Jesse Jackson: Tech diversity is next civil rights step | Hacker News Reader

Jesse Jackson: Tech diversity is next civil rights step

usatoday.com

Specifically considering race in hiring decisions, however well-intentioned, is racism. We won't get to where we want to be by skillfully and fairly applying racism -- we'll get there by not caring about race.

I grew up in a rural area in the southern US where racism was common and overt. I can very honestly and sincerely say that I find this more insidious form of racism, which is so widely accepted, to be much more disturbing and frightening.

Sure, then conduct interviews entirely blindly without mentioning any biographical information that betrays one's gender, race or social background, and that might subconsciously sway an interviewer one way or the other.

Also, be sure to conduct the interviews in a society where the interviewee has been brought up on an entirely level playing field, so they have had exactly the same opportunity to formulate and achieve their goals as others with their same aptitude.

Edit: see this Princeton study: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml showing a correlation between blind auditions and a dramatic shift in the gender composition of orchestras in the 70s and 80s.

You know what else -- if you find that certain frequencies in the music you're listening to are over-represented, they make these earplugs which can dampen only those frequencies. The song isn't anymore equalized coming out of the speaker, but as long as you've got your earplugs in you won't know the difference.

I can very honestly and sincerely say that I find this more insidious form of racism, which is so widely accepted, to be much more disturbing and frightening.

I can see why you would say that, because nobody reasonable accepts the open racism you grew up with, whereas -- if you think diversity efforts are racism and sexism -- then it seems to you that there is unspoken acceptance of race/gender-based discrimination.

Consider that,

a) your solution would require everyone to be ignorant of race, not just you,

b) not all racism is overt and visible, or even intentional, and therefore well-meaning people can still end up perpetuating racial biases because they can't correct for what they don't see

c) supposing that you, on the basis of your race, were a member of a historically empowered group -- any efforts to reverse that advantage would feel to your group like a loss of power, which is naturally against your near-term interests

d) supposing again that racial biases exist and have disempowered certain groups, over time, and empowered others -- the advantages would have had a cumulative effect over generations, as this is how advantage (in terms of wealth, connections, access, transmitted/received knowledge) is often-observed to accrue. In that case simply putting on the blinders would be like dragging one runner down with a 100 lb weight for half the race, then removing the weight and simply expecting the rest of the race to be fair.

Talk about fiddling with statistics to make an argument:

"The result is sobering: Men make up 62% to 70% of the staffs of Twitter, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and LinkedIn, while whites and Asians comprise 88% to 91%, according to company data released in the past two months. Their dominance is highest in computer programming and other tech jobs that tend to pay the most."

"Of Twitter's U.S. employees, only 3% are Hispanic and 5% black, but those groups along with Asian Americans account for 41% of its U.S. users."

As Christopher Hitchens said, you can get away with anything if you put a "reverend" in front of your name.

I get what you're saying, but my intuition is that the numbers would still be silly-and-wrong if you could omit Asians from the user numbers they're giving. And I say "if you could" because my guess, which may be wrong but given the way these breakdowns usually work I don't think it's a bad one, is that they didn't have Twitter user data available to them in a more granular fashion. So I'm more inclined to let that one go.

My intuition is the same .. I totally agree there are underrepresented groups .. but using numbers like that does not inspire confidence.

More interesting numbers would be the % of engineering applicants (which are likely not available) or representation in undergraduate programs vs in industry employment.

That would help isolate where the problem lies, which my intuition tells me is earlier than in industry.

I'm not a huge supporter of Rev. Jackson, but the lack of Hispanic and African-American groups in tech reflects a paucity of opportunity for historically poverty-stricken communities in America. And race is self-evidently a factor.

A large number of employees from the Indian subcontinent adds to a company's diversity, but doesn't make tech more welcoming to those Americans whose parents were treated as second-class citizens for much of their lives.

Minor point, and I'm sure you didn't mean to imply otherwise, but many Asian-American (broadly defined) communities are historically poverty-stricken, and its members have been treated as second-class citizens for much of their lives. Just wanted to add that in case anyone inferred otherwise from your comment!

How about making sure Professional Sports (NBA, MLB, NFL etc..) has diversity?

I am not saying we should not strive for diversity but looking for diversity when its convenient for us and ignoring other times would only make one look phony.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but...

Facebook[1] alone employs more people than the sum of pro NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL players.

Facebook: 6,818

NFL[2]: 1,696

MLB[3]: 1,280

NHL[4]: 1,500

NBA[5]: 450

Facebook Employees - Pro Sports Players = 1,892

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

[2] http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/total-players-nfl.html

[3] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_players_are_in_MLB

[4] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100104123254A...

[5] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_total_number_of_player...

We already have. At one time pro sports were segregated or whites-only. MLB was effectively segregated until 1947, the NBA was integrated in 1950; football was never formally segregated as far as I am aware. Some argue that hockey is still effectively segregated, though you could equally argue that ice skating is simply more prominent in certain Euro-American demographics.

I presume you're referring to the prevalence of black athletes in some sports, particularly basketball where thy are way over-represented. But that is in fact the result of meritocracy. This is so dreadful to some people that last year there was an attempt to form a whites-only basketball league, although the chances of this going anywhere are negligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_color_line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Fives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players_in_American_profe...

http://africanamericanhistorysp2014.voices.wooster.edu/racis...

http://www.thenation.com/article/all-white-basketball-league...

I don't have a firm opinion about diversity in tech companies, but your comment suggests you're unaware of the historical context.

So why do you believe that achievements of Blacks in basketball is a result of their higher ability, but not the same for Whites in tech?

For starters, "Whites in tech" generally start out with the advantage of being white. In America, at least, that's an incredible advantage, even in today's "enlightened" age. It's like getting a head start in a foot race.

Secondly, the tech industry is filled with just as much of a "network effect" as any other industry. That is, like any other industry, who one knows is at least as important as what one knows, and is often far and away the most important thing.

For all its anti-intellectual accoutrement, sport is generally far more merit based than other industries, even if it's not perfect. That's because results tend to be black-and-white (har) and easily measured in a way that doesn't exist in our industry.

I would say that its quite likely that both are a result of higher ability at the time that they are hired, and that, in both cases, those ability differences are also a result of economic injustice that disfavors blacks in society, as discussed in my other post in this subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8100861

So what you are suggesting is that this economic injustice causes downstream divergence in ability. Then the solution certainly cannot be affirmative action in hiring, since by that point the ratio of unskilled minority workers is not inherently discriminatory, it's a reality created by discrimination that led to a lack of skill development. I would tend to agree and would argue that the way to address this problem is to increase access to skill development, not hire un or under qualified people.

I'm not making any copmment about white people in technology. Did nobody read the last sentence in the comment above before getting bent out of shape and downvoting it? I have no opinion on that. I was responding to the specific claim in the grandparent post about bringing diversity to areas like sports.

> But that is in fact the result of meritocracy.

Unlike employment at tech companies?

[But that is in fact the result of meritocracy]

And Tech hiring is not based on meritocracy?

You'd think there are network effects at play. Case in point: the makeup of your favourite state school's CS department. The student body is 70 % South Asian, 20 % East Asian, 10 % white, with at least 30 % women. The support staff (that's computer support, not secretarial or facilities) is 100 % white, and 0 % women. Make of that what you think.

I wasn't making any comment on tech hiring. I specifically disclaimed having an opinion on how that interacted with diversity at the end of the post, and and the whole comment was responsive to the question posed in the grandparent post.

> I presume you're referring to the prevalence of black athletes in some sports, particularly basketball where thy are way over-represented. But that is in fact the result of meritocracy.

Its largely a result the economic disadvantage of blacks in the broader society. Without strong educational opportunities and other economic opportunities, the expected opportunity cost of a focussing efforts on chasing a professional sports career from a young age is a lot lower, on average, for blacks than whites compared to the other alternatives available to them

the expected opportunity cost of a focussing efforts on chasing a professional sports career from a young age is a lot lower, on average, for blacks than white

From a slightly different angle: playing basketball at a very high level is like playing a musical instrument at a very high level - you need to start when you are very little, and you need to play with great devotion. In your average suburban paradise you can't even hope to play sufficient b-ball even to untie Lebron's shoes.

That's a good explanation of why so many young black men pursue sports as a career. But I'm saying that their success within the NBA is the result of skill and ability.

Totally agree, the Rooney Rule needs to be applied to other sports as well, and with teeth.

When I was around 12 I was at the Bud Billiken parade in Chicago and Jesse Jackson told my dad he should buy me a laptop. My dad has never bought me a laptop :), but even then (1995?) he was promoting diversity in tech in a way.

Would you go to a hospital where the doctors are hired based on ethnic diversity and quotas instead of skills?

Because those are the only two options right?

My last three doctors have been minorities, two of them were WoC, and they are all much better than the two white male goofuses I went to before.

> two of them were WoC

How do you know? Is it your decision or theirs? If it's yours, would you consider (without looking) people from Kyrgyzstan, Okinawa, or Catalonia to count? Thailand?

Regardless of those answers, what do you think it "means"?

I'm just so curious!

I think there is a good argument for diversity in tech. This article is really, really, bad however. Look at one number they mention: > Men make up 62% to 70% of the staffs of Twitter, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and LinkedIn, while whites and Asians comprise 88% to 91%

Then this number: > Of Twitter's U.S. employees, only 3% are Hispanic and 5% black, but those groups along with Asian Americans account for 41% of its U.S. users.

So Asians count against Twitter as employees and against Twitter as audience, that just makes no sense.

> "The government has a role to play" in ensuring that women and minorities are fairly represented in the tech workforce, Jackson told a USA TODAY editorial board meeting. He said the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission needs to examine Silicon Valley's employment contracts.

Looks like Jackson is trying to rebrand 'affirmative action'. Doesn't matter, though: it's still a violation of the rights of almost all concerned.

While improving diversity in tech is certainly very important, I think there are still a great many needs to be resolved before we can consider it the next step in civil rights. Even if you consider same-sex marriage a done deal as the final pieces start to fall in the place, trans* people often can't even use the bathroom of their gender, for fucks sake. And then also there's voter-restriction laws, trying to revert progress the civil rights movement has made. So yeah, diversity in tech is important, but to call it "the next step in civil rights" seems pretty disingenuous to me.

You cant make tech diversity by fiat however - it takes more people from those minorities showing interest an in essence, showing up.

We are well represented by Southeast Asia, Asia, and I'd argue by women too (though probably not enough) - but again, IMO, the limits are a lack of candidates with a tech background or the drive/interest to learn (as well as good training programs for them to build real experience in), not by any inherent racism.

FWIW, I'm in Seattle, and YMMV depending on which region of the world/country you're in.

Why are asians put into same group as whites? They are minority and are still badly discriminated, mostly at university acceptance.

That's news. At Universities here they make up a disproportionate amount of students (ie. a larger percentage of the student body is Asian than would be expected given their percentage of the overall population)...

They would be an even bigger percentage if not for discrimination.

The US used to have quotas for Jews in many universities, as did the Soviet Union. The unofficial quota system for Asians is no different.

Many students in US are from abroad, in that case Asians are 60% of world population.

Some data about %subj%:

http://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-d...

Tech is brimming with diversity so he can't make a good statistical argument without lumping whites and Asians together as one race. His goal isn't racial diversity, it is the advancement of his race only. Even at the expense of other minorities like Asians.

I respect Mr. Jackson's earlier work, but he's becoming what he fought against. Nowhere in his article were educational opportunities promoted or discussed. Instead, an industry was shamed simply for the color of their skin.

Are tech companies turning people away due to their race? Or are there simply not enough black programmers? If the latter, then diversity for the sake of it is going to be... strange.

The National Bureau of Economic Research did an experiment where they sent in the same résumé for the same job under "white-sounding" and "black-sounding names": the "white" names got about 50% more call-backs than the "black" names. [1]

Granted, this wasn't aimed at tech companies.

[1] http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com