> "If you look at the scale and speed with which the Valley moves, if they wanted to solve this problem, they could," Dr. Womack said.
That's basically an argument for "the Valley" not having any problems at all. It's said in the context of a wider talent shortage, so does it mean that there is a huge glut of engineers (black or otherwise) currently being ignored/underemployed?
Or it could mean that throwing money at the problem would fix it in short order, which I generally doubt, though I have no issue with the notion that companies complaining about a talent shortage should consider paying to get what they want.
Or it could mean that companies should throw money at the problem in the form of training up engineers, but that is not a speedy-scaley proposition, unfortunately. Hard problems still exist in the time of Uber.
Yeah, it's a huge culture issue, but not a technical problem companies can engineer solutions towards. Tech companies don't exist as government regulators of natural philosophy. On the other hand, tech companies do suffer from monoculture and it hurts them when they only play to their own ivory towers instead of understanding the world as it exists.
When it's expedient to engage different groups it does happen though. Apple didn't buy Beats because their headphones are the best designed things in the world. Apple saw a company that managed to manipulate an entire (racially motivated) youth subculture and wanted to steal some of that power for themselves. Apple also wanted that elderly executive guy who dresses as if he's a teenager from the south and rambles incessantly, unprepared and unrehearsed, at keynotes.
The future of America is clearly not-white (over 50% of children born in the US are now "non-majority") so the problem will self correct within the next 15 years. Be prepared for 15 years of news reports about how everything isn't diverse enough until, one day, things just end up being diverse by the force of history.
Shifting demographics won't inherently change diversity issues in places like Silicon Valley. The problem is far wider than numerical distribution; it's education, home stability, environment, poverty, etc etc, and 15 years isn't going to correct all of that just because national demographics are gradually shifting.
The proof for that is all around: black people are 15% of the population, but a fraction of that in major tech companies. The same holds true for latinos. There's a reverse example that makes the point as well: asians as a percentage of the national population, versus representation in tech companies in Silicon Valley. That more than makes it clear it's about skills and education, not demographic percentages.
Baltimore is ~65% black. Do you think 65% of the programmers in Baltimore are black?
If your theory were correct, we'd have seen a lot more black people working for Twitter, Apple, Google, etc. a long time ago.
It doesn't matter if the future is 80% non-white, if people that are non-white don't develop the education and skills required for the jobs in Silicon Valley. That's the issue, and it won't change just because the percentages on demographics do - ie it is not self-correcting. If it were self-correcting, you'd see proof of that in US cities that have had very large black populations for a long time.
All good points, but my delusions rely on one piece of magic: determined people from disadvantaged backgrounds can become successful anyway.
This won't all be fixed in 15 years, but it will start to be fixed just by numbers. Yes, the current numbers are awful, but they must get better in the future. If they don't get better, the US will end up as 90% poor and 10% CEOs. Many racial-cultural ghettos throughout the country do exist and drive down the future potential of millions of children, but everybody won't stay there forever. Maybe it only takes a few breakthrough tech successes to set the stage—people to look up to, not "smart is bad" culture.
(Also, with current numbers, there are isolated pockets. Sure baltimore is 65% black, but that doesn't put pressure on employee availability (employers can relocate people from elsewhere). But when the entire country is 80% mixed hispanic-white-black-chinese in 100 years, employees must come from society as a whole somewhere.)
It is a generational problem and it will take another one to three generations to fully be considered a non-issue anymore. (Assuming, at some point, the US decides to invest in education and children and growth again instead of choking off all avenues of social mobility as have been routine for the past dozen years.)
The article highlights something called the Hidden Genius Program. From their website: "The Hidden Genius Project trains and mentors black male youth in technology creation, entrepreneurship, and leadership skills to transform their lives and communities."
I find these kinds of programs troubling. There are a ton of impoverished "hidden geniuses" in this country, and not all of them are young, black, or male. If these programs are intended to encourage diversity as they claim, they have a funny way of showing it. Rather, this program seems to promote exclusion.
Edit: Those of you that are downvoting this, a) I have karma to burn - do your worst, and b) a downvote for this comment is an upvote for racism and sexism.
Any approach that targets particular underserved minorities can always be labeled 'exclusion'. But that's a much smaller evil than the one in front of us. Do we really need to fix that problem too?
We need to fix the problems of racism and sexism, which means we shouldn't be excluding anyone from any program or job based solely upon their race or sex. Programs like this fly in the face of that goal and ensure that these problems will continue in perpetuity.
That is precisely correct. The Identity politics that the Grievance Industry try's to interject into every socioeconomic problem is part of problems not the cure for under preforming racial groups.
I'm sure everyone would agree that in an ideal world we would be working to simply pluck racism out of the air and get rid of it once and for all. How do you propose we do that?
The reality is that this program is doing something achievable to address the effects of racism. No, it isn't directly tackling the causes of it. There is no reason why we cannot do both.
Proposing this "all or nothing" approach almost always ends up with "nothing", and it's almost always proposed by people who do not see the benefit of these programs.
Edit: just noticed your edit. Being that hyperbolic does you no favours.
Who said "all or nothing"? I simply said that they shouldn't make program admissions decisions based upon race or sex. Why not live up to the program's name, and find smart people of any race or sex that are interested in technology? You cannot address the effects of the problems of racism and sexism by practicing them.
It's a shame, I typed out a whole reply to the previous message you posted before you deleted it.
Who said "all or nothing"? I simply said that they shouldn't make program admissions decisions based upon race or sex.
Sure! In an ideal world they wouldn't! In reality, they are having decisions made about them dozens of times every day based on their race. So having one or two of those decisions have a positive outcome for a change is a worthwhile thing.
If you can't see the difference between racism and something that is attempting to counter the effects of racism then that's a shame. Except that I'm quite sure you can, as can everyone reading this. Boiling these issues down to "everyone should just stop seeing race" is a very easy, convenient way of dismissing the issue. If you propose we stop programs that benefit minorities, perhaps you could outline your plan for stopping the racism that these minorities face every day?
It's very easy to sit on a message board and wax lyrical about moral absolutes. The actual world outside doesn't work that way, though.
"Racism" is a straw man argument. The fact that Asians, Indians and others do very well proves that. The real problems are universal and effect all groups. Pushing Identity politics into these programs and creating exclusive victim hood grievance clubs breeds far more resentment and Racism on all sides then anything else.
Your argument is a logical fallacy. If it was institutional "racism" against non-European ethnicities that was a cause of disparity then there would be no Asians, Indians etc.
Unless you want to make the claim that Europeans, Asians, and Indians are all "racist" specifically towards Africans in some grand ultra "racism" conspiracy.
There would also be a long line of qualified African Engineers that could not get jobs. Which is false.
The racism towards Europeans, Asians Indians and others by the Identity Politics Grievance Industry Industry (most of which are 'rich' 'white' peopel) is Disgusting and has no place in Tech or any other field. Its a self perpetuating social cancer that has metastasized in the social sciences.
You have stated the hypothesis that a conspiracy of "Racism" is the reason why
that certain groups under preform in the tech industry. Prove it. Prove that there is a conspiracy of "Racism".
Prove that there is a conspiracy of "Racism" between Asians, Europeans, Indians and other groups who have done proportionally well in the tech industry.
It is a delusional baseless self serving Ideology not an examination of socioeconomic and educational disparity that perpetuates this narrative of the "Silicone Valley Hood Men" who rule the tech industry.
You are asking me to prove that racism exists? The rest of your post makes absolutely no sense. What on earth is a "Silicone Valley Hood Men" narrative?
On second thought, never mind. We're deep in conspiracy theory here. Neither of us will gain anything from this exchange.
I can see how it could feel that way, but look at this this way:
Problem: your ratio of X's to Y's is too low due to long-term, subtle discrimination. You have finite resources to solve the problem.
Potential solution #1: put money into training more X's and Y's indiscriminately.
Upside: no exclusion, seems "fair".
Downside: while it may improve your X:Y ratio, it does so very slowly and with a lot of that training money "wasted" on something that wasn't really your goal. It also doesn't really work if it's basically the same as your old training programs, because whatever subtle discrimination occurred there will just occur here too. Also, as soon as you stop, the existing discriminatory training systems will put the ratio right back where it was.
Potential solution #2: put money into just training X's.
Upside: very targeted, and effects are much faster. Can balance whatever subtle discrimination lead to the problem in the first place, like by placing training centres near where the X's live or exploiting other things they may have in common. May solve the problem more permanently by increasing the number of X's with the better knowledge of how to train future X's.
Downside: can feel "unfair" to Y's.
The fact is, if you want to increase your X:Y ratio, you'll get here faster and cheaper via X+1:Y rather than X+1:Y+1.
Why is your goal to increase the X:Y ratio? Isn't the goal merely to avoid excluding people, and allow them entry if they want (and are capable) of it?
Also, if X is an overrepresented minority (e.g. Chinese, Indians), the only way to fix the ratio is by reducing their numbers or recruiting unrealistic numbers of every other group. Do you favor this?
The goal is not to directly increase the X:Y ratio -- that's just a proxy, or "shorthand" for something more fundamental: equal access to power. Now that goal operates under the assumption that while individuals vary, all groups (a group is what society categorizes as a group) don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them.
The reason talking in ratios (as shorthand) is better than your goal of "void excluding people, and allow them entry if they want (and are capable) of it", is that we know that what people want and are capable of are much of the time what power directs them to want or be capable of (obviously, not entirely, but it's a strong component). So that means that if those in society manage to make some people not want power, then everything is fine -- while others, like me, think it is not.
I spent some time writing about poor youth, and one of the things that surprised me is that they all wanted money. That wasn't the surprising thing -- what surprised me was that when I asked them how much money they wanted they said something like $60K a year, which seemed like an enormous amount to them. That's what the most successful people they know make. So they wanted to open a small convenience store and make that amount of money (or make that money in crime). When I told them that people who go to college and become, say, engineers make a lot more, they just couldn't believe me.
> Do you favor this?
I favor all groups having equal(ish) representation in the seats of power. That means no group is underrepresented, and that no group is overrepresented. Whether to achieve that by what you Americans call affirmative action (which is what you seem to be alluding to) or by fixing the fundamental causes for the inequality -- or both -- is a completely different matter.
Also, I have no problem with different groups achieving power in different means. If, say, Asians were overrepresented in tech but underrepresented in banking -- that would be fine. What isn't fine is when the same group is underrepresented in most seats of power overall.
Now that goal operates under the assumption that while individuals vary, all groups (a group is what society categorizes as a group) don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them.
Are you really postulating that because society categorizes something as a group, therefore members of this group suddenly act in a completely altruistic manner towards their groupmates?
That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism.
To put this concretely, my real world choices are a) hire a Guju to help a Punjabi get rich while going home and banging a hot nigerian woman or b) less money, less enjoyable work, less capable coworkers and less attractive women, but I'll suffer with that out of group altruism. I guess you believe b) is the logical choice that virtually everyone makes.
Also, let me list the numbers and make my question clear. Asians are currently about 40% of tech and 4.7% of America. For black Americans to be represented in tech in equal proportions, and for us to NOT kick Asians out, then we'd need to recruit a number of black people equal to 104% of the entire tech industry. I.e., we'd need about 3 million black people to enter tech.
To bring Asians back down to 4.7% in tech, overall you'd need to increase the size of the industry by 750%, bringing it up to 25.5M people (from approx 3M). That seems a little implausible.
Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor?
> Are you really postulating that because society categorizes something as a group, therefore members of this group suddenly act in a completely altruistic manner towards their groupmates?
Huh? No. Why do you think I think that? Social groups often have shared experiences (often because society views them as a group), and people with shared experience often have shared needs, and to get those needs you need power. If you don't have the power, other groups have power over you, and they may not share your needs, and have their own, and as a result act less in your interest.
There is an interesting concept called ingroup/outgroup[1] that is subject to a lot of current research in social psychology, which has found that kids at a very young age display ingroup allegiance and outgroup rejection even for made up groups (e.g. experimenters tell a kid, "you're in the blue group", and then ask them play the dictator game[2], namely decide how much and what kind of rewards to give to another kid they've never met, who they only know belongs to their made-up group or not. The group association makes a lot of difference (incidentally in boys more than girls, but that depends on age). Ingroup/outgroup is a well-known, well-studied concept, but it's not altruism, let alone "complete altruism". It's not entirely relevant to my view anyway, but since you brought up altruism I thought I'd explain the "proper term" for the "feeling" one has towards one's own social group vs. others. Again, even ingroup/outgroup is not directly related to the objective unequal distribution of power.
> That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism.
Remarkable indeed! Why in god's name would you think I make that claim?[3]
> Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor?
I must say I'm surprised you think that. First -- this isn't a zero-sum game. Groups that are underrepresented in power are often underrepresented because their ability to achieve a good social standing (and a good chance at power) through education, connections, familiarity with the business world or politics etc.. is very much reduced. That's precisely where society's economic potential lies. If they get better education, better connections and so on, the economy would grow very, very significantly (they will make more money to buy things and be more productive). Second, if you think it is a zero-sum game, you must accept the possibility (which is the reality) that the current state of things is after blacks have been kicked out. You've already kicked out a group out of the economic process[4], and all we want is to let them back in. So, yeah, if it's a zero-sum game (it isn't), the end result will be more-or-less equal representation in power (not tech alone -- I said that we have no problem in one community being overrepresented in one seat of power and underrepresented in another). Of course, it's not a zero-sum game, because those who have no access to power are almost always in a state of "untapped potential" that benefits everyone.
[3]: In this particular case, the entirety of their contribution to the economic process for hundreds of years has been stolen from them, and then, with wha...
"...all groups...don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them."
A group is a collection of individuals. You seem to be asserting those individuals behave in a manner that protects their group power rather than helping individuals. Assign whatever word you want to it.
Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I'm willing to turn down for the cause of white power?
I must say I'm surprised you think that.
Yes, multiplication and division does sometimes yield surprising results. Arithmetic shows 3 choices:
1) Recruit 22M non-Asians into tech (assuming 3M people in tech, 40% Asians in tech and 4.7% Asians in America), and prevent any more Asians from joining. Do you believe this is feasible? Or do you think I made an arithmetic error? If so, feel free to correct it.
2) Kick Asians out.
3) Accept non-proportionate representation.
Do you believe (1) is feasible? It's a simple yes or no question. Assuming it's not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question?
> You seem to be asserting those individuals behave in a manner that protects their group power rather than helping individuals.
No, I don't. First, there is the general notion of collective behavior. I can tell you almost exactly the result of a thousand coin tosses, but I can't tell you the result of one. Second, you see a tradeoff where there isn't any. Thirdly, power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions). Finally, you assume individuals behave in a rational behavior to maximize their expected utility over a long term, while it's been shown that people don't behave this way even in the short term. Most people would often lose 1$ to gain absolutely nothing other than some internal psychological reward.
I must say, though, that responding to this kind of statements is hard. It's like you're saying, "a photon is either a particle or a wave; it can't be both; please make up your mind". Where do I even begin? Your premises about human behavior -- both as individuals and in groups -- are false, and then you argue about the conclusions. Just to give you a little bit of the basics, people make choices, but those choices are in large part influenced (and by that I don't mean 100% determined) by social influences.
> Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I'm willing to turn down for the cause of white power?
Sure. You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain if the cause of white power wins. I mean, this isn't some theory. Black people in power means that more collective resources are used to advance black concerns. Black concerns (like white concerns) are unique, because, statistically, their experience is different.
> Do you believe (1) is feasible? It's a simple yes or no question. Assuming it's not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question?
I'm not ignoring your math, but you're applying kindergarten math to graduate physics. It's like me saying, well, the speed of light is C, and you're going this way and she's going that way so C + C = 2C!
In a social system there are feedback mechanisms. If you're increasing the number of educated blacks, who knows what's going to happen specifically in tech? Maybe the tech sector will grow. Maybe bio-med will grow, and black people will go there. But yes -- to answer your question directly -- if, say, Asians have a disproportionately large portion of power (as a whole; it doesn't matter how its divided among sectors), then a desired result is that they'll have relatively less of it. I really don't see the problem. To me it sounds like you're saying, but if we'll let blacks vote then you're kicking whites out of the decision process.
Also, I don't understand your implied horror at "kicking Asians out" while you're seemingly fine with kicking blacks out, because that's what's really happening. If someone must be kicked out, I'd rather all groups would get a share of the kicks.
Of course there is a tradeoff. If you ever have the opportunity to make more money/enjoy your job more/invest well but in a way that benefits the outgroup over the ingroup, you are suddenly faced with this tradeoff.
E.g. I want to hire someone but the best guy isn't white.
The only way there isn't a tradeoff is if the best investment always has a white CEO, the best candidate is always the white male, etc. Is this really your belief?
It's like you're saying, "a photon is either a particle or a wave; it can't be both; please make up your mind". Where do I even begin?
Feel free to provide equations, or even just clear and unambiguous statements.
...power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions)...You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain if the cause of white power wins.
You are ignoring the collective action problem here. I can hire the best guy for the job and make money now. Then, in the future, if if white power ever wins, I can reap the rewards of that also.
For much the same reason, I don't vote, and I'd skip paying taxes if it wasn't for the threats of violence.
I'm not ignoring your math, but you're applying kindergarten math to graduate physics.
Since you seem to think the laws of arithmetic don't apply to counting humans, go ahead and do the grad physics - I promise I can follow along.
To me it sounds like you're saying...you're seemingly fine with kicking blacks out...
That's because you ignored what I said in search of an easy straw man.
I repeat my prediction: "more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question." I add a new prediction: "no equations or unambiguous statements shall be forthcoming."
So if a system is too complex for us to discover its equations (so far) that means that we don't know anything about it? Let me tell you that in grad school I studied applied math, and we had those very, very simple non-linear ODEs, yet the best we could do with them was simulate them numerically and make general statements about their behavior from observation. Every person is probably governed many non-linear equations, much more complicated than the simple ones people usually study, and they all interact in a complex system. So, for now, I guess we have to settle to many years of observational research. That doesn't mean we haven't learned anything.
> Feel free to provide equations, or even just clear and unambiguous statements.
My statements are very clear (I think; I'm not a native English speaker). I still don't understand how you manage to misinterpret them or think they're vague. My guess is that you're not trying to understand what it is that I'm saying.
> You are ignoring the collective action problem here.
No, I'm not. You are ignoring both the state and the dynamics of the system. Groups that have little power have little means of increasing it (basically, it takes money to make money) other than through collective action. Some forms of power can't be obtained alone. If you want to be elected to office, you have to have a base and form alliances. The only reason I used your terminology of money (You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain) is because you keep reducing a complex system to simple scenarios, and when I say that the system is complex you say I'm evading your question (which is about an irrelevant model), so this time I tried to answer using your model, and now you've expanded it -- ambiguously, because you didn't explain how white power can win without your cooperation if every player behaves like you do. Your model invariably leads to local-minimum Nash equilibria, yet history has shown over and over how Nash equilibria are overcome; ergo -- your model is very, very wrong.
But I'll tell you what. If you're willing to explain what your entire model for society is, I'll gladly point out the mistakes.
> For much the same reason, I don't vote
You don't vote or participate in demonstrations or other collective actions because you feel that your position is not in any imminent danger. Alternatively, you might feel that you won't make a difference anyway. Yet another possibility is that your empathy is low, so you gain little emotional reward by helping people in need. Or, your empathy is high, but not applied to faceless strangers. We are all different.
> Since you seem to think the laws of arithmetic don't apply to counting humans
It's not the laws of arithmetic, it's their applicability to reality. C+C=2C, but that doesn't mean that that's the speed you'd observe.
> I promise I can follow along.
Perhaps, if you were really interested in understanding how society works, but even though I'm sure I'd enjoy it -- and so will you -- it would take too much time. My professional training is in history (and math) but I am not expert enough to reduce the important parts to something manageable in HN comments.
> I repeat my prediction: "more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question." I add a new prediction: "no equations or unambiguous statements shall be forthcoming.
At first I thought I'd write simply "kick those Asians out", but then I thought I'd better make a prediction of my own: you'll go on insisting on not learning how social systems work and how people behave, but keep on believing that smart people who spend their lives studying such systems g...
So if a system is too complex for us to discover its equations (so far) that means that we don't know anything about it?
I'd say if you can't express your beliefs as equations, code, or similar unambiguous form, then you don't understand your own beliefs. (Or alternately, you don't want others to have the ability to unambiguously debunk them.)
...when I say that the system is complex you say I'm evading your question...It's not the laws of arithmetic, it's their applicability to reality.
This is a perfect example of evading the question. You make some weird analogy to special relativity, but refuse to actually state why simple arithmetic doesn't apply to counting humans.
...ambiguously, because you didn't explain how white power can win without your cooperation if every player behaves like you do.
It can't. But since changing my behavior won't change theirs, I still have no incentive to cooperate.
This is why collective action problems usually require enforcement mechanisms (men with guns threatening me if I refuse to pay taxes, Jim Crow laws forcing me to serve white power, that type of thing). Except yours, apparently.
Then most human knowledge is not understood, yet a lot of progress has been made without equations. Sometimes, the model is too approximate and statistical, that putting it in an equation is useless; that's just not an appropriate representation. That doesn't mean that general qualitative observations are wrong. Even behavior of non-linear ODEs is sometimes described in prose because we can only describe it in very broad strokes.
I mentioned elsewhere that 19th-century-style hyper-optimism regarding technology in some groups (esp. in SV), which is based not on some deep philosophy but on utility. Namely, they believe that if it works and has utility that means we know it. If that's the case, the same logic should apply to social events. We have made progress; we made revolutions, therefore we know enough about society to change it (and please don't ask me to define progress. For whatever definition you choose, a social movement has made it happen someplace on Earth).
> but refuse to actually state why simple arithmetic doesn't apply to counting humans.
I did not evade the question. I specifically said there are feedback loops. Linear extrapolations are a terrible approximations of ODEs, and this is much more complicated than that. Maybe the economy will grow, maybe new fields will be opened up. We can hardly predict the weather for more than a few days; it stands to reason that trying to predict a much more complex system decades into the future is futile.
> This is why collective action problems usually require enforcement mechanisms
Enforcement mechanism arise naturally through a process that starts with self-reinforcement. Modern democracy was started in the American and French revolutions. Those are just two examples. In fact, most big social changes started this way. This is again an opinion which stands in complete opposition to historical facts.
You are not motivated to action because your position is not threatened enough. If it were, you would be and others too, and then you'd see how changes are made. This happens all the time. In about any given moment, there is at least one such major change happening somewhere in the world, and many more gradual ones. It is the rule rather than the exception.
In practice, the question is if getting to X+n:Y is more than ten times as expensive as getting to X+(n/2):Y+(n/2), does it still make sense to prioritize the former?
This is not an argument against the "Hidden Genius Project" discussed in the linked article; it's clear that Mr. Young's comparative advantage does in fact lie with helping other black men, so you'd still want him working on that even if the broader goal is getting to X+(n/2):Y+(n/2).
And who gets to make the decision on how many of each "Race" gets well paying jobs special programs and a seat at the table? Is it you? Is it you that gets to tell a poverty stricken Asian or European child that they do not get to be successful in life because the percentage of there "Race" is to successful and they are no on your favored "Race" list?
That is horribly Racist. And totally oblivious to that fact.
my silicon valley co-workers are much more diverse
Twitter had a neat turn of phrase in their recent diversity document: "these new goals focus on increasing the overall representation of women and underrepresented minorities"
underrepresented. You don't count as a minority if there's already too many of you being successful.
> Twitter had a neat turn of phrase in their recent diversity document: "these new goals focus on increasing the overall representation of women and underrepresented minorities"
> underrepresented. You don't count as a minority if there's already too many of you being successful.
why would you focus on minorities that are overrepresented?
Asian-Americans simply don't count when it comes to racial diversity. If tech companies are not diverse because the vast majority of workers are white and Asian, isn't the NBA similarly non-diverse because the vast majority of players are black and white? Would there be a similar uproar about the lack of racial diversity in tech if the representation of Asian-Americans and blacks working in tech were reversed? I very much doubt it.
I don't think anyone would qualify the NBA as "diverse". Its had a high majority of black players for a while now. You don't see a ton of asians or hispanics however.
The media most certainly does have a diversity problem. It's self-inflicted though - aspiring journalists are expected to "grind it out" and "pay their dues" via years of unpaid internships and underpaid Jr/associate work. Complicating matters, orgs prefer hiring candidates from pricey tier-1 private liberal arts colleges. This means the only demographics that can participate are people who come from financially-secure families who provide a measure of patronage for their children starting out in these industries.
> I'd venture a bet that my silicon valley co-workers are much more diverse
You're welcome to publish that research. If you look at the tech workforce at Facebook, where they use extremely generous 1% rounding, the sum of black and hispanic employees is 4%. [0] In one sense, comparing the least generous 8% nonwhite figure with NYT Board of Directors, their board has twice (200%) the proportion of minority members than Facebook has across their tech workforce.
Venture that bet. You'll lose the bet.
> Media has a diversity problem!!
Media may be the only place where an African American like Oprah, Beyonce or Kanye West can run multi-faceted business empires. You're ignoring what a huge cultural, intellectual and business presence African Americans have in a lot of media, certainly far more than their influence in Silicon Valley.
Its not just hypocrisy, the old money north eastern Liberal Elite that get these Urinalit media jobs have always hated the tech industry because it has bootstrapped Middle Class people into positions of power and wealth regardless of there background. Not through hereditary patronage and family connections but hard work and vision.
If New York Times Urinalism wants to look for "diversity problems" they should look out the window and in the mirror.
there are disproportionally more blacks in prisons and disproportionally less in Silicon Valley. Doesn't it hint that the root issues lie earlier, that bifurcation point happens well before that in time and causal chain, like in school and the environment where the childhood is spent.
What is unclear about the article? There are so few black programmers, that it's a moot point to determine whether or not black programmers can get a job.
I'm black with about 3 years exp as a programmer. The key to getting a job is to practice, practice and practice. You beat on your skills non stop and always be creating a product because when you create products that hones your skills in many areas of programming. Also, spend your time answering questions on stackoverflow. SO has been an invaluable tool to improving my skills.
I know of an Asian man who graduated from an Ivy League law school. Neither of his parents had gone to college (they were immigrants from Asia) and yet he was penalized because his ethnic group is successful. He was upset about that.
You will find that there are many blacks in undergrad, MBA, law, medical schools but not so many in engineering/science schools. I believe it is simply that blacks are not interested in engineering/computer science and choose these other fields instead.
I've thought for a long time that by excluding black people from so many tech companies they were, among obvious other problems, missing a lot of business opportunities. Most white tech workers/founders are simply not going to know about a lot of products or services that are common in black society, such as specialized hair care that's already producing a number of startups.
60 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadThat's basically an argument for "the Valley" not having any problems at all. It's said in the context of a wider talent shortage, so does it mean that there is a huge glut of engineers (black or otherwise) currently being ignored/underemployed?
Or it could mean that throwing money at the problem would fix it in short order, which I generally doubt, though I have no issue with the notion that companies complaining about a talent shortage should consider paying to get what they want.
Or it could mean that companies should throw money at the problem in the form of training up engineers, but that is not a speedy-scaley proposition, unfortunately. Hard problems still exist in the time of Uber.
When it's expedient to engage different groups it does happen though. Apple didn't buy Beats because their headphones are the best designed things in the world. Apple saw a company that managed to manipulate an entire (racially motivated) youth subculture and wanted to steal some of that power for themselves. Apple also wanted that elderly executive guy who dresses as if he's a teenager from the south and rambles incessantly, unprepared and unrehearsed, at keynotes.
The future of America is clearly not-white (over 50% of children born in the US are now "non-majority") so the problem will self correct within the next 15 years. Be prepared for 15 years of news reports about how everything isn't diverse enough until, one day, things just end up being diverse by the force of history.
The proof for that is all around: black people are 15% of the population, but a fraction of that in major tech companies. The same holds true for latinos. There's a reverse example that makes the point as well: asians as a percentage of the national population, versus representation in tech companies in Silicon Valley. That more than makes it clear it's about skills and education, not demographic percentages.
Baltimore is ~65% black. Do you think 65% of the programmers in Baltimore are black?
If your theory were correct, we'd have seen a lot more black people working for Twitter, Apple, Google, etc. a long time ago.
It doesn't matter if the future is 80% non-white, if people that are non-white don't develop the education and skills required for the jobs in Silicon Valley. That's the issue, and it won't change just because the percentages on demographics do - ie it is not self-correcting. If it were self-correcting, you'd see proof of that in US cities that have had very large black populations for a long time.
This won't all be fixed in 15 years, but it will start to be fixed just by numbers. Yes, the current numbers are awful, but they must get better in the future. If they don't get better, the US will end up as 90% poor and 10% CEOs. Many racial-cultural ghettos throughout the country do exist and drive down the future potential of millions of children, but everybody won't stay there forever. Maybe it only takes a few breakthrough tech successes to set the stage—people to look up to, not "smart is bad" culture.
(Also, with current numbers, there are isolated pockets. Sure baltimore is 65% black, but that doesn't put pressure on employee availability (employers can relocate people from elsewhere). But when the entire country is 80% mixed hispanic-white-black-chinese in 100 years, employees must come from society as a whole somewhere.)
It is a generational problem and it will take another one to three generations to fully be considered a non-issue anymore. (Assuming, at some point, the US decides to invest in education and children and growth again instead of choking off all avenues of social mobility as have been routine for the past dozen years.)
I find these kinds of programs troubling. There are a ton of impoverished "hidden geniuses" in this country, and not all of them are young, black, or male. If these programs are intended to encourage diversity as they claim, they have a funny way of showing it. Rather, this program seems to promote exclusion.
Edit: Those of you that are downvoting this, a) I have karma to burn - do your worst, and b) a downvote for this comment is an upvote for racism and sexism.
That said, I agree the recruitment could be of any underserved youth with potential, and not compromise the usefulness.
I'm sure everyone would agree that in an ideal world we would be working to simply pluck racism out of the air and get rid of it once and for all. How do you propose we do that?
The reality is that this program is doing something achievable to address the effects of racism. No, it isn't directly tackling the causes of it. There is no reason why we cannot do both.
Proposing this "all or nothing" approach almost always ends up with "nothing", and it's almost always proposed by people who do not see the benefit of these programs.
Edit: just noticed your edit. Being that hyperbolic does you no favours.
Who said "all or nothing"? I simply said that they shouldn't make program admissions decisions based upon race or sex.
Sure! In an ideal world they wouldn't! In reality, they are having decisions made about them dozens of times every day based on their race. So having one or two of those decisions have a positive outcome for a change is a worthwhile thing.
If you can't see the difference between racism and something that is attempting to counter the effects of racism then that's a shame. Except that I'm quite sure you can, as can everyone reading this. Boiling these issues down to "everyone should just stop seeing race" is a very easy, convenient way of dismissing the issue. If you propose we stop programs that benefit minorities, perhaps you could outline your plan for stopping the racism that these minorities face every day?
It's very easy to sit on a message board and wax lyrical about moral absolutes. The actual world outside doesn't work that way, though.
Unless you want to make the claim that Europeans, Asians, and Indians are all "racist" specifically towards Africans in some grand ultra "racism" conspiracy.
There would also be a long line of qualified African Engineers that could not get jobs. Which is false.
The racism towards Europeans, Asians Indians and others by the Identity Politics Grievance Industry Industry (most of which are 'rich' 'white' peopel) is Disgusting and has no place in Tech or any other field. Its a self perpetuating social cancer that has metastasized in the social sciences.
If you're able to hold that opinion in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary I don't think there is a point in continuing.
Prove that there is a conspiracy of "Racism" between Asians, Europeans, Indians and other groups who have done proportionally well in the tech industry.
It is a delusional baseless self serving Ideology not an examination of socioeconomic and educational disparity that perpetuates this narrative of the "Silicone Valley Hood Men" who rule the tech industry.
On second thought, never mind. We're deep in conspiracy theory here. Neither of us will gain anything from this exchange.
Problem: your ratio of X's to Y's is too low due to long-term, subtle discrimination. You have finite resources to solve the problem.
Potential solution #1: put money into training more X's and Y's indiscriminately.
Upside: no exclusion, seems "fair".
Downside: while it may improve your X:Y ratio, it does so very slowly and with a lot of that training money "wasted" on something that wasn't really your goal. It also doesn't really work if it's basically the same as your old training programs, because whatever subtle discrimination occurred there will just occur here too. Also, as soon as you stop, the existing discriminatory training systems will put the ratio right back where it was.
Potential solution #2: put money into just training X's.
Upside: very targeted, and effects are much faster. Can balance whatever subtle discrimination lead to the problem in the first place, like by placing training centres near where the X's live or exploiting other things they may have in common. May solve the problem more permanently by increasing the number of X's with the better knowledge of how to train future X's.
Downside: can feel "unfair" to Y's.
The fact is, if you want to increase your X:Y ratio, you'll get here faster and cheaper via X+1:Y rather than X+1:Y+1.
Also, if X is an overrepresented minority (e.g. Chinese, Indians), the only way to fix the ratio is by reducing their numbers or recruiting unrealistic numbers of every other group. Do you favor this?
The reason talking in ratios (as shorthand) is better than your goal of "void excluding people, and allow them entry if they want (and are capable) of it", is that we know that what people want and are capable of are much of the time what power directs them to want or be capable of (obviously, not entirely, but it's a strong component). So that means that if those in society manage to make some people not want power, then everything is fine -- while others, like me, think it is not.
I spent some time writing about poor youth, and one of the things that surprised me is that they all wanted money. That wasn't the surprising thing -- what surprised me was that when I asked them how much money they wanted they said something like $60K a year, which seemed like an enormous amount to them. That's what the most successful people they know make. So they wanted to open a small convenience store and make that amount of money (or make that money in crime). When I told them that people who go to college and become, say, engineers make a lot more, they just couldn't believe me.
> Do you favor this?
I favor all groups having equal(ish) representation in the seats of power. That means no group is underrepresented, and that no group is overrepresented. Whether to achieve that by what you Americans call affirmative action (which is what you seem to be alluding to) or by fixing the fundamental causes for the inequality -- or both -- is a completely different matter.
Also, I have no problem with different groups achieving power in different means. If, say, Asians were overrepresented in tech but underrepresented in banking -- that would be fine. What isn't fine is when the same group is underrepresented in most seats of power overall.
Are you really postulating that because society categorizes something as a group, therefore members of this group suddenly act in a completely altruistic manner towards their groupmates?
That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/ethnic-genetic-inte...
To put this concretely, my real world choices are a) hire a Guju to help a Punjabi get rich while going home and banging a hot nigerian woman or b) less money, less enjoyable work, less capable coworkers and less attractive women, but I'll suffer with that out of group altruism. I guess you believe b) is the logical choice that virtually everyone makes.
Also, let me list the numbers and make my question clear. Asians are currently about 40% of tech and 4.7% of America. For black Americans to be represented in tech in equal proportions, and for us to NOT kick Asians out, then we'd need to recruit a number of black people equal to 104% of the entire tech industry. I.e., we'd need about 3 million black people to enter tech.
To bring Asians back down to 4.7% in tech, overall you'd need to increase the size of the industry by 750%, bringing it up to 25.5M people (from approx 3M). That seems a little implausible.
Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor?
Huh? No. Why do you think I think that? Social groups often have shared experiences (often because society views them as a group), and people with shared experience often have shared needs, and to get those needs you need power. If you don't have the power, other groups have power over you, and they may not share your needs, and have their own, and as a result act less in your interest.
There is an interesting concept called ingroup/outgroup[1] that is subject to a lot of current research in social psychology, which has found that kids at a very young age display ingroup allegiance and outgroup rejection even for made up groups (e.g. experimenters tell a kid, "you're in the blue group", and then ask them play the dictator game[2], namely decide how much and what kind of rewards to give to another kid they've never met, who they only know belongs to their made-up group or not. The group association makes a lot of difference (incidentally in boys more than girls, but that depends on age). Ingroup/outgroup is a well-known, well-studied concept, but it's not altruism, let alone "complete altruism". It's not entirely relevant to my view anyway, but since you brought up altruism I thought I'd explain the "proper term" for the "feeling" one has towards one's own social group vs. others. Again, even ingroup/outgroup is not directly related to the objective unequal distribution of power.
> That's a pretty remarkable claim. Interestingly, the only people I've seen making this claim besides you are the (normatively) racist side of the human biodiversity movement. You might find Jayman's debunking of these folks enlightening - he's focused on ethnic groups specifically, but social groups have even less motivation for altruism.
Remarkable indeed! Why in god's name would you think I make that claim?[3]
> Your real world choices are a) accept unequal representation or b) kick Asians out. Which do you favor?
I must say I'm surprised you think that. First -- this isn't a zero-sum game. Groups that are underrepresented in power are often underrepresented because their ability to achieve a good social standing (and a good chance at power) through education, connections, familiarity with the business world or politics etc.. is very much reduced. That's precisely where society's economic potential lies. If they get better education, better connections and so on, the economy would grow very, very significantly (they will make more money to buy things and be more productive). Second, if you think it is a zero-sum game, you must accept the possibility (which is the reality) that the current state of things is after blacks have been kicked out. You've already kicked out a group out of the economic process[4], and all we want is to let them back in. So, yeah, if it's a zero-sum game (it isn't), the end result will be more-or-less equal representation in power (not tech alone -- I said that we have no problem in one community being overrepresented in one seat of power and underrepresented in another). Of course, it's not a zero-sum game, because those who have no access to power are almost always in a state of "untapped potential" that benefits everyone.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game
[3]: In this particular case, the entirety of their contribution to the economic process for hundreds of years has been stolen from them, and then, with wha...
"...all groups...don't normally yield power to others; they don't want others to control them."
A group is a collection of individuals. You seem to be asserting those individuals behave in a manner that protects their group power rather than helping individuals. Assign whatever word you want to it.
Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I'm willing to turn down for the cause of white power?
I must say I'm surprised you think that.
Yes, multiplication and division does sometimes yield surprising results. Arithmetic shows 3 choices:
1) Recruit 22M non-Asians into tech (assuming 3M people in tech, 40% Asians in tech and 4.7% Asians in America), and prevent any more Asians from joining. Do you believe this is feasible? Or do you think I made an arithmetic error? If so, feel free to correct it.
2) Kick Asians out.
3) Accept non-proportionate representation.
Do you believe (1) is feasible? It's a simple yes or no question. Assuming it's not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question?
No, I don't. First, there is the general notion of collective behavior. I can tell you almost exactly the result of a thousand coin tosses, but I can't tell you the result of one. Second, you see a tradeoff where there isn't any. Thirdly, power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions). Finally, you assume individuals behave in a rational behavior to maximize their expected utility over a long term, while it's been shown that people don't behave this way even in the short term. Most people would often lose 1$ to gain absolutely nothing other than some internal psychological reward.
I must say, though, that responding to this kind of statements is hard. It's like you're saying, "a photon is either a particle or a wave; it can't be both; please make up your mind". Where do I even begin? Your premises about human behavior -- both as individuals and in groups -- are false, and then you argue about the conclusions. Just to give you a little bit of the basics, people make choices, but those choices are in large part influenced (and by that I don't mean 100% determined) by social influences.
> Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I'm willing to turn down for the cause of white power?
Sure. You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain if the cause of white power wins. I mean, this isn't some theory. Black people in power means that more collective resources are used to advance black concerns. Black concerns (like white concerns) are unique, because, statistically, their experience is different.
> Do you believe (1) is feasible? It's a simple yes or no question. Assuming it's not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question?
I'm not ignoring your math, but you're applying kindergarten math to graduate physics. It's like me saying, well, the speed of light is C, and you're going this way and she's going that way so C + C = 2C!
In a social system there are feedback mechanisms. If you're increasing the number of educated blacks, who knows what's going to happen specifically in tech? Maybe the tech sector will grow. Maybe bio-med will grow, and black people will go there. But yes -- to answer your question directly -- if, say, Asians have a disproportionately large portion of power (as a whole; it doesn't matter how its divided among sectors), then a desired result is that they'll have relatively less of it. I really don't see the problem. To me it sounds like you're saying, but if we'll let blacks vote then you're kicking whites out of the decision process.
Also, I don't understand your implied horror at "kicking Asians out" while you're seemingly fine with kicking blacks out, because that's what's really happening. If someone must be kicked out, I'd rather all groups would get a share of the kicks.
Of course there is a tradeoff. If you ever have the opportunity to make more money/enjoy your job more/invest well but in a way that benefits the outgroup over the ingroup, you are suddenly faced with this tradeoff.
E.g. I want to hire someone but the best guy isn't white.
The only way there isn't a tradeoff is if the best investment always has a white CEO, the best candidate is always the white male, etc. Is this really your belief?
It's like you're saying, "a photon is either a particle or a wave; it can't be both; please make up your mind". Where do I even begin?
Very easy: https://xkcd.com/895/
Feel free to provide equations, or even just clear and unambiguous statements.
...power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions)...You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain if the cause of white power wins.
You are ignoring the collective action problem here. I can hire the best guy for the job and make money now. Then, in the future, if if white power ever wins, I can reap the rewards of that also.
For much the same reason, I don't vote, and I'd skip paying taxes if it wasn't for the threats of violence.
I'm not ignoring your math, but you're applying kindergarten math to graduate physics.
Since you seem to think the laws of arithmetic don't apply to counting humans, go ahead and do the grad physics - I promise I can follow along.
To me it sounds like you're saying...you're seemingly fine with kicking blacks out...
That's because you ignored what I said in search of an easy straw man.
I repeat my prediction: "more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question." I add a new prediction: "no equations or unambiguous statements shall be forthcoming."
No.
> Very easy: https://xkcd.com/895/
So if a system is too complex for us to discover its equations (so far) that means that we don't know anything about it? Let me tell you that in grad school I studied applied math, and we had those very, very simple non-linear ODEs, yet the best we could do with them was simulate them numerically and make general statements about their behavior from observation. Every person is probably governed many non-linear equations, much more complicated than the simple ones people usually study, and they all interact in a complex system. So, for now, I guess we have to settle to many years of observational research. That doesn't mean we haven't learned anything.
> Feel free to provide equations, or even just clear and unambiguous statements.
My statements are very clear (I think; I'm not a native English speaker). I still don't understand how you manage to misinterpret them or think they're vague. My guess is that you're not trying to understand what it is that I'm saying.
> You are ignoring the collective action problem here.
No, I'm not. You are ignoring both the state and the dynamics of the system. Groups that have little power have little means of increasing it (basically, it takes money to make money) other than through collective action. Some forms of power can't be obtained alone. If you want to be elected to office, you have to have a base and form alliances. The only reason I used your terminology of money (You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain) is because you keep reducing a complex system to simple scenarios, and when I say that the system is complex you say I'm evading your question (which is about an irrelevant model), so this time I tried to answer using your model, and now you've expanded it -- ambiguously, because you didn't explain how white power can win without your cooperation if every player behaves like you do. Your model invariably leads to local-minimum Nash equilibria, yet history has shown over and over how Nash equilibria are overcome; ergo -- your model is very, very wrong.
But I'll tell you what. If you're willing to explain what your entire model for society is, I'll gladly point out the mistakes.
> For much the same reason, I don't vote
You don't vote or participate in demonstrations or other collective actions because you feel that your position is not in any imminent danger. Alternatively, you might feel that you won't make a difference anyway. Yet another possibility is that your empathy is low, so you gain little emotional reward by helping people in need. Or, your empathy is high, but not applied to faceless strangers. We are all different.
> Since you seem to think the laws of arithmetic don't apply to counting humans
It's not the laws of arithmetic, it's their applicability to reality. C+C=2C, but that doesn't mean that that's the speed you'd observe.
> I promise I can follow along.
Perhaps, if you were really interested in understanding how society works, but even though I'm sure I'd enjoy it -- and so will you -- it would take too much time. My professional training is in history (and math) but I am not expert enough to reduce the important parts to something manageable in HN comments.
> I repeat my prediction: "more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question." I add a new prediction: "no equations or unambiguous statements shall be forthcoming.
At first I thought I'd write simply "kick those Asians out", but then I thought I'd better make a prediction of my own: you'll go on insisting on not learning how social systems work and how people behave, but keep on believing that smart people who spend their lives studying such systems g...
I'd say if you can't express your beliefs as equations, code, or similar unambiguous form, then you don't understand your own beliefs. (Or alternately, you don't want others to have the ability to unambiguously debunk them.)
...when I say that the system is complex you say I'm evading your question...It's not the laws of arithmetic, it's their applicability to reality.
This is a perfect example of evading the question. You make some weird analogy to special relativity, but refuse to actually state why simple arithmetic doesn't apply to counting humans.
...ambiguously, because you didn't explain how white power can win without your cooperation if every player behaves like you do.
It can't. But since changing my behavior won't change theirs, I still have no incentive to cooperate.
This is why collective action problems usually require enforcement mechanisms (men with guns threatening me if I refuse to pay taxes, Jim Crow laws forcing me to serve white power, that type of thing). Except yours, apparently.
Then most human knowledge is not understood, yet a lot of progress has been made without equations. Sometimes, the model is too approximate and statistical, that putting it in an equation is useless; that's just not an appropriate representation. That doesn't mean that general qualitative observations are wrong. Even behavior of non-linear ODEs is sometimes described in prose because we can only describe it in very broad strokes.
I mentioned elsewhere that 19th-century-style hyper-optimism regarding technology in some groups (esp. in SV), which is based not on some deep philosophy but on utility. Namely, they believe that if it works and has utility that means we know it. If that's the case, the same logic should apply to social events. We have made progress; we made revolutions, therefore we know enough about society to change it (and please don't ask me to define progress. For whatever definition you choose, a social movement has made it happen someplace on Earth).
> but refuse to actually state why simple arithmetic doesn't apply to counting humans.
I did not evade the question. I specifically said there are feedback loops. Linear extrapolations are a terrible approximations of ODEs, and this is much more complicated than that. Maybe the economy will grow, maybe new fields will be opened up. We can hardly predict the weather for more than a few days; it stands to reason that trying to predict a much more complex system decades into the future is futile.
> This is why collective action problems usually require enforcement mechanisms
Enforcement mechanism arise naturally through a process that starts with self-reinforcement. Modern democracy was started in the American and French revolutions. Those are just two examples. In fact, most big social changes started this way. This is again an opinion which stands in complete opposition to historical facts.
You are not motivated to action because your position is not threatened enough. If it were, you would be and others too, and then you'd see how changes are made. This happens all the time. In about any given moment, there is at least one such major change happening somewhere in the world, and many more gradual ones. It is the rule rather than the exception.
This is not an argument against the "Hidden Genius Project" discussed in the linked article; it's clear that Mr. Young's comparative advantage does in fact lie with helping other black men, so you'd still want him working on that even if the broader goal is getting to X+(n/2):Y+(n/2).
That is horribly Racist. And totally oblivious to that fact.
I'd venture a bet that my silicon valley co-workers are much more diverse than the NY Times writers who love to preach about diversity.
Quick check:
Media has a diversity problem!!Twitter had a neat turn of phrase in their recent diversity document: "these new goals focus on increasing the overall representation of women and underrepresented minorities"
underrepresented. You don't count as a minority if there's already too many of you being successful.
> underrepresented. You don't count as a minority if there's already too many of you being successful.
why would you focus on minorities that are overrepresented?
God forbid reporters do some reporting.
> I'd venture a bet that my silicon valley co-workers are much more diverse
You're welcome to publish that research. If you look at the tech workforce at Facebook, where they use extremely generous 1% rounding, the sum of black and hispanic employees is 4%. [0] In one sense, comparing the least generous 8% nonwhite figure with NYT Board of Directors, their board has twice (200%) the proportion of minority members than Facebook has across their tech workforce.
Venture that bet. You'll lose the bet.
> Media has a diversity problem!!
Media may be the only place where an African American like Oprah, Beyonce or Kanye West can run multi-faceted business empires. You're ignoring what a huge cultural, intellectual and business presence African Americans have in a lot of media, certainly far more than their influence in Silicon Valley.
[0] http://www.wired.com/2015/06/facebook-diversity-2015/
Everything with these people is Identity Politics so they can deflect attention form there own Economic status.
If New York Times Urinalism wants to look for "diversity problems" they should look out the window and in the mirror.
NYC has country's most segregated public:
http://nypost.com/2014/03/26/nyc-has-countrys-most-segregate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q
You will find that there are many blacks in undergrad, MBA, law, medical schools but not so many in engineering/science schools. I believe it is simply that blacks are not interested in engineering/computer science and choose these other fields instead.
it's ridiculous