
#FFFFFF Diversity - Amorymeltzer
https://medium.com/this-is-hard/ffffff-diversity-1bd2b3421e8a
======
Kiro
Am I the only one who think it's perfectly logical that the speaker ratio is
the same as the ratio of the tech population? Of course we should try hard to
find minority speakers just to be proactive since we do have a diversty
problem. However, when you go to a conference you want to see the best
speakers and then it's only logical that a minority is less represented since,
you know, there are less good speakers to choose from.

Nordic.js is doing a great job with their "50% women speakers" policy but if
we forcibly try to overrepresent every minority where do we end up? "50% black
trans women speakers"? I wouldn't go to such a conference since the
probability of bad talks would be too high.

~~~
tajen
In other words, women are overrepresented in conferences compared to their
presence on the field, and it's going to be the same with ethnicities. In my
business experience, women are already overrepresented in management positions
compared to developer positions. Who wants to remain a developer anyway?

~~~
provemewrong
> Who wants to remain a developer anyway?

I do.

------
mc32
My take is do what other women are doing. Form your own support group and
organizations. Self interested groups are better equipped to understand the
issues, priorities, etc. which affect a given community.

While big cos. might have programs to address women's issues, that's not
stopping women from forming more effective support groups and organizations.

Let's look at an effective lobbying group, the NRA, how are they so effective?
They are tenacious and they organize nd support each other --so while they do
appeal to greater society and parties, that by itself isn't what's driven
their success. It's the forming of community and having one focused issue.

Also as with other groups, tap names in other industries, entertainment,
sports, politics, etc. those who are interested in advancing your issues. Tap
companies with black founders or ones directly serving the community.

~~~
ralonso
Agreed with this comment. We have the technology where creating an
organization should be fairly trivial. From Facebook to LinkedIn to MeetUp to
Twitter, there are endless places where one could find other similar-minded
folks. Gaining exposure might not be easy, but it shouldn't be difficult
enough to make it impossible. There is endless information and postmortems for
similar organizations that should help figure out the best way to approach
these issues.

I can't remember exactly if it was the GNOME Women Outreach program that was
shut down recently, but I remember there being a lengthy author about the
president of the organization's decision to step down and close the program
(because no one else would step up to the chair, among other problems). The
post went into some detail about where it succeeded and where it failed. Stuff
like that could be very helpful if a new self-interest group decides to form.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> I can't remember exactly if it was the GNOME Women Outreach program that was
> shut down recently, but I remember there being a lengthy author about the
> president of the organization's decision to step down and close the program
> (because no one else would step up to the chair, among other problems).

That was the Ada Initiative; see
[http://blog.valerieaurora.org/2015/08/05/the-ada-
initiative-...](http://blog.valerieaurora.org/2015/08/05/the-ada-initiative-
is-ending-but-our-work-continues-on/) .

Outreachy is alive and well, and has grown to encompass many more projects
beyond GNOME, including the Linux kernel, OpenStack, and others. The Software
Freedom Conservancy runs it now.

------
ralonso
I rarely ever comment, but posts similar to this one have been popping out
more and more as of late. I am a minority. I grew up in a different country,
and most of my close friends are minorities, too, both female and male; half
of them being in the tech industry. (If my username didn't give it away, I'm
hispanic and so are most of my acquaintances.)

With that out of the way, I do not understand anything about this article.
This bolded line, for example:

>Rarely, though, will you ever hear a white person lamenting about working
conditions that their black/brown child/spouse/sibling might have to endure,
because they rarely have those relationships, so aren’t forced to develop
empathy for brown/black people.

What working conditions? Care giving any examples? What are some pointers you
could give to white people to help them understand your deplorable working
conditions? Is it simply that there are no black speakers at conferences, or
holding positions in these tech organizations?

Personal experiences, as well as experiences from my hispanic friends, point
to no such implied "bad working conditions." Some of my friends are brown-
skinned and have noticeable accents. Most still use Spanish as their primary
language, both on and offline. Yet there has been not one single incident
involving either myself or any of my hispanic friends where we suffered any
sort of discrimination, or experienced unwelcoming working conditions.

Maybe the author and I have different goals when we attend such conferences.
Maybe there are more hispanics than blacks or native Americans in tech. Yet I
don't understand why that would matter when attending a conference.

>Yet for the 2015 conference, they could not manage to find one black woman to
be a “headline” speaker. Two white men are included in the set of headline
speakers at a conference celebrating women in technology, but not a single
black woman.

It infuriates me to see this obsession with ethnic or racial background. This
obsession with the color of the speaker's skin. In my eyes, that the keynote
speakers are white males does not invalidate their opinions in any way. There
is no implied message that they speak on behalf of women, or minorities. It's
an invitation. It does not mean that they're not qualified on the subject - if
anything, these "old white men" are the ones running these big companies and
are there not just to speak, but to also listen to the other speakers and the
attendants.

I opened the videos linked in the article and I'll try to skip through them
and I'll report back, hopefully. It just boggles my mind that in this day and
age there is still this obsession with the speaker's racial background. And
there is no solution proposed, either, besides "they should find more people
of color to speak at these events." Isn't that the one of the points of these
conferences? And is there any progress being made, considering that last
year's was the first one Google organized? Did the author gather any
information about this year's? Does the author have any proposals or people
she would like to see at these events?

I go to tech conferences to learn. My political and ethnic background is
never, ever something that makes me biased against or for an event. It is also
never a problem. My slightly noticeable accent, my hispanic facial features,
my shirts with Spanish sentences, they do not have any effect on how people
treat me.

It might all come down to what your goals are when attending any event.

~~~
azima
you're speaking from your experience which is fine and YMMV, but it's useful
to _listen_ to hers about how she feels. Discounting others' experiences
doesn't help. She's talking about _feeling_ excluded from tech as a woman of
color because tech has made a priority to include more women speakers, but has
completely ignored that there are women of color who are ignored. The industry
thinking that they're"solving" diversity by increasing women, but ignoring
women of color are only solving part of the problem. The main point I'm making
is inclusion matters, in the workforce and at conferences. And the benefit of
having people of color speaking is being exposed to experiences and P.O.V.s
from people of color. There are studies that show that people of color or from
various backgrounds are better problem solvers because of adversity they've
had.

Also, using anecdotal evidence from your circle of friends who have had
positive experiences is dismissive of others who haven't.

~~~
ohhimark
You know, I find it strange how I can't remember a single person complaining
about lack of diversity who wasn't complaining only about their specific type
of diversity.

Case in point: the author is, by her own admission, a black woman and
complains about the part of her identity that is not well represented: her
(black) skin.

There's something almost funny in asking people to care for one's situation
when the speaker isn't even speaking at large: why isn't she also complaining
about asian, native american, indian and how many others not being
represented?

~~~
rdancer
Because in America, your opinions are only valid as far as your credentials.
For example, if you have dark skin, your opinions on black Americans are
valid, if you're autistic, your opinions on mentally ill Americans are valid,
if you're a computer, your opinions on American computers are valid, etc. It
may be a flawed system, but it's better than slavery and feudalism, and it
somewhat works to keep people's minds off the real issues, so it's all good.

~~~
azima
Not sure if sarcasm or not, but it's REALLY hard to understand wha ankther
races experiences without listening and people who listen without being
dismissive/judgemental are exceptionally rare.

~~~
sinxoveretothex
[Same poster as ohhimark, had forgotten my password]

Maybe so, but what I mean is that I (and presumably the people she is writing
this for) are not black women. They're not indians, asians and many other
things too of course (which is my point).

As an opinion piece (which I suppose it is), it's something interesting to
think about. Yet, doesn't it say something about everyone of us if even
minorities advocating for equal rights don't see the bigger picture and
advocate for more than their specific situation?

It's a self-defeating argument in a way: the author is arguing that people are
caring mostly for only one type of inequality… by decrying only their specific
situation while making no mention of all the other types.

I guess what I am saying is that I wish the author would have framed her case
as an example tying in to the general case.

When one gets to this point in their reasoning, perhaps they'd realize that we
are resource-constrained and no matter what we do, we'll be "excluding" some
categories.

And yet what I just wrote is too dismissive. I don't know what the best way to
go about all this is, but it sure is very upsetting to be blamed, as part of
the "dominant group", for not doing enough when the very people pointing the
fingers seem to have similar biases towards minority groups they are not part
of.

Then again, perhaps in this case they could have just called the event
"inclusion for women" since that's what it's currently focused on.

------
WhyDoPeople
I wanted to preface this with a "as a minority", but no.

As a human, I feel we are driving wedges where we should be finding common
ground. And the biggest culprits seem to be the ones who have the most to win
if they didn't do so.

If you come from a different background, that's great. It means you may have
different ideas to solve a problem, to create something, to make art, music,
life.

But that should be part of who we are. Our culture.

"I am a person from this country. I grew up playing these instruments, reading
these stories, eating this food" says what you have done in your life, what
you know, but it doesn't dictate what you are, or put a box around you that
can segregate others.

When we put labels on ourselves, or say, "you can't possibly understand where
I've come from" we're saying that others aren't "privileged" enough to have
had their own experiences that allow them to relate; that you're life is more
interesting and important than theirs, as you feel you're at a different
level, or they're too ignorant to understand. The irony is amazing.

I wish this woman didn't speak as if she is a voice for women, or black
people, or "people of color" (another odd phrase, as even my white friends can
be darker than me), because it seems she only speaks for herself.

Women get a celebration, she shits on it. What if Indians got a celebration?
She mentions brown, but talks about being black.

Unless she was born in India, she wouldn't understand life coming from
anywhere in India. How does having "black" skin make her relate to Indians?
What about other brown people. Did she live her childhood in Bolivia?

To end with, I must say I hate this kind of thing. It makes "minorities" look
bad. I don't want to be seen as something that needs help. I want to be seen
as somebody who is exciting, who makes fun things and is intelligent. If you
want to eat delicious food for my home, learn about the culture or history,
then just ask. But that is part of who I am. It's not what I am. What I am is
me.

~~~
azima
You know that brown people went through this years ago as did asians? We had
to fight to be apart of society. Now we have the _privelege_ of being "model
minorities" while others don't.

She talks about being black because she is black and shes talking about her
feelings and perspective. It's ignorant to dismiss that.

Unfortunately for many people of color. They dont have the same opportunities
that a white or asian person would have so you cant understand their
persoective so it's best to listen because there are thousands of examples out
there. The more you listen to them the more youll learn.

And she's shitting on the industry for ignoring races while being inclusive to
white women. It's obviously great that women are getting an opportunity but
it's ignorant to ignore women of color.

Theyre speaking not because they have the most to win. Theyre speaking because
they want to be equal, which they arent in the tech world and outside of it.
they want to go from below equality to at equality, not above it.

Frankly, i'm embarassed when minorities speak from their privilege ignoring
the fact that indians/asians have been through it until white america said "no
no guys, these asians are cool". That hasnt happened with black people yet.

------
confiscate
tldr; Diversity and Equality are not the main starting points nor goal of
Women-in-Tech. Increasing women's role in tech helps improve
diversity/equality, but is not the real mission of Women-in-Tech.
Diversity/Equality is a (side) effect, and not the cause, of the Women-in-Tech
movement.

I think there's a tendency for Women-in-Tech PR to equate Diversity/Equality
with Women-in-Tech, when in fact, Women-in-Tech is supposed to advance, well,
Women in the tech sector, and not Equality/Diversity in general. The 2 are Not
the same thing, although they are often claimed to be basically the same for
PR reasons.

It's getting so severe that even the author is "shocked" that Women-in-Tech
events are less than diverse. She shouldn't be surprised--the fact that she
was surprised, indicates she's bought into the whole "Women-in-Tech's mission
is for workplace Equality" idea, which is false.

To be clear, I think Women-in-Tech is a noble cause, and I am all for
supporting it. But please stop claiming that Women-in-Tech "is for
diversity"\--it is for advancing women's role in tech. To be clear, I think in
and of itself this is great because I'd love to see more women in the tech
industry. But we should stop claiming that the mission of the movement is for
"diversity", because "diversity" is not what drives the women-in-tech
movement, and is not it's main goal. The main goal is to increase women's
role, and not "diversity/equality" in general. If the movement's main goal was
purely "diversity/equality", then it wouldn't be called "Women-in-
Tech"\--there are other misrepresented groups that are much more in urgent
need of equal representation, that the movement would have focused on first if
Diversity and Equality were the main motivators.

I also agree with the author's photo of an all-white panel as being pretty
funny :) It reminds me of the cast of Friends. Saying that the cast of Friends
is "Diverse" or "Equal" would be kind of ridiculous.

------
CamatHN
There are more Indians in tech from me observing on face value than black
people.

Any Indian heritage people here think there needs to be greater representation
of indians in conferences? Thoughts?

~~~
Manishearth
Mostly meh on that. I haven't heard of major discrimination against Indians in
hiring practices (modulo visa, of course, I'm talking about Indian origin
people with citizenship or equivalent). There's always casual racism
(insensitive jokes, etc), but those are small potatoes compared to systemic
issues which almost every woman/PoC in tech is aware of and has had tussles
with personally.

I've also seen tons of Indians giving talks at confs.

I think the word "model minority" applies here.

YMMV though. There might be lots of discrimination going on that my circle of
acquaintances hasn't come across.

(Indian origin, born & spent most of my life in the States, currently living
in India)

------
tempodox
Cripes, that this has to be a thing at all. It's bad enough that my skin color
and sex might have had influence on my educational opportunities, but beyond
that they have nothing to do with how good or bad I might be at my job.

Take any and all measures to remove the influence of bias from your hiring
process (e.g., pass résumés without photos or names to decision makers).
That's something we all can do right now.

------
swallowinsights
Who is this author? This Erica Joy? Is she real? While the story told by the
author sounds plausible and real. I can't verify if Erica Joy is the true
author nor if Erica Joy is a real authentic person.

Before you dismiss me, I ask these questions because who's to say that some
sexist white men realizing that women were organizing to stop sexism didn't
come up with a propaganda ploy to cause division and diversion among women.
How can I verify that this story and article is not controlled by someone
employing a provocateur?

How did the extremely wealthy capitalists maintain more control and slow down
the rise of the labor force? They pitted the workers against each other...

How can I verify Erica Joy (without spending vast amounts of time)?

EDIT: I see she has a twitter account. And her posts and info appear real. But
think about it how easy it would be for some sexist white men to setup a web
of fake information to infiltrate these media outlets in order to start a fake
fight between white and black women in an attempt to keep women divided (and
looking bad for fighting)?

------
spoiler
Let me preface with what I'm about to say with this: I am _very_ pro-equality
in _all_ aspects. Also, I am not a supporter of this new-wave Feminism which
is full of misandry, anti-patriachy and other similar bullshit. Men of all
skin colours get discriminated every day by women, too. Yes, women are not
magical all do-good creatures; they can be horrible, regardless of skin
colour. With that being said...

However, I am afraid we'll soon have this trend where a black woman[1] with
lesser qualifications will be hired in favour of a white man with better
qualifications, simply because she is a woman and black. Same applies for
speakership (or whatever you call it).

That's not equality.

------
bshimmin
The conversation between Kara Swisher and Parker Harris, quoted, is rather
amazing in terms of the verbal gymnastics they resort to: "I have employees,
that are, you know, other types of diversity coming to me..."

------
tone
"I can’t support a conference that doesn’t seem to understand the value and
importance of intersectionality and representation."

Doesn't this just promote the idea that people of different ethnicities really
are that different? Why on earth is skin colour "representation" an important
factor anywhere? I mean don't discriminate but how is this an argument?

This just promotes the wrong idea that people of different ethnicities bring
drastically different things to the table in one breath, and argues that race
or gender do not affect technical ability with the next.

How this insane person has people listening to them or why a completely
backwards article on the right site gets linked here is beyond me.

~~~
spoiler
> This just promotes the wrong idea that people of different ethnicities bring
> drastically different things to the table in one breath, and argues that
> race or gender do not affect technical ability with the next.

> How this insane person has people listening to them or why a completely
> backwards article on the right site gets linked here is beyond me.

These two are exactly what bugs me, too. This actually reminds me of how
Feminism turned from an equality movement to this modern-wave bullshit where
it's a woman-supremacy movement and it's got _nothing_ with equality.

It seems like 2015 is the year where people started being offended by
everything, and they constantly _look for opportunities_ to be discriminated.
"Black women in IT."

Fucking Hell, by the time it's 2020 we'll reach a "homosexual Black Christian
women wearing polka dot clothing in tech indistry" that are being
discriminated.

~~~
azima
i mean maybe, just maybe, they're sick of being called insane, and being
discounted like you and OP

------
ageek123
This article is a classic case of "Oppression Olympics" \--
[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Oppression_Olympics](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Oppression_Olympics)

~~~
azima
no it isn't. she isn't competing with one person. she's bringing to attention
that intersectionality exists and the tech industry isn't paying mind to it.

quote from that link: "Oppression Olympics also tends to ignore
Intersectionality"

~~~
ivanca
"Intersectionality" in this case means excluding black males right? That seems
a bit wrong.

~~~
azima
That applies too, but she's bringing attention to black women and directly
speaking about how the tech industry is trying to fix the problem of women in
tech and at the same time ignoring women of color. "solving" the problem of
not a lot of women in tech by hiring white women, and completely ignoring
black women doesn't solve the problem. Same thing applies to men - hiring
asian men (the "model minority"), and ignoring black men doesn't solve the
diversity problem.

~~~
ivanca
The "diversity problem" is never going to be fixed, because the goalpost is
always something more.

The population of non-hispanic black people in California is of 6.4%, if half
of them are women (3.2%) it means that if a tech company has 100 employees the
perfect amount of diversity would be 3 black women and 97 non-black-women,
they may not even get to know about each other in a company of that size.

But I'm pretty sure in her mind the number should be a lot higher than that,
otherwise white supremacy culture is to be to blame.

~~~
azima
Well that's one of the issues, because people like yourself have a
quota/percentage mentality, instead of a inclusion/diversification/look at how
much we can learn from eachother mentality. And like another person said, tech
companies dont only hire from california. Isn't it a bit silly that 20% of
twitter's audience is black and probably the most active group, and their
number of black employees is low, black executives is 0?

It's kind of ridiculous to not want to make the effort because the goalposts
are always something more. And it's ignorant of the tech industry to "fix"
diversity by only putting white women in roles or only asian men in roles to
hit quotas.

------
stefantalpalaru
Wait a minute! Where's the Romanian History Month? Where are the menu changes
for Romanians? Where's the Romanian Googlers Network? Is it because those of
you privileged enough to be born outside Romania are actively oppressing us?

/s

