3 ms·

I think you're right. We need to start looking at the problem from further away. Fixing one specific lack of diversity doesn't help solve the others. Take for

I think you're right. We need to start looking at the problem from further away. Fixing one specific lack of diversity doesn't help solve the others. Take for example Google. In their diversity report[1] it shows that only 17% of employees in tech related jobs are women. That's something people have talked about for a while and shows a lack of women in tech. We seem to be ignoring the fact however that 94% of Google's tech employees are white or Asian. Only 2% are hispanic and only 1% are black. Why are we ignoring this? As you say we need to step back and look at the bigger problem - lack of diversity - instead of focusing on one specific area (women). [1] http://www.google.co.uk/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech http://www.google.co.uk/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech

rimantas 12y ago
And how many are bald? How many have blue eyes? My point is: how come we are so sure that diversity at some place X should exactly match demographics?
- mcphage 12y ago
  > how come we are so sure that diversity at some place X should exactly match demographics Assuming that those demographics are independent of talent or skill, why wouldn't diversity of a population match the diversity of the population as a whole? At least for a large enough company, of which Google (with over 50,000 employees, although not all are in the US) certainly qualifies. Or to put it another way: if you took 50,000 people at random from the US, then their demographics would closely mirror the demographics of the US as a whole. So if the diversity at a company is very different from that, then something is happening to cause that difference.