Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub(github.com)
github.com
Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub
https://github.com/blog/2176-diversity-and-inclusion-at-github
245 comments
> The United States is the only place I have seen where people invest a considerable amount of time and resources just to put people from minor groups or specific genders in pedestals just to please other people.
It's not "just to please other people"; it's to attempt to counteract the institutionalized discrimination against minorities that exists throughout the country.
Studies have shown[1] that, for example, people with "White-sounding" names get more responses from job applications than people with "Black-sounding" names, even when the resumes sent in are identical.
[1]: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/...
It's not "just to please other people"; it's to attempt to counteract the institutionalized discrimination against minorities that exists throughout the country.
Studies have shown[1] that, for example, people with "White-sounding" names get more responses from job applications than people with "Black-sounding" names, even when the resumes sent in are identical.
[1]: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/...
> it's to attempt to counteract the institutionalized discrimination against minorities that exists throughout the country.
No. The reason companies hire in this way is to defend against discrimination lawsuits. The Supreme Court already decided against the principle you're describing in the ruling of the Bakke case.
No. The reason companies hire in this way is to defend against discrimination lawsuits. The Supreme Court already decided against the principle you're describing in the ruling of the Bakke case.
> The reason companies hire in this way is to defend against discrimination lawsuits.
That sounds like maybe a broader statement that you intended... Certainly not every company has that plan. Are you talking about a specific kind of company?
That sounds like maybe a broader statement that you intended... Certainly not every company has that plan. Are you talking about a specific kind of company?
Perhaps "protect against potential lawsuits" is a better phrasing. Fear of accusations of disparate impact hiring is very real for HR, not to mention the negative press even if you beat the charges. In the specific case of Github, fallout from the Horvath fiasco. Better to spend some resources preventatively to make sure your employee composition can reasonably help fend off attacks.
I understand the kind of company you are talking about, I was just asking if you really intended to say that all companies are like that, or if you are talking about a specific kind of company. In my experience people don't generally think about potential lawsuits all that much. I'm only curious because you must have experience in a different kind of company than me.
I'm gently trying to encourage you to narrow your statement because it is too broad to make sense to me.
I'm gently trying to encourage you to narrow your statement because it is too broad to make sense to me.
I am not privy to what goes on inside secret meetings of the C suite, but as a tech employee who also owns a side business (non tech) with a couple of partners who've run other businesses, protecting yourself from lawsuits is always a concern. My guess is, if you ever find yourself in a casual conversation with someone in HR you will get an affirmative answer as to whether candidates' diversity in their non-necessary attributes (e.g. sex, ethnicity, country of origin, religion) are considered assets to the company beyond their relevance to qualifications to do the job for the sake of EEOC. No, I won't narrow the statement any further, but I will disclose that I work in a major and "politically liberal" metropolitan area in the USA. Granted, it may be less so in areas with a more homogeneous population, but I'd wager there's still even a concern even with regards to ageism.
thank you, that is really helpful context for me!
I'd agree with that. When I've been a hiring manager, I've definitely gone to a lot of trouble to "attempt to counteract the institutionalized discrimination against minorities". Lawsuits were never my worry.
[deleted]
"Institutional racism,"(has it undergone re-branding as "institutionalized discrimination"?) is this vague, boogey-man term used as an explanation of last resort to explain the "achievement gap," among other divergences between the races.
The thing is, there is tenuous evidence at best for "institutional racism," and in nowhere near the quantity that would be needed to account for all of its supposed effects. Indeed to the contrary we've had decades of policies seeking parity between between certain segments of society on various measures, and yet the gaps remain virtually unchanged.
There are other exceedingly more plausible explanations for the "achievement gap" and the other divergences. But people in certain segments of polite society have a nasty habit of trying to ruin the lives of anyone who so much as mutters these other explanations.
For the "institutional racism" proponents...
Has anyone attempted to explain why all this "institutional racism" seems to be working to such great benefit for north-east Asians in the US, who consistently rank above the supposed "evil white oppressors" in various socio-economic metrics?
Or why we see common patterns of achievement and behavior between races across societies with wildly different institutional histories?
The thing is, there is tenuous evidence at best for "institutional racism," and in nowhere near the quantity that would be needed to account for all of its supposed effects. Indeed to the contrary we've had decades of policies seeking parity between between certain segments of society on various measures, and yet the gaps remain virtually unchanged.
There are other exceedingly more plausible explanations for the "achievement gap" and the other divergences. But people in certain segments of polite society have a nasty habit of trying to ruin the lives of anyone who so much as mutters these other explanations.
For the "institutional racism" proponents...
Has anyone attempted to explain why all this "institutional racism" seems to be working to such great benefit for north-east Asians in the US, who consistently rank above the supposed "evil white oppressors" in various socio-economic metrics?
Or why we see common patterns of achievement and behavior between races across societies with wildly different institutional histories?
Please enlighten the rest of us with what the more plausible explanations are.
"Institutional racism,” also “Systemic racism,” is not a vague, bogeyman term, it has a specific and objective meaning. It can be measured and has been measured, repeatedly.
In almost every area of American life, there are measurable effects. Blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites for the same crimes. They are more likely to be sent to prison and to get longer prison sentences given the same criminal records and the same circumstances.
As is often quoted, resumes with black-sounding names get far fewer calls for interviews than resumes with white-sounding names.
These are facts, and on Hacker News we prize facts. As it is so often put when talking about things like creationism, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.”
---
What I am finding more and more is a certain type of rhetoric, I will call it “Racism Denial.” It works just like Creationism Denial and Climate Change Denial. The denialist does not approach these discussions with any good faith attempt to discuss the issues or to weigh the factors on display.
The denialist has an agenda, and the agenda is to derail progress, to disrupt any and all attempts to fix what ails the system.
This is because the denialist fears that change will hurt them personally. The creationist denies evolution, because accepting evolution means turning away from the creationist God, which means letting go of the religious fervour that they have adopted as a core part of their identity.
The climate change denier denies climate change because accepting climate change means another step towards ending certain industries and jobs. They fear the loss of their income, the dissolution and decay of their coal mining town, the loss of jobs making gasoline-powered cars and a transfer of economic wealth to places like California where they make clean electric cars.
So let me ask you: What do you personally fear from people nodding and saying “Yes, there is systemic racism in America?” What do you think you will lose? What bad things will happen to you and to America if people stop pretending there is a problem and stop blaming blacks for everything that happens to them?
Why are you trying so hard to pretend there’s nothing going on?
In almost every area of American life, there are measurable effects. Blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites for the same crimes. They are more likely to be sent to prison and to get longer prison sentences given the same criminal records and the same circumstances.
As is often quoted, resumes with black-sounding names get far fewer calls for interviews than resumes with white-sounding names.
These are facts, and on Hacker News we prize facts. As it is so often put when talking about things like creationism, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.”
---
What I am finding more and more is a certain type of rhetoric, I will call it “Racism Denial.” It works just like Creationism Denial and Climate Change Denial. The denialist does not approach these discussions with any good faith attempt to discuss the issues or to weigh the factors on display.
The denialist has an agenda, and the agenda is to derail progress, to disrupt any and all attempts to fix what ails the system.
This is because the denialist fears that change will hurt them personally. The creationist denies evolution, because accepting evolution means turning away from the creationist God, which means letting go of the religious fervour that they have adopted as a core part of their identity.
The climate change denier denies climate change because accepting climate change means another step towards ending certain industries and jobs. They fear the loss of their income, the dissolution and decay of their coal mining town, the loss of jobs making gasoline-powered cars and a transfer of economic wealth to places like California where they make clean electric cars.
So let me ask you: What do you personally fear from people nodding and saying “Yes, there is systemic racism in America?” What do you think you will lose? What bad things will happen to you and to America if people stop pretending there is a problem and stop blaming blacks for everything that happens to them?
Why are you trying so hard to pretend there’s nothing going on?
As is often quoted, resumes with black-sounding names get far fewer calls for interviews than resumes with white-sounding names.
That is an oft-cited conclusion from an old study that has not been reproduced in the tech industry (the classic one is http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873, a 2003 study in Boston and Chicago where they submitted resumes based on newspaper ads), where there is a devastating lack of supply and vicious competition for minority candidates.
Someone should repro this in tech, though, it would be quite useful to know how things look here and now!
That is an oft-cited conclusion from an old study that has not been reproduced in the tech industry (the classic one is http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873, a 2003 study in Boston and Chicago where they submitted resumes based on newspaper ads), where there is a devastating lack of supply and vicious competition for minority candidates.
Someone should repro this in tech, though, it would be quite useful to know how things look here and now!
> where there is a devastating lack of supply and vicious competition for minority candidates
My guess is that if this is true at all, it's true only for a relatively small number of prominent companies, and that it has only recently become true. There's certainly a lot of public discussion, but I suspect it only weakly correlates with private discussion at most tech companies, and that in turn weakly correlates with actual action.
Like you, I'd like to see it reproduced. A few years back, when bias-denial was more entrenched, I paid a researcher a few thousand dollars to look at reproducing it. It's certainly doable, but there are a number of challenges, and ultimately I decided it wouldn't move the discussion forward as much as I hoped; the denialists and the foot-draggers would just pick nits or find something else to use as a shield. And the people who understand the problem don't really need more proof.
But if you (or anybody (or a coalition of anybodies)) would like to drop $20-50k on doing a tech-specific version of this, drop me a line and I can put you in touch with researchers and share my notes.
My guess is that if this is true at all, it's true only for a relatively small number of prominent companies, and that it has only recently become true. There's certainly a lot of public discussion, but I suspect it only weakly correlates with private discussion at most tech companies, and that in turn weakly correlates with actual action.
Like you, I'd like to see it reproduced. A few years back, when bias-denial was more entrenched, I paid a researcher a few thousand dollars to look at reproducing it. It's certainly doable, but there are a number of challenges, and ultimately I decided it wouldn't move the discussion forward as much as I hoped; the denialists and the foot-draggers would just pick nits or find something else to use as a shield. And the people who understand the problem don't really need more proof.
But if you (or anybody (or a coalition of anybodies)) would like to drop $20-50k on doing a tech-specific version of this, drop me a line and I can put you in touch with researchers and share my notes.
Another interesting parallel, is the people who turn up on articles about renewable energy to tell you that wind power doesn't work, that it kills birds, that it uses more carbon than it saves etc. And then it becomes clear they don't believe in climate change, and that is what drives their involvement in the conversation. This then makes their opinions on how best to solve climate change a bit suspect at best.
Similarly, if you believe that racism doesn't exist or (subtly different) that some races are simply inferior and thus deserve a lowly place in society, then your list of talking points on the horrors of affirmative action ring very hollow.
Similarly, if you believe that racism doesn't exist or (subtly different) that some races are simply inferior and thus deserve a lowly place in society, then your list of talking points on the horrors of affirmative action ring very hollow.
> What I am finding more and more is a certain type of rhetoric, I will call it “Racism Denial.”
That's an excellent name for it. What I find especially frustrating about it is how it's dressed up in a search for objective truth. However, the only kind of evidence they want is the kind that proves racism. They never appear to search for evidence for the opposite proposition, that racism does not exist. That's always their given, their ground, their unquestioned assumption.
In the broader historical context, that's ridiculous. The US's history is enormously racist. We fought an entire civil war over whether black people were actually people. The racism denialists are in effect claiming that on some unspecified date in history, all of that racism evaporated and left no trace in heart, mind, or law. That's the proposition I think we should be demanding evidence for.
That's an excellent name for it. What I find especially frustrating about it is how it's dressed up in a search for objective truth. However, the only kind of evidence they want is the kind that proves racism. They never appear to search for evidence for the opposite proposition, that racism does not exist. That's always their given, their ground, their unquestioned assumption.
In the broader historical context, that's ridiculous. The US's history is enormously racist. We fought an entire civil war over whether black people were actually people. The racism denialists are in effect claiming that on some unspecified date in history, all of that racism evaporated and left no trace in heart, mind, or law. That's the proposition I think we should be demanding evidence for.
The US's history is enormously racist. We fought an entire civil war over whether black people were actually people. The racism denialists are in effect claiming that on some unspecified date in history, all of that racism evaporated and left no trace in heart, mind, or law. That's the proposition I think we should be demanding evidence for.
What explains the similarity in crime rates, test scores, achievement, SES, between Africans in the US, England, and Sweden? 2 of the 3 having no history of enslaving Africans.
What explains the similarity in crime rates, test scores, achievement, SES, between Africans in the US, England, and Sweden? 2 of the 3 having no history of enslaving Africans.
Yes, that's exactly the sort of racism-denialist burden-shifting that I am talking about. Thank you for demonstrating it so neatly.
You're taking observations(one of them isn't even a factual observation[0]) and then a priori assigning a cause, "systemic racism," to those observations. That is not how facts, or rational, coherent reasoning works.
[0] Races aren't arrested at different rates for the same crimes, race percentage in victim reports match race percentage in arrests.
Drug arrest rate appear to vary as the result of compound charges, i.e. while being arrested for another crime, blacks happen to have drugs on them. Because blacks commit some crimes at a much higher rate than whites the drug numbers look biased without this context.
---
Reread the questions and arguments I posed, then if you want to respond to them, ok, but otherwise don't waste my time.
[0] Races aren't arrested at different rates for the same crimes, race percentage in victim reports match race percentage in arrests.
Drug arrest rate appear to vary as the result of compound charges, i.e. while being arrested for another crime, blacks happen to have drugs on them. Because blacks commit some crimes at a much higher rate than whites the drug numbers look biased without this context.
---
Reread the questions and arguments I posed, then if you want to respond to them, ok, but otherwise don't waste my time.
Your entire argument is based on a false dichotomy. You say “There is no racism, everything can be explained by black people” and then try to demonstrate that black people have some problem or other.
But this is like saying that a road cannot be unsafe, look, here are statistics showing that some of the people who drive are drunk.
You trying to demonstrate that black people this or black people that in aggregate does not in any way invalidate the proposition that there is systemic racism.
Racism is, quite simply, when individuals are not judged on their merits, but on their membership in a class. If you say to me that statistically this or that or the other thing about American Blacks, that does not in any way say that individuals are not being judged and incurring negative opportunities because of their being black.
If anything, the message you are putting out is, “Yes, there is racism, but look, here is why it is justified.” I have debunked this argument before, and I won’t waste my time retyping the entire thing out.
“Racism is Socially Engineered Injustice:” http://braythwayt.com/2016/03/30/racism-is-injustice.html
And you are definitely attempting to socially engineer injustice. Witness the fact that in this alleged rebuttal, you ignored the major accusation I made: That you are denying racism exists.
What you did id completely ignore that and go back to trying to prattle on about how bad black people are. So I charge you again: Why are you so invested in getting people to believe that there is no racism?
What are you working so hard to prevent?
But this is like saying that a road cannot be unsafe, look, here are statistics showing that some of the people who drive are drunk.
You trying to demonstrate that black people this or black people that in aggregate does not in any way invalidate the proposition that there is systemic racism.
Racism is, quite simply, when individuals are not judged on their merits, but on their membership in a class. If you say to me that statistically this or that or the other thing about American Blacks, that does not in any way say that individuals are not being judged and incurring negative opportunities because of their being black.
If anything, the message you are putting out is, “Yes, there is racism, but look, here is why it is justified.” I have debunked this argument before, and I won’t waste my time retyping the entire thing out.
“Racism is Socially Engineered Injustice:” http://braythwayt.com/2016/03/30/racism-is-injustice.html
And you are definitely attempting to socially engineer injustice. Witness the fact that in this alleged rebuttal, you ignored the major accusation I made: That you are denying racism exists.
What you did id completely ignore that and go back to trying to prattle on about how bad black people are. So I charge you again: Why are you so invested in getting people to believe that there is no racism?
What are you working so hard to prevent?
When riding a bike, I think it is wise to judge the class "car drivers on Saturday night," different than the class "car drivers on Tuesday afternoon," because "car drivers on Saturday night" are more likely to be drunk.
I ignored all the stuff where you went off the rails and started making wacky accusations, or whatever, it wasn't particularly clear...
My only mention of blacks was in showing how the talking point of "arrested more often for the same crimes(drug possession)" doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you consider how often those drug crimes are occurring in combination with other more serious crimes. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to talk in aggregate, since that is what you were doing in relaying that faulty stat.
that does not in any way say that individuals are not being judged and incurring negative opportunities because of their being black.
Whether that is occurring and to what degree cannot be said. Even if it could, what do you want to do about it? You can't just re-education camp everyone until they meet your standards.
Human nature doesn't work that way. But maybe you can take solace in knowing that biases may present themselves not just about racial groups. Saturday night drivers may be judged differently than other days, men may be judged more suspiciously around small children than women, investments more likely to return money may be judged as more favorable places to put money.
This is clearly a personal issue for you. I think we agree that we both want the best for all people.
My feeling is that for a harmonious society with integrity, we need to ascribe to phenomena, causes for which there is clear evidence for a causal relationship.
If you want to ascribe "institutional racism" as the cause to certain phenomena, but the observation can be made that those same phenomena exist in environments without the institutions you are blaming, Mexican performance in Mexico vs the USA for example, then the "institutional racism" theory doesn't hold water.
But even without that avenue to negate, you would still need significant evidence to validate the "institutional racism" theory. You can't just say, "I've observed Phenomenon B, and I've theorized Cause A, so A must cause B."
Decrying "institutional racism" as this kind of ambiguous, universal menace doesn't help anybody. First you would need clear evidence of it. Then it wouldn't be ambiguous, then you could solve the problem. You can't solve ambiguous problems, they need to be specific.
If you can't even lay out clear unambiguous evidence for the problem you are trying solve, then how will you know when it is solved? What are you fighting for?
I ignored all the stuff where you went off the rails and started making wacky accusations, or whatever, it wasn't particularly clear...
My only mention of blacks was in showing how the talking point of "arrested more often for the same crimes(drug possession)" doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you consider how often those drug crimes are occurring in combination with other more serious crimes. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to talk in aggregate, since that is what you were doing in relaying that faulty stat.
that does not in any way say that individuals are not being judged and incurring negative opportunities because of their being black.
Whether that is occurring and to what degree cannot be said. Even if it could, what do you want to do about it? You can't just re-education camp everyone until they meet your standards.
Human nature doesn't work that way. But maybe you can take solace in knowing that biases may present themselves not just about racial groups. Saturday night drivers may be judged differently than other days, men may be judged more suspiciously around small children than women, investments more likely to return money may be judged as more favorable places to put money.
This is clearly a personal issue for you. I think we agree that we both want the best for all people.
My feeling is that for a harmonious society with integrity, we need to ascribe to phenomena, causes for which there is clear evidence for a causal relationship.
If you want to ascribe "institutional racism" as the cause to certain phenomena, but the observation can be made that those same phenomena exist in environments without the institutions you are blaming, Mexican performance in Mexico vs the USA for example, then the "institutional racism" theory doesn't hold water.
But even without that avenue to negate, you would still need significant evidence to validate the "institutional racism" theory. You can't just say, "I've observed Phenomenon B, and I've theorized Cause A, so A must cause B."
Decrying "institutional racism" as this kind of ambiguous, universal menace doesn't help anybody. First you would need clear evidence of it. Then it wouldn't be ambiguous, then you could solve the problem. You can't solve ambiguous problems, they need to be specific.
If you can't even lay out clear unambiguous evidence for the problem you are trying solve, then how will you know when it is solved? What are you fighting for?
[deleted]
>Has anyone attempted to explain why all this "institutional racism" seems to be working to such great benefit for north-east Asians in the US, who consistently rank above the supposed "evil white oppressors" in various socio-economic metrics?
Since others are picking apart your argument in the large, I'll just add this. Institutional racism, though it continues to manifest in the present, can only be fully understood through history: the extremely racist practices and policies of past generations of Americans have had compounding effects through time on the populations subjected to them. Regarding Asian American immigrants, the vast majority of them have only arrived since the 1960s[0], so they've had much less time to be dragged down by systemic racism. And additionally, the fact that they are lighter of skin tone tends to make them a less targeted group by racist actors.
>Or why we see common patterns of achievement and behavior between races across societies with wildly different institutional histories?
Who is 'we' and what exactly do 'we see'??? I'm dying to know.
[0]http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/asian-immigrants-unit...
Since others are picking apart your argument in the large, I'll just add this. Institutional racism, though it continues to manifest in the present, can only be fully understood through history: the extremely racist practices and policies of past generations of Americans have had compounding effects through time on the populations subjected to them. Regarding Asian American immigrants, the vast majority of them have only arrived since the 1960s[0], so they've had much less time to be dragged down by systemic racism. And additionally, the fact that they are lighter of skin tone tends to make them a less targeted group by racist actors.
>Or why we see common patterns of achievement and behavior between races across societies with wildly different institutional histories?
Who is 'we' and what exactly do 'we see'??? I'm dying to know.
[0]http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/asian-immigrants-unit...
Since others are picking apart your argument in the large
Ha! No one else has even evidenced reading the post, I applaud you for seeming to have at least read it.
so they've had much less time to be dragged down by systemic racism.
They're not being "dragged down" at all, they're being "pushed up." There is no reason to think that given enough time they will eventually be dragged down.
There is not some race in the US conspiring to keep other races down given enough time. I'd imagine any race accussed of such a thing would find it highly offensive.
Far be it from me to make the accusation, but there is precedent to say that Asians and Jews are oppressing everyone else in the US because of their greater average income, and because they hold "high prestige" positions in proportionally greater numbers.
There is no evidence for societal wide mechanisms keeping particular races down. People looks at measurements, see differences, then try to blame the measuring stick, i.e. society for the differences.
the fact that they are lighter of skin tone tends to make them a less targeted group by racist actors.
That doesn't even sound like the way people like to imagine "institutional racism." I thought the whole point was that there is no conscious targetting and not anyone particular actor but society as a whole in some fuzzy, unspecified way is to blame.
Who is 'we' and what exactly do 'we see'??? I'm dying to know.
I don't get this tone here.
We is anyone who looks, what we see is similarity in crime rates, test scores, achievement, SES, income, etc. anything people in the US try to ascribe to "institutional racism." Yet we see similar metrics and behavior in countries with different institutional histories, and in the countries where these US minorities originate.
Ha! No one else has even evidenced reading the post, I applaud you for seeming to have at least read it.
so they've had much less time to be dragged down by systemic racism.
They're not being "dragged down" at all, they're being "pushed up." There is no reason to think that given enough time they will eventually be dragged down.
There is not some race in the US conspiring to keep other races down given enough time. I'd imagine any race accussed of such a thing would find it highly offensive.
Far be it from me to make the accusation, but there is precedent to say that Asians and Jews are oppressing everyone else in the US because of their greater average income, and because they hold "high prestige" positions in proportionally greater numbers.
There is no evidence for societal wide mechanisms keeping particular races down. People looks at measurements, see differences, then try to blame the measuring stick, i.e. society for the differences.
the fact that they are lighter of skin tone tends to make them a less targeted group by racist actors.
That doesn't even sound like the way people like to imagine "institutional racism." I thought the whole point was that there is no conscious targetting and not anyone particular actor but society as a whole in some fuzzy, unspecified way is to blame.
Who is 'we' and what exactly do 'we see'??? I'm dying to know.
I don't get this tone here.
We is anyone who looks, what we see is similarity in crime rates, test scores, achievement, SES, income, etc. anything people in the US try to ascribe to "institutional racism." Yet we see similar metrics and behavior in countries with different institutional histories, and in the countries where these US minorities originate.
If you're going to call out people for not reading your post, at least have the courage to answer my response to your initial post.
> It's not "just to please other people"; it's to attempt to counteract the institutionalized discrimination against minorities that exists throughout the country.
Your counterpoint to that quote can itself be reduced to "just to please other people," for what it's worth; it just slightly changes who the "people" are and what "pleasing" means, if you really think about it. Perhaps you and GP don't entirely disagree, depending on how one interprets things.
Important: I am not stating an opinion on this because I know better in these threads. That is an merely an observation on the observation.
Your counterpoint to that quote can itself be reduced to "just to please other people," for what it's worth; it just slightly changes who the "people" are and what "pleasing" means, if you really think about it. Perhaps you and GP don't entirely disagree, depending on how one interprets things.
Important: I am not stating an opinion on this because I know better in these threads. That is an merely an observation on the observation.
Given the widespread use of pro-black affirmative-action (practiced by GitHub, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft; nearly every major university; many government contractors; and probably the majority of F500 companies), isn't it only logical to view black resumes with more suspicion? Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites.
On a side note, affirmative action policies ultimately help middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites. The upper-class whites who push for affirmative action are not affected by it, and neither are their children.
Helping middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites is a prime example of virtue signaling gone awry.
On a side note, affirmative action policies ultimately help middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites. The upper-class whites who push for affirmative action are not affected by it, and neither are their children.
Helping middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites is a prime example of virtue signaling gone awry.
Affirmative action, as commonly practiced for university admissions, don't hurt whites at all. They primarily hurt Asian-American applicants.
> Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites.
The scientific consensus is that the opposite is true, that black people need to display higher competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites, which is precisely why affirmative action is hoped to be valuable. See "Social Justice for the Highly-Demanding of Rigor" for a meta-analysis of over a dozen separate scientific studies: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/20/social-justice-for-the-...
The scientific consensus is that the opposite is true, that black people need to display higher competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites, which is precisely why affirmative action is hoped to be valuable. See "Social Justice for the Highly-Demanding of Rigor" for a meta-analysis of over a dozen separate scientific studies: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/20/social-justice-for-the-...
That article does not refute what I'm saying.
By the 1990s, affirmative action was already in full swing. Universities and large companies were already on board, as was the federal government and many state and local governments.
Additionally, by the 1990s, the national media had been very sympathetic to affirmative action policies for at least 20 years—you would have been hard-pressed to find a single American who didn't know those policies existed. So it was already perfectly reasonable (and expected) for a profit-seeking non-racist [1] to view black resumes with more suspicion.
[1]: And indeed, the studies mentioned in the article showed that blacks and whites exhibited the same bias toward black resumes.
Furthermore, regarding the studies mentioned in the article, there are some important question that need answering (by someone who has access):
1. To which employers did the subjects apply?
2. How were those employers selected?
3. Did any of those employers have pro-black affirmative action policies?
4. If the studies did include employers with pro-black affirmative action policies, how heavily were those employers represented in terms of applications? This is important: even if only 2% of employers have pro-black affirmative action policies (a number far too low), those employers might employ (directly or indirectly) 60% of Americans.
By the 1990s, affirmative action was already in full swing. Universities and large companies were already on board, as was the federal government and many state and local governments.
Additionally, by the 1990s, the national media had been very sympathetic to affirmative action policies for at least 20 years—you would have been hard-pressed to find a single American who didn't know those policies existed. So it was already perfectly reasonable (and expected) for a profit-seeking non-racist [1] to view black resumes with more suspicion.
[1]: And indeed, the studies mentioned in the article showed that blacks and whites exhibited the same bias toward black resumes.
Furthermore, regarding the studies mentioned in the article, there are some important question that need answering (by someone who has access):
1. To which employers did the subjects apply?
2. How were those employers selected?
3. Did any of those employers have pro-black affirmative action policies?
4. If the studies did include employers with pro-black affirmative action policies, how heavily were those employers represented in terms of applications? This is important: even if only 2% of employers have pro-black affirmative action policies (a number far too low), those employers might employ (directly or indirectly) 60% of Americans.
It's a direct counterargument to what you're saying.
You're saying that due to 20 years of affirmative action policies where a black person who is less competent than a white person is able to put an identical item on their resume, it's reasonable to expect that a black person with an identical resume as a white person is less competent. Is that a mischaracterization?
I said that the scientific consensus is that the opposite is true, that a black person has to be more competent to be able to put an identical item on their resume. Therefore affirmative action when considering resumes is reasonable.
> ... non-racist [1] ... [1]: And indeed, the studies mentioned in the article showed that blacks and whites exhibited the same bias toward black resumes.
This is generally taken to mean that black people are just as racist as white people, just like women can be just as sexist as men. I'm not sure why you're concluding that non-racists can be racially biased (which seems to me like a contradiction in terms).
> Furthermore, regarding the studies mentioned in the article, there are some important question that need answering
What answers to those questions would change your mind, and what answers do you believe should change my mind?
You're saying that due to 20 years of affirmative action policies where a black person who is less competent than a white person is able to put an identical item on their resume, it's reasonable to expect that a black person with an identical resume as a white person is less competent. Is that a mischaracterization?
I said that the scientific consensus is that the opposite is true, that a black person has to be more competent to be able to put an identical item on their resume. Therefore affirmative action when considering resumes is reasonable.
> ... non-racist [1] ... [1]: And indeed, the studies mentioned in the article showed that blacks and whites exhibited the same bias toward black resumes.
This is generally taken to mean that black people are just as racist as white people, just like women can be just as sexist as men. I'm not sure why you're concluding that non-racists can be racially biased (which seems to me like a contradiction in terms).
> Furthermore, regarding the studies mentioned in the article, there are some important question that need answering
What answers to those questions would change your mind, and what answers do you believe should change my mind?
> On a side note, affirmative action policies ultimately help middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites. The upper-class whites who push for affirmative action are not affected by it, and neither are their children.
Data to back that up?
> isn't it only logical to view black resumes with more suspicion? Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites.
No, that's against the law (in the US).
Data to back that up?
> isn't it only logical to view black resumes with more suspicion? Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites.
No, that's against the law (in the US).
> You will (probably) never see such thing in Latin American because no one cares why color your skin is or what gender you identify with in order to get a specific job.
That is not true.
Racism (and other forms of discrimination) exist in South/Latin America. It's just very well hidden. It does not exist in discourse, but profiling is blatant and in many ways even accepted. I'd argue that it's so culturally entrenched that even discussing it is crazy talk. People just like to assume it's not there, and even minorities seem to assume it's a given that they're mistreated. But it exists in very acute ways.
That is not true.
Racism (and other forms of discrimination) exist in South/Latin America. It's just very well hidden. It does not exist in discourse, but profiling is blatant and in many ways even accepted. I'd argue that it's so culturally entrenched that even discussing it is crazy talk. People just like to assume it's not there, and even minorities seem to assume it's a given that they're mistreated. But it exists in very acute ways.
It's complete BS. Even anti-semitism in South America is through the roof.
"A 2011 poll conducted by the Gino Germani Research Institute of the University of Buenos Aires on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League and Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas showed that a majority of Argentines held anti-semitic sentiments or prejudices. Of the 1,510 Argentines surveyed, 82% agreed with statements "that Jews are preoccupied with making money," 49% said that they "talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust", 68% said that they have "too much power in the business world", and 22% said that the Jews killed Jesus. The majority of people interviewed also expressed belief that Jews are more loyal to Israel than their country of birth"[0]
[0] http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Study-reve...
"A 2011 poll conducted by the Gino Germani Research Institute of the University of Buenos Aires on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League and Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas showed that a majority of Argentines held anti-semitic sentiments or prejudices. Of the 1,510 Argentines surveyed, 82% agreed with statements "that Jews are preoccupied with making money," 49% said that they "talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust", 68% said that they have "too much power in the business world", and 22% said that the Jews killed Jesus. The majority of people interviewed also expressed belief that Jews are more loyal to Israel than their country of birth"[0]
[0] http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Study-reve...
I've known a number of people from various Latin American countries, and am married to one of them, and they've pretty consistently report that racism is a feature of society there, though the particular forms vary. Anti-black racism is apparently significant in many parts of Latin America, as is (though not separate in the same places) anti-indigenous racism.
Just the other day I read a comment on HN, I think, about how in Mexico there is racial stratification between light and dark-skinned people, and how they even have different ways of speaking. The point was that people can tell immediately which class you are in and act accordingly.
So, yeah, I think this is a (bad) feature of humans everywhere, not just the US.
So, yeah, I think this is a (bad) feature of humans everywhere, not just the US.
An Indian colleague of mine told me that she felt it was the same in India with respect to the caste system (she was born a Brahmin). She said she could tell from the way people spoke what caste they were from.
When I hear folks from India talk about the caste system, it sounds very similar to how people in the US talk about racism against blacks.
When I hear folks from India talk about the caste system, it sounds very similar to how people in the US talk about racism against blacks.
No, you cannot tell what caste a person is by the way they talk. There are 800+ languages and thousand of dialects in India. On an average the dialect changes every 7 kilometer is any direction. You cannot also visually tell the difference between high/low caste.
The best indicator is last name and hence social strata (centuries of exploitation has left them 'backward'). There are plenty of 'backward caste' people in high position and extremely rich.
Though racism and casteism have similar effects they are not the same
The best indicator is last name and hence social strata (centuries of exploitation has left them 'backward'). There are plenty of 'backward caste' people in high position and extremely rich.
Though racism and casteism have similar effects they are not the same
> No, you cannot tell what caste a person is by the way they talk.
That is your belief and experience. I was trying to point out that some people from India feel that the opposite is true.
I have no knowledge of the caste system other than what people have told me from their own experience of being Indian.
That is your belief and experience. I was trying to point out that some people from India feel that the opposite is true.
I have no knowledge of the caste system other than what people have told me from their own experience of being Indian.
Skin whitening products are sold in India and advertised on television. https://www.fairandlovely.in/
Yep, just like in the US.
> You will (probably) never see such thing in Latin American because no one cares why color your skin is or what gender you identify with in order to get a specific job.
Are you aware that Brazil, the largest South American country, imported more slaves than anyone else? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil
I find it extremely hard to believe that racism does not exist in Latin or South America.
Are you aware that Brazil, the largest South American country, imported more slaves than anyone else? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil
I find it extremely hard to believe that racism does not exist in Latin or South America.
I am originally from Peru and yeah, people over there are very racist against the mountain/native people so much that people try to get away from their native heritage very often. A white skinned person with a European name and/or complexion has way more opportunities and an easier life.
That said, GP may not feel this way because racism in those countries (well, mine at least) is not called out often like it's in the US, so it doesn't feel like it's a problem because no one gets in trouble or protests it.
That said, GP may not feel this way because racism in those countries (well, mine at least) is not called out often like it's in the US, so it doesn't feel like it's a problem because no one gets in trouble or protests it.
I'm an American born to a Brazilian father and American mother and I can confirm that racism is more than alive and well down there.
At least where the paternal half of my family is from (the northeast)
At least where the paternal half of my family is from (the northeast)
Companies want to be in a possition where if a talented candidate is african american, female, gay, transgender, ect. that they wouldn't turn down the offer simply because they didn't feel comfortable working there/there is another company that is more diverse that makes this kind of person more comfortable there.
The talent war is so competitive that companies are doing everything they can to keep up, including diversity blog posts.
The talent war is so competitive that companies are doing everything they can to keep up, including diversity blog posts.
I still find the whole "talent war is so competitive" statement a bit of a hype. Is there any data on this? There are millions of Engineers in the US.
But the flip side of that is that talent not in the coddled identity class of the day will feel that they should find companies with actual important shit to focus on to work for.
I love the "too busy doing important things" argument for why nobody should spend any time thinking about diversity. Of course, deciding what is important in life is an entirely subjective matter. But just to aid in my understanding of this argument, I would be interested to hear some examples of which companies and activities constitute actual important shit.
Important things: producing a good or service that is valuable to some market and that supports the livelihoods of employees/stakeholders in an equitable way.
Not important things: disfavoring groups of people that it is currently stylish to consider as "oppressive", "problematic", or "triggering" in favor of other groups of people that are currently deemed to be "diverse", "oppressed", "modern".
Real life isn't handing out stickers to preschoolers.
Not important things: disfavoring groups of people that it is currently stylish to consider as "oppressive", "problematic", or "triggering" in favor of other groups of people that are currently deemed to be "diverse", "oppressed", "modern".
Real life isn't handing out stickers to preschoolers.
So obviously there is quite a lot of overlap between companies doing important things (by that incredibly broad definition) and companies that devote some of their resources to diversity. It's almost as if working on important things and caring about diversity are not mutually exclusive, that people/companies can care about multiple things...
I don't get why it is so irksome to you that a company would make a diversity effort. It should be irrelevant to the question of whether they are working on important things.
I would guess that you're straight, white, and male, and just don't care how achieving one's goals might be significantly more difficult for other people in the US, because you "don't have time" to consider things that don't affect your own life. Which is all well and good, really, I'm pretty much in the same boat, but I just don't understand what's so bothersome about people that do care about those things.
The words you've chosen to put in quotes are telling...the diversity effort is not a personal crusade against you. It's not about "problematic" groups of people. It's about elevating groups of people who may actually have been systemically disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Do you assert that that doesn't happen? Or just that nobody should care about it?
"Real life isn't handing out stickers to preschoolers." I don't even know what that means. Where is the Code of Real Life written? If people want to hand out stickers, why does that upset you?
I don't get why it is so irksome to you that a company would make a diversity effort. It should be irrelevant to the question of whether they are working on important things.
I would guess that you're straight, white, and male, and just don't care how achieving one's goals might be significantly more difficult for other people in the US, because you "don't have time" to consider things that don't affect your own life. Which is all well and good, really, I'm pretty much in the same boat, but I just don't understand what's so bothersome about people that do care about those things.
The words you've chosen to put in quotes are telling...the diversity effort is not a personal crusade against you. It's not about "problematic" groups of people. It's about elevating groups of people who may actually have been systemically disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Do you assert that that doesn't happen? Or just that nobody should care about it?
"Real life isn't handing out stickers to preschoolers." I don't even know what that means. Where is the Code of Real Life written? If people want to hand out stickers, why does that upset you?
"Do you assert that that doesn't happen?" Yes.
Many (most?) ethnic minorities are significantly more successful than whites in the US. Whites represent the largest group of people in the US living in poverty. Whites must face the entire ideology of diversity which is that they must be replaced by non-whites due to inherent moral inferiority. Wait you're right I think systematic disadvantage does happen..
Many (most?) ethnic minorities are significantly more successful than whites in the US. Whites represent the largest group of people in the US living in poverty. Whites must face the entire ideology of diversity which is that they must be replaced by non-whites due to inherent moral inferiority. Wait you're right I think systematic disadvantage does happen..
Citation needed.
I've been directly involved in hiring/interviewing under these circumstances and the idea of lowering technical standards just to meet a quota was never entertained. We simply recruited through diverse avenues. Mostly the diversity statement itself was sufficient to let potential candidates know they could apply without fear of rejection for not being "like us".
I've never actually seen evidence of active discrimination against a more qualified white candidate. Maybe it happens but it certainly isn't a result of diversity policies.
I've been directly involved in hiring/interviewing under these circumstances and the idea of lowering technical standards just to meet a quota was never entertained. We simply recruited through diverse avenues. Mostly the diversity statement itself was sufficient to let potential candidates know they could apply without fear of rejection for not being "like us".
I've never actually seen evidence of active discrimination against a more qualified white candidate. Maybe it happens but it certainly isn't a result of diversity policies.
Citation: law/med school admissions in US.
So active discrimination against an equally qualified white candidate is ok?
So active discrimination against an equally qualified white candidate is ok?
Whites represent the largest body of every class. That's kind of how numbers work.
Not as undergraduates at Harvard. Or children under 5 in the US. Or residents of London, England.
There are literally countries that have laws mandating gender representation in government. Since you don't seem invested in the topic, why not assume that GitHub has benefitted in the way that they say they have in this post?
[deleted]
I have never heard a good argument explaining how affirmative action is good for a company or society outside of college.
I personally question the legitimacy / usefulness of affirmative action, but the best argument in support of it which I have heard is that people bound their career prospects based on the individuals they observe to be occupying those roles in society. For example, if a person is female and all the software developers they see are male, perhaps they believe that software development is inherently a male job and not for them. This could then lead to a negative feedback loop where females are afraid to make the first step into the industry because no one has done it before them, and the industry misses out on people who could turn out to be very qualified workers. Affirmative seeks to break this loop.
It forces a company to try multiple approaches to hiring. E.g. having many criteria for what the company considers a good candidate.
For example, a tech company that requires college degrees for all candidates might want to loosen that, and figure out other signals that indicate strong candidates without a degree.
There's a strong tendency to hire what you know (e.g. people like you, and to interview how you've been interviewed).
For example, a tech company that requires college degrees for all candidates might want to loosen that, and figure out other signals that indicate strong candidates without a degree.
There's a strong tendency to hire what you know (e.g. people like you, and to interview how you've been interviewed).
It's not good as a general practice. It's probably a sensible imposition against companies that persistently get in relevant legal trouble.
If South Africa hadn't mandated that companies have a certain percentage of blacks in senior positions, then the economic and political power still would have been heavily lopsided towards the white minority after apartheid ended. Things aren't golden and fantastic there now, but it's still more equitable than it would have been without that affirmative action.
Europe doesn't have the sort of ingrained racism that exists in the United States. For example:
> Despite similar rates of drug use, black people are nearly four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana use,⁴ and black males are often given longer sentences for crimes than their white peers.⁵
[ from https://medium.com/@dan_nott/what-is-mass-incarceration-ff73... ]
Likewise, women tend to make significantly less money for doing the same work, in the same positions, at the same company, because of (largely) subconscious biases.
So called 'affirmative action' movements and diversity pledges are a direct response to the acknowledgement of our unconscious biases. If you know that you're 20% more likely to judge a candidate as unfit just because of the colour of their skin or the sound of their name, then that means that, over time, you're losing out on a lot of talented candidates.
Likewise, if you're less likely to fairly evaluate a woman's performance or contributions, then you're going to promote talent to positions of leadership or management less often, meaning you're not going to put your best people in those positions.
Lastly, diversity is important. You don't get anywhere by looking at only one viewpoint. Look at the state of American media right now: you have tons of content on Fox News that repeats the same few lines as facts, and they've all convinced themselves that it's true because they hear it everywhere. With that environment, why would anyone consider a different fact? When you're surrounded by people who have the same experiences with you, the same viewpoints as you, the same background as you, the same friends as you, you're never going to learn anything.
It's when we surround ourselves with people different to us that we grow and learn. We start to see things from other points of view, we learn about new experiences that we didn't have growing up. We create new collaborations that build on our different backgrounds to produce something that feels new, and not just a retreading of existing works.
In other words, the reason for forcing diversity is to both counter our own (and others') conscious and subconscious biases, as well as to ensure that you're exposing people to as many new and differing viewpoints as possible (and, in turn, taking those viewpoints seriously), so that you have more resources to build from, which makes for a more robust environment.
> Despite similar rates of drug use, black people are nearly four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana use,⁴ and black males are often given longer sentences for crimes than their white peers.⁵
[ from https://medium.com/@dan_nott/what-is-mass-incarceration-ff73... ]
Likewise, women tend to make significantly less money for doing the same work, in the same positions, at the same company, because of (largely) subconscious biases.
So called 'affirmative action' movements and diversity pledges are a direct response to the acknowledgement of our unconscious biases. If you know that you're 20% more likely to judge a candidate as unfit just because of the colour of their skin or the sound of their name, then that means that, over time, you're losing out on a lot of talented candidates.
Likewise, if you're less likely to fairly evaluate a woman's performance or contributions, then you're going to promote talent to positions of leadership or management less often, meaning you're not going to put your best people in those positions.
Lastly, diversity is important. You don't get anywhere by looking at only one viewpoint. Look at the state of American media right now: you have tons of content on Fox News that repeats the same few lines as facts, and they've all convinced themselves that it's true because they hear it everywhere. With that environment, why would anyone consider a different fact? When you're surrounded by people who have the same experiences with you, the same viewpoints as you, the same background as you, the same friends as you, you're never going to learn anything.
It's when we surround ourselves with people different to us that we grow and learn. We start to see things from other points of view, we learn about new experiences that we didn't have growing up. We create new collaborations that build on our different backgrounds to produce something that feels new, and not just a retreading of existing works.
In other words, the reason for forcing diversity is to both counter our own (and others') conscious and subconscious biases, as well as to ensure that you're exposing people to as many new and differing viewpoints as possible (and, in turn, taking those viewpoints seriously), so that you have more resources to build from, which makes for a more robust environment.
> Likewise, women tend to make significantly less money for doing the same work, in the same positions, at the same company, because of (largely) subconscious biases.
I see this everywhere, and yet no citations (and when asked, I usually get referred to someones blog - not from a respected scientist completely unaffiliated with the feminist movement). Either that or I get linked to 4 or 5 default papers which have little reference to the claim.
People need to accept that bold statements like this are absolutely not excluded from burden of proof - and what's more if you live in the UK (I expect much of Europe) it's time to speak up, it's illegal to pay less based on gender.
The usual problem with this is, that the actual fact is that women earn less than men on average. That's kind of a crazy comparison - software developers earn less on average to CEOs, on average sewage workers earn less than those in hedge funds and so on.
It assumes fairly boldly that women and men operate in equal proportions in every industry (which is false).
In another note, just by writing this I'm opening myself to someone telling me to check my privilege, which is a codified way to tell me as a white male there's some secret sauce I can't possibly know about (so should be quiet on the issue). The deepest irony is that this behaviour is exactly what the movement was designed to disassemble.
I see this everywhere, and yet no citations (and when asked, I usually get referred to someones blog - not from a respected scientist completely unaffiliated with the feminist movement). Either that or I get linked to 4 or 5 default papers which have little reference to the claim.
People need to accept that bold statements like this are absolutely not excluded from burden of proof - and what's more if you live in the UK (I expect much of Europe) it's time to speak up, it's illegal to pay less based on gender.
The usual problem with this is, that the actual fact is that women earn less than men on average. That's kind of a crazy comparison - software developers earn less on average to CEOs, on average sewage workers earn less than those in hedge funds and so on.
It assumes fairly boldly that women and men operate in equal proportions in every industry (which is false).
In another note, just by writing this I'm opening myself to someone telling me to check my privilege, which is a codified way to tell me as a white male there's some secret sauce I can't possibly know about (so should be quiet on the issue). The deepest irony is that this behaviour is exactly what the movement was designed to disassemble.
>> Likewise, women tend to make significantly less money for doing the same work, in the same positions, at the same company, because of (largely) subconscious biases.
>I see this everywhere, and yet no citations
Because this is a myth based on the infamous "women earn 0.77$ for every 1$ a man earns" statistic. Wikipedia states that the "the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers" - an utterly meaningless number that has no real value, but is great for pushing the myth the other poster has presented.
Why is it meaningless? It's because it seems that no one has the answer to the million dollar (or 0.23$, depending how you look at it) question: "can you name 10 companies that are the worst offenders in this regard". This is the 17th time I ask this question and I have yet to receive an answer. I don't think I'll ever will, though, since if it was actually as big of a problem as feminists like to claim the media wouldn't let such a juicy topic die so easily.
>I see this everywhere, and yet no citations
Because this is a myth based on the infamous "women earn 0.77$ for every 1$ a man earns" statistic. Wikipedia states that the "the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers" - an utterly meaningless number that has no real value, but is great for pushing the myth the other poster has presented.
Why is it meaningless? It's because it seems that no one has the answer to the million dollar (or 0.23$, depending how you look at it) question: "can you name 10 companies that are the worst offenders in this regard". This is the 17th time I ask this question and I have yet to receive an answer. I don't think I'll ever will, though, since if it was actually as big of a problem as feminists like to claim the media wouldn't let such a juicy topic die so easily.
I'm going to tell you to check your privilege, which is a codified way of telling you that if you were really concerned about whether there was a gender pay gap, you'd look for the research yourself instead of waiting for somebody to hand it to you. If you were either familiar with the existing research and saw flaws in it, or were familiar with better evidence that contradicted the accepted wisdom, your statements about the burden of proof would be a lot more interesting and sound a lot less like whining.
It's not the world's duty to convince you of anything. I'm not even going to refer you to a blog - go to scholar.google.com and search for "gender pay gap." Follow the citations. You should also do that if you're not sure if racism exists, or if other planets exist. Then instead of trying to one-up people on message boards when they won't do your research for you, you can lead in whatever direction your research takes you.
Also, nobody knows you're a white male on the internet until you broadcast it.
It's not the world's duty to convince you of anything. I'm not even going to refer you to a blog - go to scholar.google.com and search for "gender pay gap." Follow the citations. You should also do that if you're not sure if racism exists, or if other planets exist. Then instead of trying to one-up people on message boards when they won't do your research for you, you can lead in whatever direction your research takes you.
Also, nobody knows you're a white male on the internet until you broadcast it.
>if you were really concerned about whether there was a gender pay gap, you'd look for the research yourself instead of waiting for somebody to hand it to you.
Are you seriously expecting people to fact-check every single broad statement they come across and then come to the exact same conclusions you did?
>It's not the world's duty to convince you of anything.
It's not my duty to find arguments supporting your cause. The gender pay gap is a myth anyway. I'm not going to tell you why - go to scholar.google.com and search for "gender pay gap myth debunked." Follow the citations. You should also do that if you're not sure if racism exists, or if other planets exist. Then instead of trying to one-up people on message boards when they won't do your research for you, you can lead in whatever direction your research takes you.
Are you seriously expecting people to fact-check every single broad statement they come across and then come to the exact same conclusions you did?
>It's not the world's duty to convince you of anything.
It's not my duty to find arguments supporting your cause. The gender pay gap is a myth anyway. I'm not going to tell you why - go to scholar.google.com and search for "gender pay gap myth debunked." Follow the citations. You should also do that if you're not sure if racism exists, or if other planets exist. Then instead of trying to one-up people on message boards when they won't do your research for you, you can lead in whatever direction your research takes you.
> Europe doesn't have the sort of ingrained racism that exists in the United States
O_o
There's plenty of ingrained racism in Europe. From constant and persistent jokes about the French in the UK, to the French hamlet called "Death to Jews" that only recently changed it's name, to the consistently poor treatment of Romany people in most places, right up to the ethnic cleansing of the former Yugoslavia in recent memory, there's plenty of ingrained racism in Europe.
O_o
There's plenty of ingrained racism in Europe. From constant and persistent jokes about the French in the UK, to the French hamlet called "Death to Jews" that only recently changed it's name, to the consistently poor treatment of Romany people in most places, right up to the ethnic cleansing of the former Yugoslavia in recent memory, there's plenty of ingrained racism in Europe.
>Europe doesn't have the sort of ingrained racism that exists in the United States.
Who's throwing bananas at their black soccer players?
Who's throwing bananas at their black soccer players?
It's called football
Europe has plenty of ingrained racism. I was born there and I can tell you for a fact that racism is alive and well in Europe.
Despite similar rates of drug use, black people are nearly four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana use
This can be pretty obviously understood as the result of compound charges, of which the drug charge is a minor component.
Bear with me, facts incoming...
Black people, particularly young black males commit crimes at a much higher rate than other groups. In committing these other crimes and then being arrested, a certain percentage of them happen to have a bag of weed in their pocket, which then gets tacked on as an accessory charge.
Before anyone wants to argue about the objective and carefully tabulated crime rates. No, whites don't just get away with more of the petty, street, and violent crime we are discussing, race ratios of victim reports match those of arrests.
women tend to make significantly less money for doing the same work, in the same positions, at the same company, because of (largely) subconscious biases.
No, because of intentionally faulty statistics to calculate such things.
The gender wage gap uses bogus statistics - Christina Hoff Sommers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w
https://www.google.com/search?q=milo+wage+gap
If women are doing the same work as men and accepting significantly lower pay to do so, why aren't companies tripping over themselves in trying to hire all women staffs and significantly reduce costs?
diversity is important.
"Diversity" in the sense it is used in social policy(for some reason only in the west, no one is harping on Japan, or Saudi Arabia, or Angola about diversity) is harmful and destructive to otherwise healthy societies.
We show that ethnic diversity or fractionalization and values diversity are distinct and while the former has a negative effect on innovation, the latter contributes positively. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2015.11...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and...
Diversity DESTROYS Social Cohesion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTROCGb5qj8
"Diversity is our Strength" ^ watch that
as well as to ensure that you're exposing people to as many new and differing viewpoints as possible (and, in turn, taking those viewpoints seriously)
Actually, historically successful societies have pretty refined heuristics for what to take seriously and it has served them well.
It is absurd to say we should take all viewpoints seriously.
How are you defining 'viewpoint', and 'seriously'?
What does it mean to take seriously the viewpoints common in Islam that --
gay people should be persecuted, to the point of being thrown off buildings, stoned to death, or beheaded?
family members should kill other family members in the name of 'honor'?
murdering non-believers is acceptable?
How seriously do you take these viewpoints?
Were NASA hindered in their mission to get to the moon in the 1960s because it was a bunch of white guys with viewpoints grounded in careful observation, excelling at math and science and a kind of boundary pushing audaciousness that seems quite particular to men of European descent?
This can be pretty obviously understood as the result of compound charges, of which the drug charge is a minor component.
Bear with me, facts incoming...
Black people, particularly young black males commit crimes at a much higher rate than other groups. In committing these other crimes and then being arrested, a certain percentage of them happen to have a bag of weed in their pocket, which then gets tacked on as an accessory charge.
Before anyone wants to argue about the objective and carefully tabulated crime rates. No, whites don't just get away with more of the petty, street, and violent crime we are discussing, race ratios of victim reports match those of arrests.
women tend to make significantly less money for doing the same work, in the same positions, at the same company, because of (largely) subconscious biases.
No, because of intentionally faulty statistics to calculate such things.
The gender wage gap uses bogus statistics - Christina Hoff Sommers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w
https://www.google.com/search?q=milo+wage+gap
If women are doing the same work as men and accepting significantly lower pay to do so, why aren't companies tripping over themselves in trying to hire all women staffs and significantly reduce costs?
diversity is important.
"Diversity" in the sense it is used in social policy(for some reason only in the west, no one is harping on Japan, or Saudi Arabia, or Angola about diversity) is harmful and destructive to otherwise healthy societies.
We show that ethnic diversity or fractionalization and values diversity are distinct and while the former has a negative effect on innovation, the latter contributes positively. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2015.11...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and...
Diversity DESTROYS Social Cohesion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTROCGb5qj8
"Diversity is our Strength" ^ watch that
as well as to ensure that you're exposing people to as many new and differing viewpoints as possible (and, in turn, taking those viewpoints seriously)
Actually, historically successful societies have pretty refined heuristics for what to take seriously and it has served them well.
It is absurd to say we should take all viewpoints seriously.
How are you defining 'viewpoint', and 'seriously'?
What does it mean to take seriously the viewpoints common in Islam that --
gay people should be persecuted, to the point of being thrown off buildings, stoned to death, or beheaded?
family members should kill other family members in the name of 'honor'?
murdering non-believers is acceptable?
How seriously do you take these viewpoints?
Were NASA hindered in their mission to get to the moon in the 1960s because it was a bunch of white guys with viewpoints grounded in careful observation, excelling at math and science and a kind of boundary pushing audaciousness that seems quite particular to men of European descent?
> How are you defining 'viewpoint', and 'seriously'?
What does it mean to take seriously the viewpoints common in Islam that --
gay people should be persecuted, to the point of being thrown off buildings, stoned to death, or beheaded?
family members should kill other family members in the name of 'honor'?
Do you seriously (heh) think this is what they meant by 'viewpoint'? I have a hard time believing you didn't go out of your way to construct this monstrous strawman. It doesn't take a genius to realize that people who have had different experiences, upbringings, environments etc. will perceive the world differently. It takes a certain kind of immaturity to miss out on the value others provide in this way, though.
Do you seriously (heh) think this is what they meant by 'viewpoint'? I have a hard time believing you didn't go out of your way to construct this monstrous strawman. It doesn't take a genius to realize that people who have had different experiences, upbringings, environments etc. will perceive the world differently. It takes a certain kind of immaturity to miss out on the value others provide in this way, though.
Europe has a different type of racism though. There's a reason why the Muslims there become extremists but stuff like that almost never happens in the USA.
Among the reasons, you can walk and hitchhike from Iraq and Syria to central Europe, but not to the USA; and you have a chance (only a chance) to reach Lampedusa or Pantelleria from Lybia in a dangerously overloaded disposable boat, but not to cross the Atlantic ocean.
Muslims in the USA typically got there by plane, with a visa; this is enough to filter, from the mass of generic Muslims, non-angry respectable middle class people instead of the mostly desperate, very poor and often illegal refugees and immigrants we get in Europe.
Muslims in the USA typically got there by plane, with a visa; this is enough to filter, from the mass of generic Muslims, non-angry respectable middle class people instead of the mostly desperate, very poor and often illegal refugees and immigrants we get in Europe.
> This blog post reads to me like the Pokemon motto "Gotta Catch 'Em All".
This. It's just ridiculous. Just as racist as negative discrimination.
This. It's just ridiculous. Just as racist as negative discrimination.
The United States has a unique history with race relations, and we still haven't figured this stuff out. I think part of it is geopolitical, and related to the histories of various ethnic groups in America, which is very different from the histories both in Europe and in South America. If it were in fact the case that nobody cared what color your skin was in America, nobody would care about consciously ending that caring, either.
Remember that Europe and I think South America managed to relatively-peacefully get rid of slavery in the early- to mid-1800s (in those countries that had slavery at all). The US had an extremely fractious war about it, because half the country's economy did not work unless you exploited people's lives for free, and that part of the country morally justified it to themselves by saying that some races were more like animals than humans.
Remember that Europe and I think South America managed to relatively-peacefully get rid of slavery in the early- to mid-1800s (in those countries that had slavery at all). The US had an extremely fractious war about it, because half the country's economy did not work unless you exploited people's lives for free, and that part of the country morally justified it to themselves by saying that some races were more like animals than humans.
> You will (probably) never see such thing in Latin American because no one cares why color your skin is or what gender you identify with in order to get a specific job.
So the issue is: most companies are somewhat discriminatory by default. Left to their own devices, they'll hire people who are similar to the existing group. If you have a company made up of white men, you're going to wind up hiring more white men.
And the worst bit - when they do eventually hire someone different, they're going to keep all the little bits of culture which, while they worked as long as you all had much the same background, are harmful and distressing to people coming from other backgrounds.[0] After all, if it's one person complaining, and everyone else is OK with it, it must be that one person's fault, right?
The result of this is that once a member of a minority sees that a company is made up primarily of white men, well, it's probably not for them.
Now, at some point between anti-discrimination laws being written and now, some people decided this is not a particularly good state to be in, and a whole bunch of people spent a whole lot of effort trying to persuade society that this isn't a good thing. And hence, eventually we get to a situation where HR paper pushers and high-level managers are explicitly thinking about people's race, gender, and so on and so forth while hiring - although the law says that you have to avoid doing so.
The issue is that this really isn't what we want people to be doing, but as long as nobody's caught doing it, the law and society incentivises it. It's a better position than the one we were in - you can actually get employed in the sort of company I described above if you don't come from the same background, and you can complain if people misbehave in an egregious manner - but it's still not good enough.
What we want is for companies to signal that they're open to changing their culture to fit the needs of their employees - which of course is flipping the power dynamic on its head, but there you have it. We need companies to signal that when their employees raise an issue with how the company works on a social level, they'll actually be listened to. And then we need companies to actually follow through with that.
Until then, we'll have discrimination in hiring and in the workplace.
[0] I've worked for a company which regularly had the majority of its employees take clients out to strip clubs, and had a porn-sharing Friday, and this was a normal and expected part of business. And that's the really blatantly obvious things. We had one female employee who was not an office manager - and my boss specifically mentioned to me that she was tough as nails to be in our industry.
So the issue is: most companies are somewhat discriminatory by default. Left to their own devices, they'll hire people who are similar to the existing group. If you have a company made up of white men, you're going to wind up hiring more white men.
And the worst bit - when they do eventually hire someone different, they're going to keep all the little bits of culture which, while they worked as long as you all had much the same background, are harmful and distressing to people coming from other backgrounds.[0] After all, if it's one person complaining, and everyone else is OK with it, it must be that one person's fault, right?
The result of this is that once a member of a minority sees that a company is made up primarily of white men, well, it's probably not for them.
Now, at some point between anti-discrimination laws being written and now, some people decided this is not a particularly good state to be in, and a whole bunch of people spent a whole lot of effort trying to persuade society that this isn't a good thing. And hence, eventually we get to a situation where HR paper pushers and high-level managers are explicitly thinking about people's race, gender, and so on and so forth while hiring - although the law says that you have to avoid doing so.
The issue is that this really isn't what we want people to be doing, but as long as nobody's caught doing it, the law and society incentivises it. It's a better position than the one we were in - you can actually get employed in the sort of company I described above if you don't come from the same background, and you can complain if people misbehave in an egregious manner - but it's still not good enough.
What we want is for companies to signal that they're open to changing their culture to fit the needs of their employees - which of course is flipping the power dynamic on its head, but there you have it. We need companies to signal that when their employees raise an issue with how the company works on a social level, they'll actually be listened to. And then we need companies to actually follow through with that.
Until then, we'll have discrimination in hiring and in the workplace.
[0] I've worked for a company which regularly had the majority of its employees take clients out to strip clubs, and had a porn-sharing Friday, and this was a normal and expected part of business. And that's the really blatantly obvious things. We had one female employee who was not an office manager - and my boss specifically mentioned to me that she was tough as nails to be in our industry.
If you want to look for examples closer to home, try reading about the Mapucho.
Mapuches you mean?
Well, living in Chile, I've learnt that there's no racism here BUT:
-There's classism, a lot. Both from the lower classes to the upper and vice versa. There's also a lot of anger left from the various dictatorships that ruled in the eighties.
-In some countries, here included, there's also big prejudice against native cultures like the Mapuches. "They're all lazy drunkards".
These problems mostly stem from colonial times, where the Spanish didn't respect native culture and since the Europeans were seen as the "civilized, more advanced people", the aristocrats here did everything to imitate their lifestyle.
See also: mestizaje.
Well, living in Chile, I've learnt that there's no racism here BUT:
-There's classism, a lot. Both from the lower classes to the upper and vice versa. There's also a lot of anger left from the various dictatorships that ruled in the eighties.
-In some countries, here included, there's also big prejudice against native cultures like the Mapuches. "They're all lazy drunkards".
These problems mostly stem from colonial times, where the Spanish didn't respect native culture and since the Europeans were seen as the "civilized, more advanced people", the aristocrats here did everything to imitate their lifestyle.
See also: mestizaje.
[deleted]
Sounds like you're describing racism to me?
To add (and replying to rco8786): I think this is not racism. Because ethnicity is not race, and almost everybody by now through mestizaje has native blood. The early colonial period might have a racist component with "sistema de castas" (Spaniard born in America = Criollo, Spaniard with Native = Mestizo, Spaniard with African slave = Mulato, so on).
But now race doesn't even matter because we are all almost the same genetically (it just happens that at least in Chile, the fair-haired blue-eyed people are the richest, but hate here is about wealth and politics rather than race itself).
But now race doesn't even matter because we are all almost the same genetically (it just happens that at least in Chile, the fair-haired blue-eyed people are the richest, but hate here is about wealth and politics rather than race itself).
Americans don't use the word "racism" literally. What would that even mean, unless we all walked around with DNA testing kits? Anything involving culture, ethnicity, national origin, any kind of xenophobia can be consider 'racism'.
Genetically, "races" don't exist; discrimination based on what you want to call ethnicity is exactly the problem
Different indigenous people can share almost the same blood but have vastly different ethnicities, because ethnicity is cultural. Check your history.
I'm a little unclear on what you are trying to say. Your first clause rephrases part of what I said.
Is it ok to prejudicially discriminate against someone because of your opinion of their culture?
Is it ok to prejudicially discriminate against someone because of your opinion of their culture?
Plenty of non-USA countries are concerned with the amount of each group in other groups. Ireland gives political parties less money if there aren't at least 40% female candidates.
This probably plays a role: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_guilt
It's a privileged viewpoint to even suggest there is zero bias in extant hiring practices.
You think that's what we would find if we measured? We can test for this you know.
You think that's what we would find if we measured? We can test for this you know.
>It's a privileged viewpoint
That is a meaningless way to try to dismiss someone's opinion.
That is a meaningless way to try to dismiss someone's opinion.
> even my European co-workers make fun of Americans for these things
Are they not ashamed to ridicule those with some cultural advances? (Laugh about our backwardnesses, not innovations.) Do they also chuckle at those more advanced scientifically, economically and technologically?
Rojava in many ways seems more advanced than cultures I've lived in. Not only do they do they mandate co-leaders at every level of their bottom-up democracy (1 woman & 1 man), but they do this while beating ISIS. If I laughed, the joke would be on me. And these "Europeans" you mention seem doubly backwards as even I am, so they must work twice as hard to catch up to civilization.
> Why do they care if there are no "Black/African-American" in their company?
Maybe it's hard to make social media innovations while socially backwards?
Are they not ashamed to ridicule those with some cultural advances? (Laugh about our backwardnesses, not innovations.) Do they also chuckle at those more advanced scientifically, economically and technologically?
Rojava in many ways seems more advanced than cultures I've lived in. Not only do they do they mandate co-leaders at every level of their bottom-up democracy (1 woman & 1 man), but they do this while beating ISIS. If I laughed, the joke would be on me. And these "Europeans" you mention seem doubly backwards as even I am, so they must work twice as hard to catch up to civilization.
> Why do they care if there are no "Black/African-American" in their company?
Maybe it's hard to make social media innovations while socially backwards?
[deleted]
"There are no Black/African-American GitHubbers in management positions, which is unacceptable."
It is only unacceptable if people with the skills to be in management positions didn't get a promotion because of a non-relevant personal attribute.
Otherwise, it is acceptable and in the best long term interests of the company.
I acknowledge that America has equality of opportunity problems. There are strong and just historical reasons why the government has carried the torch on this issue. However, I think its time to let the market work. Companies that place talent above non-relevant personal attributes are at a competitive advantage as they are drawing from a larger talent pool. Letting that market run on a long enough time line means that companies who discriminate will grow weaker, as well they should.
Github has come out and said "we're going to make sure that we meet target quotas for people of X, Y and Z non-relevant personal attributes." I think that's bad business and not the equality we need to be going for.
If you have the skill set, drive and integrity to be a strong contributor to a team, I want to work with you and make wealth with you. If you don't, I don't want to work with you - go get educated, build skills and try again or if I'm wrong about you, prove it by out competing me. This is equality of opportunity and of ideas. What Github is doing isn't, nor does it get us closer to what the idea of America promises us all.
I think that providing the resources to build skills to those whose parents didn't or couldn't provide them is a great idea.
I think shaking up our education system (because the numbers show that investing doesn't produce better results) is a great idea.
I want to be fellow citizens with educated, driven people who are so in part because society ensured it'd happen.
Lets not go too far or go in the wrong direction.
It is only unacceptable if people with the skills to be in management positions didn't get a promotion because of a non-relevant personal attribute.
Otherwise, it is acceptable and in the best long term interests of the company.
I acknowledge that America has equality of opportunity problems. There are strong and just historical reasons why the government has carried the torch on this issue. However, I think its time to let the market work. Companies that place talent above non-relevant personal attributes are at a competitive advantage as they are drawing from a larger talent pool. Letting that market run on a long enough time line means that companies who discriminate will grow weaker, as well they should.
Github has come out and said "we're going to make sure that we meet target quotas for people of X, Y and Z non-relevant personal attributes." I think that's bad business and not the equality we need to be going for.
If you have the skill set, drive and integrity to be a strong contributor to a team, I want to work with you and make wealth with you. If you don't, I don't want to work with you - go get educated, build skills and try again or if I'm wrong about you, prove it by out competing me. This is equality of opportunity and of ideas. What Github is doing isn't, nor does it get us closer to what the idea of America promises us all.
I think that providing the resources to build skills to those whose parents didn't or couldn't provide them is a great idea.
I think shaking up our education system (because the numbers show that investing doesn't produce better results) is a great idea.
I want to be fellow citizens with educated, driven people who are so in part because society ensured it'd happen.
Lets not go too far or go in the wrong direction.
I think GH is starting from the point of "the distribution of our employees doesn't line up with the larger population of the country we operate in". If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy? I think they're saying, "We don't think the market is working." There are hidden biases at work.
For example, people with "non-white sounding" names don't get hired at the same rate as those with "white sounding" names when they have the same skillset. http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
I think these biases operate at a low level, below most of our understanding. I like that GH is having this conversation in the open and working to rid themselves of these biases as much as possible.
To me, this is all relevant socioeconomic data. Why not look at the distribution of gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc, in your workplace? If there's a discrepancy, why not figure out what the root cause is? Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill", why is the distribution skewed? What does it hurt to ask?
For example, people with "non-white sounding" names don't get hired at the same rate as those with "white sounding" names when they have the same skillset. http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
I think these biases operate at a low level, below most of our understanding. I like that GH is having this conversation in the open and working to rid themselves of these biases as much as possible.
To me, this is all relevant socioeconomic data. Why not look at the distribution of gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc, in your workplace? If there's a discrepancy, why not figure out what the root cause is? Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill", why is the distribution skewed? What does it hurt to ask?
GitHub is focusing on the very bottom of the funnel. They are noticing the distribution of their employees doesn't match that of the larger population, then attempting to make it match. But what if the reason their company distribution doesn't match up is that the distribution of people with the requisite skills doesn't match up? They are trying to treat the symptoms of a supposed problem rather than the ailment itself, and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by doing so.
Affirmative action doesn't work, except for the short-term career prospects of those individuals lucky enough to profit from it, and the virtue-signalers who propose it.
Affirmative action doesn't work, except for the short-term career prospects of those individuals lucky enough to profit from it, and the virtue-signalers who propose it.
This is just the pipeline argument. And while there are very real aspects to the pipeline -- yes, women and minorities drop out of the tech industry in early education, late education, and on the job -- the problem with the argument is that it attempts to absolve blame.
GitHub is not at the "bottom of the funnel". They're in the middle: people who work there today may go on to wildly successful careers elsewhere. And people who have bad experiences there may not.
So please don't make the pipeline argument. Just because other earlier stages have failed to be welcoming to minorities doesn't mean GitHub shouldn't try, and just because GitHub is a corporate employer doesn't mean their employees aren't still living developing human beings.
GitHub is not at the "bottom of the funnel". They're in the middle: people who work there today may go on to wildly successful careers elsewhere. And people who have bad experiences there may not.
So please don't make the pipeline argument. Just because other earlier stages have failed to be welcoming to minorities doesn't mean GitHub shouldn't try, and just because GitHub is a corporate employer doesn't mean their employees aren't still living developing human beings.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill"
What evidence is there to believe this?
What evidence is there to believe this?
This rhetoric in this context is implying that you may be skeptical that black people are as valuable and capable at computer science/information technology as the majority white population. Please reconsider.
This rhetoric in this reply is implying that you may be skeptical that white people are as valuable and capable at basketball as the majority black player population. Please reconsider.
>If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy?
Because you think wrong.
>Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill"
Why take something we know to be false as your starting point though?
Because you think wrong.
>Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill"
Why take something we know to be false as your starting point though?
What evidence do you have that "we know this to be false"?
The overwhelming scientific evidence that we are not all the same. Racial differences have been measured over and over again, and are quite significant. And what I find striking is how often the people living in their "everyone is equal" fantasy bubble will admit this, depending on the context.
For example, 117 people have run the 100m in less than 10 seconds. Do you know how many of them are women? Of course you do. Almost everyone is willing to admit this is a genetic difference. Do you know how many of those men are black? 113. Most people are also willing to admit this is genetic, especially when you point out that we've identified specific genes giving west Africans an advantage in sprinting. But suddenly when the same observations are made about IQ, then it becomes "racist pseudo-science", despite a complete inability to offer any valid criticism of the science involved.
For example, 117 people have run the 100m in less than 10 seconds. Do you know how many of them are women? Of course you do. Almost everyone is willing to admit this is a genetic difference. Do you know how many of those men are black? 113. Most people are also willing to admit this is genetic, especially when you point out that we've identified specific genes giving west Africans an advantage in sprinting. But suddenly when the same observations are made about IQ, then it becomes "racist pseudo-science", despite a complete inability to offer any valid criticism of the science involved.
Otherwise, it is acceptable and in the best long term interests of the company.
Maybe the best long-term interests of the company aren't aligned with the best long-term interests of our society. If, hypothetically, the market took over, and drove racial equality/diversity in a direction such that we almost literally ended up with a white male overclass and everyone else their servants/slaves, would you shrug and say "well clearly white males are just better for the long term interests of the companies"? Or would you wonder if there were maybe some non-market-based factors at play...
"The market" doesn't magically solve all problems. It's not a simple matter of companies making non-discriminatory hiring decisions. As of now, the average white candidate probably is more qualified than the minority candidate, because of a complex web of social factors and experiences tracing back to birth. So they would always get selected by "the market," creating a feedback loop leading to the scenario I described.
The market is definitely not going to provide equality of opportunity. If that's something we care about, we have to actively push things that direction.
Maybe the best long-term interests of the company aren't aligned with the best long-term interests of our society. If, hypothetically, the market took over, and drove racial equality/diversity in a direction such that we almost literally ended up with a white male overclass and everyone else their servants/slaves, would you shrug and say "well clearly white males are just better for the long term interests of the companies"? Or would you wonder if there were maybe some non-market-based factors at play...
"The market" doesn't magically solve all problems. It's not a simple matter of companies making non-discriminatory hiring decisions. As of now, the average white candidate probably is more qualified than the minority candidate, because of a complex web of social factors and experiences tracing back to birth. So they would always get selected by "the market," creating a feedback loop leading to the scenario I described.
The market is definitely not going to provide equality of opportunity. If that's something we care about, we have to actively push things that direction.
Sometimes this could have negative impact if promoted too much right? Imagine the feeling that your peers thinking you're in management level because HR wants to meet the quotas and don't actually respect you for the talent.
"There are no Black/African-American GitHubbers in management positions, which is unacceptable."
Why is it unacceptable? Just by virtue of the number of different kinds of people -- race, gender, etc there's no way to have 'one of each' for every position for maximum diversity. This sort of thing is so creepy because it treats people like collectible figures ("Oh yeah? Well I added a black transgendered person to our team today! I have way more diversity points than you!") instead of actual people you judge on their merits. How is a white person supposed to feel about applying to Github management position after reading "Its unacceptable we don't have a black manager"?
I'm not white and I don't want to be treated as some statistic you can show off on your diversity report card. Thats really demeaning and insulting.
Why is it unacceptable? Just by virtue of the number of different kinds of people -- race, gender, etc there's no way to have 'one of each' for every position for maximum diversity. This sort of thing is so creepy because it treats people like collectible figures ("Oh yeah? Well I added a black transgendered person to our team today! I have way more diversity points than you!") instead of actual people you judge on their merits. How is a white person supposed to feel about applying to Github management position after reading "Its unacceptable we don't have a black manager"?
I'm not white and I don't want to be treated as some statistic you can show off on your diversity report card. Thats really demeaning and insulting.
Because the percentage of black GitHubbers in management positions is far below e.g. the percentage of e.g. black people with CS degrees in the US, indicating a probable bias in their hiring, retention or promotion pipelines that they're announcing they find concerning.
You're making it about individuals, not GitHub. They're comparing statistics.
You're making it about individuals, not GitHub. They're comparing statistics.
Was that percentage equally high in 1990? Fresh grads are not qualified for management.
We can determine bias simply by comparing one company's numbers to national trends?
I said probable bias, and yes.
As you reduce geographical scope, national trends aren't as relevant or realistic.
> Because the percentage of black GitHubbers in management positions is far below e.g. the percentage of e.g. black people with CS degrees in the US
Where's the data for this? Often people talk about these things as assumptions, but I've never seen credible data. Can you share a source?
Furthermore, even the comparison that you mentioned is not accurate. It should start from a funnel like: "the number of qualified black applicants to GitHub with CS degrees", or something along those lines. GitHub can't hire people that don't apply.
Where's the data for this? Often people talk about these things as assumptions, but I've never seen credible data. Can you share a source?
Furthermore, even the comparison that you mentioned is not accurate. It should start from a funnel like: "the number of qualified black applicants to GitHub with CS degrees", or something along those lines. GitHub can't hire people that don't apply.
Starting from only the people who apply gives a free pass to biased recruitment.
What, you want them to go kidnap black people and force them to apply?
So you don't think it's a problem if their ads say "whites only"? Or if they only advertise to white people? Or are you thinking "nobody would say whites only" and just totally unaware of the many ways that language and targeting can affect who applies to a job, sometimes skewing the pool of applicants in unintended ways? A nice, nobody-meant-it way to bias your candidate pool: only hire people who know an existing employee. White Americans mostly know white Americans.
You're asking for a citation for zero being less than non-zero? :)
He's asking for a citation that the probability of seeing zero is small (p<0.05 if you want to be frequentist about it), contingent on a proper funnel analysis and no bias.
[deleted]
I kinda have the same thinking. Saying that "we have no Black/African-American (...)" seems way more racist that don't saying anything at all. People should get hired according their skills, not race/gender/etc. If a company is focused in hiring non-white males, aren't white males in disadvantage on recruitment processes?
Agreed. These types of reports make it seem like Github cares only about skin color which to me is racist.
This viewpoint genuinely baffles me. You can only manage what you measure, and the process of monitoring a metric isn't the same thing as caring about the metric. I monitor free disk space on all my servers, but it doesn't mean I care primarily about buying more disks. In fact I don't care because I've monitored it and have determined we're okay there. However, as a result of data, if my servers were regularly running out of disk space, then I should start caring.
If these reports determined that there was no evidence of something to be fixed (either the statistics were consistent with the statistics of qualified potential employees, or there were a good reason for them not to be consistent), I would expect GitHub not to care. And yes, if they continued to care about shifting the numbers further past that point, then you could accuse them of caring only about skin color when it's unjustified. But why should a technical company not measure metrics and gather data?
If these reports determined that there was no evidence of something to be fixed (either the statistics were consistent with the statistics of qualified potential employees, or there were a good reason for them not to be consistent), I would expect GitHub not to care. And yes, if they continued to care about shifting the numbers further past that point, then you could accuse them of caring only about skin color when it's unjustified. But why should a technical company not measure metrics and gather data?
The argument is that making decisions based on race is racism. Github isn't "monitoring" things, they're actively trying to change them, and using race (and other such factors that some people believe we should try to be blind to, or at least agnostic about) as a factor.
Yes. I understand "racism" (at least in this context) to mean "bias in favor of or against candidates based on their race", not "paying attention to race". The latter is something we can hopefully stop doing once we're confident the former isn't happening. I don't understand the reasoning that involves refusing to think about whether the former is happening. (And besides, if GitHub as policy does not pay attention to race, but individual interviews and reviews -- which are notoriously subject to human whim on all sorts of axes -- might be biased on race, you definitely haven't achieved the goal of your system not paying attention to race.)
Again, this seems pretty straightforward for a technical shop... if your goal is, say, "We should not have features on GitHub for Desktop that preference one platform over another," then the way to get to that goal is you add testing processes that explicitly try out things on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Even if you develop your software with some platform-agnostic library (which is a perfectly reasonable way to achieve the goal), you test the software in a non-platform-agnostic way, precisely because you want to know if you got it wrong. You don't say "We're platform-agnostic" and remove the OS field from bug reports, unless you are 200% sure that your code is platform-agnostic even when things go wrong. If you see lots of cross-platform bugs, fine! You still leave it in there so that, one day, if somehow things are disproportionately broken on Windows, you're able to actively respond to that.
Again, this seems pretty straightforward for a technical shop... if your goal is, say, "We should not have features on GitHub for Desktop that preference one platform over another," then the way to get to that goal is you add testing processes that explicitly try out things on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Even if you develop your software with some platform-agnostic library (which is a perfectly reasonable way to achieve the goal), you test the software in a non-platform-agnostic way, precisely because you want to know if you got it wrong. You don't say "We're platform-agnostic" and remove the OS field from bug reports, unless you are 200% sure that your code is platform-agnostic even when things go wrong. If you see lots of cross-platform bugs, fine! You still leave it in there so that, one day, if somehow things are disproportionately broken on Windows, you're able to actively respond to that.
I think not talking about race is more damaging than talking about race in many contexts. I also think that a decrease in institutional privilege (white male, in this case) is not discriminatory.
I also don't think "quotas" are a good solution, e.g., "Hire one more Mexican woman and we're good!" But acknowledging some statistical realities and taking a close look at what got you there isn't a bad thing.
I also don't think "quotas" are a good solution, e.g., "Hire one more Mexican woman and we're good!" But acknowledging some statistical realities and taking a close look at what got you there isn't a bad thing.
Talking about race makes things which aren't about race about race, which introduces racism. Not talking about race lets the issue of race go quiet into that good night where it belongs.
Behavior introduces racism, not talking. Talking about it means we might find a solution or a mitigation.
You make it sound like the problem would go away if we'd just stop talking about it. That's not a solution; that's just sweeping it under the rug.
You make it sound like the problem would go away if we'd just stop talking about it. That's not a solution; that's just sweeping it under the rug.
Talking is a behavior, is it not?
The problem ises some people know that they can discriminate against people based on skin color. They learned that certain groups had certain stereotypes. They learned these "facts" because people around them reinforced that these groups were different by talking about how the groups were different.
Talking about race is only going to beget more racism at this point.
The problem ises some people know that they can discriminate against people based on skin color. They learned that certain groups had certain stereotypes. They learned these "facts" because people around them reinforced that these groups were different by talking about how the groups were different.
Talking about race is only going to beget more racism at this point.
"A decrease in institutional privilege"? What are you people smoking?
The choices you make affect real _people_--not institutions; hiring someone over someone else based on some relatively arbitrary superficial trait--thinking that you know that person and what they've lived through--has serious effects on that individual--not an institution. But you choose to make those choices, because you perpetually believe you know things that you do not.
The choices you make affect real _people_--not institutions; hiring someone over someone else based on some relatively arbitrary superficial trait--thinking that you know that person and what they've lived through--has serious effects on that individual--not an institution. But you choose to make those choices, because you perpetually believe you know things that you do not.
> People should get hired according their skills, not race/gender/etc.
And what do you do when you find out that you're not actually hiring people according to their skills? Like, when that's what you're trying to do—and believe that you're doing—but the data reveals the opposite?
And what do you do when you find out that you're not actually hiring people according to their skills? Like, when that's what you're trying to do—and believe that you're doing—but the data reveals the opposite?
Try to improve their hiring process without focusing on hiring minorities?
Yes, of course github necessarily has had a racist hiring bias against white males these past two years. It is for a good cause.
It's awkward that all these statistics seem to focus on the output of system without any regard to the input. There's a passing comment about "improve recruiting" but there's no details presented as to who is actually applying.
The hiring process/system is very complicated an difficult to reason about in an objective manner, mostly because it's humans dealing with humans, compounding our human-y traits, non-objectiveness being a hallmark.
I don't see how I'm supposed to take seriously an initiative at attempting to uncover/rectify biases of a system with only the output taken into account. It just seems silly.
The hiring process/system is very complicated an difficult to reason about in an objective manner, mostly because it's humans dealing with humans, compounding our human-y traits, non-objectiveness being a hallmark.
I don't see how I'm supposed to take seriously an initiative at attempting to uncover/rectify biases of a system with only the output taken into account. It just seems silly.
I think that the reason you find this objectionable is because you misunderstand the goal and the premises, and therefore the statement.
It is not, "universally, we need one of each", but (goal:) "we must ensure no group is marginalized" + (premise:) "blacks are marginalized" = (conclusion:) "we must reduce the marginalization of blacks" = (statement:) "it is unacceptable that there are no blacks"
In general, most prescriptive feminist and anti-racist notions are not founded an a manufactured set of axioms for a hypothetical society, but with premises based on empirical observations of our real society, and so are based on the assumption that there exist marginalized groups, and we know which groups they are (or some of them, at least). You can think of it as statements not prescribing how a new society must be built, but how our existing society must be fixed. I.e., you are given a delta value, not an absolute one.
You may argue with either the goal (a value statement) or the premise (a factual statement), but right now you're arguing with the wrong ones.
It is not, "universally, we need one of each", but (goal:) "we must ensure no group is marginalized" + (premise:) "blacks are marginalized" = (conclusion:) "we must reduce the marginalization of blacks" = (statement:) "it is unacceptable that there are no blacks"
In general, most prescriptive feminist and anti-racist notions are not founded an a manufactured set of axioms for a hypothetical society, but with premises based on empirical observations of our real society, and so are based on the assumption that there exist marginalized groups, and we know which groups they are (or some of them, at least). You can think of it as statements not prescribing how a new society must be built, but how our existing society must be fixed. I.e., you are given a delta value, not an absolute one.
You may argue with either the goal (a value statement) or the premise (a factual statement), but right now you're arguing with the wrong ones.
This strikes me as centralized planning for jobs. It seems like the best way to go about this is focusing on the pool of applicants and making sure everyone gets a fair shake. Making assumptions about the outcome of those hiring decisions independent of the actual applicants seems neither fair nor good for business.
If your organization's demographics don't match the demographics of the broader population of qualified candidates, there's a good chance it's because you're biased (intentionally or not) in your recruiting or evaluation.
In that sense, "focusing on the pool of applicants and making sure everyone gets a fair shake" are pretty much exactly what diversity efforts are about.
In that sense, "focusing on the pool of applicants and making sure everyone gets a fair shake" are pretty much exactly what diversity efforts are about.
By their wording, it seems like they're more focused on the outcome of the hiring process. No black managers is the outcome, and they said that's unacceptable.
If you look at the process instead of the outcome, it might not be the same. If the scenario was that no qualified black people applied for management positions which resulted in not having any black managers they could still come back to the public and say "We have nothing to apologize for, we tried to hire black managers but none applied" instead of "We failed, we don't have any black managers and it's our fault".
It's good to be unbiased in your hiring practices, but you can only shoulder so much blame. There are many factors that play into the process and you can only accept responsibility for your own actions.
If you look at the process instead of the outcome, it might not be the same. If the scenario was that no qualified black people applied for management positions which resulted in not having any black managers they could still come back to the public and say "We have nothing to apologize for, we tried to hire black managers but none applied" instead of "We failed, we don't have any black managers and it's our fault".
It's good to be unbiased in your hiring practices, but you can only shoulder so much blame. There are many factors that play into the process and you can only accept responsibility for your own actions.
How do you evaluate whether your process is good or bad without looking at the outcome it produces? While I grant that even the best/fairest processes can fail on individual cases, if your aggregate result is poor, what other conclusion can you draw except that your process is broken?
To take your example, if the scenario was that no qualified person from a given group applied, you can look at your process and ask what prevented them from doing so. Maybe there's a perception that your organization is hostile to that group, and you can do something to address that perception. Maybe your job postings are only going up in places that target a specific type. Maybe your 3rd-party recruiters are biased. Whatever the reason is, if the broader population of qualified candidates includes groups that aren't applying to your organization, that's pointing to a process problem you can try to fix (which I very much think of as accepting responsibility for my own actions).
To take your example, if the scenario was that no qualified person from a given group applied, you can look at your process and ask what prevented them from doing so. Maybe there's a perception that your organization is hostile to that group, and you can do something to address that perception. Maybe your job postings are only going up in places that target a specific type. Maybe your 3rd-party recruiters are biased. Whatever the reason is, if the broader population of qualified candidates includes groups that aren't applying to your organization, that's pointing to a process problem you can try to fix (which I very much think of as accepting responsibility for my own actions).
>there's a good chance it's because you're biased (intentionally or not) in your recruiting or evaluation.
I don't think this is necessarily the case. Or even likely the case. For example, we know that the number of blacks, latinos, and women studying CS, etc., is much lower than their proportion in the population. It follows that even the most equitable tech company is unlikely to have demographics which match the population at large. You can't hire black coders in proportion to the general population if black coders form 5% (or whatever it is) of coders while black people form 14% of the general population. The math just doesn't work.
I don't think this is necessarily the case. Or even likely the case. For example, we know that the number of blacks, latinos, and women studying CS, etc., is much lower than their proportion in the population. It follows that even the most equitable tech company is unlikely to have demographics which match the population at large. You can't hire black coders in proportion to the general population if black coders form 5% (or whatever it is) of coders while black people form 14% of the general population. The math just doesn't work.
I tried to be careful in my phrasing, which is why I said "broader population of qualified candidates" and not "population at large" or "general population", and "good chance" instead of "certainty", because as you point out there are unfortunately systemic factors outside of your immediate short-term control that will affect the numbers.
But I think a lot of people/companies use this as an excuse to just not even try, and that doesn't make sense. Even if a group's share of qualified candidates is smaller than its share of the general population, that share certainly isn't zero, and once your team reaches a certain size its not hard to check the math and see if your process is producing results in bounds of reasonable estimates. Very frequently it isn't, and that can point to hidden or explicit biases that you can work to remove from your process.
But I think a lot of people/companies use this as an excuse to just not even try, and that doesn't make sense. Even if a group's share of qualified candidates is smaller than its share of the general population, that share certainly isn't zero, and once your team reaches a certain size its not hard to check the math and see if your process is producing results in bounds of reasonable estimates. Very frequently it isn't, and that can point to hidden or explicit biases that you can work to remove from your process.
>But I think a lot of people/companies use this as an excuse to just not even try, and that doesn't make sense.
Doesn't it? I doubt that hiring people of different ethnic backgrounds from the same country makes any difference in the performance of a team, so exerting extra effort to do so is likely a net loss for the company.
Doesn't it? I doubt that hiring people of different ethnic backgrounds from the same country makes any difference in the performance of a team, so exerting extra effort to do so is likely a net loss for the company.
Let's say I see 2 qualified candidates a week and they accept our offer at a rate of 20%. To ramp up to a team of 12, I'll had to have seen 60 candidates, which will take 30 weeks.
But then I take a look at my process and realize I've got a problem that's keeping 1/3rd of my qualified candidates from even applying. Fix that, and I jump up to seeing 3 qualified candidates per week, which drops my ramp time to just 20 weeks.
The effort I put into fixing my hiring process just gave me 10 bonus weeks of a fully-ramped team. If your company actually knows how to use developers to make money, that could be literally millions of dollars.
But then I take a look at my process and realize I've got a problem that's keeping 1/3rd of my qualified candidates from even applying. Fix that, and I jump up to seeing 3 qualified candidates per week, which drops my ramp time to just 20 weeks.
The effort I put into fixing my hiring process just gave me 10 bonus weeks of a fully-ramped team. If your company actually knows how to use developers to make money, that could be literally millions of dollars.
But it's also possible that the reason that some groups are underrepresented because is because they don't like their prospects (say, in term of a welcoming work environment). Causality works both up and down the pipeline; not just up.
It's possible, but you'd have to prove it, and I think that's an uphill battle.
Further, that's not what the previous poster was saying, and not what I was addressing. They said that there's a high degree of likelihood that not reflecting the population at large is the result of bias. That, as I said, is not likely to be true.
Further, that's not what the previous poster was saying, and not what I was addressing. They said that there's a high degree of likelihood that not reflecting the population at large is the result of bias. That, as I said, is not likely to be true.
> That, as I said, is not likely to be true.
I think it's by far the likeliest explanation given everything we know of human societies and human history (i.e, as a general rule, almost everything is fluid). Moreover, it's the safest: if, as a result of such under-representations, certain groups have less power in society, it's unreasonable not to try to fix it. If people get sick and you don't know if the disease is curable or not, the far safer (and more ethical) assumption is that it is. Both assumptions are not symmetrical.
I think it's by far the likeliest explanation given everything we know of human societies and human history (i.e, as a general rule, almost everything is fluid). Moreover, it's the safest: if, as a result of such under-representations, certain groups have less power in society, it's unreasonable not to try to fix it. If people get sick and you don't know if the disease is curable or not, the far safer (and more ethical) assumption is that it is. Both assumptions are not symmetrical.
> If your organization's demographics don't match the demographics of the broader population of qualified candidates
This hasn't been demonstrated.
This hasn't been demonstrated.
Creepier than a few centuries of slavery?
Creepier than a few centuries of anti-black, anti-woman laws at every level of government?
Creepier than nearly universal, measurable, provable anti-black, anti-woman implicit bias today?
Sure guy.
Sure guy.
Discriminating by sex and race is what caused those issues in the first place.
lol.
Ever since Zach Holman "left", it appears as though GitHub has been eaten away from the inside by intersectional feminism. There appear to be subversive efforts to turn tech companies into platforms for social justice. I can only imagine it must be really uncomfortable to work in this sort of environment.
There was an interesting write-up on this by Hintjens at http://hintjens.com/blog:111
Slightly less comfortable for the most-privileged people on earth; probably more comfortable for everyone else.
cf. Every other American industry's initial foray into diversity.
cf. Every other American industry's initial foray into diversity.
Oh, it's fine that it's racist, because I as a white male have it so good?
Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class.
Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would, don't judge me on that merit it's bullshit.
FWIW I grew up incredibly poor and my "advantage" in IT was that people don't care about your background. If I had wanted to be a lawyer or doctor I would bet my life that I would have failed. Tech is definitely inclusive as hell by default and making it less so is rather stupid.
If there are people who are actively stopping women in tech or downplaying them then those people are at fault, I would argue as at fault as a company that wont interview me based on my skin colour or gender.
Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class.
Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would, don't judge me on that merit it's bullshit.
FWIW I grew up incredibly poor and my "advantage" in IT was that people don't care about your background. If I had wanted to be a lawyer or doctor I would bet my life that I would have failed. Tech is definitely inclusive as hell by default and making it less so is rather stupid.
If there are people who are actively stopping women in tech or downplaying them then those people are at fault, I would argue as at fault as a company that wont interview me based on my skin colour or gender.
> Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would
Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing.
Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing.
Ok... My point was really:
> In my opinion being heterosexual does not make me better or worse at my job in IT than being homosexual.
> In my opinion being heterosexual does not make me better or worse at my job in IT than being homosexual.
> Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class.
Perhaps not.
But there are things that being white does grant you:
1. Police won't hassle you for driving a nice car.
2. Police won't hassle you for walking in a nice neighborhood.
3. People won't report you as "suspicious looking" for wearing a hoodie and walking in a neighborhood.
4. Police won't be as likely to use force to resolve a situation.
5. People will be less likely to have negative assumptions about your career, your intelligence, and your capabilities.
//
Being white is not a ticket to success, but it's not a hindrance either. That's the difference.
Perhaps not.
But there are things that being white does grant you:
1. Police won't hassle you for driving a nice car.
2. Police won't hassle you for walking in a nice neighborhood.
3. People won't report you as "suspicious looking" for wearing a hoodie and walking in a neighborhood.
4. Police won't be as likely to use force to resolve a situation.
5. People will be less likely to have negative assumptions about your career, your intelligence, and your capabilities.
//
Being white is not a ticket to success, but it's not a hindrance either. That's the difference.
Exactly. This is a frequently misunderstood set of points. Having non-economic privileges does not automatically make you wealthy or even non-poor, and it doesn't automatically give you the best jobs or even any job. Some non-econ privileges are also relative not just to each other, but to each other in a geographic sense (skin color privilege helps you a lot more in Atlanta than in a town in Appalachia, for example.)
What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview.
What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview.
> Having non-economic privileges
I can't stand referring to my comment as "white privilege." It's just another way to discount a person simply because of their race.
Being white is like starting a race at the starting line. Being black can be like starting that same race 10 feet back.
Starting at the starting line, isn't a privilege--it's just how a race should be, in order to be fair for everyone participating.
What it also means is that being black means you just have to run faster to win.
> What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview.
Which we should solve the problem, not badger whites to feel guilty by calling it a privilege.
I can't stand referring to my comment as "white privilege." It's just another way to discount a person simply because of their race.
Being white is like starting a race at the starting line. Being black can be like starting that same race 10 feet back.
Starting at the starting line, isn't a privilege--it's just how a race should be, in order to be fair for everyone participating.
What it also means is that being black means you just have to run faster to win.
> What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview.
Which we should solve the problem, not badger whites to feel guilty by calling it a privilege.
It shouldn't be a privilege, but that's how things worked out. History made it a privilege. If we ever reach a place in societal development where everyone starts at the same place, we can, and perhaps will, stop calling it that. Until then, it is a privilege, and people will continue calling it that.
No one should feel guilty for having it, and others shouldn't being trying to make others feel guilty for having it (both of those things obviously happen, and people should speak against that, too. Some in the social justice world do exactly that.) Social Justice language is sometimes used as a cudgel, used opportunistically, used cynically, and abused in half a dozen ways (non-identarian left vs identarian liberal fights are often over these issues.) That doesn't mean the language is all wrong, or the meaning is wrong, it means bad people can use tools just like good ones can.
Those with some privileges, but without economic privilege or other similar power can help by speaking out, and may change some minds; those with all kinds of privileges can help even more. When Sam Altman talks about diversity hiring, for example, he does the work of potentially thousands of non-Sam Altmans. It's not about guilt, it's about using power for purposes of a more equitable society.
No one should feel guilty for having it, and others shouldn't being trying to make others feel guilty for having it (both of those things obviously happen, and people should speak against that, too. Some in the social justice world do exactly that.) Social Justice language is sometimes used as a cudgel, used opportunistically, used cynically, and abused in half a dozen ways (non-identarian left vs identarian liberal fights are often over these issues.) That doesn't mean the language is all wrong, or the meaning is wrong, it means bad people can use tools just like good ones can.
Those with some privileges, but without economic privilege or other similar power can help by speaking out, and may change some minds; those with all kinds of privileges can help even more. When Sam Altman talks about diversity hiring, for example, he does the work of potentially thousands of non-Sam Altmans. It's not about guilt, it's about using power for purposes of a more equitable society.
Saying that someone is suffering from "black hinderance" sounds even more terrible.
Maybe it sounds more terrible but it accurately describes the problem. You shouldn't be guilt tripping white people, you should be encouraging black people to perform better. "White privilege" falls into a mentality that I call victimization, where instead of people looking at things through the lens of "how can I change myself and be better", they look at it through the lens of "how can others change themselves to help me be better". You need both mentalities for things to work out but there's a heavy focus on the second one, because it's a lot easier and more convenient.
> You shouldn't be guilt tripping white people, you should be encouraging black people to perform better.
White people are the ones in power in this country. You can't just expect people to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, because it'll never happen unless the people in power put in effort to change the status quo, which is exactly what some tech companies are trying to do.
White people are the ones in power in this country. You can't just expect people to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, because it'll never happen unless the people in power put in effort to change the status quo, which is exactly what some tech companies are trying to do.
Like I said, I think both mentalities are necessary but there's a heavy focus on the wrong thing. The message it sends to people is wrong. The signal is that there are systemic problems that can't be changed because people in power are guilty of having power. This is a hopeless signal that doesn't help anyone. What we should be saying to people is that they should strive to be better because that's the only sure way they can hope to improve their situations. Waiting for other people to help you isn't going to do anything. The only thing you have control over is your own life. If the public discourse around these issues focuses solely on how other people have control and how you have no control, then the situation only becomes worse because then people have an excuse to not try, and they don't.
6. Your own peets won't harass you for "acting white"?
[deleted]
No. Giving irrational ideologues structural power in the workplace can make any thinking person uncomfortable, regardless of their privilege points.
Personally, I don't think I would be very comfortable knowing I was hired because company X has to meet diversity quotas and not solely because I was the best candidate for the job. I think it's an offense to hackers in general—I'm hired based on merit.
This is where affirmative action is a step backwards. The unconscious assumption goes from "they're an X in this field, they have to be good" to "they're an X in this field, they're probably just here to fill a quota" and makes matters worse for everybody.
GitHub is definitely focusing more on social justice than any company its size.
Maybe it pushes out some employees, but ultimately allows GitHub to hire from a larger pool of developers. They attract the best and succeed in the market. Diversity and a social justice focus is proven to make a company more successful, and historically marginalized groups are inspired by the GitHub leadership. A great outcome.
On the other hand, maybe it becomes a significant distraction from the business side. The "social impact team" increases its influence, and the culture becomes one of fear of saying the wrong thing or offending the wrong person. Employees leave, and are difficult to replace due to the negative reputation of the internal culture. The company fails.
Whatever the outcome, it's a great experiment and we're sure to learn something.
Maybe it pushes out some employees, but ultimately allows GitHub to hire from a larger pool of developers. They attract the best and succeed in the market. Diversity and a social justice focus is proven to make a company more successful, and historically marginalized groups are inspired by the GitHub leadership. A great outcome.
On the other hand, maybe it becomes a significant distraction from the business side. The "social impact team" increases its influence, and the culture becomes one of fear of saying the wrong thing or offending the wrong person. Employees leave, and are difficult to replace due to the negative reputation of the internal culture. The company fails.
Whatever the outcome, it's a great experiment and we're sure to learn something.
I expect this is a well intentioned mission. But to what extent do you take this? Does not making sure other (less in the zeitgeist) groups are involved mean they are failing at this?
Hasidic Jews, Inuits, Wheelchair users, Men named Reginald, A person with a southern drawl, a person with one hand, a person with no hands, a 45 year old.
Quick googling suggests Jews make up 1.4% of the US population. You can't really pull out the privilege card on them before anyone tries it. This is far higher than the estimates of transexual people. Are GitHub anti-semitic? Why do they hate Jews so much that they refuse to include them in diversity reports? Do they not care for their struggle? Why is it important to stress the number of transexual people they hire over the number of Jews they hire?
It is a race to the bottom.
Hasidic Jews, Inuits, Wheelchair users, Men named Reginald, A person with a southern drawl, a person with one hand, a person with no hands, a 45 year old.
Quick googling suggests Jews make up 1.4% of the US population. You can't really pull out the privilege card on them before anyone tries it. This is far higher than the estimates of transexual people. Are GitHub anti-semitic? Why do they hate Jews so much that they refuse to include them in diversity reports? Do they not care for their struggle? Why is it important to stress the number of transexual people they hire over the number of Jews they hire?
It is a race to the bottom.
You're making a false equivocation between arbitrary demographic "groups" and demographic groups that have faced well documented systemic discrimination in America, both historically and continuing in the present.
And to preempt a counterargument via your chosen example, yes, you could argue Jews have and do face discrimination in America - but garden variety American anti-semitism is not of the systemic, historical nature that makes a random Jewish American more likely to be passed over for a job because of their name, or treated drastically differently by the average police officer, or less likely to have become engaged in tech earlier in life, etc.
And to preempt a counterargument via your chosen example, yes, you could argue Jews have and do face discrimination in America - but garden variety American anti-semitism is not of the systemic, historical nature that makes a random Jewish American more likely to be passed over for a job because of their name, or treated drastically differently by the average police officer, or less likely to have become engaged in tech earlier in life, etc.
> but garden variety American anti-semitism is not of the systemic, historical nature that makes a random Jewish American more likely to be passed over for a job because of their name, or treated drastically differently by the average police officer, or less likely to have become engaged in tech earlier in life.
Many people would find that highly offensive and ignorant. Why are you trying to diminish the struggles faced by the Jewish people in America? Why are you trying to defend a now well known anti-semitic organisation Github?? Your hateful statements are dangerous and violent. (Oh, away from my posturing as an online hate-mob, you are completely incorrect in that statement)
This game is very, very easy to play, but unfortunately, everyone loses.
Lets go on. You are saying wheelchair users, disabled people have not faced a large amount of societal discrimination that can affect their job chances? Don't you know how many public buildings and spaces aren't accessible? I cannot believe how ableist you are. Does your employer know of your hateful, bigoted views? Do your colleagues?
The problem with presenting the argument that the workplace and other groups need to be representative of wider culture, is that it will always run into this issue. If you say, discriminated groups need to be represented, and present it as a tautology, then you cannot decide which trendy group of the moment is more important.
Many people would find that highly offensive and ignorant. Why are you trying to diminish the struggles faced by the Jewish people in America? Why are you trying to defend a now well known anti-semitic organisation Github?? Your hateful statements are dangerous and violent. (Oh, away from my posturing as an online hate-mob, you are completely incorrect in that statement)
This game is very, very easy to play, but unfortunately, everyone loses.
Lets go on. You are saying wheelchair users, disabled people have not faced a large amount of societal discrimination that can affect their job chances? Don't you know how many public buildings and spaces aren't accessible? I cannot believe how ableist you are. Does your employer know of your hateful, bigoted views? Do your colleagues?
The problem with presenting the argument that the workplace and other groups need to be representative of wider culture, is that it will always run into this issue. If you say, discriminated groups need to be represented, and present it as a tautology, then you cannot decide which trendy group of the moment is more important.
But you're still making the same false equivocation. A "large amount of societal discrimination" ≠ institutional racism. It's a subtle distinction, but once you grasp it you can see the need for affirmative action and understand that it's not just about helping certain groups deemed "trendy".
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
every time I hear about "inclusive" practices at github it makes me grimace, not because it's not a good idea. Diversity is good. But because it's rather racist, partially sexist and it's increasingly the norm to be this way.
Equal opportunity, not outcome, if 4% of your applicants are British, but do not pass because of technical reasons. (I'm using British because I am one, replace with $minority), then why should I hire them? Ideally we'd interview blind and whoever is the best tech, is the best. I'm not sure why this isn't possible in our technology culture, do you really need to be face to face with a person to assess their technical merits and ensure they are the right fit for a company.
But, anyway, to me this stuff is exclusionary, I am apparently cursed to be a white male in tech, and as a majority I now have to work much harder for SV to acknowledge me for my merits, I am of the firm belief that if I were a black lady I would have enough support to prop me up above my current experienced position in no time. I'd love to test this theory honestly.
And anyway, who cares who delivers github/facebook/$website at the end of the day, hire who you think will do the job, nobody is going to feel excluded from the services you provide because you didn't meet your quota of transgender people.. and if they were, you could very easily mislead them.
edit: I know it's against etiquette to mention downvotes, but if you must downvote me please reply stating why. That is also against etiquette.
Equal opportunity, not outcome, if 4% of your applicants are British, but do not pass because of technical reasons. (I'm using British because I am one, replace with $minority), then why should I hire them? Ideally we'd interview blind and whoever is the best tech, is the best. I'm not sure why this isn't possible in our technology culture, do you really need to be face to face with a person to assess their technical merits and ensure they are the right fit for a company.
But, anyway, to me this stuff is exclusionary, I am apparently cursed to be a white male in tech, and as a majority I now have to work much harder for SV to acknowledge me for my merits, I am of the firm belief that if I were a black lady I would have enough support to prop me up above my current experienced position in no time. I'd love to test this theory honestly.
And anyway, who cares who delivers github/facebook/$website at the end of the day, hire who you think will do the job, nobody is going to feel excluded from the services you provide because you didn't meet your quota of transgender people.. and if they were, you could very easily mislead them.
edit: I know it's against etiquette to mention downvotes, but if you must downvote me please reply stating why. That is also against etiquette.
Previously I thought hiring diversity for diversity's sake didn't make sense, and hiring should be based solely on "merit". After all, as a company, you want to hire the best people.
However, since then, I have found there is research that indicates diverse groups can be more advantageous than homogenous groups of highly talented people [1], [2]. So from this perspective, striving for diversity makes economic sense.
[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16385.full
[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-make...
However, since then, I have found there is research that indicates diverse groups can be more advantageous than homogenous groups of highly talented people [1], [2]. So from this perspective, striving for diversity makes economic sense.
[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16385.full
[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-make...
I'm glad someone is making this point. Here is a concise summary pdf from NCWIT.
https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/impactge...
https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/impactge...
In NBA, 74% players are Blacks while Asians are at 0.2%. Maybe some SJWs should lobby to get NBA "reflect more the demographics of the society"???
If you haven't figured out already, I was being sarcastic. This just shows how ridiculous and superficial this whole trend is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA
If you haven't figured out already, I was being sarcastic. This just shows how ridiculous and superficial this whole trend is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA
You jest, but discrimination in the NBA is a real issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvaM0pMj-8o
Amidst the forest of diversity demographics, I found this little tidbit:
"We have a flexible paid time-off policy and our maternity/paternity leave policies exceed the tech industry’s norm. In addition, our policies do not differentiate between maternity or paternity leave."
Now THAT is cool. I really wish more companies did that. When my wife had a c-section with our son, she got 6 weeks off of work. I got nothing.
"We have a flexible paid time-off policy and our maternity/paternity leave policies exceed the tech industry’s norm. In addition, our policies do not differentiate between maternity or paternity leave."
Now THAT is cool. I really wish more companies did that. When my wife had a c-section with our son, she got 6 weeks off of work. I got nothing.
Come to Sweden, Paternity leave and Maternity leave are basically tied up into a shared "Parental" leave, a couple of new parents get upwards of 400+ paid days between themselves to divvy up as they see fit.
Source: my colleague just had a child and I have to do all his work as well as my own now :( (not salty, glad we have this!)
Source: my colleague just had a child and I have to do all his work as well as my own now :( (not salty, glad we have this!)
How many republicans work at GitHub? How many evangelical christians? How do these numbers compare to the distribution in the larger population of the country?
I'm outraged that github has not reported these numbers. What are they hiding?
I wish so much that I could be picky about my hiring like GitHub. I wish I could have so many qualified candidates applying that I am able to create a diverse team. But I put out job ads and get like 2 qualified responses.
How the hell are they able to find all these candidates such that they can start being picky about who they hire???
Maybe Toronto just sucks for tech talent... Argh...
How the hell are they able to find all these candidates such that they can start being picky about who they hire???
Maybe Toronto just sucks for tech talent... Argh...
Hiring remotely seems to be one thing they have over you.
Tech talent is tight in Toronto. There are too many jobs and not enough talent. Job postings suck at attracting people here. You literally have to crawl through LinkedIn to find people. Stack overflow careers is actually pretty decent though. But a lot of small companies aren't willing to pay for it.
Your best bet here? Frankly a recruiter if you're willing to pay them. They are still the gold standard for finding good tech talent in Toronto.
I wish we could offer our product for developers, but we are very focussed on sales recruiting right now. Maybe in a year or so.
Your best bet here? Frankly a recruiter if you're willing to pay them. They are still the gold standard for finding good tech talent in Toronto.
I wish we could offer our product for developers, but we are very focussed on sales recruiting right now. Maybe in a year or so.
>But I put out job ads and get like 2 qualified responses.
And 200 completely unqualified ones. It is crazy how many people apply for jobs they have absolutely no qualifications for.
And 200 completely unqualified ones. It is crazy how many people apply for jobs they have absolutely no qualifications for.
Anyone can apply to a programming job—it's not like you need formal education like lawyers or doctors.
Yes, but I would have hoped people would have the common sense to only apply if they know how to program. I don't even mean this in the sense of "you aren't good enough", I mean people who literally have no idea what programming is. People who rate their winzip using skills on their resume as part of their "computer experience".
To me every example of diversity basically has been the concept that "there are too many white people in the room." And to a smaller degree that "there are too many straight men...".
I've never seen this applied to non-whites, at least not to this degree. In fact, 100% black-demographic teams (or businesses or organisations) are oftentimes praised for being "authentically black".
IMO, the way I see it is once a productive homogeneous group (which by definition is composed of members that are able to agree with each other and engage in actual progress rather than in-fighting) puts in the effort and spends the time building the infrastructure/business/etc and makes it successful - then other groups see this as an opportunity to get something out of it... "Diversity for the sake of diversity" only comes in at the end, never at the beginning.
It is also odd that when someone says diversity is our strength, they never really share the actual details of that strength.
To me this is a turning point for a company that goes from being work oriented to becoming a race/gender oriented cesspool where everything is about your color, genitalia, and gender.
I've never seen this applied to non-whites, at least not to this degree. In fact, 100% black-demographic teams (or businesses or organisations) are oftentimes praised for being "authentically black".
IMO, the way I see it is once a productive homogeneous group (which by definition is composed of members that are able to agree with each other and engage in actual progress rather than in-fighting) puts in the effort and spends the time building the infrastructure/business/etc and makes it successful - then other groups see this as an opportunity to get something out of it... "Diversity for the sake of diversity" only comes in at the end, never at the beginning.
It is also odd that when someone says diversity is our strength, they never really share the actual details of that strength.
To me this is a turning point for a company that goes from being work oriented to becoming a race/gender oriented cesspool where everything is about your color, genitalia, and gender.
So you would bet there is no bias in extant hiring practices? How do you know?
You're answering literally every comment on this thread, with this "passive aggressive" tone that will do nothing but derail the conservation. That's the definition of a troll. Why don't you make a point of your own instead?
> At a high level, GitHub is 64% male worldwide and 64% white in the U.S. That said, the company has improved since the end of 2014, when it was 79% male and 21% female worldwide.
I wonder what their male/female split is in daily active users.
I wonder what their male/female split is in daily active users.
93% male / 4% female / 3% undisclosed.
source: https://medium.com/@tenaciouscb/github-com-demographics-a-st...
source: https://medium.com/@tenaciouscb/github-com-demographics-a-st...
[deleted]
Weird, it seems like some of their team has been decidedly anti-white.
http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/26/githubs-diversity-is-just-a...
Edit: Removed Breitbart link
http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/26/githubs-diversity-is-just-a...
Edit: Removed Breitbart link
Kind of disappointing how those who attacked the original source have now fallen silent
really? breitbart.com?
Sorry, I grabbed the first link. Are they a poor source (honestly don't know)?
I also found http://www.techinsider.io/github-the-full-inside-story-2016-... and http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/26/githubs-diversity-is-just-a...
The tweets and images came from Githubbers themselves.
I also found http://www.techinsider.io/github-the-full-inside-story-2016-... and http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/26/githubs-diversity-is-just-a...
The tweets and images came from Githubbers themselves.
People don't like them because one of their editors is a vocal supporter of Gamergate.
> Are they a poor source (honestly don't know)?
Extremely. Breitbart regularly publicizes stories that are misleading at best or just flat out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News_Network#Notable...
Extremely. Breitbart regularly publicizes stories that are misleading at best or just flat out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News_Network#Notable...
Thanks. Wow, TIL!
I feel like an idiot now, but I've edited the original post with the TechCrunch link.
I feel like an idiot now, but I've edited the original post with the TechCrunch link.
They're conservative partisans and pretty open about it. Mostly they publish red meat for their base, same as Salon or Alternet.
Edited my original post with the TechCrunch link. Embarrassing mess up on my part, but live and learn. Thanks!
djtriptych(1)
The former owner is a conservative so many people automatically reject it in a knee jerk reaction to advertise how sophisticated their political beliefs are. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, just who says it.
It's like a law of nature... your organisation grows, its culture becomes braindead.
There should be more Basecamps around. I don't know what their equality policy is, but they sure have very little tolerance to bullshit - and don't mind letting you know!
There should be more Basecamps around. I don't know what their equality policy is, but they sure have very little tolerance to bullshit - and don't mind letting you know!
My questions:
* Do you run the same diversity program in every country you have an office, so that, say, in Japan you try to hire Chinese and Brazilians?
* Do you actually give points to someone over other candidates for filling a minority slot, or do you just focus your recruiting towards the target groups?
* If you hire remote workers from anywhere in the world, do you even bother with diversity for them, since the definition of diversity would have to depend on their country?
* Do you look for diversity in communication styles, personalities, philosophies, etc. (read Quiet), or do you only look for diversity in the trends you mentioned (sex, "race", etc.)?
* What about fighting ageism?
* Will you please write a post giving basic information on the advantages/goals you hope to achieve through American-style diversity? As it is I think everyone will just argue about what your agenda is.
* Do you run the same diversity program in every country you have an office, so that, say, in Japan you try to hire Chinese and Brazilians?
* Do you actually give points to someone over other candidates for filling a minority slot, or do you just focus your recruiting towards the target groups?
* If you hire remote workers from anywhere in the world, do you even bother with diversity for them, since the definition of diversity would have to depend on their country?
* Do you look for diversity in communication styles, personalities, philosophies, etc. (read Quiet), or do you only look for diversity in the trends you mentioned (sex, "race", etc.)?
* What about fighting ageism?
* Will you please write a post giving basic information on the advantages/goals you hope to achieve through American-style diversity? As it is I think everyone will just argue about what your agenda is.
The last time this topic came up was around the same time that that open letter of from maintainers of GitHub repositories was making its rounds.
If I recall correctly, GitHub responded to that open letter by implementing the lowest hanging fruit - bug templates and +1s - and then went radio silent. Have there been meaningful product updates since?
Now we know what happened: they minimally addressed the PR needs of their business, and then went back to doing nothing interesting to advance their products.
I was on the fence before, but now I'm certain: GitLab is the superior experience.
If I recall correctly, GitHub responded to that open letter by implementing the lowest hanging fruit - bug templates and +1s - and then went radio silent. Have there been meaningful product updates since?
Now we know what happened: they minimally addressed the PR needs of their business, and then went back to doing nothing interesting to advance their products.
I was on the fence before, but now I'm certain: GitLab is the superior experience.
Diversity for the sake of diversity. So dumb. Promote for qualifications not junk like this
Looks like the link to the actual data[1] was posted and subsequently removed, making it unable to be submitted. Why?
[1]: https://diversity.github.com
[1]: https://diversity.github.com
How about adding other parts of the company like HR/Sales/Marketing/etc etc to their data?
Previous discussion of GitHub's diversity culture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11049067
Anybody besides me impressed that they released data about employee age ranges?
I like how the graph is carefully crafted to make it like there is good age distribution when it does NOT. There is twice a subdivision in ages 20-40 than in ages 40+.
Explains why they haven't delivered a notable imporovement in the last year and a half. They've been focusing on social justice instead of making a great product that we all want to use.
As a Hispanic, I would never work at Github because I find this quest for "diversity" to be extremely patronizing and objectifying. As a male, I'd never work at Github because their policies are sexist.
Jesus Christ, I never want to work on the Left Coast.
It chaffes me when I see companies talk about diversity and inclusion (ignore that the blog post is written by a young white guy).
You want to use data to make Github more diverse--great. Just shut up about it and make it happen. Posting your diversity data like this, like it's some badge of honor, is ridiculous.
Someone wants to know how diverse you are? Great, show them the data, and tell them you're working on it.
Just please stop it with the public discourse.
You know what I don't see--companies like MSFT, and Google, and Facebook, and Github who talk about their inclusion showing up to the poorer parts of my neighborhood trying to address diversity issues there.
You want to use data to make Github more diverse--great. Just shut up about it and make it happen. Posting your diversity data like this, like it's some badge of honor, is ridiculous.
Someone wants to know how diverse you are? Great, show them the data, and tell them you're working on it.
Just please stop it with the public discourse.
You know what I don't see--companies like MSFT, and Google, and Facebook, and Github who talk about their inclusion showing up to the poorer parts of my neighborhood trying to address diversity issues there.
I am now a #GitLabMissile
I moved all my code over to BitBucket when this nonsense started.
The goal of hiring diversity is to reach Proportional Representation; you want your workforce to resemble the demographics of the nation as a whole. If you accept that anyone, regardless of their genetic heritage, gender identity, sexual identity, skin color, etc. can do the job just as well as anyone else can, then you should be supportive of, or at least not oppose, efforts like these. If you don't think so (with regards to genetic heritage especially), there's really no discussion to be had, as that's a likely irreconcilable conflicting understanding of the science, especially at the individual level (intra-haplogroup potential ability swamps any supposed inter-haplogroup potential ability) or just plain, old-fashioned prejudice.
What are the benefits to PR? Two major ones:
- Countering structural biases in society. There has not historically been anything like a level playing field with regards to inherent attributes in this country. Many of those attributes cause people to get discriminated against, and this gets perpetuated across time. It's a "market" solution to a societal problem, which means that it can't magically counter much larger structural forces all by itself, but it can help.
- Producing better results. Many studies claim that diverse teams operate better, and potentially produce superior products and services. A major part of the reason is the introduction of diversity in perspectives, which can allow a company to understand different potential markets better and can make a company potentially more welcoming, which can improve hiring (i.e., a great candidate who might feel out of place in an environment with non-diverse demographics might decide to join if the demographics were more diverse. This can become a virtuous cycle.) Whether this is true or not, or how much it's true, is not that relevant. It certainly can't hurt.
There are valid criticisms of hiring diversity methods, but I'm not seeing many of them in the comments here:
- Can PR be achieved? Getting PR at a place with 10 employees is going to be very tough, so coming down on companies this small who can't do so should not be done, IMO. 100? Easier. 1000. Much easier. The larger the organization is, the more possible it becomes. So no, it's not always possible, and some perhaps well-intentioned activists beat up on companies they shouldn't, but that does not mean it should not be a goal that is pursued as a general principle for hiring.
- Do the people who get hired necessarily represent who those hiring them think they represent? Not always, no. If you're hiring a perfect rainbow coalition of identities, but all of them come from wealthy backgrounds or elite schools, for example, you may be getting less diversity than you think. It's not tokenism, but it's definitely not PR. Many Left criticisms of our current version elite liberal meritocratic culture center around this. The antidote is to include things like educational background, economic class/upbringing circumstances, etc. when considering a candidate vis a vis diverse hiring; that's what intersectionality is all about. You do not consider advantaging/disadvantaging attributes in isolation. Many companies have do a very poor job of the latter, but in this case, GH has explicitly said they are more open to non-traditionally educated candidates.
PR and hiring diversity is not going to fix all society's problems; for that, we need major reforms like free higher ed, federal, rather than local, funding of K-12 education, GBI, UHC, ending the drug war and a dozen other things. Can it help, especially by helping push American culture towards greater acceptance of diversity and pluralism? Yes, so companies should strive for it.
What are the benefits to PR? Two major ones:
- Countering structural biases in society. There has not historically been anything like a level playing field with regards to inherent attributes in this country. Many of those attributes cause people to get discriminated against, and this gets perpetuated across time. It's a "market" solution to a societal problem, which means that it can't magically counter much larger structural forces all by itself, but it can help.
- Producing better results. Many studies claim that diverse teams operate better, and potentially produce superior products and services. A major part of the reason is the introduction of diversity in perspectives, which can allow a company to understand different potential markets better and can make a company potentially more welcoming, which can improve hiring (i.e., a great candidate who might feel out of place in an environment with non-diverse demographics might decide to join if the demographics were more diverse. This can become a virtuous cycle.) Whether this is true or not, or how much it's true, is not that relevant. It certainly can't hurt.
There are valid criticisms of hiring diversity methods, but I'm not seeing many of them in the comments here:
- Can PR be achieved? Getting PR at a place with 10 employees is going to be very tough, so coming down on companies this small who can't do so should not be done, IMO. 100? Easier. 1000. Much easier. The larger the organization is, the more possible it becomes. So no, it's not always possible, and some perhaps well-intentioned activists beat up on companies they shouldn't, but that does not mean it should not be a goal that is pursued as a general principle for hiring.
- Do the people who get hired necessarily represent who those hiring them think they represent? Not always, no. If you're hiring a perfect rainbow coalition of identities, but all of them come from wealthy backgrounds or elite schools, for example, you may be getting less diversity than you think. It's not tokenism, but it's definitely not PR. Many Left criticisms of our current version elite liberal meritocratic culture center around this. The antidote is to include things like educational background, economic class/upbringing circumstances, etc. when considering a candidate vis a vis diverse hiring; that's what intersectionality is all about. You do not consider advantaging/disadvantaging attributes in isolation. Many companies have do a very poor job of the latter, but in this case, GH has explicitly said they are more open to non-traditionally educated candidates.
PR and hiring diversity is not going to fix all society's problems; for that, we need major reforms like free higher ed, federal, rather than local, funding of K-12 education, GBI, UHC, ending the drug war and a dozen other things. Can it help, especially by helping push American culture towards greater acceptance of diversity and pluralism? Yes, so companies should strive for it.
>The goal of hiring diversity is to reach Proportional Representation; you want your workforce to resemble the demographics of the nation as a whole.
What about when that is reached, or is nearly reached? What's the medium term end goal? Long term end goal? I think here is where people disagree even more than the means to get there.
>Whether this is true or not, or how much it's true, is not that relevant. It certainly can't hurt.
It can lead to distrust, skepticism, disrespect, worse communication. All sorts of negative things.
If we include ideology in the general diversity conversation, and class, rather than primarily gender and race, I'd respect the intention much more.
What about when that is reached, or is nearly reached? What's the medium term end goal? Long term end goal? I think here is where people disagree even more than the means to get there.
>Whether this is true or not, or how much it's true, is not that relevant. It certainly can't hurt.
It can lead to distrust, skepticism, disrespect, worse communication. All sorts of negative things.
If we include ideology in the general diversity conversation, and class, rather than primarily gender and race, I'd respect the intention much more.
[deleted]
I have been thinking of the problems anti-discrimination laws. Not all kinds of discrimination leave evidence. I have a feeling that they should be restricted to certain job categories. Similarly, sexual harassment leave evidence more often, but this don't mean they are worth the costs. I have been thinking of this Ask HN for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11666857
I dont want to live or work in a society where employees at every company reflect the demographics of that society, where everyone gets equal pay, feels less and less like diversity and more and more about conformity. Its the road to socialism, if all of this diversity was valuable the market will reward companies accordingly.
And it does. More diverse companies perform better financially.
https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/impactge...
https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/impactge...
After reading the sources I would say there is evidence that employees in the survey they conducted self reported better financial performance from the following options:
"how would you compare your organization’s performance over the past two years in terms of market share? .|.|. Would you say that it was (1) much worse, (2) somewhat worse, (3) about the same, (4) somewhat better, or (5) much better?”
Surely we can be more factual than this?
"how would you compare your organization’s performance over the past two years in terms of market share? .|.|. Would you say that it was (1) much worse, (2) somewhat worse, (3) about the same, (4) somewhat better, or (5) much better?”
Surely we can be more factual than this?
You are truly grasping at straws. There are 15 citations there, many of which show direct data of market cap and share price performance for these companies and you hunt down a single survey you have an issue with. Please.
I dont have time to review all 15 citations, it was the first one I picked based on the claim made in your document. It was also the most closely related claim that you linked to the document in question:
>"An investigation of 500 U.S. businesses found that companies with more race and gender diverse teams had higher sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater profits than did less diverse companies.4"
You are being very uncharitable to suggest I am "grasping at straws" by reviewing the very document you are using as evidence.
Lets review page 3, each paragraph is a claim.
1. executive boards
2. executive boards
3. top management level
4. top management teams
5. greater profit and market share
6. student study make believe
Now you can see why I Chose 5 to investigate as 1-4,6 are pretty much unrelated to what we are talking about which is diversity of the work force, not high level management.
>"An investigation of 500 U.S. businesses found that companies with more race and gender diverse teams had higher sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater profits than did less diverse companies.4"
You are being very uncharitable to suggest I am "grasping at straws" by reviewing the very document you are using as evidence.
Lets review page 3, each paragraph is a claim.
1. executive boards
2. executive boards
3. top management level
4. top management teams
5. greater profit and market share
6. student study make believe
Now you can see why I Chose 5 to investigate as 1-4,6 are pretty much unrelated to what we are talking about which is diversity of the work force, not high level management.
Being non-american (I'm from a South American country) it is hard for me to understand the importance giving to these things associated to racism and sexism. The United States is the only place I have seen where people invest a considerable amount of time and resources just to put people from minor groups or specific genders in pedestals just to please other people. You will (probably) never see such thing in Latin American because no one cares why color your skin is or what gender you identify with in order to get a specific job.
Why do they care if there are no "Black/African-American" in their company? Or that 10% are black women? Or that 35% of women are in a leadership role? Like who cares? Are their roles assigned based on their gender and/or skin color?
Jesus, even my European co-workers make fun of Americans for these things. Let people build their career based on how they work and not their ethnicity nor gender, otherwise you will be incentivizing more racism and more sexism.