
Diversity and Startups - dmnd
http://blog.ycombinator.com/diversity-and-startups
======
staunch
What about class?

Ivy League Parents -> Private School -> SAT tutoring -> Ivy League College ->
Investment by Ivy League VC -> Acquired by Ivy League Tech Company

vs

Poor parents -> Shitty Public School -> High School Drop Out -> Programmer at
Ivy League Tech Company (maybe)

There's a reason most of the big tech companies are from Ivy League graduates.

And you can't ignore how many successful startups only happened because
parental financial support. Someone working paycheck to paycheck to pay for
college isn't going to have a reading week to hack with. Or can't borrow $40k
from their parents. Or live at home for free.

The game is ultimately fair - even a dog could get funded with traction. But
there really is a class system in the U.S. and it is probably the biggest bias
in the system.

~~~
argonaut
Minor nit, which is that all the top CS (and engineering, for that matter)
schools are not Ivy League schools: MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, CMU. And I've
never heard of top tech companies being referred to as Ivy League tech
companies. But your point is still valid when you talk about "top schools."

~~~
famousactress
Ah, the irony of making sure we're careful to make subtle distinctions about
the top fraction of a percent of the population... in response to a comment
about massive class imbalance.

~~~
argonaut
Your words, not mine.

My actual intention was to get the OP to move away from an emphasis on the
"Ivy League" brand, which I think people need to stop putting up on a
pedestal.

~~~
famousactress
I understand, and I don't mean to be argumentative or even trite but my
intention was to express disinterest in what words we use to describe elite
schools that close-enough-to-no-one can go to.

------
Castlereagh
_People who are not white males..._

I know it's hard to believe, but relative to their proportion in the workforce
white males are slightly _under_ represented in tech. Additionally, people of
color are dramatically _over_ represented. It's easy to march under the banner
of "men in tech shouldn't act like sexist jerks"—what kind of sexist jerk
could object to that?—but the more accurate slogan "we need many fewer Asian
males in tech" doesn't sound quite so nice. In fact, it sounds rather nasty.
And yet, it's the inevitable implication of increasing diversity.

~~~
thomasfromcdnjs
Just hi-hacking this comment to talk about the same line.

Everybody needs to stop with this "white-male" nonsense, which is inherently
racist. There is much cultural diversity among what is considered "white" and
that is painfully obvious. The "black" American guy and "white" American gal
might have more in common with each other than the "white" Italian working in
the cubicle next door. This also applies to the vast spectrum of "Asians"
whose cultures differ significantly.

And just a personal opinion on something else Sam said

"Realizing that it’s hard to speak with much authority here as a white guy"

Completely unnecessary and I think it would be healthier if people stop this
self persecution. (Using the same logic, maybe I can say this with authority
because I am an indigenous Australian =D)

~~~
king_jester
> Everybody needs to stop with this "white-male" nonsense, which is inherently
> racist. There is much cultural diversity among what is considered "white"
> and that is painfully obvious. The "black" American guy and "white" American
> gal might have more in common with each other than the "white" Italian
> working in the cubicle next door. This also applies to the vast spectrum of
> "Asians" whose cultures differ significantly.

Talking about white people or even generalizing about white people is not
racist. There is no institutional and systemic power backing discrimination
against white people based on their skin color. On the basis of being white,
you do not suffer increased chances of incarceration, lack of access to
education, worse job opportunities, and so on.

White identity is not the same as Asian identity and the issues facing Asian
people do relate to racism. It is a false equivalence to compare whiteness to
being Asian.

> Completely unnecessary and I think it would be healthier if people stop this
> self persecution. (Using the same logic, maybe I can say this with authority
> because I am an indigenous Australian =D)

There is nothing wrong with a little self awareness of being a member of the
dominant social group in tech.

~~~
thomasfromcdnjs
I was just adding a point that is left out of these discussions more often
than not. The point is that "white" people aren't unified because of their
skin pigment. Europe is a major example and of course the never ending
protestant and catholic wars around the globe.

> Talking about white people or even generalizing about white people is not
> racist. There is no institutional and systemic power backing discrimination
> against white people based on their skin color.

Unfortunately generalizing about white people is racist. And saying that it
isn't, is a "systemic power backing discrimination" based on their skin color.

> On the basis of being white, you do not suffer increased chances of
> incarceration, lack of access to education, worse job opportunities, and so
> on.

This supports my original post, I think we should move away from skin pigment
based judgements. Also I don't have any references at hand but I recall these
statistics being heavily influenced by your socio-economic status. You could
replace "white" with "middle to upper class".

> White identity is not the same as Asian identity and the issues facing Asian
> people do relate to racism. It is a false equivalence to compare whiteness
> to being Asian

I'm not sure what you meant by this point. But what I meant is that Italian's,
Greek's, Irish, American' and Australian's don't fit neatly under the "white"
banner and nor do Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian's and Korean's fit
neatly under the "asian" banner.

> There is nothing wrong with a little self awareness of being a member of the
> dominant social group in tech.

"white" is not the master social group of tech nor do people walk around
consciously identifying with the "white" group. The Tabs vs Spaces debate does
not give a shit if your black or white, extend this to TDD debates, functional
vs OOP etc.

Yes, I know racism exist.

~~~
king_jester
I want to start by prefacing I'm from the US, so my knowledge is mostly based
what racism is like in the US.

> I was just adding a point that is left out of these discussions more often
> than not. The point is that "white" people aren't unified because of their
> skin pigment. Europe is a major example and of course the never ending
> protestant and catholic wars around the globe.

The point here isn't that there are different kinds of people who are white,
but rather there is a continuum of treatment, both from individuals and
institutions, that white people share. In the US it doesn't matter if I'm from
one part of the country or another, having white skin still benefits me in all
the ways it would anywhere else. This esp. applies to institutional and
systemic things: rates of incarceration, job opportunity, access to education,
rates of poverty, etc. are all correlated in my favor. Not only that, but
compared to other groups of people I am far less likely to be affected
directly by violence based on skin color.

> Unfortunately generalizing about white people is racist. And saying that it
> isn't, is a "systemic power backing discrimination" based on their skin
> color.

You'll have to explain a little more, why would a single person's opinion
create systemic and institutional difficulties for white people when they
currently don't experience that?

Generalizing is not necessarily racist. There is a difference between
stereotypes and something like talking about shared experience as a member of
a group.

> This supports my original post, I think we should move away from skin
> pigment based judgements.

People of different races have problems that affect them uniquely compared to
races, to not talk about that is to ignore the effect of existing racism on
those people. That is not a judgement, that is fact. We have evidence, first
hand and statistical, that shows this is true and we should not discard that.

> Also I don't have any references at hand but I recall these statistics being
> heavily influenced by your socio-economic status. You could replace "white"
> with "middle to upper class".

Race and socio-economic status are heavily correlated and racism and class are
indeed related. However, racism confers benefits and damage that goes beyond
class boundaries. Being of a high class may not, for example, protect you from
racism at the hands of the police. Being of a low class, for example, doesn't
mean you still don't have some kind of privilege or benefit. Moreover, there
are many cases in which being white and low class still confers benefits over
being not white.

> But what I meant is that Italian's, Greek's, Irish, American' and
> Australian's don't fit neatly under the "white" banner and nor do
> Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian's and Korean's fit neatly under the
> "asian" banner.

Obviously each of these cultures and ethnicities are different. However, that
doesn't mean that there aren't shared experiences for both white and asian
people and racism plays into that: white people experience less discrimination
than asian people as a whole, regardless of ethnicity within those categories.
Indeed, for asian people ethnicity erasure and representation is a big deal as
their ethnicity is often erased via stereotyping.

> "white" is not the master social group of tech nor do people walk around
> consciously identifying with the "white" group.

White people are absolutely the dominant race in tech in the US today. Also,
people do both consciously and subconsciously identify with and look for white
culture signifier in others. Indeed, one of the biggest deals about interviews
and hiring in tech today in the US is about culture fit being used as an
excuse to look for traits that are most commonly associated with white middle
class men. Model View Culture had a whole issue related to mythology in US
tech that I highly recommend for more about this. [1]

[1]
[http://modelviewculture.com/issues/mythology](http://modelviewculture.com/issues/mythology)

------
jfc
On some level, the tech world isn't living up to its own principles, as it
relates to diversity and inclusion (D&I). Many seem to view D&I as being
somewhat external to the tech space--it's an issue that other industries have
been discussing and is becoming more prominent in tech.

I would posit that the underlying principles of the tech world share a number
of core values with D&I.

Think about the open source software movement (OSS). One crucial perspective
that the OSS shares with D&I is that _both view discrimination as an
impediment to progress_. OSS licenses include several non-discrimination
clauses (economic, field of endeavor, other restrictions). The licenses go to
great lengths to ensure the technology is available to _everyone_.

When you think about the "Cathedral and Bazaar" models of software
development, which one is naturally more diverse? The hierarchical, exclusive
cathedral, with its rigid structure, serious gatekeepers, and highly-
credentialed leadership? Or is it the open air bazaar, with all kinds of
people talking (softly or loudly) in a place known for public discourse. A
place where anyone can walk by and join in and become part of what's going on?

 _My point is that the underlying precepts of D &I are similar to principles
that already exist in the tech world_.

So this isn't really about embracing D&I. Instead, the tech community needs to
start living up to its own rhetoric--it's own values. This isn't about
adopting an external issue, it's about a community fully aligning with its own
values.

~~~
king_jester
> Think about the open source software movement (OSS). One crucial perspective
> that the OSS shares with D&I is that both view discrimination as an
> impediment to progress. OSS licenses include several non-discrimination
> clauses (economic, field of endeavor, other restrictions). The licenses go
> to great lengths to ensure the technology is available to everyone.

While licenses may have clauses that deal with some kinds of discrimination,
OSS communities are not inclusive and may actually be outright hostile to
groups of people. The last Model View Culture had an article about this [1].
Suffice it to say that there is no common community behavior that appears in
all OSS groups and what is exceptable in one group vs. another varies quite a
bit.

> Or is it the open air bazaar, with all kinds of people talking (softly or
> loudly) in a place known for public discourse. A place where anyone can walk
> by and join in and become part of what's going on?

Well this come back to the very common myth of meritocracy in tech, that tech
only looks at merit and thus avoids discrimination, personal and
institutional. However, meritocracy in tech often simply functions as a way
for people to avoid talking about bias or pretending like bias doesn't exist.
Moreover, what it means to look for merit is often defined as those statuses
and symbols that are comfortable to the dominant group of people in tech,
white men of middle or higher class backgrounds.

> So this isn't really about embracing D&I. Instead, the tech community needs
> to start living up to its own rhetoric--it's own values. This isn't about
> adopting an external issue, it's about a community fully aligning with its
> own values.

Again, there is no consensus on values and often people actively advocate that
there should be little criticism or reflection on what people and groups in
tech value. Without that kind of introspection and discussion, little will
change.

[1] [http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/leaving-toxic-open-
source...](http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/leaving-toxic-open-source-
communities)

~~~
spindritf
_OSS communities are not inclusive_

Community or inclusion aspect is a red herring imho. I use opensource software
all day every day and barely ever even communicate with its authors.

I'm willing to bet that majority of open source code is just some dude banging
it out in his free time with maybe an occasional question or a patch if he's
really lucky. No community at all, just a repo, a package, and a few stars on
GitHub.

------
gizmo
This was a well written post and I think it shows that sama gets it. A little
bit of slope makes up for a lot of y-intercept, as a post argued a few days
ago. This is also the case here. If we all push for a more equitable Silicon
Valley then we can make loads of progress in a short time. The rate of
progress is more important than how much behind we are.

Many of us here are idealists. We don't want to work on any product, we want
to make a _great_ product. We want to do the right things. We want to use best
practices and we want to hold ourselves and others to high moral standards. To
make Silicon Valley a place of equal opportunity (regardless of gender, race,
sexual orientation, etc) we have to fight prejudices where they exist and we
have to hold each other to this high standard too.

This may come at a cost in the short term. Hiring your college buddies is
easy. Building a qualified diversified team is hard. But making this extra
effort is worth it. It's worth it because there is an unbelievable amount of
talent out there that is excluded from SV as it exists today. It's unjust and
a tremendous waste of human capital.

------
argonaut
One objection I have is with hackathons. From my observations most hackathons
aren't particularly inclusive environments - they may do more harm than good.

Examples include the intense focus on competition and prizes (I didn't think
it was a good idea for YC Hacks to _explicitly_ advertise the prize of getting
an interview), the fact that many hackathons now have applications processes
where more applicants are rejected than accepted (so that the net effect is
more exclusion than inclusion), and the general vibe of having to power
through the night with redbull while cranking out code.

Most hackathons I've attended I've usually gotten this exclusive, rather than
inclusive vibe. From my own experiences, the most exclusive hackathons have
been the larger, more monied, more applied-to ones that have more applicants
than attendees. The most inclusive hackathons have been smaller, intimate
hackathons where the problem has been not having enough attendees!

EDIT (reply to below): I'm referring to the general feeling of inclusion vs.
exclusion (of newcomers, people not sure if they fit the mold of
<quote>hardcore<unquote> coders, etc.). The next step is to argue that
exclusion discourages minorities from pursuing the field.

~~~
tptacek
Why is competition a diversity problem? To me, the idea that aggressive
competition selects for a specific age, gender, or ethnicity is itself
problematic. Not to mention that I think that's not true.

~~~
benmathes
Broadly speaking, competition definitely creates sex-based selection-bias. Men
self-select into competitions more than women, and are more motivated by them.

[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-
wise/201210/when-c...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-
wise/201210/when-competition-helps-and-hurts-motivation)

[https://www3.nd.edu/~wevans1/fresh_honor_seminar/vesterland....](https://www3.nd.edu/~wevans1/fresh_honor_seminar/vesterland.pdf)

I am not saying men are more capable, just more likely to self-select into the
competition. Read up on what professional coaches of womens vs mens teams say.

~~~
tptacek
We work in a deeply, irretrievably competitive industry. The ability to thrive
in a competitive environment is a requirement at many, perhaps most, startups.
Women perform in the industry just fine, but are victimized by the perception
that their gender prevents them from being competitive.

~~~
shawndrost
Your question was, "Why is competition a diversity problem?" The answer is
"science indicates that competition motivates genders differently". The fact
that our industry is deeply, irretrievably competitive is (imho) part of why
it's deeply, irretrievably gender-skewed.

(Caveats: you're right that women perform in the industry just fine. Also,
many women are motivated and successful in competitive environments, and those
women are negatively affected by perception that their gender prevents them
from being competitive.)

~~~
tptacek
No. The industry must be competitive. Companies compete in the market. People
must stop promoting the fiction that women are poor competitors. That's a
stereotype that just happens to be awfully convenient for male entrepreneurs.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Considering the trail of idiocy and failure in tech, especially at C-Suite
level, 'The industry must be competitive' is perhaps not a statement that
overlaps with reality.

Competition is not a fetish. It's not a de facto solution that showers the
world with good things. Quite often it makes people do unintelligent things
for silly reasons.

It's actually a mythology. And it's perfectly fine to criticise blind
adherence to it.

As for women in tech - I'm always fascinated that the pressure is one way. Why
don't the fashion or beauty industries - which are hardly small or financially
irrelevant - complain that so few men work in them?

I suppose there's a presumption that tech is very serious and important, and
fashion and beauty are trivial, silly, and vapid.

Problem is, tech is often trivial, silly, and vapid too - as is a lot of
business culture. How many products have been released that fundamentally fail
to work? How many projects have veered off in surreal directions because
innovation[tm]? How many episodes of Dilbert have there been now?

Perhaps it's the perception of seriousness and importance that's the real
problem.

As a side note, fashion contributes around £26bn to UK GDP. It's very
difficult to get hard facts how software compares, because the definition can
include anyone selling anything from a website. But web _design_ and app
development on their own are much, much smaller.

~~~
lilsunnybee
Plenty of men work in the fashion and beauty industries. Where is your
perception coming from that these fields have low male participation?

------
_pius
Glad the issue's being addressed, but sad that it dodges race almost
completely.

Making diversity all about gender is effectively playing the topic on "easy
mode." Kinda lame, honestly.

~~~
sama
it's really hard to address everything in one post, and i think the issues
around gender and race in tech are pretty different. (we did include a stat on
international founders, many of which are not white.)

i don't think we're playing this on "easy mode", but i'm sorry you feel that
way.

~~~
NaitJones
Let me first say, as someone with two children, both girls, I really
appreciate the efforts that are going into making CS careers an accessible
option for them, and that includes your post and the sentiment behind it.
Kudos to you! What continues to irk me is the almost a disregard for black
males when discussing diversity. There isn't a single group less represented
in CS than AA males and there isn't a single group that has been more
disparately affected by the recession.

I believe that gender and sexual identification is a pretty easy thing to
agree on when discussing diversity, because only a cave man would oppose a
more welcoming environment, and balanced representation of women and LGBT.

What irks me, is that I know only a hand full of AA males working on silicon
valley and they are all friends of mine, and yet they are addressed indirectly
in diversity reports as (non whites) as a way of covering up the abysmal rates
of black males represented.

My cynical side says that some of this is the result of a culture that
currently does not take black males specifically seriously, due to the
representation of them in popular culture, but my more rational side tells me
that we as black males bear alot of the responsibility ourselves for
understanding where the world is going, and to prepare our careers for
tomorrows jobs (technology) and to help advance those that need mentoring to
get into CS career paths both technical and non technical. Even so, and taking
self responsibility, black males will need to be addressed specifically by the
same organizations that are addressing diversity and there needs to be a more
forthright and brutally honest admission of what is happening. Black men are
being left out of another generation of wealth creation and we need to stem
(excuse the pun) the tide of that now.

Again, I appreciate the dialog, and I do appreciate the efforts to open up
silicon valley to all.

Just my humble take (engage in rotten tomato throwing now)

~~~
lliwta
I'm so glad to see this post! You hit the nail on the head.

> Black men are being left out of another generation of wealth creation and we
> need to stem (excuse the pun) the tide of that now.

What's your suggestion, other than the normal stuff (engaging with students in
HS etc)?

~~~
NaitJones
It can start by not brushing it under the rug. By using "diversity" as a catch
all for feel goodiness, is a little bit self serving and even selfish in the
grand scheme of things. If we are going to do the work then do it, don't do a
bunch of marketing. If we want to look at CS and look at the harshest affected
group it specifically black males (which no one is doing in all of these
reports they are releasing) - it irks me because it seems that the world has
moved on from black males needing help and it is more en vogue in 2014 to
focus efforts on women and LGBT entirely and exclusively. A more well rounded
approach is needed and that can't begin until we are comfortable with
admitting that the job isn't done in regards to young black males, and yet the
sentiment seems to be "we've done enough for that underrepresented group"

Solutions? tech companies and incubators need to be targeting young black
males for immersion and mentoring programs as early as 5th grade. The myth
that silicon valley is closed to non CS types needs to be exposed for exactly
that, a myth, so that we can start to recruit talented non SC students into
silicon valley in areas of marketing, sales, general management and finance.
Areas where they are currently.

waiting ten years until the CS rates increase is not an option, because the
ship will have already sailed by then on this generation of wealth being
created

the whole debate around diversity in silicon valley right now is pretty much
marketing and seems pretty cynical and disingenuous from my POV

~~~
kclay
>tech companies and incubators need to be targeting young black males for
immersion and mentoring programs as early as 5th grade

This right here, If it wasn't for my uncle getting me into computers I don't I
would ever had thought to see a career in computers let alone development. If
we want to be frank I know when I was growing up (only 28), playing around
with computers as a black child was something that "blacks didn't do". It was
hard to find any blacks computer teachers, mentors or owners that you could
access easily in the tech area and the stigma of being a "nerd" was something
the culture was about to accept. Of course my parents made sure if it was
something I wanted to do that they would make sure I had the best education I
could to make it happen.

What we lack in the community is for children to see other blacks in a
position and think "Hey I can do that". This was something that we didn't have
much back then. I still only know a handful of black developers and it may be
wrong to say it but sometime when going to conventions and what not I know I
sorta feel like a unicorn, after a while you just go with it but its still in
the back of your mind.

------
minimaxir
> _Specifically, we’d like the community to help by downvoting comments that
> make HN an unwelcoming place to anyone._

That's only a solution for half of the problem on Hacker News. The other half
is that most submissions about gender/diversity get flagged to death very
consistently, which make it difficult to have _any_ meaningful discussion
about these topics.

~~~
Permit
We have no way to tell if they're being flagged by users or setting off the
automated system for detecting flamewars.

One of the problems with the topic is that essentially every Hacker News
reader feels as though they're qualified to comment on the topic. This
translates into massive nested threads that blow up with people arguing the
same points.

I'm not convinced that discussion of these issues on Hacker News does anything
to push the ball forward. I have yet to meet the person who changed their
position on the subject due to an internet argument.

~~~
minimaxir
About a year ago, a friend wrote a good post about diversity in hackathons
which was submitted to HN and hit #2 quickly, then dropped down to the second
page in an instant:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6495950](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6495950)

Not many people commented on it. I believe the flame-war detector only takes
significant effect when # comments > # points, which is a pretty good
heuristic for a flame war that has gone out of control.

~~~
dang
For what it's worth at this late date, that post set off the voting ring
detector. No users flagged it and no moderator moderated it.

~~~
nbm
Any chance of getting some transparency of what automated or manual processes
have affected a particular story (ie, on the story comment page itself),
possibly delayed by some period to prevent bad actors from realising their
voting rings or whatever were discovered?

------
clairity
as a half-asian female founder with a diverse team (mexican, german), this is
a intimate issue for me. i'm really glad to see the topic being discussed, but
it really is the first small step.

sexism & racism isn't something that people do consciously. that's why there's
such a backlash against it because most of us can honestly say that we're not
consciously sexist or racist.

these prejudices are systemic biases that flow through _all_ of us. it takes
hard introspection and compensatory mechanisms from each person to address the
structural underpinnings that create the biases. it's _really_ hard. as sama
notes, the discussion needs to move towards these underlying mechanisms,
rather than getting mired in the stale discussion of whether prejudices exist
or not (they do).

------
wudf
Let me get this straight: YCombinator is pledging to snub investors who
conduct sexist and racist abuses toward founders? I know we'll face adversity,
and I want our team to be able to stand up for our beliefs without getting
fucked by the tight-night nature of the community.

------
tuxidomasx
As mentioned in some other comments, the post focuses more on gender than
ethnicity. As a 31 year old African American male in tech, some of the
challenges for black males and females that I've witnessed range from cultural
mismatches to being under-valued and therefore underutilized. There's also a
lot of stress and pressure associated with often being the only black person
in the room throughout most of your STEM education and career. For startups
specifically, I've often heard of "pattern matching" as a manifestation of
bias for white and asian males. If we're looking for a cause of the lack of
ethnic diversity, we can't ignore the socially uninviting nature of the
environment.

Many of the solutions that have helped counter these challenges for me and a
lot of my peers have been programs, organizations, and networks that focus on
creating a culturally targeted atmosphere. Professional organizations like the
National Society of Black Engineers really go a long way in encouraging
minorities to pursue careers in technology. And within the startup community,
I think programs like the NewMe accelerator meet a very specific and important
need. Instead of just corralling minorities into tech companies or startups
where they will still be underrepresented, there is a benefit in encouraging
them to create their own companies where they can foster a cultural climate
that naturally appeals to their ethnic peers.

------
kika
Let's say I have a magic wand which will make all -isms go away in one waving.
I waved, -isms went away and now what? Where do I hire skilled black female
CoffeeScript developers? How many of them do actually exist? I'm
insider/outsider - I live in the US now, in Bay Area, but I went to school in
the country which doesn't even exist anymore, while my daughter goes to the
one of the best middle schools around here. And I see her genuine interest in
math, she's among a group of 'popular' girls in the school, where the
popularity is judged not (only) by the looks or clothes, but to what "Math
Honor", "Advanced Geometry", etc class the student was admitted to. So it's
not just her, there's a solid group of (mostly white though) girls interested
in math and other similar topics. Where these girls disappear later? I
understand that I'll learn this in a hard way later, but if there're valid
theories out there, may be I'd be able to prevent her from losing interest in
math, special video effects, photography, optics, etc.

Something tells me it's not just our (white tech male population) sexism, it's
a problem rooted deeper.

~~~
shanacarp
I was that girl. You were my mother in a lot of ways (my mom is a programmer)
the problem becomes more endemic in high school and then college where you
have to start becoming a woman.

Programming in a startup is not a great choice for peak fertility (where I am
at...thankfully I consciously only want one kid, so I have time to delay)

~~~
kika
I'm dad, not mom (though mom shares my concern) :-)

You're saying "start becoming a woman" as it contradicts being an "IT person",
whatever that means, programmer, sysadmin, etc. Why? I want my daughter to
become a woman (as much as my wife is a woman, and oh boy, she is. While being
a an executive director of a science foundation). But I also want her to
become whoever she wants to become professionally, programmer, designer,
digital artist, VFX guru, whatever.

I can understand fertility and startup, but statistically, majority of "IT
people" work for established companies, not startups. Enjoying all these
extended maternity leaves, good health benefits plans, etc.

------
yumraj
What about ageism?

~~~
whybroke
Well, comments raising the issue are almost universally down-voted without
comment.

I imagine that tells us quite a bit.

~~~
tptacek
It does not tell us that all the downvoters believe ageism not to be an issue.

~~~
whybroke
It means the conversation is not welcome here. Which, given the prevalence of
discussion on similar issues, does indeed tell us a lot.

~~~
tptacek
That depends on what you mean by "here". This thread? Yes.

------
lacus
YC is starting to take a lot of the right steps. I know for me personally, as
a female founder, my attitude has changed a lot in the past 6-8 months (from
"I guess I'll keep reading HN & essays because I don't want to miss out on
interesting content... but I don't feel good about it, and I'd definitely
never apply" \-- to now being able to be an unequivocal fan, attending Startup
School, etc.).

Honestly, any effort at all is appreciated, although some efforts count for
more than others. For instance, the Female Founders conference is fine, but I
(and I think a lot of people) probably assign more credibility to efforts that
really demonstrate a depth of thought on the issue. Here's a tiny example of
what I mean, just from this essay, in fact: I always see VCs and journalists
citing to the percent of portfolio companies that have a female founder, and
every time I see this, it makes me think they're not really serious about
analyzing the dimensions and complexity of the issue ("Out of how many
founders TOTAL, not how many companies??"), so the fact that SA at least
pointed this out puts this piece above not only other investor posts but also
posts by tech journalists -- people whose very job it is to, you know, point
this stuff out. That's a tiny example, but to me it counts for a lot more than
just boilerplate "we support women blah blah blah." [ _1_ ]

The same principle probably applies for what kinds of events/projects you
sponsor. "Women in tech" conferences are great and all, but the more
innovative (and tangibly helpful) the initiative is, the better. I'm not sure
what your suggestion/feedback mechanism for this is besides HN and talking to
your own portfolio, but it may be worth setting up another channel to get
ideas from current non-YC technical women/female founders (maybe anonymously,
or at least in a more conducive forum than the HN comment section).

Anyway, just my thoughts. I second the other comments about the importance of
race/class diversity, too, but I don't have as much to add on that. (Not that
race needed to be tackled in this particular post but the title maybe
shouldn't have used the term "diversity" if it's mainly going to be about
gender.)

[ _1_ ] It also affords YC/SA a bit more benefit of the doubt when the post
also asserts some, uh, less-well-thought-through things, e.g., that other
industries are doing worse than tech on gender issues. (Like who? Who's doing
worse, specifically? I literally can't think of a single industry in 2014
America that's doing worse than the startup/tech community [both statistically
and anecdotally, as well as based on my own personal experience]. Not even
investment banking -- and certainly not medicine, law, academia, or
traditional business. It's not helpful to sugarcoat it.)

~~~
potatolicious
> _" e.g., that other industries are doing worse than tech on gender issues.
> (Like who? Who's doing worse, specifically?"_

Probably no one, or at least no industry of comparable size.

But knowing HN, if Sam made an absolute statement like "we are the worst in
diversity", the HN crew will spend the _entire_ ensuing commentary self-
importantly arguing whether or not we are _literally the worst_.

That's a conversation best avoided, as it is entirely irrelevant to the point
being made, but this community is fucking pedantic like that when their egos
are being challenged.

~~~
sanderjd
I think any reasonably sized group of people can reasonably be expected to
defend themselves when accused of being _literally the worst_ in some way that
matters if they don't think they are, regardless of their level of pedantry.
In general, if you're trying to make some other major point in an article,
it's best to equivocate on things that you think would be inflammatory and
irrelevant.

------
whybroke
Its fantastic the gender issue is being looked at. And it's nice that non-US
citizens are funded.

But what percentage of the founders were pg's age or older?

~~~
alexanderss
What percentage of applicants are his age or older? Probably very, very small
for obvious reasons. Most founders PG's age and older have more financial
resources (and network, etc) making YC's terms less appealing than for younger
founders without any experience. In terms of diversity, age doesn't quite fit
in here.

~~~
whybroke
19% female applicants were accepted, and 24% applicants were female.

39% accepted applicants were from outside the US.

0% of founders were anywhere near pg's age. Are all Entrepreneurs under 40?
Not remotely.

But more astounding: You would never get tech industry leaders saying "men are
just smarter" or "whites are just smarter" yet Zuckerberg makes exactly that
statement for agism.

And he made that statement at a Y Combinator Startup event.

So re your "obvious reasons", it is not that every one over 40 is rich, it is
that few intelligent people over say 40 would be fool enough to go near those
organizations given that very public attitude.

~~~
tptacek
Pretty sure "0% of founders were anywhere near pg's age" is false.

~~~
whybroke
Is that really your only observation about the utterly extreme public
positions I mentioned above?

Very well. Name one.

~~~
tptacek
Search the archives and you'll find Paul Graham talking about the age
distributions, and contradicting you.

------
brianbreslin
Would expanding the geographic sourcing of startups help with diversity?
Cities like Miami, which is 75% hispanic, our startups are as diverse as our
city. However I only recall a couple ever getting into YC (note, I have no
idea of the merits of any others who applied).

So could sourcing from more diverse cities help YC ?

------
incision
I appreciate that this post takes the time to acknowledge a few specific
problems along with suggestions for actions.

I haven't seen much of the former in diversity releases - just 'diversity' on
its own as if the word alone represents both every possible problem and
validates the proposed solutions.

It's hard to put into few words, but as I think of it, diversity is neutral -
it's just a measure and the goal shouldn't be dragging it one way or another
just reducing friction.

EDIT: To be clear, when I refer to friction I mean any barriers beyond
individual control which prevent people, whoever, wherever from entering
and/or excelling in the field.

------
alexyes
Things will get better in the future, as CS education is becoming accessible
to more people.

------
thrownaway999
Could someone convince me why I should care about the gonads and skin color of
the people writing code for me? Does anybody really think YC's performance
would be better if their founder classes looked like a diversity picture from
a college recruiting brochure?

~~~
designNERD
You don't understand the importance of having different perspectives
represented when you are making products and services for everyone?

Seems pretty simple to me.

~~~
crassus2
Could you point out for me where Sam talks about diversity of perspectives?
All I see him talking about is what the OP mentions - gonads and skin color.

~~~
araneae
Gonads and skin color are correlated with a diversity of perspectives. All you
have to do is look at the perspectives r/TwoX versus r/all, for instance, or
Twitter vs. HN.

For instance, just see the period panties thread. Men don't have the
perspective necessary to even comprehend the idea of period panties, let alone
build one.

Not everything in tech is that obvious, of course. But it's worth thinking
about non-obvious ways in which it might.

------
a2kadet
Any fans of the Office?

[http://youtu.be/FTOgm_EMgVI?t=12m8s](http://youtu.be/FTOgm_EMgVI?t=12m8s)

These statements always seem really empty to me.

------
yypark
First off, I applaud YC's efforts in this sphere to give all groups more
opportunity to participate in startups and tech in general. I do not mean to
disparage efforts or "derail" a conversation, but to bring up the fundamental
question once the low-hanging fruit - discrimination, etc. is gone - self-
selection and equality of result as a goal.

Any diversity discussion will eventually reach the awkward points of over-
represented minorities and self-selection, which negatively impact numerical
diversity: There are some elements of the industry that will inherently self-
select for groups. Asian males are currently the most over-represented group -
racially due to US immigration policy and cultural factors encouraging many
recent immigrants to go into technical fields and not humanities.

Men tend to self-select into higher risk and highly competitive environments -
e.g. startups, hackathons [1] but also ones with negative outcomes - crime,
gambling addiction - see the 9-to-1 ratio of incarcerated men to women.
(Denying the evidence for risk-taking and self-selection is to me, similar to
denying evidence that sexism exists -- on the face of not wanting to confront
it).

At what point do these become issues to address? It seems like the desired
result is not the strawman, Harrison Bergeron, 100% representative (of what?
the US? the world?) demographic, so what is the desired outcome? I'm for
eliminating discrimination and bias, but I don't think this will leave us with
a 50-50 perfectly balanced startup scene, but it's the most fair. You would
either have to change humans' own free-will preferences for risk, or the
nature of the industry (with other side effects). If you have ideas on this,
I'm open to hearing them.

This is a legitimate question - shutting down discussion here in the name of
being "against progress" or trivializing the issue is highly reminiscent of
Paul Graham's warnings in "What You Can't Say [2]. The demographic balance of
any industry or field is always in constant flux, and heavily influenced by
self-selection and non-discriminatory factors. We need to remove
discrimination, but also know that a fair outcome in the absence of
discrimination - with equal opportunity does not necessarily lead to perfectly
equal outcomes.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8087536](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8087536)

"Broadly speaking, competition definitely creates sex-based selection-bias.
Men self-select into competitions more than women, and are more motivated by
them.

[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-
wise/201210/when-c...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-
wise/201210/when-competition-helps-and-hurts-motivation)

[https://www3.nd.edu/~wevans1/fresh_honor_seminar/vesterland....](https://www3.nd.edu/~wevans1/fresh_honor_seminar/vesterland.pdf)
"

[2] [http://paulgraham.com/say.html](http://paulgraham.com/say.html)

------
dothething
The only age you see in any of these is percentage.

Diversity shouldn't be a whatever convenient cause you want to look
progressive on.

------
spacehome
> Sexism in tech is real.

Honest question: Is there any unambiguous evidence of this?

------
onmydesk
I started watching 'Portlandia' for the first time a couple of weeks ago. Its
basically the HN readership. Funny stuff.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IfOKeZ-
MWI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IfOKeZ-MWI)

------
ctide
Will all the misogynist trolls still come out to play on this one given that
it's a YC post?

------
adamzerner
1) I suspect that the bias against girls is "I don't think she'll be
effective" rather than "I am sexist and don't want girls to succeed".

2) The bias doesn't seem to be _that_ strong to me. This is a simplification,
but I'd guess that girls start with about a 10% handicap. Meaning that in
close cases, girls lose out. But in the cases of girls who clearly have
ability, I don't see the bias against them as something that will prevent them
from being successful.

3) A more important question is "what can we do about it?". I agree with the
idea to showcase successful women. I think it'll help a little. But obviously
it isn't anything close to a solution by itself.

Option 1: If people were less biassed in the general sense, the bias against
girls would be reduced. I think that making people less biased in the general
sense is an important goal, but ultimately unlikely to happen for some time.

Option 2: As there are more and more instances of girls having success, people
will start to view girls as more competent, and the bias will be reduced. I
think the fastest way to reduce the bias against girls is to increase the
amount of successful girls.

The question then becomes, "how do you do that?". This is getting long so I
won't go into this too much... but I think it needs to be active rather than
passive. Don't just sit there and wait for them to come to you asking for
help. Go out there and inspire and persuade them.

~~~
tptacek
The belief that African Americans were literally inferior to European
Americans animated most of 20th century racism, so this observation is
probably less helpful than your otherwise clear writing makes it sound.

"Girls" is probably not the word you want to be using, by the way.

~~~
adamzerner
> The belief that African Americans were literally inferior to European
> Americans animated most of 20th century racism, so this observation is
> probably less helpful than your otherwise clear writing makes it sound.

I'm afraid I may have implied something I didn't mean to imply.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this observation". I didn't mean to imply that
people see girls as "literally inferior". Just that people probably think
they're less likely to be competent.

> "Girls" is probably not the word you want to be using, by the way.

I'm saying girls to be all encompassing. "Women" just includes adults. And
"females" sounds weird, like dehumanizing.

~~~
MartinCron
If you really want to address both women and girls, may I respectfully suggest
trying the phrase "women and girls"?

~~~
adamzerner
That seems too long winded.

I understand your point that "girls" might have a connotation of disrespect.
As if they're young and immature. But I think it's a slight connotation.

Given the context, of me pointing out that girls are being mistreated and that
I think we should treat them better, I think the connotation is negligible. In
other contexts I could see "girls" being disrespectful, but I don't think it
is in this one.

With that said, maybe I'm being too stubborn. I often protest trivial things
like this. For the record, if the case were reversed, I would absolutely be
using the term "boys".

Edit: Also, I think the big thing is that I don't think of people in their
mid-twenties as "adults" (men/women). I'm 21 and I'd refer to a friend of mine
as "a guy I know" or "a girl I know".

~~~
MartinCron
You realize that you don't get to determine what feels disrespectful and
diminutive to other people? That is sort of what it means for them to be other
people.

~~~
adamzerner
If using the term "girl" is genuinely offensive, I'll happily stop. You're
right, it isn't my place to hurt people who I think are misinterpreting a
word.

However, I suspect that most people wouldn't be offended. If I used "women", I
think the implication is "age > twenty something". I think the context makes
it clear that I'm just using "girl" to be all encompassing, and thus, most
people wouldn't be offended.

~~~
MartinCron
_If using the term "girl" is genuinely offensive, I'll happily stop._

There is an overwhelming body of evidence that it is offensive to many women.

------
throwaway420
> We’re encouraging our startups to get HR infrastructure in place earlier.

If there's one thing that a fast and nimble startup DOES NOT NEED, it's HR
drones trying to assert themselves into the startup. This is great news for us
that compete with YC companies because it means that you're going to be
handcuffing yourselves and bogging yourselves down employees who are literally
a negative to the bottom line.

> Specifically, we’d like the community to help by downvoting comments that
> make HN an unwelcoming place to anyone.

In other words, you want to address diversity by stamping out any ideas that
are contrary to the modern politically correct BS that most people here are
dulled into believing.

~~~
melindajb
What you fail to recognize is that YC is funding a disproportionately large
number of founders who have little to no work experience. this leads to
situations where the founders have no idea how to protect their
company(including their investors) from harassment and discrimination
lawsuits, or the attendant PR nightmare that hurts all their fellow
batchmates.

I happen to think this is not enough but at a minimum I've always found it
rather surprising that the money invested in these companies didn't want to
protect it from the stupidity that is inherent in most young people. To be
clear, I mean this as stupidity of youth, ignorance, naivete.

At bare minimum YC needs to require its founders to be trained in some basic
legal 101 stuff since they haven't yet had to learn it on the job in a
corporation.

(and hey, If I'm going to make a wishlist, add some leadership training to
this, too. If you want to make young people into CEOs you need to teach them
how to do it. Building a great product is absolutely NOT synonymous with
building a great company. If experience has no value to them in hiring,
they're learning that somewhere, and it needs to be corrected by the investors
--if not for the morality of responsibility to young people looking to them
for guidance, but to vouchsafe their own investment.)

~~~
designNERD
The young YC companies don't hire anyone not like them so they don't need HR.

------
tomjen3
>Debating how to fix it is important, but debating whether or not sexism
actually exists trivializes the problem in a toxic way

You are walking into an extremely dangerous territory here. If reasonable
people can disagree with you on the points you are not willing to debate (such
as the widespread existence of sexism in tech[1]) or (worse) that you find
morally wrong to debate then those reasonable people will not consider you
reasonable - not only do you then lose any chance of changing their
perspective, you will also create a schism in the community. This is what has
happened in the US over guns, to the point where there is now no hope of
reconciliation.

For example I could counter the few well published incident by pointing out
that the media cherrypick a few stories and them run with them - what you see
in the media is not an unbiased sample. A few stories from a large enough
group does not mean that the group is especially sexist, it just means that it
has a few assholes in it. We don't know whether the asshole procentage is
higher or lower than in the general population and we don't know that if it is
higher, whether there is some third-party variable (such as a general
disregard for rules) common to both tech people and sexist assholes or whether
the causality runs the other way (ie assholes are more likely to be tech guys
because they don't work well with people).

Before we bring out the big guns and tear this community (which I highly
value) apart, can we please have some independent, unbiased, studies - both as
to the extend and effect of sexism and what causes it? Armed with this
knowledge, we will be in a much better position to find out how, if at all, we
should address this issue.

[1]: There is sexism in any sufficiently large group of people, independent of
the field you gather the group from. What is more interesting is how large a
percentage of the group is sexist.

~~~
epistasis
One of the ways that people slow down progress, in startups or in society, is
by resisting unreasonably at every step in a series of steps in an argument.

If you want to debate that, that's fine, just do it somewhere else. It appears
that Y Combinator has accepted the ample evidence of the presence of sexism in
tech, and is focusing discussion away from existence, and towards the next
necessary steps. Rehashing the evidence of the previous step may be an OK
exercise, but it's not the most fruitful step right now.

HN doesn't have to be everything to everybody, it gets to be what it wants to
be.

~~~
tomjen3
>One of the ways that people slow down progress, in startups or in society, is
by resisting unreasonably at every step in a series of steps in an argument.

They key here is _unreasonable_. I do not believe it unreasonable to demand
evidence to the extend and nature of sexism in tech (as I have seen no formal
study on it at all).

Frankly all I am seeing here are the very methods described in What you can't
say being used to silence a debate, because some groups use it to run their
own agenda.

~~~
epistasis
>I do not believe it unreasonable to demand evidence to the extend and nature
of sexism in tech (as I have seen no formal study on it at all).

I'm trying to not be rude here, but my inclination is to tell you to just go
look for such studies or run such a study yourself. Nobody owes you a spoon-
fed version of reality on your terms when they make their own decisions.

What is unreasonable is saying that normal business decision practices are not
adequate to make this particular decision, and instead a formal, "unbiased"
study must be conducted.

The numbers are so extreme that they speak for themselves. Several years of 0%
women founders, and now 10%.

There's a double standard for evidence when it comes to sexism (and other
cultural issues). Maybe it's because some people take it as a personal
affront, as if they're accepting responsibility for the actions of others, and
it switches into "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" mode rather than "what's
the most likely reality here."

Recently there was a string of articles on Language Log about gender
disparities in meetings between men interrupting women and women interrupting
men during discussion. A surprisingly large number of comments consisted of
men denying the evidence. This type of response is endemic wherever science
touches cultural issues. An unbiased scientific study of gender disparity may
be useful as a tool for finding where to make corrective steps, but it will
convince nearly no one. On issues like this, people stick to their cultural
inclinations more than the evidence.

HN has decided to move the conversation forward, and I give them kudos for
that.

~~~
tomjen3
>I'm trying to not be rude here, but my inclination is to tell you to just go
look for such studies or run such a study yourself

I am not the one who is asserting things, they are. Custom demands that the
person asserting something is the one who is to bring evidence.

>HN has decided to move the conversation forward, and I give them kudos for
that.

If we run around on hearsay and feelings, how do we really know what is
forwards? You could end up damaging the very goal you are trying to get to.

