> No, the article clearly states that they are under-represented. It cites 2015 report on diversity looking at 5 Silicon Valley companies: Google, Hewlett-Packa

> No, the article clearly states that they are under-represented. It cites 2015 report on diversity looking at 5 Silicon Valley companies: Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, LinkedIn, and Yahoo. The report finds that, "Asians and Asian Americans are well represented in lower-level positions but underrepresented at management and executive levels. Asian Americans (including Indians) are 27% of the workers in these companies, but only 19% of managers and 14% of executives. Yes, but Asian Americans are just 4.7% of the US population [1]. So even 14% of executives is 3x their expected representation. That's a very high amount of overrepresentation! Just it's smaller than their overrepresentation elsewhere. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State... > Height being a "confounding variable" in discrimination against both Asians and women seems like an interesting theory, but it doesn't fit the facts from the article :"This is worse than the glass ceiling effect that’s been identified for women Oh, definitely I don't think we have anywhere near the data to claim it is 100% of the explanation here - which would mean it could be disproved using the method you used. All I am saying is that we know height has a major effect on income and leadership position attainment. This is true in business, politics, everywhere basically. So for shorter than average populations, it is plausible it explains part of their lower income or leadership attainment. (Does it explain all of it? No reason to think that.) And I am saying that this is an often-ignored factor, which shows that we aren't actually looking at this topic objectively. We have cultural blinders.