3 ms·

Some objections: "Or the coverage wasn’t good enough. [ http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2011/10/arrington-race-and-silicon-valley-i.html http://whydoeseveryt

by natrius 15y ago

Some objections: "Or the coverage wasn’t good enough. [ http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2011/10/arrington-race-and-silicon-valley-i.html http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2011/10/arrington-race-and-... ]" Hank said nothing of the sort. He said there is no proof that Arrington goes out of his way to cover black founders as he had claimed. Hank didn't say Arrington should go out of his way, nor did he call Arrington a racist. Hank just said that Arrington's claim was incorrect, and from where I'm sitting, he's right. "There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much more easily than their white or asian counterparts." First of all, making claims of employment bias without evidence is generally a bad idea. Secondly, Arrington is implying that underrepresented minorities in the Valley are less qualified than their white and Asian colleagues, which, if untrue, is a dangerous implication to make. "And the list of mentors at his TechStars accelerator program – well let’s just say they did manage to get a token black man and a token black women on to that list of hundreds of mentors, but it sure doesn’t look like “take action” to me." Referring to people as "tokens" implies that their presence is just for show. I'm sure those mentors don't appreciate that sort of attack on their professional accomplishments, and to assume that they're there just for show is—dare I say it—racist. Consider replacing "token" with "single" in that sentence if that's not what you mean. Few reasonable people think Arrington has a conscious bias against black folks, but he's not really helping his case here.

petenixey 15y ago
"There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much more easily than their white or asian counterparts." This does not imply that underrepresented minorities are less qualified, only that they're more likely to be hired. If you swapped "minorities" for "Cambridge Math grads", you would probably infer that they were more qualified. The statement speaks to the likelihood of hiring, the implication of lower quality you see is your own inference.
- natrius 15y ago
  You are correct, but assuming similar distributions in talent among underrepresented minorities in the Valley and among everyone else, my claim holds. I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions, and I don't think Arrington had that distinction in mind.
  - vidarh 15y ago
    > I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions Why do you think this? It is not unreasonable to assume that if a group is underrepresented, and there might be a perceived glass ceiling, for example, that those who do give it a go are more likely to be people who believe their skills are sufficiently above average to give them a decent shot at overcoming limitations. Whether or not that's the case in SV is not something I have a basis for saying anything about, but it's also too easy to just write it off and assume the distributions are the same. E.g. in many Western countries, the education of immigrants often vastly outstrip the average education of the native population, for example, in part because of restrictions on immigration, in part because the threshold for moving if your skills are perceived to be of low demand is vastly higher. It is perfectly possible similar self-selection applies to minority groups moving into an area of business where they are underrepresented.
    - natrius 15y ago
      It is certainly possible; I just said there's no evidence of it that I know of. Whether or not that is the case is immaterial because it's not what Arrington was suggesting.
      - vidarh 15y ago
        Really? How do you know this is not what Arrington was suggesting? That is exactly how I read and understood that comment given the context of the rest he's written on the subject.
        natrius 15y ago
        Because that interpretation makes zero sense in context. "There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much more easily than their white or asian counterparts. There is no conscious or subconscious desire to keep minorities out [...] It’s the complete opposite." He's saying that people consciously desire to hire minorities, so they make it easier for minorities to be hired. There is no reasonable way he was suggesting that underrepresented minorities in the Valley are more competent than everyone else. If that were the case, one wouldn't need to desire to hire underrepresented minorities; you'd just get them as a byproduct of seeking out merit.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  This does not imply that underrepresented minorities are less qualified, only that they're more likely to be hired. It doesn't imply non-Asian minorities as a whole are less qualified, but it does imply (with high probability) that non-Asian minorities hired at company X are less qualified than regular hires at company X.
vidarh 15y ago
> Referring to people as "tokens" implies that their presence is just for show. I'm sure those mentors don't appreciate that sort of attack on their professional accomplishments, and to assume that they're there just for show is—dare I say it—racist. Consider replacing "token" with "single" in that sentence if that's not what you mean. He was in this case seemingly implying that if someone writes about how one should take action against racism, but yet hires only a single black man and black woman amongst hundreds, then 1) it does not seem like they're taking action, and 2) the absence of more black people makes it look like other competent black people have likely been excluded from consideration due to race and the two that are there were not excluded because of a perceived need for a token. Note the difference between implying they were included for their race - which would have been a slight on them - and implying they were not excluded despite their race. I don't think this is a slight against the persons in question at all. If I disliked blondes (I'm being cowardly and using that as an example since I am one myself), and wanted to exclude blondes but was worried about public perceptions, I might leave a token blonde or two on my list, but that does not imply I'd pick my token blond at random - I'd pick the best of the bunch. I'd just exclude a bunch of other eligible blondes. Of course it's possible that some racist would just pick their "token black person" at random, to compound their stupidity, but calling someone a "token" does not imply anything about how you think the selection was done. The only thing that claim says is that Mike believes that it rings hollow to claim to take action yet not have found more black people that were at least as skilled as some of the other white people on the list. My (black) wife regularly complains about the "token black people" in various settings, and when she does, it is certainly not to slight them, but to complain about why other competent black people aren't included as well. (I know Mike, though I've never discussed race with him)
- natrius 15y ago
  I don't think that's the most reasonable interpretation. If someone is concerned with appearances, then they're choosing someone for their appearance over their merit. Accusing someone of tokenism is claiming that they would've made a more homogeneous choice based on their judgment of merit, but put merit aside in order to keep up appearances. Tokenism and a lack of merit go hand in hand. In other words, no one hates blondes. They prejudge blondes to be less competent, but they still keep a couple on the team, despite their prejudgment of being less competent. Being a token anything means merit wasn't the deciding factor for being chosen. It is bad.

by natrius 15y ago

petenixey 15y ago

"There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much more easily than their white or asian counterparts." This does not imply that underrepresented minorities are less qualified, only that they're more likely to be hired. If you swapped "minorities" for "Cambridge Math grads", you would probably infer that they were more qualified. The statement speaks to the likelihood of hiring, the implication of lower quality you see is your own inference.

natrius 15y ago
You are correct, but assuming similar distributions in talent among underrepresented minorities in the Valley and among everyone else, my claim holds. I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions, and I don't think Arrington had that distinction in mind.
- vidarh 15y ago
  > I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions Why do you think this? It is not unreasonable to assume that if a group is underrepresented, and there might be a perceived glass ceiling, for example, that those who do give it a go are more likely to be people who believe their skills are sufficiently above average to give them a decent shot at overcoming limitations. Whether or not that's the case in SV is not something I have a basis for saying anything about, but it's also too easy to just write it off and assume the distributions are the same. E.g. in many Western countries, the education of immigrants often vastly outstrip the average education of the native population, for example, in part because of restrictions on immigration, in part because the threshold for moving if your skills are perceived to be of low demand is vastly higher. It is perfectly possible similar self-selection applies to minority groups moving into an area of business where they are underrepresented.
  - natrius 15y ago
    It is certainly possible; I just said there's no evidence of it that I know of. Whether or not that is the case is immaterial because it's not what Arrington was suggesting.
    - vidarh 15y ago
      Really? How do you know this is not what Arrington was suggesting? That is exactly how I read and understood that comment given the context of the rest he's written on the subject.
      - natrius 15y ago
        Because that interpretation makes zero sense in context. "There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much more easily than their white or asian counterparts. There is no conscious or subconscious desire to keep minorities out [...] It’s the complete opposite." He's saying that people consciously desire to hire minorities, so they make it easier for minorities to be hired. There is no reasonable way he was suggesting that underrepresented minorities in the Valley are more competent than everyone else. If that were the case, one wouldn't need to desire to hire underrepresented minorities; you'd just get them as a byproduct of seeking out merit.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
This does not imply that underrepresented minorities are less qualified, only that they're more likely to be hired. It doesn't imply non-Asian minorities as a whole are less qualified, but it does imply (with high probability) that non-Asian minorities hired at company X are less qualified than regular hires at company X.

vidarh 15y ago

> Referring to people as "tokens" implies that their presence is just for show. I'm sure those mentors don't appreciate that sort of attack on their professional accomplishments, and to assume that they're there just for show is—dare I say it—racist. Consider replacing "token" with "single" in that sentence if that's not what you mean. He was in this case seemingly implying that if someone writes about how one should take action against racism, but yet hires only a single black man and black woman amongst hundreds, then 1) it does not seem like they're taking action, and 2) the absence of more black people makes it look like other competent black people have likely been excluded from consideration due to race and the two that are there were not excluded because of a perceived need for a token. Note the difference between implying they were included for their race - which would have been a slight on them - and implying they were not excluded despite their race. I don't think this is a slight against the persons in question at all. If I disliked blondes (I'm being cowardly and using that as an example since I am one myself), and wanted to exclude blondes but was worried about public perceptions, I might leave a token blonde or two on my list, but that does not imply I'd pick my token blond at random - I'd pick the best of the bunch. I'd just exclude a bunch of other eligible blondes. Of course it's possible that some racist would just pick their "token black person" at random, to compound their stupidity, but calling someone a "token" does not imply anything about how you think the selection was done. The only thing that claim says is that Mike believes that it rings hollow to claim to take action yet not have found more black people that were at least as skilled as some of the other white people on the list. My (black) wife regularly complains about the "token black people" in various settings, and when she does, it is certainly not to slight them, but to complain about why other competent black people aren't included as well. (I know Mike, though I've never discussed race with him)

natrius 15y ago
I don't think that's the most reasonable interpretation. If someone is concerned with appearances, then they're choosing someone for their appearance over their merit. Accusing someone of tokenism is claiming that they would've made a more homogeneous choice based on their judgment of merit, but put merit aside in order to keep up appearances. Tokenism and a lack of merit go hand in hand. In other words, no one hates blondes. They prejudge blondes to be less competent, but they still keep a couple on the team, despite their prejudgment of being less competent. Being a token anything means merit wasn't the deciding factor for being chosen. It is bad.