego from the idea that maybe you did something hurtful to someone, inadvertently or otherwise.
This is clearly a strawman. I wrote nothing remotely like what you're describing. I asked you to think about what prompted you to redirect the conversation away from a black person's experience of racism and towards whatever your idea of an injustice was. My hope was that upon such reflection, you might realize that black people experience these sorts of microagressions and dismissals routinely, and that such things add salt to the wounds caused by racism.
Instead, you went the fragility route. There couldn't possibly be something for you to learn here. No, instead, you have to create a strawman to protect your fragile ego from the idea that maybe you did something hurtful to someone, inadvertently or otherwise.
> Hmm... this sounds an awful lot like, "because you're responding to a comment made by a black person, the only acceptable response is one of total agreement".
Not true. There is another acceptable response - not posting, taking some time to read and reflect, and moving along with your day.
You no doubt have any number of other things you could be doing, but you’re in here. Might be worth thinking about why that is.
Not true. There is another acceptable response - not posting, taking some time to read and reflect, and moving along with your day.
You no doubt have any number of other things you could be doing, but you’re in here. Might be worth thinking about why that is.
> You no doubt have any number of other things you could be doing, but you’re in here. Might be worth thinking about why that is.
Obviously this applies to you as well. Maybe you've taken what I wrote as some sort of disagreement or getting defensive or... something? And then from there concluding that I shouldn't be allowed to participate? I'm not sure, but this is a discussion site and I'm participating in the discussion, and please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really not your place to tell me that I shouldn't participate. My original comment was in agreement with the poster I was replying to, and I was adding nuance and finding common ground in a semi-shared experience. None of that is wrong for me to do. Have a great day!
Obviously this applies to you as well. Maybe you've taken what I wrote as some sort of disagreement or getting defensive or... something? And then from there concluding that I shouldn't be allowed to participate? I'm not sure, but this is a discussion site and I'm participating in the discussion, and please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really not your place to tell me that I shouldn't participate. My original comment was in agreement with the poster I was replying to, and I was adding nuance and finding common ground in a semi-shared experience. None of that is wrong for me to do. Have a great day!
> My original comment was in agreement with the poster I was replying to, and I was adding nuance and finding common ground in a semi-shared experience.
Do you genuinely not see how "adding nuance" to a "semi-shared experience" is taking the focus away from the parent commenter's experience? When someone is recounting racism they suffered, how is adding "other people experienced other kinds of hate" adding any nuance? Do you genuinely believe that there's valuable common ground between, for example, a black person being called the n-word and another person who isn't black being called the n-word or some other slur?
Do you genuinely not see how "adding nuance" to a "semi-shared experience" is taking the focus away from the parent commenter's experience? When someone is recounting racism they suffered, how is adding "other people experienced other kinds of hate" adding any nuance? Do you genuinely believe that there's valuable common ground between, for example, a black person being called the n-word and another person who isn't black being called the n-word or some other slur?
> Obviously this applies to you as well. Maybe you've taken what I wrote as some sort of disagreement or getting defensive or... something? And then from there concluding that I shouldn't be allowed to participate?
You're allowed to participate, but I trust you can understand that in many situations there is a difference between what discourse is permitted in a space, and what discourse others might see as appropriate or a value add to the discussion.
> I'm not sure, but this is a discussion site and I'm participating in the discussion, and please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really not your place to tell me that I shouldn't participate.
Hmm, it is your place to be able to post whatever you like as long as it's permitted by the rules, but it's not the place of others to suggest doing so might not be appropriate, even if that is also permitted. Kind of a narcissistic, authoritarian mindset, it seems to me. Note that I didn't post "mods???" or report you.
You're allowed to participate, but I trust you can understand that in many situations there is a difference between what discourse is permitted in a space, and what discourse others might see as appropriate or a value add to the discussion.
> I'm not sure, but this is a discussion site and I'm participating in the discussion, and please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really not your place to tell me that I shouldn't participate.
Hmm, it is your place to be able to post whatever you like as long as it's permitted by the rules, but it's not the place of others to suggest doing so might not be appropriate, even if that is also permitted. Kind of a narcissistic, authoritarian mindset, it seems to me. Note that I didn't post "mods???" or report you.
"Authoritarian mindset" indeed!
Anyway, you seem to have misunderstood by initial and subsequent comments, so other than rereading them in good faith until you believe me when I say that I was neither disagreeing with the comment, nor trying to undermine his experience, nor defending bad stuff online, I don't think we can make any progress, so I'm moving on to other things. Have a great day!
Anyway, you seem to have misunderstood by initial and subsequent comments, so other than rereading them in good faith until you believe me when I say that I was neither disagreeing with the comment, nor trying to undermine his experience, nor defending bad stuff online, I don't think we can make any progress, so I'm moving on to other things. Have a great day!
> the only acceptable response is one of total agreement
That's not exactly it. The only informed response about a black person's experience on these platforms is a black person's. When people talk about "lived experience," the implication is that empathy is practically impossible. The best you can offer is sympathy.
> I've been on the receiving end of racist remarks offline
I am a white person who has been on the receiving end of racially-motivated police brutality. Even though it was racially-motivated I would not consider it a racist act. The fucker was merely angry at white people, that's different to racism. While there are places on the planet where white people experience racism (typically at the hands of other white people), I can almost guarantee that you have not - especially if you are American.
Don't wash the black community's suffering with white experiences.
That's not exactly it. The only informed response about a black person's experience on these platforms is a black person's. When people talk about "lived experience," the implication is that empathy is practically impossible. The best you can offer is sympathy.
> I've been on the receiving end of racist remarks offline
I am a white person who has been on the receiving end of racially-motivated police brutality. Even though it was racially-motivated I would not consider it a racist act. The fucker was merely angry at white people, that's different to racism. While there are places on the planet where white people experience racism (typically at the hands of other white people), I can almost guarantee that you have not - especially if you are American.
Don't wash the black community's suffering with white experiences.
> The best you can offer is sympathy.
> I can almost guarantee that you have not [experienced racism] - especially if you are American.
My goodness! How can you honestly make such an assertion? I am American, I've visited every state and lived in a dozen of them. I am well-acquainted with many forms of racism and am fascinated that you could believe such a statement. All I can say is that you are unequivocally wrong.
> Don't wash the black community's suffering with white experiences.
This is absurd - finding common ground is the key to rooting out and overcoming things like racism. Always insisting that someone's experience is too different for others to understand only serves to perpetuate division.
I will never know what it's like to be a black person and all of the stupid things black people have to up with. But experiencing unkindness and bigotry helps me understand a little. And while having just a couple of experiences where someone judged me and was cruel to me simply for being white is nowhere near the same thing as dealing with it for years, it's something I can extrapolate from, and it taught me more about racism than any number of books or articles ever could.
My goodness! How can you honestly make such an assertion? I am American, I've visited every state and lived in a dozen of them. I am well-acquainted with many forms of racism and am fascinated that you could believe such a statement. All I can say is that you are unequivocally wrong.
> Don't wash the black community's suffering with white experiences.
This is absurd - finding common ground is the key to rooting out and overcoming things like racism. Always insisting that someone's experience is too different for others to understand only serves to perpetuate division.
I will never know what it's like to be a black person and all of the stupid things black people have to up with. But experiencing unkindness and bigotry helps me understand a little. And while having just a couple of experiences where someone judged me and was cruel to me simply for being white is nowhere near the same thing as dealing with it for years, it's something I can extrapolate from, and it taught me more about racism than any number of books or articles ever could.
> All I can say is that you are unequivocally wrong.
You, as a white person, have been a victim of racism?
Edit: > finding common ground is the key to rooting out and overcoming things like racism
How is refuting the experiences of a black person finding common ground?
You, as a white person, have been a victim of racism?
Edit: > finding common ground is the key to rooting out and overcoming things like racism
How is refuting the experiences of a black person finding common ground?
> You, as a white person, have been a victim of racism?
Have I been told to leave somewhere because they don't want "whiteys" there? Yes. Have I been yelled at for being a "honky"? Yes. Have I been told things like, "all white people are ___"? Yes. Have I been in a group when someone said, "don't give any to the white kid" ? Yes. Have I been threatened with violence with the sole given reason being that I am white? Yes. Has a friend of mine been told not to be my friend because I'm white and we shouldn't mix? Yes.
(for reference, these occurred while living in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia)
Are these common experiences across the U.S.? I doubt it. Are they as bad as what black people have to deal with? No. Are they as widespread as racism towards black people? Almost certainly not.
> How is refuting the experiences of a black person finding common ground?
I haven't done that at all - maybe you read some other comment and thought it was mine? If so, no worries for the confusion, there's a lot of comments flying around.
Have I been told to leave somewhere because they don't want "whiteys" there? Yes. Have I been yelled at for being a "honky"? Yes. Have I been told things like, "all white people are ___"? Yes. Have I been in a group when someone said, "don't give any to the white kid" ? Yes. Have I been threatened with violence with the sole given reason being that I am white? Yes. Has a friend of mine been told not to be my friend because I'm white and we shouldn't mix? Yes.
(for reference, these occurred while living in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia)
Are these common experiences across the U.S.? I doubt it. Are they as bad as what black people have to deal with? No. Are they as widespread as racism towards black people? Almost certainly not.
> How is refuting the experiences of a black person finding common ground?
I haven't done that at all - maybe you read some other comment and thought it was mine? If so, no worries for the confusion, there's a lot of comments flying around.
> Have I been told to leave somewhere [...]
Why do some black people hate white people? Because their great grandparent perished on a cotton plantation, because their friend was hunted by some white folks in a truck, because their friend was choked to death by a white policeman, because your race is targeted by disenfranchisement.
Why do some white people hate black people? Because they hate black people.
There is a substantial difference between those two, and the difference is central to the definition of racism vs. racially-charged. Someone being a vengeful asshole does not make them racist, someone being an asshole to a race in general does not (necessarily) make them racist. Racism is hating a race, it is not being angry with a race that participated in horrific acts against you and your (in some cases near) ancestors.
Is it fair that you are being held accountable for the acts of your ancestors, and other living white people? No, that isn't the claim. You find the retribution you face unfair/unkind/unjust, as you have the right to. Now imagine facing the same for merely existing. The claim is that you couldn't possibly understand the experiences of a black person. The claim is that you do kinda' have to accept the stories of black people at face value.
The claim is that the vast majority of their life is defined by racist experiences, where you have a handful of racially-charged experiences to point towards.
Why do some black people hate white people? Because their great grandparent perished on a cotton plantation, because their friend was hunted by some white folks in a truck, because their friend was choked to death by a white policeman, because your race is targeted by disenfranchisement.
Why do some white people hate black people? Because they hate black people.
There is a substantial difference between those two, and the difference is central to the definition of racism vs. racially-charged. Someone being a vengeful asshole does not make them racist, someone being an asshole to a race in general does not (necessarily) make them racist. Racism is hating a race, it is not being angry with a race that participated in horrific acts against you and your (in some cases near) ancestors.
Is it fair that you are being held accountable for the acts of your ancestors, and other living white people? No, that isn't the claim. You find the retribution you face unfair/unkind/unjust, as you have the right to. Now imagine facing the same for merely existing. The claim is that you couldn't possibly understand the experiences of a black person. The claim is that you do kinda' have to accept the stories of black people at face value.
The claim is that the vast majority of their life is defined by racist experiences, where you have a handful of racially-charged experiences to point towards.
You're conflating racism with the reasons for racism.
It doesn't matter how good or bad your reasons are: once you are feeling or expressing prejudice simply because someone is a member of a particular ethnic group, that's racist.
It doesn't matter how good or bad your reasons are: once you are feeling or expressing prejudice simply because someone is a member of a particular ethnic group, that's racist.
No way. Racism is when you treat people differently because of their race. It doesn't matter what the reason is or if that reason is justified.
I won't be paying any more attention to this thread. I have evidently engaged in a fool's errand. If you continue to disagree with me and my learned viewpoint (I once believed that my police brutality experience was racism) then it is likely my fault for not being able to adequately convey this viewpoint. I can't see a way for me to express it any other way, so this discussion is pointless.
I have gone from your current viewpoint to my current viewpoint, because I was wrong. I won't be changing my mind to what I used to believe, now that I understand just how wrong I was.
I have gone from your current viewpoint to my current viewpoint, because I was wrong. I won't be changing my mind to what I used to believe, now that I understand just how wrong I was.
Best of luck! If you do care to revisit the topic, I urge you to start with focusing on what racism actually is and isn't. Specifically, a racist act or thought isn't non-racist just because there is a "good" argument for it.
If you can get past that idea, then a lot of how we can fight racism follows pretty naturally (and, by extension, it becomes more clear that at least some of what is happening today in the name of fighting racism actually engenders it).
If you can get past that idea, then a lot of how we can fight racism follows pretty naturally (and, by extension, it becomes more clear that at least some of what is happening today in the name of fighting racism actually engenders it).
word!
And to counter your claim here - someone's "lived experience" is not a sufficient ballast for blindly accepting an anecdote.
People's memories suck. And more often than not subjective experiences don't map onto reality, especially when negative or stressful emotions are involved.
One negative experience on an IRC/forum can cloud a person's entire recollection simply on the basis of the Negativity Bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias
People's memories suck. And more often than not subjective experiences don't map onto reality, especially when negative or stressful emotions are involved.
One negative experience on an IRC/forum can cloud a person's entire recollection simply on the basis of the Negativity Bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias
The point isn't to figure out whether these communities were a net positive or negative. I wasn't a target of any of the racism, sexism, homophobia, etc on these forums and chat rooms but I sure saw a lot of it everywhere I participated at a level that was kind of ridiculous in some cases. It clearly had impact on the people it was targeting, the degree to which it "clouds a persons recollection" is entirely irrelevant.
Is your point that their recollection should be dismissed? That they were too sensitive? It's unclear what this response's intent is.
Is your point that their recollection should be dismissed? That they were too sensitive? It's unclear what this response's intent is.
I think the point was that you can’t debate or argue with anecdotes, in essence dismissing both comments.
I think you might want to reflect for a minute that you are playing the exact DEI game that the OP is complaining about. You are dismissing your parent post's argument without addressing content of the argument. Essentially, your post boils down to "Don't argue with Black people. "Lived Experience" trumps all rhetoric and discussion. In the future, please keep your thoughts and concerns to yourself."
You are fostering a culture without room for discussion. You are also presuming to speak for the Black person two posts up. Solidarity is important, but shutting people down based on racial context isn't it.
You are fostering a culture without room for discussion. You are also presuming to speak for the Black person two posts up. Solidarity is important, but shutting people down based on racial context isn't it.
I was not engaging with the argument made by the post I replied to because the poster's argument is completely beside the point.
When someone says "I experienced racism because I'm black," the appropriate response is not "Well, actually, lots of people who aren't black experienced that terrible thing." So what if lots of non-black people experienced that terrible thing? That's not what we're talking about here. Your statement is re-centering the conversation away from the black person who's describing their experience. And you know what? It's the black people who are being routinely discriminated against, incarcerated, and killed because of racism, so maybe it's irrelevant to say "my feelings were hurt on IRC too."
When someone says "I experienced racism because I'm black," the appropriate response is not "Well, actually, lots of people who aren't black experienced that terrible thing." So what if lots of non-black people experienced that terrible thing? That's not what we're talking about here. Your statement is re-centering the conversation away from the black person who's describing their experience. And you know what? It's the black people who are being routinely discriminated against, incarcerated, and killed because of racism, so maybe it's irrelevant to say "my feelings were hurt on IRC too."
Are you Black?
> but I think you'll find that the net effect of your comment is still one of dismissing a black person's lived experience
Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone.
Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone.
Hate directed at black people, who have been exploited, oppressed, enslaved, killed, and more for over 400 years has a more significant and problematic impact than hate directed at other, more privileged groups. Recentering the conversation away from the black person's experience is a form of dismissal, not validation.
An abuser on IRC calling a black person the n-word is objectively more harmful than an abuser on IRC calling pretty much anyone else pretty much any slur.
An abuser on IRC calling a black person the n-word is objectively more harmful than an abuser on IRC calling pretty much anyone else pretty much any slur.
I reject the claim that such a response is recentering the conversation, and I also reject the implicit assumption that words can be objectively harmful.
For instance, a black person might be reasonably angry at hearing the n-word, until they find out the person suffers from Tourette's, at which point the "harm" vanishes. The harm clearly did not result from the word but from the framing of the situation, and the framing exists entirely within the mind and can be changed.
This pattern of harm resulting from framing is seen repeatedly throughout psychology. Of course we should still push for relegating incorrect and outdated framings, like the various -isms, to the dustbin of history, but there's considerably more latitude for how to do this than naive language policing like is commonly suggested.
For instance, a black person might be reasonably angry at hearing the n-word, until they find out the person suffers from Tourette's, at which point the "harm" vanishes. The harm clearly did not result from the word but from the framing of the situation, and the framing exists entirely within the mind and can be changed.
This pattern of harm resulting from framing is seen repeatedly throughout psychology. Of course we should still push for relegating incorrect and outdated framings, like the various -isms, to the dustbin of history, but there's considerably more latitude for how to do this than naive language policing like is commonly suggested.
> Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone.
But it implicitly implies the negative experiences were similar in scale unless otherwise noted.
It downplays the very large weight that racism adds to the negativity of that experience even if the intent is a noble one of making that person not feel alone.
But it implicitly implies the negative experiences were similar in scale unless otherwise noted.
It downplays the very large weight that racism adds to the negativity of that experience even if the intent is a noble one of making that person not feel alone.
Or, maybe you’re the one projecting negativity for assuming that the existence of another anecdote downplays the black one in play? I give it no such credence.
"My mother died today."
"Well, lots of peoples mothers died today."
Do you not see how that response is problematic? How it downplays the person's experience?
Do you not see how that response is problematic? How it downplays the person's experience?
Thats not an accurate reduction.
And you're here dismissing their experience because they're not black. See the issue?
Being dismissive of the experiences of members of oppressed groups is objectively more harmful than being dismissive of someone not part of a similarly oppressed group.
I think your second point is really important: A lot of instances of what people perceive as -isms are relaly just people being mean not because youf your race/gender/whatever but because you annoyed them somehow or just because they can, and then reaching for whatever traits of yours they can to get to you. Lumping this with actual hate for people with different traits is only going to make honest discussion impossible.
> Not disputing your bad experiences, but do you know how virulent some of those communities were to just about everyone? :)
The red head jokes were endless.
The red head jokes were endless.
A question, perhaps, of babies, bathwater and relative velocity.
I'm not sure if anyone worth listening to is complaining about efforts to clean up racism in moderated communities. HN, for example, self polices that sort of thing quite effectively. "Racism bad" as a principle is one of the most solid points of consensus in the modern political sphere. We should keep moderating out racism.
But your post is going to different issues than the original one, which was talking about initiatives inside companies. I do not want to be in a position where I look at black colleagues and have formal evidence that they got hired/promoted/praised/ because of their skin colour, not their competence. That is setting up an environment where racists opinions will also be evidence-based and doing a disservice to literally everyone involved.
A company initiative supporting building up hiring pipelines is just good business practice. "A cheesy townhall once a month to discuss diversity hires" (from op) is a dangerous precedent for stirring up actual racism. There does need to be debate to decide where the line between these things is drawn, and why.
We were on a good thing with the aspiration of skin colour making no difference. It is a shame to see backsliding on that subject amongst many HR departments.
I'm not sure if anyone worth listening to is complaining about efforts to clean up racism in moderated communities. HN, for example, self polices that sort of thing quite effectively. "Racism bad" as a principle is one of the most solid points of consensus in the modern political sphere. We should keep moderating out racism.
But your post is going to different issues than the original one, which was talking about initiatives inside companies. I do not want to be in a position where I look at black colleagues and have formal evidence that they got hired/promoted/praised/ because of their skin colour, not their competence. That is setting up an environment where racists opinions will also be evidence-based and doing a disservice to literally everyone involved.
A company initiative supporting building up hiring pipelines is just good business practice. "A cheesy townhall once a month to discuss diversity hires" (from op) is a dangerous precedent for stirring up actual racism. There does need to be debate to decide where the line between these things is drawn, and why.
We were on a good thing with the aspiration of skin colour making no difference. It is a shame to see backsliding on that subject amongst many HR departments.
> it does help to have someone to look up to
I keep hearing this idea from americans, that it's important to have a role model that has exactly the same ethnicity, gender and sexual identity as you do. It never made any sense to me. Can you explain it please?
I keep hearing this idea from americans, that it's important to have a role model that has exactly the same ethnicity, gender and sexual identity as you do. It never made any sense to me. Can you explain it please?
There are two parts to your question which I think are important to address: the importance of role modelling in general; and the importance of ethnicity/gender/sexual identity in particular.
First, role models are important because they show you what is possible for you to do. It's much easier to copy what someone has done before than it is to experiment yourself. For example, imagine the different types of work you can do to make money. Would you imagine that you can make money playing video games without seeing other people making money? Watching e-sports or streaming informs you that these are careers where some people are successful at earning a living. Role models are proofs of concept in ways to live your life. Without them, you would have to experiment yourself and make a bunch of mistakes on your way to living that kind of life.
Secondly, ethnicity/gender/sexual identity affect both your path and your destination. At least historically, people in the U.S. have been told that they can't do things because they are who they are, whether through explicit discrimination or by a prejudiced view of their capabilities. Seeing someone succeed in a role with a shared characteristic shows that the characteristic doesn't prevent you from achieving that role.
Furthermore, the way that these role models fulfill their role can be different than "normal". For one, their success may show that you don't need to hide aspects of yourself to protect yourself from others. Being gay is different from being out and known as gay. If it's easier to be out in some professions than others, then you may avoid being e.g. a teacher because the cost of remaining closeted may make it not worth doing. The role models aren't just for you to emulate, they are also comrades in social acceptance.
Finally, I want to acknowledge that these aspects are never the entirety of a person's identity. They are specific aspects which sometimes have zero impact, sometimes a great deal of impact, and very rarely total impact on a situation. The important of ethnicity/gender/sexual identity will vary based on the time and place. Ethnicity, gender and sexual identity are important parts of role models in the U.S. because those have been important parts of identity in the U.S. which have major influence on what people can do. Maybe their importance will wane with time, and other aspects of your identity will rise to prominence.
First, role models are important because they show you what is possible for you to do. It's much easier to copy what someone has done before than it is to experiment yourself. For example, imagine the different types of work you can do to make money. Would you imagine that you can make money playing video games without seeing other people making money? Watching e-sports or streaming informs you that these are careers where some people are successful at earning a living. Role models are proofs of concept in ways to live your life. Without them, you would have to experiment yourself and make a bunch of mistakes on your way to living that kind of life.
Secondly, ethnicity/gender/sexual identity affect both your path and your destination. At least historically, people in the U.S. have been told that they can't do things because they are who they are, whether through explicit discrimination or by a prejudiced view of their capabilities. Seeing someone succeed in a role with a shared characteristic shows that the characteristic doesn't prevent you from achieving that role.
Furthermore, the way that these role models fulfill their role can be different than "normal". For one, their success may show that you don't need to hide aspects of yourself to protect yourself from others. Being gay is different from being out and known as gay. If it's easier to be out in some professions than others, then you may avoid being e.g. a teacher because the cost of remaining closeted may make it not worth doing. The role models aren't just for you to emulate, they are also comrades in social acceptance.
Finally, I want to acknowledge that these aspects are never the entirety of a person's identity. They are specific aspects which sometimes have zero impact, sometimes a great deal of impact, and very rarely total impact on a situation. The important of ethnicity/gender/sexual identity will vary based on the time and place. Ethnicity, gender and sexual identity are important parts of role models in the U.S. because those have been important parts of identity in the U.S. which have major influence on what people can do. Maybe their importance will wane with time, and other aspects of your identity will rise to prominence.
If you want to do some reading on this, the search term you're probably looking for is "representation matters."
I am on some IT forums for almost 20 years; I don't know what is the gender or race of most people there, I have no idea what is their sexuality and there is no racism, sexism or any "ism" in these communities. The day someone will bring the argument "I am a green isomorph Martian, so for me DDR4 is way slower than DDR2 with the same CAS" then the acid answers will not be related to the color green, Martial descent or anything else but lack of merit of that statement.
For context, I grew up in an ex-communist country.
Elevating people, giving them opportunities to fulfill their potential, and giving people someone credible to look up to is a wonderful thing. We should do more of it, hopefully a lot more.
The problem is that these things start out for a very good reason, but then take on a life of their own. When that happens it's very difficult to stop them, and in the limit case they result in horrendous tragedies. It isn't an abstract philosophical thing. There is an underlying social process, as real as gravity, and it's crucial to study and understand. I saw the consequences of this process first hand in my country.
Roughly, it goes like this. When you create a mechanism to oppress someone to fix oppression, however small and ineffectual, this mechanism gets captured by bad actors. Then it grows and grows and grows in their hands. It's very difficult to stop because of a combination of moral-sounding purpose that many people fall for, and the benefits that accrue to a wide variety of interest groups. At the limit of this there is nothing left but oppression, for anyone.
I'm not overly concerned about this in America because we're extraordinarily good at preventing centralization of power, but I must say watching bad actors accrue power and watching politicians pander to them has been disconcerting to say the least. I hope we can find a compromise that allows us to create opportunities while simultaneously kicking bad actors to the curb. I promise you you do not want to live in a society where the annoyances continue down their natural course.
Elevating people, giving them opportunities to fulfill their potential, and giving people someone credible to look up to is a wonderful thing. We should do more of it, hopefully a lot more.
The problem is that these things start out for a very good reason, but then take on a life of their own. When that happens it's very difficult to stop them, and in the limit case they result in horrendous tragedies. It isn't an abstract philosophical thing. There is an underlying social process, as real as gravity, and it's crucial to study and understand. I saw the consequences of this process first hand in my country.
Roughly, it goes like this. When you create a mechanism to oppress someone to fix oppression, however small and ineffectual, this mechanism gets captured by bad actors. Then it grows and grows and grows in their hands. It's very difficult to stop because of a combination of moral-sounding purpose that many people fall for, and the benefits that accrue to a wide variety of interest groups. At the limit of this there is nothing left but oppression, for anyone.
I'm not overly concerned about this in America because we're extraordinarily good at preventing centralization of power, but I must say watching bad actors accrue power and watching politicians pander to them has been disconcerting to say the least. I hope we can find a compromise that allows us to create opportunities while simultaneously kicking bad actors to the curb. I promise you you do not want to live in a society where the annoyances continue down their natural course.
This is true. Here is the other thing. Promotions in corporate America are based on how well you know the hiring manager chain of command. Golf buddy? Oh he’s a great guy for a promotion. Church person - yup very ethical, let’s promote him. Know him personally - maybe went to the same college or support the same college football team, oh yes they’re a candidate for promotion.
Corporate America needs to get promotions out of the hands of the hiring manager chain of command. Create a board that’s independent and can deal with promotions impartially.
In absence of and independent entity handling promotions DEI is needed and necessary. Otherwise a lot of promotions are just plain nepotism.
Corporate America needs to get promotions out of the hands of the hiring manager chain of command. Create a board that’s independent and can deal with promotions impartially.
In absence of and independent entity handling promotions DEI is needed and necessary. Otherwise a lot of promotions are just plain nepotism.
IRC was pretty toxic for sure. If you didn't know the other person, you assumed they were white since it is the predominate skin color and American for that matter. Typically wouldn't question it unless they used different wording patterns or languages. IRC was attractive in some ways and offputting in others. I never really got into it outside of my #gamedev interests.
DEI initiatives as a backlash against the forced exclusion of people from the broader economy makes sense to me. It's crazy the amount of the legal and government system that was employed in the past because of what people thought to be true about other people.
I'm unclear of how much impact the intiatives have on hiring or retention. I feel this is one of the reasons why DEI initiatives highlight token people probably to show they are doing something (results) and the budget for it is justified. Would be nice to see the statistics from mid to large companies on how these initiatives have fared on multiple groups and worker productivity for that matter, but until then it feels like it has no to mixed impact at a company which seems to be the ideas of people not included in these initiatives.
DEI just feels vague and threatening to some people. I've seen Reddit threads of people saying they don't support DEI initiatives because how can they "secure a future for their child" which to me is highly obtuse. Who knows what a child will do in the future.
I'm all for hiring diverse candidates and helping those who have high curiosity and propensity to just do the work rather than the idea that one must be experienced in order to execute. It's the same way I am towards younger people, though you don't see the same backlash against initiatives in that arena unless older people are losing their jobs for the sake of it. In the end, I want people who will (not can) help with the work and will teach others.
DEI initiatives as a backlash against the forced exclusion of people from the broader economy makes sense to me. It's crazy the amount of the legal and government system that was employed in the past because of what people thought to be true about other people.
I'm unclear of how much impact the intiatives have on hiring or retention. I feel this is one of the reasons why DEI initiatives highlight token people probably to show they are doing something (results) and the budget for it is justified. Would be nice to see the statistics from mid to large companies on how these initiatives have fared on multiple groups and worker productivity for that matter, but until then it feels like it has no to mixed impact at a company which seems to be the ideas of people not included in these initiatives.
DEI just feels vague and threatening to some people. I've seen Reddit threads of people saying they don't support DEI initiatives because how can they "secure a future for their child" which to me is highly obtuse. Who knows what a child will do in the future.
I'm all for hiring diverse candidates and helping those who have high curiosity and propensity to just do the work rather than the idea that one must be experienced in order to execute. It's the same way I am towards younger people, though you don't see the same backlash against initiatives in that arena unless older people are losing their jobs for the sake of it. In the end, I want people who will (not can) help with the work and will teach others.
As a PoC who has benefited from IRC, I don’t see how they would even know you’re not white unless you tell them yourself. Can you elaborate on your experience?
> There's also the fact that most (read: all) of the computing pioneers are white.
Would you count Katherine Johnson as a tech role model?[1]
But I agree with you. The old IRC culture gave the illusion of equity since by default your face isn't seen. But the rose-colored glasses overlook that once a person's age, race, or sex became known they'd be treated differently. And it often was not pleasant because as we've seen the pseudonymity tends to make people, who already generally suck at being kind to strangers, even more awful.[2](warning: language)
That's the reason we should have DEI. If the implementations of it are flawed, that should be a motivation to make the programs better. Think of it as fixing bugs in the human codebase.
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/content/katherine-johnson-biography
[2] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...
Would you count Katherine Johnson as a tech role model?[1]
But I agree with you. The old IRC culture gave the illusion of equity since by default your face isn't seen. But the rose-colored glasses overlook that once a person's age, race, or sex became known they'd be treated differently. And it often was not pleasant because as we've seen the pseudonymity tends to make people, who already generally suck at being kind to strangers, even more awful.[2](warning: language)
That's the reason we should have DEI. If the implementations of it are flawed, that should be a motivation to make the programs better. Think of it as fixing bugs in the human codebase.
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/content/katherine-johnson-biography
[2] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...
> EDIT: In the below thread are many people who personally identify as omnipresent IRC Gods, so my experience must have happened in an alternate universe. My bad.
It's amazing how blind people can be to experiences that don't match their own. And when you _tell_ them what has happened to you, point at the preponderance of evidence out there about it, they still don't believe you.
It's amazing how blind people can be to experiences that don't match their own. And when you _tell_ them what has happened to you, point at the preponderance of evidence out there about it, they still don't believe you.
[deleted]
You said that people in affected communities need to have role models in the industry with the same skin colour.
Firstly, young people aren’t stupid. They will be acutely aware if those role models were created in a tokenistic way. Young people know when older people try to distort the real world in order to manipulate them (whether or not it’s with good intentions).
Secondly, what makes you so sure that young people are so bigoted/sensitive that they would negatively judge an industry that was largely made up of people of skin colours other than their own? I think young people these days seem confident and tolerant of others regardless of their skin colour.
Firstly, young people aren’t stupid. They will be acutely aware if those role models were created in a tokenistic way. Young people know when older people try to distort the real world in order to manipulate them (whether or not it’s with good intentions).
Secondly, what makes you so sure that young people are so bigoted/sensitive that they would negatively judge an industry that was largely made up of people of skin colours other than their own? I think young people these days seem confident and tolerant of others regardless of their skin colour.
IRC isn't IRC. I have never been in a channel like that. On the contrary, these tended to be people that were much more tolerant than the general population by a strong margin. And I was later as I was younger, where conduct might even have been degraded a bit.
Sataya and Sundar aren't really computer pioneers. They are managers of multi-billion $ companies. There is also a strong contrast to computer pioneers and its culture. This isn't even comparable. Not saying they are bad people, but it is not a good comparison.
Sataya and Sundar aren't really computer pioneers. They are managers of multi-billion $ companies. There is also a strong contrast to computer pioneers and its culture. This isn't even comparable. Not saying they are bad people, but it is not a good comparison.
> Do you know VIRULENTLY anti-black
Many communities were and are generally anti-human.
Many communities were and are generally anti-human.
I fail to see how your skin color or sexual preferences coul have any effect on your IRC experience except if you go out of your way to point them out - in which case, perhaps what you perceved was the response to that kind of behavior.
> These DEI initiatives aren't perfect in any way, but the goal is to give the affected groups the foundations to succeed.
The goal is to distract from other issues such as the increasing class gap or environmental impact.
> These DEI initiatives aren't perfect in any way, but the goal is to give the affected groups the foundations to succeed.
The goal is to distract from other issues such as the increasing class gap or environmental impact.
Yeah, I dunno if these people hung out on the Care Bears irc channel or what, but every 'open' forum and most of the closed ones had tons of racism/sexism/whateverism. Just look at twitter nowadays to see how awful some posters can be.
I've worked with a very small handful of black people over my career, several indians, a fair number of asians and a few hispanics.
The demographics in my experience were all pretty abyssmal, without some sort of policy in place, the actual bias that ends up hiring only other white males was never going to end. I would say it's probably still strong, as a recent place I worked was incredibly white and male.
My understanding is that hiring becomes much more fair if you are able to remove all racial/sexual details from a hiring process (at least, if resumes are shown without those details you get expected results, but with those details a bias appears).
That said, I think a lot of these people are upset by DEI precisely because it is resulting in more diversity. If you are biased against the people who DEI helps get hired, you are obviously going to think they are poor hires, because you always thought "those people" tend to be poor hires. Assuming OP is actually a black man, I think he needs to realize that many, if not most, people who make assumptions about him based on DEI or the like, are always looking for an excuse for their own biases.
I've worked with a very small handful of black people over my career, several indians, a fair number of asians and a few hispanics.
The demographics in my experience were all pretty abyssmal, without some sort of policy in place, the actual bias that ends up hiring only other white males was never going to end. I would say it's probably still strong, as a recent place I worked was incredibly white and male.
My understanding is that hiring becomes much more fair if you are able to remove all racial/sexual details from a hiring process (at least, if resumes are shown without those details you get expected results, but with those details a bias appears).
That said, I think a lot of these people are upset by DEI precisely because it is resulting in more diversity. If you are biased against the people who DEI helps get hired, you are obviously going to think they are poor hires, because you always thought "those people" tend to be poor hires. Assuming OP is actually a black man, I think he needs to realize that many, if not most, people who make assumptions about him based on DEI or the like, are always looking for an excuse for their own biases.
> That said, I think a lot of these people are upset by DEI precisely because it is resulting in more diversity.
You are exemplifying a fallacy known as asymmetric insight, whereby you assume to know more about someone else's "real" intentions than they do. While at some level we do have to have a mental model of other people's motivations, the temptation is strong to pathologize those we disagree with rather than take their ideas seriously.
So tell me, did you come to your conclusion based on sincere effort to actually understand the mindset of those opposed to DEI, or are you using it as an excuse to avoid thinking about their actual arguments?
You are exemplifying a fallacy known as asymmetric insight, whereby you assume to know more about someone else's "real" intentions than they do. While at some level we do have to have a mental model of other people's motivations, the temptation is strong to pathologize those we disagree with rather than take their ideas seriously.
So tell me, did you come to your conclusion based on sincere effort to actually understand the mindset of those opposed to DEI, or are you using it as an excuse to avoid thinking about their actual arguments?
I certainly haven't conducted a scientific study, this isn't my field.
I am, however, a white male who checks most of the 'tech dude' boxes, and I don't usually have to guess what people are thinking about this. I just have to be around at the right time for people to make their opinions known. So my evidence is anecdotal, but no, I don't have to wonder if people have racial bias, they will tell you if you let them. I have also observed a manager who's religion made women subservient, and no woman he ever managed was promoted. Bias or just probability? One of those women is now a very successful director of engineering. (She left his team and was promoted elsewhere)
While I can't speak to all DEI programs, the intent at most places I've been is to interview a wider range of people. That might show slight favor to interviewing, but the bar for hiring does not change. This is not just a problem in tech, the relatively recent NFL head coach issue of teams deciding to hire a coach and then interviewing a black coach after that "for compliance" with no intent of actually considering them is a huge problem.
If you work at a place that truly only hires people to check a box and doesn't care about that person's success or the impact around them, sure, move on.
I am, however, a white male who checks most of the 'tech dude' boxes, and I don't usually have to guess what people are thinking about this. I just have to be around at the right time for people to make their opinions known. So my evidence is anecdotal, but no, I don't have to wonder if people have racial bias, they will tell you if you let them. I have also observed a manager who's religion made women subservient, and no woman he ever managed was promoted. Bias or just probability? One of those women is now a very successful director of engineering. (She left his team and was promoted elsewhere)
While I can't speak to all DEI programs, the intent at most places I've been is to interview a wider range of people. That might show slight favor to interviewing, but the bar for hiring does not change. This is not just a problem in tech, the relatively recent NFL head coach issue of teams deciding to hire a coach and then interviewing a black coach after that "for compliance" with no intent of actually considering them is a huge problem.
If you work at a place that truly only hires people to check a box and doesn't care about that person's success or the impact around them, sure, move on.
> I certainly haven't conducted a scientific study, this isn't my field.
I'm not asking for a scientific study, I'm just asking for some indication that you take arguments against DEI programs seriously.
> I am, however, a white male who checks most of the 'tech dude' boxes, and I don't usually have to guess what people are thinking about this. I just have to be around at the right time for people to make their opinions known. So my evidence is anecdotal, but no, I don't have to wonder if people have racial bias, they will tell you if you let them.
Sharing demographic characteristics with some people does not automatically give you special insight into their true motivations. The insinuations that people "let you know" about their racial bias suggests that they didn't explicitly tell you as such, but rather you inferred it based on other things they did or said (things that, if I hazard to guess, might not be seen as racist by most people).
I must say, as someone who does oppose DEI programs (and who has successfully lobbied against them in small ways) I find your presumption about the motivations of people on my side of the issue extremely aggravating. You are going to do much more to help the dialogue if you actually respond in good faith to the arguments against DEI.
But, if you want to know what motivates people on this side, just ask.
I'm not asking for a scientific study, I'm just asking for some indication that you take arguments against DEI programs seriously.
> I am, however, a white male who checks most of the 'tech dude' boxes, and I don't usually have to guess what people are thinking about this. I just have to be around at the right time for people to make their opinions known. So my evidence is anecdotal, but no, I don't have to wonder if people have racial bias, they will tell you if you let them.
Sharing demographic characteristics with some people does not automatically give you special insight into their true motivations. The insinuations that people "let you know" about their racial bias suggests that they didn't explicitly tell you as such, but rather you inferred it based on other things they did or said (things that, if I hazard to guess, might not be seen as racist by most people).
I must say, as someone who does oppose DEI programs (and who has successfully lobbied against them in small ways) I find your presumption about the motivations of people on my side of the issue extremely aggravating. You are going to do much more to help the dialogue if you actually respond in good faith to the arguments against DEI.
But, if you want to know what motivates people on this side, just ask.
Sorry for the late reply, I was out a while.
I literally have heard people say things like "We need less brown people". This may not be your reasoning, and not everyone says something exactly like that, but there are enough.
Apple does very well and loudly displays their diversity numbers, so it's obviously possible to be succesful and supportive of inclusion (which is or should be the DEI goal).
But sure, why do you not support DEI? You have a better solution that is somehow based on 'qualifications' that isn't biased?
I literally have heard people say things like "We need less brown people". This may not be your reasoning, and not everyone says something exactly like that, but there are enough.
Apple does very well and loudly displays their diversity numbers, so it's obviously possible to be succesful and supportive of inclusion (which is or should be the DEI goal).
But sure, why do you not support DEI? You have a better solution that is somehow based on 'qualifications' that isn't biased?
My apologies as well, but you do deserve a response, particularly to your last question.
I do not support DEI because it is based on a false assumption: that disparate outcomes between groups must be the result of some sort of discrimination or exploitation. Thomas Sowell's book Discrimination and Disparities is a good concrete overview of the reasons why this assumption is not warranted.
This is not to imply that groups or individuals should merely accept their lot in life: far from it! By all means find ways to improve. And sometimes that will mean overcoming some bias - but often it will mean other things. Just don't expect equality, as that is neither a realistic nor a desirable goal.
> Apple does very well and loudly displays their diversity numbers, so it's obviously possible to be successful and supportive of inclusion (which is or should be the DEI goal).
Apple's success almost certainly has nothing to do with it's DEI efforts. To the extent that DEI is counterproductive, Apple has so much wealth and inertia that it would be a long time before the problem would be visible to the bottom line. Most businesses cannot survive the level of irrationality that a company like Apple can.
> I literally have heard people say things like "We need less brown people". This may not be your reasoning, and not everyone says something exactly like that, but there are enough.
I do hear that kind of thing often from DEI proponents...about white men. Most of the people who oppose DEI do not think that way one way or the other. They believe in treating people with basic fairness and object to the divisiveness of DEI.
I do not support DEI because it is based on a false assumption: that disparate outcomes between groups must be the result of some sort of discrimination or exploitation. Thomas Sowell's book Discrimination and Disparities is a good concrete overview of the reasons why this assumption is not warranted.
This is not to imply that groups or individuals should merely accept their lot in life: far from it! By all means find ways to improve. And sometimes that will mean overcoming some bias - but often it will mean other things. Just don't expect equality, as that is neither a realistic nor a desirable goal.
> Apple does very well and loudly displays their diversity numbers, so it's obviously possible to be successful and supportive of inclusion (which is or should be the DEI goal).
Apple's success almost certainly has nothing to do with it's DEI efforts. To the extent that DEI is counterproductive, Apple has so much wealth and inertia that it would be a long time before the problem would be visible to the bottom line. Most businesses cannot survive the level of irrationality that a company like Apple can.
> I literally have heard people say things like "We need less brown people". This may not be your reasoning, and not everyone says something exactly like that, but there are enough.
I do hear that kind of thing often from DEI proponents...about white men. Most of the people who oppose DEI do not think that way one way or the other. They believe in treating people with basic fairness and object to the divisiveness of DEI.
there are definitely racists online but i think in these environments, where you are limited to text only, certain words became 'weaponized' such as specific slurs. in my experience this is less about racism and more about trolls trying to anger as many people as possible with minimal effort.
It's certainly not obvious to me, as someone who never ventured on IRC, that IRC culture would have a serious impact on minority representation. Most people (minority or not) were never on IRC to begin with, so I doubt that would explain (for instance) the under-representation of minorities in Computer Science programs.
I mean, you say that IRC was virulently anti-gay, and yet gay and trans people are over-represented in tech.
Even if we accept that IRC culture drove minorities away from tech, that doesn't justify common corporate DEI policies such as affirmative action, unconscious bias training, etc. Those are just bad, counter-productive polices.
> EDIT: In the below thread are many people who personally identify as omnipresent IRC Gods, so my experience must have happened in an alternate universe. My bad.
You are generalizing from you own experience, expect others to do the same. And, to be fair, they probably aren't saying that your experience didn't happen, but that it either wasn't representative, or that you are misinterpreting some of it.
I mean, you say that IRC was virulently anti-gay, and yet gay and trans people are over-represented in tech.
Even if we accept that IRC culture drove minorities away from tech, that doesn't justify common corporate DEI policies such as affirmative action, unconscious bias training, etc. Those are just bad, counter-productive polices.
> EDIT: In the below thread are many people who personally identify as omnipresent IRC Gods, so my experience must have happened in an alternate universe. My bad.
You are generalizing from you own experience, expect others to do the same. And, to be fair, they probably aren't saying that your experience didn't happen, but that it either wasn't representative, or that you are misinterpreting some of it.
As someone who was born at the dawn of the internet age, was the early internet really that racist?
I feel this is something that will be lost to the history books if it isn't at least recorded for posterity.
I feel this is something that will be lost to the history books if it isn't at least recorded for posterity.
Are you joking? We were absolutely not “virulently” anti-anyone on early IRC.
We didn’t even have real names or photos. Nobody had any idea who was behind the keyboard, and that was okay.
We didn’t even have real names or photos. Nobody had any idea who was behind the keyboard, and that was okay.
Yet the n-bomb, gay and b*tch and other words as a universal slur and negative adjective were everywhere on irc. Casual rape references were constant, it was about as bad as Xbox voice chat. I have trouble going back and reading much of bash.org's top 100 due to the things you're claiming didn't exist.
http://bash.org/?99060 http://bash.org/?5775 http://bash.org/?23601
Just because you didn't mean it or it didn't bother you doesn't mean it wasn't hostile to others.
Just because you didn't mean it or it didn't bother you doesn't mean it wasn't hostile to others.
anything on bash.org is pretty solidly mid->late era IRC, not "early IRC" as was discussed above.
"Early IRC" ends with The Great Split (ircnet fork). Heck, most of Early IRC is extremely Euro-centric even.
"Early IRC" ends with The Great Split (ircnet fork). Heck, most of Early IRC is extremely Euro-centric even.
ngl the implication that something happened in the world of irc that turned it from this apolitical, progressive utopia to a jew-joke, rape-joke, -ism-everywhere cesspool is fascinating and please tell me more about it, not sarcastic
IRC back in those days was more oriented towards central/northern european university students...specifically nerds. In the 90s, they mostly would have been talking about lan parties, actual parties, drinking, drugs, software/media piracy, etc.
As we did.
I don't know how much of a cesspool it would have been back then as IRCOps back in that day were famously proactive, thin-skinned and intolerant of divisive bullshit. Generally trolls were k-lined quickly. Especially because operating a server then was an individual's labour of love and not using large, corporate resources. Server operators had to keep trash off their server in order to stay in their network. Individual servers could only handle _hundreds_ of connected users.
It was neither utopian, nor progressive. It was ruthless, impersonal and dog-eat-dog.
The shift towards what it is now was that the resources to operate a network became absurdly cheap and caring about who was on your network and doing what went completely out the window.
As we did.
I don't know how much of a cesspool it would have been back then as IRCOps back in that day were famously proactive, thin-skinned and intolerant of divisive bullshit. Generally trolls were k-lined quickly. Especially because operating a server then was an individual's labour of love and not using large, corporate resources. Server operators had to keep trash off their server in order to stay in their network. Individual servers could only handle _hundreds_ of connected users.
It was neither utopian, nor progressive. It was ruthless, impersonal and dog-eat-dog.
The shift towards what it is now was that the resources to operate a network became absurdly cheap and caring about who was on your network and doing what went completely out the window.
Tbh there are communities that refuse to stop using homophobic slurs, especially the rap community with which the black community is heavily involved (see T.I. defending Dababy's homophobic rant "If Lil Nas X can kick his shit in peace… so should DaBaby" ie if people can be gay then people should be able to be homophobic). Pretty despicable considering these people likely have incredibly personal experiences with being victims of x-isms.
Realistically it shows that we (humans) still have much to learn about treating each other equally. Why can't we just be good to each other. :/
Realistically it shows that we (humans) still have much to learn about treating each other equally. Why can't we just be good to each other. :/
Wow, solid resource:
http://bash.org/?121764
><p00p> why do you crackers steal everything from us?
http://bash.org/?51331
>(@virt) cracker barrel is the most hilarious name for a place where a bunch of white people go
http://bash.org/?86009
><Gabe> It's sad when white people try to talk like black inner city people. It's doubly sad when those white people are European. :P
Incredibly virulent anti-whiteness. Thank you for posting this to open our eyes to this.
http://bash.org/?121764
><p00p> why do you crackers steal everything from us?
http://bash.org/?51331
>(@virt) cracker barrel is the most hilarious name for a place where a bunch of white people go
http://bash.org/?86009
><Gabe> It's sad when white people try to talk like black inner city people. It's doubly sad when those white people are European. :P
Incredibly virulent anti-whiteness. Thank you for posting this to open our eyes to this.
You're just proving their point -- these types of communities follow "Internet chat" trends which includes toxicity to literally everyone. Minorities are affected most by this dynamic. By moving the discussions "above ground", we force the discussions to use professional etiquette, and move the conversation closer to where it can have actual impact
The fact that these are so low-ranking compared to the top quotes is instructive. Also, the third one is definitely an example of anti-Blackness, not anti-whiteness.
Low ranking based on what? Are you telling people what feelings they should have towards slurs directed towards them? The "top quotes" don't bother me at all, for example.
Low ranking based on the number of votes they got. That's the green (or red) number in parentheses between the plus and minus signs. The top 100 quotes range from 9,000 to 41,000. If I refresh random a few times, the most common number of votes seems to be in the mid-100s, which is exactly where these fall.
So the fact that
- you had to search to find a couple low ranking quotes that might be insulting to white people
- there are numerous top ranking quotes that might be insulting to women, gay people, black people, etc
- those top quotes don't bother you
supports OP's point and undermines your own.
So the fact that
- you had to search to find a couple low ranking quotes that might be insulting to white people
- there are numerous top ranking quotes that might be insulting to women, gay people, black people, etc
- those top quotes don't bother you
supports OP's point and undermines your own.
Votes have no relation to how much any quote exemplifies IRC culture.
Bash.org is not IRC or IRC culture, despite being built on IRC logs.
Bash.org is not IRC or IRC culture, despite being built on IRC logs.
Votes are skewed because the demographic is skewed. But the sentiments remain the same in all groups.
Just because one group speaks loudly about hate doesn't mean the quiet group doesn't hate. But it doesn't mean they do, either.
It's a complex topic that would require considerable research, rather than all parties skimming.
Just because one group speaks loudly about hate doesn't mean the quiet group doesn't hate. But it doesn't mean they do, either.
It's a complex topic that would require considerable research, rather than all parties skimming.
> the third one is definitely an example of anti-Blackness, not anti-whiteness.
Why do you capitalize the b but not the w?
Why do you capitalize the b but not the w?
None of that is good? That's the point.
Wow, forgot about bash.org but that's a good reference to pull. Definitely a microcosm of IRC culture at the time.
I can say with experience that there was an assumption that these groups were pretty much all white men and boys. Maybe not everywhere all the time, but enough. I wouldn't categorize it as virulent, but I would say that a lot of insensitive things were written about minorities, women, and LGBTQ people. It's like when you go back to watch Friends and cringe at all the anti-gay jokes. Is it virulent? I guess not. Is it fun to watch if you're gay? I doubt it.
Why would I be joking? I'm glad you didn't have a negative experience, but my point wasn't about you. You are not a "we" in the masses of the internet.
You don't have to know anything about anyone to say derogatory things about a group they identify with. Just look at the bigotry shared on social media today.
You don't have to know anything about anyone to say derogatory things about a group they identify with. Just look at the bigotry shared on social media today.
Do you think it’s impossible to say something racist without specifically directing it at someone in the conversation?
It's hard to characterize with absolutes. There were a lot of different networks and channels in IRC. It's true it was anonymous, but I'm also sure there were inappropriate jokes, perceptions, etc, shared in IRC.
to be fair "there are no girls on the internet" is technically somewhat misogynistic and was a popular meme of the era.
I've never heard this and there were plenty of girls on IRC
Well if you've never heard that old joke, then clearly it can't ever have existed, right?
Oh wait:
> Welcome to the Internet, where the men are men, the women are men, and the kids are cops.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1546789
I picked this instance of course because it was said on HN, but it was a dead horse even in 2010.
Oh wait:
> Welcome to the Internet, where the men are men, the women are men, and the kids are cops.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1546789
I picked this instance of course because it was said on HN, but it was a dead horse even in 2010.
by 2010 IRC was largely replaced by social media except for niche communities, sorry you were on there in the wrong decade
Of course it was, but that's not what we're talking about. The link I chose was just the arbitrary one I picked from the google results.
Personally I remember hearing that joke in the 90s. If you want a different example, here's a variant from 2001: http://www.bash.org/?2832
Note that this one ends with "but some of the men are really women"; it's already old and well-known enough in '01 that people are modifying it for meta-humor.
Personally I remember hearing that joke in the 90s. If you want a different example, here's a variant from 2001: http://www.bash.org/?2832
Note that this one ends with "but some of the men are really women"; it's already old and well-known enough in '01 that people are modifying it for meta-humor.
What I loved the most about IRC is no one cared about your age too!
I was very passionate about tech since early primary school. But I couldn't really share this passion with anyone, being a little kid.
Once I got dialup (in middle-school) and could join IRC channels, I realised, no one would know, how young I was. It felt great.
Once I got dialup (in middle-school) and could join IRC channels, I realised, no one would know, how young I was. It felt great.
If there's a text box anywhere, the first thing people will type into it is the n-word
(Also a Black man)
I’ve dealt with enough bullshit early in my career that I don’t trust DEI initiatives. I don’t join meetings but your comment makes me think I should at least try.
I’ve dealt with enough bullshit early in my career that I don’t trust DEI initiatives. I don’t join meetings but your comment makes me think I should at least try.
> There are groups that are aimed at cultivating black people in tech. Prior to this, in the earlier internet age, you had to cut your teeth on IRC and forums.
This reasoning sucks. We need DEI in corporations now because IRC was toxic?
This reasoning sucks. We need DEI in corporations now because IRC was toxic?
Is it any better when supposedly "tech" focused communities are virulently anti-white, anti-male or anti-Asian? These things have no place in genuine professional discourse.
> virulently anti-white, anti-male, or anti-Asian
I'm a white guy. I've sat through many a DEI session. I've never, ever felt this. How could I? 85% of the people in the room are white or Asian men.
I'm not trying to sound disingenuous here, but I really want to know, how does "virulently anti-" empirically manifest itself in the communities you speak of? Hiring? Pay? Promotion decisions? Possibly freedom of speech? Even then it seems like I'm free to say whatever I want as long as I stay on topic.
I'm a white guy. I've sat through many a DEI session. I've never, ever felt this. How could I? 85% of the people in the room are white or Asian men.
I'm not trying to sound disingenuous here, but I really want to know, how does "virulently anti-" empirically manifest itself in the communities you speak of? Hiring? Pay? Promotion decisions? Possibly freedom of speech? Even then it seems like I'm free to say whatever I want as long as I stay on topic.
Yeah you are free to say whatever you like as long as you say what you are told to parrot.
slackfan(4)
throwawaydei(1)
Interestingly enough, Pew Research ran a study[0] a few years back which found that the majority of whites, blacks, and Hispanics reject race-conscious hiring—even if it results in less diversity.
I can only imagine what it would feel like to be a PoC in a company that has openly stated that their goal is to achieve a certain racial/ethnic composition regardless of standards. How would I not always have a sneaking suspicion that I was hired to fulfill some quota rather than on my own merits? Worse, I would feel that all of my colleagues are looking at me and wondering the same thing.
Excuse the cynicism, but I think the reason these companies have to shout about their DEI initiatives from the rooftops is because they care less about diversity and helping disadvantaged groups and more about signalling their virtue to the rest of the world.
[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/america...
I can only imagine what it would feel like to be a PoC in a company that has openly stated that their goal is to achieve a certain racial/ethnic composition regardless of standards. How would I not always have a sneaking suspicion that I was hired to fulfill some quota rather than on my own merits? Worse, I would feel that all of my colleagues are looking at me and wondering the same thing.
Excuse the cynicism, but I think the reason these companies have to shout about their DEI initiatives from the rooftops is because they care less about diversity and helping disadvantaged groups and more about signalling their virtue to the rest of the world.
[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/america...
As a Hispanic man, I can say that I don't care about whether I earned my spot or lucked into it through my ancestry. Life isn't fair, and I'll gladly take whatever advantages I can scrounge up.
The software interview process in particular is already so capricious that I feel absolutely no shame in tilting it in my favor in any way that I can.
The software interview process in particular is already so capricious that I feel absolutely no shame in tilting it in my favor in any way that I can.
Would you be okay with white and Asian people similarly applying in-group advantage towards their own races to the detriment of ours? The software interview process is capricious, but this doesn't justify racial discrimination. If we're so nonchalant about racism favoring us, we're hypocrites for criticizing racism favoring other groups over us.
I am deeply troubled by racial discrimination favoring Latin people, despite benefitting from it in a narrow and immediate sense, because it makes people justified in carrying out their own discrimination potentially to my detriment.
I am deeply troubled by racial discrimination favoring Latin people, despite benefitting from it in a narrow and immediate sense, because it makes people justified in carrying out their own discrimination potentially to my detriment.
>Would you be okay with white and Asian people similarly applying in-group advantage towards their own races to the detriment of ours?
This isn't a great take because there's tons of in-group advantages going on today that are deeply rooted in racial discrimination.
The U.S. is still reeling from its deeply racist housing policies. What does this have to do with this DEI thread?:
- Wealth is the highest indicator of educational attainment, and in turn education is a high indicator of wealth. [1]
- Zoning laws were explicitly racist and meant to keep out certain races from white neighborhoods. My parent's home built during the WWII era in the SFBAY had covenants attached to it that stated under no uncertain terms that no PoC may live in the home (No longer enforceable of course). The racist roots of these laws is not a matter of speculation.
- Most household wealth is through homeownership. [2]
- High quality education is tied to housing via school districts, more expensive houses are located in schools with better funding and higher quality education.
- Many zoning rules such as absurdly large minimum lot sizes, high setbacks, height limits (Designed to make it more expensive to buy for PoC in particular) remain in place today. It's a positive feedback loop where those who had an advantage are more likely to retain that advantage.
As OP stated, life isn't fair, and the rules are indeed rigged to favor those in power. Rebuking a group for using their limited advantages while ignoring the plethora of advantages for those up top isn't very equitable.
[1] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017....
[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disp...
This isn't a great take because there's tons of in-group advantages going on today that are deeply rooted in racial discrimination.
The U.S. is still reeling from its deeply racist housing policies. What does this have to do with this DEI thread?:
- Wealth is the highest indicator of educational attainment, and in turn education is a high indicator of wealth. [1]
- Zoning laws were explicitly racist and meant to keep out certain races from white neighborhoods. My parent's home built during the WWII era in the SFBAY had covenants attached to it that stated under no uncertain terms that no PoC may live in the home (No longer enforceable of course). The racist roots of these laws is not a matter of speculation.
- Most household wealth is through homeownership. [2]
- High quality education is tied to housing via school districts, more expensive houses are located in schools with better funding and higher quality education.
- Many zoning rules such as absurdly large minimum lot sizes, high setbacks, height limits (Designed to make it more expensive to buy for PoC in particular) remain in place today. It's a positive feedback loop where those who had an advantage are more likely to retain that advantage.
As OP stated, life isn't fair, and the rules are indeed rigged to favor those in power. Rebuking a group for using their limited advantages while ignoring the plethora of advantages for those up top isn't very equitable.
[1] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017....
[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disp...
There's different reasons we design different systems to combat discrimination or lop-sided outcomes. White and Asian people, if that is their only identifying class characteristic, are not discriminated against generally. An argument could be made that white and Asian people from poor backgrounds don't make it into programming as much, but again - class lines. We probably should compensate for class more in discrimination laws.
Black and Hispanic people do face more active discrimination. That has to do more with outward appearance and last names.
Vets on the other hand are an example of a lop-sided outcome. It was discovered a while back that most vets often went into blue collar professions and didn't really climb that many ladders. They instituted a rule where campaign badge holders and disabled vets must have their resumes reviewed first. Working on the west coast I can attest it's rare to see vets at all. I've met more vets from non-US military in the tech world than I have from my own country (not complaining, but worth noting). There's definitely a small contingent of people who would put their political disposition into hiring if they saw a candidate was a vet, but military are coached to chop their military experience from their resume once they have a stack of experience to avoid this.
All that to say, if I were OP I would not be okay with what you proposed just on a facade basis. If it incorporated class distinctions I might agree.
Black and Hispanic people do face more active discrimination. That has to do more with outward appearance and last names.
Vets on the other hand are an example of a lop-sided outcome. It was discovered a while back that most vets often went into blue collar professions and didn't really climb that many ladders. They instituted a rule where campaign badge holders and disabled vets must have their resumes reviewed first. Working on the west coast I can attest it's rare to see vets at all. I've met more vets from non-US military in the tech world than I have from my own country (not complaining, but worth noting). There's definitely a small contingent of people who would put their political disposition into hiring if they saw a candidate was a vet, but military are coached to chop their military experience from their resume once they have a stack of experience to avoid this.
All that to say, if I were OP I would not be okay with what you proposed just on a facade basis. If it incorporated class distinctions I might agree.
I don't think I've ever been discriminated against for being Latin. Quite the contrary, I likely had significant advantages on account of my race in university admissions. I'm not sure if I've had such advantages in tech hiring, as I don't outwardly advertise my Latin identity precisely because I don't want progressive race-realists to use it as a factor in hiring, but if they did find it it probably did help.
Unlike military service which has a discrete set of experiences and criteria, race is just something you're born with.
Unlike military service which has a discrete set of experiences and criteria, race is just something you're born with.
Every story is going to be different I think. Having tools that marginally shift our statistical outcomes makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is the people who propose specific proportions as a set of diversity criteria, as it's difficult to determine what those proportions should be. At the moment I think most people are comfortable saying, "better than what they are".
It also stands out in my mind that most of these statistics rely on self-identification. I don't know if anyone's dug into the validity of self-identification.
It also stands out in my mind that most of these statistics rely on self-identification. I don't know if anyone's dug into the validity of self-identification.
If the current representation is X% and you want it to be "better" than what they are then you're just implicitly setting a quota of (X+1)%.
> Asian people, if that is their only identifying class characteristic, are not discriminated against generally.
Harvard would like a word with you.
But in all seriousness, Asians face the discrimination of being perceived as foreign and “the other” more so compared to other racial minorities. So the claim that they generally don’t face discrimination is not true.
Harvard would like a word with you.
But in all seriousness, Asians face the discrimination of being perceived as foreign and “the other” more so compared to other racial minorities. So the claim that they generally don’t face discrimination is not true.
Yeah, poor choice of words on my part. They don't face discrimination in hiring. They make up a fairly large chunk of tech engineering.
Ah, well, I didn't want to go on some long tangent. I'm sure elsewhere in the thread people are hashing out the pros and cons of giving underrepresented people an unfair advantage.
I just wanted to say that I don't think anyone should feel bad or like an impostor if they manage to get their foot in the door some way other than the traditional routes: you get lucky on a coding quiz, your dads meet at the country club, you bust your hump for 10 years in crappy jobs to work your way up to a good one, etc.
I just wanted to say that I don't think anyone should feel bad or like an impostor if they manage to get their foot in the door some way other than the traditional routes: you get lucky on a coding quiz, your dads meet at the country club, you bust your hump for 10 years in crappy jobs to work your way up to a good one, etc.
You didn't "earn" anything if it was due to skin color and that's the point. I've gotten plenty of breaks in my life but I'm aware of what is earned and what isn't. It's one thing to be ok with the fact you got in but you need the awareness to understand the negatives of a system that gives you chances due to an innate characteristic you have no control over.
The irony here is that if we all just accept the line of thinking you're using our society will go back to the exact "white male patriarchy" this DEI stuff is supposedly trying to fight. The only difference is that BiPOC or LGBTQ will replace the white male as the superior class. The next step is we can just ensure white males don't get a vote and can't own land or credit cards right?
The irony here is that if we all just accept the line of thinking you're using our society will go back to the exact "white male patriarchy" this DEI stuff is supposedly trying to fight. The only difference is that BiPOC or LGBTQ will replace the white male as the superior class. The next step is we can just ensure white males don't get a vote and can't own land or credit cards right?
[deleted]
Man, it's really weird to find myself on the SJW side of this argument for once. I'm usually the token brown guy in Libertarian circles.
Despite what you might've read on Tumblr or Fox News, I'm not planning to oppress anyone or commit white genocide.
When I'm doing interviews or looking at resumes, I'll give an extra moment of consideration to anyone born in the USA who seems to have pulled him/herself up by their bootstraps. I personally think that's enough DEI from me, and I don't think it's something you should be too incensed about.
Despite what you might've read on Tumblr or Fox News, I'm not planning to oppress anyone or commit white genocide.
When I'm doing interviews or looking at resumes, I'll give an extra moment of consideration to anyone born in the USA who seems to have pulled him/herself up by their bootstraps. I personally think that's enough DEI from me, and I don't think it's something you should be too incensed about.
You're strawmanning a lot of what I said.
My comment is just about what it leads to if we have a society that bases their hiring on specific skin colors. It seems like you're failing to differentiate between exactly what you're personally doing and the society wide affect of sitting back and accepting race based hiring.
My comment is just about what it leads to if we have a society that bases their hiring on specific skin colors. It seems like you're failing to differentiate between exactly what you're personally doing and the society wide affect of sitting back and accepting race based hiring.
You're talking about how we're on a slippery slope to creating "the superior class" and then try to claim that I'm being combative? Comeon man.
To attempt to salvage this subthread: What I'm personally doing is exactly what DEI is for the most part. BigCo gives you a yearly training that says "Make sure you give someone a fair shot even if they don't wow you with their resume". BigCo sends out a slideshow with some examples of certain minorities succeeding at their jobs. Done.
To attempt to salvage this subthread: What I'm personally doing is exactly what DEI is for the most part. BigCo gives you a yearly training that says "Make sure you give someone a fair shot even if they don't wow you with their resume". BigCo sends out a slideshow with some examples of certain minorities succeeding at their jobs. Done.
"What I'm personally doing is exactly what DEI is for the most part."
No, it's not and if you think this is true you've been burying your head in the sand for the last 5 years. Companies don't create specific Diversity/Equity coordinators and entire DEI departments just to tell you to occasionally look closer at some people you think aren't getting a fair shot.
You're just gaslighting now or blissfully ignorant of the current state of things. The OP is black man literally telling everyone this isn't the case for him and there are multiple other commenters saying the same.
No, it's not and if you think this is true you've been burying your head in the sand for the last 5 years. Companies don't create specific Diversity/Equity coordinators and entire DEI departments just to tell you to occasionally look closer at some people you think aren't getting a fair shot.
You're just gaslighting now or blissfully ignorant of the current state of things. The OP is black man literally telling everyone this isn't the case for him and there are multiple other commenters saying the same.
Yeah, fair enough, I'll keep my eyes peeled
The concern is that there are places where minority hires are explicitly a lower bar, so those people get junk jobs and layoffs, regardless of ability.
Personally, I think the problem should be pushed upstream whenever possible. (More funding for minority elementary and high schools, and candidate quotas for recruiters but not hires both are good examples of effective approaches).
Personally, I think the problem should be pushed upstream whenever possible. (More funding for minority elementary and high schools, and candidate quotas for recruiters but not hires both are good examples of effective approaches).
I agree 100%. I know many white and asian people who didn't get their foot in the door or opportunity solely because they had amazing skills and talent.
Get in however you can and then work your ass off so no one doubts you.
Get in however you can and then work your ass off so no one doubts you.
[deleted]
Argentinian here - this 100%.
You shouldn't feel bad about leveraging a system to your advantage. Life is hard.
As a Black person, I have never experienced a company sacrificing standards to improve representation. I have seen companies want to become more representative of the their customer base, but rarely have I seen them actually succeed.
> Interestingly enough, Pew Research ran a study[0] a few years back which found that the majority of whites, blacks, and Hispanics reject race-conscious hiring—even if it results in less diversity.
Ideologues who are a tiny minority, which is overwhelmingly white, don't care tho.
The Atlantic - Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture - https://archive.ph/OXs6F
It's a bit sad how little discussion it generated, because this data should be pretty damning.
> 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”
> So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are.
> While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it.
8 percent of US population, who knows how tiny proportion of EU population (we're also on the Internets, you know). And they constantly pretend their views are default, and try to marginalize others online. With some success, sadly.
Also, they blatantly discriminate against neurodivergent people - and if there's a single obviously beneficial diversity program, it'd be increasing neurotype diversity. Ways of thinking, not surface characteristics.
Example: Damore, who was an aspie. You know, the disability where you have trouble with unclear communication that normies rely on. Which causes sth like 90% afflicted to be unemployed - because people insist on ignoring their issues. Tech is one of the areas where they can thrive - except in the name of "diversity", left wants to push them out. I don't understand how's that coherent. Who decides which identity group are worthy of protection?
See "The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech": https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58e2a71bf7e0ab3ba886c...
> Administrators assume that the most vulnerable ‘snowflakes’ are always listeners, and never speakers.
> Autism spectrum disorders are central to the tension between campus censorship and neurodiversity. This is because there’s a trade-off between ‘systematizing’ and ‘empathizing’. Systematizing is the drive to construct and analyze abstract systems of rules, evidence, and procedures; it’s stronger in males, in people with autism/Asperger’s, and in STEM fields. Empathizing is the ability to understand other people’s thoughts and feelings, and to respond with ‘appropriate’ emotions and speech acts; it’s stronger in females, in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and in the arts and humanities. Conservative satirists often mock ‘social justice warriors’ for their ‘autistic screeching’, but Leftist student protesters are more likely to be high empathizers from the arts, humanities, and social sciences, than high systematizers from the hard sciences or engineering.
> Consider the Empathy Quotient (EQ) scale, (...) it seems like a higher EQ score would strongly predict ability to follow campus speech codes that prohibit causing offense to others. People on the autism spectrum, such as those with Asperger’s, score much lower on the EQ scale. (Full disclosure: I score 14 out of 80.) Thus, aspies simply don’t have brains that can anticipate what might be considered offensive, disrespectful, unwanted, or outrageous by others – regardless of what campus speech codes expect of us.
> From a high systematizer’s perspective, most ‘respectful campus’ speech codes are basically demands that they should turn into a high empathizer through sheer force of will.
> The ways that speech codes discriminate against systematizers is exacerbated by their vagueness, overbreadth, unsystematic structure, double standards, and logical inconsistencies – which drive systematizers nuts. For example, most speech codes prohibit any insults based on a person’s sex, race, religion, or political attitudes. But aspie students often notice that these codes are applied very selectively: it’s OK to insult ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘patriarchy’, but not to question the ‘wage gap’ or ‘rape culture’; it’s OK to insult ‘white privilege’ and the ‘Alt-Right’ but not ‘affirmative action’ or ‘Black Lives Matter’; it’s OK to insult pro-life Catholics but not prosharia Muslims. The concept of ‘unwelcome’ jokes or ‘unwelcome’ sexual comments seems like a time-travel paradox to aspies – how can you judge what speech act is ‘unwelcome’ until after you get the feedback about whether it was welcome?
> When a policy is formally neutral, but it adversely affects one legally protected group of people more than other people, that’s called ‘disparate impact’, and it’s illegal. People with diagnosed mental disorders qualify as ‘disabled’ people under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws, so any speech code at a public university that imposes disparate impact on neurominorities is illegal.
Ideologues who are a tiny minority, which is overwhelmingly white, don't care tho.
The Atlantic - Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture - https://archive.ph/OXs6F
It's a bit sad how little discussion it generated, because this data should be pretty damning.
> 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”
> So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are.
> While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it.
8 percent of US population, who knows how tiny proportion of EU population (we're also on the Internets, you know). And they constantly pretend their views are default, and try to marginalize others online. With some success, sadly.
Also, they blatantly discriminate against neurodivergent people - and if there's a single obviously beneficial diversity program, it'd be increasing neurotype diversity. Ways of thinking, not surface characteristics.
Example: Damore, who was an aspie. You know, the disability where you have trouble with unclear communication that normies rely on. Which causes sth like 90% afflicted to be unemployed - because people insist on ignoring their issues. Tech is one of the areas where they can thrive - except in the name of "diversity", left wants to push them out. I don't understand how's that coherent. Who decides which identity group are worthy of protection?
See "The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech": https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58e2a71bf7e0ab3ba886c...
> Administrators assume that the most vulnerable ‘snowflakes’ are always listeners, and never speakers.
> Autism spectrum disorders are central to the tension between campus censorship and neurodiversity. This is because there’s a trade-off between ‘systematizing’ and ‘empathizing’. Systematizing is the drive to construct and analyze abstract systems of rules, evidence, and procedures; it’s stronger in males, in people with autism/Asperger’s, and in STEM fields. Empathizing is the ability to understand other people’s thoughts and feelings, and to respond with ‘appropriate’ emotions and speech acts; it’s stronger in females, in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and in the arts and humanities. Conservative satirists often mock ‘social justice warriors’ for their ‘autistic screeching’, but Leftist student protesters are more likely to be high empathizers from the arts, humanities, and social sciences, than high systematizers from the hard sciences or engineering.
> Consider the Empathy Quotient (EQ) scale, (...) it seems like a higher EQ score would strongly predict ability to follow campus speech codes that prohibit causing offense to others. People on the autism spectrum, such as those with Asperger’s, score much lower on the EQ scale. (Full disclosure: I score 14 out of 80.) Thus, aspies simply don’t have brains that can anticipate what might be considered offensive, disrespectful, unwanted, or outrageous by others – regardless of what campus speech codes expect of us.
> From a high systematizer’s perspective, most ‘respectful campus’ speech codes are basically demands that they should turn into a high empathizer through sheer force of will.
> The ways that speech codes discriminate against systematizers is exacerbated by their vagueness, overbreadth, unsystematic structure, double standards, and logical inconsistencies – which drive systematizers nuts. For example, most speech codes prohibit any insults based on a person’s sex, race, religion, or political attitudes. But aspie students often notice that these codes are applied very selectively: it’s OK to insult ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘patriarchy’, but not to question the ‘wage gap’ or ‘rape culture’; it’s OK to insult ‘white privilege’ and the ‘Alt-Right’ but not ‘affirmative action’ or ‘Black Lives Matter’; it’s OK to insult pro-life Catholics but not prosharia Muslims. The concept of ‘unwelcome’ jokes or ‘unwelcome’ sexual comments seems like a time-travel paradox to aspies – how can you judge what speech act is ‘unwelcome’ until after you get the feedback about whether it was welcome?
> When a policy is formally neutral, but it adversely affects one legally protected group of people more than other people, that’s called ‘disparate impact’, and it’s illegal. People with diagnosed mental disorders qualify as ‘disabled’ people under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws, so any speech code at a public university that imposes disparate impact on neurominorities is illegal.
Absolutely based, thank you for sharing this. I know my comment doesn't contribute much here, but if anything, a signal of validation.
You're not alone. My partner has the same issue. They work in a field where performance can be judged somewhat objectively, but in which reputation still matters. They get not only impostor syndrome, but also the fear that other people will think their achievements are only due to DEI initiatives.
Another issue is that senior minorities constantly get dragged into (useless, time-wasting, chore-like) committees that have representation quotas.
> In my opinion, it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company.
That would be great: "do the right thing but don't brag about it". Unfortunately, "keep doing the wrong thing but pretend otherwise loudly" seems more common.
Another issue is that senior minorities constantly get dragged into (useless, time-wasting, chore-like) committees that have representation quotas.
> In my opinion, it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company.
That would be great: "do the right thing but don't brag about it". Unfortunately, "keep doing the wrong thing but pretend otherwise loudly" seems more common.
Whenever my company has had conversations about DEI initiatives, I always come back to the same argument: "talk is cheap, we can talk all day long about how we are diverse. How about we shut up, put our money where our mouth is, and actually hire some folks from diverse backgrounds".
DEI is something that is easy to talk about but actually kinda hard to implement. Part of the problem is the makeup of the industry in general. In tech for example it would be physically impossible for companies to be 50/50 male/female because the broader industry doesn't break down that way, same goes for any race, religion, background, etc. Companies love to scream from the rooftops about DEI because yelling about it is significantly easier than actually doing it.
DEI is something that is easy to talk about but actually kinda hard to implement. Part of the problem is the makeup of the industry in general. In tech for example it would be physically impossible for companies to be 50/50 male/female because the broader industry doesn't break down that way, same goes for any race, religion, background, etc. Companies love to scream from the rooftops about DEI because yelling about it is significantly easier than actually doing it.
> actually hire some folks from diverse backgrounds
Because you’re trying to hire from a small pool of candidates (minority software developer or whatever) that EVERY OTHER tech company is trying to get in a desperate attempt to not look bad (because not having a sufficient number of minorities on staff is a sin).
It’s simply a question of numbers. There’s only so many minorities, and only a fraction of them are sufficiently talented, and everyone wants them. Your company may not be a big enough name to woo these folks. So it’s not necessarily the fault of your leadership to act on their principles.
Now there’s a whole OTHER can of worms associated with DEI, which is that everyone wants minority employees => there’s a lack of them => let’s lower our standards to widen the pool we have to choose from, and your company certainly could go down that route if you think they’re not doing enough.
Because you’re trying to hire from a small pool of candidates (minority software developer or whatever) that EVERY OTHER tech company is trying to get in a desperate attempt to not look bad (because not having a sufficient number of minorities on staff is a sin).
It’s simply a question of numbers. There’s only so many minorities, and only a fraction of them are sufficiently talented, and everyone wants them. Your company may not be a big enough name to woo these folks. So it’s not necessarily the fault of your leadership to act on their principles.
Now there’s a whole OTHER can of worms associated with DEI, which is that everyone wants minority employees => there’s a lack of them => let’s lower our standards to widen the pool we have to choose from, and your company certainly could go down that route if you think they’re not doing enough.
When this topic comes up I always remember a friend's comments about Google shuttering their Atlanta office: they say they want to hire Black employees, but not "where they actually, you know, live". It's not that hard to find employees of color; they just tend to live in different places. It's also not necessarily easy to move somewhere nobody looks like you — which I also experienced as a white guy in China.
Yeah I look at it from a top level. Say that in the tech industry, 20% (totally made up number BTW) of your workers are black. It would be possible for some companies to have >20% of their workforce be black, but if you look at the top employers (GOOG, AMZN, MSFT, AAPL, etc), there would be physically impossible for them to hire >20% black workers because there are simply not enough of them out there in the broader workforce.
The solution here is to drive more black people into the tech field, in order to raise that 20% figure that would then get reflected among tech companies. This is something that an individual company cannot solve, even at Google or Apple scale, it would have to be at the government level and even that is a complete crapshoot.
TL;DR: Diversity quotas are hard.
The solution here is to drive more black people into the tech field, in order to raise that 20% figure that would then get reflected among tech companies. This is something that an individual company cannot solve, even at Google or Apple scale, it would have to be at the government level and even that is a complete crapshoot.
TL;DR: Diversity quotas are hard.
> The solution here is to drive more black people into the tech field
What's funny is everyone will agree the pool of available candidates to choose from is incredibly small due to (among other things) issues in education, but those same people won't cut companies any slack if they don't hit a certain percentage of minority employees. It then becomes a game of brute forcing minorities into every part of society where they're under-represented, all at once -- because the "real fix" will take decades.
What's funny is everyone will agree the pool of available candidates to choose from is incredibly small due to (among other things) issues in education, but those same people won't cut companies any slack if they don't hit a certain percentage of minority employees. It then becomes a game of brute forcing minorities into every part of society where they're under-represented, all at once -- because the "real fix" will take decades.
Agreed that DEI initiatives are hard, but the picture is a bit incomplete.
Quotas are the boogey/strawman that get trotted out when DEI initiatives are mentioned.
Quotas _must_ be filled, and this serves no one, not the companies doing the hiring (because there aren't enough qualified candidates, and hiring unqualified candidates is bad for business), nor the candidates themselves (because they didn't get hired on their own merits, and imposter syndrome).
Hiring _targets_, on the other hand, should be attained but can be missed due to lack of qualified candidates. When these misses occur, if the company is serious and capable about DEI initiatives, there's an investigation into why that is and if there's anything that can be done to remedy it, e.g. supporting educational/industrial pipelines, creating internship/apprenticeship programs or training opportunities for those changing careers, and so on.
Quotas are the boogey/strawman that get trotted out when DEI initiatives are mentioned.
Quotas _must_ be filled, and this serves no one, not the companies doing the hiring (because there aren't enough qualified candidates, and hiring unqualified candidates is bad for business), nor the candidates themselves (because they didn't get hired on their own merits, and imposter syndrome).
Hiring _targets_, on the other hand, should be attained but can be missed due to lack of qualified candidates. When these misses occur, if the company is serious and capable about DEI initiatives, there's an investigation into why that is and if there's anything that can be done to remedy it, e.g. supporting educational/industrial pipelines, creating internship/apprenticeship programs or training opportunities for those changing careers, and so on.
> Hiring _targets_, on the other hand, should be attained
How do you determine what those targets should be? This implies the we can determine the correct % of X race/gender/etc.
How do you determine what those targets should be? This implies the we can determine the correct % of X race/gender/etc.
>TL;DR: Diversity quotas are hard
Diversity quotas are wrong.
If you hire the black candidate because you have a quota to fill. How is that morally different to hiring a white person just because they're white?
The only situation where I can think of quotas being a 'good' is to rectify a past self sustaining imbalance. If you made the case that the police are racist, because they're all white, therefore black people don't want to join, I would say that's a good candidate. But it isn't a good thing in and of itself, and shouldn't be an ongoing thing. Because it's corrosive in its own right.
I would rather Google/apple/Amazon put effort into education if they feel there's an issue. I would guess the issue is one of poverty rather than colour per se. Targeting and helping schools in poor areas would actually be helping where it mattered, giving people the best start in life whatever their colour, rather than someone who already had that start, but happens not to be white.
Diversity quotas are wrong.
If you hire the black candidate because you have a quota to fill. How is that morally different to hiring a white person just because they're white?
The only situation where I can think of quotas being a 'good' is to rectify a past self sustaining imbalance. If you made the case that the police are racist, because they're all white, therefore black people don't want to join, I would say that's a good candidate. But it isn't a good thing in and of itself, and shouldn't be an ongoing thing. Because it's corrosive in its own right.
I would rather Google/apple/Amazon put effort into education if they feel there's an issue. I would guess the issue is one of poverty rather than colour per se. Targeting and helping schools in poor areas would actually be helping where it mattered, giving people the best start in life whatever their colour, rather than someone who already had that start, but happens not to be white.
Quotas are a straw/boogeyman. Most companies have hiring targets. The difference is that quotas must be filled (which doesn't make business or social sense) whereas hiring targets are goals (which aren't required to be attained).
Except those "targets" are often tied to things like pay and promotion. That really blurs the line between "quota" and "target". For example Intel docked people's pay unless they hit their totally-not-a-quota target of 40% women and URM hires: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34679982
[deleted]
Locally the pool of candidates might seem small. Globally it is much larger than one thinks or realizes.
To say that the company has a moral duty to file immigration paperwork or set up remote offices solely to increase diversity is a big ask.
It boils down to a core philosophical difference - do you want to emphasize equal access to opportunity, or do you want to emphasize equal outcomes? Some would argue it isn't an either-or thing, and we can do both at once, but I argue mandated equality of outcomes is insidious and causes social strife.
If you are a minority and get hired, and the company has an explicit policy of hiring N% of minorities, then you will always wonder (as will all other employees) whether you were hired because of your minority status or because of your actual skills. This is very bad for morale and self worth.
I don't think the minorities themselves were consulted. Perhaps it is being instituted by a minority, but they do not represent the preferences of people they purport to help with these policies.
I think the UC university system has it right because they ban racial preferences for admitting students. While overall the percentage of certain racial minorities is lower there, those that do get in feel accomplished and deserving. This is a better outcome for society and personal self worth.
If you are a minority and get hired, and the company has an explicit policy of hiring N% of minorities, then you will always wonder (as will all other employees) whether you were hired because of your minority status or because of your actual skills. This is very bad for morale and self worth.
I don't think the minorities themselves were consulted. Perhaps it is being instituted by a minority, but they do not represent the preferences of people they purport to help with these policies.
I think the UC university system has it right because they ban racial preferences for admitting students. While overall the percentage of certain racial minorities is lower there, those that do get in feel accomplished and deserving. This is a better outcome for society and personal self worth.
The problem is companies do DEI as marketing, and equal opportunity is invisible. If there are fewer black ballet dancers it doesn't necessarily mean that there's discrimination or racial barriers, it could just be that black people are less interested in that career. Further, different communities vary greatly in age, for example. The median age for Mexican Americans is 25, compared with 49 for American Jews. So you would expect to see a big difference in distribution for, say, senior positions within these racial groups even in a world with zero racial discrimination.
references:
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2011/07/14/ii-mexican-a...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-jews-getting-younger-on-ave...
references:
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2011/07/14/ii-mexican-a...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-jews-getting-younger-on-ave...
On the other hand, if you only emphasize equal access of opportunity you will never reach equal outcomes. White men have centuries of cultural expectations, family wealth, and other advantages, and minorities have none of those advantages, and may be only a few decades (if that) removed from illiterate, impoverished inequality.
Give those groups equal opportunity and it's unsurprising when an inequality of outcomes is perpetuated, observe that inequality of outcomes long enough and you start to foment the idea that maybe those people aren't actually intrinsically equal.
Our office has a similar problem as a woman-owned business... The WBENC seal is valuable for winning bids in the government and aerospace industries, where regulatory measures encourage taking contracts with us over those that are still in the "old boys' club." Are we actually providing more value than our competition? Are we as innovative and sharp as we think we are? Or is much of the work we build together only selected because it satisfies some regulatory checkbox?
I don't know, but I'd rather suffer that social strife and doubt for a few decades in my generation, wondering about my own accomplishments and worthiness, than kick the can down the road and leave the inequality unaddressed. I believe that temporarily creating equal outcomes, while temporarily problematic, will be a much faster route towards long-term equality than doing nothing.
Give those groups equal opportunity and it's unsurprising when an inequality of outcomes is perpetuated, observe that inequality of outcomes long enough and you start to foment the idea that maybe those people aren't actually intrinsically equal.
Our office has a similar problem as a woman-owned business... The WBENC seal is valuable for winning bids in the government and aerospace industries, where regulatory measures encourage taking contracts with us over those that are still in the "old boys' club." Are we actually providing more value than our competition? Are we as innovative and sharp as we think we are? Or is much of the work we build together only selected because it satisfies some regulatory checkbox?
I don't know, but I'd rather suffer that social strife and doubt for a few decades in my generation, wondering about my own accomplishments and worthiness, than kick the can down the road and leave the inequality unaddressed. I believe that temporarily creating equal outcomes, while temporarily problematic, will be a much faster route towards long-term equality than doing nothing.
Can you name a single place which has equality of opportunity and where black people were somehow still unable to prosper?
In California, the equality of outcome groups in Sacramento are trying to lower the educational bar to the federally mandated minimum. The result is that most people reading this with kids in California will use their wealth to supplement public education (or pay for private schools), while people in poorer districts won’t have that option. They already defunded science and art, state wide, and the equity brigade tried to defund high school calculus last year.
In California, the equality of outcome groups in Sacramento are trying to lower the educational bar to the federally mandated minimum. The result is that most people reading this with kids in California will use their wealth to supplement public education (or pay for private schools), while people in poorer districts won’t have that option. They already defunded science and art, state wide, and the equity brigade tried to defund high school calculus last year.
Equal outcomes is an evil goal which can only be ultimately achieved through forced labor.
Much more humane to just provide equal opportunity to all and then let people decide for themselves what they want to do for a living.
Much more humane to just provide equal opportunity to all and then let people decide for themselves what they want to do for a living.
[deleted]
And yet Asian Americans and Jewish Americans significantly outperform those white men. And in the last several decades, women have outperformed men in university and in the 2010s in the workforce, too. This analysis does not hold up to close scrutiny.
The only thing minorities lack is a proper value system. There are multiple immigrant groups that start from nothing and achieve upper middle-class status in a generation's time. Once we realize, as a society, that what minorities really need is internal support to reform their cultural systems, only then will minorities will empower themselves to do better.
There are multiple immigrant groups that start from nothing and achieve upper middle-class status in a generation's time.
Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans...
In Martin Luther King's day, the line was that all that was needed was equality of opportunity.
Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans...
In Martin Luther King's day, the line was that all that was needed was equality of opportunity.
Malcom X also said this and pointed to immigrants As examples to immulate.
> In Martin Luther King's day, the line was that all that was needed was equality of opportunity.
If you actually read and/or listen to King's speeches and writings, rather than just passively consume the propaganda image constructed by exactly the forces King railed against, you would know that it wasn't, at least not the way you seem to be thinking. King explicitly saw as necessary radical redistribution to acheive much greater equality of material condition (see, e.g., the “Three Evils” speech); he did not buy into the idea that material conditions that are the outcome of systems of distribution of scarce resources could be cleanly severed from “opportunity”, such that you could have even rough equality of the latter with gross inequality of the former.
If you actually read and/or listen to King's speeches and writings, rather than just passively consume the propaganda image constructed by exactly the forces King railed against, you would know that it wasn't, at least not the way you seem to be thinking. King explicitly saw as necessary radical redistribution to acheive much greater equality of material condition (see, e.g., the “Three Evils” speech); he did not buy into the idea that material conditions that are the outcome of systems of distribution of scarce resources could be cleanly severed from “opportunity”, such that you could have even rough equality of the latter with gross inequality of the former.
>There are multiple immigrant groups that start from nothing and achieve upper middle-class status in a generation's time
You can't compare an immigrant group, which is _most likely_ elite in their home countries (it is very expensive and very difficult to immigrate to the united states), to minorities in America who have seen their family units destroyed as recently as 60 years ago.
You can point to the success of Nigerian-Americans; one of, if not the most educated[1] racial group in the US. If you are an immigrant from Nigeria, the second richest country in Africa by GDP, the US as a result of its immigration policies simply selects for the best and brightest.
Minorities "lacking a value system" (??), isn't something innate to their culture. It's been a purposeful policy for America for most of it's lifetime. Just look at the Tulsa Race Massacre; it was an incredible destruction of future generational and cultural wealth for the people who you now say "lack a value system".
>minorities really need is internal support to reform their cultural systems
There are multiple ways to approach this but it tends to be labeled as socialism, woke-ism, CRT, or DEI.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-10-13/it-isn...
You can't compare an immigrant group, which is _most likely_ elite in their home countries (it is very expensive and very difficult to immigrate to the united states), to minorities in America who have seen their family units destroyed as recently as 60 years ago.
You can point to the success of Nigerian-Americans; one of, if not the most educated[1] racial group in the US. If you are an immigrant from Nigeria, the second richest country in Africa by GDP, the US as a result of its immigration policies simply selects for the best and brightest.
Minorities "lacking a value system" (??), isn't something innate to their culture. It's been a purposeful policy for America for most of it's lifetime. Just look at the Tulsa Race Massacre; it was an incredible destruction of future generational and cultural wealth for the people who you now say "lack a value system".
>minorities really need is internal support to reform their cultural systems
There are multiple ways to approach this but it tends to be labeled as socialism, woke-ism, CRT, or DEI.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-10-13/it-isn...
Why do you think it will stop after a few decades?
What if by that point men are doing categorically worse in employment and entrepreneurship than women, and demand their own compensatory programs?
Where does it end?
What if by that point men are doing categorically worse in employment and entrepreneurship than women, and demand their own compensatory programs?
Where does it end?
[deleted]
>I think the UC university system has it right because they ban racial preferences for admitting students.
The UC system only did so because they were mandated to by law (specifically a voter initiative), and they still try to use as many proxies for race as possible in order to try and be racist in their admissions policies.
The UC system only did so because they were mandated to by law (specifically a voter initiative), and they still try to use as many proxies for race as possible in order to try and be racist in their admissions policies.
> and they still try to use as money proxies for race
But that's completely legitimate. If black people (for example) are systemically poorer than white people as a group, it makes sense to give them more help.
It's favoring a wealthy black person over a poor white person, that's arguably problematic.
But that's completely legitimate. If black people (for example) are systemically poorer than white people as a group, it makes sense to give them more help.
It's favoring a wealthy black person over a poor white person, that's arguably problematic.
That was a typo due to autocorrect, I meant to write "as many."
But that's completely legitimate. If [Asian|Jewish] people (for example) are systemically [better at university] than white people as a group, it makes sense to [hold them to much higher standards than white people in university admissions].
No, it doesn't. Your statement assumes that a university population should have a certain makeup of races. Let in the best of the lot regardless of color. If that makes the university population mostly Asian or Jewish so be it. That means that everybody else is resting on their laurels and not actually competitive in the market for university positions.
Every color of person is capable of performing at the same level as any other. However, not every person is capable of performing at the level some universities require. There are dummies and geniuses in every color/racial group. There are high achievers and low achievers in every group. Every single human attribute is a bell curve in the general population. By not picking the best of the lot regardless of how the result looks we are damaging the ability of the nation to compete.
Every color of person is capable of performing at the same level as any other. However, not every person is capable of performing at the level some universities require. There are dummies and geniuses in every color/racial group. There are high achievers and low achievers in every group. Every single human attribute is a bell curve in the general population. By not picking the best of the lot regardless of how the result looks we are damaging the ability of the nation to compete.
You said: But that's completely legitimate. If [Asian|Jewish] people (for example) are systemically [better at university] than white people as a group, it makes sense to [hold them to much higher standards than white people in university admissions].
As an Asian man, i'll agree. Except instead of levelers, these are usually used as bludgeons to punish groups rather than leveling groups. Based on the UMich and other college lawsuits, what we found out was that Asians were held to higher standards, except Jewish people werent. Neither were wealthy Protestants. Neither were well connected white people.
The "Progressive" systems used the excuse of DEI to help discriminate against Asians and others they didnt like.
Now, you ask the same policy makers, can I as an Asian man be allowed into the basketball or football team, and they look at you like "but youre not qualified"
As an Asian man, i'll agree. Except instead of levelers, these are usually used as bludgeons to punish groups rather than leveling groups. Based on the UMich and other college lawsuits, what we found out was that Asians were held to higher standards, except Jewish people werent. Neither were wealthy Protestants. Neither were well connected white people.
The "Progressive" systems used the excuse of DEI to help discriminate against Asians and others they didnt like.
Now, you ask the same policy makers, can I as an Asian man be allowed into the basketball or football team, and they look at you like "but youre not qualified"
> If [Asian|Jewish] people (for example) are systemically [better at university] than white people as a group, it makes sense to [hold them to much higher standards than white people in university admissions].
Found the Harvard admissions officer.
Found the Harvard admissions officer.
This is true. If you are from a bad class background, as a Maoist would put it, you are at a significant disadvantage when applying to the UC system.
What does equal access mean? If I go to an all purple school, and focus my sourcing fro new hires on my school, then my company will by construction be more purple than the overall population without any explicit discriminatory treatment after that. If I broaden my sourcing is that discriminating against minorities? If I know that school B does a better job of interview prep than school A should I take that into account? Am I hiring for SAT scores or predicted performance on the job? It's much messier than just "equal access or equal outcome" because access and outcomes are continuous processes.
Fully agree. I think it’s damaging to a society to assign a spokesperson for certain groups that wasn’t “elected”, but rather given the position, prestige, and reputation due to fitting in that group.
Thus it perpetuates the in-group, and causes the symptoms you’ve mentioned with equality of outcome derived solutions.
Thus it perpetuates the in-group, and causes the symptoms you’ve mentioned with equality of outcome derived solutions.
This isn't a discussion about banning racial preferences in hiring, or about the real racism being affirmative action.
They are certainly closely related, though.
I think we need to decouple the reparations discussion from the affirmative action discussion.
You can make a case that descendants of slaves and victims of Jim Crow laws and red lining policies deserve some kind of compensation.
But arbitrarily engineering the racial and gender composition of universities and industries is treating a symptom, not the underlying causes of current disparities.
You can make a case that descendants of slaves and victims of Jim Crow laws and red lining policies deserve some kind of compensation.
But arbitrarily engineering the racial and gender composition of universities and industries is treating a symptom, not the underlying causes of current disparities.
Obviously the only route to a healthy economy is one where everyone is paid the same wage /s
I'm seeing a lot of claims here that DEI initiatives are about actively hiring under-qualified under-represented candidates to change the demographics of the company. I've sat through a lot of DEI sessions at work (as have many of my friends), and I've yet to hear of anyone actually _hiring_ under-qualified candidates for the sake of a quota.
The DEI sessions I've sat through have focused heavily on the I--inclusion. Sure, they were corny, and there was plenty of virtue-signalling. But making a conscious effort to make sure everyone at the company feels socially welcome and fairly treated is a worthwhile effort.
The DEI sessions I've sat through have focused heavily on the I--inclusion. Sure, they were corny, and there was plenty of virtue-signalling. But making a conscious effort to make sure everyone at the company feels socially welcome and fairly treated is a worthwhile effort.
>actively hiring under-qualified
Oh it's absolutely been done. I have very strict color and gender-blind hiring standards, because I want to hire the actual best people for the job. My filtering of candidates has absolutely been overruled by (white) upper management, because they needed to make the department I was in more $diverse, for whatever that means.
The punchline is that I'm not white.
I've since moved on from that firm, but I've run into this elsewhere. Really leaves a bad taste in ones' mouth, and hits the demoralization hard. The doublespeak is miserable. But I suppose I have literally these policies to thank for forcing me to strike out on my own to build something actually better.
Oh it's absolutely been done. I have very strict color and gender-blind hiring standards, because I want to hire the actual best people for the job. My filtering of candidates has absolutely been overruled by (white) upper management, because they needed to make the department I was in more $diverse, for whatever that means.
The punchline is that I'm not white.
I've since moved on from that firm, but I've run into this elsewhere. Really leaves a bad taste in ones' mouth, and hits the demoralization hard. The doublespeak is miserable. But I suppose I have literally these policies to thank for forcing me to strike out on my own to build something actually better.
I think the idea is that even if blind hiring makes for the best possible employees on an individual basis in the short term, loosening that optimization in favor of diversity is a worthwhile pursuit because the company actually will thrive more when you look at long term collaboration (conversations and opinions that draw from a larger variety of life experiences can improve user advocacy, for example) and the possibility that amazing potential employees down the road might pass on applying to companies that aren't so diverse.
I see the irony in using protected characteristics for profit, but it's a win-win...
I see the irony in using protected characteristics for profit, but it's a win-win...
Thomas Sowell pointed out two problems with the "idea" in Discrimination and Disparities.
First, what evidence do we have that diversity does result in a company performing better, or gaining that amazing employee? He argues that this is an unfounded assumption.
Setting that aside, his second point requires deeper consideration. Disparities are often caused by upstream circumstances, like fewer children having adults in the home that value education, leading to fewer candidates that meet diversity criteria to hire from in the first place. By laying quotas on at hiring time, people are wrongly assuming the problem to be occurring where it is detected (in hiring) and not where it originates (in-home attitudes to education and work).
In the meantime, corporations hire consultants that emplace DEI "initiatives" that train workforces to detect "microaggressions," among similar evidence-free curricula. They do this, not because it solves a problem, but because it allows favorable public relations announcements.
How about initiatives funding scholarships, and contributing to in home book programs? How about funding campaigns for supporting community libraries?
These would go at the root of the issue, rather than the cosmetics of the issue. But then, they couldn't gain the indulgences for failing to actually be diverse as a corporate culture.
First, what evidence do we have that diversity does result in a company performing better, or gaining that amazing employee? He argues that this is an unfounded assumption.
Setting that aside, his second point requires deeper consideration. Disparities are often caused by upstream circumstances, like fewer children having adults in the home that value education, leading to fewer candidates that meet diversity criteria to hire from in the first place. By laying quotas on at hiring time, people are wrongly assuming the problem to be occurring where it is detected (in hiring) and not where it originates (in-home attitudes to education and work).
In the meantime, corporations hire consultants that emplace DEI "initiatives" that train workforces to detect "microaggressions," among similar evidence-free curricula. They do this, not because it solves a problem, but because it allows favorable public relations announcements.
How about initiatives funding scholarships, and contributing to in home book programs? How about funding campaigns for supporting community libraries?
These would go at the root of the issue, rather than the cosmetics of the issue. But then, they couldn't gain the indulgences for failing to actually be diverse as a corporate culture.
> First, what evidence do we have that diversity does result in a company performing better, or gaining that amazing employee? He argues that this is an unfounded assumption.
It's not an assumption.
> Along all dimensions measured, the more similar the investment partners, the lower their investments’ performance. For example, the success rate of acquisitions and IPOs was 11.5% lower, on average, for investments by partners with shared school backgrounds than for those by partners from different schools. The effect of shared ethnicity was even stronger, reducing an investment’s comparative success rate by 26.4% to 32.2%. [0]
> Increased diversity in the healthcare workforce helps reduce or eliminate racial health disparities, according to a 2014 meta-analysis of 25 studies. [1]
> A large-scale study of all Texas schools reveals diversity’s impact in public education systems. They find student performance most-improved when there was greater management diversity, and a closer racial match (representation) between management and student. [2]
> Most of the sixteen reviews matching inclusion criteria demonstrated positive associations between diversity, quality and financial performance. Healthcare studies showed patients generally fare better when care was provided by more diverse teams. Professional skills-focused studies generally find improvements to innovation, team communications and improved risk assessment. Financial performance also improved with increased diversity. A diversity-friendly environment was often identified as a key to avoiding frictions that come with change. [3]
> Our latest report shows not only that the business case remains robust but also that the relationship between diversity on executive teams and the likelihood of financial outperformance has strengthened over time. These findings emerge from our largest data set so far, encompassing 15 countries and more than 1,000 large companies. By incorporating a “social listening” analysis of employee sentiment in online reviews, the report also provides new insights into how inclusion matters. It shows that companies should pay much greater attention to inclusion, even when they are relatively diverse. [4]
> Using data from the 1996 to 1997 National Organizations Survey, a national sample of for-profit business organizations, this article tests eight hypotheses derived from the value-in-diversity thesis. The results support seven of these hypotheses: racial diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater relative profits. [5]
This is just the tip. Study after study shows diversity improves outcomes of group work, it's really hard to justify believing otherwise, in light of the overwhelming data.
[0] https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend
[1] https://www.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider68/default-do...
[2] https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/15/4/615/991022
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30765101/
[4] https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...
[5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000312240907400203
It's not an assumption.
> Along all dimensions measured, the more similar the investment partners, the lower their investments’ performance. For example, the success rate of acquisitions and IPOs was 11.5% lower, on average, for investments by partners with shared school backgrounds than for those by partners from different schools. The effect of shared ethnicity was even stronger, reducing an investment’s comparative success rate by 26.4% to 32.2%. [0]
> Increased diversity in the healthcare workforce helps reduce or eliminate racial health disparities, according to a 2014 meta-analysis of 25 studies. [1]
> A large-scale study of all Texas schools reveals diversity’s impact in public education systems. They find student performance most-improved when there was greater management diversity, and a closer racial match (representation) between management and student. [2]
> Most of the sixteen reviews matching inclusion criteria demonstrated positive associations between diversity, quality and financial performance. Healthcare studies showed patients generally fare better when care was provided by more diverse teams. Professional skills-focused studies generally find improvements to innovation, team communications and improved risk assessment. Financial performance also improved with increased diversity. A diversity-friendly environment was often identified as a key to avoiding frictions that come with change. [3]
> Our latest report shows not only that the business case remains robust but also that the relationship between diversity on executive teams and the likelihood of financial outperformance has strengthened over time. These findings emerge from our largest data set so far, encompassing 15 countries and more than 1,000 large companies. By incorporating a “social listening” analysis of employee sentiment in online reviews, the report also provides new insights into how inclusion matters. It shows that companies should pay much greater attention to inclusion, even when they are relatively diverse. [4]
> Using data from the 1996 to 1997 National Organizations Survey, a national sample of for-profit business organizations, this article tests eight hypotheses derived from the value-in-diversity thesis. The results support seven of these hypotheses: racial diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater relative profits. [5]
This is just the tip. Study after study shows diversity improves outcomes of group work, it's really hard to justify believing otherwise, in light of the overwhelming data.
[0] https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend
[1] https://www.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider68/default-do...
[2] https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/15/4/615/991022
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30765101/
[4] https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...
[5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000312240907400203
I haven't read all these studies but wonder if they claim causality or mere correlation. I see lots of correlation, which could be reverse correlation in disguise. Companies that are on a good trajectory decide to engage in more DEI than companies that are fighting to survive. Analysts conclude that DEI and success are correlated. They don't consider the possibility that the causal arrow runs the other way.
True, and it could even be as simple as: well-educated people make companies more successful, and they pursue diversity more, compared to other people -- i.e., one input has these two outputs.
> I haven't read anything, but I have opinions.
Great contribution.
Great contribution.
A pattern I'm seeing here is the possibility that these beneficial outcomes could be rooted in racism/sexism/etc.: having enough diversity among staff such that you can easily pair up people (provider and patient, fiduciary and client, or whatever scenario) who share personal characteristics can increase trust and synergy between them? Ugh!
Great! All the more reason to focus on the underlying problem and not just where it's detected.
Yes yes, that is the sales pitch.
In reality DEI in general doesn't give a shit about diversity of experience. There is zero investment into training programs to actually get people from non-traditional backgrounds into $company, because it's significantly less profitable in the short term. And when the training is set up, it is done in the most mealy-mouthed "equitable" way possible, where everybody gets a gold star, and then people act all surprised when the outcome is unproductive, virtually unfireable workers. And god help you if you are a "diverse" person who doesn't toe the DEI line, that is the fastest way to find yourself a pariah in an org.
In reality DEI in general doesn't give a shit about diversity of experience. There is zero investment into training programs to actually get people from non-traditional backgrounds into $company, because it's significantly less profitable in the short term. And when the training is set up, it is done in the most mealy-mouthed "equitable" way possible, where everybody gets a gold star, and then people act all surprised when the outcome is unproductive, virtually unfireable workers. And god help you if you are a "diverse" person who doesn't toe the DEI line, that is the fastest way to find yourself a pariah in an org.
Well hiring under-qualified candidates purely for the sake of a quota (relating to a protected class) would be illegal in the United States. So its unlikely you will hear anyone explicitly saying that is what they intend to do.
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/inclusion-targets-whats-legal
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/inclusion-targets-whats-legal
We opened a director level technology position, were encouraged to apply and then we were told explicitly at a company meeting that it was only open to a female PoC (which could only possibly be filled by an outside hire based no our org chart).
I have seen in several UK firms the need for a waiver from HR to hire a white man for middle management level and up. I am not even sure it is legal, but in any case it is openly discriminatory. Imagine if you did that with any other category in the population.
Here in America that would be completely illegal (And a lawyer somewhere would probably buy his next boat with that case!).
We are here in America, and I was shocked when it happened. But also no lawsuit came of it, because everyone who stood something to lose buys into the idea in the first place.
It's illegal. It's also at least somewhat common now.
It's easier to leave a company for another, probably better paying, job elsewhere than it is to bring a lawsuit.
It's easier to leave a company for another, probably better paying, job elsewhere than it is to bring a lawsuit.
Also if you bring a lawsuit, you'll pretty much be blacklisted from any company doing DEI, which is everyone that can pay well.
This reads like high school bullying.
Well, that’s basically what corporate politics is, with a bit more subtlety. American society is largely run by the same sociopaths that bullied you in high school except now they’re corporate executives and police officers with outsized real power and an education so they understand and can apply the lessons of Machiavelli.
I've heard anecdotes from nonwhite Intel employees who claimed that that was definitely happening there and it meant they could basically only bother to do any work when they felt like it because nobody expected decent productivity out of them anyway.
I don't claim to have remotely enough knowledge of the situation to know whether they were right or not, mind.
It strikes me that your colleagues being acceptable, you being better but having high enough standards for yourself that they don't seem acceptable, plus a moderately apathetic manager could produce pretty much precisely the same observable results and then if you're already primed to expect diversity stuff to be stupidly implemented it'd be easy enough to draw an incorrect conclusion.
It also strikes me that under the previous leadership Intel was kind of a shitshow in general so given that both possibilities seem depressingly plausible.
I don't claim to have remotely enough knowledge of the situation to know whether they were right or not, mind.
It strikes me that your colleagues being acceptable, you being better but having high enough standards for yourself that they don't seem acceptable, plus a moderately apathetic manager could produce pretty much precisely the same observable results and then if you're already primed to expect diversity stuff to be stupidly implemented it'd be easy enough to draw an incorrect conclusion.
It also strikes me that under the previous leadership Intel was kind of a shitshow in general so given that both possibilities seem depressingly plausible.
I’ve heard from white males at Intel that they didn’t need to be productive either. I think this was an Intel problem. But interestingly I suspect POC think it’s about their race. While white males assume this is the case for everyone.
For context, Intel introduced quotas back in the mid 2010s:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-...
> Now, of course, the talk is of inclusion, not confrontation. And I was surprised to hear Intel—old-fashioned Intel—mentioned as one of the companies successfully innovating around gender. It had been releasing diversity numbers since 2000, though not with as much fanfare as some of its peers, and without much improvement. But in the past couple of years, Intel decided to try a few other approaches, including hiring quotas.
> Well, not quotas. You can’t say quotas. At least not in the United States. In some European countries, like Norway, real, actual quotas—for example, a rule saying that 40 percent of a public company’s board members must be female—have worked well; qualified women have been found and the Earth has continued turning. However, in the U.S., hiring quotas are illegal. “We never use the word quota at Intel,” says Danielle Brown, the company’s chief diversity and inclusion officer. Rather, Intel set extremely firm hiring goals. For 2015, it wanted 40 percent of hires to be female or underrepresented minorities.
> Now, it’s true that lots of companies have hiring goals. But to make its goals a little more, well, quota-like, Intel introduced money into the equation. In Intel’s annual performance-bonus plan, success in meeting diversity goals factors into whether the company gives employees an across-the-board bonus. (The amounts vary widely but can be substantial.) If diversity efforts succeed, everybody at the company gets a little bit richer.
TL;DR: Intel docked your pay unless you met a quota for women and URM hires.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-...
> Now, of course, the talk is of inclusion, not confrontation. And I was surprised to hear Intel—old-fashioned Intel—mentioned as one of the companies successfully innovating around gender. It had been releasing diversity numbers since 2000, though not with as much fanfare as some of its peers, and without much improvement. But in the past couple of years, Intel decided to try a few other approaches, including hiring quotas.
> Well, not quotas. You can’t say quotas. At least not in the United States. In some European countries, like Norway, real, actual quotas—for example, a rule saying that 40 percent of a public company’s board members must be female—have worked well; qualified women have been found and the Earth has continued turning. However, in the U.S., hiring quotas are illegal. “We never use the word quota at Intel,” says Danielle Brown, the company’s chief diversity and inclusion officer. Rather, Intel set extremely firm hiring goals. For 2015, it wanted 40 percent of hires to be female or underrepresented minorities.
> Now, it’s true that lots of companies have hiring goals. But to make its goals a little more, well, quota-like, Intel introduced money into the equation. In Intel’s annual performance-bonus plan, success in meeting diversity goals factors into whether the company gives employees an across-the-board bonus. (The amounts vary widely but can be substantial.) If diversity efforts succeed, everybody at the company gets a little bit richer.
TL;DR: Intel docked your pay unless you met a quota for women and URM hires.
For government contractors:
"If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor's affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization."
"Where, pursuant to § 60-2.15, a contractor is required to establish a placement goal for a particular job group, the contractor must establish a percentage annual placement goal at least equal to the availability figure derived for women or minorities, as appropriate, for that job group."
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-41/subtitle-B/chapter-60/...
"If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor's affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization."
"Where, pursuant to § 60-2.15, a contractor is required to establish a placement goal for a particular job group, the contractor must establish a percentage annual placement goal at least equal to the availability figure derived for women or minorities, as appropriate, for that job group."
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-41/subtitle-B/chapter-60/...
I have absolutely been pressured to "reconsider" when I marked an intern in a diversity target group as a no-hire, and said intern was then switched into a different team.
EDIT 1: The more effective mechanism that my company uses is to verify at the time of hiring a candidate that you can show you at least considered diversity target candidates (in engineering, basically women and non-Indian/Asian/white).
EDIT 2: also definitely see diversity target group employees being flagged for second-look when identifying layoffs, PIPs etc.
EDIT 1: The more effective mechanism that my company uses is to verify at the time of hiring a candidate that you can show you at least considered diversity target candidates (in engineering, basically women and non-Indian/Asian/white).
EDIT 2: also definitely see diversity target group employees being flagged for second-look when identifying layoffs, PIPs etc.
>> I'm seeing a lot of claims here that DEI initiatives are about actively hiring under-qualified under-represented candidates to change the demographics of the company.
DEI efforts try to conflate ethnicity+gender, effectively trying to build the effort on the backs of black, hispanic, and indigenous populations -- but try to count gender as well. Effectively, the DEI outcomes I see at companies end up being wealthy white women getting more opportunities, and the company conveniently checking off DEI as "done"
DEI efforts try to conflate ethnicity+gender, effectively trying to build the effort on the backs of black, hispanic, and indigenous populations -- but try to count gender as well. Effectively, the DEI outcomes I see at companies end up being wealthy white women getting more opportunities, and the company conveniently checking off DEI as "done"
[deleted]
> I've yet to hear of anyone actually _hiring_ under-qualified candidates for the sake of a quota.
My experience is the opposite, unfortunately. Big companies know where the legal line is and are careful to not cross it too often, but here are some examples I've encountered first-hand:
1) My org's annual score had a prominent section highlighting the fact that our diversity was deemed low. Your org's score affected your annual budget for raises and bonuses, so I'm embarrassed to say that it was definitely a factor in hiring.
2) We'd have an opening to fill and sometimes would get a stack of resumes of just women. This would otherwise be fine (or even great - see #1, above) if there were some good ones, but honestly if you're a woman who is a great dev you'd almost certainly be able to get stellar offers elsewhere (this was a large-but-not-FAANG company). In one particular case, a guy friend of one of my employees applied for the same position and would have been a perfect fit at least on paper, but somehow his resume didn't make it past HR so he didn't get interviewed. We interviewed several from the pool we got and ended up hiring one who was an ok dev. Not great, but ok - we definitely "settled".
3) One time I needed a dev with a somewhat specific skillset and was soon told that they had found someone and had started the hiring process - even without an interview. I asked to at least see this person's resume (woohoo, it was an Asian woman - checking TWO diversity boxes!!). I pointed out that she didn't have the skill set we needed and nothing indicated that she had a background that would be good for it. I also pointed out that she didn't speak much English (it was literally a caveat listed on her resume), so I asked if we could at least interview her to try to assess if she'd be willing to pick up the skills we needed. Nope, the hiring was already done by then, and there she was in our office two weeks later. I have never felt so bad for anyone who has worked for me; she always seemed sad and lost, and I did a really poor job of figuring out how to help her. I'm still haunted by our extremely awkward 1-on-1 meetings (kinda hard to have much of a conversation when, you know, there's not a shared language).
On the flip side, some of the most talented and brilliant and enjoyable people I've worked with have been people who check lots of the diversity boxes, but weren't hired as part of any sort of push to increase diversity.
My experience is the opposite, unfortunately. Big companies know where the legal line is and are careful to not cross it too often, but here are some examples I've encountered first-hand:
1) My org's annual score had a prominent section highlighting the fact that our diversity was deemed low. Your org's score affected your annual budget for raises and bonuses, so I'm embarrassed to say that it was definitely a factor in hiring.
2) We'd have an opening to fill and sometimes would get a stack of resumes of just women. This would otherwise be fine (or even great - see #1, above) if there were some good ones, but honestly if you're a woman who is a great dev you'd almost certainly be able to get stellar offers elsewhere (this was a large-but-not-FAANG company). In one particular case, a guy friend of one of my employees applied for the same position and would have been a perfect fit at least on paper, but somehow his resume didn't make it past HR so he didn't get interviewed. We interviewed several from the pool we got and ended up hiring one who was an ok dev. Not great, but ok - we definitely "settled".
3) One time I needed a dev with a somewhat specific skillset and was soon told that they had found someone and had started the hiring process - even without an interview. I asked to at least see this person's resume (woohoo, it was an Asian woman - checking TWO diversity boxes!!). I pointed out that she didn't have the skill set we needed and nothing indicated that she had a background that would be good for it. I also pointed out that she didn't speak much English (it was literally a caveat listed on her resume), so I asked if we could at least interview her to try to assess if she'd be willing to pick up the skills we needed. Nope, the hiring was already done by then, and there she was in our office two weeks later. I have never felt so bad for anyone who has worked for me; she always seemed sad and lost, and I did a really poor job of figuring out how to help her. I'm still haunted by our extremely awkward 1-on-1 meetings (kinda hard to have much of a conversation when, you know, there's not a shared language).
On the flip side, some of the most talented and brilliant and enjoyable people I've worked with have been people who check lots of the diversity boxes, but weren't hired as part of any sort of push to increase diversity.
We’ve hired people at my jobs (big tech to startups in SV) that were underqualified because of diversity measures. If we had ran them through the typical interview gauntlet with the same rubric, they wouldn’t pass. We often changed the interview format or the rubric when presented with someone who was URT pool.
I’ve talked to enough managers who complain about lackluster employees and how they’re not fireable because the person is URT. It’s a thing - even if we all like to think it isn’t. Your best effort is to manage them out.
I’ve talked to enough managers who complain about lackluster employees and how they’re not fireable because the person is URT. It’s a thing - even if we all like to think it isn’t. Your best effort is to manage them out.
I've had HR force under-qualified people into my interview pipeline completely bypassing our technical pre-screen phone call.
We even had an interviewee who only spoke an obscure language not spoken by anyone on our team _and_ had no work experience. This was for a staff engineer position!
We hired someone despite some misgivings in the interview phase who turned out to be a pathological liar (and identity thief) and they proceeded to torment the entire company with insane false allegations for two years and did zero work while we couldn't get rid of them. Finally they quit on their own and this person just made the news recently for stripping down naked and violently attacking a convenience store's workers with a knife.
We even had an interviewee who only spoke an obscure language not spoken by anyone on our team _and_ had no work experience. This was for a staff engineer position!
We hired someone despite some misgivings in the interview phase who turned out to be a pathological liar (and identity thief) and they proceeded to torment the entire company with insane false allegations for two years and did zero work while we couldn't get rid of them. Finally they quit on their own and this person just made the news recently for stripping down naked and violently attacking a convenience store's workers with a knife.
IMO the right way to implement diversity is to get more underrepresented people into the funnel, not lowering the bar. But it requires resources that startups might not have/might be unwilling to allocate.
>>the right way to implement diversity is to get more underrepresented people into the funnel, not lowering the bar
This is the best comment in the thread. If you have a diverse funnel you will have diverse employees and as long as you maintain standards, they will be well qualified for the job. This includes internships and job training programs.
This is the best comment in the thread. If you have a diverse funnel you will have diverse employees and as long as you maintain standards, they will be well qualified for the job. This includes internships and job training programs.
Eh, the resume stack is fundamentally flawed. A lot of URT are never going to go into tech because they just don’t want to. It’s a large cultural issue.
Yes, that's why if a company is committed to diversity, it reaches out to candidates, promotes itself on events for underrepresented people etc.
That's disappointing to hear. It also seems like a mixed bag for these lackluster hires, who get a paycheck but likely have a less-than-stellar work experience and little opportunity for advancement.
Is there any effort at follow-up training? Seems like this interview strategy HAS to be paired with a long-term training strategy for taking less-qualified hires and turning them into very productive employees.
If not, do you end up hiring more people in total? Do these lackluster employees just eat up time and budget, or do they also actively occupy a desk that you need to reclaim to hire more talented replacements?
Is there any effort at follow-up training? Seems like this interview strategy HAS to be paired with a long-term training strategy for taking less-qualified hires and turning them into very productive employees.
If not, do you end up hiring more people in total? Do these lackluster employees just eat up time and budget, or do they also actively occupy a desk that you need to reclaim to hire more talented replacements?
>Training
Hahahaha, you dare suggest that we hired somebody underqualified? You can't make them feel like they are inferior, you utter racist.
Yes, I have had a slightly less hyperbolic version of this actual conversation about less-than-qualified diversity hires. Good way to end your career.
Yes, I have had a slightly less hyperbolic version of this actual conversation about less-than-qualified diversity hires. Good way to end your career.
Find the legal definition of hostile workplace and skate just below that until the problems find solutions on someone else’s paycheck.
The solution is simple, hire better minority candidates.
There are minority candidates who can thrive at all levels of tech. Nobody is telling your to hire subpar candidates. That's on your company's lazy implementation of their inclusion efforts, not on DEI.
There are minority candidates who can thrive at all levels of tech. Nobody is telling your to hire subpar candidates. That's on your company's lazy implementation of their inclusion efforts, not on DEI.
Some places are targeting percentages of certain races that exceed that races representation in the general population, let alone the population within a given field. It may be that the demand exceeds the supply.
As an under credentialed, relative to the general population very smart white guy, I doubt the demand for any group exceeds the supply. It just might involve searching outside of the range of the lamppost. Gasp, horror, it might involve internal training as opposed to expecting people to hit all the marks for a position on their prior labor and education. It might involve hiring a lot more entry level positions than advanced positions, regardless of the needs of the moment.
The best I've seen as a person who's not part of the DEI team is cultivating relationships with universities with large numbers of URM students. But that's really still just searching slightly outside of the range of the lamppost.
Are you straight up going to small towns and offering scholarship opportunities? Going to college fairs (no, not hiring fairs at colleges, but the fairs that high school students go to to find a college) and marketing what jobs are available at your company for majors of certain degrees? These are just off the top of my head; I'm sure there are a lot better, and tested ideas out there.
The best I've seen as a person who's not part of the DEI team is cultivating relationships with universities with large numbers of URM students. But that's really still just searching slightly outside of the range of the lamppost.
Are you straight up going to small towns and offering scholarship opportunities? Going to college fairs (no, not hiring fairs at colleges, but the fairs that high school students go to to find a college) and marketing what jobs are available at your company for majors of certain degrees? These are just off the top of my head; I'm sure there are a lot better, and tested ideas out there.
Let's say green people are 10% of the population to make the numbers easy and not call out anyone in particular. You have company A and they are killing it on their diversity goals, 20 percent of its employees are green people. Now you have company B, same size and industry as company A, they want to hire green people but their "share" of greens is already working at company A, perhaps they can pull greens from other industries but ultimately someone is going to be left holding the "you don't hire enough green people" bag.
> but ultimately someone is going to be left holding the "you don't hire enough green people" bag.
This would be a good argument if we ever get to that point. But we aren't even close, and plenty of smaller companies and startups don't have diversity goals at all. There's plenty of room for some big names to go 100% green without being a tithe of a tithe of the full working population. Or even a tithe of a tithe of the working population of greens.
Even Walmart is less than 1% of the total employed population in the US. Much more so for smaller companies such as Alphabet or Meta.
This would be a good argument if we ever get to that point. But we aren't even close, and plenty of smaller companies and startups don't have diversity goals at all. There's plenty of room for some big names to go 100% green without being a tithe of a tithe of the full working population. Or even a tithe of a tithe of the working population of greens.
Even Walmart is less than 1% of the total employed population in the US. Much more so for smaller companies such as Alphabet or Meta.
[deleted]
This is the classic excuse. "Bad outcomes aren't the fault of X, you're just doing X wrong" even though X always leads to the same bad outcomes.
When an initiative fails, the solution is rarely to do more of it.
When an initiative fails, the solution is rarely to do more of it.
> X always leads to the same bad outcome
X does not always lead to the same bad outcome here though. That is, DEI initiatives that increase diversity while not lowering the hire bar do exist. That some particular company decided to lower their hiring bar doesn't indicate that DEI initiatives always cause companies to lower their hiring bars.
X does not always lead to the same bad outcome here though. That is, DEI initiatives that increase diversity while not lowering the hire bar do exist. That some particular company decided to lower their hiring bar doesn't indicate that DEI initiatives always cause companies to lower their hiring bars.
If you don't think you can hire better minority candidates, then the implication is that there are no better minority candidates?
Except study after study shows that good outcomes result from hiring diverse candidates...
My impression is that the mechanism is that racial/gender/etc diversity proxies for some amount of viewpoint diversity, and it's the viewpoint diversity which is improving outcomes. Assuming I'm correct on that point, my strong suspicion is that a lot of DEI programs in the US are not resulting in much more diverse hiring than their peer groups while simultaneously limiting viewpoint diversity pretty considerably (or if they're not limiting the viewpoint diversity of the people they hire, they're limiting the willingness of those people to express diverse views--probably a combination of the two).
I'm also vaguely of the impression that at least some research is finding DEI initiatives to be neutral or perhaps even counter-productive, but I'm having a hard time finding those papers--if this is jogging anyone's memory, I would appreciate links.
I'm also vaguely of the impression that at least some research is finding DEI initiatives to be neutral or perhaps even counter-productive, but I'm having a hard time finding those papers--if this is jogging anyone's memory, I would appreciate links.
Just… stop. DEI works when well executed. Accept that.
If you want to police DEI initiatives to ensure they’re properly implemented, go for it, but the constant aversion to a so thoroughly researched concept is bordering on flat earther level conspiracy.
If you want to police DEI initiatives to ensure they’re properly implemented, go for it, but the constant aversion to a so thoroughly researched concept is bordering on flat earther level conspiracy.
> thoroughly researched concept
Is this part of the same body of research suffering a replication crisis more broadly?
It is?
Oh. So, having lots of published “research” that can be linked to by consultants paid to believe it isn’t the same thing as replicable hard science?
Nope. Whodathunkit.
Is this part of the same body of research suffering a replication crisis more broadly?
It is?
Oh. So, having lots of published “research” that can be linked to by consultants paid to believe it isn’t the same thing as replicable hard science?
Nope. Whodathunkit.
Considering all of science is having a replication crisis, you are going full flat earther, then.
I really cannot overemphasize how detrimental to your argument what you just wrote is to any thinking human being. Blindly claiming all research, from literally every institution in the world, is both inaccurate and rigged somehow on a widely studied topic, is an insane claim only made when you've given up on the entire concept of rationality.
You really would rather throw all of science under the bus before you let black people get an even footing in society, wouldn't you? Incredible.
I really cannot overemphasize how detrimental to your argument what you just wrote is to any thinking human being. Blindly claiming all research, from literally every institution in the world, is both inaccurate and rigged somehow on a widely studied topic, is an insane claim only made when you've given up on the entire concept of rationality.
You really would rather throw all of science under the bus before you let black people get an even footing in society, wouldn't you? Incredible.
STEM fields don’t have a replication crisis in the same way that humanities do.
The issue in STEM fields is that essential elements to replicate (like the code) are not being published, yet the underlying science is solid enough for production technology people rely on every day to be built on it.
In the humanities the replication crisis is that a significant amount of published “research” is essentially made up whole cloth.
One of these things is not like the other.
Also, nice edit calling me racist with zero basis. This behavior, by the way, is why this /entire/ thread exists on HN. DEI zealots will libel, slander, and insult anyone who doesn’t follow their ideology. Criticizing it, even with clear evidence, or pointing out lack of evidence supporting it is treated the same as taking the most extreme position in opposition.
You’re ridiculous and you should be ashamed of yourself. Take a breath and reconsider your life choices.
The issue in STEM fields is that essential elements to replicate (like the code) are not being published, yet the underlying science is solid enough for production technology people rely on every day to be built on it.
In the humanities the replication crisis is that a significant amount of published “research” is essentially made up whole cloth.
One of these things is not like the other.
Also, nice edit calling me racist with zero basis. This behavior, by the way, is why this /entire/ thread exists on HN. DEI zealots will libel, slander, and insult anyone who doesn’t follow their ideology. Criticizing it, even with clear evidence, or pointing out lack of evidence supporting it is treated the same as taking the most extreme position in opposition.
You’re ridiculous and you should be ashamed of yourself. Take a breath and reconsider your life choices.
Continuously asserting that they are “thoroughly researched” does not make them so. Comparing “criticizing DEI” with “advocating flat earth” is pretty absurd, not least of all because DEI programs are incredibly diverse (of course, you are unhelpfully referring only to the “good ones”).
Criticizing DEI is fine. Acting as if it isn't effective when properly implemented is on the same level as "advocating flat earth" theories, as they both fly in the face of a whole lot of data.
And you're right, claiming something does not make it so. What makes it so is all of the data supporting it, which is readily available to anyone who actually cares about this topic (up to you if that's you).
And you're right, claiming something does not make it so. What makes it so is all of the data supporting it, which is readily available to anyone who actually cares about this topic (up to you if that's you).
> Acting as if it isn't effective when properly implemented is on the same level as "advocating flat earth" theories
Who is arguing that DEI is ineffective when properly implemented (what does "properly implemented" even mean, concretely?).
> they both fly in the face of a whole lot of data
You keep referencing this data... Where are the metanalyses that show concretely that DEI programs are effective? To be clear, I'm aware of and believe that increased diversity makes organizations more robust, but again that's attributed to viewpoint diversity and it's not at all clear to me that modern DEI programs deliver on that viewpoint diversity. It's not even clear to me that there is widespread consensus that "viewpoint diversity" or "organizational robustness" is a goal of these programs--one definitely gets the impression that the primary goal is diversity of identities with little mind paid to the impact on viewpoint diversity or organizational robustness.
Here's HBR (https://hbr.org/2019/07/does-diversity-training-work-the-way...) talking about whether or not diversity training programs are effective; note that the implication here is that the goal is ideological agreement--they're not even looking for viewpoint diversity:
> What did we find? Let’s start with the good news. The bias-focused trainings had a positive effect on the attitudes of one important group: employees who we believe were the least supportive of women prior to training. We found that after completing training, these employees were more likely to acknowledge discrimination against women, express support for policies designed to help women, and acknowledge their own racial and gender biases, compared to similar employees in the control group. For employees who were already supportive of women, we found no evidence that the training produced a backlash.
Regarding the research into DEI, a lot of the measures of its efficacy (that I'm aware of) hinge on Implicit Association Tests which are a famously plagued with issues (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-as...).
Who is arguing that DEI is ineffective when properly implemented (what does "properly implemented" even mean, concretely?).
> they both fly in the face of a whole lot of data
You keep referencing this data... Where are the metanalyses that show concretely that DEI programs are effective? To be clear, I'm aware of and believe that increased diversity makes organizations more robust, but again that's attributed to viewpoint diversity and it's not at all clear to me that modern DEI programs deliver on that viewpoint diversity. It's not even clear to me that there is widespread consensus that "viewpoint diversity" or "organizational robustness" is a goal of these programs--one definitely gets the impression that the primary goal is diversity of identities with little mind paid to the impact on viewpoint diversity or organizational robustness.
Here's HBR (https://hbr.org/2019/07/does-diversity-training-work-the-way...) talking about whether or not diversity training programs are effective; note that the implication here is that the goal is ideological agreement--they're not even looking for viewpoint diversity:
> What did we find? Let’s start with the good news. The bias-focused trainings had a positive effect on the attitudes of one important group: employees who we believe were the least supportive of women prior to training. We found that after completing training, these employees were more likely to acknowledge discrimination against women, express support for policies designed to help women, and acknowledge their own racial and gender biases, compared to similar employees in the control group. For employees who were already supportive of women, we found no evidence that the training produced a backlash.
Regarding the research into DEI, a lot of the measures of its efficacy (that I'm aware of) hinge on Implicit Association Tests which are a famously plagued with issues (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-as...).
Just... stop. It doesn't and is little more than ideology and religion at this point.
DEI is about factoring in race. Race should never be part of the decision making process. On top of being morally reprehensible its also illegal.
DEI can also be about looking past stereotypes.
A couple of decades worth of research has shown racial bias against URMs in hiring exists. Breaking past it with a requirement to interview and consider URMs is a start, not the finish.
https://hbr.org/2021/02/research-how-companies-committed-to-...
A couple of decades worth of research has shown racial bias against URMs in hiring exists. Breaking past it with a requirement to interview and consider URMs is a start, not the finish.
https://hbr.org/2021/02/research-how-companies-committed-to-...
Alternatively, it could be ameliorated in a non-discriminatory way by anonymizing applications.
Sure. Which would require a specialized group of trained people at the company. This would involve such things as changing Alma Mater University to "completed degree". It would involve fudging things such as how long it took to graduate (which can be an indicator of familial status, in so far as people from poorer backgrounds are disproportionately likely to take longer to complete due to financial reasons).
Genuinely anonymizing an application is a difficult task without losing pertinent data.
Genuinely anonymizing an application is a difficult task without losing pertinent data.
Both of the things you listed are as simple as text replacement.
And how do you replace this text without losing important, non-origin context? What you probably need is an entire re-write. But a re-write, or even a bad text replacement, can make it look like the applicant is better or worse at grammar or writing in general.
This is not as easy a task as a simple text replacement.
This is not as easy a task as a simple text replacement.
The important content is their work history, projects, technical skills, etc. If the rewriting is awkward, it's affecting all candidates uniformly.
A genuine bad rewrite would tend to affect all candidates uniformly (except those who have pre-anonymized their applications, thus gaming the process), but a find-replace is more problematic.
If that's an issue, the companies could just tell applicants to pre anonymize their resumes to eliminate any potential gaming.
I think it's worthwhile A/B testing your idea.
> I've sat through a lot of DEI sessions at work (as have many of my friends), and I've yet to hear of anyone actually _hiring_ under-qualified candidates for the sake of a quota.
That's because it's often illegal, and most people find it immoral. It's the "quiet part", if you will. I've been in a hiring role for a decade, and I can tell you that it happens at every company I've been at that has a DEI program.
Many of the larger companies even have manager bonuses dependent on diversity metrics of their teams. That's about the biggest weight you can possibly put on the scale.
That's because it's often illegal, and most people find it immoral. It's the "quiet part", if you will. I've been in a hiring role for a decade, and I can tell you that it happens at every company I've been at that has a DEI program.
Many of the larger companies even have manager bonuses dependent on diversity metrics of their teams. That's about the biggest weight you can possibly put on the scale.
I’ve seen just the opposite. We always hire the best candidate. Sometimes the question will come up. : “why were there no POC brought in to interview?” They want to know about where we recruited from. But our hiring was never questioned.
That said I hired way over industry average in females. But under for POC. But I probably got slack for all the female hires. All of whom were the best we interviewed.
That said I hired way over industry average in females. But under for POC. But I probably got slack for all the female hires. All of whom were the best we interviewed.
> But making a conscious effort to make sure everyone at the company feels socially welcome and fairly treated is a worthwhile effort.
Or it would be worthwhile if it actually worked. Note the use of the subjunctive tense.
Or it would be worthwhile if it actually worked. Note the use of the subjunctive tense.
> I'm seeing a lot of claims here that DEI initiatives are about actively hiring under-qualified under-represented candidates to change the demographics of the company.
This is exactly what DEI is, and I guarantee you that your own company, if it is of any substantial size, systematically hires under qualified candidates because of DEI. It would require a hermetically sealed reality-avoidance filter to not notice this. While there are some people who walk around with these filters on, the vast majority of people do not, and will readily tell you exactly what DIE is about once they feel safe enough to speak honestly with you. Listen to them.
This is exactly what DEI is, and I guarantee you that your own company, if it is of any substantial size, systematically hires under qualified candidates because of DEI. It would require a hermetically sealed reality-avoidance filter to not notice this. While there are some people who walk around with these filters on, the vast majority of people do not, and will readily tell you exactly what DIE is about once they feel safe enough to speak honestly with you. Listen to them.
A problem a lot of tech/math minded people make is that there is some set of metrics, some set of tests or achievements or qualifications that make a candidate "objectively" the best. There isn't, not even a tiny little bit.
The argument goes like: There's some objective rubric, and hiring a black person despite that rubric's indication that they're 2.345312% repeating below the best candidate, is DEI gone wrong!
Anyone here who's ever hired for a technical role knows how wildly wrong that idea of recruitment is, but for engineers, we want to put a model to a system, and then we want to worship that model, so it's hard for some folks to grasp.
The argument goes like: There's some objective rubric, and hiring a black person despite that rubric's indication that they're 2.345312% repeating below the best candidate, is DEI gone wrong!
Anyone here who's ever hired for a technical role knows how wildly wrong that idea of recruitment is, but for engineers, we want to put a model to a system, and then we want to worship that model, so it's hard for some folks to grasp.
That's not how any of this works. Nor are people saying that.
To say merit doesn't exist is laughable. Get out of here lol.
To say merit doesn't exist is laughable. Get out of here lol.
"...it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company."
"...is nothing short of corporate virtue signaling."
It might be most beneficial for individuals if it's kept-low key. It's best for the company to scream it to the world. Or at least that's what the leaders think right now.
Personally, I think any medium to large company that talks about DEI and isn't addressing the supply side issues are just just marketing. Without addressing that, it's just companies trying to outbid each other, and not using money but using virtue signaling. They should be putting their money where their mouth is and sponsoring scholarships/internships/apprenticeships. Instead of asking you talk at town halls, maybe they should be asking you to talk at high schools so the students can ask questions about your career journey. But hey, I'm just a dev so what do I know that these highly intelligent and highly trained CEOs/HR don't...
"...is nothing short of corporate virtue signaling."
It might be most beneficial for individuals if it's kept-low key. It's best for the company to scream it to the world. Or at least that's what the leaders think right now.
Personally, I think any medium to large company that talks about DEI and isn't addressing the supply side issues are just just marketing. Without addressing that, it's just companies trying to outbid each other, and not using money but using virtue signaling. They should be putting their money where their mouth is and sponsoring scholarships/internships/apprenticeships. Instead of asking you talk at town halls, maybe they should be asking you to talk at high schools so the students can ask questions about your career journey. But hey, I'm just a dev so what do I know that these highly intelligent and highly trained CEOs/HR don't...
People fail to understand the entire point of DEI: avoiding hiring discrimination lawsuits. There's a tacit understanding that, if you spend enough money on DEI coordinators, and hire enough of the right people, you will not be punished by state or federal prosecutors.
This has nothing to do with eliminating hiring discrimination or whatever; it's part of a political patronage network. You hire our most dedicated people, we don't bring the hammer down.
This has nothing to do with eliminating hiring discrimination or whatever; it's part of a political patronage network. You hire our most dedicated people, we don't bring the hammer down.
I disagree - DEI is about upholding the prevailing form of political correctness so as not to get publicly shamed. Federal law still bans racial discrimination in hiring, so lawsuits are less of a concern than looking bad in the public eye.
The irony is that DEI as a worldview promotes and condones racial discrimination in many forms -- that is, treating people differently because of the color of their skin, not the content of their character, their skills, or their physical ability (for physically demanding jobs).
Martin Luther King Jr. said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Based on statements like this, I believe he would be publicly against DEI if he were still alive (and he'd probably have been de-platformed by now).
The irony is that DEI as a worldview promotes and condones racial discrimination in many forms -- that is, treating people differently because of the color of their skin, not the content of their character, their skills, or their physical ability (for physically demanding jobs).
Martin Luther King Jr. said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Based on statements like this, I believe he would be publicly against DEI if he were still alive (and he'd probably have been de-platformed by now).
I'm not disagreeing with you at an object level, but at a meta level you're at least 30-40 years behind what's going on with title VII legal strategy, and your grade school understanding of MLK is not helping things. I would suggest looking more into what he was actually about, rather than taking at face value a few words from his most popular speech.
[deleted]
> It's best for the company to scream it to the world. Or at least that's what the leaders think right now.
After sitting in a room where we were told we needed to increase our “minority representation in upper management” (and I’m a mostly white manager). There were already 20% apparently, they wanted 40%.
I asked my boss, “so what does that mean to me? To me it seems like you don’t want me”
Boss: “oh no, you’re fine”
Me: “I don’t know, pretty obvious you want a higher representation of people not like me”
I quit after that. I was manager of one of the most productive research teams, created the most IP for the company, had the top projects, and yeah — lost me to this bs. I was joined by several other top people. Now they have a “diverse”, but less passionate, less competent team. Good luck with this stuff.
After sitting in a room where we were told we needed to increase our “minority representation in upper management” (and I’m a mostly white manager). There were already 20% apparently, they wanted 40%.
I asked my boss, “so what does that mean to me? To me it seems like you don’t want me”
Boss: “oh no, you’re fine”
Me: “I don’t know, pretty obvious you want a higher representation of people not like me”
I quit after that. I was manager of one of the most productive research teams, created the most IP for the company, had the top projects, and yeah — lost me to this bs. I was joined by several other top people. Now they have a “diverse”, but less passionate, less competent team. Good luck with this stuff.
Unfortunately, I had an even worse experience.
Boss: "You need to build a more diverse team."
Me: "What are you talking about? I'm 1 of only 2 white people on the entire 12 person team."
Boss: "Indians and Asians don't count as diverse."
Me: "Really? I did not know that. I do have 2 Hispanics on the team though."
Boss: "You're not hearing me. You don't have any black people and only have 2 women."
It became clear that "diversity" was not the goal, but rather something much more specific, likely because the metric the company was tracking specified it that way.
Boss: "You need to build a more diverse team."
Me: "What are you talking about? I'm 1 of only 2 white people on the entire 12 person team."
Boss: "Indians and Asians don't count as diverse."
Me: "Really? I did not know that. I do have 2 Hispanics on the team though."
Boss: "You're not hearing me. You don't have any black people and only have 2 women."
It became clear that "diversity" was not the goal, but rather something much more specific, likely because the metric the company was tracking specified it that way.
> It became clear that "diversity" was not the goal, but rather something much more specific, likely because the metric the company was tracking specified it that way.
Indeed, it's not about "diversity" in the classic sense.
Indeed, it's not about "diversity" in the classic sense.
Honestly your take seems a bit childish. I coach basketball and I say “we need more bigs”. Should my smaller lightening quick point guard quit? No. I want a diverse team. The fact that you didn’t get that would make me question if I wanted you on the team. Not your race/gender.
> I coach basketball and I say “we need more bigs”.
First, yes I'd say that is ridiculous. There are shorter NBA players, the fact we target "bigs" shows a lazy coach who's incapable of assessing the best way to form a team.
Second, size does play a factor [one of many] in basketball; In coding, neither the amount of melanin, hair color, eye color, nor gender play a role. We can argue a diversity of ideas or backgrounds are good. That's why we hired people with degrees in different fields; we hired people with different work experience. You don't want to say "we need less white people" or "we need less green eyed people". Sorry, but in your example it's equivalent to saying "I want more blonds in basketball" -- there is no relation.
> The fact that you didn’t get that would make me question if I wanted you on the team
I did not want to work with bigots of any kind.
First, yes I'd say that is ridiculous. There are shorter NBA players, the fact we target "bigs" shows a lazy coach who's incapable of assessing the best way to form a team.
Second, size does play a factor [one of many] in basketball; In coding, neither the amount of melanin, hair color, eye color, nor gender play a role. We can argue a diversity of ideas or backgrounds are good. That's why we hired people with degrees in different fields; we hired people with different work experience. You don't want to say "we need less white people" or "we need less green eyed people". Sorry, but in your example it's equivalent to saying "I want more blonds in basketball" -- there is no relation.
> The fact that you didn’t get that would make me question if I wanted you on the team
I did not want to work with bigots of any kind.
> First, yes I'd say that is ridiculous. There are shorter NBA players, the fact we target "bigs" shows a lazy coach who's incapable of assessing the best way to form a team.
The fact that you speak so confidently about a topic you clearly know almost nothing about I think speaks to why maybe your old team seemed OK to let you go.
> You don't want to say "we need less white people" or "we need less green eyed people". Sorry, but in your example it's equivalent to saying "I want more blonds in basketball" -- there is no relation.
You clearly missed the point of the analogy. The point was that you can look for one attribute, while still having a need for another. You seem to have conflated this with an unrelated point. Maybe not surprising.
But now lets talk about your latter point. You seem to miss one of the main points of DEI. Let's use another basketball example :-)
Jeremy Lin. He went largely unrecruited in HS, despite winning the California state championship over powerhouse Mater Dei, winning Nor Cal player of the year and was 1st team all state. And basically had no D1 offers. Why? Largely because he was Asian.
So, he goes to Harvard and has a good career there. He went undrafted despite great measurables -- including being one of the fastest people in the combine -- think Kyrie quickness and John Wall speed. He was in many ways a generational athlete. He eventually signed as a free agent after summer league to languish on the bench.
It wasn't until one night, at the end of his contract, when he was likely done with his NBA career did he play and he played with a "if I'm ever gonna do it, I gotta do it now attitude". And he went on one of the most impressive runs in NBA history -- Linsanity. Go look it up.
Now I tell this story because his whole life he was discriminated against because he was Asian. He never asked to be played over people that were better than him. Simply to give him a chance. He would never show up in a referral from John Wall or Kobe Bryant. He doesn't run in those circles. His last name doesn't evoke images of a ridiculous skilled guard. But he was.
DEI is about saying, "you've done a sufficiently good job of demonizing everything that comes from POC -- so that you immediately discount the way they walk, talk, where they go to HS, go to college, etc... But set aside these biases and try to let some in the front door to at least give them a chance at the interview. Try not to assume because they went to Howard they are less than." Lin went to Harvard because no other D1s would give him a spot. He was a Duke level player at a low-level non-scholarship school.
And the thing is that sports/basketball are among the most meritocratic activities on this planet. Yet racial bias reared its heard. You don't think this happens everyday in investment banking? Or for consulting? All the places where its so much harder to objectively measure the quality of work done.
If you're a GM in basketball and you're not saying, "we need to look at more Asian player. We need to look around the globe for talent" then you're not doing your job. And coincidentally its now arguable that the four best basketball players in the NBA are all international: Giannis, Luka, Jokic, and Embid. Peoople had to open their eyes and see that it wasn't just an inner city game.
The fact that you speak so confidently about a topic you clearly know almost nothing about I think speaks to why maybe your old team seemed OK to let you go.
> You don't want to say "we need less white people" or "we need less green eyed people". Sorry, but in your example it's equivalent to saying "I want more blonds in basketball" -- there is no relation.
You clearly missed the point of the analogy. The point was that you can look for one attribute, while still having a need for another. You seem to have conflated this with an unrelated point. Maybe not surprising.
But now lets talk about your latter point. You seem to miss one of the main points of DEI. Let's use another basketball example :-)
Jeremy Lin. He went largely unrecruited in HS, despite winning the California state championship over powerhouse Mater Dei, winning Nor Cal player of the year and was 1st team all state. And basically had no D1 offers. Why? Largely because he was Asian.
So, he goes to Harvard and has a good career there. He went undrafted despite great measurables -- including being one of the fastest people in the combine -- think Kyrie quickness and John Wall speed. He was in many ways a generational athlete. He eventually signed as a free agent after summer league to languish on the bench.
It wasn't until one night, at the end of his contract, when he was likely done with his NBA career did he play and he played with a "if I'm ever gonna do it, I gotta do it now attitude". And he went on one of the most impressive runs in NBA history -- Linsanity. Go look it up.
Now I tell this story because his whole life he was discriminated against because he was Asian. He never asked to be played over people that were better than him. Simply to give him a chance. He would never show up in a referral from John Wall or Kobe Bryant. He doesn't run in those circles. His last name doesn't evoke images of a ridiculous skilled guard. But he was.
DEI is about saying, "you've done a sufficiently good job of demonizing everything that comes from POC -- so that you immediately discount the way they walk, talk, where they go to HS, go to college, etc... But set aside these biases and try to let some in the front door to at least give them a chance at the interview. Try not to assume because they went to Howard they are less than." Lin went to Harvard because no other D1s would give him a spot. He was a Duke level player at a low-level non-scholarship school.
And the thing is that sports/basketball are among the most meritocratic activities on this planet. Yet racial bias reared its heard. You don't think this happens everyday in investment banking? Or for consulting? All the places where its so much harder to objectively measure the quality of work done.
If you're a GM in basketball and you're not saying, "we need to look at more Asian player. We need to look around the globe for talent" then you're not doing your job. And coincidentally its now arguable that the four best basketball players in the NBA are all international: Giannis, Luka, Jokic, and Embid. Peoople had to open their eyes and see that it wasn't just an inner city game.
It could equally be argued that alternative players could have been better than Jeremy Lin. Then they promoted Lin at the time because they wanted to enter new markets. As it expanded in popularity new demos entered they pitched the “over coming race” angle because new people joined. Imo using it to make an example kinda proves the real use of DEI - to give people feels and sell stuff.
Teams are trying to sell seats. Businesses are trying to target various markets, but more importantly raise capital and get cheap labor.
You could argue the same thing in my case, and that’s fine. I won’t play the race game. For reference, me and others were offered an exorbitant amount to stay. But to your point, give those opportunities to others, who by definition didn’t earn their place.
Teams are trying to sell seats. Businesses are trying to target various markets, but more importantly raise capital and get cheap labor.
You could argue the same thing in my case, and that’s fine. I won’t play the race game. For reference, me and others were offered an exorbitant amount to stay. But to your point, give those opportunities to others, who by definition didn’t earn their place.
I got it. So even when a member of an underrepresented group outperforms others you will still say it’s for some alternative reason, with no evidence for it. And you thought your old boss was a bigot??
> So even when a member of an underrepresented group outperforms others you will still say it’s for some alternative reason, with no evidence for it.
When you view everything through a racist lens, that's all you'll see -- it'll consume you.
I was proposing an alternative way to read the racism in the NBA (rather than overcoming racism, it was used as a ploy to increase revenues - oh hey, they opened the Chinese markets in 2010 https://lawaspect.com/nba-expansion-china/). In fact, in your prior post you were discussing all these forms of racism Lin faced without clear evidence (i.e. an email, paper trail, etc). That's what DEI is, people utilizing their race to shame others in attempt to gain wealth, power, etc. Ultimately, it's about claiming something is deserved due to your race; which in fact is no different than the opposite. From your prior post:
> DEI is about saying, "you've done a sufficiently good job of demonizing everything that comes from POC -- so that you immediately discount the way they walk, talk, where they go to HS, go to college, etc... But set aside these biases and try to let some in the front door to at least give them a chance at the interview. Try not to assume because they went to Howard they are less than."
Almost everyone agrees you should set aside the bias, but why give someone an interview based on their race? Why not equally pick at random from people at that point?
Regardless, what we were talking about were diversity quotas in management. Typically, that means promotions from within. Everyone had interviews, everyone has been working. DEI in the example I gave was a way to extract more power / wealth for a given group in the name of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion -- at the exclusion of others.
> And you thought your old boss was a bigot??
When you promote [or don't] based on race, what are you?
> the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
When you view everything through a racist lens, that's all you'll see -- it'll consume you.
I was proposing an alternative way to read the racism in the NBA (rather than overcoming racism, it was used as a ploy to increase revenues - oh hey, they opened the Chinese markets in 2010 https://lawaspect.com/nba-expansion-china/). In fact, in your prior post you were discussing all these forms of racism Lin faced without clear evidence (i.e. an email, paper trail, etc). That's what DEI is, people utilizing their race to shame others in attempt to gain wealth, power, etc. Ultimately, it's about claiming something is deserved due to your race; which in fact is no different than the opposite. From your prior post:
> DEI is about saying, "you've done a sufficiently good job of demonizing everything that comes from POC -- so that you immediately discount the way they walk, talk, where they go to HS, go to college, etc... But set aside these biases and try to let some in the front door to at least give them a chance at the interview. Try not to assume because they went to Howard they are less than."
Almost everyone agrees you should set aside the bias, but why give someone an interview based on their race? Why not equally pick at random from people at that point?
Regardless, what we were talking about were diversity quotas in management. Typically, that means promotions from within. Everyone had interviews, everyone has been working. DEI in the example I gave was a way to extract more power / wealth for a given group in the name of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion -- at the exclusion of others.
> And you thought your old boss was a bigot??
When you promote [or don't] based on race, what are you?
> the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
From Daryl Morey, GM of the Rockets whose own analytical models said Lin should be a lottery pick: “He’s incredibly athletic,” said Morey. “But the reality is that every fucking person, including me, thought he was unathletic. And I can’t think of any reason for it other than he was Asian.”
You love to dismiss anything with the appearance of racism, except when it negatively might impact white males. Than racism and bigotry is suddenly a huge problem.
And like Lin, people aren’t saying to promote based on race. But rather don’t neglect people based on race which is exactly what people like you do. I’d love to see the candidate pool randomly drawn from the general population. I bet you’d find problems with it.
You love to dismiss anything with the appearance of racism, except when it negatively might impact white males. Than racism and bigotry is suddenly a huge problem.
And like Lin, people aren’t saying to promote based on race. But rather don’t neglect people based on race which is exactly what people like you do. I’d love to see the candidate pool randomly drawn from the general population. I bet you’d find problems with it.
I've seen quite a few people angrily push back on statements like 'pipeline problem' and I don't understand why. Obviously there's more to it than that, but it's also that (with hard numbers to back it up).
I think it’s because focusing on the pipeline problem focuses on the parts of hiring that a company doesn’t have control over. Those decisions often happen in high school and tech companies don’t have direct influence in these decisions.
Instead, companies are better off focusing on making the later parts of the pipeline less leaky. Minorities tend to leave tech at a higher rate than average due to factors the company has some control over.
Instead, companies are better off focusing on making the later parts of the pipeline less leaky. Minorities tend to leave tech at a higher rate than average due to factors the company has some control over.
I generally agree. However, they should be addressing both.
They should have outreach programs in high schools, partner with schools to offer intro to coding, or even help sponsor some students for after school coding classes. Sure, these won't necessarily convert these individuals into employees. But it would be part of being a good corporate citizen even if those students end up going to other companies. So there are things they can do. They aren't completely powerless.
They should have outreach programs in high schools, partner with schools to offer intro to coding, or even help sponsor some students for after school coding classes. Sure, these won't necessarily convert these individuals into employees. But it would be part of being a good corporate citizen even if those students end up going to other companies. So there are things they can do. They aren't completely powerless.
> They should have outreach programs in high schools, partner with schools to offer intro to coding, or even help sponsor some students for after school coding classes.
Here's the thing: by the time students reach high school, a lot of weeding out has already happened. I recall such a program where where they had something like 7% black students. All but one were children of wealthy Nigerian immigrants. The rest of the class was actually more Asian and White than the district.
Here's the thing: by the time students reach high school, a lot of weeding out has already happened. I recall such a program where where they had something like 7% black students. All but one were children of wealthy Nigerian immigrants. The rest of the class was actually more Asian and White than the district.
> I've seen quite a few people angrily push back on statements like 'pipeline problem' and I don't understand why.
Well, some people think when a company says "pipeline problem" it's a PR-vetted way to announce they ain't going to do shit.
Whether you think that's true probably depends on how cynical you are.
Well, some people think when a company says "pipeline problem" it's a PR-vetted way to announce they ain't going to do shit.
Whether you think that's true probably depends on how cynical you are.
I mean, what are they supposed to do?
To take one obvious example: there's massive under-performance of black men (vs. any other group) at every stage of the educational ladder up to the tertiary level. There simply aren't enough qualified candidates for engineering jobs for firms to be representative of the relative populations at a national level.
36% of white men have at least a bachelors degree; only 19% of black men do. Black college graduates choose STEM majors at only two-thirds the rate of white graduates, and one-third the rate of Asians.
To take one obvious example: there's massive under-performance of black men (vs. any other group) at every stage of the educational ladder up to the tertiary level. There simply aren't enough qualified candidates for engineering jobs for firms to be representative of the relative populations at a national level.
36% of white men have at least a bachelors degree; only 19% of black men do. Black college graduates choose STEM majors at only two-thirds the rate of white graduates, and one-third the rate of Asians.
I’ve slowly come to the conclusion that talking about the pipeline problem is unacceptable precisely because the powers that be do not want any of the issues you describe to be addressed.
I came to this conclusion by watching what the California government has done in the SF Bay Area over last decade or so.
They keep narrowing commuter corridors, which disproportionately impacts low income workers. They only allow high density housing to be built far from transit corridors and walkable downtowns. They explicitly keep housing scarce via zoning restrictions, then have special ghetto projects for low income families.
Public education has gone from top ten to bottom five in the country, but rich areas have excellent public schools because they let parents pay to add back educational programs that have been defunded in the poor public schools.
Oakland has a special privatized police force for its downtown commercial district area so that the businesses there don’t have to “subsidize” police coverage for the other (mostly black) parts of the city.
I came to this conclusion by watching what the California government has done in the SF Bay Area over last decade or so.
They keep narrowing commuter corridors, which disproportionately impacts low income workers. They only allow high density housing to be built far from transit corridors and walkable downtowns. They explicitly keep housing scarce via zoning restrictions, then have special ghetto projects for low income families.
Public education has gone from top ten to bottom five in the country, but rich areas have excellent public schools because they let parents pay to add back educational programs that have been defunded in the poor public schools.
Oakland has a special privatized police force for its downtown commercial district area so that the businesses there don’t have to “subsidize” police coverage for the other (mostly black) parts of the city.
1. pay their taxes, so the government can fund public schools so that they can educate black kids in the inner city and poor suburbs better. That can be step one.
Also, the GP did say they can do scholarships and such, there's that. Also (shudder) consider hiring from state schools and don't filter on where you got your degree, but the quality of education, which yes is much harder to judge. Also, fucking train your own hires, don't expect them to be brill out of the gate.
There is a lot they can do that really is actually quite colorblind on the surface that will lift all boats, but will actually disproportionately lift PoC since they skew worse on the metrics, as you stated.
Also, the GP did say they can do scholarships and such, there's that. Also (shudder) consider hiring from state schools and don't filter on where you got your degree, but the quality of education, which yes is much harder to judge. Also, fucking train your own hires, don't expect them to be brill out of the gate.
There is a lot they can do that really is actually quite colorblind on the surface that will lift all boats, but will actually disproportionately lift PoC since they skew worse on the metrics, as you stated.
The solution to this seems to be dumbing down the curriculum so that more kids "succeed". With things like "anti-racist math" [0] or "equitable math" [1]
[0] https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...
[1] https://reason.com/2021/05/04/california-math-framework-woke...
[0] https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...
[1] https://reason.com/2021/05/04/california-math-framework-woke...
[deleted]
>They should be putting their money where their mouth is and sponsoring scholarships/internships/apprenticeships.
I worked at a BigCo that did all the usual DEI garbage and their only initiative that actually had results was the one where they spent a bunch of money sponsoring "women in stem" stuff at the high-school and college level.
I worked at a BigCo that did all the usual DEI garbage and their only initiative that actually had results was the one where they spent a bunch of money sponsoring "women in stem" stuff at the high-school and college level.
I’m unsurprised their only program was for the majority in education.
Weird how there’s programs for the majority (women) when the minority (men) succeed — but no help for the minority (men) in any form. And this isn’t some new issue… men have been the minority in education longer than I’ve been alive.
Weird how there’s programs for the majority (women) when the minority (men) succeed — but no help for the minority (men) in any form. And this isn’t some new issue… men have been the minority in education longer than I’ve been alive.
They had many DEI programs dating back to before it was called DEI. The one targeting women who were predisposed toward stem careers and keeping them on that track was the only one that persisted over time because it was the only one that wasn't asinine when you actually looked at the results. Management basically said as much but less directly whenever they cut other programs but kept that one.
The women hired as a result were far more socially diverse than people from the other hiring pipelines and I think that is of greater value than the fact that they were women.
This is a big non-FAANG tech company FWIW
The women hired as a result were far more socially diverse than people from the other hiring pipelines and I think that is of greater value than the fact that they were women.
This is a big non-FAANG tech company FWIW
My company at least used to bring high school students to the company for a women in STEM tour. I believe they stopped it. I have no idea if it worked or not. It certainly didn't work for the company since we weren't seeing any of them join after college.
At least in the case of an intern we had, she went to some other company. Which in fairness, was the better choice. In the conversation we were having, the manager even told her to go to any other company if she has the option because they will pay more. One of the best managers I've seen and he wasn't even my manager. Of course he left for another company shortly after.
At least in the case of an intern we had, she went to some other company. Which in fairness, was the better choice. In the conversation we were having, the manager even told her to go to any other company if she has the option because they will pay more. One of the best managers I've seen and he wasn't even my manager. Of course he left for another company shortly after.
Yes, this is one of the funny things about DEI discussions to me.
In a work conversation, a coworker mentioned recruiting more women to work for us. I basically said we're never going to win against FAANG companies competing for the limited pool of women software engineers, and he didn't have a response to that.
Some companies may not be diverse because they don't want to hire from under represented categories, but because candidates from those categories have better offers.
In a work conversation, a coworker mentioned recruiting more women to work for us. I basically said we're never going to win against FAANG companies competing for the limited pool of women software engineers, and he didn't have a response to that.
Some companies may not be diverse because they don't want to hire from under represented categories, but because candidates from those categories have better offers.
>> a bunch of money sponsoring "women in stem"
IME, a bunch of them were sweetheart good deals and giveaways to BigCo's own daughters, cousins, sister-in-laws. And the money sloshes around amongst the wealthy inner crowd.
IME, a bunch of them were sweetheart good deals and giveaways to BigCo's own daughters, cousins, sister-in-laws. And the money sloshes around amongst the wealthy inner crowd.
It's a problem.
In our town people went past "Black Lives Matter" to a lot of cheap pandering to the effect that "Black people are awesome" and maybe all of them are right out of Wakanda Forever. It comes across as not based in reality, not really sincere, and not really attending to black people in the community.
I voted an Alumni Trustee ballot on the weekend and there were two black people on the ballot. One was a woman who'd done some of the biggest jobs in the biggest banks, the other was a man who'd leapfrogged from one "diversity officer" job to another. The first one was someone who proved black people could get it done, I'm afraid the second one may be perpetuating the problems of that community. You know who I voted for.
In our town people went past "Black Lives Matter" to a lot of cheap pandering to the effect that "Black people are awesome" and maybe all of them are right out of Wakanda Forever. It comes across as not based in reality, not really sincere, and not really attending to black people in the community.
I voted an Alumni Trustee ballot on the weekend and there were two black people on the ballot. One was a woman who'd done some of the biggest jobs in the biggest banks, the other was a man who'd leapfrogged from one "diversity officer" job to another. The first one was someone who proved black people could get it done, I'm afraid the second one may be perpetuating the problems of that community. You know who I voted for.
> The first one was someone who proved black people could get it done
This phrasing suggests an base expectation that a black person needs to prove they could get it done [like a white person could].
What I think DEI tries[1] to do is normalize the idea that anyone of sufficient ability /can/ do the work by giving more opportunity to people who 'traditionally' have not received those opportunities. And in so doing, remove the [often] unconscious perception that says a black person needs to 'prove' something extra in the first place
[1] at its best, which it often isn't.
This phrasing suggests an base expectation that a black person needs to prove they could get it done [like a white person could].
What I think DEI tries[1] to do is normalize the idea that anyone of sufficient ability /can/ do the work by giving more opportunity to people who 'traditionally' have not received those opportunities. And in so doing, remove the [often] unconscious perception that says a black person needs to 'prove' something extra in the first place
[1] at its best, which it often isn't.
> This phrasing suggests an base expectation that a black person needs to prove they could get it done [like a white person could].
Your response suggests a base expectation that a white person doesn't have to prove they can get it done. The realities of the job market suggest otherwise. Turns out, with a /very narrow/ set of exceptions based on direct nepotism, white people too must go through interviews, demonstrate some capability to do the job, and undergo performance reviews which might lead to termination if their performance is lacking on the job.
A common occurrence in DEI circles is to look at the experiences of the top 0.01% of society, notice that these extraordinarily wealthy families have children who go on to have absolute silver-spoon up ass level privilege in the workplace, and then extrapolate that for the many millions of people who constitute the other 99.9% of society. It doesn't matter in America if you're white or a man, it does matter if your daddy has a last name that is known publicly as part of high society and your family net worth starts with a B.
The basic reality is that EVERYONE must prove themselves. With the exception of the most wealthy and privileged minority of society, nobody is given shit just for being born.
Your response suggests a base expectation that a white person doesn't have to prove they can get it done. The realities of the job market suggest otherwise. Turns out, with a /very narrow/ set of exceptions based on direct nepotism, white people too must go through interviews, demonstrate some capability to do the job, and undergo performance reviews which might lead to termination if their performance is lacking on the job.
A common occurrence in DEI circles is to look at the experiences of the top 0.01% of society, notice that these extraordinarily wealthy families have children who go on to have absolute silver-spoon up ass level privilege in the workplace, and then extrapolate that for the many millions of people who constitute the other 99.9% of society. It doesn't matter in America if you're white or a man, it does matter if your daddy has a last name that is known publicly as part of high society and your family net worth starts with a B.
The basic reality is that EVERYONE must prove themselves. With the exception of the most wealthy and privileged minority of society, nobody is given shit just for being born.
Thanks for the considered reply. I agree that everyone must prove themselves on their own merit.
But the op did not say, "The first one was someone who proved she could do the job". They said, "The first one was someone who proved black people could get it done".
But the op did not say, "The first one was someone who proved she could do the job". They said, "The first one was someone who proved black people could get it done".
Thank you for sharing this. I feel the exact same way. Work at a state university. Found out at a big town hall style meeting that I was hired during a "diversity cluster hire." I know I am talented but I was sitting there questioning myself. I am hispanic. Everyone speaking about the cluster hire was white. I appreciate the overall push towards awareness of this issue but I agree this felt like we were being paraded around. I skipped the "DEI Luncheon."
Tangential to the current discussion but why do I always sense a reluctance to include matters relating to social class in these programs? When I bring it up during D&I discussions I'll usually get blank stares, and in one instance there were crude comments made about needing to beef up building security first.
DEI took off right after Occupy Wall Street. The whole purpose is to destroy the class discussion entirely and use DEI issues as a weapon against anyone who brings up class. That's why DEI feels so disingenuous, because at its core, that's exactly what it is.
Bingo, much like the political brinkmanship that is the current left and right divide it’s all a distraction from that moment of class clarity.
This is exactly it. The entire DEI-driven conversation about "white privilege" is designed to distract from the reality that privilege in American and Western society is based on social class and economic status, not on skin color. Those two things are often correlated due to historical race-based discrimination, but they are not the same, and there are many many millions of white people who are lower class and treated horribly in America on the basis of their socioeconomic status.
DEI is all about dividing poor people based on immutable characteristics so they don't have a way to effectively organize against the wealthy elites. There's a reason DEI is most popularly held and enforced by elites with high levels of education, and not by those who are the working masses.
Frankly, it's /exactly/ the same stuff that was done to create white vs PoC racism in the US prior to the civil rights era to divide the working class to prevent labor organization. It's just the other side of that same coin, and basically the same tactics with a veneer of paint.
Socioeconomic class has always been the primary leading indicator of outcomes for people born in the US, and that has not changed significantly in the last 30 years as DEI rose to prominence.
DEI is all about dividing poor people based on immutable characteristics so they don't have a way to effectively organize against the wealthy elites. There's a reason DEI is most popularly held and enforced by elites with high levels of education, and not by those who are the working masses.
Frankly, it's /exactly/ the same stuff that was done to create white vs PoC racism in the US prior to the civil rights era to divide the working class to prevent labor organization. It's just the other side of that same coin, and basically the same tactics with a veneer of paint.
Socioeconomic class has always been the primary leading indicator of outcomes for people born in the US, and that has not changed significantly in the last 30 years as DEI rose to prominence.
That's definitely true. As an example, if you're a low-class white male kid, you're actually quite disadvantaged compared to the general population (for example in educational outcomes). But the DEI initiatives in most companies won't recognize this, as they often don't look past skin color and gender.
My brother is about 8 years younger than I, and we both grew up in a small city, but city none the less.
There really wasn’t talk about sexuality/gender beyond someone being gay vs straight, or some group of kids being in a gang (there were a few subgroups depending on ethnicity, which they proclaimed themselves)
He’s nearly out of high school, and now it’s very much focused on DEI. After the states standardized testing is accomplished, most focus is on equality of outcome talk, about how he being a young white male has oppressed groups of people unconsciously, and that he should feel guilty.
Fortunately he’s smart, and questioned this at a young age. And a family that accepts him and helps him. But I fear this stuff could make less well off kids feel excluded, shunned, and guilty, and could ferment vengeful ideologies against society, which we need far less of.
It’s sad how divided as a country we are. I hope for us to get past this, even as cliche this sounds, for the children.
There really wasn’t talk about sexuality/gender beyond someone being gay vs straight, or some group of kids being in a gang (there were a few subgroups depending on ethnicity, which they proclaimed themselves)
He’s nearly out of high school, and now it’s very much focused on DEI. After the states standardized testing is accomplished, most focus is on equality of outcome talk, about how he being a young white male has oppressed groups of people unconsciously, and that he should feel guilty.
Fortunately he’s smart, and questioned this at a young age. And a family that accepts him and helps him. But I fear this stuff could make less well off kids feel excluded, shunned, and guilty, and could ferment vengeful ideologies against society, which we need far less of.
It’s sad how divided as a country we are. I hope for us to get past this, even as cliche this sounds, for the children.
[deleted]
I've started getting into socio-economic diversity, and having some success pushing it as a diversity characteristic at work. Whatever your other diversity characteristics are, coming from a lower socio-economic background just makes things harder.
Because DEI efforts come from the Ivies that are vestiges of class privilege. It's hard for people to recognize they can be oppressed as well as oppressor, privileged and disadvantaged at the same time. Even though this is the entire point of intersectionality, it's still hard to be self-aware.
The thought leaders of intersectionality, by virtue of their thought-leadership, have a privilege and a reach almost nobody else has. This does not discredit them, but it's awkward to acknowledge that those who preach about privilege are sometimes meaningfully more privileged than the people they preach to.
When people point out this privilege it looks like derailing from their perspective. Because when unprivileged people talk about oppression nobody pays attention to them, but when privileged people talk about it their privilege is then used to discredit their arguments. They can't win!
This exact effect poisons discussions about wealth inequality. When poor people talk about inequality they're ignored because they're sore losers. Rich people are ignored because they must be virtue-signaling hypocrites.
The thought leaders of intersectionality, by virtue of their thought-leadership, have a privilege and a reach almost nobody else has. This does not discredit them, but it's awkward to acknowledge that those who preach about privilege are sometimes meaningfully more privileged than the people they preach to.
When people point out this privilege it looks like derailing from their perspective. Because when unprivileged people talk about oppression nobody pays attention to them, but when privileged people talk about it their privilege is then used to discredit their arguments. They can't win!
This exact effect poisons discussions about wealth inequality. When poor people talk about inequality they're ignored because they're sore losers. Rich people are ignored because they must be virtue-signaling hypocrites.
It’s easier to hang out with different colors of people from your social class and pretend like you’ve solved all the problems in diversity. People from lower classes also have icky views that don’t align with yours so no thanks!
This is a complicated question, but at least one aspect of it is that American culture has always had an incredibly difficult time admitting there is such a thing as social and economic class division and confronting it head on.
At least some of this is probably cultural, it's part of our foundational myth that we broke the rigid class structures of the old world countries and we want to believe that is true. There is of course at least some kernel of truth to it, in some sense, for some kinds of people, historically speaking.
The other reason is that there has been a multi-generational extremely well funded initiative to cultivate media and public opinion against the idea. It's everywhere and is the basis of much of the "culture war" signaling we see around us. Examples include the idea that driving a pickup truck or avoiding lattes is some kind of meaningful class marker, rather than things like who owns and controls the capital of this country.
That effort has been highly effective, in part because it's been well executed and in part because of the total collapse of the concept of a labor party in this country, leaving us with two parties ruled by different professional classes.
At least some of this is probably cultural, it's part of our foundational myth that we broke the rigid class structures of the old world countries and we want to believe that is true. There is of course at least some kernel of truth to it, in some sense, for some kinds of people, historically speaking.
The other reason is that there has been a multi-generational extremely well funded initiative to cultivate media and public opinion against the idea. It's everywhere and is the basis of much of the "culture war" signaling we see around us. Examples include the idea that driving a pickup truck or avoiding lattes is some kind of meaningful class marker, rather than things like who owns and controls the capital of this country.
That effort has been highly effective, in part because it's been well executed and in part because of the total collapse of the concept of a labor party in this country, leaving us with two parties ruled by different professional classes.
Because the people hired in diversity programs and to run diversity programs are more extreme outliers in wealth relative to the groups they represent than the mean non-diverse candidate. Diversity outreach largely benefits the 1% of black people.
your employer doesn't want you talking about social class because they're the ones who have to pay you enough to get out of one class into another. It's much easier if they talk about your DIE 'identity' instead of paying you more.
It's starting to get traction. For instance, this is a government-sponsored organisation in the UK trying to encourage it in banking: https://www.progresstogether.co.uk/our-purpose/
There are similar orgs for consulting and law. Not heard of any for the FAANG/start-up/tech world.
There are similar orgs for consulting and law. Not heard of any for the FAANG/start-up/tech world.
Thanks for the link. I'll keep this in mind next time I try to force the issue. If it's already gaining traction in the banking sector tech has no excuse.
No worries. I've started an Employee Resource Group for it an my current place. As someone else said, socio-economic mobility is the tide that raises all boats.
Because the focus on ID Pol came after Occupy Wall Street started threatening the people in charge, by changing the focus from class to race, sex, and sexual orientation they manage to keep the middle and lower classes fighting each other instead of pushing against the fact that during COVID was saw some of the largest redistribution of wealth imaginable in this country.
Social class, attractiveness, intelligence, charisma, mental health, physical health, luck, etc. all play a big role in your success in life but we don't try to equalize those at all.
Race and gender are probably just really easy to quantify vs "we have a program to make sure we hire people who are dumb, ugly and socially awkward".
Race and gender are probably just really easy to quantify vs "we have a program to make sure we hire people who are dumb, ugly and socially awkward".
Not even joking, we should have affirmative action for ugly people. Everything they have they had to work twice as hard as attractive people for.
You can’t see social class. Social class barely exists as a politically relevant group identity. None of this is about justice. It’s about distributing spoils to politically relevant groups. People don’t care because there’s no benefit to them or their political coalition.
Because people believe that social class is your own fault. That people can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they weren't lazy. Not that I agree with this.
This. In US especially, the thought processes around race are just ...catastrophically delusional due to our terrible history with it. And by that I mean it seems to reduce us to rituals like DEI because we simply are terrible at reckoning with it in meaningful, material ways.
But the resistance to dealing with race and class together is real, in part because class is seen as individual problem. Race is seen as more cultural, systemic, or the province a minority running around with sheets on their heads.
I've personally only seen strong efforts to dissect them both, in earnest, at the same time, in the margins of society.
But the resistance to dealing with race and class together is real, in part because class is seen as individual problem. Race is seen as more cultural, systemic, or the province a minority running around with sheets on their heads.
I've personally only seen strong efforts to dissect them both, in earnest, at the same time, in the margins of society.
>but creating townhall meetings and parading your black/brown employees around like show ponies is nothing short of corporate virtue signaling.
It doesn't just undermine the self-esteem of a PoC, it undermines the self-esteem of white folks, too. Hiring or promoting people due to their skin color is just wrong, no matter what skin color that is. As a white dude, seeing my PoC teammates in the past celebrated not for their accomplishments, but for something they had no control over (their skin color) is sad.
"John in Engineering is really talented, and works his tail off daily. He has come up with some really ingenious solutions to tough problems that have allowed us to grow as a company....but we're celebrating him because he's black, not because he's a kickass engineer". Seen things like this before, which make no sense. Celebrating an employee who is awesome at their job for being awesome at their job is great. You're a company, after all, not a social club. The goal is to grow and make money. Celebrate anyone who can do help with that, regardless if they are black, white, yellow, orange, green, pink, whatever.
Diversity is cool, but when it's put into practice and not shouted from the rooftops, it's even better.
It doesn't just undermine the self-esteem of a PoC, it undermines the self-esteem of white folks, too. Hiring or promoting people due to their skin color is just wrong, no matter what skin color that is. As a white dude, seeing my PoC teammates in the past celebrated not for their accomplishments, but for something they had no control over (their skin color) is sad.
"John in Engineering is really talented, and works his tail off daily. He has come up with some really ingenious solutions to tough problems that have allowed us to grow as a company....but we're celebrating him because he's black, not because he's a kickass engineer". Seen things like this before, which make no sense. Celebrating an employee who is awesome at their job for being awesome at their job is great. You're a company, after all, not a social club. The goal is to grow and make money. Celebrate anyone who can do help with that, regardless if they are black, white, yellow, orange, green, pink, whatever.
Diversity is cool, but when it's put into practice and not shouted from the rooftops, it's even better.
> PoC
> White folks
I just want to mention that one of the worst aspects of all this is trying to sort people according to (here apparently a binary) label. There is not really such thing as either of these categories - it's stereotyping of the worst kind, and takes us back many generations
> White folks
I just want to mention that one of the worst aspects of all this is trying to sort people according to (here apparently a binary) label. There is not really such thing as either of these categories - it's stereotyping of the worst kind, and takes us back many generations
Didn't you get the memo? We cannot "move forward" until we properly asses people based the the fantastically shallow marker that is skin color!
It gets even worse, where people are pushing for BIPoC instead of just people of color, indicating that black and indigenous are of primary import, and the rest of the non whites are relegated to "other people of color"
The goal of the bipoc label is to exclude asians from diversity stuff.
Unless the goal is to make political hay of asians getting assaulted on subways, in which case asians are "people of color" who are "victims of white supremacy."
Yellow is not a color? I always assumed that Asians are included in PoC.
So are Black and Indigenous. The point is to lump Asians into "other" and only pay lip service to their inclusion.
What we learned in school decades ago is no longer considered correct by some people. Also logic is not a strong point of DEI people, for them math is racist [0] and logic is the basis of most math, so it is also racist.
Also white is a color and white people are not even white, but pink [1].
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29650790
[1]https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Pink_skin
Also white is a color and white people are not even white, but pink [1].
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29650790
[1]https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Pink_skin
Technically, white is all colors.
Side issue, but I grew up in Sweden thinking asians have yellow skin.
After living and working with asians for decades in the Bay area, I have yet to meet a yellow one. To my eye, they're on the same white(pink)-brown-black spectrum as the rest of humanity.
After living and working with asians for decades in the Bay area, I have yet to meet a yellow one. To my eye, they're on the same white(pink)-brown-black spectrum as the rest of humanity.
Well yeah...
White people are pale to darkly tanned
Natives Americans are brown, not red
Black people are brown, not black, some not even very brown
Indian people are shades of brown too, and yet can be far darker than "black" people.
Japanese people are brown, not yellow
None of the colloquial color terms for races are accurate when you sit down and think about it.
The one time it might have been accurate is redheads are often pale enough to be white, so of course we call them gingers/redheads.
It's all a bit silly.
White people are pale to darkly tanned
Natives Americans are brown, not red
Black people are brown, not black, some not even very brown
Indian people are shades of brown too, and yet can be far darker than "black" people.
Japanese people are brown, not yellow
None of the colloquial color terms for races are accurate when you sit down and think about it.
The one time it might have been accurate is redheads are often pale enough to be white, so of course we call them gingers/redheads.
It's all a bit silly.
[deleted]
It seems that some Asians are already over-represented in certain fields, like sciences. I heard somewhere that being Chinese makes your chances of admission worse.
I always understood bipoc to be used primarily in places where either black people or indigenous people (usually both) had way more oppression than any other race. America is a good example of where bipoc makes way more sense, because they literally stole indigenous kids right out of their homes and built an economy on making a race of people into property. There's something to be said that there wasn't a case where all indian people who immigranted to america systematically had a generation of their children taken, shoved into a school where many of them were renamed, abused, starved, raped, experimented on, and eventually died there, never to see their families again.
I’ll never forget a coworker explaining to me that in America she’s PoC, but back home she’s white. That really blew my mind.
> I’ll never forget a coworker explaining to me that in America she’s PoC, but back home she’s white. That really blew my mind.
I think that's a huge and extremely valuable lesson.
That's because there is no such thing as "white" ethnicity. It is a word used to categorize us vs other. This is not my theory, afaik it's a fact. A fact which seems to upset a lot people. Based on previous conversations, it appears to be the most controversial knowledge which I posses.
The generally accepted "white" ethnic groups have changed over time. Irish people were once not "white" in the USA. Neither were Slavic people. These two groups have the some of the lightest colored skin known to man.
No one is white. Some people pass for white.
I think that's a huge and extremely valuable lesson.
That's because there is no such thing as "white" ethnicity. It is a word used to categorize us vs other. This is not my theory, afaik it's a fact. A fact which seems to upset a lot people. Based on previous conversations, it appears to be the most controversial knowledge which I posses.
The generally accepted "white" ethnic groups have changed over time. Irish people were once not "white" in the USA. Neither were Slavic people. These two groups have the some of the lightest colored skin known to man.
No one is white. Some people pass for white.
On that topic, there’s a fascinating essay by Benjamin Franklin explaining how Germans aren’t sufficiently white* and shouldn’t be allowed in America in such vast numbers.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?psid=85&...
> What is perhaps most striking about Franklin's essay today is his sophisticated use of "social science" data to convince the British ministry to alter its colonial policies. Particularly jarring, however, is Franklin's plea that America be maintained as an entirely Anglo-Saxon society.
*This was probably a few centuries before one would use the word “white” in this context. Too many pale folk who don’t qualify. It was more about calling out ethnicities directly as people still do in Europe.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?psid=85&...
> What is perhaps most striking about Franklin's essay today is his sophisticated use of "social science" data to convince the British ministry to alter its colonial policies. Particularly jarring, however, is Franklin's plea that America be maintained as an entirely Anglo-Saxon society.
*This was probably a few centuries before one would use the word “white” in this context. Too many pale folk who don’t qualify. It was more about calling out ethnicities directly as people still do in Europe.
Oh heck, let's not even address that saying "people of color" is respectful, but "colored people" is racist.
I'm assuming good faith, and that you truly don't understand the difference. I'd be curious to know if it's because you're old enough to remember when "colored" was "fine", or too young to have an understanding of the racist usage of "colored".
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-da...
"While the distinctions can be complicated, the information is readily available for anyone willing to seek it out. That means reading and having meaningful conversations with people of different races."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-da...
"While the distinctions can be complicated, the information is readily available for anyone willing to seek it out. That means reading and having meaningful conversations with people of different races."
Sorry, both are racist--they're just two almost identical ways to say "not white." It's a term that gets used primarily by white people--most black people consider themselves black, not "poc," most Guatemalans consider themselves as such, not "poc," etc.--to erase all the differences and distinct interests between all these groups and reduce them to really the only think they have in common: that they're not white.
That’s similar to how “Asian” is used. Ask a Vietnamese person if they would include themselves in a group of Chinese people.
Asia is half of earths population, so “Asian” cannot possibly mean anything.
Asia is half of earths population, so “Asian” cannot possibly mean anything.
This is genuinely one of the less helpful comments I've seen on HN.
Instead of simply saying the reason is 'X' or even providing a link to a resource that explains why. You have linked to an article that can be fairly summarized as "Educate yourself".
This is possible even less helpful than LMGTFY link.
Instead of simply saying the reason is 'X' or even providing a link to a resource that explains why. You have linked to an article that can be fairly summarized as "Educate yourself".
This is possible even less helpful than LMGTFY link.
> You have linked to an article that can be fairly summarized as "Educate yourself".
And crucially, provides a reading list for doing so. I posted this understanding that anyone not interested in educating themselves is not going to find prescriptive recommendations for doing so useful.
And crucially, provides a reading list for doing so. I posted this understanding that anyone not interested in educating themselves is not going to find prescriptive recommendations for doing so useful.
That reading list is a who's who of insane woke ideologues.
What I truly understand is that if it is racist to say "colored person", then switching the terms around on the euphemism treadmill doesn't fix anything.
Give it another decade, and I promise you that BIPOC will be a racial slur. I've just ditched it ahead of time, so I won't have to write apologies about how I "didn't know better back then."
Give it another decade, and I promise you that BIPOC will be a racial slur. I've just ditched it ahead of time, so I won't have to write apologies about how I "didn't know better back then."
Yet the NAACP...
For anyone not aware, it stands for The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Founded in 1909, when polite society was at "colored people" on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill for "African Americans". Or are we fully at BIPOC now?
> Yet the NAACP...
TFA I linked to explicitly addresses this.
TFA I linked to explicitly addresses this.
> He has come up with some really ingenious solutions to tough problems that have allowed us to grow as a company....but we're celebrating him because he's black, not because he's a kickass engineer
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Why are you making the assumption that they added a silent "for a PoC" on the end of the first statement?
I wish we would transcend to a point where we look up to people based on their achievements and separate their race from it.
I’m Asian btw. I can relate to Lebron just as much as I can relate to Neil Armstrong or Satya or Matz or Woz or Marie Curie because they are all excellent at what they did/do.
I want to be excellent like them. Because we all are humans.
I’m Asian btw. I can relate to Lebron just as much as I can relate to Neil Armstrong or Satya or Matz or Woz or Marie Curie because they are all excellent at what they did/do.
I want to be excellent like them. Because we all are humans.
It's interesting to me seeing all asians and pacific islanders lumped together and excluded from most DEI efforts because HR departments think there's too many of you already and that you're too white-adjacent. Seems like blatant racism to me.
Pro-tip DEI is, by definition, a racist endeavor.
Also doesn't ever mention ageism, even in lip-service or passing.
This is exactly the way normal anti-racism was up until recently. It's how MLK wanted it to be and it's pretty much how the US was treating it up until the last decade. Somehow we've switched in the last few years to the point where skin color and/or specific race is the MOST important attribute someone has.
Diversity based on skin color is absolutely asinine. You can have a multitude of poc in one room but if their backgrounds and the groups they associate with are all the same, then their thinking is all going to be alike.
Diversity based on skin color is absolutely asinine. You can have a multitude of poc in one room but if their backgrounds and the groups they associate with are all the same, then their thinking is all going to be alike.
From a very sincere position, can you link to your sources for 'how MLK wanted it to be' and 'how the US was treating' DEI?
Unless we were all in the same positions within our careers since the time of MLK to now (and I'll also ignore some other confounders, like the fact that many black Americans could not easily attend college in the time of MLK), I wonder whether a recency bias may explain the differences you are reporting.
Unless we were all in the same positions within our careers since the time of MLK to now (and I'll also ignore some other confounders, like the fact that many black Americans could not easily attend college in the time of MLK), I wonder whether a recency bias may explain the differences you are reporting.
A link to sources? Really? Come on man, you've got to do a little work yourself here.
All you need to do is read what DEI is striving to do and listen to MLK's "I have a dream" speech when he specifically states he doesn't want a society where we judge the character of people on skin color but instead merit. This is something you should have learned in elementary school if you're an American. Are you trying to claim this isn't the case?
Explain to me how making everything equitable and inclusive for specific class oppressed poc isn't basing things on skin color vs. merit? This is a logical test, not one that needs sources.
Here's another test for you - explain how you make everyone equitable without lowering the higher achievers in society down to the average? Do you think it's possible to make under-achievers the same intelligence, physical capability as higher-achieving people?
All you need to do is read what DEI is striving to do and listen to MLK's "I have a dream" speech when he specifically states he doesn't want a society where we judge the character of people on skin color but instead merit. This is something you should have learned in elementary school if you're an American. Are you trying to claim this isn't the case?
Explain to me how making everything equitable and inclusive for specific class oppressed poc isn't basing things on skin color vs. merit? This is a logical test, not one that needs sources.
Here's another test for you - explain how you make everyone equitable without lowering the higher achievers in society down to the average? Do you think it's possible to make under-achievers the same intelligence, physical capability as higher-achieving people?
I was being very charitable - it seems you are asserting knowledge of Dr. King's canon of work based on your memory of a very meme-ified quote.
I also requested information about how the US used to treat racial equity better in the past; do you have any such evidence?
> Explain to me how making everything equitable and inclusive for specific class oppressed poc isn't basing things on skin color vs. merit? This is a logical test, not one that needs sources.
The quote you reference mentions character. The issues at hand are whether hiring ignores qualified candidates based on their skin color. I understand that you wish for a colorblind world but this is not the world we live in. I suspect that it is easy for you to forego a 'patch' in our current situation because the problems at play do not affect you. To rephrase, because you're not running an affected version of a problematic script, nobody should be allowed to install a hotpatch. Better to wait for the perfect v1.0 to be released.
> Here's another test for you - explain how you make everyone equitable without lowering the higher achievers in society down to the average? Do you think it's possible to make under-achievers the same intelligence, physical capability as higher-achieving people?
This is the perennial boogeyman and strawman. I think the reason it comes up is to make those who have enjoyed unappreciated benefits feel that their experience relates solely to their ability.
One of the best pitchers in baseball history never had a chance to play in his prime. Why? Because of an accident of his genetics.
With the arguments you set up, I surmise that you would argue that expending any effort to finding such good, but unappreciated, players necessarily debases all players; let's leave the greats in the dust to ensure that the sons of the wealthy get to play the game.
I would say that it is a disservice to humanity not to explore every option to uncover wasted talent.
We will disagree on this, but I encounter brilliant people whose life stories hinge on just one lucky break regularly. When I am confronted by the mammoth systemic inequalities the United States has imposed against some of its daughters and sons for hundreds of years, I am motivated to spend an extra moment to find qualified candidates in unappreciated venues.
Finally - your argument presupposes that every job search finds the best candidate. This may be a surprise to you, but as someone who hires, the candidate I end up with is as much defined by the vagaries of chance as by the candidate's ability. This is not controversial to any one who hires and is indeed a confound that we all must consider.
One key factor in someone getting their foot in the door is knowing someone who can contact me. Is this fair? Do I lower the average quality of all candidates if I use this very common source of referrals?
I also requested information about how the US used to treat racial equity better in the past; do you have any such evidence?
> Explain to me how making everything equitable and inclusive for specific class oppressed poc isn't basing things on skin color vs. merit? This is a logical test, not one that needs sources.
The quote you reference mentions character. The issues at hand are whether hiring ignores qualified candidates based on their skin color. I understand that you wish for a colorblind world but this is not the world we live in. I suspect that it is easy for you to forego a 'patch' in our current situation because the problems at play do not affect you. To rephrase, because you're not running an affected version of a problematic script, nobody should be allowed to install a hotpatch. Better to wait for the perfect v1.0 to be released.
> Here's another test for you - explain how you make everyone equitable without lowering the higher achievers in society down to the average? Do you think it's possible to make under-achievers the same intelligence, physical capability as higher-achieving people?
This is the perennial boogeyman and strawman. I think the reason it comes up is to make those who have enjoyed unappreciated benefits feel that their experience relates solely to their ability.
One of the best pitchers in baseball history never had a chance to play in his prime. Why? Because of an accident of his genetics.
With the arguments you set up, I surmise that you would argue that expending any effort to finding such good, but unappreciated, players necessarily debases all players; let's leave the greats in the dust to ensure that the sons of the wealthy get to play the game.
I would say that it is a disservice to humanity not to explore every option to uncover wasted talent.
We will disagree on this, but I encounter brilliant people whose life stories hinge on just one lucky break regularly. When I am confronted by the mammoth systemic inequalities the United States has imposed against some of its daughters and sons for hundreds of years, I am motivated to spend an extra moment to find qualified candidates in unappreciated venues.
Finally - your argument presupposes that every job search finds the best candidate. This may be a surprise to you, but as someone who hires, the candidate I end up with is as much defined by the vagaries of chance as by the candidate's ability. This is not controversial to any one who hires and is indeed a confound that we all must consider.
One key factor in someone getting their foot in the door is knowing someone who can contact me. Is this fair? Do I lower the average quality of all candidates if I use this very common source of referrals?
"Dr. King's canon of work based on your memory of a very meme-ified quote"
It's part of his most famous speech which follows the same line of thinking throughout... nice try with the gaslighting though.
"One of the best pitchers in baseball history never had a chance to play in his prime. Why? Because of an accident of his genetics."
Absolutely not, he missed out on playing because people back then decided to base hiring off of skin color (white skin) instead of basing it off of merit (pitching skill). The irony here is that you're trying to bring us back to that same exact pre civil rights era mindset. Somehow your cognitive dissonance has twisted your racism into being a good thing and justified it.
It's part of his most famous speech which follows the same line of thinking throughout... nice try with the gaslighting though.
"One of the best pitchers in baseball history never had a chance to play in his prime. Why? Because of an accident of his genetics."
Absolutely not, he missed out on playing because people back then decided to base hiring off of skin color (white skin) instead of basing it off of merit (pitching skill). The irony here is that you're trying to bring us back to that same exact pre civil rights era mindset. Somehow your cognitive dissonance has twisted your racism into being a good thing and justified it.
> It's part of his most famous speech which follows the same line of thinking throughout... nice try with the gaslighting though.
You're still side-stepping my line of questioning. This is like reading a module name and assuming you understand the code.
> Absolutely not, he missed out on playing because people back then decided to base hiring off of skin color (white skin) instead of basing it off of merit (pitching skill).
This is just you trying to contort my argument to fit your perspective. I wish you luck learning anything that doesn't match your opinions.
You're still side-stepping my line of questioning. This is like reading a module name and assuming you understand the code.
> Absolutely not, he missed out on playing because people back then decided to base hiring off of skin color (white skin) instead of basing it off of merit (pitching skill).
This is just you trying to contort my argument to fit your perspective. I wish you luck learning anything that doesn't match your opinions.
You cannot claim past bias on skin color and argue for future bias on skin color. That is what you're doing and it's cognitive dissonance. You need to break down your arguments to their base, instead you're just putting a cognitive block in place to stop yourself from doing that.
Are you trying to deny his skin color kept him from pitching? By your own admission this pitcher was good and was only stopped due to his skin color. Therefore, the fix is to look at the skills he had as pitcher and drop the irrelevant skin color requirement, correct? And yet you're here trying to promote switched bias where we look at skin color FIRST instead of merit. That is the base of your argument whether you want to admit it or not.
You can falsely claim MLK didn't want a society based on merit and wanted skin color to count for everything, I don't really care, it's not all that relevant to my point. Arguing that some people might have an underlying bias for skin color also isn't really relevant. We do not, as a society, just stop trying to move forward because a few outliers might impede 100% progress.
I DO want a society based on merit because the alternative is a complete collapse of what we have. A society based of diversity of skin color (which is a really superficial useless diversity) above merit based skills is a dead society.
"I wish you luck learning anything that doesn't match your opinions."
Are you looking for someone to just be submissive to what you're claiming and not challenge you? Are you sure I'm the one that needs "luck" here?
Are you trying to deny his skin color kept him from pitching? By your own admission this pitcher was good and was only stopped due to his skin color. Therefore, the fix is to look at the skills he had as pitcher and drop the irrelevant skin color requirement, correct? And yet you're here trying to promote switched bias where we look at skin color FIRST instead of merit. That is the base of your argument whether you want to admit it or not.
You can falsely claim MLK didn't want a society based on merit and wanted skin color to count for everything, I don't really care, it's not all that relevant to my point. Arguing that some people might have an underlying bias for skin color also isn't really relevant. We do not, as a society, just stop trying to move forward because a few outliers might impede 100% progress.
I DO want a society based on merit because the alternative is a complete collapse of what we have. A society based of diversity of skin color (which is a really superficial useless diversity) above merit based skills is a dead society.
"I wish you luck learning anything that doesn't match your opinions."
Are you looking for someone to just be submissive to what you're claiming and not challenge you? Are you sure I'm the one that needs "luck" here?
Just for your reference, here is another Martin Luther King quote. I encourage you to read more of an author's work before quoting in the future:
From Why We Can't Wait : "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."
---
Some more to help bolster your MLK canon:
*In 1965 the writer Alex Haley interviewed King for an interview that ran in Playboy Magazine. Haley asks him about an employment program to help "20,000,000 Negroes." After expressing his approval for it, King estimates that such a program would cost $50 billion.
Haley then asks: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?"
King: "I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages--potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races."*
From Why We Can't Wait : "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."
---
Some more to help bolster your MLK canon:
*In 1965 the writer Alex Haley interviewed King for an interview that ran in Playboy Magazine. Haley asks him about an employment program to help "20,000,000 Negroes." After expressing his approval for it, King estimates that such a program would cost $50 billion.
Haley then asks: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?"
King: "I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages--potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races."*
People are impatient. Changes that take a few generations to notice are too slow. Instant gains now now now. We learned identity politics worked for LGBTQIA so we deployed them for BIPOC as well. The ends justified the means. The ends are undefined.
I always get confused when people say they need to have people who look like them in prominent roles in order to feel welcome in a hobby/career/whatever. I'm a fan of boxing, and my favorite boxer is a black Muslim. I do some hobby-level game dev on the side, and most of my favorite devs that I look up to are Japanese. Young black men seem to disproportionately love Dragon Ball Z, with an Asian-appearing main character based on the Chinese epic Journey to the West whose hair turns blond when he gets angry and powers up.
Dragon Ball Z was introduced into lower income neighborhoods via Cartoon Network among many other anime, so it was hard to miss. It was pretty hard to miss Pokemon, Dragon Ball Z and etc. in elementary school especially with the merch kids brought to school. Marketing, re-runs and perceived coolness/epicness, I'd say drove the continued popularity of it. Once you hit high school and college though, Dragon Ball Z/Pokemon are niche and less visible (it stopped being cool and a relic of age) at least that was my experience in low income neighborhood. DBZ is still awesome because of its familarity, but not something I will watch intentionally.
Goku being Japanese and loved by people of lower income is like how Final Fantasy 7 is beloved in predominately white (western) countries. There's still discussions of people thinking Cloud Strife is white even though he is Japanese.
Race, in general, isn't a big deal when you are younger since it is not taught in schools (shockingly to some people :O). It becomes an issue when people actively start generalizing and using tropes for the purposes to make you feel like shit (in)directly.
Goku being Japanese and loved by people of lower income is like how Final Fantasy 7 is beloved in predominately white (western) countries. There's still discussions of people thinking Cloud Strife is white even though he is Japanese.
Race, in general, isn't a big deal when you are younger since it is not taught in schools (shockingly to some people :O). It becomes an issue when people actively start generalizing and using tropes for the purposes to make you feel like shit (in)directly.
Cloud isn't Japanese. He is a fictional character from a fictional planet.
And Goku isn't Japanese either; he is Saiyan, an Alien race.
> Race, in general, isn't a big deal when you are younger
It isn't a big deal, if you're not impacted by it (colloquially known today as 'privilege').
However, what you might not believe is a big deal, is arguably a big deal to other people.
A few examples:
You may not be aware that black women in the US are 3-times more likely to pregnancy related issues than white women. There is a downstream impact on the children of those women. [1]
Separately, there still exists a serious gap in achievement for Alaska Native / American Indian children.
1: https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/features/maternal-mortality... 2: https://www.nsba.org/ASBJ/2020/December/condition-native-ame...
And Goku isn't Japanese either; he is Saiyan, an Alien race.
> Race, in general, isn't a big deal when you are younger
It isn't a big deal, if you're not impacted by it (colloquially known today as 'privilege').
However, what you might not believe is a big deal, is arguably a big deal to other people.
A few examples:
You may not be aware that black women in the US are 3-times more likely to pregnancy related issues than white women. There is a downstream impact on the children of those women. [1]
Separately, there still exists a serious gap in achievement for Alaska Native / American Indian children.
1: https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/features/maternal-mortality... 2: https://www.nsba.org/ASBJ/2020/December/condition-native-ame...
Let's be honest here, a creator can make Apples be purple and slightly deformed and call it Banora Apples, but it's still an apple. Plenty of people who like DBZ or FF to debate with on how to classify said characters based on traits such as skeletal structure, influences from the creator, etc. These classifications, I don't think about much when playing games in general, not that much of a fanboy in trying to identify with any character. Gonna have to find someone else here to debate with on any particular character's race or racial influences.
You clearly misread. Elementary and even some high school school kids don't think about "race" until it is pointed out in some way whether by a national event or cited as bullying reason etc. How you could extrapolate that to "race doesn't matter", I have no clue other than a misread whether intentional or not.
You clearly misread. Elementary and even some high school school kids don't think about "race" until it is pointed out in some way whether by a national event or cited as bullying reason etc. How you could extrapolate that to "race doesn't matter", I have no clue other than a misread whether intentional or not.
Japanese isn't a race it's a nationality and/or ethnicity, and neither Goku nor Cloud are from Japan nor do they share any real cultural traits with Japanese people.
You've changed crux of your argument (or perhaps clarified what you inteded to argue) to now be what school age children do or do not think; though that isn't very compelling as neither you nor I are capable of reading minds. However the comment I did respond to was clearly written--"Race, in general, isn't a big deal when you are younger..." and it clearly can be a big deal to young people; just perhaps not a big deal to you.
You've changed crux of your argument (or perhaps clarified what you inteded to argue) to now be what school age children do or do not think; though that isn't very compelling as neither you nor I are capable of reading minds. However the comment I did respond to was clearly written--"Race, in general, isn't a big deal when you are younger..." and it clearly can be a big deal to young people; just perhaps not a big deal to you.
Don't know how you can say that with a straight face. You got me laughing right now. [1] shows clear influence by Japanese culture. With Japanese language symbols in each creation, again, I can't see how your claim stands that there is no influence. I could never say that creations are not influenced in any way by the world we live in. Race/Nationality/Ethnicity tend to be used in an intertwined manner these days so I have to believe you are not being of good faith here. It's 2023, so you can read it as Pokemon and DBZ are of Japanese origin and leave out the fluff. If we really used the race term literally, it wouldn't be used at all to describe differences between people in the human race.
I've changed nothing. You misread it and I clarified it for you to come to an understanding. Race/Skin Color/Nationality, whatever it is you want to read it as with the negative connotations assigned, isn't something any young-in thinks about on a daily basis without it being pointed out in some way.
Anyway, I'm not interested in going on circles on this. I would know about said experience given my own culture and interactions. No one needs to reads minds to give anecdotes about their life experience and talk to other people in the same situation about their life experience and thoughts about things that happen(ed) to this day.
[1] https://scontent-hou1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/106206584_2...
I've changed nothing. You misread it and I clarified it for you to come to an understanding. Race/Skin Color/Nationality, whatever it is you want to read it as with the negative connotations assigned, isn't something any young-in thinks about on a daily basis without it being pointed out in some way.
Anyway, I'm not interested in going on circles on this. I would know about said experience given my own culture and interactions. No one needs to reads minds to give anecdotes about their life experience and talk to other people in the same situation about their life experience and thoughts about things that happen(ed) to this day.
[1] https://scontent-hou1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/106206584_2...
There's no country called 'Japan' in Final Fantasy VII, so I don't know why you're so confidently stating that. The closest analogue is Wutai, and Cloud's not from there.
Assuming you’re white and male: there are loads of white boxers and game devs! And you probably know some of them!
Think about how men feel about traditionally femme activities which may be stigmatized for hetero men. If you see even one other straight man get their nails done at a salon it sort of implicitly opens that door to you.
Think about how men feel about traditionally femme activities which may be stigmatized for hetero men. If you see even one other straight man get their nails done at a salon it sort of implicitly opens that door to you.
If you are someone who has experienced personally harmful racism (e.g. a black boy getting in trouble at school for things that white boys routinely get away with), then it is helpful to see a counterexample of what is possible in society for someone who has the same potential to be targeted by discrimination.
Not sure why your comment was greyed-out when I saw it. Voting patterns are truly bizarre and disconnected from truth.
Probably because there is no shortage of white boxers, and an observation about black people liking a cartoon isn't all that relevant?
Are you truly confused or is it that you choosen not to listen to the reasons “people” have for finding value in representation?
Does your comment mean that because your human experience is different than other people that you find it difficult to understand how others may think and feel differently than you?
Does your comment mean that because your human experience is different than other people that you find it difficult to understand how others may think and feel differently than you?
It's also funny to use the term "Asian". I'm also "Asian" (from Israel). There are hundreds of completely non-related ethnical groups in this vast continent.
Yeah, and what do you call a white Siberian? A large part of Russia is in Asia as well. Asia must have the most ethnic groups, along with the largest population, but somehow they're all one race to the West.
You call a white Siberian a Russian, and Russia wasn't considered part of the orient by US immigration law back in the day.
Asian has a different meaning in US Tech circles.
I found that out, when I arrived in this country, and was informed that Indians are their own groups, and Asians referred to Chinese and Koreans (and others).
The 'Asian' tag is a clear racist way, determined by the way one looks.
I found that out, when I arrived in this country, and was informed that Indians are their own groups, and Asians referred to Chinese and Koreans (and others).
The 'Asian' tag is a clear racist way, determined by the way one looks.
[deleted]
It's because certain terms to explain other parts of Asia have been deemed not pc.
Lebron's struggles as a black man in America are a huge part of his success story. Not just that he's excellent at what he does. Pretending that race doesn't exist does not actually work in practice. LeBron himself will tell you that.
Lebron plays in a league that's majority black in the footsteps of Michael Jordan, who was the most famous athlete on the planet and on the way to being a billionaire and owner. Lebron was anointed Jordan's heir while still in high school, and he got drafted straight into the NBA with the #1 overall pick. He's had numerous huge endorsements over his career.
Exactly how did he struggle as a basketball player? White Men Can't Jump was a 90s movie, and back in the 80s, Bird was a the great white hope as redneck from Indiana, because the top players were mostly black, and Bird was even called out as unathletic by Dennis Rodman and Isaiah Thomas after he won a playoff game over them in Detroit.
Exactly how did he struggle as a basketball player? White Men Can't Jump was a 90s movie, and back in the 80s, Bird was a the great white hope as redneck from Indiana, because the top players were mostly black, and Bird was even called out as unathletic by Dennis Rodman and Isaiah Thomas after he won a playoff game over them in Detroit.
I said his struggles as a black man. As in being raised in poverty in the midwest (not a lot of opportunity for people of his background) and having no real shot at success in America other than selling his body.
>having no real shot at success in America other than selling his body.
Selling his body? Are you serious?
He wouldn't have been able to become a cop, a nurse, a clerk, a financial professional or any of the other thousands of professions that black people in the midwest find themselves in?
LeBron's struggles seem less part of his success story and more part of a self-penned "rags to riches" legend.
Selling his body? Are you serious?
He wouldn't have been able to become a cop, a nurse, a clerk, a financial professional or any of the other thousands of professions that black people in the midwest find themselves in?
LeBron's struggles seem less part of his success story and more part of a self-penned "rags to riches" legend.
Selling his body? Is that what millionaire athletes are doing? Or just the black ones? You mean Lebron didn’t want to play basketball but had no other choice? Unlike us office workers who grew up dreaming of being professional athlete, but weren’t good enough at sports?
[deleted]
IMHO, LeBron's struggle was one of an poor kid growing up.
I would even say that being black was an advantage, and gave him great genetics that he took to the next level with discipline.
I would even say that being black was an advantage, and gave him great genetics that he took to the next level with discipline.
> "I would even say that being black was an advantage, and gave him great genetics that he took to the next level with discipline."
Being Jewish was a great advantage to Einstein, and gave him great genetics that he took to the next level with discipline.
Being French was a great advantage to Joan of Arc, and gave her great genetics that she took to the next level with dedication.
LeBron may have great genetics. But if he does, it's because of his parents and luck, not his race per se. Otherwise everyone who is black would have a genetic advantage that they could take to the next level with discipline.
It is racist as hell to attribute to race what are personal qualities. Other than, perhaps, traits that only certain races possess, such as the ability to breath at high elevations without taking weeks to adapt to the conditions.
Being Jewish was a great advantage to Einstein, and gave him great genetics that he took to the next level with discipline.
Being French was a great advantage to Joan of Arc, and gave her great genetics that she took to the next level with dedication.
LeBron may have great genetics. But if he does, it's because of his parents and luck, not his race per se. Otherwise everyone who is black would have a genetic advantage that they could take to the next level with discipline.
It is racist as hell to attribute to race what are personal qualities. Other than, perhaps, traits that only certain races possess, such as the ability to breath at high elevations without taking weeks to adapt to the conditions.
In the 90s we did this.
This is a challenging subject, but there’s a lot of valid criticism of DEI efforts of many large companies.
For one, these programs tend to be led by teams that are, ironically, not very diverse. They tend to focus too much on box checking while ignoring broad swaths of underrepresented populations. “Asia” is a big complex region of the world with those from this region often very underrepresented in the US and subjected to discrimination. However many DEI programs fail to recognize those from this region as underrepresented and the whole lumping everyone under the generic label of “Asian” is itself painting with a very broad brush that’s insensitive to all the nuanced cultures in this region.
They also tend to push messaging that is not broadly accepted, even by the communities they claim to be helping. For example DEI had a big push on saying the word “Latino” was offensive and insisted people must say “Latinx.” Many Lantinos in companies were outraged and pointed out that in fact this concept of “Latinx” can in fact be extremely offensive to those it’s attempting to describe. For one, it’s suggesting that a gendered language is somehow inferior and must be corrected.
As the OP indicates, putting people up in a pedestal when someone that checks a desired box is hired also diminishes that person. It sends the message that they’re hired and celebrated in part to check the box vs the skills they bring to the team.
The above is all complicated that people are terrified to discuss these matters because of their sensitive nature. Rather that creating an inclusive environment to discuss these issues DEI programs more frequently establish a culture of indoctrination into the thinking of a few (such as the Latinx example above).
In short, DEI programs have a lot of self-reflection to do and need to be more aware that many of the efforts so far have caused more harm than good.
For one, these programs tend to be led by teams that are, ironically, not very diverse. They tend to focus too much on box checking while ignoring broad swaths of underrepresented populations. “Asia” is a big complex region of the world with those from this region often very underrepresented in the US and subjected to discrimination. However many DEI programs fail to recognize those from this region as underrepresented and the whole lumping everyone under the generic label of “Asian” is itself painting with a very broad brush that’s insensitive to all the nuanced cultures in this region.
They also tend to push messaging that is not broadly accepted, even by the communities they claim to be helping. For example DEI had a big push on saying the word “Latino” was offensive and insisted people must say “Latinx.” Many Lantinos in companies were outraged and pointed out that in fact this concept of “Latinx” can in fact be extremely offensive to those it’s attempting to describe. For one, it’s suggesting that a gendered language is somehow inferior and must be corrected.
As the OP indicates, putting people up in a pedestal when someone that checks a desired box is hired also diminishes that person. It sends the message that they’re hired and celebrated in part to check the box vs the skills they bring to the team.
The above is all complicated that people are terrified to discuss these matters because of their sensitive nature. Rather that creating an inclusive environment to discuss these issues DEI programs more frequently establish a culture of indoctrination into the thinking of a few (such as the Latinx example above).
In short, DEI programs have a lot of self-reflection to do and need to be more aware that many of the efforts so far have caused more harm than good.
> They also tend to push messaging that is not broadly accepted, even by the communities they claim to be helping. For example DEI had a big push on saying the word “Latino” was offensive and insisted people must say “Latinx.” Many Lantinos in companies were outraged and pointed out that in fact this concept of “Latinx” can in fact be extremely offensive to those it’s attempting to describe. For one, it’s suggesting that a gendered language is somehow inferior and must be corrected.
IMHO, in almost all cases, DEI isn't about helping anyone, except white liberals who feel guilt they want assuaged.
The Latinx example you cite is nice example of the contradictions of DEI: you can't actually "include" everyone without dominating them (colonizing?) and forcing a new identity on them, because different groups have mutually exclusive aspects of their identities.
IMHO, in almost all cases, DEI isn't about helping anyone, except white liberals who feel guilt they want assuaged.
The Latinx example you cite is nice example of the contradictions of DEI: you can't actually "include" everyone without dominating them (colonizing?) and forcing a new identity on them, because different groups have mutually exclusive aspects of their identities.
> "Why should I feel proud of my accomplishments, when the accomplishments were spoon-fed to me by the company because of my skin color? If I were a white man with the same experience, I might not even be here?"
I'm not a PoC but I am disabled. I have uncorrectable low vision. My perspective is different. If they want to hire me and promote me because I'm blind that's fine by me. I'm just happy that for once, something I have no control over, is maybe giving me a boost instead of being a drag.
But maybe it's because I'm skeptical of meritocracy. Not in an absolute sense. I have a strong suspicion that if I weren't delivering value, I'd be gone by now despite being a diversity hire. But simultaneously, I don't believe people are promoted one over another strictly due to performance, even when DEI isn't a consideration.
There's plenty of research indicating that humans and especially organizations suck at evaluating job performance. And I've seen many cases directly where someone is filling a leadership role to everyone's satisfaction yet someone else gets promoted to the permanent position even though they are clearly inadequate for the job. Promotions already appear chaotic, political and quasi-random. Essentially, what does it matter if DEI is just one more wonky variable in quantum mechanical promotion engine.
I'm not a PoC but I am disabled. I have uncorrectable low vision. My perspective is different. If they want to hire me and promote me because I'm blind that's fine by me. I'm just happy that for once, something I have no control over, is maybe giving me a boost instead of being a drag.
But maybe it's because I'm skeptical of meritocracy. Not in an absolute sense. I have a strong suspicion that if I weren't delivering value, I'd be gone by now despite being a diversity hire. But simultaneously, I don't believe people are promoted one over another strictly due to performance, even when DEI isn't a consideration.
There's plenty of research indicating that humans and especially organizations suck at evaluating job performance. And I've seen many cases directly where someone is filling a leadership role to everyone's satisfaction yet someone else gets promoted to the permanent position even though they are clearly inadequate for the job. Promotions already appear chaotic, political and quasi-random. Essentially, what does it matter if DEI is just one more wonky variable in quantum mechanical promotion engine.
> I don't believe people are promoted one over another strictly due to performance, even when DEI isn't a consideration.
I wish I could find the study but this one fascinating read pointed out that the greatest predictor of whether you'd get promotions/raises/etc. was whether or not you were 1) white, 2) male...
Those 2 aren't surprising but then it continued:
...3) 6ft tall or taller, 4) "conventionally handsome" (very loaded to term I know), 5) well-groomed/dressed by whatever standards of the industry you were in.
Height in particular had a ton of correlation.
As you said, the meritocracy idea is kind of BS. It's a consideration, but it's not the primary consideration. Presentation appears to have an outsized effect, whether you control it or not.
I wish I could find the study but this one fascinating read pointed out that the greatest predictor of whether you'd get promotions/raises/etc. was whether or not you were 1) white, 2) male...
Those 2 aren't surprising but then it continued:
...3) 6ft tall or taller, 4) "conventionally handsome" (very loaded to term I know), 5) well-groomed/dressed by whatever standards of the industry you were in.
Height in particular had a ton of correlation.
As you said, the meritocracy idea is kind of BS. It's a consideration, but it's not the primary consideration. Presentation appears to have an outsized effect, whether you control it or not.
The bias is toward looking like a better version of your boss. Match him in everything culturally, but be cooler than him, better looking that him, taller than him. As a black man, I'm pretty sure I got more than one programming job because I played in punk bands in the 90s.
This would be bad if the demographics of the people hiring were representative of the general population. They're not, so it makes it worse for specific groups.
This would be bad if the demographics of the people hiring were representative of the general population. They're not, so it makes it worse for specific groups.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hi, bitter Asian man here who constantly got rejected from FAANG/Unicorns because of DEI.
I'm not bitter anymore though. I now work at a hedge fund, they pay cash, and they pay more than FAANG/Unicorns.
And lots of layoffs are happening in FAANG/Unicorns, especially the DEI. Meanwhile I just got a raise.
So, they (the DEI companies and the DEI hires) got what they deserve. I felt vindicated. There is justice after all in this world.
Sorry not sorry. I'm out. No, no one's gonna change my opinion. Save your breath.
I'm not bitter anymore though. I now work at a hedge fund, they pay cash, and they pay more than FAANG/Unicorns.
And lots of layoffs are happening in FAANG/Unicorns, especially the DEI. Meanwhile I just got a raise.
So, they (the DEI companies and the DEI hires) got what they deserve. I felt vindicated. There is justice after all in this world.
Sorry not sorry. I'm out. No, no one's gonna change my opinion. Save your breath.
I think you raise some good points, and I think there are ways to handle DEI hiring well, and ways not to do it well. IMHO, when it's done well, DEI hiring isn't about filling quotas or giving anyone an edge, but it's about making sure that everyone has an equal chance. I've been part of DEI hiring at a couple companies, and my role has been much more about answering questions and making sure that candidates start the process on a level footing with everyone else. All of the candidates are fully qualified for the roles -- I wouldn't be talking to them if they weren't.
Not a native English speaker, but my understanding is that the word "equity" is now used specifically to mean "equality of outcome", which is incompatible with giving everyone an equal chance. I found an article[0] explaining the difference:
>Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
[0] https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equal...
>Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
[0] https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equal...
I agree; at least in the context of my employer's DEI conversations you are correct that "equity" is meant to be interpreted as "equality of outcome".
> it's about making sure that everyone has an equal chance
How does that look in practice? In most companies it seems that means that under-represented people get green lighted at the resume screen step at a much higher percentage than over-represented people. But the bar is the same at the interview stage.
But don't you see how that is a big dis-advantage for the median over-represented applicant?
How does that look in practice? In most companies it seems that means that under-represented people get green lighted at the resume screen step at a much higher percentage than over-represented people. But the bar is the same at the interview stage.
But don't you see how that is a big dis-advantage for the median over-represented applicant?
> But the bar is the same at the interview stage.
If the bar is sufficiently high, the median applicant, over- or under-represented, won't get the job anyway. I've heard from people who work at companies (specifically big tech) that have diversity interview quotas (but not hiring quotas). In practice, you just end up interviewing more people: the candidates you would have interviewed anyway, plus some diverse candidates with closer-to-the-median resumes. And then you end up hiring the people you would have anyway, because interviews are much harder to pass than resume screens. It's a fairly pointless exercise that mostly disadvantages the interviewers, who have to spend more time interviewing, and the "lucky" candidates, who almost never outperform expectations in the interview.
If the bar is sufficiently high, the median applicant, over- or under-represented, won't get the job anyway. I've heard from people who work at companies (specifically big tech) that have diversity interview quotas (but not hiring quotas). In practice, you just end up interviewing more people: the candidates you would have interviewed anyway, plus some diverse candidates with closer-to-the-median resumes. And then you end up hiring the people you would have anyway, because interviews are much harder to pass than resume screens. It's a fairly pointless exercise that mostly disadvantages the interviewers, who have to spend more time interviewing, and the "lucky" candidates, who almost never outperform expectations in the interview.
If you're doing this at selection time, you're already late.
* Make sure you have a campus presence on a diverse set of universities. I'm not American, but as I understand it that could mean Historically Black Universities, and not just the Ivy League or a place where the current workforce went
* In line with that, think through which organizations you partner with. An employer that traditionally hired from/sponsored fraternity-like organizations that are mostly white, could also work with student associations that represent a broader spectrum of potential talent, or that specifically represent underrepresented groups
* One job ad I saw had a line "Did you know women are less likely to apply if they don't meet all criteria, whereas men are more likely to apply when they meet a few? If you think you can add value to our team, we encourage everyone to apply". I thought that was helpful.
Anyone can still apply, and the best candidate gets picked. Just not the one that happens to come from a specific background.
* Make sure you have a campus presence on a diverse set of universities. I'm not American, but as I understand it that could mean Historically Black Universities, and not just the Ivy League or a place where the current workforce went
* In line with that, think through which organizations you partner with. An employer that traditionally hired from/sponsored fraternity-like organizations that are mostly white, could also work with student associations that represent a broader spectrum of potential talent, or that specifically represent underrepresented groups
* One job ad I saw had a line "Did you know women are less likely to apply if they don't meet all criteria, whereas men are more likely to apply when they meet a few? If you think you can add value to our team, we encourage everyone to apply". I thought that was helpful.
Anyone can still apply, and the best candidate gets picked. Just not the one that happens to come from a specific background.
I've sat in on group interviews where we usually have a side chat discussing the candidate. Wouldn't you know, every time a candidate of color was being interviewed one guy on our team would take much longer to convince they knew what they were doing.
White women and men, got an ok much more quickly.
I asked my boss if he noticed this, and he said he did not, but when I asked another PoC on the team, he definitely noticed.
This is the way things usually go.
That's not really DEI, though, that's equal opportunity. DEI is about putting your thumb on the scale for groups higher on the progressive stack, to redress the lack of social capital they've had due to systemic oppression and/or because if you just select for talent, experience, and drive, in certain fields like tech the candidate pool will just skew white/Asian anyway because of the established good ole boy networks.
I'd really rather it stop at equal opportunity also but the world of finance -- where it really counts -- is all in on DEI, and companies demonstrating insufficient virtue will get clobbered on their ESG scores and hence, stock valuations.
I'd really rather it stop at equal opportunity also but the world of finance -- where it really counts -- is all in on DEI, and companies demonstrating insufficient virtue will get clobbered on their ESG scores and hence, stock valuations.
I think it would be impossible to conclusively say people have an equal chance without having objective, quantifiable, measures of performance. Otherwise, it's easy to use subjective measures, even subconsciously, to make a biased decision.
> when it's done well,...it's about making sure that everyone has an equal chance
If that's the measure, then I think it's not done well in a lot of places (possibly most). Some places are biased one way; other places biased the other way; relatively few are dead-centered.
If that's the measure, then I think it's not done well in a lot of places (possibly most). Some places are biased one way; other places biased the other way; relatively few are dead-centered.
I wish there were an HR "brand" for "We want the absolute best team possible, with diversity of thought and experience, and aligned on our mission and core values. We recognize lots of people are excluded because they're not part of our existing networks, or because they don't think they belong here, so we'll put extra effort into looking for them and showing them what's possible, but we've got the same standards for everyone we bring in, and will always pick the people who make our team the best. This might not always be the best individuals at their specialties in isolation, but the people who will work the best together to achieve our mission. This isn't a single-round game, so we do value long-term evolution of our company, the industry, our country, and humanity overall, but if we aren't successful in the short term, we won't be at the table to make positive changes over time, either. We have minimum moral, ethical, and legal obligations in how we treat people which we will always meet (and hopefully far exceed), but the minimums are not our targets."
I find the way DEI people talk about "people of color" to be demeaning. The language alone is bizarre: people will talk about an individual being "diverse," like they have multiple personalities or something. It's also extremely reductionist. As an immigrant from a Muslim country, I do bring a very different perspective on many things than native-born white Americans. But that's not really what they mean by "diversity." In practice they reduce "diversity" to the negative experiences darker skinned people may or may not have in a majority white society. "Tell me where the bad white people touched you."
We shouldn't care about the skin color of people. And when I was young, I thought we would evolve into a world were skin color wouldn't matter.
But now it seems some people 'accepted' that skin color matters, and so we have to positively discriminate skin colors that get discriminated against. Their belief is that there will always be racism against colored people, and somehow it needs to be offsetted.
If find this very strange. I would hope one day we could still evolve into a world where skin color doesn't matter. But it seems further away as we move along.
But now it seems some people 'accepted' that skin color matters, and so we have to positively discriminate skin colors that get discriminated against. Their belief is that there will always be racism against colored people, and somehow it needs to be offsetted.
If find this very strange. I would hope one day we could still evolve into a world where skin color doesn't matter. But it seems further away as we move along.
The problem is that as we started to transition to a world that didn’t discriminate against racial groups based on skin color, the people who wanted to discriminate against those groups changed tactics. They discriminated using other signals strongly correlated with race, largely with the same effect. The coup de grace was then declaring racial discrimination “over”, all the while maintaining the same racially discriminated power structures.
Now we live in a world where racial groups can be targeted with surgical precision using such signals. The racists aren’t using the N word out loud anymore, but the racial animus is still there. The promise of a colorblind world was naive, and it won’t work.
Now we live in a world where racial groups can be targeted with surgical precision using such signals. The racists aren’t using the N word out loud anymore, but the racial animus is still there. The promise of a colorblind world was naive, and it won’t work.
> The promise of a colorblind world was naive, and it won’t work.
I'm all for equality and anti-racisms. But if you say "game is on between the races", well then let's go and see who wins.
Edit: Maybe I wasn't clear, but if you are going to discriminate me for whatever skin color I have, I'm not going to roll over and cry. I'm going to fight you. Fair and simple.
I'm all for equality and anti-racisms. But if you say "game is on between the races", well then let's go and see who wins.
Edit: Maybe I wasn't clear, but if you are going to discriminate me for whatever skin color I have, I'm not going to roll over and cry. I'm going to fight you. Fair and simple.
That’s not what I am saying and it’s sad to me that you interpret my words to mean I intend to discriminate against you based on your race. Im not advocating any competition between races.
The point is that creating a “colorblind” world, without correcting the other indicators which strongly correlate with race, doesn’t lead to a a diverse outcome.
For instance, let’s say we institute a policy that to eliminate hiring bias, we will only look at the school you went to. We sort the applicants by top schools, and interview only the top achievers at each of the top schools. This selection process, while “colorblind”, will not necessarily result in a diverse population. I hope the reasons are obvious but if not I can explain why.
To correct this, we can institute a policy that says: not only will we look at the traditional top Ivies, but we will also consider top HBCUs.
Does this mean that whereas before you passed the filter, now you may be passed over for someone else who may be a minority? Yes.
Does this mean that person is less qualified than you? No. The best students at most schools can be just as good as or better than top Ivy students.
Does that mean you were passed over because of your skin color? No, it could mean the applicant pool was widened and you didn’t make the cut after more talent was considered.
None of this has to do with your skin color or really anyone’s. What it has to do with is eliminating systemic bias in the hiring process. As they say, to the privileged equality can feel like oppression, but that’s not what is happening. It was a privileged position for a long time that whites got priority consideration. Now they don’t and it feels to whites like oppression. Be that as it may, it’s still not racist.
Does this explanation put my comment into a better perspective for you?
The point is that creating a “colorblind” world, without correcting the other indicators which strongly correlate with race, doesn’t lead to a a diverse outcome.
For instance, let’s say we institute a policy that to eliminate hiring bias, we will only look at the school you went to. We sort the applicants by top schools, and interview only the top achievers at each of the top schools. This selection process, while “colorblind”, will not necessarily result in a diverse population. I hope the reasons are obvious but if not I can explain why.
To correct this, we can institute a policy that says: not only will we look at the traditional top Ivies, but we will also consider top HBCUs.
Does this mean that whereas before you passed the filter, now you may be passed over for someone else who may be a minority? Yes.
Does this mean that person is less qualified than you? No. The best students at most schools can be just as good as or better than top Ivy students.
Does that mean you were passed over because of your skin color? No, it could mean the applicant pool was widened and you didn’t make the cut after more talent was considered.
None of this has to do with your skin color or really anyone’s. What it has to do with is eliminating systemic bias in the hiring process. As they say, to the privileged equality can feel like oppression, but that’s not what is happening. It was a privileged position for a long time that whites got priority consideration. Now they don’t and it feels to whites like oppression. Be that as it may, it’s still not racist.
Does this explanation put my comment into a better perspective for you?
Yes, it definitely puts it in a better perspective. Because your policy doesn't mention race at all. It bases itself on social settings, which is fine by me.
My apologies for misinterpreting you.
As a European, I think the biggest problem in US (not an expert so I might be wrong) is that your neighborhood taxes pay for the local school. That means that when you can afford to live in a good neighborhood, your kids can go to a good school. Unfortunately the other side is also true. When you live in a bad neighborhood, your kids go to a bad school.
That is a huge difference with European countries where schools are funded with national taxes. The difference in school quality is close to each other, and every kid gets to go to a proper school.
I think it would solve some of the problems if US would adopt this system.
My apologies for misinterpreting you.
As a European, I think the biggest problem in US (not an expert so I might be wrong) is that your neighborhood taxes pay for the local school. That means that when you can afford to live in a good neighborhood, your kids can go to a good school. Unfortunately the other side is also true. When you live in a bad neighborhood, your kids go to a bad school.
That is a huge difference with European countries where schools are funded with national taxes. The difference in school quality is close to each other, and every kid gets to go to a proper school.
I think it would solve some of the problems if US would adopt this system.
I'm so sorry that this is your experience, and I'm sorry that you're being used. This is one of the unfortunate outcomes of so many DEI initiatives - or at least every single one I've seen directly or heard about secondhand. It's wrong that they use you this way and, worse, by doing so they are effectively putting a little asterisk next to every one of your accomplishments, which is of course deeply unfair to you, but also to everyone around you.
Hopefully not many DEI efforts are insincere from the outset (i.e. driven by a desire to not look bad), but it certainly seems that DEI efforts are cheapened by their publicity. Keeping them private might be an improvement, but human diversity has so many dimensions to it, and the fixation on relatively superficial things like skin color is largely unhelpful if the goal is actual diversity of things like ideas, perspective, and experience (as opposed to the goal of appearing diverse).
I don't know how to reverse the damage of past eras of things like racism and sexism, but diversity hiring does a lot of harm (and, at the end of the day, is really just more racism and more sexism anyway).
Hopefully not many DEI efforts are insincere from the outset (i.e. driven by a desire to not look bad), but it certainly seems that DEI efforts are cheapened by their publicity. Keeping them private might be an improvement, but human diversity has so many dimensions to it, and the fixation on relatively superficial things like skin color is largely unhelpful if the goal is actual diversity of things like ideas, perspective, and experience (as opposed to the goal of appearing diverse).
I don't know how to reverse the damage of past eras of things like racism and sexism, but diversity hiring does a lot of harm (and, at the end of the day, is really just more racism and more sexism anyway).
I really strongly agree, but I'm a white man, so it can be difficult to confidently have a reasonable conversation about, or maybe I really shouldn't care/be talking at all.
I think it was the actor Morgan Freeman who in an interview answered something like 'how do we fix racism/diversity' with 'stop talking about it'.
But I'd go further, I find 'PoC' (person/people of colour) which you used yourself a really strange term, I think I'd hate it. 'Why aren't I just a P? Those white guys aren't called Pw/oC.' Your prerogative, of course.
Trends come and go, I suppose - it just seems so close to 'coloured', which has itself been both a preferred 'PC' term and considered racist at different times. It's so similar to PoC that I'm honestly not sure where it stands now, I wouldn't use it.
When the distinction actually does matter, do we need such euphemisms? At least in the UK, though 'PoC' seems to be catching on a bit, people are and have long been happy with white/brown/black, IME.
I'm not a 'manager in an influential company' but if I am ever running the show I don't even want a hush-hush programme - just hire good people and shut up about their heritage/preferences IMO. I realise there's a pipeline problem, but I think you help fix that by funding and otherwise supporting the early stages of it, not by being lax on merit or setting quotas for your late-stage admission process.
I think it was the actor Morgan Freeman who in an interview answered something like 'how do we fix racism/diversity' with 'stop talking about it'.
But I'd go further, I find 'PoC' (person/people of colour) which you used yourself a really strange term, I think I'd hate it. 'Why aren't I just a P? Those white guys aren't called Pw/oC.' Your prerogative, of course.
Trends come and go, I suppose - it just seems so close to 'coloured', which has itself been both a preferred 'PC' term and considered racist at different times. It's so similar to PoC that I'm honestly not sure where it stands now, I wouldn't use it.
When the distinction actually does matter, do we need such euphemisms? At least in the UK, though 'PoC' seems to be catching on a bit, people are and have long been happy with white/brown/black, IME.
I'm not a 'manager in an influential company' but if I am ever running the show I don't even want a hush-hush programme - just hire good people and shut up about their heritage/preferences IMO. I realise there's a pipeline problem, but I think you help fix that by funding and otherwise supporting the early stages of it, not by being lax on merit or setting quotas for your late-stage admission process.
The sad thing about PoC is that using the grammatical synonym “colored people” has recently ended people’s careers.
The funny thing about PoC is that it (apparently) includes Asians.
In California, Asians are greatly over-represented in colleges, etc.
So, any effective equity system would mostly just be reinstating old-school quotas against hiring/admitting too many Chinese people (which UC correctly eliminated decades ago).
Anyway, I suggest the UK revert to the global favorite of the 1990’s: African American.
The funny thing about PoC is that it (apparently) includes Asians.
In California, Asians are greatly over-represented in colleges, etc.
So, any effective equity system would mostly just be reinstating old-school quotas against hiring/admitting too many Chinese people (which UC correctly eliminated decades ago).
Anyway, I suggest the UK revert to the global favorite of the 1990’s: African American.
I’m Asian and grew up dirt poor. It’s annoying af when people think of me as some math genius or whatever with parents who are doctors (they’re not.. far from it). I had no choice but to do my best because as a kid I remember no running water and no electricity before we moved to the USA and lived in small apartment with bugs. My parents English is terrible and I saw them suffer here by not being able to afford visiting their family back home. My dad moved here and never went back, could only afford to send my mom a couple times and me once. I’m glad we are doing better today.
I find a lot of these DEI policies to be very generalizing and uncomfortable to be completely honest.
I find a lot of these DEI policies to be very generalizing and uncomfortable to be completely honest.
As a white european dude, who's ancestors never oppressed anyone, rather were oppressed by other white dudes through history. Can you ELI5 why the DEI exists and what problems does it solve, from but from a perspective of someone of my position?
Not a troll-bait question, but I sincerely try to comprehend this as to me the mere term people of color is the uttermost racist label imaginable. Also, that presumes I'm from people of no-color...
Not a troll-bait question, but I sincerely try to comprehend this as to me the mere term people of color is the uttermost racist label imaginable. Also, that presumes I'm from people of no-color...
In the US discrimination based on skin color is widespread and goes back to before the country's founding, and access to opportunities is very uneven based on wealth. The PoC term is a reflection of the general pattern of discrimination as practiced here. This situation both has strong inertia (easier to get access to opportunity if you have relatively wealthy parents and/or blend in with wealthier people who tend to be white) and is also reinforced by vested interests (demonizing Latinos and Asian immigration for taking jobs helps keep immigration regulations tight and labor costs down). DEI initiatives are one take on how to get the system to correct towards giving everyone a fair shot.
Discrimination in the US is based on socioeconomic status just as much as race.
There are both, and they are related. For example family wealth and wealth accumulation in the US is weighted heavily to home ownership and appreciation, the GI bill that powered a great deal of home purchases was structured to exclude blacks, and the combination of those facts shapes the distribution of wealth today. Expensive neighborhoods tend to have better public schools, the quality of that schooling is a lifelong advantage, yet redlining was only banned around 50 years ago. This directly affected the cohort of people in their 60s who are still part of the work force. Overall social mobility in the US is pretty poor compared to other wealthy countries but I'm not sure if there is any rigorous work to attribute causes.
There's also trailer parks, Appalachia and dying mid-western towns. I'm guessing a majority of them don't have access to better public schools. Sounds more of a problem of how public schools are funded than structural racism, which benefits richer districts. This is a good example of a class issue, since there's no shortage of poorer white folks as well. Yes, there's a smaller percentage of them, but also a larger overall number (5.3 million non-Hispanic white children in 2019 compared to 4.1 million black).
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/44-children-in-...
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/44-children-in-...
Not surprised we have arrived here on HN. After BLM, there were a flurry of posts supporting DIE as if it's the tyleonal to the racism headache.
"If we hire non-whites, WE can solve systemic racism!".
People didn't stop to think that it hurts everyone all around. White people are now ignored for hires based on their race (as is the Left's proposition towards black names on resumes) and minorities are paraded around as if they are corporate mascots.
I feel for you OP. IMO the next hiring landscape is in anonymous handles providing superior results. Keep increasing your skills and climb above the DIE garbage hole.
"If we hire non-whites, WE can solve systemic racism!".
People didn't stop to think that it hurts everyone all around. White people are now ignored for hires based on their race (as is the Left's proposition towards black names on resumes) and minorities are paraded around as if they are corporate mascots.
I feel for you OP. IMO the next hiring landscape is in anonymous handles providing superior results. Keep increasing your skills and climb above the DIE garbage hole.
I have a close friend who expresses similar sentiments sometimes, as someone who is sometimes the target of DEI initiatives.
I've seen DEI hiring initiatives abused to paradoxical ends. Once department administration got into an attempt to basically hire someone using funds set aside for DEI, essentially with the plan to terminate them later, just to collect the support monies that came along with the position. The situation was complex but none of this had to do with hires' actual competence, it had to do with the available pool and this zealotry in unit aims at the time (basically the minority applicants were all working in areas different from the types of projects administration thought people should be working on).
In any event, it created this disturbing situation where an attempt to increase DEI by the higher powers that be was actually having the opposite effect on a hire arguably, by creating this opportunity for unit management to use them for support funds with no actual intent to support them in their career or keep them around long term.
I've seen DEI hiring initiatives abused to paradoxical ends. Once department administration got into an attempt to basically hire someone using funds set aside for DEI, essentially with the plan to terminate them later, just to collect the support monies that came along with the position. The situation was complex but none of this had to do with hires' actual competence, it had to do with the available pool and this zealotry in unit aims at the time (basically the minority applicants were all working in areas different from the types of projects administration thought people should be working on).
In any event, it created this disturbing situation where an attempt to increase DEI by the higher powers that be was actually having the opposite effect on a hire arguably, by creating this opportunity for unit management to use them for support funds with no actual intent to support them in their career or keep them around long term.
I think these initiatives had great intentions, as the saying goes, “road to hell is paved with good intentions”
We shouldn’t be “color blind”, but at the same time shouldn’t raise (or especially demote) anyone for their skin color
These initiatives are antithetical to what MLK preached, to much of the civil rights movement
And just like the scrum cult, once these systems are implemented, they understandably have motive to keep themselves “alive” and worth the investment.
That begs the question then, if there’s perfect diversity in a company, why would you need DEI? You’d only justify the cost if it’s a perpetual problem that will never be solved, one that every individual is conscious or unconsciously guilty of, and actions must be taken to curb the ever-encroaching perpetuation of anti DEI thoughts/behaviors.
We shouldn’t be “color blind”, but at the same time shouldn’t raise (or especially demote) anyone for their skin color
These initiatives are antithetical to what MLK preached, to much of the civil rights movement
And just like the scrum cult, once these systems are implemented, they understandably have motive to keep themselves “alive” and worth the investment.
That begs the question then, if there’s perfect diversity in a company, why would you need DEI? You’d only justify the cost if it’s a perpetual problem that will never be solved, one that every individual is conscious or unconsciously guilty of, and actions must be taken to curb the ever-encroaching perpetuation of anti DEI thoughts/behaviors.
> but at the same time shouldn’t raise (or especially demote) anyone for their skin color
thats literally what colorblindness is all about, recognizing people for their actions not their skin color.
thats literally what colorblindness is all about, recognizing people for their actions not their skin color.
Same issue with hiring quotas for women in Europe. Did she really get this job based on her merit or did she get it, because she is a woman?
From my perspective, quotas are just covertly saying, that women are stupid children who needs to be pampered by society. I see quotas as degrading and disgusting and I hope that nobody will come with quotas for men.
From my perspective, quotas are just covertly saying, that women are stupid children who needs to be pampered by society. I see quotas as degrading and disgusting and I hope that nobody will come with quotas for men.
The concern I have with DEI is that it's the manipulation of the natural function of a market - the jobs market. Just like others in this space such as quantitative easing, printing money, and "stimmy cheques", this often comes with positive and negative effects.
Personally, I have a few thouhts:
* If we didn't have DEI (which in practice is really just the new AA (Affirmative Action)), would hetero-ethnic areas like Europe and US ever have balance in the workforce? Would society naturally trend towards ethnic balance in the workplace without DEI, or would we end up with a Gattaca? Is DEI necessary in that sense? Without DEI-like influences, would we just be stuck with a black valet and a white CEO?
* Psychologists have known for decades about "the tyranny of low expectations" - the tendency for lower expectations to lead to lower performance in humans. I wonder if long-term DEI will lead to performance imbalances as those who are favored by DEI become reliant on it. It's a scary thought to imagine in the long term.
* Personally, I think a small amount of temporary DEI exposure is required to offset the human's natural tendency to be hostile towards those of a different ethnicity. I think that if DEI exposure is either acute (a lot in a small time frame) or chronic (little bit over a long time frame), it is likely to lead to systemic negative consequences, such as performative imbalance and/or aggression/hatred between those favored and unfavored by DEI.
It's a really complex situation!
Personally, I have a few thouhts:
* If we didn't have DEI (which in practice is really just the new AA (Affirmative Action)), would hetero-ethnic areas like Europe and US ever have balance in the workforce? Would society naturally trend towards ethnic balance in the workplace without DEI, or would we end up with a Gattaca? Is DEI necessary in that sense? Without DEI-like influences, would we just be stuck with a black valet and a white CEO?
* Psychologists have known for decades about "the tyranny of low expectations" - the tendency for lower expectations to lead to lower performance in humans. I wonder if long-term DEI will lead to performance imbalances as those who are favored by DEI become reliant on it. It's a scary thought to imagine in the long term.
* Personally, I think a small amount of temporary DEI exposure is required to offset the human's natural tendency to be hostile towards those of a different ethnicity. I think that if DEI exposure is either acute (a lot in a small time frame) or chronic (little bit over a long time frame), it is likely to lead to systemic negative consequences, such as performative imbalance and/or aggression/hatred between those favored and unfavored by DEI.
It's a really complex situation!
The curse of low expectations is real. I recently moved out of Baltimore because of the long term implications of DEI in education. There's schools where a gpa of 0.13 puts you in the top half of your class (https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/calls-to-shu...). You also have 77 % of seniors being illiterate (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/77-of-students-at-...). I also dated a teacher for a bit, they can't even teach, it's daycare and the bar for a highschool senior to pass is literally being able to write their name. Teachers can't fail or require more.
This is going to lead to decades of crime, most major cities in America are like this. And it's going to get worse and worse. The future is scary, and I wonder what the outcome will be. These are also largely black schools, what happens when these communities can't read and stay illiterate due to DEI in the school system?
This is going to lead to decades of crime, most major cities in America are like this. And it's going to get worse and worse. The future is scary, and I wonder what the outcome will be. These are also largely black schools, what happens when these communities can't read and stay illiterate due to DEI in the school system?
It's a pretty sad fact of life that sometimes you hurt the most by offering what you think is help.
I was admitted to university through an EOP (Equal Opportunity Program), which is in the same vain as DEI. One of the criticisms of the program was just that-- people felt like they didn't deserve to be where they are. A constant worry that people would view you as the "one that got in because of their skin/income/background, etc). Obviously this applies to DEI as well.
As someone who benefited from EOP, it's weird for me to say this but in all honesty I think we would all be better off without it or perhaps doing it in a way where it isn't labelled or "celebrated" the way it is... it should be unobtrusive and not call attention to itself.
I was one of three white people out of 350+ people that was accepted through EOP. If I felt that way as a white person I can't imagine how much more amplified those feelings would be as a person of color.
As someone who benefited from EOP, it's weird for me to say this but in all honesty I think we would all be better off without it or perhaps doing it in a way where it isn't labelled or "celebrated" the way it is... it should be unobtrusive and not call attention to itself.
I was one of three white people out of 350+ people that was accepted through EOP. If I felt that way as a white person I can't imagine how much more amplified those feelings would be as a person of color.
When I was in graduate school, we had a guest speaker who was a diversity consultant come give a talk and ran us through one of the example exercises they do for clients. It basically involves everyone standing in a conference room, on one side of a line, and the diversity consultant standing on the other side. They iteratively make statements relating to personal attributes or experiences and anyone that chooses to identify with that statement step over the line briefly before returning back to the group (either before the next statement or not).
For example, the first statement might be "I have served in the military" and veterans that don't mind being known for their military experience can step over the line. Other statements might be "I am the first person in my family to attend college", "I have questioned my sexuality", "I was raised in an upper class family", "I am vegetarian", "I am a recovering addict", ... etc.
It's a good exercise for showing both the things people have in common as well as the breadth of experiences that might exist in a group.
Interestingly, though I've never seen that exercise performed in an actual company in the twenty years since...
For example, the first statement might be "I have served in the military" and veterans that don't mind being known for their military experience can step over the line. Other statements might be "I am the first person in my family to attend college", "I have questioned my sexuality", "I was raised in an upper class family", "I am vegetarian", "I am a recovering addict", ... etc.
It's a good exercise for showing both the things people have in common as well as the breadth of experiences that might exist in a group.
Interestingly, though I've never seen that exercise performed in an actual company in the twenty years since...
Maybe I'm just more of a private person than some people, but I'm absolutely floored that people would volunteer such private life details to a group of random strangers. I'm not saying it's a bad thing either, it may very well be healthier to share more about ourselves, but I can't wrap my head around it.
Hiring preferences for PoC is discriminating against all not PoC. It is in practice exactly what these initiatives claim to be fighting, bigotry.
That infers the baseline is equality. The reality is that hiring without explicit guidelines will bias against POC. DEI is about counteracting unconscious (or conscious) bias.
> That infers the baseline is equality. The reality is that hiring without explicit guidelines will bias against POC. DEI is about counteracting unconscious (or conscious) bias.
No, DEI is about replacing one bias with another in order to make a bunch of white people feel better about themselves. DEI doesn't consider Indians or South Asian looking people "People of color", because there are "too many of them in tech already". DEI is just institutionalize racism. So much that some Indians have to fake being black to get jobs in DEI corporations, cause white people can't always tell the difference.
The baseline was never equality, however DEI is blatantly racist against people who objectively suffer from racial discrimination themselves.
No, DEI is about replacing one bias with another in order to make a bunch of white people feel better about themselves. DEI doesn't consider Indians or South Asian looking people "People of color", because there are "too many of them in tech already". DEI is just institutionalize racism. So much that some Indians have to fake being black to get jobs in DEI corporations, cause white people can't always tell the difference.
The baseline was never equality, however DEI is blatantly racist against people who objectively suffer from racial discrimination themselves.
I don't think any of that is true or at least I've never observed it. It's also entirely possible for a DEI program to be run incompetently.
> I don't think any of that is true or at least I've never observed it. It's also entirely possible for a DEI program to be run incompetently.
From which perspective are race categorized in USA? From the white man's perspective. These DEI are all about some's ego and sense of guilt. Never about fairness nor equal opportunity. Yet these programs makes people who themselves are victim of racism, who never had anything to do with US slavery, pay the price individually, regardless of the inherited wealth/connections AKA socio-economic background.
Of course all I said is true, there is just the racism DEI corporations care about and the racism they don't care about, which is the direct result of DEI policies.
From which perspective are race categorized in USA? From the white man's perspective. These DEI are all about some's ego and sense of guilt. Never about fairness nor equal opportunity. Yet these programs makes people who themselves are victim of racism, who never had anything to do with US slavery, pay the price individually, regardless of the inherited wealth/connections AKA socio-economic background.
Of course all I said is true, there is just the racism DEI corporations care about and the racism they don't care about, which is the direct result of DEI policies.
Exactly this. DEI isn't about ignoring race--DEI is -recoginizing- the impact that things like gender, race, and sexuality has on our biases.
Who is talking about hiring preferences? Why are you mischaracterizing diversity programs?
Honest question for the crowd. Obviously DEI or affirmative action-esque initiatives are not perfect. But is there something better that could be done?
Asking bc I went to a good school that had affirmative action. It was for years that I just assumed it was racist, even if it was helping poc. Then it dawned on me in my last year that it was also benefitting me. That if the govt hadn’t done something to intervene, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to know any poc until I was an adult.
(For those of you wondering, a lot of Americans are born in highly segregated communities, where there are few (or even zero) poc, like many suburbs, and it’s not by choice or fault of their own)
Anyways, without that experience and diversity in college, I would have been very deprived. So, I’m not saying OP doesn’t have a point. I just want to share my pov and ask what else can be done? In an almost selfish way, as a white guy born in the suburbs, I am extremely grateful that I had a chance, even if by intervention, to go to a diverse college. I take it for granted now, but I shudder to think what school would have been like without that.
So what’s the better alternative to diversity initiatives? Which is the least evil option?
Asking bc I went to a good school that had affirmative action. It was for years that I just assumed it was racist, even if it was helping poc. Then it dawned on me in my last year that it was also benefitting me. That if the govt hadn’t done something to intervene, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to know any poc until I was an adult.
(For those of you wondering, a lot of Americans are born in highly segregated communities, where there are few (or even zero) poc, like many suburbs, and it’s not by choice or fault of their own)
Anyways, without that experience and diversity in college, I would have been very deprived. So, I’m not saying OP doesn’t have a point. I just want to share my pov and ask what else can be done? In an almost selfish way, as a white guy born in the suburbs, I am extremely grateful that I had a chance, even if by intervention, to go to a diverse college. I take it for granted now, but I shudder to think what school would have been like without that.
So what’s the better alternative to diversity initiatives? Which is the least evil option?
The problem you’re describing is extremely rare in tech. The industry is full of immigrants and people of color; I’ve personally never worked on a team with more than 30ish% white people, although I’ve interviewed for a few and I hear they’re more common in different specialties.
But of course one of the key goals of diversity initiatives is to frame the discourse so people don’t think this way. How often do you hear the Google diversity office talk about how proud they are to have a PoC as CEO?
But of course one of the key goals of diversity initiatives is to frame the discourse so people don’t think this way. How often do you hear the Google diversity office talk about how proud they are to have a PoC as CEO?
Thanks for your response. I meant the question to be more broad than just tech.
It’s less egregious in other contexts and other industries, but I still haven’t ever seen e.g a college whiter than the state it’s located in. I’m sympathetic to affirmative action as a solution to break up a true monoculture, and I’m sure there’s some institution somewhere that would be 100.0% white if not for their valiant efforts to fight it. But I don’t see any indication this is a common problem.
A big part of the problem is that it's not really a problem for companies to solve. Or, put another way, it's nearly impossible for most companies to address the problem in a non-ham-fisted way; arguably they end up doing more harm than good.
Opinions vary wildly on how much of a problem still needs to be solved, but to the extent that it's still there, it's a societal problem. The most effective ways to address it are going to be in the education of each new generation, both formally (in schools), but also informally (in family discussions, in media, etc.).
Ultimately, anything that boils down to judging people based on something like the color of their skin has great potential for being harmful and counterproductive.
Opinions vary wildly on how much of a problem still needs to be solved, but to the extent that it's still there, it's a societal problem. The most effective ways to address it are going to be in the education of each new generation, both formally (in schools), but also informally (in family discussions, in media, etc.).
Ultimately, anything that boils down to judging people based on something like the color of their skin has great potential for being harmful and counterproductive.
>(For those of you wondering, a lot of Americans are born in highly segregated communities, where there are few (or even zero) poc, like many suburbs, and it’s not by choice or fault of their own)
I was born in West Virginia. Growing up there were like no black people. My high school had one dude who was half black. Coincidentally he ended up being a coworker and my roommate after high school. I think it's true that racism has to be taught. I was never taught to be racist. Who would I be racist to? Or about? Everyone in my community was white. There was more contention about Ford vs. Chevy than race.
So if racism is taught, isn't the solution to not teach it? And to judge people by their character and not their skin? The more people talk about race like it's important, the more new people (kids) are going to think it's important, and that we're more different than alike, which just isn't true. There's so much racebaiting in the media these days its ridiculous. Imagine you're a kid growing up and the media is constantly highlighting race. You're going to think race is an important distinction to think about, and make decisions based on it. If it wasn't important to distinguish race, why is everyone talking about it all the time?
Basically, instead of being target fixated on the problem, focus on the solution. What would a racism free society look like? Would they talk about race all the time? Or would they look at you funny if you brought up race? The least evil option, IMHO is to simply be the person that looks at someone funny for bringing up race. To quote Morgan Freeman: "Stop talking about it." https://youtu.be/RosCZkH5uTI?t=25
I was born in West Virginia. Growing up there were like no black people. My high school had one dude who was half black. Coincidentally he ended up being a coworker and my roommate after high school. I think it's true that racism has to be taught. I was never taught to be racist. Who would I be racist to? Or about? Everyone in my community was white. There was more contention about Ford vs. Chevy than race.
So if racism is taught, isn't the solution to not teach it? And to judge people by their character and not their skin? The more people talk about race like it's important, the more new people (kids) are going to think it's important, and that we're more different than alike, which just isn't true. There's so much racebaiting in the media these days its ridiculous. Imagine you're a kid growing up and the media is constantly highlighting race. You're going to think race is an important distinction to think about, and make decisions based on it. If it wasn't important to distinguish race, why is everyone talking about it all the time?
Basically, instead of being target fixated on the problem, focus on the solution. What would a racism free society look like? Would they talk about race all the time? Or would they look at you funny if you brought up race? The least evil option, IMHO is to simply be the person that looks at someone funny for bringing up race. To quote Morgan Freeman: "Stop talking about it." https://youtu.be/RosCZkH5uTI?t=25
> That if the govt hadn’t done something to intervene, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to know any poc until I was an adult.
Your greater comfort with the differently skin coloured members of your social class came at the expense of the people who would have gotten in under a colour blind system. That’s fine as long as people are ok with the fact that different groups are being held to different standards. (Asians famously have “bad personalities”.) But it’s considered déclassé to mention it. This is bad. Lying to people is bad. It leads to children believing the bullshit and then they grow up and believe the bullshit still.
Your greater comfort with the differently skin coloured members of your social class came at the expense of the people who would have gotten in under a colour blind system. That’s fine as long as people are ok with the fact that different groups are being held to different standards. (Asians famously have “bad personalities”.) But it’s considered déclassé to mention it. This is bad. Lying to people is bad. It leads to children believing the bullshit and then they grow up and believe the bullshit still.
The system in place at my university was color blind. The top 5% of students were automatically accepted.
> Asking bc I went to a good school that had affirmative action.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34678203
Which was it? Was your school colour blind or did they practice affirmative action? They can’t both be true at the same time.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34678203
Which was it? Was your school colour blind or did they practice affirmative action? They can’t both be true at the same time.
It is both. The top 5% of students from each high school doesn’t mean the top 5% overall. There was even a recent supreme court case over this. Something can be technically colorblind and still be affirmative action.
I remember seeing a cartoon of a dog typing at a computer with the caption of 'Nobody knows you are a dog on the Internet'. Unless someone goes out of their way to point out their race, gender, ethnicity, or age; you generally have no idea who is commenting or who wrote the software.
I couldn't personally care less if my computer was created by a Japanese woman or if my software was created by a black gay man. I just want it to work properly. Same goes for nearly everything else I buy.
I couldn't personally care less if my computer was created by a Japanese woman or if my software was created by a black gay man. I just want it to work properly. Same goes for nearly everything else I buy.
> However, when I have to join a cheesy townhall once a month to discuss diversity hires, it makes me feel like I have no right to feel proud of any accomplishments I've made within the company.
I feel the same way, kinda...
I'm male, and not a PoC, so perhaps maybe my perspective is different?
I'm told that I'm privileged, but that's not how I feel.
I'm told due to systemic bias that I'm probably unaware of my privilege, but I feel well aware of all the disadvantages I've actually experienced. And yet I'm open minded to exploring the way I could be oblivious to other people' problems.
I'm not sure if I'm actually the bad guy, or if I'm being gas lighted.
I feel the same way, kinda...
I'm male, and not a PoC, so perhaps maybe my perspective is different?
I'm told that I'm privileged, but that's not how I feel.
I'm told due to systemic bias that I'm probably unaware of my privilege, but I feel well aware of all the disadvantages I've actually experienced. And yet I'm open minded to exploring the way I could be oblivious to other people' problems.
I'm not sure if I'm actually the bad guy, or if I'm being gas lighted.
> I'm not sure if I'm actually the bad guy, or if I'm being gas lighted.
Neither, but more gas lighted than bad guy.
The reality is that what is currently described as "privilege", isn't. It's actually the absence of oppression. Most oppression in Western society is based on class, not race or gender, and therefor all but a tiny minority of people in Western society face some oppression at some point in their life. Some oppression is based on race and gender, and this oppression is limited to people of that race or gender, and therefore some people experience more oppression in their life than others.
The gas lighting is two-fold:
1. DEI advocates ignore class issues (intentionally, and arguably maliciously), and focus only on race and gender, extrapolating as hard as possible from the most wealthy and privileged minority to the majority.
2. "Privilege" as the absence of oppression is discussed as special treatment, rather than a default state to strive for that should apply to all people. The entire movement to take white people and especially white men down a peg or two, is actually just increasing oppression in totality, rather than reducing oppression in any way. The correct path away from oppression is not adding more oppression, and it is asinine for any rational person to consider a temporary and situational absence of oppression as a form of "privilege".
Actually solving these issues is complex and likely intractable, but there are constructive and well-researched ways to improve these issues on societal scale. The, primarily white elites, advocates for DEI though are not interested in actually improving these issues, but getting social status from paying lip service to the issues without improving them to a point at which they could no longer talk about them.
Neither, but more gas lighted than bad guy.
The reality is that what is currently described as "privilege", isn't. It's actually the absence of oppression. Most oppression in Western society is based on class, not race or gender, and therefor all but a tiny minority of people in Western society face some oppression at some point in their life. Some oppression is based on race and gender, and this oppression is limited to people of that race or gender, and therefore some people experience more oppression in their life than others.
The gas lighting is two-fold:
1. DEI advocates ignore class issues (intentionally, and arguably maliciously), and focus only on race and gender, extrapolating as hard as possible from the most wealthy and privileged minority to the majority.
2. "Privilege" as the absence of oppression is discussed as special treatment, rather than a default state to strive for that should apply to all people. The entire movement to take white people and especially white men down a peg or two, is actually just increasing oppression in totality, rather than reducing oppression in any way. The correct path away from oppression is not adding more oppression, and it is asinine for any rational person to consider a temporary and situational absence of oppression as a form of "privilege".
Actually solving these issues is complex and likely intractable, but there are constructive and well-researched ways to improve these issues on societal scale. The, primarily white elites, advocates for DEI though are not interested in actually improving these issues, but getting social status from paying lip service to the issues without improving them to a point at which they could no longer talk about them.
> I'm male, and not a PoC, so perhaps maybe my perspective is different?
>
> I'm told that I'm privileged, but that's not how I feel.
Think of it this way:
As a male and not POC, you're starting at the starting line with no inherent disadvantages.
If you're a woman, you're farther behind on the starting line.
If you're a POC, you're farther behind on the starting line.
Privilege isn't supposed to make you feel -bad-. You didn't choose to be born male and white. It just happened to you. Your accomplishments are still your own, your life is still your own.
But it's ignorance (willful or otherwise) to deny the inherent advantages of being male and white, as compared to women, or POC, or people who are LGBTQ.
Put differently: if feeling bad about being privileged is the worst part of your experience where it comes to things like diversity, then you are a very privileged person.
Think of it this way:
As a male and not POC, you're starting at the starting line with no inherent disadvantages.
If you're a woman, you're farther behind on the starting line.
If you're a POC, you're farther behind on the starting line.
Privilege isn't supposed to make you feel -bad-. You didn't choose to be born male and white. It just happened to you. Your accomplishments are still your own, your life is still your own.
But it's ignorance (willful or otherwise) to deny the inherent advantages of being male and white, as compared to women, or POC, or people who are LGBTQ.
Put differently: if feeling bad about being privileged is the worst part of your experience where it comes to things like diversity, then you are a very privileged person.
We need specifics...
My view of racism: A specific and targeted activity aimed at a race of individuals with the aim of removing their ability to compete in the free-market.
Examples: CIA backed rebels in South America sent (oddly) marked down\cheap product to Rick Ross and he proceeded to flood black neighborhoods with crack. The US then passed mandatory sentences during the war-on-drugs. Most of this affected black neighborhoods affected by Hubert Humphrey (Senator in the 60's) redlining.
Nothing AT ALL approaching wholesale racism was EVER part of the early (unplanned) IRC scene. If you were new to tech it was a harsh environment and you would get housed on. But there was not a gatekeeper to IRC that channeled blacks into substandard rooms. There was no coordinated effort by the early internet to target black people online with threats and harassment or blacklistings. There was just a lot of dudes talking shit. Calling them racist is a slap in the face to the tech industry that we have in 2023.
My view of racism: A specific and targeted activity aimed at a race of individuals with the aim of removing their ability to compete in the free-market.
Examples: CIA backed rebels in South America sent (oddly) marked down\cheap product to Rick Ross and he proceeded to flood black neighborhoods with crack. The US then passed mandatory sentences during the war-on-drugs. Most of this affected black neighborhoods affected by Hubert Humphrey (Senator in the 60's) redlining.
Nothing AT ALL approaching wholesale racism was EVER part of the early (unplanned) IRC scene. If you were new to tech it was a harsh environment and you would get housed on. But there was not a gatekeeper to IRC that channeled blacks into substandard rooms. There was no coordinated effort by the early internet to target black people online with threats and harassment or blacklistings. There was just a lot of dudes talking shit. Calling them racist is a slap in the face to the tech industry that we have in 2023.
I was talking to a black woman friend about DEI recently. As a white man, I can't really share any of our discussions. But we both agree'd the whole thing does more damage than benefit to an org, especially the people, etc. My friend also added the slant of her escape from generational poverty, and the decisions she made in her life that her siblings, didn't. I wish she could come into companies and have an honest conversation about it.
Another angle, are you certain this person was comfortable having a real conversation with you?
PoC are very accustomed to bending with the wind and playing their cards close to their chest. I know it's only caused me grief to speak out.
alphabettsy(2)
I had my boss and the CTO (both Black) tell me I was no longer "part of their culture". This was after mid year reviews where attendance at DEI events was the center of discussion.
There is a thin line between personal and professional when dealing with DEI, and it is a tough line to walk. I agree that two things can be true at once.
I also believe that every individual has the ability to break cycles of hate and prejudice, regardless of what we have experienced and encountered. If we are to have hope in the human race, I pray the ability to choose peace is what saves us all.
There is a thin line between personal and professional when dealing with DEI, and it is a tough line to walk. I agree that two things can be true at once.
I also believe that every individual has the ability to break cycles of hate and prejudice, regardless of what we have experienced and encountered. If we are to have hope in the human race, I pray the ability to choose peace is what saves us all.
I knew a _very_ talented female software developer. And she was radically against any benefits based on her being female. For example she actively tried to avoid female discounts some conferences offered.
It seems that people who drive DEI don't have real connection with people they are trying to 'protect'.
It seems that people who drive DEI don't have real connection with people they are trying to 'protect'.
You cannot generalize an anecdote about a single person you know to draw conclusions about “people who drive DEI”. By your own admission this person had a radical position. How do you know other women appreciate these benefits?
Heh, I feel the same way towards DEI: I'm from Brazil and this stupid DEI stuff keeps putting me in the "LatinX" bucket.
I freaking hate that. I'm not a freaking latino. That is a dumb denomination created by the US.
Yet I keep getting invited for dumb LatinX events as if that means anything.
I want to be recognized by the stack of excellent work I've done. Not because I happen to be from a part of the world that is poorer than yours or because you decided I need some kind of nomenclature.
I freaking hate that. I'm not a freaking latino. That is a dumb denomination created by the US.
Yet I keep getting invited for dumb LatinX events as if that means anything.
I want to be recognized by the stack of excellent work I've done. Not because I happen to be from a part of the world that is poorer than yours or because you decided I need some kind of nomenclature.
I'm a little confused - why do you say that Brazil is not part of Latin America? Is it because Brazil speaks Portugese (a descendant of Latin) instead of Spanish (another descendant of Latin)?
I heard a very humorous and apt anecdote that there are no black people in Africa - maybe the same phenomenon is happening here, where the identity you have in Brazil (just a Brazilian) is different from the identity you are ascribed in the US (namely 'Latino/Latina')
I heard a very humorous and apt anecdote that there are no black people in Africa - maybe the same phenomenon is happening here, where the identity you have in Brazil (just a Brazilian) is different from the identity you are ascribed in the US (namely 'Latino/Latina')
I'm not saying Brazil is not part of Latin America. What I am saying is I don't call myself a latino. Nobody in South America or Central America calls themselves latinos. That's a US made up term.
We all call ourselves by our nationalities.
The anecdote on Africa is probably correct though.
We all call ourselves by our nationalities.
The anecdote on Africa is probably correct though.
Yes - we are saying the same thing. Your identity from your home may differ from the identity with which you are perceived in a different nation.
> "Why should I feel proud of my accomplishments, when the accomplishments were spoon-fed to me by the company because of my skin color?"
Because they're still your accomplishments. White people hardly ever ask if they should be proud of their accomplishments when they live in a society that assumes they should and will succeed.
> "If I were a white man with the same experience, I might not even be here?"
If you were a black man with the same experience, you also might not even be there. Many aren't. Statistically, most aren't (in the sense that relative to the population, black men are still extremely under-represented in tech).
Because they're still your accomplishments. White people hardly ever ask if they should be proud of their accomplishments when they live in a society that assumes they should and will succeed.
> "If I were a white man with the same experience, I might not even be here?"
If you were a black man with the same experience, you also might not even be there. Many aren't. Statistically, most aren't (in the sense that relative to the population, black men are still extremely under-represented in tech).
> black men are still extremely under-represented in tech.
Are they? Should be about 6% as black people are 12.1% of Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit...) and this source: https://www.zippia.com/advice/diversity-in-high-tech-statist... says black Americans (doesn't separate genders) are 7% of tech, and if 73.3% of which are men (same source) means 5.1% are black men, which is damn close 6%. Less than 1% off isn't "extremely under-represented".
Are they? Should be about 6% as black people are 12.1% of Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit...) and this source: https://www.zippia.com/advice/diversity-in-high-tech-statist... says black Americans (doesn't separate genders) are 7% of tech, and if 73.3% of which are men (same source) means 5.1% are black men, which is damn close 6%. Less than 1% off isn't "extremely under-represented".
There are some behaviors that society wants people to avoid. In most cases where you want to stop a behavior you have to be careful to not make it seem normal, with "It's bad but common" being the second worst message you can send after "It's good and common" in terms of trying to get people to stop. A social psychologist will say this is due to the power of norms and talk about the famous Petrified Forest National Park experiment. An economist will talk about how we can see punishments for behaviors better than their commission in many disapproved behaviors and so making them seem common makes it seem like the odds of getting caught are lower.
But in any event in things like drug use, sexual harassment, or bribery we have pretty clear evidence of campaigns against these behaviors being counter productive with, e.g., D.A.R.E actually increasing drug use among high schoolers. So I'd just like anybody looking to conduct a DEI campaign to be careful of this effect.
But in any event in things like drug use, sexual harassment, or bribery we have pretty clear evidence of campaigns against these behaviors being counter productive with, e.g., D.A.R.E actually increasing drug use among high schoolers. So I'd just like anybody looking to conduct a DEI campaign to be careful of this effect.
> If I were a white man with the same experience, I might not even be here?
I can understand how DEI initiatives might undermine your self-esteem and I'm sorry you are made to feel this way, but take solace in the fact that you have a job. Imagine how the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color feels. That's who the real victim is here - the person who was racially discriminated against.
> In my opinion, it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company.
Personally, I prefer companies to be loud and proud about their DEI initiatives so that I know which companies engage in racial discrimination, rather than it all happening behind closed doors.
I can understand how DEI initiatives might undermine your self-esteem and I'm sorry you are made to feel this way, but take solace in the fact that you have a job. Imagine how the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color feels. That's who the real victim is here - the person who was racially discriminated against.
> In my opinion, it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company.
Personally, I prefer companies to be loud and proud about their DEI initiatives so that I know which companies engage in racial discrimination, rather than it all happening behind closed doors.
The U.S. has a long history of discriminating against brown people and an especially nasty history of discriminating against black people. This discrimination was so ingrained amongst the white population that after desegregation public pools declined. Blacks were discriminated against when it came to getting a mortgage. Whites fled the major cities to the suburbs leading to cities having gutted public schools due to lack of funding.
How does a nation overcome that legacy with its accompanying negative effects on people of color? We aren’t all equal when the effects of centuries of policies and attitudes can still be seen. I don’t know the answer but I think it is OK for companies to be cognizant of these issues and attempt to go out of their way to hire qualified people of color.
It sucks for one to feel they didn’t get a job because they are white but I think this doesn’t happen in statistically significant numbers. It’s known that people with “black sounding” names are less likely to get interviews. I don’t know the solution. I suspect that if we didn’t tie health care to employment and had a better system for unemployed people then the issue of reverse discrimination would largely go away.
How does a nation overcome that legacy with its accompanying negative effects on people of color? We aren’t all equal when the effects of centuries of policies and attitudes can still be seen. I don’t know the answer but I think it is OK for companies to be cognizant of these issues and attempt to go out of their way to hire qualified people of color.
It sucks for one to feel they didn’t get a job because they are white but I think this doesn’t happen in statistically significant numbers. It’s known that people with “black sounding” names are less likely to get interviews. I don’t know the solution. I suspect that if we didn’t tie health care to employment and had a better system for unemployed people then the issue of reverse discrimination would largely go away.
Translated; "Racism is bad, so we're going to use racism now to counter balance previous racism." This won't end well for anyone.
That is obviously not a valid translation. It appears you did not understand what I wrote. When dealing with a complex problem, in this case several hundred years of discriminatory practices and laws, it’s not possible to come up with a remedy that is satisfactory to all. An all or nothing mindset leads nowhere. We must go with imperfect solutions since perfection does not exist. We can try to minimize negative side effects but not erase them. On the whole the ongoing level of discrimination against blacks is at least an order of magnitude greater than the amount of reverse discrimination.
Are you also vocal when Native American tribes are given things? Quite a bit of money goes to them directly -- that is racism to you, right?
Us blacks only make up 7.4% of the tech industry. It's always amazing how if you were to take the anecdotes in DEI threads seriously, you would think there weren't any whites in the tech field as they had all been replaced by black people.
They were replaced by more qualified Chinese and Indians, but that's too awkward to complain about.
You're right. The US should end DEI/AA efforts and just pay reparations for the $trillions in debt owed to descendants of slaves and others who were oppressed and robbed by law for centuries.
Or is that not what you meant?
Or is that not what you meant?
Right; the companies that are pro DEI are like the man at the bar with a swastika arm badge. Sure it's morally repugnant, but at least you know ahead of time what you're dealing with.
I’m as anti-woke as they come, but whoa.
ejstronge(3)
pessimizer(1)
Is the top comment on this thread seriously a reverse racism rant?
You are right about something, affirmative action is racist, but I feel it is absolutely necessary to try to balance out current inequities. I strongly believe people making arguments like yours, people fighting against affirmative action need to propose an alternative rather than just complain about it.
There are lots of people alive today that couldn't drink from the same fountain or use the same bathroom as white people, and people who had friends and family members lynched (and in the eyes of many George Floyd's death was a lynching). Their neighborhoods were bulldozed to make the highways and they were systematically excluded from housing by redlining. You won't convince me for a second that their children and grandchildren got an equal opportunity. There is so much evidence of systemic disadvantaging of PoC communities today too, underfunded schools because of how we fund schools with local property taxes, turning lots of the public school system into effectively fancy private schools for families well off enough to live in rich neighborhoods.
So I will say it again, I do think at the surface level affirmative action is racist, but it's such a simple thing to realize it seems extremely pointless to even bring up. It is fighting centuries of truly heinous racism and genocide with just a tiny bit of an attempt at positive racism and white people still find a way to be pissed off they aren't getting everything the "deserve".
You are right about something, affirmative action is racist, but I feel it is absolutely necessary to try to balance out current inequities. I strongly believe people making arguments like yours, people fighting against affirmative action need to propose an alternative rather than just complain about it.
There are lots of people alive today that couldn't drink from the same fountain or use the same bathroom as white people, and people who had friends and family members lynched (and in the eyes of many George Floyd's death was a lynching). Their neighborhoods were bulldozed to make the highways and they were systematically excluded from housing by redlining. You won't convince me for a second that their children and grandchildren got an equal opportunity. There is so much evidence of systemic disadvantaging of PoC communities today too, underfunded schools because of how we fund schools with local property taxes, turning lots of the public school system into effectively fancy private schools for families well off enough to live in rich neighborhoods.
So I will say it again, I do think at the surface level affirmative action is racist, but it's such a simple thing to realize it seems extremely pointless to even bring up. It is fighting centuries of truly heinous racism and genocide with just a tiny bit of an attempt at positive racism and white people still find a way to be pissed off they aren't getting everything the "deserve".
> people fighting against affirmative action need to propose an alternative rather than just complain about it
Not only is an alternative proposed, it's already implemented for quite a while: discrimination is illegal. Equal outcome vs equal opportunity. You can argue for any side you want, just don't pretend you don't see or don't understand the other position.
Not only is an alternative proposed, it's already implemented for quite a while: discrimination is illegal. Equal outcome vs equal opportunity. You can argue for any side you want, just don't pretend you don't see or don't understand the other position.
I see this as just as simple and misguided of a take as noticing that affirmative action is racist. People have been making this argument forever, we passed all laws and did all the work we needed to when we ended slavery, oh wait nope we got it right in 1967 with the civil rights act, no more work to do, the only tragedy left is that the damn "riff raff" and lefties just can't stop talking about race. They're the real racists!
This thread is depressing as fuck and really is making me rethink how often I ought come to this site, and interact with this community. And I really didn't realize how much this toxic bullshit was pervasive in tech. I am going to be participating more in DEI initiatives going forward, while taking the feedback and criticism of the OP into account.
This thread is depressing as fuck and really is making me rethink how often I ought come to this site, and interact with this community. And I really didn't realize how much this toxic bullshit was pervasive in tech. I am going to be participating more in DEI initiatives going forward, while taking the feedback and criticism of the OP into account.
I said nothing like "damn lefties" or anything similar, don't know why you are replying this to me. Nor do I understand why you had to explain how repulsive the other side of the debate is to you.
As for "simple and misguided" - that is exactly how I see affirmative action where the recipients are selected by skin color and not by socioeconomic status and where the help comes in the form of outcomes and not opportunities.
As for "simple and misguided" - that is exactly how I see affirmative action where the recipients are selected by skin color and not by socioeconomic status and where the help comes in the form of outcomes and not opportunities.
Equal opportunity as in paying reparations for slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the rest?
Or no because the statute of limitations expires while white government was busy refusing to entertain the idea?
Support for reparations is table stakes for anyone talking about "equal opportunity".
Or no because the statute of limitations expires while white government was busy refusing to entertain the idea?
Support for reparations is table stakes for anyone talking about "equal opportunity".
This is the general course of any thread concerning DEI on HN. It's filled with concerns about reverse-racism, and how "skin color shouldn't matter" and whatnot. The history behind why such initiatives exist is intentionally ignored.
If racism is wrong (which I believe it is), then it is always wrong, no matter which groups are benefited or harmed.
YIKES
> Imagine how the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color feels. That's who the real victim is here - the person who was racially discriminated against.
White guys are not discriminated against in tech. This is such a racist take.
I bet you also think that reparations for slavery and Jim Crow -- literally, the government actually discriminating and harming people for their skin color -- would be bad because they somehow "hurt" white folks today.
> Imagine how the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color feels. That's who the real victim is here - the person who was racially discriminated against.
White guys are not discriminated against in tech. This is such a racist take.
I bet you also think that reparations for slavery and Jim Crow -- literally, the government actually discriminating and harming people for their skin color -- would be bad because they somehow "hurt" white folks today.
This take is radically wrong, and you're just reinforcing OP's insecurities. How do you know that OP has a job at the expense of a white person? How do you know that OP isn't in fact the best candidate for the job? You're making a whole lot of assumptions here that are bordering on outright racism
> How do you know that OP has a job at the expense of a white person?
Which part of the parent's message says that he does?
What it does say that if an organisation gives preferential treatment to a certain group based on their skin color, then it follows, inevitably, that people with non-preferred skin color will lose to those with the preferred one, all else being equal. And thus, there will inevitably be "the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color" (or sex, or both). Whether it was OP or someone else who was preferred to that guy is unknowable, and thus ultimately irrelevant. But that must take place in an organisation that is truly committed to DEI; because otherwise this abbreviation is meaningless.
Which part of the parent's message says that he does?
What it does say that if an organisation gives preferential treatment to a certain group based on their skin color, then it follows, inevitably, that people with non-preferred skin color will lose to those with the preferred one, all else being equal. And thus, there will inevitably be "the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color" (or sex, or both). Whether it was OP or someone else who was preferred to that guy is unknowable, and thus ultimately irrelevant. But that must take place in an organisation that is truly committed to DEI; because otherwise this abbreviation is meaningless.
That assumption was suggested by the OP, not me. Thanks for suggesting I'm racist, but I'm basically immune to such thought stopping non-arguments at this point.
If disagreeing with making hiring decisions on the basis of skin colour is racist, then I suppose I'm racist.
If disagreeing with making hiring decisions on the basis of skin colour is racist, then I suppose I'm racist.
OP never said he was hired due to the color of his skin though. Not once. Is it possible that's the case? Sure. But for all we know, he was hired on merit.
Again with the thought-starting cliches that parent already explained they disregard.
What are you trying to suggest with this? Are you saying that OP only has their job because of their skin color?
[deleted]
While it's not certain that the OP was hired over a white person, it is mathematically certain that DEI policies cause whites to be discriminated against in aggregate.
1. There are fewer qualified black and Hispanic candidates per capita (i.e. without a college degree, without the right experience, etc.) than white and Asian candidates. The cause of this is irrelevant to the argument, it is factually true.
2. There are a finite amount of positions at any given company paying any given amount.
3. If companies hire a larger percentage (beyond a certain margin of error) of black and Hispanic candidates than actually exist in the hiring pool then they must commit racial discrimination against whites and Asians in order to accomplish this. You can try to redefine racism and discrimination as "prejudice plus power" or whatever you want to justify the fact that you mistreat people on the basis of their skin color, but factually that is what is being done.
1. There are fewer qualified black and Hispanic candidates per capita (i.e. without a college degree, without the right experience, etc.) than white and Asian candidates. The cause of this is irrelevant to the argument, it is factually true.
2. There are a finite amount of positions at any given company paying any given amount.
3. If companies hire a larger percentage (beyond a certain margin of error) of black and Hispanic candidates than actually exist in the hiring pool then they must commit racial discrimination against whites and Asians in order to accomplish this. You can try to redefine racism and discrimination as "prejudice plus power" or whatever you want to justify the fact that you mistreat people on the basis of their skin color, but factually that is what is being done.
It's completely fair to look at the big picture, but it's dangerous to look at specific situations and make assumptions is the only point I was trying to make. Without DEI, OP may have still gotten the position he has. We have no way of knowing that. I wasn't fond of the original replier making it seem like he got the position over a white person only due to the color of his skin, which is an unfair assumption to make
“Race aware” hiring is inescapably racially discriminatory, and it’s not racist to point that out.
This is a great topic and I support the OP for posting it.
However (and as a PoC myself), to me, "Tell HN" is generally reserved for alerting the community to statements of fact (e.g. "Tell HN: AWS us-east-1 is degraded").
This post is an opinion - albeit an informed opinion based on experience. You might ask: "What's the big deal?". To me, the problem is that posting "Tell HN: DEI initiatives undermine the self esteem of PoC within a company" tries to make it sound like the post speaks for all POC.
The post is a good one and it's an important discussion, but I do wish it would be framed a bit differently. For example, simply "DEI initiatives undermine the self-esteem of some PoC within a company"
However (and as a PoC myself), to me, "Tell HN" is generally reserved for alerting the community to statements of fact (e.g. "Tell HN: AWS us-east-1 is degraded").
This post is an opinion - albeit an informed opinion based on experience. You might ask: "What's the big deal?". To me, the problem is that posting "Tell HN: DEI initiatives undermine the self esteem of PoC within a company" tries to make it sound like the post speaks for all POC.
The post is a good one and it's an important discussion, but I do wish it would be framed a bit differently. For example, simply "DEI initiatives undermine the self-esteem of some PoC within a company"
DEI has become just another corporate metric for executives to game in order to optimize their bonuses. Same with ESG, NPS, and everything else before it - eventually the metric becomes the end unto itself and the original objective gets completely lost.
I’m a tall white middle aged dude living in the US, so I am probably not the best person to comment. But to me DEI is mostly window dressing.
I agree with OP that companies should have policies around this, but they should be aimed at being quietly effective, not something to trumpet in the quarterly corporate report.
And emphasis on “effective”.
If we fold in environment and governance, I see too many companies doing things like planting a zillion trees to show their environmental savvy - which in reality are unfortunately, saplings which are eaten by deer within a few months and end up being a net loss to the environment.
I agree with OP that companies should have policies around this, but they should be aimed at being quietly effective, not something to trumpet in the quarterly corporate report.
And emphasis on “effective”.
If we fold in environment and governance, I see too many companies doing things like planting a zillion trees to show their environmental savvy - which in reality are unfortunately, saplings which are eaten by deer within a few months and end up being a net loss to the environment.
Another black man here, the facts of the matter are that DEI is needed, forget the research that has been done proving that for a moment and just look around. The world is getting smaller everyday and this idea that ONE group can satisfy the needs of the global population is just fool-hardy. The problem with DEI in the corporate setting is that corporate structures and governance simply can't solve cultural problems. What ends up happening is that you get a DEI board that's all white (that's how most DEI boards look), or that has token participants that have no cultural of corporate power to effect change. Even then, you'd still need to solve the cultural problem of racism, or discrimination as it relates to your organization all the way down to individual contributors? Who is doing all of this work? The same employees you hired to actually do the work of the organization. If DEI is going to work it has to be cultural from the start and the only way you get there is:
1. Find a utopia of people of all races and creeds living in harmony. 2. Externalizing an "OTHER" that's currently not apart of the equation. Aliens attacking Earth. 3. As a group, (black persons) outpace ALL of the other groups and subject them to the same behavior they've practiced. 4. Or lastly, treat everyone equally.
Those are the options, until then, the ruse of DEI will continue, is it helping? To date, no. Numbers are stagnant and have been for the last 30 years.
1. Find a utopia of people of all races and creeds living in harmony. 2. Externalizing an "OTHER" that's currently not apart of the equation. Aliens attacking Earth. 3. As a group, (black persons) outpace ALL of the other groups and subject them to the same behavior they've practiced. 4. Or lastly, treat everyone equally.
Those are the options, until then, the ruse of DEI will continue, is it helping? To date, no. Numbers are stagnant and have been for the last 30 years.
Living in Atlanta with an open mind and friends with different political opinions (though pretty clustered around "moderate" to left), this subject has come up a lot. I'm a strong believer in both moral and business benefits for diversity, but what surprises me is the universal dislike of these efforts.
I believe the major problem is the role of optics in corporate environments. In a corporate environment people have to justify their existence, and visible efforts are prioritized. Unfortunately these visible efforts are not only superficial (they make the people running the initiatives look good, the company itself can posture, but not much changes internally), but also single out and "other" people. These initiatives can be doing good work behind the scenes too, but how do you judge someone doing a good job in this area? Metrics about hiring? Metrics about promotions?
Maybe it would be better if these initiatives answer to and be judged by the people they should be helping, and not to some success metrics thrown out during a board meeting or company optics. Instead of focusing on diverse hires, focus on supporting the diverse staff you already have. If it's a good place to work, the hires will come out of that.
I believe these efforts are ultimately a good thing, even if they're getting it wrong, but as a white male I hesitated to even write that, because I know how vastly different the experience of a minority in America is from my own, and from what I've heard it's a mixed bag. I always remember reading an interview with one of the little rock nine who said she felt forced to go to an integrated school and was still angry about it as an adult. It absolutely sucks to be in that position - something that's ultimately good for society but devastating for an individual. So while I think the general thrust of DEI is a good thing, it has to be tempered by the individual experience and always support people as individuals and not perpetuate lumping everyone in the "minority" bucket.
I believe the major problem is the role of optics in corporate environments. In a corporate environment people have to justify their existence, and visible efforts are prioritized. Unfortunately these visible efforts are not only superficial (they make the people running the initiatives look good, the company itself can posture, but not much changes internally), but also single out and "other" people. These initiatives can be doing good work behind the scenes too, but how do you judge someone doing a good job in this area? Metrics about hiring? Metrics about promotions?
Maybe it would be better if these initiatives answer to and be judged by the people they should be helping, and not to some success metrics thrown out during a board meeting or company optics. Instead of focusing on diverse hires, focus on supporting the diverse staff you already have. If it's a good place to work, the hires will come out of that.
I believe these efforts are ultimately a good thing, even if they're getting it wrong, but as a white male I hesitated to even write that, because I know how vastly different the experience of a minority in America is from my own, and from what I've heard it's a mixed bag. I always remember reading an interview with one of the little rock nine who said she felt forced to go to an integrated school and was still angry about it as an adult. It absolutely sucks to be in that position - something that's ultimately good for society but devastating for an individual. So while I think the general thrust of DEI is a good thing, it has to be tempered by the individual experience and always support people as individuals and not perpetuate lumping everyone in the "minority" bucket.
I know this has nothing to do with the subject of this post, but this is a prime example of why I greatly dislike the widespread use of obscure acronyms especially prevalent in the US. It took way too long to process that PoC meant ”Person of Color” and not ”Proof of Concept”.
IANAL, but idk. It's not an issue, imo. You gotta stay on your tip top game with your GTL to stay FTD to keep 'em DTF in MIA. Just my 2c.
While I was still employed, I recall filling fields in my yearly self-evaluation form to the tune of "ate rainbow-colored cake at an LGBTQI++ event - 2 times".
To be fair, as a pretty smart, white man in technology, my parents paid for half of my college to a prestigious engineering university and I've had friends and acquaintances (that I've built from my network) that have gotten me to where I am today. If it helps, you can think of DEI initiatives as making up for the lack of an existing network that many minorities have in the business world.
To be fair, you still had to graduate from said prestigious engineering university. And a degree doesn't net you a job. And a job doesn't net you a career.
This has been a criticism of Affirmative Action / DEI initiatives since they were first proposed.
Unfortunately, I've never heard a good rebuttal to this argument. As long as such a system is in place, the potential beneficiaries of such programs cannot be sure if they are there because of merit or just to fill quotas; potentially causing harm to the exact people you're trying to help.
Unfortunately, I've never heard a good rebuttal to this argument. As long as such a system is in place, the potential beneficiaries of such programs cannot be sure if they are there because of merit or just to fill quotas; potentially causing harm to the exact people you're trying to help.
As someone who hires people, I think this is a double-edge sword.
Bluntly, without a sustained effort by managers, teams will default to hiring people who are as most "like them" as possible. Shared interests, vernacular, professional personas, etc.
That's generally going to mean a lot of very homogenous teams, and in tech, that means very white, potentially very male.
On the other side, I have a distaste for DEI being made so prominent as to make anyone feel their job wasn't earned. Which is never, ever the case. Unqualified people don't hired. Poor performers get let go. But given the subjectivity of the hiring process – there exist no objective metrics for the vast majority of jobs – you just HAVE to tip the scales sometimes.
But it seems an impossible line to walk. If you keep it quiet, staff isn't aware of what you're doing, and may think you're doing nothing at all. That has a cost too.
Bluntly, without a sustained effort by managers, teams will default to hiring people who are as most "like them" as possible. Shared interests, vernacular, professional personas, etc.
That's generally going to mean a lot of very homogenous teams, and in tech, that means very white, potentially very male.
On the other side, I have a distaste for DEI being made so prominent as to make anyone feel their job wasn't earned. Which is never, ever the case. Unqualified people don't hired. Poor performers get let go. But given the subjectivity of the hiring process – there exist no objective metrics for the vast majority of jobs – you just HAVE to tip the scales sometimes.
But it seems an impossible line to walk. If you keep it quiet, staff isn't aware of what you're doing, and may think you're doing nothing at all. That has a cost too.
~15 years ago, at a big 4 accounting firm...
One of the network engineers that I became work-friends with, as he was leaving the office at 2:15 on a Friday...
<Me> Man you always bail around this time, how do you get away with that? <Him> I'm a Mexican with a CCIE - what are they going to do, fire me?
One of the network engineers that I became work-friends with, as he was leaving the office at 2:15 on a Friday...
<Me> Man you always bail around this time, how do you get away with that? <Him> I'm a Mexican with a CCIE - what are they going to do, fire me?
>corporate virtue signaling
See, you do get it. Although TBF the 'progressive' left is basically nothing but virtue signalling at the moment.
And you highlight the problem with putting 'diversity' front and centre. It disadvantages me if I don't get the job and end up annoyed at you, legitimately or not because you got the job. Your achievements are devalued because you don't know whether you got the job because of the colour of your skin, and neither do your work colleagues.
Employers shouldn't care about the colour of your skin any further than potentially examining why they aren't attracting certain groups in the interest of getting the very best talent available.
Equality should be the goal.
See, you do get it. Although TBF the 'progressive' left is basically nothing but virtue signalling at the moment.
And you highlight the problem with putting 'diversity' front and centre. It disadvantages me if I don't get the job and end up annoyed at you, legitimately or not because you got the job. Your achievements are devalued because you don't know whether you got the job because of the colour of your skin, and neither do your work colleagues.
Employers shouldn't care about the colour of your skin any further than potentially examining why they aren't attracting certain groups in the interest of getting the very best talent available.
Equality should be the goal.
One problem with DEI is that many ethnicities get thrown under the white or white-adjacent umbrella and aren't given the same opportunities simply because the popular view of history doesn't seem them as historically oppressed when in fact they were. For instance, Armenians are a historically oppressed group, even genocided, yet they are not afforded any DEI perks in their career paths. Palestinians are also not included in DEI because it isn't politically expedient to side with them, even though they have lost their homeland and are generally treated like dogs. Many, many such groups exist but because they don't come up during AP US History, they have no mindshare.
Another is that DEI seems to simultaneously accept that race is a social construct while also using race as a key criterion for purposes of inclusion, which is absurd. For example, a Black Swede, growing up in Sweden her whole life, would be considered a candidate that improves diversity in the workplace. However, I'm not aware of Swedes being an oppressed people. In fact, growing up in Sweden your life is probably better than in America. The judgment is made purely on skin color and lineage.
Lastly, I also want to say that I know this is an ugly situation, because high paying jobs are often about connections, which have a strong correlation with ethnic background in the United States. In that view, it makes sense to have something like DEI shine a light on power structures within the workplace and make them more fair. So despite the above, I support DEI if it helps underprivileged people. After all racism still exists, and it's virulent. Many people harbor racist views and will lie through their teeth in order not to be canceled.
I just hope eventually racism is extinguished so we could move forward to a purely merit-based system.
Another is that DEI seems to simultaneously accept that race is a social construct while also using race as a key criterion for purposes of inclusion, which is absurd. For example, a Black Swede, growing up in Sweden her whole life, would be considered a candidate that improves diversity in the workplace. However, I'm not aware of Swedes being an oppressed people. In fact, growing up in Sweden your life is probably better than in America. The judgment is made purely on skin color and lineage.
Lastly, I also want to say that I know this is an ugly situation, because high paying jobs are often about connections, which have a strong correlation with ethnic background in the United States. In that view, it makes sense to have something like DEI shine a light on power structures within the workplace and make them more fair. So despite the above, I support DEI if it helps underprivileged people. After all racism still exists, and it's virulent. Many people harbor racist views and will lie through their teeth in order not to be canceled.
I just hope eventually racism is extinguished so we could move forward to a purely merit-based system.
White-adjacent is one of the dumbest terms I've ever heard, and is downright offensive. But hardly the only one to come out of DEI-like minded movements. Latinx being another.
All roads to hell are paved with good intentions.
People may want to look back, given most comments on HN are not deleted, between ~2014 to 2020. How DEI took over nearly every single Tech company, and then somehow spread across different domains and industry.
Yes, Twitter along with MSM played a big part of it.
And yes, it took until 2021 / 2022 before we (could?) had any push back. Remember when people were trying to cancel DHH? Most of what you wrote were true since Day 1. And it is not like anything is unforeseen or new. But we cant even talk about it, writing the above in 2018 you will have likely been labeled as Trump supporter even if you are not an American.
Basically the hypocrisy level in unreal.
It has die down quite a bit, I dont see an angry Microsoft employees shouting or tweeting in all caps about DEI and pronouns to non-native English speakers. ( It is somehow always Microsoft ) We have enough "influencers" backing the some of these Anti-DEI / Woke movements. ( Although the word Woke is now being used by Right Wing meaning something different )
People may want to look back, given most comments on HN are not deleted, between ~2014 to 2020. How DEI took over nearly every single Tech company, and then somehow spread across different domains and industry.
Yes, Twitter along with MSM played a big part of it.
And yes, it took until 2021 / 2022 before we (could?) had any push back. Remember when people were trying to cancel DHH? Most of what you wrote were true since Day 1. And it is not like anything is unforeseen or new. But we cant even talk about it, writing the above in 2018 you will have likely been labeled as Trump supporter even if you are not an American.
Basically the hypocrisy level in unreal.
It has die down quite a bit, I dont see an angry Microsoft employees shouting or tweeting in all caps about DEI and pronouns to non-native English speakers. ( It is somehow always Microsoft ) We have enough "influencers" backing the some of these Anti-DEI / Woke movements. ( Although the word Woke is now being used by Right Wing meaning something different )
If there's no actual problem to be solved here, isn't this just the same sort of virtue-signalling OP is accusing the entirety of DEI of? Which is ironic, because my understanding of the matter is that diversity has been studied and found to correlate with increased profitability. Even if you zoned out through DEI training, inclusion should be a no brainer— you'll retain employees who feel like they are part of your organization. Equity is probably a little harder (and the part people get hung up on), but frankly, I haven't seen any numbers to convince me that we're approaching anything near equity so again I ask: what is the problem to be solved here?
Is it really such an important goal for the IT industry in the U.S. that instead of having the 3% or 4% of our employees be black (by that I mean historically disadvantaged African Americans, descendants of enslaved people, a qualification which would _further_ reduce that percentage), that we bring that number down to 1-2%, or even lower? I'm sorry, but this is such an absurd problem to want to solve, and it just reeks of insecurity to supposed "high performers" bring it up.
I don't want to dismiss this issue entirely because I know it's a sensitive topic for a lot of people, but it's pretty frustrating to see the constant anti-DEI posts in tech spaces when nearly every team I've been on in my 10+ year career has been almost exclusively white and male. Why are we clamoring to return to the days of total unmitigated unconscious bias and homogeneity?
> However, when I have to join a cheesy townhall once a month to discuss diversity hires, it makes me feel like I have no right to feel proud of any accomplishments I've made within the company.
Why in the world would you feel this way, after admitting that you have the chops? What does these "diversity hires" being simply _hired_ have to do with your actual material accomplishments within your company? It strikes me that perhaps the real problem here is that our most insecure colleagues are being threatened by unqualified employees stealing their jobs, in which case I would suggest that the real solution here is therapy, not returning to some idealized version of the past.
I can only speak for myself, but my self esteem is not undermined by the fact that DEI could mean that there will be two black men on my team instead of just me, or that my small organization of a few hundred could have maybe four black men instead of three. If anything, my self esteem is undermined by the fact that those numbers are so low to begin with.
- Another Black Man
Is it really such an important goal for the IT industry in the U.S. that instead of having the 3% or 4% of our employees be black (by that I mean historically disadvantaged African Americans, descendants of enslaved people, a qualification which would _further_ reduce that percentage), that we bring that number down to 1-2%, or even lower? I'm sorry, but this is such an absurd problem to want to solve, and it just reeks of insecurity to supposed "high performers" bring it up.
I don't want to dismiss this issue entirely because I know it's a sensitive topic for a lot of people, but it's pretty frustrating to see the constant anti-DEI posts in tech spaces when nearly every team I've been on in my 10+ year career has been almost exclusively white and male. Why are we clamoring to return to the days of total unmitigated unconscious bias and homogeneity?
> However, when I have to join a cheesy townhall once a month to discuss diversity hires, it makes me feel like I have no right to feel proud of any accomplishments I've made within the company.
Why in the world would you feel this way, after admitting that you have the chops? What does these "diversity hires" being simply _hired_ have to do with your actual material accomplishments within your company? It strikes me that perhaps the real problem here is that our most insecure colleagues are being threatened by unqualified employees stealing their jobs, in which case I would suggest that the real solution here is therapy, not returning to some idealized version of the past.
I can only speak for myself, but my self esteem is not undermined by the fact that DEI could mean that there will be two black men on my team instead of just me, or that my small organization of a few hundred could have maybe four black men instead of three. If anything, my self esteem is undermined by the fact that those numbers are so low to begin with.
- Another Black Man
I see you and what you're saying. I always feel a bit awkward in these conversations because I feel I have received a lot of help in life and also am a complete dunce when it comes to race/gender and DEI discussions as a cis white male. So... if I haven't shot my own foot off yet, take my thoughts with a grain of salt and feel free to hit me with some better ways to see things if I'm dumb/ignorant?
From my perspective, _everyone_ stands on the shoulders of other folks. Not one single person built what they have, know, and can do in a silo. I'm convinced that anyone that claims otherwise lacks introspection.
I see the concern around thinking "I couldn't have done XYZ without help of others" and feeling patronized and concerned that you are unable to have accomplished the same under a counterfactual world without help. I feel this assessment misses that everyone else would have had "help" of similar variety as well to accomplish XYZ.
And yes, townhalls parading around folks as tokens is abysmal. My undergraduate school, a notoriously bad-at-race-relations school, had a Multiculutral office from which the same 15 people were requested for dozens of brochures produced each year. In my mind, these are the same things and my friends doing the brochures didn't like being token folks. Doing so undermines the confidence of the people being paraded.
From my perspective, _everyone_ stands on the shoulders of other folks. Not one single person built what they have, know, and can do in a silo. I'm convinced that anyone that claims otherwise lacks introspection.
I see the concern around thinking "I couldn't have done XYZ without help of others" and feeling patronized and concerned that you are unable to have accomplished the same under a counterfactual world without help. I feel this assessment misses that everyone else would have had "help" of similar variety as well to accomplish XYZ.
And yes, townhalls parading around folks as tokens is abysmal. My undergraduate school, a notoriously bad-at-race-relations school, had a Multiculutral office from which the same 15 people were requested for dozens of brochures produced each year. In my mind, these are the same things and my friends doing the brochures didn't like being token folks. Doing so undermines the confidence of the people being paraded.
OP as a black person myself, I want you to know you may not feel this way, but when the chips are down a lot of times it’s black people you can count on to have your back, not see you as violent when your a little angry, and give you a leg up when they are in a position to. You can have these things and still resent the diversity thing that white people push, which I believe is a scam and actually often contains a lot of racism they don’t know about
[deleted]
About 10 years ago I had an incompetent colleague, but she was a woman of native American ancestry, with a lot of visible tattoos and she was a lesbian. She was passed on from one department to another every couple of years to check a lot of diversity boxes and not to spend too much time the headcount and budget of any department. She was actually a cool person, in my opinion, but she had a fame way bigger than the real person. I looked for her in the internal directory, but she is not around anymore or she changed the name.
The big problem with diversity hires is that good people that are hired will be automatically tagged as bad people. It is hard to fight this image and prove it wrong, especially when it is widescale in some places and it not just based on race, but any diversity target. For example my country is almost exclusively white (with a couple of non-white celebrities as exceptions), there are legally no trans people so the pressure is to hire women, lots of them (70-80% is the desired target). That fires back visibly, the really good ones leave the company, the bad ones remain (to cash in on their gender) and this makes the image even worse.
The big problem with diversity hires is that good people that are hired will be automatically tagged as bad people. It is hard to fight this image and prove it wrong, especially when it is widescale in some places and it not just based on race, but any diversity target. For example my country is almost exclusively white (with a couple of non-white celebrities as exceptions), there are legally no trans people so the pressure is to hire women, lots of them (70-80% is the desired target). That fires back visibly, the really good ones leave the company, the bad ones remain (to cash in on their gender) and this makes the image even worse.
If you watch The Office (US) Season 1, even though it's almost 2 decades old, it captures the conundrum that minorities can both be subjected to casual racism/sexiam/homophobia and misguided corporate interventions. I've personally never seen what you describe, but I'm sure there are companies that are particularly clumsy at DEI.
I believe, however, that doing DEI well is a strategic advantage. It's less about making sure every single individual feels represented and included (even though that's important), because it's not really possible to explicitly enumerate every possible identity. Rather, it's about building the conscientiousness that makes people better at serving a diverse customerbase, and better at collaborating with people, who are diverse in ways that may or may not be apparent.
It's not about walking on eggshells to avoid offending anybody. It's about taking ownership and being open to learn.
The best trainings I've had really nail this. But it is not easy to do. Or, I should say, it's easy to half-ass.
I believe, however, that doing DEI well is a strategic advantage. It's less about making sure every single individual feels represented and included (even though that's important), because it's not really possible to explicitly enumerate every possible identity. Rather, it's about building the conscientiousness that makes people better at serving a diverse customerbase, and better at collaborating with people, who are diverse in ways that may or may not be apparent.
It's not about walking on eggshells to avoid offending anybody. It's about taking ownership and being open to learn.
The best trainings I've had really nail this. But it is not easy to do. Or, I should say, it's easy to half-ass.
> If you're actually a diverse company, then people will notice.
Yep. But the damage has already been done.
At least you have a voice. I recommend using it to change what bothers you.
Yep. But the damage has already been done.
At least you have a voice. I recommend using it to change what bothers you.
I don't like any policies based on gender or skin color.
I also don't like that my gender and skin color determine how OK it is for me to say that.
I also don't like that my gender and skin color determine how OK it is for me to say that.
The purpose of DEI initiatives in most companies is not to actually create equity but to be able to demonstrate that you're doing something. If your company explicitly does "diversity hires" to hire people by skin color, they're clearly more interested in tokenism, which only serves the company, not the candidates.
I think "diversity hires" are fine for marginalised communities analogous to grants but this would apply to paid internships or apprentice programs, not regular positions. Otherwise as in your case it clearly sends a message that the candidates wouldn't qualify otherwise.
If a company takes DEI seriously, the best approach for diversity in hiring would be to recruit specifically from the target demographics via targeted advertising (the old-fashioned way, not Google ads). Having to apply a diversity filter to an already existing applicant pool will always create an impression of tokenism.
Of course the elephant in the room is that these are usually companies founded by white guys, run by white guys, owned by white guys, who mostly initially hired other white guys. In the past decades you might also have some Asian (specifically Chinese or Indian) guys in the mix and some might be openly gay or bi but they'll almost always share the same upper-middle class rich kid background. Trying to bolt on "diversity" to that after the fact is always going to be more about optics than genuine concern for marginalised folks.
The real thing to worry about is company culture as building a culture around a bunch of wealthy white guys is likely going to make it hard to be welcoming to people outside that microcosm, at least if you care about more than mere skin color. But from the sound of it, your company's attitude to DEI is more akin to that of a Victorian Englishman proudly presenting his "coloured" servants.
I think "diversity hires" are fine for marginalised communities analogous to grants but this would apply to paid internships or apprentice programs, not regular positions. Otherwise as in your case it clearly sends a message that the candidates wouldn't qualify otherwise.
If a company takes DEI seriously, the best approach for diversity in hiring would be to recruit specifically from the target demographics via targeted advertising (the old-fashioned way, not Google ads). Having to apply a diversity filter to an already existing applicant pool will always create an impression of tokenism.
Of course the elephant in the room is that these are usually companies founded by white guys, run by white guys, owned by white guys, who mostly initially hired other white guys. In the past decades you might also have some Asian (specifically Chinese or Indian) guys in the mix and some might be openly gay or bi but they'll almost always share the same upper-middle class rich kid background. Trying to bolt on "diversity" to that after the fact is always going to be more about optics than genuine concern for marginalised folks.
The real thing to worry about is company culture as building a culture around a bunch of wealthy white guys is likely going to make it hard to be welcoming to people outside that microcosm, at least if you care about more than mere skin color. But from the sound of it, your company's attitude to DEI is more akin to that of a Victorian Englishman proudly presenting his "coloured" servants.
I feel like it has a chilling effect on everything. As you have pointed out, it can make people in the target group feel patronized. And at the same time it can make people in the non-targeted group feel less desirable or less useful to the organization. I could say a lot more about it and what I have seen first hand, but I'll leave it at that.
I don’t want to take away from your personal experience and opinions but the title led me to believe its assertion was from a study or some other kind of statistically backed examination.
If there is one I’d be fascinated to read it. Do the majority of PoC employees feel this way? That’s the kind of question that can’t really by answered by an HN thread.
If there is one I’d be fascinated to read it. Do the majority of PoC employees feel this way? That’s the kind of question that can’t really by answered by an HN thread.
An acronym called DIE should give everyone pause for consideration...
That's why its DEI, not DIE.
yeah, but let's be honest... it's DIE. I don't recall acronyms being chosen based on the least remember-able version
As someone who loves to hire people with different backgrounds and experiences, don't see you being included in diversity hiring discussions as a negative. Don't see it as "Oh, they just want the black guy's opinion". Yes! They very much do! They also want to know how it all is perceived by you. You should tell them this. We, as humans, should celebrate our diversity. We should make it a culture where it's seemless (as you put it, "able to be seen"). We should NOT make it hush hush. This is how things become swept under the rug and issues not addressed. The fact that you are here, discussing this, instead of with your manager and (hopefully) your director is a sign that they are missing the point. Diversity is great. Inclusion is better. Participation is best. Go bring these issues up with your manager with ideas on possible solutions. You can't complain about not having a better system without presenting a better system.
That said, it obviously feels to me like you have some sensitivity issues because of this, probably justifiably so. One of the cool things about tech is that when it comes down to it, it's the output that makes the "man" and not the skin color or their name or their religion or nationality. If you can write some clean, tested, code, I'm all for it! The fact that you are YOU, is even better! Why? Because I don't want a room full of white guys that just agree to what I propose. I want females, I want PoC, I want refugees, I want "I pulled myself out of poverty", I want "I would use this", I want "I care about the outcomes". Not in a cult like way, but in an empathetic to the customers problems way.
Some companies have put metrics around this. Hire so much diversity... hit 40% something-or-other... Ignore these false metrics that are doomed to failure. They aren't approaching the problem right. Let them do what they think is right unless you have a better solution. Keep just doing you and look at their efforts as a good, not a negative, even if their methods are naive.
That said, it obviously feels to me like you have some sensitivity issues because of this, probably justifiably so. One of the cool things about tech is that when it comes down to it, it's the output that makes the "man" and not the skin color or their name or their religion or nationality. If you can write some clean, tested, code, I'm all for it! The fact that you are YOU, is even better! Why? Because I don't want a room full of white guys that just agree to what I propose. I want females, I want PoC, I want refugees, I want "I pulled myself out of poverty", I want "I would use this", I want "I care about the outcomes". Not in a cult like way, but in an empathetic to the customers problems way.
Some companies have put metrics around this. Hire so much diversity... hit 40% something-or-other... Ignore these false metrics that are doomed to failure. They aren't approaching the problem right. Let them do what they think is right unless you have a better solution. Keep just doing you and look at their efforts as a good, not a negative, even if their methods are naive.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thanks for bringing your experience and sentiment to the discussion. Its eligthening and makes perfect sense.
DEI is a complex, multivarible subject. People have a multitude of different views and opinions on the subject. Companies have a bias for profit and for getting good PR.
It impacts more predominantly people that are considered of a minority or underepresented group, such as yourself.
I see DEI initiatives as a necessary measure for transitioning from a condition of structured inequality to a more balanced society. We can work and hope for a future in which we won't need these initiaives anymore (utopical?).
It's a generational change. I see no path forward in which we can overcoe this issues in a shorter timespan, and that people from all backgrdounds won't have to face diffcult challenges, such as the one you shared.
DEI is a complex, multivarible subject. People have a multitude of different views and opinions on the subject. Companies have a bias for profit and for getting good PR.
It impacts more predominantly people that are considered of a minority or underepresented group, such as yourself.
I see DEI initiatives as a necessary measure for transitioning from a condition of structured inequality to a more balanced society. We can work and hope for a future in which we won't need these initiaives anymore (utopical?).
It's a generational change. I see no path forward in which we can overcoe this issues in a shorter timespan, and that people from all backgrdounds won't have to face diffcult challenges, such as the one you shared.
I mean, you put it right in the first paragraph. This is just a version of Imposter Syndrome. Maybe being in a DEI initiative gives you an easy target to blame, but it's still just in your head. I think you have to understand what DEI is actually try to solve for and that's racial bias in hiring. As much the hiring of POC may have been foisted on HR, the opposite was likely due to inherent bias and legacy of cultural bias. Were you only hired because you're black. Were your white colleagues hired because they were white? And you're personally worried about what, exactly? What you think people think of you? Everybody worries about that in that a general sense. You're just worrying about is more specifically.
> If I were a white man with the same experience, I might not even be here?
I get this... but is the contrary worse? you've very possibly missed out on jobs at the expense of a less qualified white person. There's some evidence that even having a "black sounding name" results in resumes being looked over.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/job-appli...
Inclusivity initiatives can be problematic, but prior to their existence a lot of the time it was "continue not even being fully aware that you only hire white people"
I get this... but is the contrary worse? you've very possibly missed out on jobs at the expense of a less qualified white person. There's some evidence that even having a "black sounding name" results in resumes being looked over.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/job-appli...
Inclusivity initiatives can be problematic, but prior to their existence a lot of the time it was "continue not even being fully aware that you only hire white people"
Applying real world hard from theoretical data is exactly why DIE should die. It is absolutely absurd to assume that data supporting racism (ie: black people can't get jobs because they are somehow handicapped) is more applicable than data showing equality of opportunity.
Play this logic game: besides racism, why do you think these resumes are passed over?
Play this logic game: besides racism, why do you think these resumes are passed over?
It's not really a "logic game"... that seems like a dismissive way to approach this conversation and makes me feel like you may not be willing to entertain any ideas through the course of a discussion.
There have been multiple experiments run using resumes with identical experience but different names, and it seems that "black sounding" names are consistently called back less often, in some cases 50% less.
https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-n...
This makes me feel like some kind of hard requirement like a quota might actually be corrective given that there are measurable biases in who gets called back for an interview?
Or maybe to put it in a different lens, given this is a narrow scope of data that doesn't do much to support the vague idea of a "diversity initiative" — perhaps the better approach would be anonymizing resumes during the initial outreach process?
There have been multiple experiments run using resumes with identical experience but different names, and it seems that "black sounding" names are consistently called back less often, in some cases 50% less.
https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-n...
This makes me feel like some kind of hard requirement like a quota might actually be corrective given that there are measurable biases in who gets called back for an interview?
Or maybe to put it in a different lens, given this is a narrow scope of data that doesn't do much to support the vague idea of a "diversity initiative" — perhaps the better approach would be anonymizing resumes during the initial outreach process?
[deleted]
My first introduction to the DEI movement was in college, reading "None of This is Fair," which at the time reflected on the DEI initiatives on the 2000s poorly.
Since then we've considerably doubled down on the things Rodriguez was critical of over 20 years ago.
Since then we've considerably doubled down on the things Rodriguez was critical of over 20 years ago.
I recently worked for a government organization. DEIA (accessibility) was omnipresent. That's not a bad thing, for the reasons others have pointed out. Lots of recruiting in non-traditional places, for instance. However, there was no need to trot out, as you called them, "diversity hires" because when they would announce the new hires, they would just be diverse. I'm trying to imagine your scenario and cringe.
Have you thought of raising your concerns with HR or even townhall feedback, if your company has such a thing (one of mine did and they actually acted on some of my suggestions)? The actions sound well-intentioned but clueless so they just may need to be clued in.
Have you thought of raising your concerns with HR or even townhall feedback, if your company has such a thing (one of mine did and they actually acted on some of my suggestions)? The actions sound well-intentioned but clueless so they just may need to be clued in.
Unconscious bias is really really hard to get past in job interviews. People have this weird instinct where they want to work with the kinds of people that they've worked with in the past. A well implemented DEI program nudges the scales towards selection of candidates who are best for the role, rather than who are most similar to the interviewers. Implementing an effective DEI program is hard.
The other side of that is also true. Candidates want to work for teams that include the kinds of people that they have worked with in the past. Because of this, having visible diversity in your teams is more likely to attract a wider candidate pool, which means more chances to hire good people.
The other side of that is also true. Candidates want to work for teams that include the kinds of people that they have worked with in the past. Because of this, having visible diversity in your teams is more likely to attract a wider candidate pool, which means more chances to hire good people.
I tried to bring this kind of issue up in an earlier Ask HN but it got flagged for some reason: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34526053.
What you are describing sounds performative, which doesn't mean it's tokenism, window dressing, or a bad faith put-on show. It could all be with the best intentions. However it's hard to disagree with your take that DEI results should be self-evident. If a company feels a need to be self-congratulatory, they might be doing it wrong.
You put your finger on it right here: "I could understand publishing a quarterly report, but creating townhall meetings and parading..." Women and minorities in tech have their networks and know what's what. Accurate reporting of positive results is what makes a company welcoming to applicants.
You put your finger on it right here: "I could understand publishing a quarterly report, but creating townhall meetings and parading..." Women and minorities in tech have their networks and know what's what. Accurate reporting of positive results is what makes a company welcoming to applicants.
We need to get started with recruiting PoC much earlier in their careers. I almost never get resumes from african americans beyond entry level. I get why this happens - I fell accidentally into my career - my parents were blue collar and knew nothing about careers in business and couldn't help me. I imagine this is the same for other groups. If people really knew what was out there, like if I knew what the path was in business for IT, Finance, etc I'd be further ahead in my career. Force your HR teams to get out to schools with minority groups and volunteer your time to visit these groups and talk about careers.
It's crazy how it's become so commonplace.
I hope one day we can really reach the point where skin colour is as unremarkable as eye colour. Where people really are judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
I hope one day we can really reach the point where skin colour is as unremarkable as eye colour. Where people really are judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
> creating townhall meetings and parading your black/brown employees around like show ponies is nothing short of corporate virtue signaling.
That is the point of DEI for companies. Pretty much all HR initiatives are just virtue signaling.
That is the point of DEI for companies. Pretty much all HR initiatives are just virtue signaling.
[deleted]
Reading DEI related threats, it's interesting that this phenomena happened in the US which impacting US institutions/companies.
From the outside looking in, it kind of a consequence of treating the symptom which is not the permanent solution. The actual root cause of the bug is still not yet addressed, hence why you see the side effect of the bug fix.
The root cause is multi faceted ofc, but some of them we could already identify. Economical inequality, social mobility which correlates with the given opportunity along the way. Once this fixed, the opportunity given to each individual will be fairer.
From the outside looking in, it kind of a consequence of treating the symptom which is not the permanent solution. The actual root cause of the bug is still not yet addressed, hence why you see the side effect of the bug fix.
The root cause is multi faceted ofc, but some of them we could already identify. Economical inequality, social mobility which correlates with the given opportunity along the way. Once this fixed, the opportunity given to each individual will be fairer.
I have heard first hand from trans hires that they KNOW their job is to 'be diverse', and there's no reason to grow technically or professionally - just coast and fail to get fired.
Everyone reasonable hates that shit.
Everyone reasonable hates that shit.
Become a founder. You might benefit from some early advantages raising seed money or getting picked for an incubator, but probably not appreciably more than founders like Gates or Zuckerberg from well connected families and communities. And past that first step if you succeed it’s going to be because you made it succeed. And if you somehow end up founding the affirmative action unicorn because private equity gives you an undeserved valuation on the basis of your race, well so long as you don’t sell your soul you may as well enjoy the ride.
DEI gets a lot of unfair hate because it's a fraught topic. It's a job, and like any job, some people do it badly.
People here complain about hiring and "agile" and which language smarter people program in and whether unit tests are a good use of time, but it doesn't rise to the level of vitriol that is applied to missteps and bad ideas in DEI. To me that shows that DEI is important but hard. Maybe the problem is DEI doesn't pay enough to attract people who can do it well.
People here complain about hiring and "agile" and which language smarter people program in and whether unit tests are a good use of time, but it doesn't rise to the level of vitriol that is applied to missteps and bad ideas in DEI. To me that shows that DEI is important but hard. Maybe the problem is DEI doesn't pay enough to attract people who can do it well.
its probably a deliberate strategy in order to make you feel that you haven't earned your position but rather you are beholden to the people that gave it to you
I don't think that's right. Most people involved in DEI have good intentions, they're often just too short-sighted to see second order consequences of the way they do things.
that assumes competency of someone to have a real strategy and then competency to conceal it because it is a timebomb waiting to explode.
Too complicated ;).
Too complicated ;).
Thank you for sharing your experience. I wish the discussion here had been more robust.
If it was programming, people would have offered a range of ways to understand and navigate this situation. It would be based on both experience as well as scholarly theory.
For instance we often get to hear from functional programmers, some backed by the deep foundations in theory. Yet here we seem ill equipped and unprepared.
If it was programming, people would have offered a range of ways to understand and navigate this situation. It would be based on both experience as well as scholarly theory.
For instance we often get to hear from functional programmers, some backed by the deep foundations in theory. Yet here we seem ill equipped and unprepared.
DEI is one huge attempt to make a right out of two wrongs.
> most
I'm trying not to extrapolate. You might have more experience than me but I would not generalize here unless you have seen what's going on in the vast majority of companies.
In my organization the DEI I am exposed to is, luckily, completely outside of hiring. It's about raising awareness for people that are interested, it's opt-in, and gives a safe space to share experiences, events, etc. It's not only about
I'm trying not to extrapolate. You might have more experience than me but I would not generalize here unless you have seen what's going on in the vast majority of companies.
In my organization the DEI I am exposed to is, luckily, completely outside of hiring. It's about raising awareness for people that are interested, it's opt-in, and gives a safe space to share experiences, events, etc. It's not only about
I don't think we as a society can have our cake and eat it: if there is an initiative, it will become public one way or another. So if you must have one, you must be honest about it and accept the consequences. Lying about it will just make everyone all the more suspicious and prejudiced.
And that is without touching any of the other issues here (pipeline problems, defining diversity by external criteria, etc)
And that is without touching any of the other issues here (pipeline problems, defining diversity by external criteria, etc)
Not to mention the non "diverse" members of a team. I feel marginalized for being a conservative technologist, even though I'm a PoC.
Damn yeah it sounds like your company is really clumsy and a bit patronising in how they've implemented or communicated these initiatives. I think if I was in your position I would feel the same way. I wish I had some advice for you, I think only you and other PoC in your company would know whether mentioning this to HR would help the situation or make it worse and more annoying :/
Unequal treatment based on skin color harms all of us.
And DEI programs are the most pernicious form of racism existing today.
Nothing is worse than a group who believes they are harassing/oppressing you for your own good.
There is no true diversity in human affairs apart from intellectual diversity.
And if you look at the most DEI-compliant places — they are desserts of intellectual diversity.
Nobody interesting would want to work/study there.
Nothing is worse than a group who believes they are harassing/oppressing you for your own good.
There is no true diversity in human affairs apart from intellectual diversity.
And if you look at the most DEI-compliant places — they are desserts of intellectual diversity.
Nobody interesting would want to work/study there.
There are two possible goals. Affirmative action or color-blind meritocracy. Both will lead to diverse hiring practices (using the term diverse loosely - people who are not like those hiring them). Affirmative action makes sense to get momentum going but becomes its own worst enemy when acted upon for perpetuity. This makes it hard when designing policy because inevitably years will go by and you still haven't reached your diversity goals. Is this because your company is still 'biased' somewhere deep down or is it indicative of real group level differences that have deeper causes than your affirmative action policy can address? In our current navel gazing culture, we will always assume the former and the policy grows in scope.
Our companies can't always fix these group level differences, they aren't even always 'problems' (for example, men and women are different and have different strengths and weaknesses, will tend to be interested in different fields, etc.)
In my view the way forward is color-blind meritocracy. Tech needs to look closely at the symphony 'blind' interview techniques and be very self-critical of 'culture fit': https://abilitymap.com/articles/recruitment/blind-hiring/
Our companies can't always fix these group level differences, they aren't even always 'problems' (for example, men and women are different and have different strengths and weaknesses, will tend to be interested in different fields, etc.)
In my view the way forward is color-blind meritocracy. Tech needs to look closely at the symphony 'blind' interview techniques and be very self-critical of 'culture fit': https://abilitymap.com/articles/recruitment/blind-hiring/
What is PoC? Isn't white a color? Or a "ethnicity" :) Apparently not.
It's funny that some people want to treat people differently based solely on their skin colour. Or are they claiming there are other differences at play, that are mainly noticeable through the skin color?
Does "diversity" mean differences in skin color?
It's funny that some people want to treat people differently based solely on their skin colour. Or are they claiming there are other differences at play, that are mainly noticeable through the skin color?
Does "diversity" mean differences in skin color?
No one cares. Your race/DEI/BIPOC/whatever is a tool used by super genius puppet masters to wage a multi century war on other races. You think Bill Gates cares about black people? You think [soulless middle manager] cares about black people? It’s all a game and you should exploit these companies to the max.
Diversity should be natural, not forced. DEI forces diversity, which causes more problems than it solves and harms more people than it helps. It's been this way forever, including back when it was called "affirmative action." I suggest reading this book to see just how disastrous it's been: https://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empir...
How do we improve natural diversity? Through persuasion, not coercion. That means, first and foremost, improving education for people and instilling the right cultural values so that they have the right skills and qualifications. When we have diverse people with the right skills, diverse workforces occur naturally in a free market system.
Finally, people who think America has a huge racism problem should travel across the world now and also read history better. America is one of the least racist places overall in recorded history. It's something we can always improve on, bu, at this point it's just another problem among many, and our overemphasis on it is also causing far more problems than helping people.
How do we improve natural diversity? Through persuasion, not coercion. That means, first and foremost, improving education for people and instilling the right cultural values so that they have the right skills and qualifications. When we have diverse people with the right skills, diverse workforces occur naturally in a free market system.
Finally, people who think America has a huge racism problem should travel across the world now and also read history better. America is one of the least racist places overall in recorded history. It's something we can always improve on, bu, at this point it's just another problem among many, and our overemphasis on it is also causing far more problems than helping people.
Personally, I wouldn't link anything Thomas Sowell has written. He has literally claimed that Black Americans were better off during slavery than they are today [1].
> America is one of the least racist places overall in recorded history [citation needed]
[1] - https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-the-legacy-o...
> America is one of the least racist places overall in recorded history [citation needed]
[1] - https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-the-legacy-o...
He doesn't say that in the article you linked. Sowel's argument is against the liberal policies of the past 30+ years compared to post-slavery economic growth among blacks prior to that. You can dispute his claims, but nowhere does he say that blacks were better off under slavery. He's claiming they were better off after slavery and before the modern welfare state, which as a conservative he views as destructive to the nuclear family and produces a sense of victimhood. Again, feel free to disagree with that. But don't misrepresent his argument.
You've repeated the point I was trying to make about Sowell's viewpoint. Thank you:
> He's claiming they were better off after slavery and before the modern welfare state, which as a conservative he views as destructive to the nuclear family and produces a sense of victimhood.
> He's claiming they were better off after slavery and before the modern welfare state, which as a conservative he views as destructive to the nuclear family and produces a sense of victimhood.
These two sentences are not the same:
You: [Sowell] has literally claimed that Black Americans were better off during slavery than they are today
Sowell: If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed “legacy of slavery” they talk about.
If you can't see how these ideas are nothing alike, then I don't know how to help you.
> He's claiming they were better off after slavery and before the modern welfare state,
Goatlover's analysis of Sowell's words was much better than yours, but he too is wrong. Sowell is wisely not making any claims about whether blacks were better off overall in one time period or another. He is focused solely on the impact of the past on the present. In particular, he is responding to the claim that there is “overwhelming evidence that centuries of racial subjugation still shape inequity in the 21st century”.
In response to this claim, Sowell counters that the legacy of liberalism and of the welfare state has had a more negative impact on blacks today than the legacy of slavery. Again, he is solely dealing with the impact of the past on the present, which has absolutely nothing to do with your accusation. Your accusation would require him to make a claim about the overall well-being of blacks in the past versus the present, which Sowell never once makes.
Sowell's words are important, by the way, because diagnosing an illness wrong means prescribing the wrong cure and making the patient sicker, not better. "More harm than good" is the clarion call of the modern conservative, and it is because so many "progressive" policies in the last century have done exactly that, causing more problems, wreaking more havoc, and ruining more lives than helping, saving, or lifting anyone up.
You: [Sowell] has literally claimed that Black Americans were better off during slavery than they are today
Sowell: If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed “legacy of slavery” they talk about.
If you can't see how these ideas are nothing alike, then I don't know how to help you.
> He's claiming they were better off after slavery and before the modern welfare state,
Goatlover's analysis of Sowell's words was much better than yours, but he too is wrong. Sowell is wisely not making any claims about whether blacks were better off overall in one time period or another. He is focused solely on the impact of the past on the present. In particular, he is responding to the claim that there is “overwhelming evidence that centuries of racial subjugation still shape inequity in the 21st century”.
In response to this claim, Sowell counters that the legacy of liberalism and of the welfare state has had a more negative impact on blacks today than the legacy of slavery. Again, he is solely dealing with the impact of the past on the present, which has absolutely nothing to do with your accusation. Your accusation would require him to make a claim about the overall well-being of blacks in the past versus the present, which Sowell never once makes.
Sowell's words are important, by the way, because diagnosing an illness wrong means prescribing the wrong cure and making the patient sicker, not better. "More harm than good" is the clarion call of the modern conservative, and it is because so many "progressive" policies in the last century have done exactly that, causing more problems, wreaking more havoc, and ruining more lives than helping, saving, or lifting anyone up.
Personally, I wouldn't blatantly tell obvious lies. I clicked on the link. Sowell didn't say that at all. But I have to admit, that's a new one. Falsely claim someone said something awful, then provide a link to make it look legitimate. It's a pretty vile and disgusting tactic, honestly. But that's what I've come to expect from people of a certain political persuasion.
Anyways, I'll continue to link Sowell. I suggest you stop with the dishonesty, though.
Anyways, I'll continue to link Sowell. I suggest you stop with the dishonesty, though.
Don't do this here, I'm not trying to start a flame war over solipsism
No, I will do this here.
In the best case, you were mistaken. It is still a very evil thing to defame someone with such a horrible accusation when you couldn't even be bothered to take two minutes to get your facts straight! It took me literally less than 2 minutes to scan your linked article and see that you were wrong.
In the worst case, you're being willingly dishonest, which is even more evil. Or you could be somewhere in the middle. Regardless, your action is some kind of significant evil in my book, and it deserves calling out.
In the best case, you were mistaken. It is still a very evil thing to defame someone with such a horrible accusation when you couldn't even be bothered to take two minutes to get your facts straight! It took me literally less than 2 minutes to scan your linked article and see that you were wrong.
In the worst case, you're being willingly dishonest, which is even more evil. Or you could be somewhere in the middle. Regardless, your action is some kind of significant evil in my book, and it deserves calling out.
Calling someone "evil" is a very easy way to convince yourself that you've won an "argument"
I called your action evil. So now I believe you either have poor reading comprehension or you're just habitually dishonest. Do you have any other explanations for your behavior?
And, frankly, pointing out that someone's statement is completely and unequivocally false is an even easier way to convince yourself you've won an "argument".
And, frankly, pointing out that someone's statement is completely and unequivocally false is an even easier way to convince yourself you've won an "argument".
> In my opinion, it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company.
The problem is incentives and selection bias.
Let's imagine a company that has a pretty obvious diversity problem when anyone happens to look around the room. What kind of person is likely to either be assigned "fix the diversity problem" or take on the job on their own? Probably they're someone high up the corporate ladder who has learned how to play the game.
That kind of person already knows that being "hush hush" about anything doesn't get them the next promotion, the big bonus. It doesn't achieve their personal goals. That's not how they got here.
And if this person is someone who meets the 'diversity' label (because who else would they assign it to?) in a company that has a clear diversity problem that they don't seem to understand (usually caused by implicit bais the leadership have and will never acknowledge exist), then this person has already learned that being quietly successful gets them no where. The only way to succeed is to do so loudly, publicly, and undeniably.
The goal isn't to increase diversity. It's to get the person in charge of increasing diversity a bigger paycheck.
The problem is incentives and selection bias.
Let's imagine a company that has a pretty obvious diversity problem when anyone happens to look around the room. What kind of person is likely to either be assigned "fix the diversity problem" or take on the job on their own? Probably they're someone high up the corporate ladder who has learned how to play the game.
That kind of person already knows that being "hush hush" about anything doesn't get them the next promotion, the big bonus. It doesn't achieve their personal goals. That's not how they got here.
And if this person is someone who meets the 'diversity' label (because who else would they assign it to?) in a company that has a clear diversity problem that they don't seem to understand (usually caused by implicit bais the leadership have and will never acknowledge exist), then this person has already learned that being quietly successful gets them no where. The only way to succeed is to do so loudly, publicly, and undeniably.
The goal isn't to increase diversity. It's to get the person in charge of increasing diversity a bigger paycheck.
DEI can mean 2 orthogonal things:
1. Affirmative action. I'll be mostly "against" this vague concept, as it seems incompatible with meritocracy.
2. Making sure workspace is a safe and pleasant place to work in, where people can generally be heard. This is almost unconditionally "a good thing" which should be actively encouraged.
1. Affirmative action. I'll be mostly "against" this vague concept, as it seems incompatible with meritocracy.
2. Making sure workspace is a safe and pleasant place to work in, where people can generally be heard. This is almost unconditionally "a good thing" which should be actively encouraged.
For example, I know I'm talented - I've got the projects, certs, and experience to back it up.
I think a lot of people who are relatively new to tech (less than 20 years experience) fail to realise that DEI measures were invented to tackle literal racism and misogeny in tech hiring. Companies would routinely screen out resumes from people whose names weren't white enough or who were a bit too feminine. You could have all the best projects, certs, and experience, but if you'd been in tech in the early 2000s you still wouldn't have got an interview at quite a lot of companies if your face didn't fit the perceived "this is what an engineer looks like ... oh looks it's a white dude!" mould.
People started to complain, and other people listened. DEI is the result. There's a strong argument that companies do it in a tone-deaf manner today, and maybe it's now so much better in hiring that DEI isn't needed any more (a very dubious claim in my opinion) but it's definitely better now even if you have to do a shitty monthly meeting, because in the bad old days you wouldn't have had the job in the first place.
I think a lot of people who are relatively new to tech (less than 20 years experience) fail to realise that DEI measures were invented to tackle literal racism and misogeny in tech hiring. Companies would routinely screen out resumes from people whose names weren't white enough or who were a bit too feminine. You could have all the best projects, certs, and experience, but if you'd been in tech in the early 2000s you still wouldn't have got an interview at quite a lot of companies if your face didn't fit the perceived "this is what an engineer looks like ... oh looks it's a white dude!" mould.
People started to complain, and other people listened. DEI is the result. There's a strong argument that companies do it in a tone-deaf manner today, and maybe it's now so much better in hiring that DEI isn't needed any more (a very dubious claim in my opinion) but it's definitely better now even if you have to do a shitty monthly meeting, because in the bad old days you wouldn't have had the job in the first place.
> Companies would routinely screen out resumes from people whose names weren't white enough or who were a bit too feminine
Could you provide any details on this? I've been in tech for more than 20 years and never heard of anything like what you stated.
Could you provide any details on this? I've been in tech for more than 20 years and never heard of anything like what you stated.
More recent studies indicate the opposite, women's resumes are preferred over men at tech companies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644
This still happens today. The easiest way for a computer programmer to see how is to consider the problem of building a non-racially biased hiring algorithm that takes resumes as input.
Heuristic one: Pick candidates with first names that are correlated with high performance. This works because certain areas have better math education, and first names help filter on parents’ incomes.
It is obviously racist. Eliminate it.
Heuristic 2: Look at educational experience. Public schools in the US are horribly racist/classist, so this doesn’t work either.
Heuristic 3: Look at work experience. Other employers used heuristic 1 and 2, so this inherits racism from them. Also, older hires are (hopefully) less diverse, assuming the field is improving.
Heuristic 4: Objective performance based whiteboard coding. People with imposter syndrome are more likely to choke in high-stress environments. Scratch this.
Heuristic 5: “Cultural fit” bonus points to fix up #4. Studies show this selects for things like drinking the same brand alcohol or enjoying the same sports. Strike it too.
Heuristic 6: Tailor the interview for the specific candidate. Studies show that women/minorities tend to get “softball” questions like “how did you handle this”, which accidentally puts them on the defensive. Men get alpha male planning questions “how will you grow this company”.
I personally prefer #3 graded on a scale from 1-4 with 0.5 increments. I add 0.5 to nervous people’s (women, or english as second language, mostly) scores and truncate the integer.
On average, this corrects the bias inherent in the interview setup and in my monkey brain. It pisses off almost everyone I know though.
If I controlled recruiters, I’d add women / minority quotas to the candidate stream, but not to the interview phase. I would also track job performance vs. ethnicity/gender, and loosen standards for any group that was outperforming the team.
Heuristic one: Pick candidates with first names that are correlated with high performance. This works because certain areas have better math education, and first names help filter on parents’ incomes.
It is obviously racist. Eliminate it.
Heuristic 2: Look at educational experience. Public schools in the US are horribly racist/classist, so this doesn’t work either.
Heuristic 3: Look at work experience. Other employers used heuristic 1 and 2, so this inherits racism from them. Also, older hires are (hopefully) less diverse, assuming the field is improving.
Heuristic 4: Objective performance based whiteboard coding. People with imposter syndrome are more likely to choke in high-stress environments. Scratch this.
Heuristic 5: “Cultural fit” bonus points to fix up #4. Studies show this selects for things like drinking the same brand alcohol or enjoying the same sports. Strike it too.
Heuristic 6: Tailor the interview for the specific candidate. Studies show that women/minorities tend to get “softball” questions like “how did you handle this”, which accidentally puts them on the defensive. Men get alpha male planning questions “how will you grow this company”.
I personally prefer #3 graded on a scale from 1-4 with 0.5 increments. I add 0.5 to nervous people’s (women, or english as second language, mostly) scores and truncate the integer.
On average, this corrects the bias inherent in the interview setup and in my monkey brain. It pisses off almost everyone I know though.
If I controlled recruiters, I’d add women / minority quotas to the candidate stream, but not to the interview phase. I would also track job performance vs. ethnicity/gender, and loosen standards for any group that was outperforming the team.
Could you provide any details on this?
Not really. Nothing that can't easily be dismissed as anecdotal any way. But when lots of people have the same anecdotes you start to ask questions. People did, and now we have DEI initiatives.
Not really. Nothing that can't easily be dismissed as anecdotal any way. But when lots of people have the same anecdotes you start to ask questions. People did, and now we have DEI initiatives.
Then here's my anecdote to add: I've repeatedly been instructed to favor women and URM applications over white and especially Asian men. I've also had managers that outright told me that racial and gender discrimination favoring the former is the norm, and any opposition to it would get me fired and blacklisted.
I've always found these telling when companies bandy around with "DEI great!"... All the while the C-levels are 'white male sausagefest' except for the DEI position, which is invariably a black woman.
I like seeing real diversity at all levels of a company, and not the fake diversity pushed by DEI initiatives.
I like seeing real diversity at all levels of a company, and not the fake diversity pushed by DEI initiatives.
[deleted]
> All the while the C-levels are 'white male sausagefest'
Aren’t those the wurst? It’s like they could at least include vegetables, like aubergine or something.
Aren’t those the wurst? It’s like they could at least include vegetables, like aubergine or something.
+1 for the funny joke!
But as a story of "DEI" in real practice vs a company who fakes it:
I worked as a system engineer for a gov contractor SaaS company with 4 C-levels. 2 were men, and 2 were women. The CEO was a second generation Italian. The CFO was a guy. The 2 women were in charge of the core part of the business: development lifecycle (design, dev, QA), and customer experience (helpdesk, consultants, sysads). The lady responsible for dev was also a developer and designer, and a damned sharp one at that. The lady responsible for customer experience was a systems engineer by trade. More than a few times I consulted with her about company direction for our infrastructure and growth plans.
There never really was public vocalizations in the company for DEI - it was about actually getting people from a wide background and putting them in power. And to that, our group reviewed potential hires, with all demographic details wiped. It was just the facts what they had done, to prevent us from focusing on demographics unchangable by us.
When BLM hit news hard, our CEO said bluntly in our monthly meeting "We're not able to hire most black candidates because police regularly harass their communities, give them an arrest record or a criminal record, and that prevents getting a public trust clearance. We are also powerless to change this by ourselves." I've *NEVER* heard spokespeople say even close to that, and here's our CEO pulling the curtains aside to look at the meat grinder.
Aside that terrible fact, the company did its best to hire diversely, promote from within, and put a diverse group of people in charge at leadership positions. Federal regulations GREATLY hamper good people with asinine decisions and local governmental harassment.
Sadly, this company a year prior got in bed with a venture (vulture) capitalist. They, after assuring "no real changes will happen (HAH!)", sold us like a Pokemon card to a terrible company. You could feel the grease off of this place. Felt like a used car lot combined with a county carnival/fair.
There were 8 C level positions in this 600 person company. For 7 of them it was "White male". The "DEI Officer" was a black woman. Doing this shows me you absolutely do not care about actual diversity, but only the thinnest veneer as not to be called out by other companies. (See? We have a token Black Woman on our C levels!) Like... You just "bought" a 200 person company with 2 scary sharp women as proven C level leadership... and threw them away as their newest acquisition.
But as a story of "DEI" in real practice vs a company who fakes it:
I worked as a system engineer for a gov contractor SaaS company with 4 C-levels. 2 were men, and 2 were women. The CEO was a second generation Italian. The CFO was a guy. The 2 women were in charge of the core part of the business: development lifecycle (design, dev, QA), and customer experience (helpdesk, consultants, sysads). The lady responsible for dev was also a developer and designer, and a damned sharp one at that. The lady responsible for customer experience was a systems engineer by trade. More than a few times I consulted with her about company direction for our infrastructure and growth plans.
There never really was public vocalizations in the company for DEI - it was about actually getting people from a wide background and putting them in power. And to that, our group reviewed potential hires, with all demographic details wiped. It was just the facts what they had done, to prevent us from focusing on demographics unchangable by us.
When BLM hit news hard, our CEO said bluntly in our monthly meeting "We're not able to hire most black candidates because police regularly harass their communities, give them an arrest record or a criminal record, and that prevents getting a public trust clearance. We are also powerless to change this by ourselves." I've *NEVER* heard spokespeople say even close to that, and here's our CEO pulling the curtains aside to look at the meat grinder.
Aside that terrible fact, the company did its best to hire diversely, promote from within, and put a diverse group of people in charge at leadership positions. Federal regulations GREATLY hamper good people with asinine decisions and local governmental harassment.
Sadly, this company a year prior got in bed with a venture (vulture) capitalist. They, after assuring "no real changes will happen (HAH!)", sold us like a Pokemon card to a terrible company. You could feel the grease off of this place. Felt like a used car lot combined with a county carnival/fair.
There were 8 C level positions in this 600 person company. For 7 of them it was "White male". The "DEI Officer" was a black woman. Doing this shows me you absolutely do not care about actual diversity, but only the thinnest veneer as not to be called out by other companies. (See? We have a token Black Woman on our C levels!) Like... You just "bought" a 200 person company with 2 scary sharp women as proven C level leadership... and threw them away as their newest acquisition.
It is gratifying you enjoyed the humor. At the time I thought I was following your redundant usage of "male" and "sausagefest," the latter referring in metaphor to genital particulars. But maybe it isn't redundant in that the practice of SOGI informs that gender identity is different from sex assigned at birth. Thus perhaps you were attempting to say that the all members of the group had a gender identity that matched their sex assigned at birth? It is beyond my comprehension of what constitutes workplace communication to communicate such matters.
I'm sorry to hear your federally regulated employer headed by an Italian, a guy and two scary sharp women who were ladies was bought out and sold to a terrible company.
I'm sorry to hear your federally regulated employer headed by an Italian, a guy and two scary sharp women who were ladies was bought out and sold to a terrible company.
What a great time for a thread like this to pop-up and remind me why I basically want nothing to do with this fucking community. I gotta stop making this mistake.
Sorry to those that took the time to share their experiences and then were told "no, you're wrong, here's why". Nothing will change here, good luck.
Sorry to those that took the time to share their experiences and then were told "no, you're wrong, here's why". Nothing will change here, good luck.
DIE and "representation matters" makes no sense to Indian-Americans. They are the highest earning people in America and were nothing but "thank you come again" jokes in Hollywood and MSM in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s (Harold & Kumar).
I always thought the reason why companies all started doing this (pretty much simulataneously) is because they think it minimizes settlement liability or something
It isn't about making people feel welcome, it's about making it harder to sue them and playing corporate politics
It isn't about making people feel welcome, it's about making it harder to sue them and playing corporate politics
I think part of DEI is to compensate for currently existing racial prejudices that are unknowingly disadvantaging your probability of hire. What you see as an advantage gained by DEI might actually just be the equalizer that brings you to equal footing with others
OP already has equal footing based on his qualifications. He doesn't need an "equalizer". The people who would discriminate against him are the ones who need an "equalizer". In that light, companies who are celebrating diversity are essentially patting themselves on the back for not being racist. So when companies grift so hard off this, it's embarrassing everyone in the process.
Big tech companies openly discriminate in the hiring process towards non favored groups, this is a fact. People involved in the hiring committees at these companies know and this has downstream effects. DIE is perpetuating harmful stereotypes no doubt.
My advice is to be a great engineer - not a diversity hire. Stay clear of all the DEI stuff.
"but creating townhall meetings and parading your black/brown employees around like show ponies is nothing short of corporate virtue signaling."
This is like 90% of the point of corporate DEI programs.
This is like 90% of the point of corporate DEI programs.
(a bit tangential to your point, but I think related:) "...that leads to what I call the Iron Law of Woke Capitalism: brands will gravitate towards low-cost, high-noise signals if these are accepted as a substitute for genuine reform."[0]
Companies engage in these practices (IMHO) from a mix of genuine desire to "be good" and do the right thing, as a marketing exercise, and as PR insurance against charges of racism. If you get "called out" on twitter for being a racist company (for whatever reason) you will probably fare much better if you can point to your diversity initiatives & goals, diversity officer etc.
That said I think most individuals are acting in a genuine well-meaning way.
It is disturbing to me that (as you point out) the initiatives we have to promote inclusion may end up stigmatizing the people that are intended to be "included."
0: https://helenlewis.substack.com/p/the-bluestocking-woke-capi...
Companies engage in these practices (IMHO) from a mix of genuine desire to "be good" and do the right thing, as a marketing exercise, and as PR insurance against charges of racism. If you get "called out" on twitter for being a racist company (for whatever reason) you will probably fare much better if you can point to your diversity initiatives & goals, diversity officer etc.
That said I think most individuals are acting in a genuine well-meaning way.
It is disturbing to me that (as you point out) the initiatives we have to promote inclusion may end up stigmatizing the people that are intended to be "included."
0: https://helenlewis.substack.com/p/the-bluestocking-woke-capi...
> I realize this isn't the type of content posted to HN usually
This is because it's going to start a flamewar and get flagged off the front page. It's also suspicious that it might not be authentic.
This is because it's going to start a flamewar and get flagged off the front page. It's also suspicious that it might not be authentic.
Makes perfect sense.
Unfortunately, anything that gets hush-hushed or moved to confidential may spark even more controversy than if it were out in the open.
So imo you can only be in 1 of 2 states: all-in or not at all.
Unfortunately, anything that gets hush-hushed or moved to confidential may spark even more controversy than if it were out in the open.
So imo you can only be in 1 of 2 states: all-in or not at all.
Most marginally intelligent people understand that "DEI initiatives" are all about virtue signalling that do little to nothing except make people feel uncomfortable. Many people who study the issue have concluded that these "DEI initiatives" actually lead to worse outcomes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/11/opinion/workplace-diversi...
Is it any surprise that contrived struggle sessions and compelled behavioral modification seminars aren't helpful?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/11/opinion/workplace-diversi...
Is it any surprise that contrived struggle sessions and compelled behavioral modification seminars aren't helpful?
I think of it as gaslighting. Make poc’s second guess themselves so they focus on not becoming a threat.
You just have a problem with capitalism. Nearly all companies’ DEI efforts are fake because they’re about marketing. They don’t care about using their resources to ensure that they have hiring practices that don’t put a spotlight in the places where white people congregate. I got laughed out of the room when I pointed out that my company never attempts to find candidates at HBCUs. Or, frankly, any place that isn’t Stanford or MIT. It’s cheap for them to lie, saying “oh sure we give a shit!” and then literally do the same thing every brain dead recruiting team “thinks” up for a strategy.
Also, until a company would fire someone for being racist, any DEI work there is meaningless. And I’m not talking hooded-klan level racism (that one you can just sue and win it’s so cut and dry).
Also, until a company would fire someone for being racist, any DEI work there is meaningless. And I’m not talking hooded-klan level racism (that one you can just sue and win it’s so cut and dry).
An important consideration is that nobody performs better when you tell them that people like them are discriminated against, or often perform poorly.
Personally, I really dislike DEI initiatives and think they should be avoided. Just treat everyone the same. How hard is it, really? Unfortunately, because I am a white man that express these thoughts I am now a racist and a sexist even if the ones who actually commit the racist/sexist/etc acts nowadays mostly are the ones who claim to fight it.
If more people would view people as individuals instead of some kind of collective, I believe a lot would be improved.
If more people would view people as individuals instead of some kind of collective, I believe a lot would be improved.
If only HR and executives understood the amount of resentment and distrust these policies grow in many of their employees.
Undermines the self-esteem of whites too.
Its all just corporate drama, its like an insurance when something shit happens with other senior execs !
Is DEI or DIE? I prefer the latter
If you're dissatisfied with this stuff, I wouldn't talk to management to solve this, but instead I'd work on communicating with ESG funds and ask them to change their guidelines for their DEI initiatives. Let me explain.
The corporation you work for is just trying to get a better ESG score. The DEI initiative and programs were probably handed down in some quasi-government fashion from Blackrock and other ESG funds who chose investments and even board votes based on that. Your company's HR department might have had all this mandated from Blackrock who has a ton of control on the boards of publicly traded companies. Corporations have to regularly report their DEI initiatives to Blackrock and other ESG funds.
"Last week, BlackRock released its 2021 proxy voting guidelines for the U.S. and other major markets ... These updated materials demonstrate how BlackRock intends to pair higher expectations for corporate responsiveness across a number of topics, including diversity, equity and inclusion and environmental risk, with a greater willingness to vote against management where these expectations are not met."
"In 2021, BlackRock will expect disclosure of workforce demographics, such as gender, race, and ethnicity in line with the EEO-1 Survey, along with steps being taken to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion. Where BlackRock believes disclosures or practices fall short of market or peer practice, it may vote against members of the appropriate committee or support related shareholder proposals*."
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/01/12/blackrocks-2021-p...
If you look throughout Blackrock's governance documents they talk about "Stakeholder Capitalism" which is a world economic forum program[1] to bring all sorts of influences into the running of companies besides shareholder value. Thus, the bottom line isn't always the goal and often there are other reasons for all of this, so appeals to corporate profitability aren't even going to work here.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/stakeholdercapitalism
The corporation you work for is just trying to get a better ESG score. The DEI initiative and programs were probably handed down in some quasi-government fashion from Blackrock and other ESG funds who chose investments and even board votes based on that. Your company's HR department might have had all this mandated from Blackrock who has a ton of control on the boards of publicly traded companies. Corporations have to regularly report their DEI initiatives to Blackrock and other ESG funds.
"Last week, BlackRock released its 2021 proxy voting guidelines for the U.S. and other major markets ... These updated materials demonstrate how BlackRock intends to pair higher expectations for corporate responsiveness across a number of topics, including diversity, equity and inclusion and environmental risk, with a greater willingness to vote against management where these expectations are not met."
"In 2021, BlackRock will expect disclosure of workforce demographics, such as gender, race, and ethnicity in line with the EEO-1 Survey, along with steps being taken to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion. Where BlackRock believes disclosures or practices fall short of market or peer practice, it may vote against members of the appropriate committee or support related shareholder proposals*."
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/01/12/blackrocks-2021-p...
If you look throughout Blackrock's governance documents they talk about "Stakeholder Capitalism" which is a world economic forum program[1] to bring all sorts of influences into the running of companies besides shareholder value. Thus, the bottom line isn't always the goal and often there are other reasons for all of this, so appeals to corporate profitability aren't even going to work here.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/stakeholdercapitalism
On a tangent... but has anyone here had some success in correcting their unconscious biases?
Minorities just can't win (although women are actually a slight majority of the population, so it's really white men who are the minority). Every now and then a woman like Marissa Maier or Carol Bartz will get a "Hail Mary" chance at the top job, and when they eventually fail, it's blamed on them being women.
The replies to this thread are giving me hope that the DEI madness is starting to wane.
Many people won't go to a black doctor specifically for this reason.
Reverse racism is a form of preventing racism from going extinct, of course.
Isn't it ironic that the most famous African-American in US is white?!
These companies are chasing ESG points to show who is the most diverse company to get more investment, despite DEI being a useless trend that proves nothing but virtue signalling as you said.
It is indeed nonsensical virtue signalling and an enormous and very expensive distraction.
It is indeed nonsensical virtue signalling and an enormous and very expensive distraction.
> I realize this isn't the type of content posted to HN usually
It was once very common, until a "no politics" rule was experimented with, where "politics" was largely a euphemism for "discussion of minority issues in tech." This rule was eventually abandoned, and just applied manually through direct moderation. After that point the only race/diversity stuff that gets through is anti-diversity stuff. I assume this is being upvoted because it's being mistaken for libertarian "race realism" from the title.
You're saying that companies should stop parading their "diversity" in their PR, and especially stop focusing on individuals. I tend to agree, but if they stop using black people in their PR, they're probably going to stop hiring black people. They don't know any.
It was once very common, until a "no politics" rule was experimented with, where "politics" was largely a euphemism for "discussion of minority issues in tech." This rule was eventually abandoned, and just applied manually through direct moderation. After that point the only race/diversity stuff that gets through is anti-diversity stuff. I assume this is being upvoted because it's being mistaken for libertarian "race realism" from the title.
You're saying that companies should stop parading their "diversity" in their PR, and especially stop focusing on individuals. I tend to agree, but if they stop using black people in their PR, they're probably going to stop hiring black people. They don't know any.
There's a God-shaped hole in many people's hearts. Unfortunately this hole has been filled with other ideas that are religious in nature, and DEI is one of them.
I had not realized this problem would exist.
In reality you got like 10% salary boost. Just take it and be happy, or send that money to people in Africa. There is no need to make it personal.
For all the energy private companies do working towards DEI, think about how easily it could be transitioned into something you don't like. If the winds blow to a falangist anti-capitalism under not catholicism but protestant sects for example, all these little HR people will suddenly be touting the reasons not to hire women and get them back in the home.
HR departments should not be cultural enforcers, and while you may enjoy it now or think positively of DEI, it can flip around just as easily to something not very nice
HR departments should not be cultural enforcers, and while you may enjoy it now or think positively of DEI, it can flip around just as easily to something not very nice
I'm a black man working at a start up for the past 3 years and about 10 YoE at various companies.
No one is forcing you to attend these meetings, at the end of the day you are there to make money for the business and solve problems. Sooner or later there might be one or two people at these meetings and leadership will 'get' the message. Usually these meetings have anonymous surveys where folks can give feedback. On the other hand, the company believes it is worth something for you to know that they are attempting a diverse work place, otherwise they wouldn't have the meeting. I assume positive intent until proven otherwise.
If you want to figure out the 'spoon feeding' issue talk to your manager about why are you selected for tasks and why others are selected for tasks. I'd also change the 'spoon feeding' to something more positive. Spoon feeding has a negative vibe, like you are a helpless little crying baby just waiting for food. But, the reality is that you built a reputation to build software and deliver it on time. The business requires your expertise for certain tasks. The other part of spoon feeding is that there is 'food.' Who makes the baby's food? The CEO? The PM? Is it possible this baby could make their own food?
Essentially, you want to understand how are certain tasks doled out. You should ask if there are certain tasks that are promotion worthy and are those tasks fairly distributed? What tasks are 'beneath' your level i.e. did you spend a quarter working on a highly esoteric distributed problem that not a damn soul cares about, did you solve that nasty race condition that's been haunting the code base for years? This can be hard to get right because some problems are much harder to solve at certain companies than others. This conversation should reveal bias and/or general lack of competence within your manager. Then you will have to figure out how to manage your manager to get what you want out of the business.
There was one point at a startup where one engineer kept getting tasked 'big' issues and he delivered on them very well. I could have interpreted this as a fault of the company but I instead saw that he is a good engineer and can communicate and deliver on business items. On the other hand, he is also being spoon fed business objectives. Again, who is making all of this delicious food??? I had to grow in another way... I had to crawl into the kitchen, play with the ingredients, burn myself, and learn how to make my own food. From scratch mind you! I objectively look at the business without any hand holding and figure out where we could be more efficient, what we would change to save costs, risks/opportunities, and come up with a strategy to deliver. A good manager should give you hints about opportunities, but genuine curiosity can be a savior. I make the food now.
On a more personal note it is nice to have allies/friends. These days it is incredibly easy for someone to do something that could be considered culturally insensitive. Not every interpersonal issue needs to go to HR. Sometimes it's nice to talk to a trusted colleague something that only your religion/race/upbringing would understand.
Having worked at large enterprises and small enterprises I have witnessed and experienced a fair share of soft racism, weird random microaggressions/gaslighting, and people randomly being unpromotable/uncoachable/unhireable despite checking all of the boxes.
In conclusion I decided to focus on me, my work, my own personal growth as engineer, and protecting my mental health. These are concrete things I can measure and control.
No one is forcing you to attend these meetings, at the end of the day you are there to make money for the business and solve problems. Sooner or later there might be one or two people at these meetings and leadership will 'get' the message. Usually these meetings have anonymous surveys where folks can give feedback. On the other hand, the company believes it is worth something for you to know that they are attempting a diverse work place, otherwise they wouldn't have the meeting. I assume positive intent until proven otherwise.
If you want to figure out the 'spoon feeding' issue talk to your manager about why are you selected for tasks and why others are selected for tasks. I'd also change the 'spoon feeding' to something more positive. Spoon feeding has a negative vibe, like you are a helpless little crying baby just waiting for food. But, the reality is that you built a reputation to build software and deliver it on time. The business requires your expertise for certain tasks. The other part of spoon feeding is that there is 'food.' Who makes the baby's food? The CEO? The PM? Is it possible this baby could make their own food?
Essentially, you want to understand how are certain tasks doled out. You should ask if there are certain tasks that are promotion worthy and are those tasks fairly distributed? What tasks are 'beneath' your level i.e. did you spend a quarter working on a highly esoteric distributed problem that not a damn soul cares about, did you solve that nasty race condition that's been haunting the code base for years? This can be hard to get right because some problems are much harder to solve at certain companies than others. This conversation should reveal bias and/or general lack of competence within your manager. Then you will have to figure out how to manage your manager to get what you want out of the business.
There was one point at a startup where one engineer kept getting tasked 'big' issues and he delivered on them very well. I could have interpreted this as a fault of the company but I instead saw that he is a good engineer and can communicate and deliver on business items. On the other hand, he is also being spoon fed business objectives. Again, who is making all of this delicious food??? I had to grow in another way... I had to crawl into the kitchen, play with the ingredients, burn myself, and learn how to make my own food. From scratch mind you! I objectively look at the business without any hand holding and figure out where we could be more efficient, what we would change to save costs, risks/opportunities, and come up with a strategy to deliver. A good manager should give you hints about opportunities, but genuine curiosity can be a savior. I make the food now.
On a more personal note it is nice to have allies/friends. These days it is incredibly easy for someone to do something that could be considered culturally insensitive. Not every interpersonal issue needs to go to HR. Sometimes it's nice to talk to a trusted colleague something that only your religion/race/upbringing would understand.
Having worked at large enterprises and small enterprises I have witnessed and experienced a fair share of soft racism, weird random microaggressions/gaslighting, and people randomly being unpromotable/uncoachable/unhireable despite checking all of the boxes.
In conclusion I decided to focus on me, my work, my own personal growth as engineer, and protecting my mental health. These are concrete things I can measure and control.
And thus, hiring for diversity is just another form of discrimination.
I love DIE because I'm a quarter Black. I leverage every DIE initiative I can, in college, in software companies, everywhere I declare myself as "Black". When I finally stroll in for the first day, the HR coordinator and others are shocked that someone as White as Bill Clinton "identifies" as Black.
And we've gone full circle: it's like I need to carry a card around to show my quadroon status because it's just unbelievable. We're back to brown paper bag tests and racial purity.
And we've gone full circle: it's like I need to carry a card around to show my quadroon status because it's just unbelievable. We're back to brown paper bag tests and racial purity.
(We've told you so.)
DEI is explicitly an anti-White conspiracy that unfortunately ends with it being anti-Black/Brown outcomes, both indirectly and intentionally.
All the people that came from non-colonial countries which are innocent bystanders of these fascist DEI efforts just told all of you that are in involved: Go Suck A Dick!
> In my opinion, it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company.
They shouldn't exist at all. If DEI favored white people, it would be "problematic", and that tells you all you need to know. As if non-white people can't be successful on their own and need special treatment. Tokenizing human beings to get social-credit for your corporation is, frankly, disgusting and extremely racist.
They shouldn't exist at all. If DEI favored white people, it would be "problematic", and that tells you all you need to know. As if non-white people can't be successful on their own and need special treatment. Tokenizing human beings to get social-credit for your corporation is, frankly, disgusting and extremely racist.
You shouldn't have to do this but if you're being asked to present at the DEI townhall, you might politely but firmly ask for a different panel makeup to reflect the power the company is putting behind the effort. These initiatives should be driven by the business units, is the VP of product there, the SVP of engineering, the officers of the company, board members even???
This panel can talk about what they're doing to drive the initiative and ideally there are no DEI/People people on stage at all aside from maybe a moderator. If there is no diversity on that stage ... ask them what they're doing about it and if it's a goal for them to drive inclusion at all levels.
Also, big monthly meetings are an anti-pattern. Once high level people are participating, you will hopefully see the frequency go down and the quality go up.
This panel can talk about what they're doing to drive the initiative and ideally there are no DEI/People people on stage at all aside from maybe a moderator. If there is no diversity on that stage ... ask them what they're doing about it and if it's a goal for them to drive inclusion at all levels.
Also, big monthly meetings are an anti-pattern. Once high level people are participating, you will hopefully see the frequency go down and the quality go up.
I’ve no evidence to support this, but I strongly suspect these kind of dog-and-pony shows are a result of there simply not being enough black voices. White people want to be inclusive but they consistently fail to understand what black people actually want out of DEI… because they’re not consulting enough (or any) black people.
The best thing you can do is speak up and make sure your opinion is heard in a way that is simple and direct. Doing it on HN is fine but that won’t change your immediate situation, you need to talk to your leadership.
The best thing you can do is speak up and make sure your opinion is heard in a way that is simple and direct. Doing it on HN is fine but that won’t change your immediate situation, you need to talk to your leadership.
> because they’re not consulting enough (or any) black people
They are, problem is those black women they consult are mostly DEI people. Who are very different from the actual worker.
They are, problem is those black women they consult are mostly DEI people. Who are very different from the actual worker.
I would include that under “not consulting enough black people” but you make an important clarification & I agree with you.
Are they parading them around, or are they just good at their job?
Minority hires stick out because they look different. A fresh white hire being exceptional is just a kid being exceptional
Is a black hire being exceptional and standing out only getting the attention because he’s a minority?
Let me me a wild assumption, you are used to being the only black guy dev at your company.
Now that the company is making an effort to hire people, not just and endless stream of white people, you might feel a little threatened.
You’re no longer the special unicorn.
On the other hand companies could humanize the process more, less bureaucracy.
Minority hires stick out because they look different. A fresh white hire being exceptional is just a kid being exceptional
Is a black hire being exceptional and standing out only getting the attention because he’s a minority?
Let me me a wild assumption, you are used to being the only black guy dev at your company.
Now that the company is making an effort to hire people, not just and endless stream of white people, you might feel a little threatened.
You’re no longer the special unicorn.
On the other hand companies could humanize the process more, less bureaucracy.
> In my opinion, it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company.
That arguably defeats the real purpose of why companies go along with DEI initiatives.
First of all, a big part of companies promoting DEI initiatives is to boost a company's ESG score amongst investors like Larry Fink of BlackRock that focus on it. There's billions and billions of dollars in investment money directed just because of some peoples' hard-on for ESG scores. Courting investors well enough can be the difference between a company's survival or not.
Second of all, it feels a lot like DEI initiatives are meant to serve as a shield/insurance against ever being called names like racist. Companies are just using DEI to playact as being good people. If they ever get embroiled in some dumb scandal that presents a real risk to their business, they can just point to their DEI initiatives and act like they're doing everything they possibly can to be anti-racist.
The DEI Industry (and yes, it's an industry) goes along with this because it's a grift that's financially beneficial to them.
That arguably defeats the real purpose of why companies go along with DEI initiatives.
First of all, a big part of companies promoting DEI initiatives is to boost a company's ESG score amongst investors like Larry Fink of BlackRock that focus on it. There's billions and billions of dollars in investment money directed just because of some peoples' hard-on for ESG scores. Courting investors well enough can be the difference between a company's survival or not.
Second of all, it feels a lot like DEI initiatives are meant to serve as a shield/insurance against ever being called names like racist. Companies are just using DEI to playact as being good people. If they ever get embroiled in some dumb scandal that presents a real risk to their business, they can just point to their DEI initiatives and act like they're doing everything they possibly can to be anti-racist.
The DEI Industry (and yes, it's an industry) goes along with this because it's a grift that's financially beneficial to them.
> However, when I have to join a cheesy townhall once a month to discuss diversity hires, it makes me feel like I have no right to feel proud of any accomplishments I've made within the company.
DEI doesn't prescribe monthly townhalls about to discuss diversity lol Why are you blaming the failings of your company on DEI?
DEI doesn't prescribe monthly townhalls about to discuss diversity lol Why are you blaming the failings of your company on DEI?
However, when I have to join a cheesy townhall once a month to discuss diversity hires, it makes me feel like I have no right to feel proud of any accomplishments I've made within the company.
"Why should I feel proud of my accomplishments, when the accomplishments were spoon-fed to me by the company because of my skin color? If I were a white man with the same experience, I might not even be here?"
In my opinion, it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company. Diversity is able to be seen. If you're actually a diverse company, then people will notice.
I could understand publishing a quarterly report, but creating townhall meetings and parading your black/brown employees around like show ponies is nothing short of corporate virtue signaling.
I realize this isn't the type of content posted to HN usually, and I realize it is in 'rant' territory, but I know a lot of managers in a lot of influential companies hangout here, so I figured posting this could spark some meaningful discussion.