
YC Open Office Hours for Black and Hispanic Founders - pyb
http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-open-office-hours-for-black-and-hispanic-founders
======
johnathanNYC
As someone who is both (afro-latino), I'm really excited about this. After
reading the majority of the comments, I'm a little disappointed. It seems that
many do not understand that being white and male in the United States, by
default, affords many privileges that monitories struggle to obtain. If there
any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer.

Curious to why the word Hispanic was used instead of Latino. If you are
unfamiliar with the difference, read here:
[http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hispanic_vs_Latino](http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hispanic_vs_Latino)

~~~
tcdent
I'm curious what privileges you perceive, or know to be true, for non-
minorities.

I absolutely agree there is a problem. I've heard many first-hand accounts of
violence and disrespect from all races. I'm interested in a solution that
doesn't just take the labels from a pie chart and reinforce the dividing lines
between what ultimately is one group.

~~~
tptacek
Example: I have an African American neighbor one block over that I see
regularly. He works in IT/devops. Like every IT person, he gets yelled at by
random people at work all the time; it's a high-stress job. But when _he_ gets
visibly frustrated, he's The Angry Black Man. Dipshit coworkers complain that
they don't feel safe.

It is an example of a white male privilege that being frustrated and swearing
at your computer screen is unlikely to result in a white male being put on a
PIP for having a "threatening demeanor".

There are probably hundreds of things like this.

~~~
yummyfajitas
As a large white man, similar things have happened to me.

"Can we have this conversation in the stairwell so I can stand 2 steps down
and make you feel comfortable?" <\- actual thing I've had to say and do with a
crazy female coworker

There may be some racial bias here (I don't have enough reliable data to have
much of an opinion), but don't think majorities are immune.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I've had similar as well. Literally had managers tell me I can't express anger
the way others do because it was intimidating when I did it. Size matters as
much as anything in that kind of situation.

At one job, I regularly interacted with a man who was larger than me and often
angry. He was a few inches taller and 70-80 pounds heavier. He'd had a couple
people threaten him with going to management for official notice when he got
angry. I ended up dealing with him because I sort of understood how he felt
about all that, so I'd just let his anger wash off my back. I knew he wasn't
actually threatening.

But it did give be the perspective of seeing someone larger than me who was
angry, which was something I hadn't encountered as an adult. I could then see
where others were coming from as well.

~~~
DanBC
> At one job, I regularly interacted with a man who was larger than me and
> often angry. He was a few inches taller and 70-80 pounds heavier. He'd had a
> couple people threaten him with going to management for official notice when
> he got angry. I ended up dealing with him because I sort of understood how
> he felt about all that, so I'd just let his anger wash off my back. I knew
> he wasn't actually threatening.

No, he actually is treatening if he is angry enough at work to cause people
fear, alarm, distress.

It's absolutely not acceptable to be that angry at work. It's understandable
if it happens once or twice, but here you've mentioned a person who has had
several colleagues talking about escalating complaints about his behaviour.

That employee should have been supported to change their aggressive behaviour
(because it causes harm to them, and it causes harm to other employees, and it
causes harm to the company) with a fairly stern reminder to stop fucking
about.

~~~
yummyfajitas
If a physical trait causes people around someone to feel fear, alarm and
distress, then that person actually is threatening and it's not acceptable.

As noted above, other physical traits (e.g. blackness) also cause those
reactions. Your claim - namely that people's subjective perception, rather
than objective behavior, are what determines the bounds of acceptability -
seems to prove too much.

~~~
DanBC
It's not the physical traits of height or maleness or colour, but the anger
displayed.

Perhaps I should have phrased it as "Don't have a work environment that
regularly causes your employees to display anger"; and "Support your employees
with workplace stress".

But still, anyone who is regularly angry at work needs to realise that their
behaviour is not acceptable.

------
6stringmerc
You planning to open up such a thing for the handicapped as well?

I mean, until the ACA came along, I pretty much took a risk-aversion pattern
career path so I wouldn't get thrown into the "prexisting condition" abyss,
and I'm probably not alone here. Personally speaking, a lot of handicapped
folk I've met through the years are quite clever, innovative, and determined,
because starting life at the plate with a 3-2 count is a lot different than
being on 3rd base, if you catch my metaphorical drift. Just curious.

~~~
Alupis
> You planning to open up such a thing for the handicapped as well?

This is part of the problem with things like this - while good intentioned, it
inevitably alienates another equally oppressed group.

Why can't we just have "Office Hours" and make it absolutely clear it's for
anyone -- and actually follow through with the intent.

It just seems silly to says "these here are for only this one small group -
and that's how we're going to help combat bigotry".

~~~
tptacek
They aren't "combating bigotry". They've observed the obvious demographic
gaps, and they're doing targeted outreach to try to close that gap.

Combating bigotry is a worthy cause, but it is not the only worthy cause, and
evaluating unrelated outreach programs by their impact on bigotry is a sort of
rhetorical sleight of hand.

I think this is worth pointing out: there is probably no criticism anyone is
going to have of this program that the YC partners have not already
considered. It's 2015, and they're not dumb.

------
arturventura
I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just trying to find a justification. Having
something that says you can only can come in if you are "Black, Hispanic,
Women, Veterans, and International founders" kinda racist as fuck? It sounds
exactly like segregation to me.

Again, not trying to be a troll. Not American, just trying to understand.

~~~
justizin
Because, at least in America, all of the time is 'white male time', and people
of color and women often feel intimidated in spaces that are dominated in this
way, so efforts are made to encourage a focus on marginalized people.

~~~
78666cdc
>all of the time is "white male time"

Like black churches and communities, professional women's societies, women's
shelters, scholarships for women, women's clubs at schools, and so on? In
elementary schools, where >90% of teachers are female? Among psychology
majors, with 60-70% women? Do you really suggest that it is always "white male
time" everywhere?

Go ask a white kid growing up in a mostly black, poor neighborhood whether he
feels like it's "his time."

Initiatives like this should be based on socioeconomics, not race.

~~~
tptacek
Have you spent any time in or near a predominantly black church? There's one
on my corner. There's white people there all the time.

And did you really just suggest that "women's shelters" somehow advantage
women over men?

Suggested Google search: [lucky ducky comic]. You might also enjoy the
editorial cartoon stylings of Stan Kelly.

~~~
78666cdc
You're putting words in my mouth. But if you want to talk about that, then
yes, there is more support for homeless women than there is for men.

But that is beside the point here. My point was to list a handful of the many
counterexamples to "it is white male time all the time", which is a silly
claim, at least as stated.

Strike that example off the list, then. It doesn't change the original
comment's point.

~~~
tptacek
I'm not sure how I can simultaneously be "putting words in your mouth" and
pointing out things that you actually do believe.

Your examples were bad. I'm going to go ahead and assert that the "black
church" example shoots past "bad" and reaches "offensive"; predominantly black
churches do not exclude people of other ethnicities.

~~~
78666cdc
Where was the implication that they aren't welcoming? The point was that a
black church is not "all white male all the time". It feels like you're
looking for something to be offended about.

>Your examples were bad.

I'm glad we had this productive discussion.

------
staunch
> _Black, Hispanic, Women, Veterans, and International founders._

I think it's great that YC is concerned about helping non-elite people. What
about just focusing on helping poor people compete in Silicon Valley in
general? Does anyone think wealthy founders of any kind need more help than
poor founders of any kind?

~~~
briholt
You would think all the efforts towards social outreach would focus on poverty
as their #1 criteria - the most direct and obvious criteria of people in need
- but they almost never do. The problem is these programs are created by
upper-class people in their media-social bubble, cobbled together from the
arbitrary championings within that bubble. Unfortunately poverty doesn't have
a strong, dedicated representative in these upper class circles, because only
a tiny number of people born poor ever make it into the media or valley
cocktail parties. Black, Hispanic, Women, Veterans - all have members both in
needy classes and in upper classes to champion their own cause. But using this
represented-in-the-bubble approach results in an arbitrary mix of random
criteria that only half serves the purpose. There are certainly many
Black/Hispanic/Women/Veterans in need and deserving of help, but there's also
plenty who are trust fund babies who don't need it. Meanwhile, there are a lot
of obvious groups left out of this list - Native Americans, poor Appalachian
whites, etc. It seems ridiculous to explicitly help Blacks and Hispanics, but
not Native Americans. We could go on and list a dozen more needy groups left
out, but why bother when the correct criteria should just be _poverty_.

~~~
Mz
_You would think all the efforts towards social outreach would focus on
poverty as their #1 criteria_

This is a really, really, really terrible criteria to use. It is one with a
proven track record of actively encouraging people to be failures in order to
qualify for assistance and it becomes a trap they don't know how to escape. It
is much, much, much more effective to define need or merit on some basis other
than _poverty_. It is much better for society to say children, handicapped
individuals, new parents, people recently fired...etc... deserve or need
assistance and not "poor people."

~~~
briholt
I see your point about moral hazards, but in this case, I don't think anyone
would avoid working in order to become poor in order to get free advice about
how to work.

~~~
Mz
There are psychological costs to having people self-identify as being poor
enough to qualify for a program that are not there for self-identifying as
female or black or hispanic. You are asking people to say to themselves and
the world "I am enough of a failure to qualify for help." It is not a basis
for future success. It is the opposite. And it comes with all kinds of
problems.

I wish YC approached the shortage of women and other minorities in
tech/startups differently. But I don't wish they took the approach you are
suggesting.

------
tcdent
The explicit nature of identifying these groups by race is off-putting, mostly
because it is short-sighted. Racial identification can't be the solution if
the ultimate goal is to end racial disparity. This obviously isn't the first
or last program YC implements, but as some point the message has got to become
more sophisticated to accomplish the core goal.

YC is a numbers game. This simply encourages stereotypically atypical founders
to succeed, skewing the numbers in their benefit for future investors. It also
creates role models for potential founders, showing that this is not an
industry dominated by just white guys.

From the perspective a middle class white male, I do worry you might be making
the problem worse by reinforcing and/or encouraging elitism on both sides.

~~~
mojuba
Exactly this. By announcing separate open hours for groups B and C, don't they
deliberately make their normal hours even more A?

~~~
tptacek
I do not follow this logic. There are minority and women YC founders who
already get the (A) hours.

~~~
Alupis
What the parent is getting at, I think, is that by having explicitly set-aside
hours for groups 'B' and 'C', it will create a stigma that groups 'B' and 'C'
must attend only those designated hours -- effectively making the "normal"
office hours for the "elite' group 'A'.

It seems to me, no matter what way you look at it, separated office hours will
perpetuate segregation and bigotry, instead of the desired effect.

~~~
tptacek
The normal office hours _ARE_ elite. They're available only to people who have
been accepted into YC. The goal of the program is to make more of those (A)
group people members of underrepresented demographics.

~~~
mojuba
YC is a private business of course, but since they started this initiative,
wouldn't it be even more efficient to make YC staff itself more diverse?
Rather than doing segregated open hours.

~~~
tptacek
Is a recruiting event at CMU "segregated"? If not, how is this worse?

~~~
mojuba
I have no idea what CMU is, sorry.

~~~
tptacek
Carnegie Mellon University.

------
Uptrenda
This probably won't be very popular: but isn't the notion of special treatment
from YC partners on the basis of race inherently racist? I think anyone who is
black or Hispanic would much rather associate with YC on the basis of their
own individual merit only now everyone who has anything to do with YC will
have to wonder if they are there because YC felt the need to help out the
poor, underprivileged, black dude or because they actually know what they're
doing.

I feel quite mixed about this. I can see that it's well-intentioned in nature
but at the same time it also seem incredibly condescending. And what kind of
message is this really sending: "minorities can succeed but they also need
special treatment to do so?" I don't know about this ... I won't deny that in
many ways these people struggle with issues that white people don't, but maybe
this isn't the best way to go about levelling the playing field. After-all, I
feel that black people and Hispanics are perfectly capable of making it
through the front door of YC the normal way.

I wonder if this is really necessary?

~~~
dang
I'm not sure it serves HN very well to have exactly the same _entirely
generic_ debate come up every time there's a thread about anything like this.

Rehashing the same political divide over and over merely produces the
identical hash over and over. That doesn't count as interesting in HN's
sense—nothing predictable does. Meanwhile, interesting discussion about the
specifics of the story at hand largely gets drowned out.

I'm not sure what if anything we can do about this, but it's seems lame and
not in the spirit of gratifying intellectual curiosity.

~~~
joepie91_
If it comes up so often, then that is usually a pretty good indication that
it's a topic that requires more discussion. Waving it away is, then, just
going to make it come up again the next time.

For what it's worth, I do agree with Uptrenda. I do also want to explicitly
highlight that this certainly _is_ racism - and that whether it is
_justifiable_ racism is a separate discussion entirely.

~~~
dang
> _If it comes up so often, then that is usually a pretty good indication that
> it 's a topic that requires more discussion_

That might be true on a general discussion site, but it's a non sequitur on
HN, which values substantiveness.

~~~
dwmtm
Which makes this circular comment a little ironic.

------
mwseibel
Really happy to be launching this - if anyone has any questions I'm happy to
hang for the next 10-20 minutes to answer them

~~~
sethbannon
Hey Micael, exciting to see YC continuing to battle the inequality that exists
in the startup world.

I'm curious -- why did you chose to craft the program along racial lines, as
opposed to along socioeconomic lines, which seems to be the recent trend in
higher ed affirmative action?

~~~
OmarIsmail
Because racism still exists:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/the-
blac...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/the-black-family-
in-the-age-of-mass-incarceration/403246/?single_page=true) "For her research,
Pager pulled together four testers to pose as men looking for low-wage work.
One white man and one black man would pose as job seekers without a criminal
record, and another black man and white man would pose as job seekers with a
criminal record. The negative credential of prison impaired the employment
efforts of both the black man and the white man, but it impaired those of the
black man more. Startlingly, the effect was not limited to the black man with
a criminal record. The black man without a criminal record fared worse than
the white man with one."

~~~
78666cdc
That's a poor study to cite. If you took two people of any one race and sent
them looking for jobs, probably as often as not one would fare much better
than the other just because of individual variability. You get hired based on
your interview(s), not your resume.

~~~
anigbrowl
Generally people who research employment discrimination send out identical
resumes except for a test factor and then use the number of interview
invitations as a proxy for reaction to the test factor.

~~~
78666cdc
Then cite that rather than an unscientific, non-rigorous "study" (read:
anecdote).

~~~
anigbrowl
Let's take a look at the actual citation:

 _Taken from a forthcoming paper by Sampson and Kristin L. Perkins,
“Compounded Deprivation in the Transition to Adulthood: The Intersection of
Racial and Economic Inequality among Chicagoans, 1995-2013,” in the Russell
Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences._

Professor Sampson has an endowed chair at Harvard and was previously the chair
of his department there. While I have not yet gone looking for preprint
versions, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that he might have a firm
grasp on the difference between statistical and anecdotal information. I see
no reason for the author of the Atlantic article to recapitulate the
methodology of every single academic reference in a long discussion of social
policy.

~~~
78666cdc
And Watson, from Watson and Crick, who discovered the underlying commonality
of all humanity, DNA, and won a Nobel prize for that work, was extremely
racist[0].

That's the problem with arguing based on name recognition. Cite rigorous,
peer-reviewed, established work. Let the veracity of the work speak for
itself.

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-
jam...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-
scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal)

~~~
ejstronge
I'm not sure if this is your implication, but neither Watson nor Crick is an
expert on race (race being not a biological phenomenon but a very social one).

------
robot
Hand-holding minorities label them even more as a group that needs to be
helped. They should be encouraged to be successful in the "same" environment
as others and treated the same. The moment you do something "for" them is the
moment you label them as that group that needs hand-holding even more. I don't
think they need special treatment this way. It is done by good intention, but
it does not need saying, you're black, let me help you. I would just do it
without naming it.

~~~
bakhy
so, affirmative action should not be done, and structural racism should not be
combated, just so that we do not offend the pride of the discriminated by
labelling, or? this is ridiculous. by this logic we might have to ignore
racism completely. e.g. if you say that cops in the US are more prone to
killing unarmed black suspects, you're also pointing out that black people
need help. i guess we should not do that either :D

~~~
dylanjermiah
Have you actually seen the history of Affirmative Action? I'd suggest you read
'Affirmative Action around the world' by Thomas Sowell. There's a plethora of
sources and facts packed onto every page, very enlightening.

~~~
Mz
I take it the nutshell version is that Affirmative Action is a failure
(according to this book at least)? (I mean, that is what your phrasing seems
to imply.)

~~~
dylanjermiah
I'd suggest you read the book, it's only 200 pages and I can't summarise it in
one sentence. It's sad that someone down voted me for suggesting a book which
has voluminous _facts_ and history. Human progress is building on what we have
learnt before, if we can't learn from history I don't know how we will make
progress.

~~~
Mz
I did not downvote you. I asked a question. There are only so many hours in
the day. So, unfortunately, I cannot read every single thing I wish I could
read. It would be nice if you actually answered my question instead of
recommending "read this book" for the third time. I heard you the first two
times.

Peace.

Edit: and have an upvote as a token of good faith.

~~~
dylanjermiah
I was under the impression you were the parent I initially replied to. I
apologise.

So in regards to your question, AA has been disastrous around the world. In
India and Bangladesh hundreds of thousands of deaths, people burning each
other in the street, terrifying stuff. All because of class wars instigated by
benefits to one class over the other. Same results, on a different magnitude,
in Malaysia, Nigeria, Iran, Australia and to a smaller extent the U.S. AA has
never worked in all of recorded history.

~~~
bakhy
this is ridiculous. "in all of recorded history"? hundreds of thousands of
deaths? in Australia?! :D but i guess if you read it in a book, it must be
true!

there's also a book out there claiming the Nazi regime was all the work of gay
people. look it up, you'll probably love it.

~~~
dylanjermiah
If you had bothered to read my post..."On a different magnitude".

In India and Bangladesh there is recorded history of hundreds of thousands of
deaths. The book sources these facts, if you want to invalidate anything I
suggest you go to the original sources, not make a straw man arguement.

I will reiterate, read the book, read the sources -- if you want to invalidate
something, invalidate the primary pieces of evidence -- than come back here
and we can have a productive conversation.

~~~
bakhy
sorry, but you presented it very weakly. i checked wikipedia in the meanwhile,
and it does it much better justice.

i certainly don't have the time or will to read a 200 page book for the sake
of an HN discussion. this should not be a surprise. you could maybe outline
something? i'm particularly interested in how exactly these killings came
about. wikipedia quotes some criticism - that the examples were cherry-picked,
and not even entirely comparable to affirmative action in the US, the contexts
were too different (and, kinda funny, one critic states that he already
published this same book in the 90s under a diff name :D). but then, wiki also
quotes some very interesting arguments he laid out that i did not see here and
that sound good.

all in all, i can agree it's a crude method, but hey, it's better than
nothing. lots of people here pointing out problems and only some offering
solutions, although strictly laughably unrealistic ones. certainly, no mass
killings have happened in the US because of it, and such fear-mongering helps
nothing. i personally would bet that, were the US a social democracy, all of
this would probably be much less needed. when health and education are
provided, opportunities are more available to everyone. but the way it is now,
any disadvantaged group is more likely to stay that way.

------
falsestprophet
How does this program define Hispanic?

Does it include the over 100 million Spanish speakers in the Americas of
European descent? What about the 26 million white Americans of Latin American
descent?

What about 100 million "Latino" Portuguese speaking Brazilians of other than
predominantly European and Asian descent?

French is also a "Latin"/Romance language. Do the predominantly white
Québécois count as Latino? What about the Métis, who are both indigenous
Americans and speakers of a Romance language.

What about Native Americans who speak English rather than a Romance language?
What if the Native Americans learned Spanish in high school?

What about the hundreds of millions of people from China and India and
elsewhere in Asia who grew up in materially worse conditions than any ghetto
in the United States?

------
mindcrime
I think this is a good move, and glad to see YC doing it. And this is coming
from somebody who is neither black nor hispanic.

I mean, I get the whole "isn't this just affirmative action and isn't AA bad?"
thing, I really do. But this is a private business, not a government agency,
and they are free to try and address issues of equality and what-not in
whichever way they see fit. And when you're part of a group that is (or is
seen as) disadvantaged, it can only help to have some very specific support
thrown your way.

If this does even a small bit of good in terms of creating more successful
companies founded by black or hispanic founders, I will benefit us all in the
long run.

~~~
78666cdc
The flaw in this argument is that it makes the implicit assumption that having
more startups founded by black or hispanic founders is good just because there
are more startups founded by black or hispanic founders.

That there is underrepresentation with respect to a minority is indicative of
that minority generally having lower socioeconomic status, and perhaps
prejudices against it. To try to combat whatever those prejudices may be, the
suggestion here is that "diversity is good" and that just having more
minorities will help the problem.

The difference is that it actually won't, because now you have a perception of
people being given opportunities they don't deserve, just because they are a
minority.

A much, much better way to try to deconstruct the sorts of prejudices or
minority disadvantages, which this initiative is ostensibly trying to do, is
to make these sorts of initiatives open to anyone disadvantaged (such as the
poor), and invest in programs targeted at children in poorer
(disproportionately minority) communities.

~~~
mindcrime
_The difference is that it actually won 't,_

I disagree. I think having more companies (especially successful ones) founded
by black and hispanic founders _will_ help everyone broadly, for this reason:
It will provide young, potential founders, who might not otherwise have
pursued entrepreneurship at all, with positive role models, and will show them
actual live examples of how success can be achieved.

My feeling is that this promotes entrepreneurship in general among
increasingly larger portions of the overall population... and if you believe
that technological progress in general is basically a net positive for
humanity (a position which I admit is not without controversy, BTW, although I
personally adhere to it) then this is a Good Thing. More smart people working
on new ideas, and creating things to solve problems? Yeah, I can accept some
private companies engaging in a little "affirmative action" if it supports
that.

 _is to make these sorts of initiatives open to anyone disadvantaged (such as
the poor), and invest in programs targeted at children in minority
communities._

Having grown up "white but dirt poor" I mostly agree with you, in the sense
that I think addressing poverty - regardless of race - is also a valuable
thing. I'm just not sure one approach is more or less important than the
other. I think both are valuable things to do.

------
pavornyoh
Is it weird that I understood this as just trying to reach out to Blacks and
Hispanics/encouragement and not hand holding? Call me crazy but as a minority,
this thought of not getting in say Tech by minorities for example is taking to
the extreme. Has anyone ever considered perhaps, their background just didn't
qualify them for a particular role? What about attitude? Mindset? Alot goes
into getting what you want. You just have to work hard at it and prove
doubters wrong.. :)

------
santaclaus
This is very exciting! Is the program open to those of Brazilian descent?

~~~
ChicagoBoy11
They did mention they planned on later opening rounds specifically for foreign
founders. But if you are based in the U.S., I think they'd consider you a
hispanic founder and thus eligible for the current round, yes? I'm Brazilian
too, btw, so kinda curious about this. Although I have no start-up aspirations
just yet :-(

~~~
mwseibel
Yes!

------
fijal
Veterans? What does this word mean in this context? I would expect it to mean
a military veteran (this is what wikipedia thinks), but it sounds very weird
here.

PS. I'm neither living in America nor a native speaker so excuse my lack of
knowledge

~~~
cryoshon
Yeah, military veteran is the correct reading.

I guess if you really stretch the idea, they count as minorities.

~~~
fijal
That sounds like a really strange idea to me, can someone explain why does
people who used to shoot other people count as a cultural minority, as opposed
to say, retired policeman, railway worker or any other group really?

------
IkmoIkmo
I'm a fan, let's be clear on what we're talking about 'short sessions to
brainstorm, get advice, network and bounce around ideas' etc for those who are
underrepresented. Knowledge transfer and capacity building like this is one of
the best ways to help along minority groups in a manner that is deemed fair by
most and, importantly, upholds the dignity of the individuals who get help.

------
stepmr
Is this open to Indigenous (i.e. Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis,
etc) founders?

~~~
McDoku
I am always happy to see the Métis represented on an American site. Thanks my
friend, most people don't know much about us. Seriously though, I am not sure
that returning to a philosophy of segregation is the best path.

Perhaps focusing speakers that cover challenged and topics of interest is
better then reducing intercultural exposure?

------
ohitsdom
Well done, YC. I believe we need more of these types of actions to act as a
shot in the arm for diversity in the industry (and other industries, too).

------
leeleelee
This is the definition of racial discrimination.

------
Anonkor
I think it's useful to mention that this privilege is not just a white thing.
It's a "people who were born in a first world country" thing. By default, that
huge group of people gets privileges that others can only dream of obtaining.
You don't have to spend years of your life just trying to get out of a
horrible country where you were born. And most of the time, people don't seem
to realize and acknowledge this.

Hell, I've met Americans giving me blank stares when I would talk about how
difficult it is for me to get even a tourist visa to go to the US.

First world privilege should end. Black, white, asian, latino - doesn't
matter. If you were born in a modern and developed country, you are already a
part of a privileged group. Acknowledge this, gain some humility and try to
better yourself and others around you.

I urge people to organize YC Open Office Hours for non-first-world people,
immigrants and the like.

------
roycehaynes
Google "Starting a business". You'll notice the first page results don't lead
you to YC, Techstars, Hackernews, or anything (loosely) startup related.

You have to know what to search to land on HN or some other popular startup
site. My point (and argument) is that most minorities don't know about
YCombinator, HackerNews, etc; partially because most live in a non-startup,
tech-oriented community. And searching for reasonable keywords like "start a
business" isn't a direct invite to the world of startups.

This is why outreach is important. We need to key certain demographics into
the startup world via outbound.

Put it this way, there are 50 states in America and the areas with the least
amount of blacks/hispanics are where words like "startup" is king (and vice
versa). Until then, outreach is vital until certain demographics pick it up at
scale.

two cents. More theory than facts.

------
hardwaresofton
First, I want to state that I'm glad YC is making such a step to help
struggling founders. While I don't run a startup, I'm super divided on this
post, and here's why:

A) It seems both condescending and racist at the same time (i.e. you're a
minority in SV? surely you're doing terrible - let us help. You're white in
SV? you must be doing great, move along we're not looking to help you) -- As
others have stated, it's also partly because of the specified groups.

B) If the ground really is that uneven maybe the problem is not the founders,
but the system (again, how to change that is a super complicated discussion)

I feel like a more tactful way to put out such a call for people who would
like help might be something like:

"YC is putting on a special series of office hours for struggling startups. In
past series we've found that certain groups of people were underrepresented,
and we'd like for that not to be the case, so we are going to prioritize the
following groups: <group listing here>. This doesn't mean anyone who is not in
those groups is unwelcome."

As others have noted, getting away from the group listing would be even
better. Maybe just making a call for anyone who feels like they have been
"marginalized" in the SV startup community, or aren't receiving enough help
might suffice (without making a laundry list of underrepresented people).

I have many opinions on the whole "diversity" debate, but I think my most
defensible opinion is for organizations to aim for population-parity
demographic distributions, and work to upset any limiting functions that might
be skewing your sector away from the wider population's distributions (again,
how to do this is highly debated, and I have a ton of my own opinions on the
subject, but I digress).

I've also intentionally left out my own race/cultural group/whatever in this
comment, but make sure to check your own biases at the door - I could be
caucasian, latino, african american, asian, lgbt, trans, whatever .

~~~
mwseibel
I think you can't look at open office hours in a vacuum. YC does tons of
outreach - for example: college tour, startup school, Stanford startup class,
speaking at conferences around the world, blog posts with advice to founders,
etc. Most importantly, YC has an open application process and you don't have
to have any sort of connection to get in. Open Office Hours is just another
tool we can use to do outreach to startups and when considered in combination
with our other efforts I think it's only fair to conclude that we are trying
to make YC assessable to all (regardless of background).

~~~
hardwaresofton
Again, I think the outreact YC is doing is amazing, and I applaud them for
doing it. I'd rather have this kind of conversation (about the wording of
something like this) rather than not have the outreach effort exist at all.

Honestly the point of my comment was to do with tact and wording. It's super
clear that YC is trying it's best to be accessible to all, and to do the right
thing by groups that may feel marginalized (whoever they may be) -- however
with the current hubbub (that has no end in sight) around these issues, a
great deal of tact should be applied.

More than 0 people feel that the whole "diversity" spiel is antagonistic, as
well as more than 0 people feeling that it's completely justied/the opposite.
It's a touchy subject, and I feel that wasn't respected by this post. Yes, you
want to help a specific group of society that you see struggling, but it's
also divisive to make it seem like a group is inherently more valuable for no
reason other than the color of their skin, or life choices, or whatever.

~~~
bakhy
> but it's also divisive to make it seem like a group is inherently more
> valuable for no reason other than the color of their skin, or life choices,
> or whatever.

it is also the truth, and it is a problem. labelling is like a joke compared
to all the things that discriminated groups experience.

edit - apologies, i thought you said 'vulnerable'. valuable? where did you get
that from?

~~~
hardwaresofton
Well a lot of the current diversity zeitgeist is (mis)represented in terms
that are too simplistic.

 _diversity is good /desirable -> minorities are more valuable than white
people at your company (since you clearly already have enough white people)_
seems to be the point of a lot of blog posts/conversation. This kind of
thinking is most clearly visible in when companies state that they try to hire
X underrepresented people to some position, as if you just need to get a
certain number (and/or when corporations lower meaningful meritocratic
barriers to hire people that otherwise wouldn't have been in the ballpark).

"meaningful meritocratic barrier" to me means "show me you can do fizzbuzz",
rather than "tell me which ivy you came from"

There is obviously a case to be made for diversity (independent of morality),
but most modern literature doesn't seem to address that at any meaningful
level of complexity. I discovered this when talking to a colleague who was
annoyed with what seemed to be a devaluing of potential hires just because
they weren't "diverse" enough.

~~~
bakhy
> diversity is good/desirable -> minorities are more valuable than white
> people at your company (since you clearly already have enough white people)
> seems to be the point of a lot of blog posts/conversation.

when blog posts that make such absolutely ridiculous claims get commented on
here, then we can discuss that and heartily agree, ok? :D but in this
discussion here, you are the one who said that this action implies minority
founders are more valuable. this is simply not true.

i do agree that affirmative action is a bit crude, but it's done for a greater
social good, by people who recognize the problem, sympathise, and want to
help. the field is, after all, uneven. an asymmetric situation that needs
asymmetric action to correct it.

------
lordnacho
So this is basically open to anyone (not just YC program people)? My wife here
in Europe would love a helping hand with her new business.

~~~
mwseibel
This is open to all people trying to start tech startups

------
ericson578
I gotta stop supporting this racist site. I will not pretend being actively
discriminated against is ok.

------
yAnonymous
This wouldn't be necessary if you at ycombinator treated all people equally to
begin with. Instead of doing that, you introduce discriminating "open office
hours" in which some people are not allowed, based on their race.

That's some grade A idiocy.

~~~
johnathanNYC
You've completely missed the point and it also seems your view of the world is
very different than it actually is. How do you propose YC approach an issue
like this, in a country filled with racism and discrimination? Is your idea
really just "treat all people equally" and the world will follow suit? How
does that work?

~~~
yAnonymous
>How do you propose YC approach an issue like this

By not being discriminating? You don't fight discrimination with more
discrimination and the very idea is so mindboggingly stupid that it hurts.
It's sad to see that the social justice warrior bullshit has arrived at HN.

------
dylanjermiah
If anyone here wants to know about the long history of Affirmative Action you
should definitely read "Affirmative Action Around the World" by Thomas Sowell.

Can't sing enough praise about it. Sourced incredibly And clear logical
points.

------
dpeterson
I'm an idiot. I feel idiots are underrepresented in the tech community. Will I
get special office hours too?

------
Kalium
I'll be very curious to see numbers on outcomes attributable to this effort.

------
gohrt
Ironic as it may be, posting this story on HN was a mistake for YC.

------
masterleep
Race based office hours are unethical.

------
webstrategist
Pro-discrimination quote taken directly from Paul Graham's own letter featured
on their Open Office Hours page.
[http://www.ycopenofficehours.com/](http://www.ycopenofficehours.com/)

"Notes [...] [2] One advantage startups have over established companies is
that there are no discrimination laws about starting businesses. For example,
I would be reluctant to start a startup with a woman who had small children,
or was likely to have them soon. But you're not allowed to ask prospective
employees if they plan to have kids soon. Believe it or not, under current US
law, you're not even allowed to discriminate on the basis of intelligence.
Whereas when you're starting a company, you can discriminate on any basis you
want about who you start it with."

I guess they are looking for the talented blacks, Meso-Americans and females
who weren't happy with being handed the jobs they were under-qualified for,
and wanted to risk throwing away being at the top of their in-group mating
market for self-actualization or helping the world or something?

The whole Faustian world-saving, or hyper-competitive, tech hobbyist,
leadership inclinations aren't really found in the populations they seek to
reach out to. They don't want to invent anything new of valuable, they merely
seek to re-distribute funding and opportunities in tech to themselves.

The same inclinations to start tech companies are more similar to ones in
people who play strategic games, or who contribute to open source software, or
who engage in hacking for fun or bragging rights. I think they would have far
more success reaching out to those groups. It's not really imaginable that the
kinds of blacks and Hispanics they are seeking to fund were the kinds of kids
who would lend their friends books on programming growing up that had nothing
to do with school or a career. If they believe that starting a world-class
company is simply a good business decision for anyone with the talent, then,
they should do more recruitment of people who actually have the skills for
that.

They fail to realize that marginalized minorities are not raised to "be
leaders", and "take risks". In a state where the "oppressed" talented can
coast on their racial credentials, why bother taking the risk?

