6 ms·

I read your rant a few times and I've yet to see your point. Charities should be based on need and helping the greater good, not on playing favorites. This is

by _pius 14y ago

I read your rant a few times and I've yet to see your point. Charities should be based on need and helping the greater good, not on playing favorites. This isn't a charity. A black woman started this program to address a legitimate need that she saw. Others who agreed with her gave her money to do it. Where is the bad in this? How is this anything but a net positive for the world?

JPKab 14y ago
The bad in this would be a young black girl trying to bring her hispanic friend. Exclusion is exclusion. If this were the WhiteBoysSew club, you would call it racist, despite the fact that very few white boys learn to sew.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - gardenshoes 14y ago
    I think his point is that the program is being racist (in the sense that it is preferring a race to another), which we are conditioned to think of as wrong. But, because it benefits a minority, it's okay. It's also sexist.
- jbattle 14y ago
  I would be a little surprised if anyone seriously objected to a sewing for boys class
  - _delirium 14y ago
    There actually are groups like that for areas where men are historically underrepresented, such as the American Assembly for Men in Nursing (http://aamn.org/ http://aamn.org/). As far as I know they don't get a lot of flak. With white people in specific there is a bit of eyebrow-raising, because "white" is a bit broad, a historically dominant group (in the U.S.), and has some history of "white organizations" being intended mainly for exclusionary purposes. Despite being white myself, I would probably be skeptical of the intentions of someone who asked me to join an organization with "white" in the name. More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry. There are also a number of initiatives targeting "Rural Appalachians", which is not definitionally white, but is almost exclusively an identity held by white people.
    - rmc 14y ago
      More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry. Lots this non-Anglos weren't considered white back in the day. JFK was asked if his being Catholic would hinder him.
- prayag 14y ago
  exclusion != racism. Racism has power dynamics associated with it. If exclusion (or special inclusion programs as I would call it) leads to a more racially and gender balanced community it is a good thing.
  - brandoncapecci 14y ago
    Whether or not something is good has nothing to do with what it's labeled. Sure by definition it might not be racist but certainly that's how it would play out. A better equation might be: exclusion != racism ≡ you're a minority
mibbitier 14y ago
I'd guess the bad bit is the sexism and racism. Would you be so positive if it was some program that excluded any applicant that wasn't a white male?
- _pius 14y ago
  This: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262233 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262233
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    I disagree. Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population. To claim "white males" are a majority is just an arbitrary distinction you're making. Everyone is a majority or minority depending on your criteria. You don't fix racism/sexist/etc with more racism/sexism/etc. You fix it by being inclusive, and judging people on their merits.
    - _pius 14y ago
      Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population. In other news: down is up, black is white, and true is false, depending on your criteria. There are actual facts in the world and you don't get to change them to suit your side of the argument.
    - natrius 14y ago
      The goal of this program isn't to fix racism or sexism. It's to encourage a group of people to explore programming who do so at lower a rate than many other groups. If the talents and desires needed to program are evenly distributed among the population, this is a targeted way to improve the lives of people who wouldn't discover programming on their own. A program that wasn't narrowly targeted would have a lower return on investment.
      - mibbitier 14y ago
        And that's fine. But you can't have it both ways... If you believe in free speech, you have to accept people saying things you don't like. If you believe in freedom to set criteria on who you accept for something, you should also accept "white men only private clubs" etc.
vijayr 14y ago
I understand where the GP is coming from. Teaching kids to code is an absolutely nice thing to do. But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class? They'll be turned away? To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc. In many educational institutions, huge percentage of seats are reserved for the so called "lower" castes. So a kid, who gets very low grades, can get into a good institution, just because he is from a lower caste, even if that kid's family is rich. On the other hand, a poor kid from a so called "higher" caste, can't get in, even after getting high grades, as there are only so many seats and competition is tough. This has wrecked havoc in the Indian society, as absolutely dumb kids get into good colleges, while bright kids are left out. Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only. Any kid who wants to learn to code, should be welcome, irrespective of their color. It does however, make sense to say no based on affordability - meaning, saying no to a rich kid makes sense, as he/she will find another teacher anyway, because he/she can afford it. Again, she is doing a great noble work, no question about it. It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids.
- king_jester 14y ago
  > But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class? Charities are free to focus on where the most need is based on the limited resources they have. There is a significant lack of women of color in US tech circles, so there is nothing wrong with a charity targeting that. Charity by definition won't be able to focus on everyone. > To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc. This is a US-based charity targeting people of color living in the US. Comparisons between the US and India are not helpful here. > Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only. This is nonsense. Those that would benefit the most from this charity program already face discrimination and lack of opportunity BECAUSE OF their race and gender. > It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids. It would also be awesome if social barriers didn't exist at all and this kind of program wouldn't be needed, but we don't live in that world. That said, this program is absolutely doing good work and is right to target who needs this kind of assistance the most.

by _pius 14y ago

JPKab 14y ago

The bad in this would be a young black girl trying to bring her hispanic friend. Exclusion is exclusion. If this were the WhiteBoysSew club, you would call it racist, despite the fact that very few white boys learn to sew.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- gardenshoes 14y ago
  I think his point is that the program is being racist (in the sense that it is preferring a race to another), which we are conditioned to think of as wrong. But, because it benefits a minority, it's okay. It's also sexist.
jbattle 14y ago
I would be a little surprised if anyone seriously objected to a sewing for boys class
- _delirium 14y ago
  There actually are groups like that for areas where men are historically underrepresented, such as the American Assembly for Men in Nursing (http://aamn.org/ http://aamn.org/). As far as I know they don't get a lot of flak. With white people in specific there is a bit of eyebrow-raising, because "white" is a bit broad, a historically dominant group (in the U.S.), and has some history of "white organizations" being intended mainly for exclusionary purposes. Despite being white myself, I would probably be skeptical of the intentions of someone who asked me to join an organization with "white" in the name. More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry. There are also a number of initiatives targeting "Rural Appalachians", which is not definitionally white, but is almost exclusively an identity held by white people.
  - rmc 14y ago
    More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry. Lots this non-Anglos weren't considered white back in the day. JFK was asked if his being Catholic would hinder him.
prayag 14y ago
exclusion != racism. Racism has power dynamics associated with it. If exclusion (or special inclusion programs as I would call it) leads to a more racially and gender balanced community it is a good thing.
- brandoncapecci 14y ago
  Whether or not something is good has nothing to do with what it's labeled. Sure by definition it might not be racist but certainly that's how it would play out. A better equation might be: exclusion != racism ≡ you're a minority

mibbitier 14y ago

I'd guess the bad bit is the sexism and racism. Would you be so positive if it was some program that excluded any applicant that wasn't a white male?

_pius 14y ago
This: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262233 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262233
- mibbitier 14y ago
  I disagree. Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population. To claim "white males" are a majority is just an arbitrary distinction you're making. Everyone is a majority or minority depending on your criteria. You don't fix racism/sexist/etc with more racism/sexism/etc. You fix it by being inclusive, and judging people on their merits.
  - _pius 14y ago
    Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population. In other news: down is up, black is white, and true is false, depending on your criteria. There are actual facts in the world and you don't get to change them to suit your side of the argument.
  - natrius 14y ago
    The goal of this program isn't to fix racism or sexism. It's to encourage a group of people to explore programming who do so at lower a rate than many other groups. If the talents and desires needed to program are evenly distributed among the population, this is a targeted way to improve the lives of people who wouldn't discover programming on their own. A program that wasn't narrowly targeted would have a lower return on investment.
    - mibbitier 14y ago
      And that's fine. But you can't have it both ways... If you believe in free speech, you have to accept people saying things you don't like. If you believe in freedom to set criteria on who you accept for something, you should also accept "white men only private clubs" etc.

vijayr 14y ago

I understand where the GP is coming from. Teaching kids to code is an absolutely nice thing to do. But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class? They'll be turned away? To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc. In many educational institutions, huge percentage of seats are reserved for the so called "lower" castes. So a kid, who gets very low grades, can get into a good institution, just because he is from a lower caste, even if that kid's family is rich. On the other hand, a poor kid from a so called "higher" caste, can't get in, even after getting high grades, as there are only so many seats and competition is tough. This has wrecked havoc in the Indian society, as absolutely dumb kids get into good colleges, while bright kids are left out. Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only. Any kid who wants to learn to code, should be welcome, irrespective of their color. It does however, make sense to say no based on affordability - meaning, saying no to a rich kid makes sense, as he/she will find another teacher anyway, because he/she can afford it. Again, she is doing a great noble work, no question about it. It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids.

king_jester 14y ago
> But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class? Charities are free to focus on where the most need is based on the limited resources they have. There is a significant lack of women of color in US tech circles, so there is nothing wrong with a charity targeting that. Charity by definition won't be able to focus on everyone. > To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc. This is a US-based charity targeting people of color living in the US. Comparisons between the US and India are not helpful here. > Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only. This is nonsense. Those that would benefit the most from this charity program already face discrimination and lack of opportunity BECAUSE OF their race and gender. > It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids. It would also be awesome if social barriers didn't exist at all and this kind of program wouldn't be needed, but we don't live in that world. That said, this program is absolutely doing good work and is right to target who needs this kind of assistance the most.