
Our industry sucks for diversity and conferences are only showing up the fact - jaffathecake
http://fberriman.com/2013/01/06/conferences-arent-the-problem/
======
zxcdw
Why is lack of diversity considered a problem in the first place?

> _I think at this point we should start asking questions as to why we feel
> the need to poke hard at conferences, why are we positively discriminating,
> and what should we really be fixing for lasting change. Why are our starting
> numbers so low?_

Discriminating. Positive or negative. Is wrong. Just because you are XYZ
doesn't mean you somehow could expect to be treated differently. No. You are
equal. You are just like anybody else. You are not special. On the other hand
people in minorities whine(in many cases rightly so) that they are treated
differently, while people in non-minorities call for _positive discrimination_
which _further_ promotes inequal treatment.

You're a woman/gay/trans/whatever in tech? Cool, now get back into line just
like everybody else. Nobody cares -- hopefully.

~~~
diziet
How about all the 'XYZ' that could be contributing a lot and bettering the
world via their work in software development but aren't getting a chance to do
that?

~~~
zxcdw
What makes you think 'XYZ' aren't bettering the world in more suitable fields
for _persons themselves_? What would prevent 'XYZ' from "getting a chance" to
do that in tech/"our field"? Why should the 'XYZ' contribute if they refuse to
contribute without special benefits because they somehow are "special"(which
they are not)?

Just because Jamal is black doesn't mean he's any worse/better/special than
Henry who happens to be white. Just because Sally is a lesbian doesn't mean
she's any worse/better/special than Cindy who is straight. You get the point.

Stop categorizing people. There are no categories. There are only people. All
equal regardless of age, sex, sexual preference, "race", origin, religious
beliefs, ... Only people. Equal people.

~~~
diziet
I did not imply or say that 'XYZ' should get any benefits, nor categorized
anyone, I'd simply answered your question why it might be a problem -- it is
my fault for not quoting back the exact part of your post I was replying to.
My point is that I think the optimal number of people in minorities 'XYZ' that
might be more happy and productive working in software, and the overall net
benefit to the world in terms of 'efficient allocation of labor' is a state
where more 'XYZ' work in software development.

~~~
zanny
This is a valid opinion, but you can't go back and try to correct for people
who, given different circumstances, might have grown into software and
development rather than nursing or language or economics or another science.
You do that, and you are somehow discriminating against someone on the basis
of physical characteristics and are absolutely in the wrong. The solution is
to make sure entry is unbiased, access is available, and you kind of have to
hope culture eventually shifts away from inhereted biogtry and bias and
towards indifference. Because at the end of the day, the "programmers are
nerds" and "nerds are white men" mentality is pervasive from a _young_ age,
and that paints a flawed picture from the get-go. But it is _getting_ better.
Nerd culture is becoming more accepted, and computers are getting more
pervasive, so they become more accepted too. There was an introductory bias
that initiated a cultural stance in a very deeply derogatory way, and it will
take decades for society to right itself away from that bias as long as it
isn't perpetuated. But I don't think you can force it, especially with
nonsense like affirmative action. That just perpetuates the bias by painting
certain groups as "unnatural" in a setting where they have to be artificially
inserted.

------
RyanZAG
So you're proposing to push people to speak at conferences who aren't
necessarily the most knowledgeable speakers, simply because they have the
correct gender or skin color?

This is an extremely bad idea. Firstly, it reduces the value of the conference
itself as a means to share the best possible information. Secondly, it lowers
the esteem and respect of the speakers by allowing the audience room to
question their abilities. Lastly, and most importantly, it allows politics
into the selection of speakers, and moves the system further towards a
popularity contest from a meritocracy, where people argue for speakers based
on increasingly superfluous factors.

These are technical conferences, and you guys need to keep them this way. The
selection of speakers need to be done on merit.

~~~
alextp
The fallacy behind arguments like this is that when someone says that we're
"proposing to push people to speak at conferences who aren't necessarily the
most knowledgeable speakers" it is implicitly assumed that it is known how to
rank the speakers, and that doing so is easy.

In practice, however, while one can often tell a really bad speaker and a
really good speaker apart there are plenty of bordeline cases and the variance
is big, so using minority-biased criteria to "break ties" will not necessarily
lead to worse speakers on average, as long as these criteria are uncorrelated
with actual skills.

(and I'm not sure they are, as the mean quality of a woman-presented talk in
conferences I've attended has been consistently higher than the mean man-
presented talk)

~~~
yummyfajitas
The fact that a decision process is noisy and imperfect doesn't mean that
deliberately adding errors to it won't give worse results.

All it does is give you statistical noise, making it easier to bury your head
in the sand.

------
DanielBMarkham
Two points:

1) Diversity is valuable when it represents _diversity of life experience and
problem-solving methods_ , not when it represents some external characteristic
like skin color or gender. To substitute these terms out is to be prejudiced,
that is, to believe that we can look at someone externally and make informed
decisions about their internal makeup. We cannot.

Two, you do not manage complex systems by simple statistics. If you could,
then all the billions being spent in root cause analysis and so forth would be
unneeded. Complex systems, such as those involving people, are, well,
_complex_. For example, if the inputs to the system are heavily skewed, that
is, if applicants for speakers come in at a heavily skewed ratio, then the
process itself can't be responsible for the outcome. Of course, if the process
only serves to facilitate an outcome, then that's fine, but it's no longer a
process optimized for finding the best speaker or whatever. You can't have it
both ways.

I can provide more examples of how trying to reason about these systems in a
simplistic fashion is not only a waste of time, but can actually lead to
counter-productive results.

I refuse to be sexist or racist and I won't tolerate those around me who are
sexist or racist. But I also refuse to continue to consume material that
promotes this kind of mushy-headed way of looking at something as important as
diversity. If you don't understand the problem and don't understand how to
deal with it even if you could manage to identify it, then any resulting
conversation or action is not going to be very productive.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
"Diversity is valuable when it represents diversity of life experience and
problem-solving methods, not when it represents some external characteristic
like skin color or gender."

First of all, gender is not exactly an "external characteristic". Secondly the
life experiences of men and women are inherently diverse.

Hopefully, someday the colour of your skin won't influence your life
experience, but that is not the case in any human society that I am aware of.

------
michaelfeathers
Maybe it would be worthwhile to look at female-dominated industries to see how
they're handling gender diversity? According to this:
<http://www.minoritynurse.com/men-nursing/men-nursing> the percentage of males
in nursing is about 5%. According to the article, they are pushing for
diversity at the recruitment level.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Nursing is also one of the few fields where gender is actually relevant to the
job - think about some of the more unpleasant parts of nursing (e.g., washing
people's genitals).

~~~
Tichy
You mean it is easier for women to wash men's genitals than for men to wash
women's genitals, and easier for men to accept women washing their genitals
and easier for women to accept women washing their genitals? Or what exactly
is the gender relevant aspect?

~~~
yummyfajitas
People are generally more comfortable being naked around people of the same
gender (except during sexual situations, which medicine is not supposed to
be). For much the same reason, my gym has segregated locker rooms.

~~~
Tichy
OK, but patients should be equally frequent for both genders, so I don't see
why this would evoke a gender bias for nursing?

~~~
yummyfajitas
It doesn't cause the gender bias in nursing. I'm pointing out that nursing is
special. They have a very specialized reason for needing some gender parity,
which applies only to a few other fields (e.g., TSA pat down).

Software isn't one of those fields, so bringing up gender parity in nursing in
a discussion about the software industry is a bit of a misnomer.

~~~
Tichy
Get it - that makes sense!

------
reinhardt
Still waiting for an HN frontpage article with the same or similar title but
where the industry is, say, nursing or elementary school teaching. Not holding
my breath though.

~~~
mtrimpe
Don't forget that those industries have similar discussions going on..

[1] [http://www.minoritynurse.com/men-nursing/recruiting-men-
nurs...](http://www.minoritynurse.com/men-nursing/recruiting-men-nursing-
school) [2] [http://www.degreesfinder.com/online/articles/should-there-
be...](http://www.degreesfinder.com/online/articles/should-there-be-more-men-
in-nursing/)

------
xentronium
What is the usual process for organizing such an event? Is it calling for
participation and then picking the best speakers for the deck (candidates ->
organizers) OR is it a sort of organizers choice of speakers who are then
contacted (organizers -> candidates)?

In either case, shouldn't organizers have the right to pick whatever they
think is most interesting and then let their auditory choose, whether to
participate or not in their event? By the very same logic, shouldn't editors
have their right to choose what content they publish, with their readership
voting for that choice using their wallets? I think in the end, if it is
_really_ important enough, underrepresented parts of community are still able
organize their own conference, with all the right speakers.

------
elliatab
As a counterexample I think Microsoft conferences represent well diversity
(from what I saw watching MIX and Build videos on channel9). This is probably
the result of their HR strategy (speakers are mostly Microsofties).

------
stevoski
Are there countries where a significant proportion of IT workers are female?
Or representative of the country's ethnic makeup?

If so, please tell us!

