5 ms·

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

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
  Perfect example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- throwaway2002 10y ago
  Kafkatrapped! http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
abalone 10y ago
But you haven't backed up your "pipeline" assertions by anything either. Many of their specific questions are about whether a workplace is supportive of women and minorities. It's plausible that if many workplaces fail these tests, then tech would be a less appealing career choice to young people "up the pipeline" no matter how strongly it's promoted in school.
- sveng1826 10y ago
  Yeah that is reasonable. Large companies can probably make a big difference. Small startups have a tough enough job already without also optimizing for employee diversity. Max Levchin talks about this as well: http://firstround.com/review/the-trick-max-levchin-used-to-hire-the-best-engineers-at-PayPal/ http://firstround.com/review/the-trick-max-levchin-used-to-h....
  - abalone 10y ago
    He was taking about diversity of ideas, not race & gender.
- galistoca 10y ago
  Startup's job is not to accommodate "young people's career choices". If you spend 25% of your time thinking about how to make your company more diverse when you're a 5 people company instead of thinking about your customers, your "diverse company" will probably be gone by next year.
  - Retra 10y ago
    You're absolutely right. 100% of your employees time should be spent maximizing profit and growth, and any unwarranted deference to human values is just going to inhibit survival and wealth, which are the most important things in the world. One day we'll all be cockroaches: great at surviving with zero appreciation for culture.
    - galistoca 10y ago
slackstation 10y ago
> 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. THIS. So loudly this. Any kind of climate where asking the wrong question or expecting evidence for a claim automatically makes you a villain. And not a whimsical, comical fictional villain but, where people actively seek you out and try to get you fired for asking questions isn't something that people want to engage. There is too much risk and too little reward. Speak out and you could lose your job, do the right thing and people will say "This is how it should have been the whole time". Even taking credit for a win in this area incorrectly will lead to villainy. What I would love to see a case study company in tech that "spent 25% of their time on diversity and inclusion efforts" and did not just better than the baseline in tech but, made up for the opportunity cost.
- matt4077 10y ago
  People are social animals and the instinct to get everyone's opinions somewhat aligned is universal and mostly beneficial. While it may hamper the next Galileo, it also allows a level of peaceful coexistence that just wouldn't happen if we had to relitigate every moral decision or scientific opinion every day. In this case, society has converged on the opinion that diversity benefits so overwhelming, you don't have to explicitly list them each time but can treat diversity as if it were the end goal itself. But here's a few: - Basic fairness requires us to encourage diversity in order to create a more balanced distribution of power and money (considering the mere presence of women or minorities tends to depress wages across industries and jobs) - Diverse teams are better, especially when creativity or social skills are required (there actually are some studies on this I believe) - Discriminatory hiring practices make it impossible for some people to reach their full potential. When they labor in jobs below their potential, the society as a whole also loses out (remember that for every Einstein, Feynman, Picasso, there was an equally qualified woman who was married off when she was 15 and never had a chance). ...and so on. People react negatively if you challenge diversity because they suspect that you've probably heard the arguments before and have other motives than "opportunity costs" for your recalcitrance.
jds375 10y ago
I didn't see any of the quotes you pointed out in the article itself?
- tomlock 10y ago
  Looks like they are drawn from here: http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/ http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/
tomlock 10y ago
"Actual actions will depend on your size and your current state of diversity." I feel like its really easy in these arguments to make a decision that the other person is just utterly disconnected with reality. On both sides. In this case I think the author is realistic that practical constraints will make this hard. The 25% comment is posed as a "What if".

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
Perfect example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
throwaway2002 10y ago
Kafkatrapped! http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

abalone 10y ago

But you haven't backed up your "pipeline" assertions by anything either. Many of their specific questions are about whether a workplace is supportive of women and minorities. It's plausible that if many workplaces fail these tests, then tech would be a less appealing career choice to young people "up the pipeline" no matter how strongly it's promoted in school.

sveng1826 10y ago
Yeah that is reasonable. Large companies can probably make a big difference. Small startups have a tough enough job already without also optimizing for employee diversity. Max Levchin talks about this as well: http://firstround.com/review/the-trick-max-levchin-used-to-hire-the-best-engineers-at-PayPal/ http://firstround.com/review/the-trick-max-levchin-used-to-h....
- abalone 10y ago
  He was taking about diversity of ideas, not race & gender.
galistoca 10y ago
Startup's job is not to accommodate "young people's career choices". If you spend 25% of your time thinking about how to make your company more diverse when you're a 5 people company instead of thinking about your customers, your "diverse company" will probably be gone by next year.
- Retra 10y ago
  You're absolutely right. 100% of your employees time should be spent maximizing profit and growth, and any unwarranted deference to human values is just going to inhibit survival and wealth, which are the most important things in the world. One day we'll all be cockroaches: great at surviving with zero appreciation for culture.
  - galistoca 10y ago

slackstation 10y ago

> 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. THIS. So loudly this. Any kind of climate where asking the wrong question or expecting evidence for a claim automatically makes you a villain. And not a whimsical, comical fictional villain but, where people actively seek you out and try to get you fired for asking questions isn't something that people want to engage. There is too much risk and too little reward. Speak out and you could lose your job, do the right thing and people will say "This is how it should have been the whole time". Even taking credit for a win in this area incorrectly will lead to villainy. What I would love to see a case study company in tech that "spent 25% of their time on diversity and inclusion efforts" and did not just better than the baseline in tech but, made up for the opportunity cost.

matt4077 10y ago
People are social animals and the instinct to get everyone's opinions somewhat aligned is universal and mostly beneficial. While it may hamper the next Galileo, it also allows a level of peaceful coexistence that just wouldn't happen if we had to relitigate every moral decision or scientific opinion every day. In this case, society has converged on the opinion that diversity benefits so overwhelming, you don't have to explicitly list them each time but can treat diversity as if it were the end goal itself. But here's a few: - Basic fairness requires us to encourage diversity in order to create a more balanced distribution of power and money (considering the mere presence of women or minorities tends to depress wages across industries and jobs) - Diverse teams are better, especially when creativity or social skills are required (there actually are some studies on this I believe) - Discriminatory hiring practices make it impossible for some people to reach their full potential. When they labor in jobs below their potential, the society as a whole also loses out (remember that for every Einstein, Feynman, Picasso, there was an equally qualified woman who was married off when she was 15 and never had a chance). ...and so on. People react negatively if you challenge diversity because they suspect that you've probably heard the arguments before and have other motives than "opportunity costs" for your recalcitrance.

jds375 10y ago

I didn't see any of the quotes you pointed out in the article itself?

tomlock 10y ago
Looks like they are drawn from here: http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/ http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/

tomlock 10y ago

"Actual actions will depend on your size and your current state of diversity." I feel like its really easy in these arguments to make a decision that the other person is just utterly disconnected with reality. On both sides. In this case I think the author is realistic that practical constraints will make this hard. The 25% comment is posed as a "What if".