6 ms·

- "This is not work for white folks to lead" Well, it's not. It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people. - "Some

• alexandercrohde 11y ago
  >>It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people. How can anybody who advocates equality say no white person can lead a diversity movement? Just because somebody is white doesn't mean they aren't an oppressed minority (female, transgender, Jewish or some other oppressed group like a furry). I think we collectively need to declare it's not okay to say "people with skin color ____" cannot possibly understand Y or have an opinion on Y. To do so is institutionalized racism. edit: typo
  • rhizome 11y ago
    Who is saying they can't have an opinion?
    • 1123581321 11y ago
      To be prevented from participating in a process is to be prevented from having a meaningful opinion about that process.
      • rhizome 11y ago
        I don't agree that if they can't lead the program, that means they are being prevented from having a meaningful opinion about it. That's all they're talking about, right? Who leads the program?
        • 1123581321 11y ago
          Yes, presumably the leaders are to issue orders and everyone else is to follow them. That is not the kind of participation that allows opinions. You may be saying that the non-white leadership is the kind of leadership that allows collaboration and influence from followers, which is what I would do, but the evidence in the Github case is to the contrary.
          • rhizome 11y ago
            Yes, presumably the leaders are to issue orders and everyone else is to follow them. That is not the kind of participation that allows opinions. This sounds excessively harsh, do you really think that's how GitHub will run the program?
            • malandrew 11y ago
              Considering that they are moving to a more enterprise-y management style where there are lots of middle managers, I would imagine that that is a very real possibility.
  • Spooky23 11y ago
    Who said anything about equality? When the discussion is about "social impact", the conversation is about diversity. Diversity != equality. In the view of many, equality isn't enough, because the "un-oppressed" are fundamentally privileged. The concept of "reverse racism" is there to deflect the inevitable awkward questions that arise, when clearly biased statements are made and practices get institutionalized. IMO, all this stuff is problematic. I wish we could all embrace the golden rule and move on.
    • tajen 11y ago
      I'm sorry to move the discussion to politics, but such affairs trigger sentiments among White people which end up in favor of Trump, if I understand politics properly. So would it be clever for the Trump team to highlight and exaggerate such stories/Is this article the result of it?
    • alexandercrohde 11y ago
      I don't understand what you're arguing. Equal opportunity will lead to diversity. Equality is about removing processes that look at privilege (e.g. your rich father donated X dollars so welcome to our college). If your idea of fairness requires we become systematically biased against certain majorities (white, heterosexual, male, cis-gender) for your cause then I don't want to be part of your cause, and moreover I find that cause discriminitory and dangerous.
      • AOsborn 11y ago
        > If your idea of fairness requires we become systematically biased against certain majorities (white, heterosexual, male, cis-gender) for your cause then I don't want to be part of your cause, and moreover I find that cause discriminitory and dangerous. Exactly. As mentioned earlier, in the case of Github the cultural transition appears to be from prioritizing meritocracy to codified diversity for the sake of diversity.
    • FireBeyond 11y ago
      "In the view of many, equality isn't enough, because the "un-oppressed" are fundamentally privileged." Then that's not equality - equality is, or should be enough, because if the issue of diversity and equality is 'minimizing / eliminating privilege' then by definition, equality is that privilege is the same for all (or zero). For many though, this becomes a good cover for 'preferential treatment above and beyond equality, in the name of 'compensation'.'
  • calibraxis 11y ago
    Race is a goofy power structure which puts certain people ("whites") on top of others. Whiteness changes with political needs. Hilariously, Irish-Americans, Jews, etc weren't always considered white. They had to become white. Nowadays, certain Asians are held up as model minorities and may get some honorary whiteness. With children getting murdered by the state for being black, it's obvious race is about white supremacy. (Analogously, sexism is about male supremacy, also known as patriarchy.)
• morgante 11y ago
  > but the publishing industry is 79% white and 78% female The US is 77.7% of the US population. I hardly think that a 2% imbalance is an issue to create divisiveness over. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...
  • mjbh7k 11y ago
    "The US is 77.7% of the US population" I think you mean 77.7% white? It should be noted that the census counts North African and Middle Eastern as white, which is inaccurate. That number also drops to 62.6% when you take out Hispanics that describe themselves as white. So it's probably more like a 20 point difference than 2.
    • MrPatan 11y ago
      So, to what number does the publishing industry "whiteness %" drop if you were to remove all those groups from it too?
      • igotratelimited 11y ago
        By none, they correctly had a separate category: http://blog.leeandlow.com/2016/01/26/where-is-the-diversity-in-publishing-the-2015-diversity-baseline-survey-results/ http://blog.leeandlow.com/2016/01/26/where-is-the-diversity-...
    • Z0nok 11y ago
      Do you want to also take out the jewish % from the white group, and see how much of an 'imbalance' there is amongst top management / successful founders? This sort of thinking is stupid.
      • igotratelimited 11y ago
        Again, are you arguing that it's ok for the publishing industry to be 79% white and 78% female? Do you oppose diminishing white supremacy and racism? Because it sounds like you do.
• brighteyes 11y ago
  > - "This is not work for white folks to lead" > Well, it's not. It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people. On the one hand, sure, it would be odd if it were entirely led by a group of people that the initiative is not meant to directly benefit. But on the other, 1. The title implies it is white people that must be left out of leadership there. It does not mention Asian people, which is odd, as the tech industry is currently mostly white and Asian men. Asian people are highly overrepresented, much more than white people, relative to their percentage in the country. That means if you have objections to putting a white person in a leadership position for a diversity initiative, you should have a similar objection to an Asian person. Not having that mentioned can't help but seem racist against white people. 2. Diversity initiatives need to work with everyone, not just the newcomers, but also the existing tech industry, which is mostly white and Asian men. White and Asian men could be helpful in guiding the industry towards more diversity, in particular, by doing so in a way that gets as many other white and Asian men on board with such changes. They might know best what would work to convince them, for example. 3. And, in the end, it is just always wrong to say "this is not work for [race X]". That's racist and offensive. Instead, it would have been fine to say "this is work where we need a strong leadership presence of currently underrepresented groups".
  • malandrew 11y ago
    Asian people are highly overrepresented, much more than white people, relative to their percentage in the country. But not relative to California. This is important to note because the base rates of the state in which a company is located or an industry is concentrated matter. Very very few people move farther than 500 miles from the place where they are born. This means that the overwhelming majority of the people in this country would never take a job in California. That said, I believe Asian people are overrepresented, more than white people, relative to their percentage in California, but it's not nearly as disproportionate as the figures relative to the entire country. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
    • brighteyes 11y ago
• fweespeech 11y ago
  > Well, it's not. It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people. 1) Diversity isn't just about race and the fact you think it is is why I'm honestly horrified by you. 2) Sexual orientation, transgender issues are serious problems and not really protected classes in many respects and they have as much of a "fixed" bag from genetics as you do.
• dikdik 11y ago
  Diversity does not just mean skin color. You might as well try to empty the ocean with a spoon then pat yourself on the back for "doing your best."