4 ms·

"There are no Black/African-American GitHubbers in management positions, which is unacceptable." It is only unacceptable if people with the skills to be in man

by johnnyg 10y ago

"There are no Black/African-American GitHubbers in management positions, which is unacceptable." It is only unacceptable if people with the skills to be in management positions didn't get a promotion because of a non-relevant personal attribute. Otherwise, it is acceptable and in the best long term interests of the company. I acknowledge that America has equality of opportunity problems. There are strong and just historical reasons why the government has carried the torch on this issue. However, I think its time to let the market work. Companies that place talent above non-relevant personal attributes are at a competitive advantage as they are drawing from a larger talent pool. Letting that market run on a long enough time line means that companies who discriminate will grow weaker, as well they should. Github has come out and said "we're going to make sure that we meet target quotas for people of X, Y and Z non-relevant personal attributes." I think that's bad business and not the equality we need to be going for. If you have the skill set, drive and integrity to be a strong contributor to a team, I want to work with you and make wealth with you. If you don't, I don't want to work with you - go get educated, build skills and try again or if I'm wrong about you, prove it by out competing me. This is equality of opportunity and of ideas. What Github is doing isn't, nor does it get us closer to what the idea of America promises us all. I think that providing the resources to build skills to those whose parents didn't or couldn't provide them is a great idea. I think shaking up our education system (because the numbers show that investing doesn't produce better results) is a great idea. I want to be fellow citizens with educated, driven people who are so in part because society ensured it'd happen. Lets not go too far or go in the wrong direction.

drhayes9 10y ago
I think GH is starting from the point of "the distribution of our employees doesn't line up with the larger population of the country we operate in". If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy? I think they're saying, "We don't think the market is working." There are hidden biases at work. For example, people with "non-white sounding" names don't get hired at the same rate as those with "white sounding" names when they have the same skillset. http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html I think these biases operate at a low level, below most of our understanding. I like that GH is having this conversation in the open and working to rid themselves of these biases as much as possible. To me, this is all relevant socioeconomic data. Why not look at the distribution of gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc, in your workplace? If there's a discrepancy, why not figure out what the root cause is? Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill", why is the distribution skewed? What does it hurt to ask?
- wskinner 10y ago
  GitHub is focusing on the very bottom of the funnel. They are noticing the distribution of their employees doesn't match that of the larger population, then attempting to make it match. But what if the reason their company distribution doesn't match up is that the distribution of people with the requisite skills doesn't match up? They are trying to treat the symptoms of a supposed problem rather than the ailment itself, and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by doing so. Affirmative action doesn't work, except for the short-term career prospects of those individuals lucky enough to profit from it, and the virtue-signalers who propose it.
  - phasmantistes 10y ago
    This is just the pipeline argument. And while there are very real aspects to the pipeline -- yes, women and minorities drop out of the tech industry in early education, late education, and on the job -- the problem with the argument is that it attempts to absolve blame. GitHub is not at the "bottom of the funnel". They're in the middle: people who work there today may go on to wildly successful careers elsewhere. And people who have bad experiences there may not. So please don't make the pipeline argument. Just because other earlier stages have failed to be welcoming to minorities doesn't mean GitHub shouldn't try, and just because GitHub is a corporate employer doesn't mean their employees aren't still living developing human beings.
- reader5000 10y ago
  "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill" What evidence is there to believe this?
  - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    This rhetoric in this context is implying that you may be skeptical that black people are as valuable and capable at computer science/information technology as the majority white population. Please reconsider.
    - 10y ago
resu_nimda 10y ago
Otherwise, it is acceptable and in the best long term interests of the company. Maybe the best long-term interests of the company aren't aligned with the best long-term interests of our society. If, hypothetically, the market took over, and drove racial equality/diversity in a direction such that we almost literally ended up with a white male overclass and everyone else their servants/slaves, would you shrug and say "well clearly white males are just better for the long term interests of the companies"? Or would you wonder if there were maybe some non-market-based factors at play... "The market" doesn't magically solve all problems. It's not a simple matter of companies making non-discriminatory hiring decisions. As of now, the average white candidate probably is more qualified than the minority candidate, because of a complex web of social factors and experiences tracing back to birth. So they would always get selected by "the market," creating a feedback loop leading to the scenario I described. The market is definitely not going to provide equality of opportunity. If that's something we care about, we have to actively push things that direction.
nojvek 10y ago
Sometimes this could have negative impact if promoted too much right? Imagine the feeling that your peers thinking you're in management level because HR wants to meet the quotas and don't actually respect you for the talent.

by johnnyg 10y ago

drhayes9 10y ago

I think GH is starting from the point of "the distribution of our employees doesn't line up with the larger population of the country we operate in". If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy? I think they're saying, "We don't think the market is working." There are hidden biases at work. For example, people with "non-white sounding" names don't get hired at the same rate as those with "white sounding" names when they have the same skillset. http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html I think these biases operate at a low level, below most of our understanding. I like that GH is having this conversation in the open and working to rid themselves of these biases as much as possible. To me, this is all relevant socioeconomic data. Why not look at the distribution of gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc, in your workplace? If there's a discrepancy, why not figure out what the root cause is? Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill", why is the distribution skewed? What does it hurt to ask?

wskinner 10y ago
GitHub is focusing on the very bottom of the funnel. They are noticing the distribution of their employees doesn't match that of the larger population, then attempting to make it match. But what if the reason their company distribution doesn't match up is that the distribution of people with the requisite skills doesn't match up? They are trying to treat the symptoms of a supposed problem rather than the ailment itself, and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by doing so. Affirmative action doesn't work, except for the short-term career prospects of those individuals lucky enough to profit from it, and the virtue-signalers who propose it.
- phasmantistes 10y ago
  This is just the pipeline argument. And while there are very real aspects to the pipeline -- yes, women and minorities drop out of the tech industry in early education, late education, and on the job -- the problem with the argument is that it attempts to absolve blame. GitHub is not at the "bottom of the funnel". They're in the middle: people who work there today may go on to wildly successful careers elsewhere. And people who have bad experiences there may not. So please don't make the pipeline argument. Just because other earlier stages have failed to be welcoming to minorities doesn't mean GitHub shouldn't try, and just because GitHub is a corporate employer doesn't mean their employees aren't still living developing human beings.
reader5000 10y ago
"all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill" What evidence is there to believe this?
- SolaceQuantum 10y ago
  This rhetoric in this context is implying that you may be skeptical that black people are as valuable and capable at computer science/information technology as the majority white population. Please reconsider.
  - 10y ago

resu_nimda 10y ago

Otherwise, it is acceptable and in the best long term interests of the company. Maybe the best long-term interests of the company aren't aligned with the best long-term interests of our society. If, hypothetically, the market took over, and drove racial equality/diversity in a direction such that we almost literally ended up with a white male overclass and everyone else their servants/slaves, would you shrug and say "well clearly white males are just better for the long term interests of the companies"? Or would you wonder if there were maybe some non-market-based factors at play... "The market" doesn't magically solve all problems. It's not a simple matter of companies making non-discriminatory hiring decisions. As of now, the average white candidate probably is more qualified than the minority candidate, because of a complex web of social factors and experiences tracing back to birth. So they would always get selected by "the market," creating a feedback loop leading to the scenario I described. The market is definitely not going to provide equality of opportunity. If that's something we care about, we have to actively push things that direction.

nojvek 10y ago

Sometimes this could have negative impact if promoted too much right? Imagine the feeling that your peers thinking you're in management level because HR wants to meet the quotas and don't actually respect you for the talent.