Silicon Valley didn’t inherit discrimination, but replicated it anyway(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Silicon Valley didn’t inherit discrimination, but replicated it anyway
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-03/silicon-valley-didn-t-inherit-discrimination-but-replicated-it-anyway
46 comments
Maybe just because a population has a particular makeup in terms of percent of minorities and genders doesn't mean that exact make up will be represented at every grouping in society. Just like the NBA doesn't represent the USAs actual makeup in class, race, gender, either. Did they inherit discrimination or just replicate it? Or is this a stupid question to begin with?
So unless you want to actively go out and discriminate positively and force certain hirings and situations, you aren't going to be living in some theoretical utopia. Maybe silicon valley just hired who it thought was best 20 years ago, rather than based on some inclusivity quota. And therefore it ended up as it did. Not because it was malicious or discriminative, or evil, it just happened that way.
You might think that is evil, but that is more of a political point and an opinion than fact.
Sigh... rant over, queue the downvotes, this is HN after all.
So unless you want to actively go out and discriminate positively and force certain hirings and situations, you aren't going to be living in some theoretical utopia. Maybe silicon valley just hired who it thought was best 20 years ago, rather than based on some inclusivity quota. And therefore it ended up as it did. Not because it was malicious or discriminative, or evil, it just happened that way.
You might think that is evil, but that is more of a political point and an opinion than fact.
Sigh... rant over, queue the downvotes, this is HN after all.
> Maybe silicon valley just hired who it thought was best 20 years ago
...
> Not because it was malicious or discriminative, or evil, it just happened
Doesn't seem like a valid hypothesis. Programming computers was originally predominantly done by women, remember, so why is SV mostly white guys? We've already seen both genders can do the work. I've worked with lots of women at hackathons and know some who went through coding camps and landed software engineering jobs at places like Etsy, so know they aren't excluded because they "can't do the job best" like you imply.
If some white guys with money thought other white guys with money do the work best, and made sure to hire other white guys, don't you feel like that's discrimination? Why would a claim that it "just happened" mean it isn't discrimination? I've definitely seen this happen at lots of startups I've worked at. I knew a Princeton C-level from a top 10 app company who would always only hire people from the same school that pretty much looked like exact clones of him.
Similarly, at work, I've had directors agree to let me work on big, ground breaking projects, but as soon as they see I'm disabled they immediately change their tune from a transfer being "one easy email" to "oh, we changed our mind, deal with it, don't talk to me, talk to HR".
Doesn't seem like a valid hypothesis. Programming computers was originally predominantly done by women, remember, so why is SV mostly white guys? We've already seen both genders can do the work. I've worked with lots of women at hackathons and know some who went through coding camps and landed software engineering jobs at places like Etsy, so know they aren't excluded because they "can't do the job best" like you imply.
If some white guys with money thought other white guys with money do the work best, and made sure to hire other white guys, don't you feel like that's discrimination? Why would a claim that it "just happened" mean it isn't discrimination? I've definitely seen this happen at lots of startups I've worked at. I knew a Princeton C-level from a top 10 app company who would always only hire people from the same school that pretty much looked like exact clones of him.
Similarly, at work, I've had directors agree to let me work on big, ground breaking projects, but as soon as they see I'm disabled they immediately change their tune from a transfer being "one easy email" to "oh, we changed our mind, deal with it, don't talk to me, talk to HR".
The field changed. Why did all the women kick out the men from psychology?
The work women did is very different from today, it wasn't programming we thinknof today. Majority of women I know in my life don't want to fiend their lives in front of computer doing weekend projects, skip social interactions like nerds do. But I also think it's not good or healthy for them either.
All those things you said aren't healthy for anybody regardless of gender.
The ageism in tech is actually worse than the situation in the NBA (which I wouldn't really call ageism). Nobody thinks that fresh college graduates are the peak performers in basketball. It usually takes many years of experience before NBA players hit their peak. You have to learn how to win. Michael Jordan didn't win his first of 6 championships until his 8th year in the league.
But somehow fresh college grads are highly sought after in tech, while experienced developers get pushed out of the industry entirely, despite the fact that physical attributes that decline with age and are relevant to sports are completely irrelevant to tech.
Everyone in tech is looking for their young "Einstein". Except there was only 1 Einstein, and nobody is getting him for their startup.
But somehow fresh college grads are highly sought after in tech, while experienced developers get pushed out of the industry entirely, despite the fact that physical attributes that decline with age and are relevant to sports are completely irrelevant to tech.
Everyone in tech is looking for their young "Einstein". Except there was only 1 Einstein, and nobody is getting him for their startup.
Wanting to make unequal things equal is a common mistake that I hoped we have learned to avoid at some point. That was plain wrong. Of course some demographics might have had a head start, but over a long period of time the numbers should equalize.
Some diagnose systemic issues and some apply positive discrimination, which is just discrimination with a supposedly correct reason.
I think it is unhelpful, builds animosity and I disagree with the generally accepted orthodoxy in that field.
We actually see that more free societies show more unequal distributions of demographics in some fields. Until there is an explanation, I regard these ambitions as unscientific and dogmatic.
To discriminate against white or asian people for injustices of the past is real racism and real discrimination. If we want to get rid of racism, you need to get rid of people perpetuating it first. Otherwise it become a self fulfilling prophecy.
Some diagnose systemic issues and some apply positive discrimination, which is just discrimination with a supposedly correct reason.
I think it is unhelpful, builds animosity and I disagree with the generally accepted orthodoxy in that field.
We actually see that more free societies show more unequal distributions of demographics in some fields. Until there is an explanation, I regard these ambitions as unscientific and dogmatic.
To discriminate against white or asian people for injustices of the past is real racism and real discrimination. If we want to get rid of racism, you need to get rid of people perpetuating it first. Otherwise it become a self fulfilling prophecy.
> Of course some demographics might have had a head start, but over a long period of time the numbers should equalize.
What on earth makes you imagine this to be the case in absolutely any situation?
How can one possibly think this is a given?
What on earth makes you imagine this to be the case in absolutely any situation?
How can one possibly think this is a given?
Well, in many industries the "who knows who" is a significant roadblock for extern competitors, which can slow down the process.
But that is already a compromise to the position that explains unequal demographics with discrimination. There are countless examples where demographics did change after civil rights got extended, psychology is an example.
I think CS has a distorted (self) image that can make it unattractive to women, but that is also something that either changes gradually or reflects the type of person drawn to the field. In the latter case there is no problem. Actually I think carelessly attesting systemic racism/sexism keeps more people out than actual discrimination.
You can easily falsify that when you look at academic juniors where there wasn't even any room to discriminate anyone and their later representation in the work force.
I don't feel to happy to justify myself for not wanting to discriminate against anyone and why I think that a Bloomberg author might have not a good grasp at what he/she writes about. Sorry, didn't look up the name/sex/race because I just don't care.
But that is already a compromise to the position that explains unequal demographics with discrimination. There are countless examples where demographics did change after civil rights got extended, psychology is an example.
I think CS has a distorted (self) image that can make it unattractive to women, but that is also something that either changes gradually or reflects the type of person drawn to the field. In the latter case there is no problem. Actually I think carelessly attesting systemic racism/sexism keeps more people out than actual discrimination.
You can easily falsify that when you look at academic juniors where there wasn't even any room to discriminate anyone and their later representation in the work force.
I don't feel to happy to justify myself for not wanting to discriminate against anyone and why I think that a Bloomberg author might have not a good grasp at what he/she writes about. Sorry, didn't look up the name/sex/race because I just don't care.
Particularly when the exact opposite seems true; without conscious effort, inequality seems doomed to reinforce itself.
Well the this article is obviously nonsensical to any rational individual.
Why?
Because they are taking and end result and, instead of trying to discover or understand the many factors which go into said end result, they are slapping the old "racism" sticker on it and inferring causation.
This way of thinking is pathological and it is infecting the entire tech industry, which is supposed to be reliant on science and reason, but is sacrificing itself to horridly formed arguments
Why?
Because they are taking and end result and, instead of trying to discover or understand the many factors which go into said end result, they are slapping the old "racism" sticker on it and inferring causation.
This way of thinking is pathological and it is infecting the entire tech industry, which is supposed to be reliant on science and reason, but is sacrificing itself to horridly formed arguments
Thomas Sowell covers this exact topic in detail with data in his recent book Discrimination and Disparities. In summary, you are spot on and he explains why, using global and historical data. And why society is best served this way. In fact he says we shouldn’t be asking why there are differences in outcomes, but rather why would we expect outcomes to have even distribution among groups.
[deleted]
Just because a problem is at the systematic level, and not at the individual level, does not mean it ceases to be a problem, or that it is not possible to address.
No offense, but this argument could be used to hand-wave away basically anything you don't like. It's rather baseless.
GP's argument is not for diversity (of race/gender/class/whatever else), but against the idea that such a project would necessarily be utopian, or that only individual action can fix a systemic issue. It doesn't even argue that there is a systemic issue, it is only a comment on the nature of systemic and individual issues.
GP's comment, far from hand-waving away 'anything they don't like' actually seems to be an argument against hand-waving based on a narrow, constricted view of societal problems (i.e. on the level of individuals and particular firms). The theoretical model propounded in the top-level comment should be questioned. If we still end up at the same answer even after questioning, that's fine - but it still needs questioning.
I don't think anyone actually argues that SV hiring practises are 'evil' or deliberately a particular way. GP seems to agree - evil is very much an element of conspiracy or deliberate action. We need to look wider than that, and not assign blame to people working within a system. When one says "that's just the way it is" - the correct answer is not "because of evil people", but rather to answer with a question in return - "why is that the way it is?". That way, you can start investigating the system rather than the individuals within it, who work to their own ends (as libertarian economists are fond of pointing out).
The constant dichotomy in these discussions set up between 'equality of outcome' and 'equality of opportunity' can only perceive individuals and individual firms. That dichotomy is worth questioning if we want to even consider the systemic view. The systemic view, as every philosopher I can name (on the right or the left) propounds, considers equality of opportunity. Marx himself famously rallied against these abstract notions of 'equality'.
There is only one philosopher in the whole of Western political and philosophical thought who propounds some kind of exactly equal distribution: Barbeuf, and he lived in the 18th century, and his ideas are not currently popular.
GP's comment, far from hand-waving away 'anything they don't like' actually seems to be an argument against hand-waving based on a narrow, constricted view of societal problems (i.e. on the level of individuals and particular firms). The theoretical model propounded in the top-level comment should be questioned. If we still end up at the same answer even after questioning, that's fine - but it still needs questioning.
I don't think anyone actually argues that SV hiring practises are 'evil' or deliberately a particular way. GP seems to agree - evil is very much an element of conspiracy or deliberate action. We need to look wider than that, and not assign blame to people working within a system. When one says "that's just the way it is" - the correct answer is not "because of evil people", but rather to answer with a question in return - "why is that the way it is?". That way, you can start investigating the system rather than the individuals within it, who work to their own ends (as libertarian economists are fond of pointing out).
The constant dichotomy in these discussions set up between 'equality of outcome' and 'equality of opportunity' can only perceive individuals and individual firms. That dichotomy is worth questioning if we want to even consider the systemic view. The systemic view, as every philosopher I can name (on the right or the left) propounds, considers equality of opportunity. Marx himself famously rallied against these abstract notions of 'equality'.
There is only one philosopher in the whole of Western political and philosophical thought who propounds some kind of exactly equal distribution: Barbeuf, and he lived in the 18th century, and his ideas are not currently popular.
My reading of OP is that it's bad to have a goal of "more Black founders", etc. because it's "unnatural" and "goes against meritocracy". We should simply continue the status quo because OP believes the system that rewards them must be the best and most just, equal possible system.
Nowhere did they say its unnatural. Other than that, I'd agree with your interpretation.
You are assuming it is a problem, there is your political judgement. Why should all genders and races be represented equally in all occupations? Pertinent dictum: Strive for equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes.
More of us should have stood up for James Damore when he said the same thing; he took special care to extend a lot of olive branches to the SocJus people who ultimately threw him under the bus and tried to destroy him.
Every year it gets harder to make the case for basic numeracy when thinking about issues like this.
Every year it gets harder to make the case for basic numeracy when thinking about issues like this.
It seems to me that they pretty much succeeded in destroying him. I'd love to know how his career has fared since.
I looked on LinkedIn, he’s a software engineer at “startup”. So his career is going no worse than most of the people on this site.
Last I checked he had been hired by the tech company my friend works at. So okay?
That's good to know!
Edit: Lol, why would anyone downvote this!?
Edit: Lol, why would anyone downvote this!?
When you live in a country that was founded on racism, Jim Crow and redlining, where the president is saying we need to "take back the suburbs" (for white people only), how do you react to that? "Not my problem?"
When you see 1% of tech founders are black, you think that's just their preference? They don't feel like founding tech companies? Or do majority white VCs not offer them funding, and their majority white peer group doesn't take them seriously? Or maybe it's because Black households have tens of thousands of dollars less wealth on average because of discrimination
When you see 1% of tech founders are black, you think that's just their preference? They don't feel like founding tech companies? Or do majority white VCs not offer them funding, and their majority white peer group doesn't take them seriously? Or maybe it's because Black households have tens of thousands of dollars less wealth on average because of discrimination
How about 1% NBA players that are white?
It’s actually about a quarter white, but that aside - why do you think that blacks make up such a large percentage of the NBA?
It's important to keep in mind (1) there are only a few hundred active NBA players on planet Earth and (2) most of them have been training hard at basketball since childhood. (Only the rare "big man" can get away with being a late starter.)
So when we talk about "preferences" here, it's not about adult preferences, it's about childhood preferences.
Most careers don't, and shouldn't, require you to choose them in childhood.
So when we talk about "preferences" here, it's not about adult preferences, it's about childhood preferences.
Most careers don't, and shouldn't, require you to choose them in childhood.
Silicon Valley did in fact inherit discrimination. Whether from its native California (https://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/2KeyIssues/...), or the Valley’s direct founders from the East Coast (http://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/connections/531fdd2913215...). Silicon Valley has always had a problem with discrimination and is doing as little to address that problem now as ever.
In the corporate context, we can discuss all good social causes like diversity, human rights, environmental responsibility at the same time.
Companies need to face real external forces to change or it's just PR level cosmetic changes.
The real change comes from the unions, customers, competition, government or the labour market.
It's not good corporations vs. bad corporations, it's just corporations. Running a company is demanding and corporate decision making has limited bandwidth. They hire some HR manager and offload all good causes for them and separate them from the main business. They affect decision making only in small ways.
Companies need to face real external forces to change or it's just PR level cosmetic changes.
The real change comes from the unions, customers, competition, government or the labour market.
It's not good corporations vs. bad corporations, it's just corporations. Running a company is demanding and corporate decision making has limited bandwidth. They hire some HR manager and offload all good causes for them and separate them from the main business. They affect decision making only in small ways.
> Many also incur what’s referred to as a “Black tax”—additional work such as representing the company at career fairs or conducting new-hire interviews, implicitly distorting how diverse the company is.
Ok, so how can a company show some semblence of being diverse if bringing non-White or Asian employees to the forefront is considered a 'Black Tax'?
> Small wonder, then, that many tech companies lose more Black employees through attrition in a given year than they manage to hire
So Black employees are leaving because they're being asked to help encourage more recruitment from the Black community?
What's the middle ground here? Should they be excluded from these things? Compensated more than their non-PoC colleagues for doing the same work?
Ok, so how can a company show some semblence of being diverse if bringing non-White or Asian employees to the forefront is considered a 'Black Tax'?
> Small wonder, then, that many tech companies lose more Black employees through attrition in a given year than they manage to hire
So Black employees are leaving because they're being asked to help encourage more recruitment from the Black community?
What's the middle ground here? Should they be excluded from these things? Compensated more than their non-PoC colleagues for doing the same work?
> Compensated more than their non-PoC colleagues for doing the same work?
How is being a token at career fairs "the same work"? The point is that Black employees are being asked to spend time on activities that do not lead to raises and promotions in the company. In other words, they're asked to sacrifice their own personal career to make the company look more diverse than it is.
How is being a token at career fairs "the same work"? The point is that Black employees are being asked to spend time on activities that do not lead to raises and promotions in the company. In other words, they're asked to sacrifice their own personal career to make the company look more diverse than it is.
> How is being a token at career fairs "the same work"?
Because they're doing the same work as non-Black employees at the career fair?
I'd have thought that being a face of the company externally would be a good thing for when it comes to review time. Are the non-Black employees handicapped career-wise in a similar way?
How would you suggest a company portrays externally that PoC are more than welcome to apply for a job there?
Because they're doing the same work as non-Black employees at the career fair?
I'd have thought that being a face of the company externally would be a good thing for when it comes to review time. Are the non-Black employees handicapped career-wise in a similar way?
How would you suggest a company portrays externally that PoC are more than welcome to apply for a job there?
> I'd have thought that being a face of the company externally would be a good thing for when it comes to review time.
Why would you think that?
If that were true, then engineers would be competing and fighting over who gets to go to the career fairs. Have you seen any evidence of this?
The article is very clear that Black employees are paid less on average. It doesn't seem to be a career advantage.
Why would you think that?
If that were true, then engineers would be competing and fighting over who gets to go to the career fairs. Have you seen any evidence of this?
The article is very clear that Black employees are paid less on average. It doesn't seem to be a career advantage.
It's not that uncommon for employees to volunteer their time doing charity work via their employers. It looks to me like employers are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
> It's not that uncommon for employees to volunteer their time doing charity work via their employers.
Yes, emphasis on "charity". In other words, it doesn't directly help the employee at review time.
> It looks to me like employers are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
No, I'm not sure why that's the conclusion. If the company requests volunteers from the whole staff, and minorities choose to volunteer, fine. If the company disproportionally requests that minorities "volunteer" in order to help the company look diverse, that's unfairly singling them out. It's not quite as voluntary when your boss specifically asks you and nobody else.
Yes, emphasis on "charity". In other words, it doesn't directly help the employee at review time.
> It looks to me like employers are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
No, I'm not sure why that's the conclusion. If the company requests volunteers from the whole staff, and minorities choose to volunteer, fine. If the company disproportionally requests that minorities "volunteer" in order to help the company look diverse, that's unfairly singling them out. It's not quite as voluntary when your boss specifically asks you and nobody else.
And if they say no, then they're considered "not a team player", which could hurt them at review time, even though they're personally forced to carry the entire team's diversity efforts.
Alright fine. Jeez.
If you had a company and wanted to diversify your workforce, how would you go about it?
If you had a company and wanted to diversify your workforce, how would you go about it?
My company does the same thing, our "meet some of the company" video features 90% of our non-white employees, while only showing about 10% of employees. The sane thing to do seems to just ask who wants to go to career fairs/be in other recruiting efforts, and not base race in the decisions.
I would call it "inheritance" of discrimination rather than "replication" of discrimination: the skin-colour bias arises because of the Ivy-League bias.
Quotes below:
> "[...] Facebook staffers say that despite adding more schools to the recruiting lists, White managers continue to select from the same Ivy League and West Coast schools they’d attended.
> Many of these institutions act as another racial filter because Black students are often under-represented.
> “Companies will give unfair weight to a school like Stanford, dipping down to the top 20% of students, but might pass on a student in the top 2% of their class at Penn State [...]"
Quotes below:
> "[...] Facebook staffers say that despite adding more schools to the recruiting lists, White managers continue to select from the same Ivy League and West Coast schools they’d attended.
> Many of these institutions act as another racial filter because Black students are often under-represented.
> “Companies will give unfair weight to a school like Stanford, dipping down to the top 20% of students, but might pass on a student in the top 2% of their class at Penn State [...]"
Most large companies in the valley are actively discriminating... They’re not trying to avoid discrimination, they’re using it (unsuccessfully in most cases) to achieve a desired demographic outcome in their workforce.
Last time I checked, SV was still in America. Somehow they're supposed to ignore the culture of racism here and be above it? That's delusional. These are people living in a country whose entire history from its pre-history to this current moment and into the future is racism. The entire country was built on racism. But somehow a bunch of tech bros, most of them racist, are supposed to rise above this and fix all of it. Completely delusional.
I’m willing to concede that I was given a head start over many students, having had exposure to computer programming and AP math courses in high school. And I’m willing to believe that the struggle of being the only woman or minority student in a class or a team is real, and causes some talented people to get discouraged and opt out. And I am all in favor of trying to address those issues, and any other forms of discrimination that people face.
But was the disproportionate makeup of that intro to computer science class due in large part to discrimination? I don’t think so. I think it mostly reflected the fact that different demographics often have different sets of preferences.