I always like to look at data from the source, so I downloaded the original report, which The Guadian couldn't be bothered to link to.
Let's start with the title of the article:
> Black and Latino representation in Silicon Valley has declined, study shows
However the report is about Asian representation, and although it includes some data on other groups it states:
> Although we include the figures for black and Hispanic men and women, we do not use them for comparative purposes because EPI figures for those cohorts are highly sensitive to small changes.
This is right in the executive summary.
The next problem is that the article represents the study as being of "Silicon Valley" and the "tech industry", but the study is of just five companies: Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, LinkedIn, and Yahoo. These are all large corporations and there is no evidence given to suggest that this is a "Silicon Valley" problem and not a "Corporate America" problem. That's not to say that you can't draw conclusions from studying these companies, but you can't make sweeping statements about the tech industry based on them. Especially when so much of Silicon Valley is made up of startups. The valley is a dynamic place: two of those corporations no longer exist.
Obviously problems exist, but I see no reason here to single out the tech industry for special blame, especially when no attempt is made to compare tech with other industries and "tech" is taken to mean a handful of large corporations. Worse still, by misrepresenting the nature and origins of these problems, we set ourselves up to fail when we try to address them. Uber's appalling culture, for example is firmly rooted in that of finance, why don't we talk about that? What do the finance industry's diversity statistics look like?
I posted a top level comment that links to a study and another link to an article which links to several studies and got downvoted to oblivion. I don't think this sort of thing is _actually_ welcome here.
Unfortunately the real solution, anonymity, will probably never be adopted because there are groups who benefit from being identified. There's way too much many in tech to for the incumbents to leave it to merit.
*https://pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/going-bli...
i assume minorities here doesn't include Indians.
YC funding applications are due today. https://www.ycombinator.com/apply
I have a few ideas that I could probably implement to make some passive income. It wouldn't be crazy initially, but it also wouldn't be an amount to scoff at. I think they all have the potential to grow or be bought. The thought of taking that giant risk and failing...
Aside from the ramifications of selectively hiring from my minority group, starting a business makes me shudder.
Venture capital is great for taking someone who has some amount of financial security, but not quite enough to entirely bootstrap their venture, and giving them enough more. But it's not particularly effective at helping someone who really needs a low-risk (even if low-reward) option because they have no fallback if their company fails. (To be absolutely clear, this isn't the fault of any venture capitalist, nor is it a thing I think a venture capitalist can reasonably solve in the short term, so this is not a complaint about venture capitalists, just a statement about how the world is. Perhaps in the long term, YC's experiments with UBI might help, but that's an experiment and it won't become a reliable source of financial security for anyone for many many years.)
Race doesn't line up perfectly with financial security, and it certainly does not determine financial security. But in the US, today, it's pretty strongly correlated.
Sure something like this would probably result in complaints about "hiring for culture fit," but isn't someone who provides the correct answers and code a culture fit in the first place?
I'm not saying a pure audition model can't work, just that you should know what the pitfalls are.
No, they're merely a technical fit, maybe, depending on what you ask. (Your blinding process would also mean preventing interviewers from seeing any open source contributions which may be far more indicative of technical fit than anything you'd ask in an interview.) Technical fit might be enough for most roles, more blinding at least at the initial filtering stages might be a good idea, but culture fit is important for a lot of firms. At the very least people will want person-to-person interviews to maximize their odds at detecting a permanent asshole (and other toxic types), since typically no one wants to work with one even if they're skilled.
And what happens representation becomes even more skewed?
The fact is the Valley employs gender/ethnicity almost perfectly commensurate with those graduating with CS degrees.
It's borderline bigoted to imply that 'it's all due to racism'.
Yes, surely there are gender/ethnic issues, but the funnel is 90% of the problem.
There's no fair way to hire 50% females if only 15% of applicants are female.
I get there's 'dynamic feedback' (i.e. more women in tech encourages more younger women in tech) but again, it's the responsibility of people to make choices in life.
I have enough East/South Asian friends to roughly grasp the soft-racism they faced growing up, and they've done very well both as individuals and as a group.
This issue needs nuance and few people are willing to speak in those terms.
I think feelings on this are going to depend on whether you consider a silicon valley job as more "outcome" or "opportunity." I'd say making sure that black/latino people can obtain these jobs is just as important as making sure they have equal opportunity to attend a good college or good highschool. That puts me in a bit of a predicament though because I come to the conclusion that what's in the best interests of society requires these companies to go against what's in their best interests and pass up more qualified whites/asians. Thoughts?
You know I think this is actually a good thing. I’ve been working as a dev for 12 years but after interviewing with tech companies more recently I’m done. I’m doing my own thing. The ‘technical interviews’ made sure of that, I presumably suck at them but I can’t be sure because no constructive feedback. Start your own thing, it will be more rewarding, I’ve learned more in 9 years of side projects than I ever did at the job and recently it’s really paying off. Oh yeah, there is no engineer shortage and there never has been, pay people decent and don’t be raise the bar to the point it’s in the clouds and you’ll see there are earnest, keen hardworking people eager and ready. Oh and I don’t know, may be invest in people a little instead too, people are life long learners, they have potential.
such a good point. i've heard that companies have rules expressly forbidding offering constructive feedback to candidates, because liability (or something). but it's a wasteful/destructive system. many companies seem to think working for them is the summation of earthly existence. but they still have churn.
it reminds me of the fact that the two WhatsApp founders had applied to Facebook but were rejected. https://medium.com/the-story-of-grip/5-things-every-founder-...
i wish you extreme success in your independent venture.
That's a pretty common line of attack against this sort of thing but I don't think it holds water. There are plenty of "unqualified" white people who get jobs just by knowing the right person. In many industries (less so in tech because there's a shortage overall) there are plenty of qualified applicants of all races, it just takes some work on a few levels (overcoming your own biases, going out of your way to recruit, etc)
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ascendleadership.site-ym.com/resour...
We're tired of obsessing about race.
We're tired of having accusations of racism, sexism, whatever-the-next-trendy-ism crammed down our throats at every opportunity.
The reality is, urban black (and to a similar extent latino) CULTURE does not value education. Until that changes, do not expect to see highly educated and skilled blacks and latinos bounding through the hiring process. Just ask the asians about minority discrimination - they outperform everyone and are openly penalized for it.
CONTENT OF CHARACTER. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT SKIN COLOR.
Go ahead and delete this comment, it's not going to change reality.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(The guidelines also specifically ask you not to use uppercase for emphasis, but that's small potatoes at the moment)
The claim is that, despite increasingly visible/vocal attempts at diversity, the industry does not reflect this. We've noticed a regression in black/Latino hiring and stagnancy for Asians. This implies that there is racism at work.
I have no interest in deleting your comment, but I am interested in rational debate.
1. What is your evidence for this?
2. Why would this explain a decline in representation? Do you believe that "urban black" culture has started devaluing education?
3. If, indeed, you're tired of thinking about race, why is your analysis based on "urban black" culture? Why not urban culture in general? There are plenty of inner-city whites and Asians, no?
However, I agree with you. Skin color is but one variable - you could just as easily discriminate on hair color, or height.
Lets just all agree that we are members of the human race.
Think about what was valuable in slaves. Physical Prowess (Stronger slaves means more work can be completed in the fields), and talent (slaves that can keep other slaves entertained mean they're not planning a revolt).
Keeping the slave master entertained by singing and dancing also brought perks for the slaves that are able to do so. Being able to produce more value in the field also brought perks.
Now think about the industries Black Americans dominate today... Athletics and Entertainment.
Being caught reading would get you killed, being caught writing would get you killed. Being white and teaching a black person to read or write could also get you killed.
African immigrants have no problem taking advantage of the education provided in america, so this isn't a genetic issue. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-13/it-isn-t-...
The problem is the culture. Simply saying fix the culture when it's the result of a process that took hundreds of years to create will not solve the issue.
Every race in the world has been enslaved at some point. We are just animals, transcend this.
Let's start here: is it too much of a stretch to say that I think it's ridiculous that the most commonly understood career path for black youth is drug dealer -> gangster rapper, or athlete? These kids deserve better role models, for one. This is an obvious truth and should not require citation.
It's not that there aren't people who disagree with these bullshit articles, it's that ycombinator mods are literally deleting and banning users who express opinions that aren't "correct".
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
>The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20161011-00/?p=...
>One of my friends is a woman of color, and not that long ago, she arrived with three male colleagues in the lobby of a building for a scheduled meeting. The administrative assistant came out, walked right past my friend, shook the hands of the three men, and welcomed them. My friend extended her hand to introduce herself, and the assistant asked, "Oh, you're with them?"
