
I’m a Latino in Tech, and I Think the ‘Diversity’ Discussion Is Utterly Broken - generic_user
http://observer.com/2016/10/lets-be-honest-we-have-no-idea-what-diversity-means/
======
have_faith
Having grew up in an environment that was very troubled (to put it lightly)
and also be a CIS white straight male; I find diversity discussions quite
difficult. Lots of assumptions about myself due to the colour of my skin and
my gender and lots of guilty by association "history is full of white males in
X industry" to justify positive discrimination etc. I don't have a particular
point to this post through in part being chastised in the past for having an
opinion on the subject but I roughly follow the authors train of thought. When
people talk of diversity their range seems to be quite shallow and skin deep.

~~~
nsxwolf
I learned to stop having such conversations long ago. You either agree
completely with the zeitgeist and get domesticated as an "ally", which is like
being a little mindless pet. Or you disagree with a point or two and get
savaged, and marginalized.

When I just avoid the topic, everything stays OK and everyone remains
friendly.

~~~
fnovd
>You either agree completely with the zeitgeist and get domesticated as an
"ally", which is like being a little mindless pet.

Talk about coded language.

zeitgeist: Focusing on diversity is just a temporary fad, I'm thinking ahead
by sitting this one out

domesticated: Changing my opinion is akin to renouncing my freedom and
autonomy

"ally": People like me don't really _agree_ with those crazy diversity people,
we just need reasonable cover

mindless pet: Those who don't agree with me have freed themselves from the
perils of rational, enlightened thought. Like dogs! Or pigs, being fattened
for the slaughter

I _do_ agree with your premise (talking about diversity as a cis-straight-
white-male can be a minefield), but there has to be some recognition that
one's race (among other factors, even!) can color your experience on the job
or in an interview. You may argue that social class or cultural upbringing
have more of an impact, but those variables have an undeniable connection to
race/ethnicity as well.

~~~
nsxwolf
"Ally" isn't my word. We actually get called that. It's a pat on the head that
doesn't buy you anything. You get asked to not have an opinion about certain
things, to not enter certain spaces ala "White media to the back, black media
to the front"

~~~
fnovd
Waiting for your turn to speak isn't the same as being silenced. Being asked
to listen to the opinions of others isn't the same as being asked not to have
an opinion. 'Entitlement' is the relevant buzzword here.

~~~
lovich
Just googling "a good ally" I get things on the front page like
[http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/things-allies-need-to-
kn...](http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/things-allies-need-to-know/)

Even a quick skim shows several references to shutting up as well as how it's
not an ally's place to discuss racism. I frequently see similar idea whenever
a discussion of what being an ally is, comes up. I'd say that being an ally is
being asked/told to be silent

~~~
nickpsecurity
Wow. They're getting more blunt about it than they used to be. There's
basically no consideration for the ally party in that piece. They're just
tools. They can get punished for bad behavior & rewarded for good behavior but
don't decide on their own. The comparison to pets is fair with Pavlov-like
conditioning for participating parties.

Note: I was just saying on another forum that the liberals would often reject
that whites in minority-dominated areas deserved any help for structural
racism they face but then demand with straight face that same whites needed to
fight racism minorities face every day. The feedback indicated people didn't
buy that or care to respond. See last paragraphs of No 4 on this list.

------
xenihn
Hispanic engineer here (Salvadoran native/semitic/spanish mix, for what that
matters), and I agree with the article's author in regards to socioeconomic
class being a much bigger factor than race when it comes to the topic of
diversity.

>a philosopher from Peru resembles a philosopher from Scotland more than a
janitor from Peru

>students think that their environment is diverse if one comes from Missouri
and another from Pakistan—never mind that all of their parents are doctors or
bankers

Spot on.

I consider any sort of initiative to disenfranchise or disempower people based
on their racial/ethnic background as detrimental to society as a whole,
because it (understandably) causes resentment and division.

Imposter syndrome is a bad enough problem for engineers without having to take
the possibility of preferential treatment that was conferred on the basis of
minority status into account.

~~~
pessimizer
> Imposter syndrome is a bad enough problem for engineers without having to
> take the possibility of preferential treatment that was conferred on the
> basis of minority status into account.

This seems completely topsy-turvy to me. I would think white men would be more
liable to impostor syndrome due to the general favoritism towards white men.
If there were some preferential treatment in the policy that got you hired as
a non-white-man that recognized you as the top of your demographic, and your
demographic is still vastly underrepresented in your profession; then to feel
like an impostor based on that is to internally accept that your demographic
is somehow inherently inferior to the overrepresented group.

The entire purpose of affirmative action to me is to dislodge the incompetent
advantaged people bobbling around at the bottom of their profession, and
replace them with people who are more likely not to have had a chance to reach
their full potential yet.

~~~
zem
> I would think white men would be more liable to impostor syndrome due to the
> general favoritism towards white men.

favouritism towards white men is pervasive but invisible; affirmative action
is rarer but highly visible, so it gets focused on more.

~~~
pessimizer
Is it really that visible? It seems to be rare in the wild. Tokenism is far
more common: noticing that there are no women, so hiring a woman, or noticing
that there are no non-whites, so hiring one.

What definitely has been more visible is complaints about affirmative action,
because the advantaged majority were the ones complaining. As whites lose
their majority in numbers (in the US), and women make professional gains, that
has changed, though, which is an understandable trigger for white male rage
and terror. The vast majority of the bosses are still white men, though; it's
the advantage of the incumbent.

------
lutorm
Diversity and discrimination are kind of two different topics, no?
Discrimination clearly leads to lack of diversity, but lack of diversity does
not imply discrimination. I hope everyone thinks discrimination is bad, that
doesn't seem like a controversial subject.

Lack of diversity in STEM also has other causes, though, like self-selection
away from subjects due to lack of role models, or struggling in college
because your background has not prepared you for the academic culture. Some of
these are likely more race/ethnicity/gender related, like the role model
issue. When it comes to being prepared for the academic culture, though, that
firmly seems to be in the socio-economic territory.

The trouble is that ethnicity also works as a _semi-good_ proxy for socio-
economic background, so it seems like people think that by fixing the "I don't
see anyone like me here" problem, they can also do a good enough job of fixing
problems due socio-economic background, even though that leaves out a
significant chunk of people.

~~~
ebfe
>lack of diversity does not imply discrimination

If everyone is a blank slate and there is no genetic basis to intelligence,
than yes, it does.

Their logic is correct, but it's based on a false premise. And if you call it
into question, I sure hope you aren't dependent on having a job.

~~~
lutorm
Newborns may be blank slates, but college- and working-age people clearly are
not. By the time we are ready to join the working world, we are already
imprinted by what our culture tells us are "male" and "female" jobs, for
example. I don't think of that as discrimination. It's discrimination if a
female applies for a construction job and is passed over for being female, not
if she never applies because she thinks construction isn't for her because
that's something men do. But both lead to a lack of diversity.

------
mgarfias
Sometimes I'm happy about being a Mexican American. Number one: I grew up
eating Mexican food. Two: when the social justice set starts making noise my
way I can point out that my dad grew up chopping cotton and the only reason I
didn't is because he happened to get drafted and went to college on the GI
bill. Then I'm part of the party, they leave me alone and I can go back to
being a right wing redneck Mexican geek-farmer.

~~~
swozey
I mean, this goes for a lot of white Americans as well. The majority of us in
GenX/Y (I'm early 30s, whatever I am) are second to third generation and our
families came over in the 1910-1950s with zero prospects. I'm third
generation, father and grandfather both US military (raised on a Tobacco
farm), father drafted for Vietnam, not sure if my grandfather was drafted but
he was a pilot at one point. Both sides of my family are from the Italian and
German slums of NY (respectively). In fact, they lived in the Love Canal which
was absolutely abysmal and thyroid cancer is rampant through the women in my
family because of the toxic waste dumped there.

The absolute disdain between my German and Italian family is immeasurable.
It's kind of hilarious being an outsider to what they went through.

I honestly can't think of one white person I know whose family has been in the
USA for more than 2-3 generations. I know a LOT of Mexicans who have been here
in TX for hundreds of years which I think is incredibly interesting. I'm so
used to my friends having barely any history beyond the 1920s.

------
jondubois
I also don't like how the discussion is framed because it tries to put a label
on everyone (typically based on either gender, race or disability)... But that
is a very narrow-minded way of thinking about diversity.

I think it's important to give extra attention to those who are disadvantaged
but we should handle it on a case-by-case basis - Because not everyone who is
different and disadvantaged will fit under a specific race/gender/disability
label - We shouldn't leave those 'unlabelled' people out of the equation (I
think that most disadvantaged people cannot be labelled - They are invisible
minorities).

For example, studies have shown that attractive people get paid more on
average than unattractive ones... So maybe we should also give extra
consideration to ugly people... Or introverts, or people who have English as a
second language... Or who come from a different country... Or had a bad
childhood, etc... There are so many different categories; you cannot look at
individuals in terms of their superficial qualities only; you have to consider
the individual as a whole.

For example, you cannot give special treatment to someone just because they're
a woman (without also considering other factors) - What if that woman has a
$10 million dollar trust fund and tons of social connections? Maybe she
doesn't actually need any special treatment at all - It changes the whole
story.

I think that gender, race and disability should be considered, but you
shouldn't look at them in isolation from everything else; I think that doing
so is in itself is a form of discrimination against all unlabelled
disadvantaged individuals.

At the root of this discussion lies the problem that companies are not good at
considering people as individuals.

------
gxs
Heh, spot on.

I'm also hispanic, the lack of diversity in SV and really any other place
where you want to point it out (except for maybe the coaching staff of some
football program in rural TX, things like that) is due to socioeconomic
difference.

I'd take it one step further though and say it's just a difference in culture.

Go to an Indian friend's house and move a book on the floor out of the way
with your foot- you will get a nasty glare. Why? Education is incredibly
important in their culture and for that reason kicking a book is almost
blasphemous to them.

All I'm saying is that cultures that value education that way succeed because
increasingly to be competitive in the job market you need to have hard skills
- not ethnic studies degrees with minors in russian dance.

Our culture (hispanic culture) and black culture from what I observed during
the time I shared neighborhoods with poor urban blacks that were similar in
socioeconomic status to us, just doesn't value education the same way. And
pointing that out nowadays is considered racist, sadly.

The only reason I made it out the hood is because of my dad - he would always
tell me that the only difference (true or not) between him and the uberly rich
guys he works for in LA is education. Fast forward 25 years and now at 31 I'm
doing just fine. Most of the "racism" I perceive day to day is in my head and
I suspect it has to do with this non stop conversation.

~~~
sumedh
> you will get a nasty glare.

Indian here, my dad used to hit me if I moved a book with my foot. That is
just not acceptable.

------
placeybordeaux
Diversity in many places seems to be largely focused on the shallowest parts
of diversity, could that be because this is one of the easiest things to
measure & tell about a person?

I certainly wouldn't be ready to fill out a survey about my political beliefs
or my how my childhood was when interviewing.

~~~
generic_user
Skin color does not tell you anything about who a person is. Your just
reconfirming your own biases when you assign characteristics to race.

Diversity often ends up being a political and ideological filter just as much
as a racial filter. The organisation looking to hire a 'Diverse' person
already has a set of ideological filters in place to rationalize why they
prioritize 'Diversity' and what it means. There not just looking for any
divers person but the 'right' kind of diverse person that agrees with there
filters.

So there is process that leads to ideological and political monoculture as it
is now. One of the points that to author is making is that focusing more on
other forms of diversity rather the race can increase the intellectual and
cultural diversity of your organisation far more the just hiring a group of
different skin tones who all have the same believes and politics.

~~~
lutorm
_Skin color does not tell you anything about who a person is._

The problem is that this is not true. If it was, it would be much simpler.

Race and ethnicity have a _nonzero_ correlation with other factors like
culture and socioeconomic status, which means they are, on average, likely to
tell you _something_ about the person. When applied to a given individual
they're obviously very flawed predictors, but if they didn't _sort of_ work as
a proxy for other characteristics, I don't think it would be talked about as
much as it is.

~~~
generic_user
Companies who want to succeed with new ideas need a diversity of ideas. Free
thinkers with broad experience to draw from. And people who are not afraid to
disrupt institutional norms.

One of the criticism is that the racial diversity PC crowd really have little
interest in diversity of ideas, free thinking, or disruption. And most of them
come from a very narrow band of upper middle class cultural experience. Its a
feeble monoculture with a strict social hierarchy. For all intent and purpose
its the opposite of what a innovative diverse group is.

If you goal is simply to hire a group of people who meet some subjective
'racial balance' who all think a certain way then your probably building a
very weak team.

------
pmarreck
I never see ethnicity after the first 5 seconds. If you can talk shop, you're
cool, period (in my subjective brain). This is why _I_ have issues with
diversity discussions; it's like forcing me to acknowledge the elephant in the
room that doesn't actually exist in mine. The best programmer I know is female
(and I have told her as much), the second-best is half-black, the third-best
is a white Jewish Stanford grad, and somewhere way down the list is curious
old me. Who is still giving a shit about this stuff? (Disclaimer: I'm likely
as white as can be, the Aryan ideal, dirty-blonde blue-eyed German firstborn
American).

But for what it's worth, my latin-american brother-in-law introduced me to
ceviche (he makes it himself), and that shit is the bomb-diggity

~~~
muad
There was a segment on NPR this morning where a woman who wrote "The History
of White People" explained that white people are uncomfortable talking about
race because it has never been a problem for them.

Her argument was that now that being white is a "bad" thing, white people want
to ignore race.

It was very enlightening, but not for the reasons she intended.

~~~
pmarreck
That's... a good point, unfortunately. :/

------
korethr
It seems to me that the only diversity in tech that actually matters is
diversity of thought: How does this person approach problem solving
differently? What heretofore unknown problems do they spot before it's too
late? Etc.

Skin reflectivity, ancestry/parentage, anything related to genitalia (be it
shape, usage, TypeMismatchExceptions from the brain, etc), net-worth, or
history of any of those strike as poor proxies for the diversity that does
mater.

Can you solve the technical problem to hand? Great!

Am I missing something that it needs to be any more complicated than that?

~~~
bobbytherobot
It is very very easy to create bias interview questions for programming. I've
seen too often people ask a college homework assignment they worked on. Is
using your path to the job a good proxy for finding diversity of thinkers?

Then the question is, how do you set it up to find people that solve problems
differently?

The interview is just the start of the phase. How do you keep people who are
talented but approach the problem differently? What keeps them from feeling
like an outsider?

------
pj_mukh
I am a tad bit confused at the premise of the article. It is primarily
complaining that race (or gender) is just one dimension of diversity. To the
extent of my anecdotal experiences, most diversity advocates whole-heartedly
agree.

The example he uses, Project Include, specifically cites, "gender, race,
class, age, religion, disability, education, sexual orientation, and others"
and calls it a multi-dimensional problem [1].

Example: cis white men from poor or troubled families are most definitely
included in this definition of under-represented minorities. It maybe
difficult to explicitly measure, but they are definitely included.

There maybe specific organizations that work with a single dimension but I
would like to see data on this supposed proliferation of solely race/gender
based diversity organizations. Lots of good organizations work with other
dimensions of minority representation. Stride[2], focussed on socio-economic
conditions, in the bay area comes to mind.

[1] [http://projectinclude.org/about/](http://projectinclude.org/about/)

[2] [http://www.stridecenter.org/](http://www.stridecenter.org/)

~~~
mzw_mzw
> Example: cis white men from poor or troubled families are most definitely
> included in this definition of under-represented minorities. It maybe
> difficult to explicitly measure, but they are definitely included.

The fact that poor white men are technically included in certain definitions
of "disadvantaged" by obscure organizations no one has ever heard of, is of
little import in the real world: where programs to, say, get more poor coal
miners' sons from Appalachia into tech are thin on the ground, and anyone
talking about those people's problems gets torrents of abuse and remarks about
"white tears."

~~~
pj_mukh
Again, not sure what you are talking about. This particular situation
(Appalachia in tech) was loudly celebrated in all circles[1]. This seems to be
an enemy that's been made up (or defined by a thin fringe).

[https://backchannel.com/canary-in-the-code-
mine-903884eca853...](https://backchannel.com/canary-in-the-code-
mine-903884eca853#.oym3f187q)

~~~
mzw_mzw
I said "thin on the ground," not "nonexistent." There are a few people who
genuinely want real inclusion and work for it, and they're heroes. But they
aren't calling the shots.

------
fuqted
From The Diversity Myth:

"...a woman might ‘realize’ that she had been ‘raped’ the next day or even
many days later. Under these circumstances, it is unclear who should be held
responsible. _If the alcohol made both of them do it, then why should the
woman’s consent be obviated any more than the man’s? Why is all blame placed
on the man?_ "

I'm curious what people think about this.

------
sdegutis
This is what I'm confused about. The "diversity in tech" campaign is obviously
being executed all wrong, and I see article after article written by the
people it's supposedly trying to help, who confirm what common sense already
should know. But yet it still marches on with full strength, as if there's no
problem. What gives?

~~~
Jimmie_Rustle
It's an industry of it's own... Diversity consultants double down on
falsehoods to continue to get paid

~~~
gxs
Exactly, there is a cottage industry that's cropped up around the subject -
it's got a life of its own at this point.

------
richmarr
Article argues that diversity of ideas is what's important, rather than
diversity of ethnicity/gender, describes trying to solve racial/gender
diversity for its own sake as "utterly broken".

There's plenty of evidence that women and people from under-represented groups
are discriminated against because of their identity. Here are a few on gender
alone: [0][1][2][3][4]

Perhaps there are cases of people being discriminated against for having
"diverse" opinions, but it seems like a distinctly smaller problem, as
witholding a controversial opinion is an option and witholding your existence
is not.

[0] Female students seen as less competent than identical male students with
identical application materials, offered lower starting salaries (Moss-Racusin
et al, 2012)

[1] People in gender-incongruent roles penalised more heavily for mistakes
(Brescoll, Dawson, & Uhlmann, 2010).

[2] Voluble women perceived as less competent and less suitable leaders,
inverse true for men (Brescoll, 2011).

[3] Women who succeed in male-dominated fields percieved as not likeable
(Heilman et al, 2004).

[4] Students question the competence of female teachers who evaluate them
negatively, less so than male teachers (Sinclair & Kunda 2000).

~~~
jimmywanger
> There's plenty of evidence that women and people from under-represented
> groups are discriminated against because of their identity. Here are a few
> on gender alone: [0][1][2][3][4]

Every single one of your examples has to do with gender, not ethnic diversity
like the original article was talking about. Could you submit some evidence
about under-represented groups?

~~~
richmarr
> Every single one of your examples has to do with gender, not ethnic
> diversity like the original article was talking about.

It's interesting that you interpreted it that way.

The author states that "diversity discussion is utterly broken", and I agree
he focuses on race, but at no point did he constrain his criticism that to a
particular sub-set of diversity.

In addition:

i) The article even opens with a lengthy movie reference (complete with a huge
lead image) about the arrival of a woman at a previously all-male news team.

ii) From the article: "We’re turning race _or gender_ into a crutch being used
as an excuse for real or perceived failures."

iii) From the article: "Their goal is to help startups take proper steps to
hire more _women_ and minorities."

I don't think there's much wiggle room on the intent of the author, stated or
implied.

I can only assume that either you didn't read the article completely or that
you're attempting to move the goalposts; either consciously or due to
confirmation bias.

> Could you submit some evidence about under-represented groups?

We could get into evidence for ethnic/racial bias if you really want to; but
first I'd rather address the issue of why you feel like you need to move the
discussion away from gender.

Until we get past that problem, citing further evidence would likely just
polarise the discussion and lead nowhere.

~~~
jimmywanger
> The author states that "diversity discussion is utterly broken", and I agree
> he focuses on race...

My point was that the response's studies focus exclusively on gender, not on
race at all, making it not as applicable to the article had he spoken to race
at all in his reponse. Instead, he says "people discriminate against both
gender and race" and only backs up the "discriminate against gender" argument.

~~~
richmarr
> Instead, he says "people discriminate against both gender and race" and only
> backs up the "discriminate against gender" argument.

First you (incorrectly) complain that the article is only about racial
diversity. Now you're complaining because I haven't provided evidence to back
up every part of my original comment.

I'll say again; I'm happy to get into racial diversity, but until we can
clarify exactly why you want to dismiss the evidence I've shared on gender
diversity I don't think it would be a productive use of my time.

Engage in a conversation. Share an opinion. If you just want to sit back and
snipe, saying "you didn't back up that bit, show me studies" you can do it
with someone else.

------
ftrflyr
"A society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither
equality nor liberty." We are seeing the effects of society aiming for
equality over liberty.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxCWheH5Vk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxCWheH5Vk)

------
jeffrom
Funny how when programmer's see a bug in some code, it doesn't matter so much
_why_ the code is like that, what matters more is the result of that code
being incorrect. The impact of the code is what matters, not the intent.

Yet, when it comes to diversity in tech, you can show all the data you want,
and we still assume that affluent white men are the ones who are really under
attack, that white men are predisposed to succeed in this field moreso than
other groups, or any number of other theories that are really just
anecdotally-based gut reactions. 2016 isn't that different from the 50s in
that way.

------
jxramos
I wonder how folks respond to the following attitude

"The key word among advocates of multiculturalism became 'diversity'. Sweeping
claims for the benefits of demographic and cultural diversity... have
prevailed without a speck of evidence being asked for or given."
[https://youtu.be/H6ImP-gJvas?t=941](https://youtu.be/H6ImP-gJvas?t=941)

I've recently been exposed to the above sort of thoughts that criticize the
whole notion of diversity. I have to admit I'm still taken aback and caught
off guard by it. Apparently this Sowell guy is all over on YouTube sneering at
the idea of diversity in one way or another. He's a very unusual and startling
figure to listen to, challenging a ton of beliefs and things I've been exposed
to growing up.

------
nickpsecurity
I've written these same things. The real value of diversity is different
approaches to problem solving in various domains like leadership, product
development, performance assessment, technical aptitude, crisis/dispute
management, and more. It was obvious that getting races by themselves wouldn't
solve the problem when most startups and big companies alike were already
filtering candidates to be more like them ("culture fit"). That's killing
diversity at the start.

The alternative is meritocracy. Things like blind auditions or at least
leveraging existing diversity in assessments. There should be extra attention
paid to whether the person has skills that complement the team's or took
unusual but effective approaches to certain problems. I see that kind of stuff
all the time in my line of work although management sees a lot less. It's
because _I 'm looking harder_. I don't care what the race or other traits of
the person was as those who impress me vary considerably. I enjoy seeing the
differences as I learn from them so long as the differences are _mental_.

------
pastProlog
Many of the people on HN are in their twenties, some of us are slightly older.

In 1963, the Ku Klux Klan bombed a black church in Birmingham and killed four
little girls, because the church supported the rights of blacks to vote.
Blacks were still banned from attending University of Alabama in that year,
the governor himself stood in the school's door to block the first student
trying to attend, blocked by federal marshals. In 1964 three civil rights
workers were murdered in Mississippi, with the help of local police. In 1961,
groups riding on integrated buses in the south were attacked in several
places, with the help of police, beaten to a pulp and the buses burned.

Even in the north - in 1965 Martin Luther King went on a march in Chicago
against de facto segregated housing, which was met by what seemed to be a
forming mob, he was hit by a brick and the white and black marchers were met
with projectiles and feared a riot might ensue.

If you look at the Fox News viewer demographics, much of their audience were
in their 20s and 30s when this was all happening. They grew up with it that
way.

This isn't ancient history to some of us, and is American history. You go back
farther and it is jim crow, lynching, and not all too far back, about 30 years
before my grandfather was born, slavery.

Considering this, seeing blacks relegated to Oakland (which is itself being
gentrified) and lacking in the makeup of startups in San Francisco is not
surprising. Things have in some ways gotten better, but black men are still
killed for little or no reason. Look at the case of Amadou Diallo, who was
shot 41 times for opening his door - the police brass have been editing his
entry on Wikipedia with exposed IPs, which has led to a little kerfuffle. So
they're being paid by working taxpayers to rewrite history any how...

------
bryanmgreen
In an off the cuff thought, I'd say issues related to to diversity in this age
generally come from stereotypes or generalizations rather than ignorant or
malicious thinking.

IE: In the work place, a hiring manager might think "This person comes from
that place which doesn't 'usually' produce top talent... On the other hand, I
have this other individual from a place that generally produces top talent."
Don't forget that a hiring manager's job is pretty much to entirely mitigate
risk - thereby perpetuating, intentionally or otherwise, lack of diversity.

That's no excuse, but I think lack of diversity should be a viewed as a
symptom, not a disease. In the above example, I describe a symptom of a risk-
management mindset - and if companies could find a way to give more trust to
hiring managers, perhaps it would give them the freedom to hire more diverse
candidates.

\---

TL;DR Ask yourself: Do you think Lack of Diversity is a symptom of greater
social/economic issues or is it a disease in that it is
consciously/intentionally perpetrated?

------
forrestthewoods
Diversity is code for "race" and "sex". It's not a very diverse set of axes to
measure.

I won't argue they aren't important axes. They may even be the two single most
important. But either way it's disappointing that they're the only two axes
we're actively measuring and scoring.

------
drewrv
I agree with the author, there is definitely a "type" of diversity that we
don't talk about or even have a name for. I'm gonna call it "cultural
diversity". I think people focus on racial diversity and gender balance
because they are good proxies for cultural diversity, which is otherwise quite
hard to quantify.

For example, if your team's demographics match the demographics of the
Stanford CS department, odds are your failing at "cultural diversity" even if
you hired a black MIT grad. On the other hand if your team's demographics
match the country as a whole, you're probably doing pretty well at cultural
diversity.

------
Mz
_When most people are trying to promote inclusiveness, they do just that: Try
to include or reach out to certain specifically excluded groups. This has all
kinds of inherent problems and does not work well.

In contrast, I do things that are less implicitly exclusionary. I do not try
to target anyone for inclusion. I just do things that do not implicitly
exclude them in the way I frame things._

[http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/07/less-
exclusi...](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/07/less-
exclusive.html)

------
Gigablah
As someone from SE Asia, I find it mind-boggling that just about all of the
comments here lump "Asians" and "whites" into the same category.

~~~
oldmanjay
Welcome to the weird politics of the diversity discussion

------
calvinbhai
I so agree with this article!!

Always had the same feeling about the "diversity" but never understood the
why.

------
FT_intern
It's weird that this article is being downvoted. The comments sections are
usually split 60-40 in the anti-diversity/pro-diversity debates.

However only the pro diversity articles ever get upvoted.

------
vsergiu
I don't like reading articles like this one. I hate discrimination and I am
amazed that in 2016 we still have it. I am creating a website that lists
companies that are hiring Latinos. Post your tech job here
[https://goo.gl/forms/CVIMrhigDXicaSUM2](https://goo.gl/forms/CVIMrhigDXicaSUM2)
if you are excited working with Latinos.

~~~
whitegenocide
Shouldn't companies be hiring anyone who is qualified, latino or not?

~~~
fataliss
In a perfect unbiased world, sure. Reality is quite a bit different sadly.

