Asians are overrepresented because of the way immigration laws shifted in 1965, combined with rapidly changing economic conditions in India and China. 50% of Asians in the US hold a college degree, compared to 1% in Asia, so this is not representative of Asians as a whole, but the well-off, high caste, etc. Not to mention if you look at subgroups (refugee populations like the Vietnamese or Cambodians) the numbers reflect those situations.

Asians are also over-represented because Asians are over-represented in the global population. Indians and Chinese along are nearly 40% of the world's population.

Given the much, much larger pool to pick from, it's natural that they would be over-represented in tech too.

And the pool of Asians that American companies can choose from isn't anywhere near the entirety of that 40% due to visa and language restrictions. A very large number of them are within the population already living in America. Despite universities putting higher standards on entry for Asians, they still enter tech and high-skill fields at disproportionate rates.

And explain to me why some bureaucratic organization is responsible for correcting for this disproportion.

On average in the United States (I say average because someone here is bound to call me an Asian supremacist when I am just taking statistics), Asians make up the highest percentage of college applicants [1], Asians have the highest average SAT scores [2], Asians are the most likely to enter and graduate college [3], and Asians make up the highest income bracket in the US [4].

Given these trends, we should, in fact, see a larger number of Asians in tech and it should not be surprising. Google's bureaucracy should not hire less Asians because "there are more."

I would not mind if Google were 100% Black females. Just as long as it's a merit based system.

[1] https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/admissions... [2] https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webAdmission%20Preferen... [3] https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Signature12... [4] https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/... [4] summary on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...

There's been a lot of shade thrown on "leftists" and "marxists" in relation to this manifesto. Yet it was a senior member of Trump's team that said 2/3rds of Silicon Valley CEOs being Asian was a problem.

Note, 2/3rds of CEOs in Silicon Valley are not Asian, he was probably overreacting based on looking just at Google, Microsoft and Facebook, and they're probably under-represented at the management levels overall.

16 in 10 silicon valley executives are white, while 7 in 10 are Asian (for every 10 engineers). So Asians are actually underrepresented at the highest level.

I have no comments on the current Washington administration's personal views - if their goal is to get rid of AA and remove diversity regulations from industry then it's a goal that's fine with me.

But that's a meritocracy right? Those white execs got there fair and square. Probably Asian people just prefer not to be paid lots of money and run companies, it's a genetic thing that can't be helped.

16 in 10 is a startling overrepresentation.

Thank you for your helpful and informative comment, I appreciate it.

One difference is that Indians got their independence, while the US still occupies California...

The important context though is in how the conference was promoted in the first place, though.

I'll note that one of the rules for proposal submission that GitHub specified before proposals were accepted was that any ties in ratings would be broken in favor of a more diverse speaker panel, so it at least appears that they were conscious of attracting women and minorities to the conference.