Donations and Women in Tech Panels Are Not a Diversity Strategy(medium.com)
medium.com
Donations and Women in Tech Panels Are Not a Diversity Strategy
https://medium.com/tech-diversity-files/donations-and-women-in-tech-panels-are-not-a-diversity-strategy-do-better-c3c51022a916
50 comments
I don't understand why anyone would need a "diversity strategy". Just hire whoever seems like they would do the best job, and then spend the remainder of the apparently monumental effort that you would have spent executing your "diversity strategy" on improving your bottom line. It's ridiculous that we focus on the racial and gender makeup of applicants instead of just judging them on their accomplishments.
There is the conspiracy theory that the primary goal of diversity initiatives sponsored by big name corporations is to infiltrate the left wing / progressive movements. Then they can derail the political discourse away from important matters like corporate tax evasion, privacy evasion or capital overaccumulation.
I'm not sure whether or to what extent it is true, but I'm defenitely not sold to the idea that they are pushing extremely polarising identity politics purely because of some idealistic reasons.
I'm not sure whether or to what extent it is true, but I'm defenitely not sold to the idea that they are pushing extremely polarising identity politics purely because of some idealistic reasons.
You don't understand something basic. The root of this "diversity" focus is an expression of the believers' own racism and sexism. They believe racism and sexism are true yet also bad, so they have to engage in an endless routine of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that their view of the world is somehow ok.none of this is meant to solve any problem other than the SJWs' ability to deal with reality.
Do you believe there are any disparities in demographics between the general population and a given field (such as tech)? What demographic do you belong to? How do you think these disparities might affect society as a whole? If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics?
Edit to add: If you choose to reply, please include attempts at answering all of the questions. Note there's nothing in this comment that assumes that hiring is the appropriate (or only) place something (if anything) should be done. It's easy to dismiss this as only "yes, there are disparities, but it shouldn't be fixed here", or "equal opportunity". That's not the end of the conversation. What does a better solution look like?
Edit to add: If you choose to reply, please include attempts at answering all of the questions. Note there's nothing in this comment that assumes that hiring is the appropriate (or only) place something (if anything) should be done. It's easy to dismiss this as only "yes, there are disparities, but it shouldn't be fixed here", or "equal opportunity". That's not the end of the conversation. What does a better solution look like?
Certainly, but why necessarily at the hiring level? Why is citing the pipeline problem inherently lazy?
[deleted]
> If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics?
Target inequality of opportunity, and do not assume that differences in outcome are prima facie evidence of differences in opportunity.
In other words, the pipeline is the place to solve this.
Target inequality of opportunity, and do not assume that differences in outcome are prima facie evidence of differences in opportunity.
In other words, the pipeline is the place to solve this.
What does that look like in implementation? How do you ensure and measure its effectiveness? What rates of improvement should be acceptable?
I'd suggest that a starting point could be to make sure that those hired roughly reflect the diversity of the talent pool being hired from.
If they 'match' - then it's a roughly good indicator that the hiring process 'is fair'.
As far as I know - this is generally true: the ratio of female engs. in the valley is roughly commensurate with the ratio of females graduating from Comp Sci. Which is actually positive news.
Now - that's nowhere near the whole story, but at least it's a crude basic metric.
If they 'match' - then it's a roughly good indicator that the hiring process 'is fair'.
As far as I know - this is generally true: the ratio of female engs. in the valley is roughly commensurate with the ratio of females graduating from Comp Sci. Which is actually positive news.
Now - that's nowhere near the whole story, but at least it's a crude basic metric.
I tend to agree with you on the starting point and that it's a rough indicator.
that's nowhere near the whole story
I'm glad you acknowledge this. It's a story that tends to get abandoned after looking at the types of metrics you describe. I don't think that's what you're doing here, by the way. Just the fact you bring it up makes it clear you don't.
that's nowhere near the whole story
I'm glad you acknowledge this. It's a story that tends to get abandoned after looking at the types of metrics you describe. I don't think that's what you're doing here, by the way. Just the fact you bring it up makes it clear you don't.
Thanks. But I often feel that that core metric is way too often overlooked by those lamenting injustice.
The fact that 'the first rough metric' is pretty decent, I think speaks to the general fairness and goodwill in the tech industry.
I've worked in tech my whole life - and without a doubt the people are pretty good. It can be a little guy-ish sometimes, and there are some bad-actors/companies, but I reject the idea that Tech is bad for women. Google and Facebook are probably 95% Obama voters, and progressive on almost every issue. To scream bigotry among this group is just too rich.
So yes - the story does not end there, and there are clearly more obvious problems as you move up in management - but I also don't see an entire industry that's in some kind of trauma.
Interesting tidbit: a survey of tech workers shows that men point primarily to the 'funnel problem' whereas women point to the 'lack of role models'. Which I thought was telling, and hints at an opportunity for improvement.
The fact that 'the first rough metric' is pretty decent, I think speaks to the general fairness and goodwill in the tech industry.
I've worked in tech my whole life - and without a doubt the people are pretty good. It can be a little guy-ish sometimes, and there are some bad-actors/companies, but I reject the idea that Tech is bad for women. Google and Facebook are probably 95% Obama voters, and progressive on almost every issue. To scream bigotry among this group is just too rich.
So yes - the story does not end there, and there are clearly more obvious problems as you move up in management - but I also don't see an entire industry that's in some kind of trauma.
Interesting tidbit: a survey of tech workers shows that men point primarily to the 'funnel problem' whereas women point to the 'lack of role models'. Which I thought was telling, and hints at an opportunity for improvement.
I'm a bit taken aback by your comment here. I was encouraged by the lack of partisanship that began our exchange, as that so often does nothing but further polarize discussions. There are indications that you're looking for a more nuanced discussion, but phrases like "those lamenting injustice" and "to scream bigotry among this group is just too rich" makes it harder, rather than easier, for those that don't already agree with you to be willing to enter a discussion: it takes extra effort and good faith to attempt to engage in substantive discussion on contentious issues (rather than fall into the echo chamber everyone decries).
a survey of tech workers shows that men point primarily to the 'funnel problem' whereas women point to the 'lack of role models'.
Interesting. Do you have a reference to this survey at hand?
Which I thought was telling, and hints at an opportunity for improvement.
I'm not sure if I'm particularly dense (though I don't dispute this might be the case), but I think people generally assume that their intent in statements like this are much clearer than what is actually the case. I have a hard time knowing how to interpret what you mean, or what opportunity you see. Is it that you think there should be more role models for women? That the lack of role models for women indicates that there just aren't that many women in tech and that's because women aren't generally interested in tech so there really isn't a problem? That there's a mismatch between how men and women perceive the problem that needs to be addressed? If that's the case, do you think one perception is more accurate than the other? My comment to which you initially responded asked for specifics on implementation and measurement on addressing disparities in tech. I'm still interested in hearing for details rather than generalities.
a survey of tech workers shows that men point primarily to the 'funnel problem' whereas women point to the 'lack of role models'.
Interesting. Do you have a reference to this survey at hand?
Which I thought was telling, and hints at an opportunity for improvement.
I'm not sure if I'm particularly dense (though I don't dispute this might be the case), but I think people generally assume that their intent in statements like this are much clearer than what is actually the case. I have a hard time knowing how to interpret what you mean, or what opportunity you see. Is it that you think there should be more role models for women? That the lack of role models for women indicates that there just aren't that many women in tech and that's because women aren't generally interested in tech so there really isn't a problem? That there's a mismatch between how men and women perceive the problem that needs to be addressed? If that's the case, do you think one perception is more accurate than the other? My comment to which you initially responded asked for specifics on implementation and measurement on addressing disparities in tech. I'm still interested in hearing for details rather than generalities.
"I was encouraged by the lack of partisanship that began our exchange"
There is no 'partisanship' in my comments. I'm just making a comment. That's all.
"I have a hard time knowing how to interpret what you mean"
I mean exactly what I say. There's nothing to interpret.
There is a lot of noise in the press about 'injustice' in terms of gender and race in the Silicon Valley - when, as a baseline - the Valley employs almost exactly the people that are fed into it. When you read articles about such issues - they generally do not refer to the fact that the % make up of the Valley is almost identical to the % makeup of those with relevant qualifications.
So - as a 'starting point' for any concern, it should be noted that by the easiest and most obvious measure - the Valley seems to be doing a pretty good job. Maybe even a great job.
I think this is unfair: a lot of voices 'screaming bigotry' in the press lack this perspective, and instantly distort the scenario by taking the assumptive position that 'there is inherent unfairness in the valley because only x% of their Engineers are of minority group ABC' - when in fact, it's actually pretty fair, given the talent pool they draw from.
I can't say that I've ever read an article critiquing the Valley on gender representation - that ever made mention of this fact.
So even though there is an issue to be addressed - it's also being misrepresented.
When I say 'there's more to the story' - I'm not offering a consolation or token to 'the other side' of the debate. I don't view these things as having sides. I'm simply stating that I think there's more to it. That's all.
I'm not debating anyone or taking any sides.
As for the 'male/female' perspective - I wish I had that reference for you - I read it relatively recently, and the data point really popped out at me, which is why I remembered it.
I'm a guy - so 'lack of role models' is something I would never consider as a possibility for 'why I wouldn't want to work in tech'. So, knowing that so many girls feel that way, make me think about the issue differently.
How can this be helpful? Well, for one, obviously by making sure that the 'stories' of female engineers are told, that there is visibility etc. - which is kind of a no-brainer, one that really should not be contentious.
But there are other issues. The Canadian Navy did a study (long ago) where they found that when ships deployed with very few women on board, that it was stressful for them. But when there was a 'critical mass' of them (I think like 8%), then they seemed to get along a lot better. So, this 'critical mass' concept might be useful in planning: if a 'guy founded' startup grows, they may consider reaching that 'critical mass' as an absolute minimum for female participation. Most companies don't think about gender issues until headcount gets larger, so maybe once they start growing, they can try hard to get 'a good group' of girls in, beyond that threshold, so that they don't feel isolated. The same could very well apply to minority groups - i.e. maybe there is a 'critical mass' below which many feel isolated. Black and Latino Engineers are pretty rare. This could be an issue there.
The 'role model' issue may be also strongly related to the lower participation of females in upper management. But that's a whole other can of worms, and I've already written too much so ...
There is no 'partisanship' in my comments. I'm just making a comment. That's all.
"I have a hard time knowing how to interpret what you mean"
I mean exactly what I say. There's nothing to interpret.
There is a lot of noise in the press about 'injustice' in terms of gender and race in the Silicon Valley - when, as a baseline - the Valley employs almost exactly the people that are fed into it. When you read articles about such issues - they generally do not refer to the fact that the % make up of the Valley is almost identical to the % makeup of those with relevant qualifications.
So - as a 'starting point' for any concern, it should be noted that by the easiest and most obvious measure - the Valley seems to be doing a pretty good job. Maybe even a great job.
I think this is unfair: a lot of voices 'screaming bigotry' in the press lack this perspective, and instantly distort the scenario by taking the assumptive position that 'there is inherent unfairness in the valley because only x% of their Engineers are of minority group ABC' - when in fact, it's actually pretty fair, given the talent pool they draw from.
I can't say that I've ever read an article critiquing the Valley on gender representation - that ever made mention of this fact.
So even though there is an issue to be addressed - it's also being misrepresented.
When I say 'there's more to the story' - I'm not offering a consolation or token to 'the other side' of the debate. I don't view these things as having sides. I'm simply stating that I think there's more to it. That's all.
I'm not debating anyone or taking any sides.
As for the 'male/female' perspective - I wish I had that reference for you - I read it relatively recently, and the data point really popped out at me, which is why I remembered it.
I'm a guy - so 'lack of role models' is something I would never consider as a possibility for 'why I wouldn't want to work in tech'. So, knowing that so many girls feel that way, make me think about the issue differently.
How can this be helpful? Well, for one, obviously by making sure that the 'stories' of female engineers are told, that there is visibility etc. - which is kind of a no-brainer, one that really should not be contentious.
But there are other issues. The Canadian Navy did a study (long ago) where they found that when ships deployed with very few women on board, that it was stressful for them. But when there was a 'critical mass' of them (I think like 8%), then they seemed to get along a lot better. So, this 'critical mass' concept might be useful in planning: if a 'guy founded' startup grows, they may consider reaching that 'critical mass' as an absolute minimum for female participation. Most companies don't think about gender issues until headcount gets larger, so maybe once they start growing, they can try hard to get 'a good group' of girls in, beyond that threshold, so that they don't feel isolated. The same could very well apply to minority groups - i.e. maybe there is a 'critical mass' below which many feel isolated. Black and Latino Engineers are pretty rare. This could be an issue there.
The 'role model' issue may be also strongly related to the lower participation of females in upper management. But that's a whole other can of worms, and I've already written too much so ...
>Do you believe there are any disparities in demographics between the general population and a given field (such as tech)?
We see this EVERYWHERE, but we only care about a very very small subset of fields, such as tech and upper management. As long as no one is being discriminated, then I really don't care about the demographics in a field. People should be able to work in what ever field they're qualified for but I don't see the need to take speciel actions to get more black women into the programming for example.
We see this EVERYWHERE, but we only care about a very very small subset of fields, such as tech and upper management. As long as no one is being discriminated, then I really don't care about the demographics in a field. People should be able to work in what ever field they're qualified for but I don't see the need to take speciel actions to get more black women into the programming for example.
How do you determine whether or not discrimination is partly responsible for the disparity?
I don't know, but I honestly don't see companies refusing to hire people on the basis of sex or gender, because it doesn't make finansiel sense.
I think I understand what you mean, but I find it problematic. Do I understand you to mean unless a company refuses to hire based on sex/gender across the board, there's no discrimination?
Well yes, of cause there could be issues with the people doing the hiring discriminating, due to personal opinions. In the case from the article, with Facebook only hiring one black women, it's not really relevant, when we don't know how many black women applicants they had. Ignoring everything else they should have hired 30 black women, assuming California demographics. Honestly I think it's more to do with women picking other careers and more black people being poor and not having the resource to acquire the skills Facebook seek (which of cause it a problem in it self).
How do you think these underlying problems be addressed? Thanks for showing you're willing to dig into this.
Some of them don't need to, it's okay that e.g. men and women are interested in different careers. The most obvious is that everyone need equal access to education. A persons lack of education should never be due to the misfortune of his or her environment.
As for companies, I don't think they are racist or sexist, so for large companies maybe dual interviews processes, to avoid a racist manager eject a person due to race.
It's not easy, if discrimination is really so wide spread as people would have us believe, then we need to start finding out why. If it's just people being asshole, then there's not really anything we can do, and we need to avoid these people and their companies.
As for companies, I don't think they are racist or sexist, so for large companies maybe dual interviews processes, to avoid a racist manager eject a person due to race.
It's not easy, if discrimination is really so wide spread as people would have us believe, then we need to start finding out why. If it's just people being asshole, then there's not really anything we can do, and we need to avoid these people and their companies.
It's not easy, if discrimination is really so wide spread as people would have us believe, then we need to start finding out why. If it's just people being asshole, then there's not really anything we can do, and we need to avoid these people and their companies.
If I understood your earlier comment, you were pointing towards there being underlying problems not limited to company hiring processes, or perhaps even outside of companies in particular. Here it looks like you're talking about companies again. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on discrimination/disparities outside of companies. Or did I misunderstand your earlier comment?
If I understood your earlier comment, you were pointing towards there being underlying problems not limited to company hiring processes, or perhaps even outside of companies in particular. Here it looks like you're talking about companies again. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on discrimination/disparities outside of companies. Or did I misunderstand your earlier comment?
Outside companies I really have no clue to be honest, it's mostly down to upbringing I think.
Edit: companies are easy, because their motivation is always clear, people are.... weird
Edit: companies are easy, because their motivation is always clear, people are.... weird
I agree people are weird, and their group interactions can be hard to characterize or understand. And this is a particularly contentious and difficult issue.
Let me try to summarize what I hear you saying:
There are demographic disparities everywhere between the general population and any given field. Some of those disparities may be due to discrimination, but to what extent discrimination may be playing a role is hard to determine. Companies (for the most part) aren't engaging in blatant discrimination. Some of the disparity is likely due to career choices that are in part a result of how people are brought up and their educational opportunities. As far as education goes, no one should be deprived of educational opportunities due to environmental factors.
Is that an accurate representation? I don't want to be putting words in your mouth or creating a straw man, as that serves no one. Please do correct or improve my summary where needed.
I think your point regarding educational opportunities is particularly important. How do you think this can be improved, in as far as decreasing disparities due to educational opportunity environment differences?
Let me try to summarize what I hear you saying:
There are demographic disparities everywhere between the general population and any given field. Some of those disparities may be due to discrimination, but to what extent discrimination may be playing a role is hard to determine. Companies (for the most part) aren't engaging in blatant discrimination. Some of the disparity is likely due to career choices that are in part a result of how people are brought up and their educational opportunities. As far as education goes, no one should be deprived of educational opportunities due to environmental factors.
Is that an accurate representation? I don't want to be putting words in your mouth or creating a straw man, as that serves no one. Please do correct or improve my summary where needed.
I think your point regarding educational opportunities is particularly important. How do you think this can be improved, in as far as decreasing disparities due to educational opportunity environment differences?
>Do you believe there are any disparities in demographics between the general population and a given field (such as tech)?
I don't have to believe it, if you look at any statistics on this subject, you'll see some pretty obvious and typical trends (not many male nurses, not many female coal miners, etc).
>What demographic do you belong to?
Won't you just discard my opinion if I'm not of a demographic that's "allowed" to have a valid opinion on this? The most I'll say is that if you guessed, you'd probably be wrong.
>How do you think these disparities might affect society as a whole?
I think the push to correct these disparities is very harmful to society as a whole, as people are pushed into fields they don't actually like to correct for statistics that don't even matter, and who displace and disadvantage people who did not have to be pushed into their field nor lured with preferential hiring.
>If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics?
I will answer that question with a question: Why does this disparity need to be corrected? Do all such disparities need to be corrected? Where is the push for gender diversity in offshore oil rigs and coal mines, or for elementary education and nursing? If some do, and some don't, how do you decide which disparities to be corrected, and which ones not to be? What do we get out of correcting these disparities?
Many people, of a particular ideological demographic, believe gender disparities are solely attributed to social and cultural influences, and that women will have just as much interest in construction work and men will have just as much interest in nursing once you account for gender differences in socialization and upbringing and et cetera. I don't believe this has been proven.
Without knowing that every demographic has equal interest and potential in every job, what's the value in making sure every demographic has equal membership in every field of employment?
I don't have to believe it, if you look at any statistics on this subject, you'll see some pretty obvious and typical trends (not many male nurses, not many female coal miners, etc).
>What demographic do you belong to?
Won't you just discard my opinion if I'm not of a demographic that's "allowed" to have a valid opinion on this? The most I'll say is that if you guessed, you'd probably be wrong.
>How do you think these disparities might affect society as a whole?
I think the push to correct these disparities is very harmful to society as a whole, as people are pushed into fields they don't actually like to correct for statistics that don't even matter, and who displace and disadvantage people who did not have to be pushed into their field nor lured with preferential hiring.
>If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics?
I will answer that question with a question: Why does this disparity need to be corrected? Do all such disparities need to be corrected? Where is the push for gender diversity in offshore oil rigs and coal mines, or for elementary education and nursing? If some do, and some don't, how do you decide which disparities to be corrected, and which ones not to be? What do we get out of correcting these disparities?
Many people, of a particular ideological demographic, believe gender disparities are solely attributed to social and cultural influences, and that women will have just as much interest in construction work and men will have just as much interest in nursing once you account for gender differences in socialization and upbringing and et cetera. I don't believe this has been proven.
Without knowing that every demographic has equal interest and potential in every job, what's the value in making sure every demographic has equal membership in every field of employment?
There's a lot of defensiveness in your response, which is understandable given how charged a lot of these conversations can get. I've intentionally phrased the questions to allow for disagreement on whether these topics should even be a concern.
As for discarding your opinion, I wouldn't be asking for it if my intent was to discard it. The idea that someone's opinion is valid depending on their demographic is troublesome. I do think that one needs to be reflective and honestly question how their opinion is shaped by their particular circumstance.
As for the rest, it looks like it boils down for you that any disparity that currently exists is fine. The questions you raise regarding how to decide which disparities should be corrected I think is important and should be addressed, though my impression is that you think because this question is difficult (or exists at all) means the entire endeavor is invalid or should be discarded. If that's not your intent, I'm honestly interested in hearing your thoughts on them.
As for discarding your opinion, I wouldn't be asking for it if my intent was to discard it. The idea that someone's opinion is valid depending on their demographic is troublesome. I do think that one needs to be reflective and honestly question how their opinion is shaped by their particular circumstance.
As for the rest, it looks like it boils down for you that any disparity that currently exists is fine. The questions you raise regarding how to decide which disparities should be corrected I think is important and should be addressed, though my impression is that you think because this question is difficult (or exists at all) means the entire endeavor is invalid or should be discarded. If that's not your intent, I'm honestly interested in hearing your thoughts on them.
>There's a lot of defensiveness in your response, which is understandable given how charged a lot of these conversations can get. I've intentionally phrased the questions to allow for disagreement on whether these topics should even be a concern.
You're right, and I appreciate your phrasing. However, I feel very strongly about this, because I feel these policies hurt everyone, from the people in the majority they directly disadvantage to the minority groups they are supposed to advance.
>As for discarding your opinion, I wouldn't be asking for it if my intent was to discard it.
Could you say the same of every other person likely to view this thread? The same ideology that leads people to inject identity politics into everything is also the one that leads people to discard opinions if they're not from the "right" people. Everyone who isn't a complete minority has absolutely no incentive to tell people what demographic they belong to.
>As for the rest, it looks like it boils down for you that any disparity that currently exists is fine.
I wouldn't say this is true, but part of my dismissive attitude comes from the linked article, which suggests that people should change their hiring practices to move closer to their ideal of a "diverse" company, where all demographics have equal representation. I don't believe this ideal has value, and I believe trying to attain it is discriminatory and harmful to society at large. That doesn't mean all disparities should not be corrected, just that their correction should not involve rigging zero-sum games such as job admittance or university acceptance in favor of their demographic. Instead I am in favor of solutions further down the line, where the actual problem exists, such as increased school funding and better teachers so that these people have a better chance of getting into college and succeeding once they get there.
You're right, and I appreciate your phrasing. However, I feel very strongly about this, because I feel these policies hurt everyone, from the people in the majority they directly disadvantage to the minority groups they are supposed to advance.
>As for discarding your opinion, I wouldn't be asking for it if my intent was to discard it.
Could you say the same of every other person likely to view this thread? The same ideology that leads people to inject identity politics into everything is also the one that leads people to discard opinions if they're not from the "right" people. Everyone who isn't a complete minority has absolutely no incentive to tell people what demographic they belong to.
>As for the rest, it looks like it boils down for you that any disparity that currently exists is fine.
I wouldn't say this is true, but part of my dismissive attitude comes from the linked article, which suggests that people should change their hiring practices to move closer to their ideal of a "diverse" company, where all demographics have equal representation. I don't believe this ideal has value, and I believe trying to attain it is discriminatory and harmful to society at large. That doesn't mean all disparities should not be corrected, just that their correction should not involve rigging zero-sum games such as job admittance or university acceptance in favor of their demographic. Instead I am in favor of solutions further down the line, where the actual problem exists, such as increased school funding and better teachers so that these people have a better chance of getting into college and succeeding once they get there.
I appreciate that you feel strongly about this: it's clear that a lot of people do. I encourage you to figure out if this is a conversation you actually want to have, or if you are content with only expressing your views. You've been very quick to assume that people are going to dismiss the validity of your views ("Could you say the same of every other person likely to view this thread?"), and are just as quick to dismiss those of others by assuming their intent ("those of a particular ideological demographic").
These are tough conversations to have. You have to be willing to put yourself out there and engage in a genuine manner to look for solutions people can agree upon. You're right that not everyone on HN (or elsewhere, for that matter) are going to be able to do that, but if everyone waits for everyone else to put their best foot forward, no progress is going to be made at all.
You mention increased school funding and better teachers. How do propose doing this? In the US, there's increasing focus on decreasing funding in public schools. Coupled with school funding being closely associated with property taxes, those most disadvantaged are those with the least funding available.
These are tough conversations to have. You have to be willing to put yourself out there and engage in a genuine manner to look for solutions people can agree upon. You're right that not everyone on HN (or elsewhere, for that matter) are going to be able to do that, but if everyone waits for everyone else to put their best foot forward, no progress is going to be made at all.
You mention increased school funding and better teachers. How do propose doing this? In the US, there's increasing focus on decreasing funding in public schools. Coupled with school funding being closely associated with property taxes, those most disadvantaged are those with the least funding available.
Study: Efforts to Promote Workplace Meritocracy Can Have the Opposite Effect
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110502006774/en/Fair...
edit: My point is that throwing a "diversity strategy" completely in the trash "because meritocracy" doesn't make sense. I can't say the linked study is 100% applicable but hopefully it will open the door to consideration of the value of combining multiple approaches.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110502006774/en/Fair...
edit: My point is that throwing a "diversity strategy" completely in the trash "because meritocracy" doesn't make sense. I can't say the linked study is 100% applicable but hopefully it will open the door to consideration of the value of combining multiple approaches.
"Our findings simply demonstrate that the pursuit of meritocracy at the workplace may be more difficult than it first appears"
That's not an indictment of pursuing a meritocracy.
That's not an indictment of pursuing a meritocracy.
This seems like it's a problem with the people that were used in the study, not inherent within the system that they used.
What would you suggest, after having read this, to not attempt meritocracy at all because it will be biased when those making the decisions are biased?
Replace them with algorithms. Feed the algorithms objective metrics that you wish to optimize. This is much easier said that done, but now your meritocracy does what you intended it to do. If you encounter problems, the metrics are not what you want them to be, or the problems are problems at another level, which you cannot solve from changing this part of the system.
What would you suggest, after having read this, to not attempt meritocracy at all because it will be biased when those making the decisions are biased?
Replace them with algorithms. Feed the algorithms objective metrics that you wish to optimize. This is much easier said that done, but now your meritocracy does what you intended it to do. If you encounter problems, the metrics are not what you want them to be, or the problems are problems at another level, which you cannot solve from changing this part of the system.
The first paragraph is her premise. On first read, I uncharitably dismissed it - "yeah, tech companies should be tripping over themselves to achieve diversity so they can take advantage of this.... uh, correlation with.... a hot 35% bonus....in the mission-critical field of "probability of "performing well""" (all quotes intentional).
Then I charitably followed the links in the paragraph. The scientific studies are underwhelming (in terms of convincing a tech company to do something). The mckinsey article cheapens itself towards the end ("The unequal performance of companies in the same industry and the same country implies that diversity is a competitive differentiator shifting market share toward more diverse companies." That implication is terrible)
It's not hard to understand how diversity in the workplace might challenge our minds more, keep us more professional (in company culture and hiring practice), improve fitness in whatever other ways. But it's all conceptual, and until there's more scientific evidence, the literature has to settle for being obnoxious - light on information, heavy on telling the reader what to think before and after said information (tabloid style).
Then I charitably followed the links in the paragraph. The scientific studies are underwhelming (in terms of convincing a tech company to do something). The mckinsey article cheapens itself towards the end ("The unequal performance of companies in the same industry and the same country implies that diversity is a competitive differentiator shifting market share toward more diverse companies." That implication is terrible)
It's not hard to understand how diversity in the workplace might challenge our minds more, keep us more professional (in company culture and hiring practice), improve fitness in whatever other ways. But it's all conceptual, and until there's more scientific evidence, the literature has to settle for being obnoxious - light on information, heavy on telling the reader what to think before and after said information (tabloid style).
Is there a refutation to the argument that all these "diversity for diversity's sake" programs, this sort of frantic insistence upstream to achieve diversity at all costs, produces some less than qualified candidates?
In every institution I've ever been at, people talked about how to recruit more women, but in practice this meant grabbing the first woman who applied and using them as a prop to show how diverse they were. Professors have blatantly admitted to my female friends that they were being used for that purpose.
In every institution I've ever been at, people talked about how to recruit more women, but in practice this meant grabbing the first woman who applied and using them as a prop to show how diverse they were. Professors have blatantly admitted to my female friends that they were being used for that purpose.
Yes, hiring people based on their race/gender creates a perverse framework of incentives. A good example of some of the problems that arise from valuing "diversity" over actual merits is Susan Fowler. Her bosses treated her very badly because she was a woman, by refusing her requests to transfer and giving her bad marks on her performance exams, and the reason they did it was because of their incentive to appear "diverse". I don't mean to excuse their behavior, it was horrible, but maybe things would have been somewhat better if the system didn't reward her bosses for having a woman on their team (and subsequent disincentive for them leaving).
> the reason they did it was because of their incentive to appear "diverse"
This seems to radically mischaracterize the issues in that case.
This seems to radically mischaracterize the issues in that case.
It seems to match her original blog post.
"It turned out that keeping me on the team made my manager look good, and I overheard him boasting to the rest of the team that even though the rest of the teams were losing their women engineers left and right, he still had some on his team."
(from https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...)
That's not the worst thing she reported, but it's there, and it's definitely very bad. Would you elaborate on what mischaracterization you see?
"It turned out that keeping me on the team made my manager look good, and I overheard him boasting to the rest of the team that even though the rest of the teams were losing their women engineers left and right, he still had some on his team."
(from https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...)
That's not the worst thing she reported, but it's there, and it's definitely very bad. Would you elaborate on what mischaracterization you see?
A characterization that the origin of the problem was Uber paying too much attention to diversity statistics.
I think it's very reasonable to say that the reason it made her bosses look good to have a woman on their team was directly because of the push for diversity and inclusion in the tech world. Why else would they value such a thing?
Uber's problem was the workplace was toxic. In a former company, as a straight guy I've been hit on by another guy who was my team lead (and well connected). I can tell you it was not comfortable. I ended up leaving to another project as a planned transition, but my initial complaints directly to that team lead were laughed off as "I'm kidding (but I'll try again)".
I bet there are a LOT of unreported such cases.
Susan Fowler's case has less to do with race/gender than sexual harassment and abuse of power. I sure as hell would avoid working there if that kind of behavior goes unchecked.
I bet there are a LOT of unreported such cases.
Susan Fowler's case has less to do with race/gender than sexual harassment and abuse of power. I sure as hell would avoid working there if that kind of behavior goes unchecked.
Also, what percentage of women in tech would represent success in diversity? I don't believe it's exactly 50% in any discipline, lest we suggest the diversity of our genders has zero impact on what people want to do with their lives.
So if it's not exactly 50%, what percentage is it? How can you even figure it out?
A lack of diversity is one of those things that you know when you see. But as numbers improve, we are going to run into the problem where we have no idea when to stop obsessing over the numbers.
It's why I feel that equality in opportunity is the more effective measure. Are people doing what they want to be doing with their lives?
Something like 99.9% of midwives in Ontario are female. Is there a diversity problem? If you find men that feel like they can't become midwives for some reason, then yes. But not because that ratio feels imbalanced.
So if it's not exactly 50%, what percentage is it? How can you even figure it out?
A lack of diversity is one of those things that you know when you see. But as numbers improve, we are going to run into the problem where we have no idea when to stop obsessing over the numbers.
It's why I feel that equality in opportunity is the more effective measure. Are people doing what they want to be doing with their lives?
Something like 99.9% of midwives in Ontario are female. Is there a diversity problem? If you find men that feel like they can't become midwives for some reason, then yes. But not because that ratio feels imbalanced.
Females in tech in front-line positions roughly match the number of those graduating with relevant education.
It'd rather seem that the primary argument to 'diversity' should be 'getting more women to study the relevant things'.
Though: surveys show that women in tech see the #1 issue is 'lack of role models' - ergo - a degree of feedback here, but really ... I firmly believe that if 50% of Comp Sci grads were women, that roughly 50% of Google Engs would be female.
Caveat: in management positions there is a totally separate spate of issues.
Also - similar issues apply to ethnicity. Tech is about 30% Asian, and very few African Americans or Latinos, which is again commensurate with the pool of graduating talent. Again there are clearly feedback issues - nevertheless - one cannot ignore this white elephant.
It'd rather seem that the primary argument to 'diversity' should be 'getting more women to study the relevant things'.
Though: surveys show that women in tech see the #1 issue is 'lack of role models' - ergo - a degree of feedback here, but really ... I firmly believe that if 50% of Comp Sci grads were women, that roughly 50% of Google Engs would be female.
Caveat: in management positions there is a totally separate spate of issues.
Also - similar issues apply to ethnicity. Tech is about 30% Asian, and very few African Americans or Latinos, which is again commensurate with the pool of graduating talent. Again there are clearly feedback issues - nevertheless - one cannot ignore this white elephant.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you want to convince people it is in their own best interest to invest significantly in diversity, it's not likely the intro to this article will cut it for most.
The first paper mentions that they only found a correlation, however contradicts themselves in attempting to turn this into causation, despite mentioning that correlation != causation: "While correlation does not equal causation (greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership doesn’t automatically translate into more profit), the correlation does indicate that when companies commit themselves to diverse leadership, they are more successful."
It doesn't seem like this was checked for backwards-causation (companies may be more likely to start prioritizing diversity when they are succeeding, but not when they are failing), among many other potential confounding variables, and it seems that they were very intent on trying to prove their outcome regardless of what kind of data they had, where the article starts out with "We know intuitively that diversity matters. It’s also increasingly clear that it makes sense in purely business terms." I didn't check everything from the second link, but this appears to be a very common pattern.
The third link attempts to appeal to the same sense, however goes much further, stating: "it was not “diversity” (having equal numbers of men and women) that mattered for a team’s intelligence, but simply having more women." This would seem to prove far too much, and is obviously not a generalizable result unless you sincerely believe that replacing all men with women will make your company perform better. I'm unable to view the full text or data from this paper due to the paywall.
If you're concerned about the proportion of groups such as women in tech, the right time to get them interested is when they are very young. Not during or after college. With a baseline of significantly more men in tech, you cannot reasonably expect to achieve figures such as a 1:1 ratio of female to male employees. With that said, the author seems to be focusing more on problems after people enter the workplace. There may be a lot of issues here, but I think solutions need to focus on deeper underlying problems such as culture, rather than single bottleneck processes such as promotions (and that which leads up to them).
The first paper mentions that they only found a correlation, however contradicts themselves in attempting to turn this into causation, despite mentioning that correlation != causation: "While correlation does not equal causation (greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership doesn’t automatically translate into more profit), the correlation does indicate that when companies commit themselves to diverse leadership, they are more successful."
It doesn't seem like this was checked for backwards-causation (companies may be more likely to start prioritizing diversity when they are succeeding, but not when they are failing), among many other potential confounding variables, and it seems that they were very intent on trying to prove their outcome regardless of what kind of data they had, where the article starts out with "We know intuitively that diversity matters. It’s also increasingly clear that it makes sense in purely business terms." I didn't check everything from the second link, but this appears to be a very common pattern.
The third link attempts to appeal to the same sense, however goes much further, stating: "it was not “diversity” (having equal numbers of men and women) that mattered for a team’s intelligence, but simply having more women." This would seem to prove far too much, and is obviously not a generalizable result unless you sincerely believe that replacing all men with women will make your company perform better. I'm unable to view the full text or data from this paper due to the paywall.
If you're concerned about the proportion of groups such as women in tech, the right time to get them interested is when they are very young. Not during or after college. With a baseline of significantly more men in tech, you cannot reasonably expect to achieve figures such as a 1:1 ratio of female to male employees. With that said, the author seems to be focusing more on problems after people enter the workplace. There may be a lot of issues here, but I think solutions need to focus on deeper underlying problems such as culture, rather than single bottleneck processes such as promotions (and that which leads up to them).
Reading the existing comments on this thread, if it represents an accurate sample size of the type of culture in tech: this is why as a woman I want to drop out.
Ironically, I've known women who've wanted to drop out of tech culture because of the massive push for "inclusion" and "diversity". Nobody wants to be a diversity hire, and nobody likes seeing people propped up beyond their ability because of their gender or race. A lot of these people just want to be treated normally, and you don't get that by giving people special treatment.
I don't believe it is, given there are many people who generally don't comment on forums at all. There's no reason to think commenters here are a representative sample.
The action points in the article:
Most of the prospective employers I have approached regarding job openings have had a horrible interview process. And I would suggest hiring for aptitude rather than existing skills. Almost everyone focuses on "what have you already done?" rather than "what could you do if we hired you?" It's maddening. Companies can barely test for skill, and I have only seen one that even tried to assess aptitude.
That would be great if companies maintained persistent records of internal collaboration. Unfortunately, I have anecdotally observed a trend of decreasing job-specific training, and less robust internal technical documentation. Some companies don't even have a stepwise guide for doing a manual build of their main software product after getting the latest source.
In short, those are good suggestions, but they don't need to be specifically targeted by sexes and colors. Everyone would benefit if companies did this. So why don't they? It seems like a sane and decent company would become diverse without needing to make any specific effort to do so, whereas a dysfunctional company would see its problems manifest in many different symptoms, with monoculture being just one of them.
1. Treat the women and people of color already working at your
company well, including paying them equitably and preparing them
for promotions.
2. Overhaul your interview process. Hire programmers that have
the skills the company needs.
3. Institute onboarding. Make sure that everyone has the
information they need to succeed at their jobs.
Most of the prospective employers I have approached regarding job openings have had a horrible interview process. And I would suggest hiring for aptitude rather than existing skills. Almost everyone focuses on "what have you already done?" rather than "what could you do if we hired you?" It's maddening. Companies can barely test for skill, and I have only seen one that even tried to assess aptitude.
That would be great if companies maintained persistent records of internal collaboration. Unfortunately, I have anecdotally observed a trend of decreasing job-specific training, and less robust internal technical documentation. Some companies don't even have a stepwise guide for doing a manual build of their main software product after getting the latest source.
In short, those are good suggestions, but they don't need to be specifically targeted by sexes and colors. Everyone would benefit if companies did this. So why don't they? It seems like a sane and decent company would become diverse without needing to make any specific effort to do so, whereas a dysfunctional company would see its problems manifest in many different symptoms, with monoculture being just one of them.
Women should not get preference because they are women.
That is an obnoxious way to reply to someone who expressed a personal concern. If you can't be respectful of others, please don't comment here.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13716297 and marked it off-topic.
Edit: it looks like you've been using HN exclusively to comment on politics. That's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't use HN this way.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13716297 and marked it off-topic.
Edit: it looks like you've been using HN exclusively to comment on politics. That's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't use HN this way.