12 ms·

Introducing Project Include

• drumhead 10y ago
  Sort of reminds me of Orwells 1984
  • herebolt 10y ago
    Notice the author?
    • dang 10y ago
      Personal attacks are not welcome on HN. We ban users that do this, so please don't do it.
      • trump2016chalk 10y ago
        Curious question. Why is this a personal attack? Wasn't he just bringing attention to the author who may have some historical relevance and that would bring light their bias?
      • ominous 10y ago
        So I take it is ok to mention it reminds one of 1984, but not the reason it is so? Should I refrain from trying to mention certain established world events regarding the relation of this post and 1984? Thank you, I'll be careful from now on and keep quiet.
        • dang 10y ago
          This sort of ideological concern trolling is always the same and it gets tiresome after a while, but let me give you an answer. The Orwell comment was bad because it was flippant and unsubstantive. But naming a specific person to apply that condemnation to is far worse. I don't see this as a particularly difficult distinction. We ask people not to do the former and we insist that they don't do the latter, and ban them if they won't stop. I notice that you subtly slipped it into your own comment as well ("the reason it is so").
          • ominous 10y ago
            Thank you for an answer and for this community. Sorry for being tiresome. I could remain in the silent majority, agree with the [flagged], keep my "ideological concern", and not say anything, but I didn't. I won't pretend something was achieved, but at least I spoke? I will not tolerate insinuations that some things are sacred.[0] If the medium.com post had been made by a fictional entity inside a book, you would allow me to bring up the appropriate wikia page, as well as the relevant lore so as to give the proper context for everyone reading. Being this a Real Person, I feel I am being compelled not to (see the flagged comment). My two cents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• woah 10y ago
  Interesting that they use the term "underrepresented people of color" rather than just "underrepresented groups". This may be because whites (people of European descent) are actually an underrepresented group in tech. Compare the percentage of whites in tech company diversity reports with the percentage in the US population.
  • atom-morgan 10y ago
    I asked for clarification around "people of color". No response.
    • drdeca 10y ago
      I'm under the impression that "person of color" is usually defined as "person who is not 'white'", where 'white' might refer to different groups in different contexts.
      • atom-morgan 10y ago
        That's what many people would assume but Asians are usually excluded too.
        • adiabatty 10y ago
          Depends on the context. I've seen some Americans of East and Southeast Asian descent describe themselves as people of color (neither were technologists). I'd also bet $10 that the proudly South Asian Anil Dash would describe himself as such if asked.
          • atom-morgan 10y ago
            > Depends on the context. And that's all we need to know about how ridiculous all of this is.
        • drdeca 10y ago
          Sometimes Asian people are considered White I think, depending on context?
• ztratar 10y ago
  Great project and hope Ellen + team can help many people. :]
• mmanfrin 10y ago
  Post just submitted and already the comment section is a graveyard.
• dwoopint 10y ago
  Has YC considered mandatory diversity training for YC founders? What percentage of time do founders spend on diversity and inclusion during YC? “If you’re an early stage startup with little to no diversity, you are in trouble and need to fix it fast.” (http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/ http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/)
• zxcvcxz 10y ago
  Someone should create a startup to sell people based on their level of privilege to other startups who want to "diversify".
  • matt4077 10y ago
    I think most people are somewhat grateful that we have stopped selling unprivileged people.
• sveng1826 10y ago
  I've been out of the loop on this discussion -- when was it concluded that diversity is a critical thing for tech companies to focus on? The article makes some really strong recommendations are not backed up by anything in the text: "If you’re an early stage startup with little to no diversity, you are in trouble and need to fix it fast." "For everyone who has the vision and courage to push forward aggressively: What if your whole team spent 25 percent of their time on diversity and inclusion efforts?" "Think about your biases  —  we all have them  —  and how they affect your actions and perspective. Then ask people to teach you even more, and pay them for their time to show that you believe diversity work is hard and valuable." I agree completely there are issues with, say, gender makeup (10% in SV vs 50% female overall), but this is a pipeline issue and I don't see tech companies having a very big impact here. A better, more direct approach would be to spend time explicitly promoting tech to girls in the K-12 system. One final point: I decided to create a throwaway to post this because I am confident that I would be pilloried by people in these organizations if I were to bring up these points with my real name attached. There is not a healthy climate of discussion around this topic right now.
  • dwoopint 10y ago
    "If you are unable to understand why these recommendations make sense, you are probably part of the problem." (http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/ http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/)
    • diek 10y ago
      That's nonsensical. You may as well say, "Everyone should spend 25% of their startup's time on ensuring African children have access to food and clean water." When someone asks, "Why should we do that?" you respond with, "What, do you hate African children?"
      • cyphar 10y ago
        "Burn the heathen".
    • galistoca 10y ago
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• galistoca 10y ago
  Like sveng1826 mentioned, a lot of statements have absolutely no logical ground and they're just condescending remarks telling people what they should do. Of course it would be nice if companies focused on diversity, and I think large companies should definitely think more about it, but telling small startups to do it is wrong at best and exploitative at worst (personal agenda). I would like to know of any successful company that focused 25% of their time thinking about diversity during their early startup stage. Thinking about diversity 25% of the times means you're thinking less about your customers 25% of the time. This type of company will probably not be around the next year--Congrats, your diverse company is now gone! I'm sure your employees are all happy!--So I wonder where she pulls "if you're an early stage startup with little to no diversity, you're in trouble and need to fix it fast." out of. There's no evidence, and logically it doesn't make sense. It's just her own entitled sense of justice (which I don't even believe is genuine). I'm not saying diversity is not needed, I don't think it's right to capitalize on social trend by misleading the public. Basically the narrative nowadays is "Let's shame and punish all these companies that are not thinking about diversity", and I think that's as bad as those companies neglecting diversity, in a witch-hunt sort of way.
  • dang 10y ago
    > everything she does feels far from genuine. > I just hate this type of opportunistic people Your comment crosses into personal attack. That is not allowed here. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it.
    • galistoca 10y ago
      I deleted the personal attack statements, sorry about that.
• studentrob 10y ago
  "Can these women save Silicon Valley?" [1] Whoa. This group has some bold positions. I think it's great for women to encourage each other and other underrepresented groups to join tech. I also think it is true that some youth get inspired to study tech when they see successful professional people with whom they share something in common. And, I believe that some level of diversity is a useful part of education and the advancement of society. That said, I wonder what is reasonable to expect of companies that are separate from government. Should the percentage of LGBT for a given job match that of the local community who is skilled in that job? What if certain companies are popular among LGBTs? Should their competitors be chastised for not being able to hire enough LGBT from the local community? It all sounds too complicated to monitor in bulk. Cases of discrimination are just that -- case by case. US law already protects people from being discriminated against during hiring and employment. And while it may not work out to everyone's satisfaction 100% of the time, the US is miles ahead of China, for example, on this front. > Companies should improve opportunities for all employees, including all underrepresented groups (gender, race, class, age, religion, disability, education, sexual orientation, and others). I'm confused by this statement. They want companies to give equal opportunities to all people. Isn't this already covered by law? Companies cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin [2]. Also, what is the education group? Like, non-high school grads, high school and college grads? The more I read about it, the more it sounds like they are saying "please create more jobs for more people". Maybe it will become more clear when they start to share data and reports. Ultimately, we're all part of some group that is persecuted by others, even wealthy white folks. We all get depressed and blame it on our environment from time to time. The most important thing is that these values of equality are ingrained in the laws of society. And in the US, they are. Each year they get better. Gay marriage was passed, and we're now attempting to make some simplifications to the ginormous lawbook with things such as Basic Income. That's natural. It's a result of us collectively realizing that piece by piece we put together a puzzle that says "support everyone". [1] https://twitter.com/bethanye/status/727627253715062784 https://twitter.com/bethanye/status/727627253715062784 [2] https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html