5 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. On

> - "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
  No, even relative to California, their overrepresentation is far larger. Your link shows 14.4% for Asian people in California, but in the tech industry, they are at least twice that. Whereas in California white people are 73.2%, which is about equal or even less than their ratio in tech. And about most people not moving more than 500 miles - is that true for tech jobs in California? See for example http://www.siliconvalleyindex.org/index.php/people/talent-flows-diversity http://www.siliconvalleyindex.org/index.php/people/talent-fl... which indicates that your general rule might not apply, as over a third of Silicon Valley people are foreign-born. That means even from outside of the US, not just outside of California. And it's obvious the valley is full of people from the rest of the US, in fact tech workers that grew up in the area are a clear minority.
  - malandrew 11y ago
    Thanks for this thought/argument about mobility. It's extremely valid and not one someone has yet made when I bring up base rates. With this in mind, I'm very curious if we're asking the question of what these overrepresented groups are doing differently and if there are lessons to be learned by and applied by underrepresented groups. As someone born in Brazil, when I meet a Brazilian in SF, we get to talking about where in Brazil we're both from at some point and one thing I've discovered is that Brazilians from the state of Goias are very much overrepresented in SF despite the fact that São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are typically more represented globally with Brazilian expats. Why are Brazilians from Goias over-represented in the Bay Area? Near as I can tell from the numerous conversations is that there is a strong network of weak ties, à la Granovetter, at play and that this is the same phenomena that can be see among Asian and Indian communities in SF. In fact, the only Indian-Brazilian person I know in the Bay Area (and in the world, since there isn't much cultural exchange between Brazil and India) is a VC and he has commented that he wishes there was as much community and support on the Brazilian side of the Silicon Valley as there is on the Indian side, because he has seen that as one of the greatest external factors (i.e. outside what the individual himself is capable of) helping Indians move to the region in the first place and be successful once they arrive and establish themselves. Perhaps more efforts to establish professional and social networks of weak ties would be an effective strategy within identities group that are underrepresented. I'm curious how effective directing energy towards helping those within your identity in-group is versus fighting for your identity in-group as a whole relative to other identity in-groups?
igotratelimited 11y ago
"...you should have a similar objection to an Asian person. Not having that mentioned can't help but seem racist against white people." It's not purely about representation, although that is important too. It's about centuries of white dominance. A couple decades of people of Asian descent having a strong presence in an industry isn't enough. How many of those overrepresented Asians are holding positions of senior leadership? "And, in the end, it is just always wrong to say "this is not work for [race X]"." You're missing the ending part of that statement, which is "to lead". That makes it very different. No one said white people can't be involved, as long as they are not taking up all the space.
- igotratelimited 11y ago
  Getting quickly down-voted for a thoughtful comment. White fragility is real.
  - brighteyes 11y ago
    I agree your previous comment shouldn't be downvoted, but now you just wrote a racist one, so I guess it should.
- brighteyes 11y ago
  The historical question has to address the current facts on the ground, though. Those centuries matter in some ways, for example, in currently poverty rates among black people, for example, which are a disgrace to the US. But how do those centuries justify focusing only on white people in that slide, if the goal of the slide is diversity? I didn't miss "to lead", I referred to it. My point is that no matter the position - rank and file, or leadership; technical or non-technical; etc. etc. - it is never ok to say "this position is not for [race of gender X]". It's just wrong. Again, it's fine to say "it would be helpful to have a presence of [group X] here". That focuses on the positive, doesn't exclude a specific group, and there are valid reasons to indeed want a presence of underrepresented minorities, because it's about them. In other words, this entire initiative could be done in a non-racist way.
  - 11y ago

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
No, even relative to California, their overrepresentation is far larger. Your link shows 14.4% for Asian people in California, but in the tech industry, they are at least twice that. Whereas in California white people are 73.2%, which is about equal or even less than their ratio in tech. And about most people not moving more than 500 miles - is that true for tech jobs in California? See for example http://www.siliconvalleyindex.org/index.php/people/talent-flows-diversity http://www.siliconvalleyindex.org/index.php/people/talent-fl... which indicates that your general rule might not apply, as over a third of Silicon Valley people are foreign-born. That means even from outside of the US, not just outside of California. And it's obvious the valley is full of people from the rest of the US, in fact tech workers that grew up in the area are a clear minority.
- malandrew 11y ago
  Thanks for this thought/argument about mobility. It's extremely valid and not one someone has yet made when I bring up base rates. With this in mind, I'm very curious if we're asking the question of what these overrepresented groups are doing differently and if there are lessons to be learned by and applied by underrepresented groups. As someone born in Brazil, when I meet a Brazilian in SF, we get to talking about where in Brazil we're both from at some point and one thing I've discovered is that Brazilians from the state of Goias are very much overrepresented in SF despite the fact that São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are typically more represented globally with Brazilian expats. Why are Brazilians from Goias over-represented in the Bay Area? Near as I can tell from the numerous conversations is that there is a strong network of weak ties, à la Granovetter, at play and that this is the same phenomena that can be see among Asian and Indian communities in SF. In fact, the only Indian-Brazilian person I know in the Bay Area (and in the world, since there isn't much cultural exchange between Brazil and India) is a VC and he has commented that he wishes there was as much community and support on the Brazilian side of the Silicon Valley as there is on the Indian side, because he has seen that as one of the greatest external factors (i.e. outside what the individual himself is capable of) helping Indians move to the region in the first place and be successful once they arrive and establish themselves. Perhaps more efforts to establish professional and social networks of weak ties would be an effective strategy within identities group that are underrepresented. I'm curious how effective directing energy towards helping those within your identity in-group is versus fighting for your identity in-group as a whole relative to other identity in-groups?

igotratelimited 11y ago

"...you should have a similar objection to an Asian person. Not having that mentioned can't help but seem racist against white people." It's not purely about representation, although that is important too. It's about centuries of white dominance. A couple decades of people of Asian descent having a strong presence in an industry isn't enough. How many of those overrepresented Asians are holding positions of senior leadership? "And, in the end, it is just always wrong to say "this is not work for [race X]"." You're missing the ending part of that statement, which is "to lead". That makes it very different. No one said white people can't be involved, as long as they are not taking up all the space.

igotratelimited 11y ago
Getting quickly down-voted for a thoughtful comment. White fragility is real.
- brighteyes 11y ago
  I agree your previous comment shouldn't be downvoted, but now you just wrote a racist one, so I guess it should.
brighteyes 11y ago
The historical question has to address the current facts on the ground, though. Those centuries matter in some ways, for example, in currently poverty rates among black people, for example, which are a disgrace to the US. But how do those centuries justify focusing only on white people in that slide, if the goal of the slide is diversity? I didn't miss "to lead", I referred to it. My point is that no matter the position - rank and file, or leadership; technical or non-technical; etc. etc. - it is never ok to say "this position is not for [race of gender X]". It's just wrong. Again, it's fine to say "it would be helpful to have a presence of [group X] here". That focuses on the positive, doesn't exclude a specific group, and there are valid reasons to indeed want a presence of underrepresented minorities, because it's about them. In other words, this entire initiative could be done in a non-racist way.
- 11y ago