3 ms·

Because addressing the pipeline problem means admitting that racism is still alive and embedded in the foundations of our education and work force system. You

Because addressing the pipeline problem means admitting that racism is still alive and embedded in the foundations of our education and work force system. You can't expect there to be more workers if there's no applicants. There are no applicants because there is a severe lack of Black people (among other groups) represented in Engineering/STEM degree programs. That stems from a lack of good public school education. But like you said, it generates more clicks-per-article to blame the Big Bad Tech Companies for not being diverse enough, when really we as a national don't honestly want to see marginalized groups succeed. Americans operate by and large on a zero-sum assumption. Many believe that if one group of people succeeds, it somehow will undermine their own success.

weiming 8y ago
> when really we as a national don't honestly want to see marginalized groups succeed This sounds like a very big statement and probably something that can be a long post in itself. Would you be able to expound on that?
- camelNotation 8y ago
  There's a popular theory among the American left that classical liberalism (free speech, freedom of association, "equality of opportunity", etc) is actually an oppressive social structure devised by powerful white men to keep the poor and disenfranchised (minorities and women) from rising through the economic ranks. In the estimation of the American left, the "hands-off" approach of right-wing American politics is actually a "hold them down" approach since no one that is poor or disenfranchised can rise from poverty to wealth on their own. Instead, they favor increased spending on public institutions (like more money for public schools) that will theoretically pull the poor and disenfranchised out of poverty and into the middle or upper classes. The American right, on the other hand, contends that providing social support to the poor and disenfranchised creates a "victim mentality" and a dependency on the system for advancement. They often accuse the American left of trying to make the United States into a communist nation akin to the Soviet Union and tend to favor the maximization of non-government power as much as possible. In practice, this manifests itself as a sort of "hyper-capitalism" where the American right grants tax breaks to the rich and large corporations in the name of both economic freedom and as a reward for their success in the free market. It is very hard to reconcile the two perspectives. EDIT: And just to add my own view here for clarity - I think both the left and right make salient points. The left is correct that there is no equality of opportunity without adjusting for the complexities of other aspects of life and financial constraints of a poor individual's starting position. I think the right is correct that a victim mentality is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. I think there is a centrist position to be held that works for everyone, but both sides despise centrists, so I am hated every time I talk about politics.
  - ardent_uno 8y ago
    "since no one that is poor or disenfranchised can rise from poverty to wealth on their own." That's where the liberal view collapses. The experience of history shows that many once disenfranchised groups can rise up.
  - weiming 8y ago
    > so I am hated every time I talk about politics. For what it's worth, I think the U.S. (and the world) could use more centrists!
  - padobson 8y ago
    I think the right is correct that a victim mentality is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. This can't go understated. Life is hard and often tragic. Everyone will be a victim of injustice, often grave injustice, at one point in their lives or another. The worst thing a culture can do is demotivate folks to face their tragedies because something about their personal identity (race, gender, geography, religion, etc) made it impossible to overcome.
noetic_techy 8y ago
> when really we as a national don't honestly want to see marginalized groups succeed How does that explain the success of Asian Americans?
- protonimitate 8y ago
  I think that depends on how you measure success. Strictly in business terms, sure they have more success than other groups, but I don't think (assuming here, no facts) they have over taken White people as the predominant group in leadership roles, high paying positions, or otherwise 'stakeholders'. If that's not true, feel free to correct.
  - ardent_uno 8y ago
    On average they do better than whites financially. So basically on average their quality of life is better.
  - todd8 8y ago
    See [1] and [2]. For example, 2015 median household income for Indian Asians is $100K while the same statistic for white non-hispanics appears to be $63K. [1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/fact-sheet/asian-americans-indians-in-the-u-s/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/fact-sheet/asian-americans-in... [2] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/visualizations/p60/256/figure1.pdf https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/visualizations...
    - dahdum 8y ago
      They also have much lower crime rates, much higher entrepreneurship, and higher educational attainment. Skilled immigration is awesome for the US.
      - alphabettsy 8y ago
        This tends to be true for all recent immigrants, 1st and 2nd generation immigrants have much higher acheivement.
ardent_uno 8y ago
Many once marginalized groups do exceedingly well in American society today. Quality public and private education is available to black students, but one major problem is that inner-city schools tend to have very high dropout rates which is not the fault of the schools but rather the broader culture of the communities. The American people are not to blame for the pipeline problem. Instead, blame broken families. Blame a culture which does not offer to young black children professional role models. Blaming racism for all of our problems is a dead end. For more reading about this, consider the brilliant Coleman Hughes: The High Price of Stale Grievances https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances/ https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances...

weiming 8y ago

> when really we as a national don't honestly want to see marginalized groups succeed This sounds like a very big statement and probably something that can be a long post in itself. Would you be able to expound on that?

camelNotation 8y ago
There's a popular theory among the American left that classical liberalism (free speech, freedom of association, "equality of opportunity", etc) is actually an oppressive social structure devised by powerful white men to keep the poor and disenfranchised (minorities and women) from rising through the economic ranks. In the estimation of the American left, the "hands-off" approach of right-wing American politics is actually a "hold them down" approach since no one that is poor or disenfranchised can rise from poverty to wealth on their own. Instead, they favor increased spending on public institutions (like more money for public schools) that will theoretically pull the poor and disenfranchised out of poverty and into the middle or upper classes. The American right, on the other hand, contends that providing social support to the poor and disenfranchised creates a "victim mentality" and a dependency on the system for advancement. They often accuse the American left of trying to make the United States into a communist nation akin to the Soviet Union and tend to favor the maximization of non-government power as much as possible. In practice, this manifests itself as a sort of "hyper-capitalism" where the American right grants tax breaks to the rich and large corporations in the name of both economic freedom and as a reward for their success in the free market. It is very hard to reconcile the two perspectives. EDIT: And just to add my own view here for clarity - I think both the left and right make salient points. The left is correct that there is no equality of opportunity without adjusting for the complexities of other aspects of life and financial constraints of a poor individual's starting position. I think the right is correct that a victim mentality is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. I think there is a centrist position to be held that works for everyone, but both sides despise centrists, so I am hated every time I talk about politics.
- ardent_uno 8y ago
  "since no one that is poor or disenfranchised can rise from poverty to wealth on their own." That's where the liberal view collapses. The experience of history shows that many once disenfranchised groups can rise up.
- weiming 8y ago
  > so I am hated every time I talk about politics. For what it's worth, I think the U.S. (and the world) could use more centrists!
- padobson 8y ago
  I think the right is correct that a victim mentality is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. This can't go understated. Life is hard and often tragic. Everyone will be a victim of injustice, often grave injustice, at one point in their lives or another. The worst thing a culture can do is demotivate folks to face their tragedies because something about their personal identity (race, gender, geography, religion, etc) made it impossible to overcome.

noetic_techy 8y ago

> when really we as a national don't honestly want to see marginalized groups succeed How does that explain the success of Asian Americans?

protonimitate 8y ago
I think that depends on how you measure success. Strictly in business terms, sure they have more success than other groups, but I don't think (assuming here, no facts) they have over taken White people as the predominant group in leadership roles, high paying positions, or otherwise 'stakeholders'. If that's not true, feel free to correct.
- ardent_uno 8y ago
  On average they do better than whites financially. So basically on average their quality of life is better.
- todd8 8y ago
  See [1] and [2]. For example, 2015 median household income for Indian Asians is $100K while the same statistic for white non-hispanics appears to be $63K. [1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/fact-sheet/asian-americans-indians-in-the-u-s/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/fact-sheet/asian-americans-in... [2] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/visualizations/p60/256/figure1.pdf https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/visualizations...
  - dahdum 8y ago
    They also have much lower crime rates, much higher entrepreneurship, and higher educational attainment. Skilled immigration is awesome for the US.
    - alphabettsy 8y ago
      This tends to be true for all recent immigrants, 1st and 2nd generation immigrants have much higher acheivement.

ardent_uno 8y ago

Many once marginalized groups do exceedingly well in American society today. Quality public and private education is available to black students, but one major problem is that inner-city schools tend to have very high dropout rates which is not the fault of the schools but rather the broader culture of the communities. The American people are not to blame for the pipeline problem. Instead, blame broken families. Blame a culture which does not offer to young black children professional role models. Blaming racism for all of our problems is a dead end. For more reading about this, consider the brilliant Coleman Hughes: The High Price of Stale Grievances https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances/ https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances...