[1] https://github.com/todogroup/opencodeofconduct/issues/82
[2] https://github.com/todogroup/opencodeofconduct/blob/gh-pages...
>Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: > ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Coded language for sanctioned discrimination.
Related reading:
Tact Filter: http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html
Ozark English: http://ozarque.livejournal.com/176349.html
When Nerds Collide: https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c
The law disagrees with you. I can very easily see Github on the losing side of workplace racial discrimination claim here.
I hope we can move past this some day, but that's not happening today.
For other reasons? Yeah. They get help too, though.
I'm just glad I dumped Github. I'm pretty sure they'd find my white female friends [some of whom needed to transition] being discriminated against as okay based on those slides.
You shouldn't be generalizing on race if you want me to believe that.
Honest question: does it have to be directed by "a privileged ethnic group" or is it valid if it is by any general group or even a single, privileged person?
That said, I'm no academic, but I remember reading something about this a few years ago, in the case of a woman in France accused of anti-white racism.
Well, it's not. It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people.
- "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women"
Second wave feminism, largely led by white women, often leaves out women of color. I mentioned this below, but the publishing industry is 79% white and 78% female. This has a huge impact on the types of stories that get to be published, which subsequently has real results on culture and society.
- "we need solidarity with our Asian friends and colleagues"
I mean yeah, sure, nothing super deep on that one. There should also be solidarity with white friends and colleagues, preferably ones that do a lot of listening and understand how not to take up all the space.
> Well, it's not. It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people.
On the one hand, sure, it would be odd if it were entirely led by a group of people that the initiative is not meant to directly benefit.
But on the other,
1. The title implies it is white people that must be left out of leadership there. It does not mention Asian people, which is odd, as the tech industry is currently mostly white and Asian men. Asian people are highly overrepresented, much more than white people, relative to their percentage in the country. That means if you have objections to putting a white person in a leadership position for a diversity initiative, you should have a similar objection to an Asian person. Not having that mentioned can't help but seem racist against white people.
2. Diversity initiatives need to work with everyone, not just the newcomers, but also the existing tech industry, which is mostly white and Asian men. White and Asian men could be helpful in guiding the industry towards more diversity, in particular, by doing so in a way that gets as many other white and Asian men on board with such changes. They might know best what would work to convince them, for example.
3. And, in the end, it is just always wrong to say "this is not work for [race X]". That's racist and offensive. Instead, it would have been fine to say "this is work where we need a strong leadership presence of currently underrepresented groups".
Asian people are highly overrepresented, much more than
white people, relative to their percentage in the country.
That said, I believe Asian people are overrepresented, more than white people, relative to their percentage in California, but it's not nearly as disproportionate as the figures relative to the entire country.
Your link shows 14.4% for Asian people in California, but in the tech industry, they are at least twice that. Whereas in California white people are 73.2%, which is about equal or even less than their ratio in tech.
And about most people not moving more than 500 miles - is that true for tech jobs in California? See for example
http://www.siliconvalleyindex.org/index.php/people/talent-fl...
which indicates that your general rule might not apply, as over a third of Silicon Valley people are foreign-born. That means even from outside of the US, not just outside of California. And it's obvious the valley is full of people from the rest of the US, in fact tech workers that grew up in the area are a clear minority.
With this in mind, I'm very curious if we're asking the question of what these overrepresented groups are doing differently and if there are lessons to be learned by and applied by underrepresented groups.
As someone born in Brazil, when I meet a Brazilian in SF, we get to talking about where in Brazil we're both from at some point and one thing I've discovered is that Brazilians from the state of Goias are very much overrepresented in SF despite the fact that São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are typically more represented globally with Brazilian expats. Why are Brazilians from Goias over-represented in the Bay Area? Near as I can tell from the numerous conversations is that there is a strong network of weak ties, à la Granovetter, at play and that this is the same phenomena that can be see among Asian and Indian communities in SF.
In fact, the only Indian-Brazilian person I know in the Bay Area (and in the world, since there isn't much cultural exchange between Brazil and India) is a VC and he has commented that he wishes there was as much community and support on the Brazilian side of the Silicon Valley as there is on the Indian side, because he has seen that as one of the greatest external factors (i.e. outside what the individual himself is capable of) helping Indians move to the region in the first place and be successful once they arrive and establish themselves. Perhaps more efforts to establish professional and social networks of weak ties would be an effective strategy within identities group that are underrepresented. I'm curious how effective directing energy towards helping those within your identity in-group is versus fighting for your identity in-group as a whole relative to other identity in-groups?
It's not purely about representation, although that is important too. It's about centuries of white dominance. A couple decades of people of Asian descent having a strong presence in an industry isn't enough. How many of those overrepresented Asians are holding positions of senior leadership?
"And, in the end, it is just always wrong to say "this is not work for [race X]"."
You're missing the ending part of that statement, which is "to lead". That makes it very different. No one said white people can't be involved, as long as they are not taking up all the space.
I didn't miss "to lead", I referred to it. My point is that no matter the position - rank and file, or leadership; technical or non-technical; etc. etc. - it is never ok to say "this position is not for [race of gender X]". It's just wrong.
Again, it's fine to say "it would be helpful to have a presence of [group X] here". That focuses on the positive, doesn't exclude a specific group, and there are valid reasons to indeed want a presence of underrepresented minorities, because it's about them.
In other words, this entire initiative could be done in a non-racist way.
Again, no one said white people can't be involved. It says it is not for white people to lead. No one is leaving white people out of this.
"...and there are valid reasons to indeed want a presence of underrepresented minorities, because it's about them."
Think about that for a second. Do you see the subtlety in what you're saying? You're acknowledging that some power should be yielded from those that hold it "because it's about them", but you're not giving people of color the power to run the thing that is in and of itself about them. Only giving up token pieces instead of yielding power is one of many ways that white supremacy gets passed on over the centuries.
Instead, I focus on fairness and equal treatment. Individuals - all of them - should be given respect and opportunity. That's what really matters, and if we do that, then we can wipe out discrimination and intolerance.
Our points of view lead to some identical things we want - we both want to end any and all existing discrimination against underrepresented minorities. However, from there, there is divergence.
This is a political difference of opinion. It can't easily go away. What I think is important is that people like you and people like me find ways to meet on common ground and work towards those shared goals. But to do so, we have to accept some political viewpoint differences.
Side note: I find comments like "think about that for a second" etc. from you as potentially condescending. As if you're trying to play the role of a teacher, guiding me to some truth that you already grasp. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it that way.
But yes we disagree. Of course all individuals should be given respect and opportunity, no one is arguing otherwise. The fact of the matter is that that's not the current state of the world. We can talk about fairness and equal treatment all we want, but that doesn't address the systemic racism that is happening right this second. People of color don't have the time to wait around for white people to decide to be respectful and fair. I don't see any way to overcome it than from a yielding of power.
I'm down to find common ground, but it has to be on something concrete, not vague ideas of fairness (which are subjective anyways). I personally think it's silly to have diversity initiatives led by white men. What do you suggest?
Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but I think any reasonable person could interpret that as condescending.
> I personally think it's silly to have diversity initiatives led by white men.
I might see a 10-person board of a diversity nonprofit that is 100% white men as silly. But to have some Chief of Diversity officer in one company happen to be a white man sounds fine to me - if he's good at it. No more odd than a professor of Russian history being Indonesian.
To say otherwise, as you just did, strikes me as racist. Do you really not see it?
> What do you suggest?
For example:
1. Educate hiring committees on implicit bias.
2. Make sure hiring is done as blindly as possible, e.g., coding tests can be done via text and not in person. This has worked wonders in other industries.
3. Have companies' HR departments focus on diversity, e.g. talking to employees (anonymously, or as they prefer) to see if there are current issues, and if so, to try to address them.
All those steps are already being taken by most major software companies, including the one I work at. Progress is happening. And it can happen without
1. Posing the problem as "group A" vs "group B", as you are doing. That's the type of thinking that got us into this problem in the first place, that led to prejudice and racism.
2. Acting and talking in ways that appear racist to a large segment of the tech industry, as Github is doing.
Forgive me if I think she is more qualified for that job running diversity initiatives than I am, even though I'm very well read on the topic.
But it's not the only qualification necessary for the job. The other is to effect change in the organization. By your logic, if a black person is better at understanding the problems black people face, perhaps a white person would be better at getting white people to change things in the company.
I actually think both of those are wrong. You can feel horror at the Rwandan genocide or the holocaust or other massive injustices without being African or Jewish. You don't just intellectually understand racism in the US - I hope - you also feel it has to change.
Again, I agree the perspectives of underrepresented minorities are crucial here. But that doesn't lead to "every single chief of diversity must be non-white."
Exactly, but it is one qualification of many. If you have a white man with a stellar application for that position, and a woman of color with a similarly stellar application for that position, doesn't the woman of color necessarily get the job because she has more qualifications than the white man?
The point is there is always going to be a person of color that is more qualified than the white man for that leadership position because their experience as a person of color makes them more qualified for the position, everything else being equal, and they should thus be given it. Is that not reasonable?
"The head of diversity should be a white male because they are the only ones qualified to understand white male privilege and therefore will be more effective at working and communicating with others that also have the same privilege and coming up with ways to get others with privilege to change their behavior. Seeing that those with privilege are a majority in the industry, a white male leading it would be more effective leading more people to changing attitudes."
Anyhow, in practice, I doubt it matters: most applicants to such positions are likely not white men anyhow. So the racism inherent in such statements as "white folks are not suitable for this role" is not only wrong, it is also unnecessary.
White people are already in charge of everything, they don't also need to be in charge of diversity. That's exactly why these positions are being created in the first place.
> It's just that people of color are even more qualified
which you're ignoring again. Is it because the argument wasn't clear? Should I try again?
How can anybody who advocates equality say no white person can lead a diversity movement? Just because somebody is white doesn't mean they aren't an oppressed minority (female, transgender, Jewish or some other oppressed group like a furry).
I think we collectively need to declare it's not okay to say "people with skin color ____" cannot possibly understand Y or have an opinion on Y. To do so is institutionalized racism.
edit: typo
When the discussion is about "social impact", the conversation is about diversity. Diversity != equality. In the view of many, equality isn't enough, because the "un-oppressed" are fundamentally privileged. The concept of "reverse racism" is there to deflect the inevitable awkward questions that arise, when clearly biased statements are made and practices get institutionalized.
IMO, all this stuff is problematic. I wish we could all embrace the golden rule and move on.
If your idea of fairness requires we become systematically biased against certain majorities (white, heterosexual, male, cis-gender) for your cause then I don't want to be part of your cause, and moreover I find that cause discriminitory and dangerous.
Exactly. As mentioned earlier, in the case of Github the cultural transition appears to be from prioritizing meritocracy to codified diversity for the sake of diversity.
Then that's not equality - equality is, or should be enough, because if the issue of diversity and equality is 'minimizing / eliminating privilege' then by definition, equality is that privilege is the same for all (or zero).
For many though, this becomes a good cover for 'preferential treatment above and beyond equality, in the name of 'compensation'.'
You may be saying that the non-white leadership is the kind of leadership that allows collaboration and influence from followers, which is what I would do, but the evidence in the Github case is to the contrary.
This sounds excessively harsh, do you really think that's how GitHub will run the program?
Whiteness changes with political needs. Hilariously, Irish-Americans, Jews, etc weren't always considered white. They had to become white. Nowadays, certain Asians are held up as model minorities and may get some honorary whiteness.
With children getting murdered by the state for being black, it's obvious race is about white supremacy. (Analogously, sexism is about male supremacy, also known as patriarchy.)
The US is 77.7% of the US population. I hardly think that a 2% imbalance is an issue to create divisiveness over. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...
I think you mean 77.7% white? It should be noted that the census counts North African and Middle Eastern as white, which is inaccurate. That number also drops to 62.6% when you take out Hispanics that describe themselves as white. So it's probably more like a 20 point difference than 2.
This sort of thinking is stupid.
White Supremacists: Jewish people are 2% of the american population, but they hold the majority of top positions in the publishing industry. Do you oppose diminishing Jewish Supremacy? Are you saying it's okay?
Both of these arguments are terrible, and are both based on the premise that over-representation of some group in some industry or position constitutes a serious problem and probable conspiracy.
Ah, ok, so you don't think representation is an issue. Most people of color that have dealt with white gatekeepers will disagree with you. If you care to examine the part of you that holds that belief I'd suggest reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X, followed by some James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Frantz Fanon, and bell hooks to start. Hate read it if you must, but give some experiences orthogonal to yours a chance.
1) Diversity isn't just about race and the fact you think it is is why I'm honestly horrified by you.
2) Sexual orientation, transgender issues are serious problems and not really protected classes in many respects and they have as much of a "fixed" bag from genetics as you do.
The majority of sexism and racism that I've seen is probably subconscious and doesn't really seem intentional per se. People often just don't realize the side-effects of what they're saying or doing, or how it can come across to people sometimes. You certainly won't build shared camaraderie and empathy by antagonizing entire classes of people.
- "This is not work for white folks to lead"
It's a stretch as a comparison, but no-one gets sued for refusing to hire ugly models. It's because a model's job is to be good looking. That's just the way it is. In a similar way, a head of diversity should probably be... diverse. Although that could include gay white men, for example - maybe that text is shorthand that was qualified in the actual presentation, none of us know.
The white women one mystifies me, though. Women are usually a minority in the workplace, surely their views are valid.
I'm sick of this politics of division. It pits people against each other and treats them as members of some helpless group instead of as individual human beings, with their own unique story and their own untapped potential.
I don't see how you can guarantee that. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand what you're saying. But this is a one-line bullet point in a slideshow, I'd like to see some more context before I grab my pitchfork.
We've invented tools to deal with this: language and literature. Almost everyone has experienced some form of discrimination, even if for many it is only occasional and minor, and that's enough to give a good writer an opening to get inside the reader's head and use that to build upon and paint a vivid picture of the more frequent or major discrimination the writer has dealt with.
This kind of outpouring of rage, to be frank, is why Hacker News has such a bad reputation. Look around at the comments here: there are people complaining about the very notion that there might be something wrong with how hiring and promotion happens in technology. There are people, like @yoodenvranx, equating their own anecdotal problems with the victimization of white men. There are countless comments asserting that we are capable of "pure meritocracy," a notion that is invalidated by research on implicit bias.
The overwhelming consensus here is that (a) there is no problem, and (b) GitHub's attempts to address it are unjust. This is why Hacker News looks to the outside world like a self-affirming bubble with no grounding in reality.
I also don't think your comment extends good faith you are demanding to the comment and commenters which you're addressing.
there are people complaining about the very notion that
there might be something wrong with how hiring and
promotion happens in technology.
Comments like yours, on the other hand, are the reason I come to HN. Measured rebuttals without being too biased one way or the other-- it really enhances the reading experience of those going through this thread.
It's hard to convey my appreciation through an upvote, since that can be confused for just popularity, so I had to say it here.
But we also have to remember that, to someone not in those well-represented groups, it's not a huge consolation. Diversity isn't a floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0.
Overall, I rarely if ever see anyone arguing for diversity asking hard questions like "Why are there many Asians and Indians even though there aren't many Women, Hispanics/Latinos and Black people?". What are these successful identity groups doing differently that is affording them much success in being well represented or even over represented? How might the under represented groups adopt the same approaches to achieve the same success?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve unconscious bias as well, but I'm less inclined to first consider solutions that address unconscious bias if those solutions are proposed by someone who hasn't also considered other explanations and solutions because they aren't applying the null hypothesis in their thought process.
Also, how about some multi-variate analysis to determine which factors most greatly contribute to the diversity gap for each underrepresented group? We can't adequately fix what we don't measure and I really don't see a lot of measurement going on. For example, all successful startups understand and apply concepts of a user acquisition funnel and pipeline, but then people complain loudly in simplistic terms that the "pipeline problem is a myth". I don't understand how you can the former technique with great success and hold the latter incongruous thought in your head at the same time.
https://medium.com/life-tips/the-null-hypothesis-loves-you-a...
Why is it OK to make these kinds of generalizations?
If people can get thrown out of conferences for their tweets on unrelated things, if Eich can get in hot water over a political donation, then it is little surprise to see the knife cutting both ways.
You wouldn't forgive a developer for speaking at an MRA conference--why should these people be forgiven for unrelated presentations?
This is the future you chose.
EDIT:
Downvote all you want. This is the kind of goodthink/badthink politicking that happens once you move away from "Does the code work?"
The thing being complained about by my parent poster here is completely consistent with the social norms that have prevailed lately. I would say don't be surprised at the sudden double-standard, but logic apparently isn't the strong point of the mobs.
We've spent so much time lately attacking meritocracies that it is somewhat cathartic to watch the inevitable consequences.
EDIT2:
Just to make this painfully clear--we have decided as a community that it is okay to judge people based on their actions in unrelated contexts. That applies just as much to folks that have slides about "white women being obstacles" in some unrelated context to their work in HR as it does to people that tweet bigoted things while being maintainers of projects.
The logic and principle is exactly the same.
I don't understand it completely, but here is a related wikipedia article.