Introducing Project Include(medium.com)
medium.com
Introducing Project Include
https://medium.com/projectinclude/introducing-project-include-d0c3b8358fd5#.zh3wp2xvu
47 comments
> One final point: I decided to create a throwaway to post this because I am confident that I would be pilloried by people in these organizations if I were to bring up these points with my real name attached. There is not a healthy climate of discussion around this topic right now.
THIS. So loudly this. Any kind of climate where asking the wrong question or expecting evidence for a claim automatically makes you a villain. And not a whimsical, comical fictional villain but, where people actively seek you out and try to get you fired for asking questions isn't something that people want to engage. There is too much risk and too little reward.
Speak out and you could lose your job, do the right thing and people will say "This is how it should have been the whole time". Even taking credit for a win in this area incorrectly will lead to villainy.
What I would love to see a case study company in tech that "spent 25% of their time on diversity and inclusion efforts" and did not just better than the baseline in tech but, made up for the opportunity cost.
THIS. So loudly this. Any kind of climate where asking the wrong question or expecting evidence for a claim automatically makes you a villain. And not a whimsical, comical fictional villain but, where people actively seek you out and try to get you fired for asking questions isn't something that people want to engage. There is too much risk and too little reward.
Speak out and you could lose your job, do the right thing and people will say "This is how it should have been the whole time". Even taking credit for a win in this area incorrectly will lead to villainy.
What I would love to see a case study company in tech that "spent 25% of their time on diversity and inclusion efforts" and did not just better than the baseline in tech but, made up for the opportunity cost.
People are social animals and the instinct to get everyone's opinions somewhat aligned is universal and mostly beneficial. While it may hamper the next Galileo, it also allows a level of peaceful coexistence that just wouldn't happen if we had to relitigate every moral decision or scientific opinion every day.
In this case, society has converged on the opinion that diversity benefits so overwhelming, you don't have to explicitly list them each time but can treat diversity as if it were the end goal itself.
But here's a few:
- Basic fairness requires us to encourage diversity in order to create a more balanced distribution of power and money (considering the mere presence of women or minorities tends to depress wages across industries and jobs)
- Diverse teams are better, especially when creativity or social skills are required (there actually are some studies on this I believe)
- Discriminatory hiring practices make it impossible for some people to reach their full potential. When they labor in jobs below their potential, the society as a whole also loses out (remember that for every Einstein, Feynman, Picasso, there was an equally qualified woman who was married off when she was 15 and never had a chance).
...and so on. People react negatively if you challenge diversity because they suspect that you've probably heard the arguments before and have other motives than "opportunity costs" for your recalcitrance.
In this case, society has converged on the opinion that diversity benefits so overwhelming, you don't have to explicitly list them each time but can treat diversity as if it were the end goal itself.
But here's a few:
- Basic fairness requires us to encourage diversity in order to create a more balanced distribution of power and money (considering the mere presence of women or minorities tends to depress wages across industries and jobs)
- Diverse teams are better, especially when creativity or social skills are required (there actually are some studies on this I believe)
- Discriminatory hiring practices make it impossible for some people to reach their full potential. When they labor in jobs below their potential, the society as a whole also loses out (remember that for every Einstein, Feynman, Picasso, there was an equally qualified woman who was married off when she was 15 and never had a chance).
...and so on. People react negatively if you challenge diversity because they suspect that you've probably heard the arguments before and have other motives than "opportunity costs" for your recalcitrance.
The benefits of diversity is many and there are many more examples I can think of (such as industries that only recruit from 50% of the population has generally problems when demand change).
But... as it often is, I don't see the interest for diversity to be consistent by those who claim to be in favor of it. Let me ask you one question:
The state is the biggest employer of people. They could have a hiring policy of a minimum 40% men and women per job (sorted by either title, assignment, union membership, or what else attribute one might like). Such policy would have a major effect on several professions with currently sits with a ratio of around 90% and higher.
As it stands, only a few professions ever address problems of diversity. Technology is one of those, and it's gender ratio is fairly average compared to the majority. only about 30% (2010 statistics from Sweden) of recognized professions have a balanced gender distribution of minimum 40% men and women. In the remaining 70%, the most extreme had 99.7% women to 0.3% men.
But... as it often is, I don't see the interest for diversity to be consistent by those who claim to be in favor of it. Let me ask you one question:
The state is the biggest employer of people. They could have a hiring policy of a minimum 40% men and women per job (sorted by either title, assignment, union membership, or what else attribute one might like). Such policy would have a major effect on several professions with currently sits with a ratio of around 90% and higher.
As it stands, only a few professions ever address problems of diversity. Technology is one of those, and it's gender ratio is fairly average compared to the majority. only about 30% (2010 statistics from Sweden) of recognized professions have a balanced gender distribution of minimum 40% men and women. In the remaining 70%, the most extreme had 99.7% women to 0.3% men.
Most people don't challenge diversity. They're challenging the self-importance of saying "you, the people who have nothing to do with hiring, are the reason teams are not as diverse as I would like them to be". I have no issue with diversity, I just don't like the people who claim that "white men shouldn't talk about diversity" and that sort of crap.
Not to mention that diversity shouldn't be the end goal, it should be getting the best people for the job. Given the fact that talent is essentially uniformly distributed, that should still result in diversity -- it just shouldn't be the parameter you're optimising for. You should always aim to employ people because they're good at what they do, not because you need to fulfil your diversity quota and it just so happens they're good at what they do.
Not to mention that diversity shouldn't be the end goal, it should be getting the best people for the job. Given the fact that talent is essentially uniformly distributed, that should still result in diversity -- it just shouldn't be the parameter you're optimising for. You should always aim to employ people because they're good at what they do, not because you need to fulfil your diversity quota and it just so happens they're good at what they do.
But you haven't backed up your "pipeline" assertions by anything either.
Many of their specific questions are about whether a workplace is supportive of women and minorities. It's plausible that if many workplaces fail these tests, then tech would be a less appealing career choice to young people "up the pipeline" no matter how strongly it's promoted in school.
Many of their specific questions are about whether a workplace is supportive of women and minorities. It's plausible that if many workplaces fail these tests, then tech would be a less appealing career choice to young people "up the pipeline" no matter how strongly it's promoted in school.
Startup's job is not to accommodate "young people's career choices". If you spend 25% of your time thinking about how to make your company more diverse when you're a 5 people company instead of thinking about your customers, your "diverse company" will probably be gone by next year.
You're absolutely right. 100% of your employees time should be spent maximizing profit and growth, and any unwarranted deference to human values is just going to inhibit survival and wealth, which are the most important things in the world.
One day we'll all be cockroaches: great at surviving with zero appreciation for culture.
One day we'll all be cockroaches: great at surviving with zero appreciation for culture.
Yeah that is reasonable. Large companies can probably make a big difference.
Small startups have a tough enough job already without also optimizing for employee diversity. Max Levchin talks about this as well: http://firstround.com/review/the-trick-max-levchin-used-to-h....
Small startups have a tough enough job already without also optimizing for employee diversity. Max Levchin talks about this as well: http://firstround.com/review/the-trick-max-levchin-used-to-h....
He was taking about diversity of ideas, not race & gender.
I didn't see any of the quotes you pointed out in the article itself?
Looks like they are drawn from here: http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/
"Actual actions will depend on your size and your current state of diversity."
I feel like its really easy in these arguments to make a decision that the other person is just utterly disconnected with reality. On both sides.
In this case I think the author is realistic that practical constraints will make this hard.
The 25% comment is posed as a "What if".
I feel like its really easy in these arguments to make a decision that the other person is just utterly disconnected with reality. On both sides.
In this case I think the author is realistic that practical constraints will make this hard.
The 25% comment is posed as a "What if".
"If you are unable to understand why these recommendations make sense, you are probably part of the problem." (http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/)
Perfect example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Kafkatrapped! http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
Interesting that they use the term "underrepresented people of color" rather than just "underrepresented groups". This may be because whites (people of European descent) are actually an underrepresented group in tech. Compare the percentage of whites in tech company diversity reports with the percentage in the US population.
It at least holds for leadership positions in companies. I know at least Tracy Chou has acknowledged the weird position Asians find themselves in here considering they're massively over-represented when you compare U.S. demographics to tech company demographics.
I'm not sure how we measure the end game here as it seems to be more about getting to a point where anyone that wants to work in tech has that opportunity. That likely won't lead to a perfect match between tech demographics and the demographics of their communities but who knows.
I'm not sure how we measure the end game here as it seems to be more about getting to a point where anyone that wants to work in tech has that opportunity. That likely won't lead to a perfect match between tech demographics and the demographics of their communities but who knows.
> I know at least Tracy Chou has acknowledged the weird position Asians find themselves in here considering they're massively over-represented when you compare U.S. demographics to tech company demographics.
They seem to be purposefully ignoring the likelihood that parents drive this.
They seem to be purposefully ignoring the likelihood that parents drive this.
I asked for clarification around "people of color". No response.
I'm under the impression that "person of color" is usually defined as "person who is not 'white'", where 'white' might refer to different groups in different contexts.
That's what many people would assume but Asians are usually excluded too.
Depends on the context. I've seen some Americans of East and Southeast Asian descent describe themselves as people of color (neither were technologists).
I'd also bet $10 that the proudly South Asian Anil Dash would describe himself as such if asked.
I'd also bet $10 that the proudly South Asian Anil Dash would describe himself as such if asked.
> Depends on the context.
And that's all we need to know about how ridiculous all of this is.
And that's all we need to know about how ridiculous all of this is.
Sometimes Asian people are considered White I think, depending on context?
[deleted]
Great project and hope Ellen + team can help many people. :]
Has YC considered mandatory diversity training for YC founders? What percentage of time do founders spend on diversity and inclusion during YC?
“If you’re an early stage startup with little to no diversity, you are in trouble and need to fix it fast.” (http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/)
“If you’re an early stage startup with little to no diversity, you are in trouble and need to fix it fast.” (http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/)
Post just submitted and already the comment section is a graveyard.
"Can these women save Silicon Valley?" [1]
Whoa. This group has some bold positions.
I think it's great for women to encourage each other and other underrepresented groups to join tech. I also think it is true that some youth get inspired to study tech when they see successful professional people with whom they share something in common. And, I believe that some level of diversity is a useful part of education and the advancement of society.
That said, I wonder what is reasonable to expect of companies that are separate from government. Should the percentage of LGBT for a given job match that of the local community who is skilled in that job? What if certain companies are popular among LGBTs? Should their competitors be chastised for not being able to hire enough LGBT from the local community? It all sounds too complicated to monitor in bulk. Cases of discrimination are just that -- case by case. US law already protects people from being discriminated against during hiring and employment. And while it may not work out to everyone's satisfaction 100% of the time, the US is miles ahead of China, for example, on this front.
> Companies should improve opportunities for all employees, including all underrepresented groups (gender, race, class, age, religion, disability, education, sexual orientation, and others).
I'm confused by this statement. They want companies to give equal opportunities to all people. Isn't this already covered by law? Companies cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin [2].
Also, what is the education group? Like, non-high school grads, high school and college grads?
The more I read about it, the more it sounds like they are saying "please create more jobs for more people".
Maybe it will become more clear when they start to share data and reports.
Ultimately, we're all part of some group that is persecuted by others, even wealthy white folks. We all get depressed and blame it on our environment from time to time.
The most important thing is that these values of equality are ingrained in the laws of society. And in the US, they are. Each year they get better. Gay marriage was passed, and we're now attempting to make some simplifications to the ginormous lawbook with things such as Basic Income. That's natural. It's a result of us collectively realizing that piece by piece we put together a puzzle that says "support everyone".
[1] https://twitter.com/bethanye/status/727627253715062784
[2] https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Whoa. This group has some bold positions.
I think it's great for women to encourage each other and other underrepresented groups to join tech. I also think it is true that some youth get inspired to study tech when they see successful professional people with whom they share something in common. And, I believe that some level of diversity is a useful part of education and the advancement of society.
That said, I wonder what is reasonable to expect of companies that are separate from government. Should the percentage of LGBT for a given job match that of the local community who is skilled in that job? What if certain companies are popular among LGBTs? Should their competitors be chastised for not being able to hire enough LGBT from the local community? It all sounds too complicated to monitor in bulk. Cases of discrimination are just that -- case by case. US law already protects people from being discriminated against during hiring and employment. And while it may not work out to everyone's satisfaction 100% of the time, the US is miles ahead of China, for example, on this front.
> Companies should improve opportunities for all employees, including all underrepresented groups (gender, race, class, age, religion, disability, education, sexual orientation, and others).
I'm confused by this statement. They want companies to give equal opportunities to all people. Isn't this already covered by law? Companies cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin [2].
Also, what is the education group? Like, non-high school grads, high school and college grads?
The more I read about it, the more it sounds like they are saying "please create more jobs for more people".
Maybe it will become more clear when they start to share data and reports.
Ultimately, we're all part of some group that is persecuted by others, even wealthy white folks. We all get depressed and blame it on our environment from time to time.
The most important thing is that these values of equality are ingrained in the laws of society. And in the US, they are. Each year they get better. Gay marriage was passed, and we're now attempting to make some simplifications to the ginormous lawbook with things such as Basic Income. That's natural. It's a result of us collectively realizing that piece by piece we put together a puzzle that says "support everyone".
[1] https://twitter.com/bethanye/status/727627253715062784
[2] https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
[deleted]
Like sveng1826 mentioned, a lot of statements have absolutely no logical ground and they're just condescending remarks telling people what they should do.
Of course it would be nice if companies focused on diversity, and I think large companies should definitely think more about it, but telling small startups to do it is wrong at best and exploitative at worst (personal agenda).
I would like to know of any successful company that focused 25% of their time thinking about diversity during their early startup stage. Thinking about diversity 25% of the times means you're thinking less about your customers 25% of the time. This type of company will probably not be around the next year--Congrats, your diverse company is now gone! I'm sure your employees are all happy!--So I wonder where she pulls "if you're an early stage startup with little to no diversity, you're in trouble and need to fix it fast." out of. There's no evidence, and logically it doesn't make sense. It's just her own entitled sense of justice (which I don't even believe is genuine).
I'm not saying diversity is not needed, I don't think it's right to capitalize on social trend by misleading the public. Basically the narrative nowadays is "Let's shame and punish all these companies that are not thinking about diversity", and I think that's as bad as those companies neglecting diversity, in a witch-hunt sort of way.
Of course it would be nice if companies focused on diversity, and I think large companies should definitely think more about it, but telling small startups to do it is wrong at best and exploitative at worst (personal agenda).
I would like to know of any successful company that focused 25% of their time thinking about diversity during their early startup stage. Thinking about diversity 25% of the times means you're thinking less about your customers 25% of the time. This type of company will probably not be around the next year--Congrats, your diverse company is now gone! I'm sure your employees are all happy!--So I wonder where she pulls "if you're an early stage startup with little to no diversity, you're in trouble and need to fix it fast." out of. There's no evidence, and logically it doesn't make sense. It's just her own entitled sense of justice (which I don't even believe is genuine).
I'm not saying diversity is not needed, I don't think it's right to capitalize on social trend by misleading the public. Basically the narrative nowadays is "Let's shame and punish all these companies that are not thinking about diversity", and I think that's as bad as those companies neglecting diversity, in a witch-hunt sort of way.
"If you’re an early stage startup with little to no diversity, you are in trouble and need to fix it fast."
"For everyone who has the vision and courage to push forward aggressively: What if your whole team spent 25 percent of their time on diversity and inclusion efforts?"
"Think about your biases — we all have them — and how they affect your actions and perspective. Then ask people to teach you even more, and pay them for their time to show that you believe diversity work is hard and valuable."
I agree completely there are issues with, say, gender makeup (10% in SV vs 50% female overall), but this is a pipeline issue and I don't see tech companies having a very big impact here. A better, more direct approach would be to spend time explicitly promoting tech to girls in the K-12 system.
One final point: I decided to create a throwaway to post this because I am confident that I would be pilloried by people in these organizations if I were to bring up these points with my real name attached. There is not a healthy climate of discussion around this topic right now.