
VCs Promised to Help Black Founders – My Experience Shows a Different Reality - gammarator
https://thebolditalic.com/vcs-have-a-well-known-black-founder-problem-but-really-they-have-just-forgotten-about-people-2e8452029793
======
graeme
This post would be a lot more persuasive with the pitch deck, or some growth
numbers, or something indicating the app is in fact on a success track and is
the type of app that is potentially VC scale.

I found no mentions on reddit. On google there is a single review on Capterra,
no other results.

The Canadian ios app has no reviews, can’t check US on my phone. The Google
play version has 88 reviews, but all but 3-4 of them are from Jan 26-Feb 2,
with only one since, in May.

So some evidence of traction, product market fit, growth, or the general idea
behind the app (pitch deck) would help with the argument.

The author does highlight an issue of how to get funded if you don’t have an
existing network though. Network based introductions seems to be the norm for
VC from what I’ve heard. And to be clear, there may be racism involved: my
point is it’s hard to tell without knowing more about the app’s and whether it
seems plausibly a fit for VC. Once an app has been around for a year you need
more evidence of traction.

Edit: I should mention that if the app is indeed somewhere between “can be
bootstrapped” and “needs VC investment” then there are are new options like
Tinyseed aimed at this middle ground of company. Another commented pointed out
that a competing app has 1-10 employees, which is not VC scale.

~~~
dlivingston
The US reviews are very peculiar: [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-bright-
app/id1471800945?ls...](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-bright-
app/id1471800945?ls=1#see-all/reviews)

101 ratings with all but two being 5-stars. I hesitate to say that the
positive reviews are largely fake, but it sure seems like it. Broken English
and vague praise for the app characterize most of the reviews.

For example: "My friend recommended to me for experiencing this app. At the
fist time, I didn't know this application could bring benefits to me. However,
after all I use this app more frequently because its advantages. Very useful!"

What? Further, all 5-star reviews with the exception of one were written
between 01/28/2020 and 01/30/2020\. That leaves exactly three reviews of the
101 written outside this two-day window. Massive red flag.

~~~
Jommi
Let's just refrain from going too far with any ambiguous quips at the product.
I dont think anyone is going to gain from that.

~~~
mad182
But this is relevant. If both the product and her CV are weak, the racism card
doesn't hold up. If I was deciding if I want to invest money in some app, I'm
pretty sure seeing most of the reviews are poor quality fakes would be a lot
more important factor than founders race.

~~~
Jommi
You're mistaking the forest for the trees. You could go look at a handful of
other funded apps and evaluate their reviews. You're going to find similar
things.

My point was that you don't need to get into a more subjective, personal quip,
as the arguments brought by others (eg. The CV) here are already strong enough
to dismiss the racism claim.

~~~
jjeaff
I think you are also missing the forest for the trees. The point of her post
is that she submitted the exact same proposal to the exact same VCs from her
husband's email instead of her own and actually started getting responses for
the first time.

~~~
lightgreen
Or maybe that’s because her husband has a LinkedIn page which is easily
googleable and mentions three years of working in Google, and she has zero
relevant experience.

~~~
jjeaff
Her husband is on both decks. So at best, they didn't so much as glance at her
pitch deck until the husband sent it.

Or maybe they only look up the senders of the emails before deciding to even
open the pitch deck. Seems rather odd.

------
anotherfounder
I'm so glad she wrote this, and that she named names!

As a female founder (not black though), we went through a similarly
congnitively dissonant process. A-List investors who would publicly talk about
supporting female founders would behave the worst (esp. female investors, Hi
Aileen!), investors whose entire brand was around supporting ethical startups
(or insert any similar alternative movement) would be the least interested in
that aspect (Hi Spero Ventures!) All of that, along with a healthy dose of
rudeness.

In our experience, those at the very very top of the totem pole gave us the
fairest chance, and those below them, were the very worst. In the end, it was
hard no to feel that an investor's Twitter persona was a sham, in the end they
would invest only in the hottest SAAS startup by an ex-Googler.

FWIW, I know my experience was not alone. There are tons of now well-funded
female founders who will echo this sentiment. I just wish there was a way to
have a public list of those who walk the talk and those who just tweet the
walk..

EDIT: Adding something from thread below to focus more on solutions, and
providing perspective on why what is happening is not enough.

>...What is frustrating about these investors (and YC) is that it all is very
surface level. I'm sure they believe they are doing the right thing but all of
their assumptions, ideas, pipelines, and teams, all are informed by those
biases. And there isn't enough being done to deconstruct that. For example,
what does it mean to say 'too early' to an under-represented founder? who is
the comparison to? How many of your last X investments or team members came
from Stanford or ex-FAANG?

> Let's put in place processes, time allocations, smaller programs. And let's
> put all of this in place first for those raising their first rounds - the
> angel or the mythical pre-seed.

~~~
m0zg
VCs invest into your track record and the ability to put together and retain a
good team. "Ex-Google" is a good signal that the person can at the very least
_technically_ do what they are promising to do, once they take the cash.

What's your track record?

Nobody has ever promised that money will be given for phenotype traits alone.

~~~
avilay
And given that a majority of "Ex-Google" engineers are males, where does that
leave a woman (or any under-represented group) founder?

She is not asking for money "just because" she is a woman. She is asking for a
fair chance. And we need to give folks from under-represented communities a
_more than_ fair chance to combat inherent selection bias.

~~~
m0zg
> She is not asking for money "just because" she is a woman.

That's why I asked to see the track record. You won't get anywhere in this
business without a track record. Moreover, if you do have a track record being
a woman is an advantage these days, not a disadvantage. There are a lot of VCs
chomping at the bit to invest into women- and minority-led startups. But they
won't give you money if they don't have some degree of certainty that you can
do what you're promising to do.

~~~
triceratops
[https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2014/04/chomping-vs-
champ...](https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2014/04/chomping-vs-champing/)

------
xibalba
The author of this article cites as evidence of racism higher response to her
husband's solicitations of VCs than her own. However, comparing their resumés,
its pretty easy to see that this is unlikely to be attributable to racism.
Husband has founded multiple start-ups that were acquired, is technical, and
worked at Google and YouTube. Meanwhile, the author has personal trainer and
gym owner as experience.

~~~
adam
I think the larger point the author was trying to make was don't give lip
service to specifically going out of your way to try and help Black founders
if you're still going to use the exact same credentialing signals you always
do: track record where someone has worked, name brand of their school, etc.

One might argue that without the special consideration these VC's rushed to
say they would give, how would someone like the author ever have an
established track record of starting/selling their businesses in the first
place?

I'm frankly still expecting VC's to make decisions on what they think is going
to be most profitable for them, full-stop. But plenty of other firms like
large consulting firms, do set aside people and resources to work with non-
profits for example. Why couldn't VC's do the same to try and level the
playing field and eliminate some of these inherent advantages the well
connected/well credentialed have? A "no" is potentially fine, but how you
deliver that "no" can make all the difference.

~~~
digitaltrees
Yes. Exactly this. If a VC is going to use the same filters for inbound deals.
The same networks to connect to founders, the same metrics and stats. Then all
their rhetoric is BS.

~~~
callalex
Are you arguing for equality, or affirmative action? (I am not going to take a
stance on which one is the right choice, but I do think you are conflating the
two.)

------
sonofaplum
The nature of VC being what it is, it's extremely difficult to prove racism at
the level of proof that most HN readers seem to need. 99.99% of all startup
ideas are bad, 99.99% of all apps are terrible, so how can we know if she was
rejected for being black, or for just being another supplicant denied by the
VC gods?

The email thing is the strongest evidence she provides, but obviously, a
doubting mind can find other reasons that her husbands email would get
responses but hers wouldn't.

We do know, however, that African Americans are greatly under represented in
tech, in startups and in VC. There are many interlocking reasons for this, and
its not unreasonable to expect that racism, whether conscious or unconscious,
is one of them. (Why should tech, uniquely in American society, be immune from
racism?). Because there are so many interlocking reasons, it's easy for each
individual link in the chain of tech to deflect blame to the other links
(business can blame the pipeline, colleges can blame the high schools, high
schools can blame the financial structures etc etc etc).

So, is it reasonable to expect individual VCs to make a stand against racism
instead of doing what comes naturally to them? (trying desperately to make
money). Not really!

However, I do think it's reasonable to expect, that VC's who make big
pronouncements about what their firm is going to do to combat racism should be
expected to follow through with it! And guess what, given all the interlocking
problems that prevent black people from founding companies, VC's probably
aren't going to be able to follow through on that mission by relying on
business as usual of warm intros only, five minute pitch reviews, blow off
emails.

Just level with us. We are all adults. Just say, I'm not actually that
interested in explicitly helping black founders, I just want to keep trying to
make money the way I've been doing it. Conversely, if you do give juicy quotes
to the press, then be prepared to walk the walk.

~~~
jbay808
The author's point about VC firms providing no contact information
disproportionately impacting minority founders who don't have network
connections is also a good one, and fixable.

~~~
danenania
Whether or not they publish contact details, someone without a 'pedigree' or
serious traction is _far_ more likely to end up in meetings with VCs by
applying to well-known accelerators like YC than by reaching out directly to
VCs. This is the primary way that founders without a network get plugged in.

There can obviously be bias issues at the accelerator level too, so I'm not
saying it's a solution, but you can be sure that someone will at least take a
look at your application.

~~~
adrr
There are accelerators that focus on under represented groups, Morgan Stanley
has one. Like you said, once you’re in accelerator you can quickly build out
your network .

------
phnofive
I think the argument here is suffering as the business is questionable, though
I wholeheartedly agree that pointing a founder to a blog post and pretending
that counts as mentorship is bullshit.

> none of the VCs I contacted even tried downloading my app (I use Intercom
> daily to see all the new users trying our app). They dismissed its worth
> without even giving it a shot.

Fair, but I just had a look at the app store - this had two reviews since late
January (when about ninety-five 5* reviews were posted over a few days), and
neither were positive.

Additionally, a cursory search for personal trainer apps will turn up dozens
of well-rated alternatives. Putting myself in the mind of a VC, I would be
hard-pressed to invest or advise the founder of such a company.

Would love to learn more about why the VCs wouldn’t respond to her emails,
though - seems like another failure to meet the commitment.

~~~
atlasunshrugged
As far as why VCs wouldn't respond to emails, from my brief time working at a
VC firm I think the logic was either 1) We don't want to start a conversation
and give them false hope and 2) Not replying makes it seem like we're too busy
and important to respond to everyone (and also there was some thought process
of we don't owe anyone anything in the same way the average person doesn't
feel obligated to respond to spam emails)

~~~
huffmsa
But they responded to her husband, but not her.

Supposedly the same content, same info. Just the sender was different.

Unless of course you think she's not being entirely truthful.

~~~
callalex
“Same content, same info. Just the sender was different”

When it comes to early-stage investment and company building, the sender is a
huge part of the contents of the message.

------
henriquez
It seems like the author could search and replace “racism” with “sexism” and
put out an otherwise similar article based on her experience having to use her
husband’s LinkedIn rolodex to reach these people.

I think it’s shameful that VCs make empty promises to support black founders -
but it’s also not surprising. Most of the people paying lip service to racial
equity now didn’t give a shit six weeks ago before it was fashionable to do
so. But empty promises are par for the course as they’ve been for decades. My
experience living in Minneapolis where George Floyd was murdered is that the
same people suddenly promising to fix the problem are the ones who created it.

VCs only want to make money. The author raised insufficient evidence that she
was a victim of racism. If any unfair discrimination occurred it’s more likely
sexism. But the simplest explanation is also the most likely: the VCs just
weren’t interested in her pitch.

~~~
glitcher
The author seems clear to me that she is considering both racism and sexism.

> Curiously, when I used my husband’s email to send our pitch, that’s when I
> started getting some responses. Do VCs only read pitches submitted by men?
> Do they prefer to hear from someone who is Asian rather than Black?

~~~
henriquez
So she assumes bad faith but isn’t sure of the exact nature of that bad faith,
meanwhile the merits of her pitch or business idea are not even a factor in
her discussion of why she could have been rejected. (Let’s see, a personal
trainer app when people are quarantined ...)

I’ve seen numerous other founders here on HN handle rejection with more
humility and constructive resolve. I don’t think the author is doing herself -
or her husband - any favors with this kind of response.

------
danenania
I'm on easy mode (white and male), but I had no network and no prestigious
previous employers or schools to point to when starting on my company a few
years ago. There were many points when I felt like raising money would be
impossible, but I eventually did so. In case it might help someone who's
feeling hopeless and has it much harder than I did due to their background,
here are a few things I've learned about how the game is played:

\- Talking to investors is a waste of time in the beginning. It's much better
to focus on getting into an accelerator first.

\- Never talk to one investor at a time. That gives them all the leverage.
It's better to schedule many meetings with many different investors all in a
one or two week period.

\- Timing is everything. Don't talk to investors before you're ready to even
if they say it's "just a casual coffee". They are looking for reasons to rule
you out. Try to only talk to investors at inflection points where a graph of
_some_ important metric is going steeply up and to the right.

\- Move on quickly. Unless an investor is _obviously_ enthusiastic by the end
of the first pitch, they are highly, highly unlikely to invest. Don't waste
time answering their questions or getting their "feedback" or giving them
additional meetings if they seem skeptical. Just move on to the next one.

\- Don't ask for introductions from investors who turned you down. These are
actually anti-endorsements that significantly decrease your chances with the
investors you get introduced to this way.

~~~
anon102010
excellent advice!

------
gnicholas
Seems like the most compelling evidence of racially-disparate treatment is
that she got no responses when reaching out via her own email address, but
received some responses when reaching out via her husband's (he is an Asian-
American man with a recognizably Asian name). Assuming the emails sent were
identical, this would be pretty solid evidence of bias.

One potential confounding issue is that her husband is a former Google
engineer, and she doesn't mention having any similar experience. It wouldn't
be surprising if a VC's vetting process involved checking linkedin to see what
experience the person had, and giving points to former FAANG engineers (note:
I am not in this category).

Regardless, it's still pretty lousy that VCs that claim to want to help
certain types of founders don't even respond to inbound inquiries.

~~~
oh_sigh
Her name is "Nerissa Zhang" \- unless they are looking through for profile
pictures of her or something, wouldn't they assume she is Asian as well? At
least for me, "Nerissa" is a name of unknown origin, maybe Greek. Zhang is
clearly Chinese. I would assume the person was Chinese or at least 50% Chinese
if I was forced to guess about their race/ethnicity.

~~~
jbay808
Do people usually change their email accounts when they marry and take their
partner's name?

~~~
9HZZRfNlpR
You can route old account emails to new and answer people from new account.
It's quite seamless, to new people you give the new email. At least I knew few
people who have done it after name change, but marriage and taking new name is
less common nowadays than it used to be I guess.

------
anon102010
She asks why her husband gets more of a response (a sign of the racism she is
facing).

\- Her linkedin doesn't show what her major was as an undergrad.

\- After 4 years of working she was a powerlifting coach.

\- Then boom, in 2017/2018 she is an owner of two gyms and in 2019 she is
trying to get benchmark to invest in her app.

Her Husband:

Google Engineer

Masters in CS from Berkeley / Undergrad in CS

Started companies and managed employees.

15 years experience - 40 apps developed. Top 10 apps

Multiple successful exists (to zynga then another one to google).

Talking about being successful as a gym owner etc she says folks can assume
its because black folks were helped out.

"They assume it’s because they’re somehow lucky or exceptional or that they
gained success because of help from white people. This—of course—isn’t true,
but it’s an idea that continues to spread, sending the message that Black
professionals require help from white people to build their careers."

"We need to put an end to the lie that Black people are still in need of white
folks’ help,” she continues. “What we need is the freedom to live, work, and
act without white people and white institutions disproportionately targeting
us and stopping us from building the success we are already capable of
building on our own."

So it's a bit of a confusing set of messages.

~~~
sahaskatta
Just to add a counterpoint.

I raised a $2M seed for Smartcar. I had no college degree as I had dropped
out. I had no prior work experience. I had no team. The product was still an
early prototype.

MANY of the founders I know who've also raised similar sized rounds from top
VCs have stories quite like mine.

~~~
anon102010
Her point is that her husband got more responses. My guess - her husband would
get more responses than you as well.

As someone who also took time off (and built apps) from college, the fact that
I'd built some apps (that got write-ups) was a big positive for my early
career, even if just prototypes. But I was at a top education org before
taking time off so I'd already proven I could get into a reasonable place.

No need to disclose, but your and my story tends to work if you (and or others
on team) got into a place like an Ivy or a UC or top liberal arts, majoring in
CS or engineering, then dropped out (aka were into the entrepreneurial space)

I think it works a lot less well with an undisclosed and possibly non-tech
background.

If you had a path like hers then I am very impressed, your deck or prototype
must have been compelling. But very often there are some other proof points
(top school acceptance / cs majors etc). That is almost silicon valley cliche
at this point.

An awesome scenario would be if someone focused on black led businesses in
terms of VC and made a killing.

~~~
Apocryphon
> An awesome scenario would be if someone focused on black led businesses in
> terms of VC and made a killing.

This is what Tim O'Reilly was talking about funding:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23657403](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23657403)

------
madballster
If there is VC racism, doesn't that also mean there is a market opportunity
for VC money to focus exclusively on African American tech startups. Even if
there aren't many, there appears to be zero competition selecting investments.

The author is rightfully frustrated. But instead of focussing on lack of
interest in their app, maybe there's a bigger opportunity here.

~~~
graeme
In principle yes. I can think of a few possible problems though:

1\. You’re focussing on a much smaller subset of the market. It may be hard to
find enough investments

2\. It is probably illegal.

3\. You may not get the best VC’s. The best VC’s will focus on total return
and probably fund from a wide pool to find rare outliers that may grow huge.
So founders may have worse VC experiences. VC includes mentorship, network
etc, so this could hamper startup success.

4\. You may also not get the best African American startups. The very best
will be able to get attention from the top VC firms. So, there will be an
adverse selection problem for any VC specializing in African American startups

#2 is probably the main reason no one has tried. But #3 and #4 in combination
are also deadly.

But, if discrimination is a factor in startup funding, there would certainly
be a market opportunity for VC’s to focus _more_ attention on underserved
groups.

Edit: Another poster points out backstage capital is doing this. So, maybe it
doesn’t violate any laws? I’ll be very interested to see how their returns are
over time. They fund women and people of color. They may well have hit on a
market opportunity.

Found this article when I searched Backstage capital on HN. They’re a startup
too it seems: [https://news.crunchbase.com/news/founders-arent-giving-up-
on...](https://news.crunchbase.com/news/founders-arent-giving-up-on-backstage-
capital/)

~~~
graeme
Someone in the thread linked a Tim O’Reilly interview where his partner
pursued the “invest _more_ in women and people of color” strategy and it seems
to be working for him.

In addition to diversity, he also selected different types of businesses. More
medium size, not the rocketships.

[https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/26/tim-oreilly-makes-a-
persua...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/26/tim-oreilly-makes-a-persuasive-
case-for-why-venture-capital-is-starting-to-do-more-harm-than-good/)

------
TedDoesntTalk
> Black women are the most educated group when you look at the number of
> associate and bachelor’s degrees earned within each demographic.

Can anyone confirm this? When I follow the links, I get to this source:

[https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72](https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72)

That bar chart doesn't say anything to me about inter-demographic data. It
looks confined to each demographic; i.e. women earn more degrees than men
within each demographic, but that doesn't say anything about Black women vs.
White men vs. Hispanic men vs. White women

~~~
phonon
[https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/no-
black-w...](https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/no-black-women-
are-not-the-most-educated-group-in-the-us/)

~~~
bagacrap
this. tldr, undergrad degrees awarded to Blacks are highly skewed towards
women. Somehow this has been misinterpreted across the web as Black women
being the most educated group.

------
mrnobody_67
Sequoia is primarily a Series A investor, without seeing the deck and
traction/usage/retention/revenue metrics, it's really hard to make definitive
conclusions at least with regards to that one example.

In the context of wrong stage/check size, Alfred's response was reasonable.

------
Kednicma
The part about Nguyen was frustrating. It's hard to imagine a more honest
hypocrisy than explicitly saying, on the record, that one will be forthcoming
and helpful towards the marginalized, and ending up being just as dismissive
and unengaged as everybody else.

~~~
jchonphoenix
I get the sentiment, but Ha was more helpful than she realized. I've been in
this game from both sides the table. From this post, it's pretty clear she
does lack basic knowledge.

She needs to understand how VCs are evaluating her business, what metrics and
data she needs to show, and what types of businesses are even a match for the
VC model.

Ha's post covers much of that. And having been in VC, the fact Ha even spent
time giving advice is more than 90% of cold reachouts to VC can expect with a
Google resume or not.

VCs write these 101 posts because they want founders to know when it's time to
come to them and how to present the info. That's very much what she makes it
seem she needed.

------
Animats
It's an app for personal trainers to help them organize their business. Not a
big niche, and there are other apps in that space.[1] That one is from Fitii,
which has software for trainers, customers, and gyms, talking to each other.
Crunchbase shows Fitii as being from Melbourne, AU, with "1-10 employees". In
that situation, VC funding seems unlikely.

[1] [https://www.mypthub.net/](https://www.mypthub.net/)

------
anotherfounder
It is amazing to me if that the entire conversation on the thread is about her
credibility, and not at all towards the systems that lead to blogposts such as
these. It isn't one interaction, or one round or one app, these are system
issues!

I think it is more interesting to discuss how all of the investor assumptions,
ideas, pipelines, and teams, all are informed. And there isn't enough being
done to deconstruct that. For example, what does it mean to say 'too early' to
an under-represented founder? who is the comparison to? How many of your last
X investments or team members came from Stanford or ex-FAANG?

Maybe YC can take the lead here? @mwseibel?

~~~
areoform
Just wondering if we could talk over email. I feel your frustrations and I'm
wondering if there's something that could be done.

------
avilay
Even if her business idea was bad, or her app didn't have traction, or her LI
profile was not impressive enough, she deserved, at the very least, the
following:

    
    
      * Access to VCs, she had to use her husband's email to get access.
      * Some constructive and personalized feedback. This does not have to be very detailed, a couple of no-BS sentences will do the trick.
    

I get that VCs are too busy to respond to each and every email they get, but
they, and every one of us in the tech sector who is in a position to do so,
needs to walk the extra mile to pull in people from under-represented
communities who are trying to get in.

~~~
anon102010
Anyone who interacted with her got called out by name as racist.

------
AMerePotato
I'm not sure why this article is so controversial. Whether her app deserved
funding or not wasn't what the main point of the article was. No one is saying
they are obligated to fund a startup because a person is black.

If VCs want to claim to put effort into supporting black founders, then they
should follow through on that with their actions. They had committed to
meeting and helping black founders. Ignoring emails and generic responses is
in no way helping. They could have still said no and been more accommodating
as they claimed they would do.

------
latte
VCs' duty is to act in the interests of their limited partners, so they have
to make investments that they think will generate the highest returns, within
the fund's investment mandate.

It may make sense for the activists to apply pressure on the limited partners
(many of these being institutions with some social / public angle, such as
pension funds, university endowments or sovereign and municipal funds) to
demand higher diversity of founders from the venture funds they invest in.

Some large-scale investors have a history of adopting a social or
environmental based elements in their investment strategy (for example,
Norway's SWF divesting from coal and oil companies) - probably similar moves
(but aimed at equal opportunities for all backgrounds) can be demanded from
major US based asset management institutions - I don't see why, just to take
an example, Harvard's board of trustees can't agree to that - even if that
change is not directly aimed at generating the highest return on investment,
it may be the right move from the longer term societal development perspective
and for the university's brand value.

------
amb23
I don't know how to flag this thread to the mods, but--hey mods, can we lock
these comments? It's disheartening to see threads on women/minorities in tech
on Hacker News get strong, negative reactions from the community like some of
what's written here. I would hope the forum can hold itself to higher
standards than what I'm reading here.

~~~
SamReidHughes
You mean you want to be in charge of what people say on the basis of how you
feel, instead of on the basis of what's true (or not).

~~~
amb23
In order for internet communities to thrive, you need to install some sense of
"psychological safety." I'm using this term in the same vein that Google uses
when they say that psychological safety is the foundation needed to build
highly effective, high-performing teams. (It has nothing to do with "safe
spaces" and whatnot.)

On this thread, a female founder made the top comment with a personal
experience relating to the article, only to get inundated by comments telling
her she was wrong (from one commenter in particular). Similar reactions were
found to the article itself. Yet someone's lived experience is just that; it's
their perspective on their own, true personal experience. Calling perspective
"untrue" right off the bat is like a form of internet gaslighting; it stifles
open dialogue.

If we want have good conversations online--something that's incredibly hard to
do, yes--we need to give space to the people who share their experiences. I'm
disheartened because I look to Hacker News for open commentary on issues and
problems in the tech industry, and it's sad to see that dialogue overrun with
people who just want to tell others they're wrong. If it takes locking a
thread to improve the overall conversation, and get back a sense of
"psychological safety" needed for those good conversations--so be it.

------
towaytie4567
Why is it that African-Americans (not including Black Africans in this) tend
to seek acceptance into White institutions and power structures, instead of
building parallel ones? For instance, TiE[1] (The Indus Entrepreneurs) was
specifically set up to fund Indian founders. At the time, there was pervasive
bias (not that it doesn't exist today) against Indians as being good enough
only as rank-and-file engineers, but not as founders or leaders [2]. TiE was
instrumental in funding some of the earliest Indian founders many of whom are
successful VCs today. They effectively forced the White VC power structure to
sit up and take notice. Today, there is a flourishing ecosystem of Indian VCs
and founders.

On a related note, as an Indian, I'm envious of what China is doing today -
they realized pretty early that the Western world order would never have a
place for China as equals. Hence, they began to develop viable alternatives to
Western technology and institutions. Those efforts are beginning to bear fruit
today. The borderline insanity and paranoia that the West has developed [3]
about China is justification enough for those efforts.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiE(https://en.wikipedia.org/w...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiE\(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiE\))
[2]
[[https://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archiv...](https://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/05/15/279748/index.htm\]\(https://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/05/15/279748/index.htm\))
[3] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-
big-h...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-
china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-
companies\]\(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-
how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies)

------
atdrummond
I’ve seen this with a firm I advise; I get far better responses to outbound
fundraising than the founder, who has a distinctively African name.

------
twayback
This is the problem with all of these "diversity" pushes --- people have
started feeling they should be "helped" and even funded.

Top VCs reject thousands of pitches every year, you are one. Black or white
does not matter, deal with it.

------
areoform
Venture Capital started out as high-risk, high-reward high technology
investments. Genentech, LSI, Teradyne, BTU International, and Apple. As Sam
Altman, Thiel et al, and others have noted, VC lost its way since the late 80s
and started focusing on widgets and "blitzkrieg" capital. The point of
differentiation shifted from proprietary semiconductor or recombinant DNA
technology to the ability to deploy large amounts of capital at scale,
quickly.

What has mattered has also shifted. Uber's ride hailing solution was a
revolution, of sorts, but it was an incrementalist one. The breakthrough that
led to the production of synthetic insulin was a transformative one. Uber
isn't a sustainable business. Genentech is still alive and kicking.

The personality types that are chosen for to create a business where the only
metric of "innovation" is growth and genentech are different. In one, Steve
Woz is a viable co-founder. In the other, he simply isn't, and is filtered out
actively and implicitly.

There is discrimination in Venture Capital, that much is clear. But this issue
makes it far worse. As it creates an ineffable bar that is vague and entirely
defined in the VC's head. It is easier to answer the question if someone is a
genius. Because genius is genius no matter the gender identity or race. A
scientific or technological breakthrough is a breakthrough. No matter the
origin. But the ability to "blitzkrieg" a business? Who knows.

When the only metric for success is rapid growth, and the only way for rapid
growth to be predicted is for it to happen, it creates a murky set of rubrics
and metrics where the number of bad companies by white/asian, cis-male
founders who went to Stanford outnumber the number of great ones by people who
don't qualify for those checkmarks.

The new system delivers sub-par returns and it is obvious that an alternative
is needed. Despite great work being done by people like 1517 fund, Sam
Altman's new firm, YC, Founder's Fund, Lux Capital etc, the industry isn't
actively seeking out people with potential breakthroughs. It is creating
artificial barriers to their success. Personally, the most significant sign
that something is wrong with the ecosystem is that a potential breakthrough in
phenotypic screening of pharmaceutical molecules wasn't sought out
[https://www.daphnia-labs.com](https://www.daphnia-labs.com) , but the "Uber
for X" by Template Stanford Founder Y will be.

It is also apparent that an alternate financing system is needed for companies
that aren't technologically innovative, such as Nerissa's but aren't quite
small businesses either. Companies that do fall under the "high-growth
potential" label, while lacking the other qualities.

The blurring between VC, traditional PE, and small business banking have led
to sub-par outcomes for all involved.

------
hckr_news
VCs shouldn’t be the gatekeepers to capital. The game is rigged. Who gets
funding is decided by arbitrary metrics, inherent biases, and already
established networks. Personally I’m planning on bootstrapping my own business
and don’t plan on asking a VC for a hand.

~~~
mad182
Of course they should. Investors have every right to choose where to invest
however they want, it's their money and nobody is entitled to it.

~~~
thinkindie
The very point of the article, I guess, is pointing out those VCs that rode
the wave around BLM topics just for the sake of their own public image without
even delivering anything close to their pledge.

~~~
callalex
Just because some rich a-hole tweets and blogs something doesn’t mean that
anybody actually believes them. In fact, most people have a decent BS
detector, see these fluff statements for what they are, roll their eyes, and
move on with their life.

------
jrsj
Capitalists only pretending to care about an issue to improve their image
while continuing to only optimize purely for profit instead of taking
additional risk to do the right thing? Shocking. /s

------
s4n1ty
Does she offer any actual evidence that she was rejected due to racism? She
just seems to assume it.

~~~
Geoffhk
The part where she doesn't get a response when using her email but does when
using her partner's email is pretty convincing. There are many studies that
gauge racism in hiring by sending out resumes that only differ in candidate's
name.

~~~
xibalba
I don't think so. The husband's resumé is dramatically more qualified that the
author's. He has multiple startups/exits and was a FAANG engineer.

------
eevilspock
Wow. This post was marked dead within a minute of it being posted. I "vouched"
for it, though given my pariah status on HN for calling out SV on social
issues (such as racism), I'm surprised my "vouch" had any affect.

I have a lot more to say but HN doesn't really welcome my point of view, so...

~~~
dang
That site has been banned on HN for 7 years, for whatever reason. Posts get
autokilled when a site is banned.

You're certainly not a pariah on HN. But would you please stop posting
unsubstantive and/or flamebaity comments? You've done it a lot, and those
comments usually get downvoted, which is a correct use of downvotes. Your
point of view is as welcome as anyone else's, if you'd express it more
substantively.

~~~
manaman
Hello Dang,

Could you please share more details on sites getting banned? I did a quick
glance of the site in question, doesn't see much to get banned.

Thanks

~~~
dang
There are lots of reasons why a site might get banned, but the main ones are
when they are spam or consistently a source of off-topic or low-quality
articles.

In this case it's hard to say because 2013 was a long time ago. It might have
been because someone was oversubmitting or trying to promote the site on HN.
That's another reason why we might ban a site.

This site looks like an online magazine focused on the SF Bay Area. When I
look at the submissions I see a penchant for sensational titles and a lot of
articles that aren't on topic for HN, but also a few articles that would make
good HN submissions, except possibly for the titles. Two examples of good
ones:

[https://thebolditalic.com/the-remarkable-story-of-the-
golden...](https://thebolditalic.com/the-remarkable-story-of-the-golden-gate-
bridge-b126070998d8)

[https://thebolditalic.com/how-tech-is-deciding-who-gets-
to-g...](https://thebolditalic.com/how-tech-is-deciding-who-gets-to-go-
camping-7481c587d94) (good article, bad title)

For that category of site, we generally don't ban the domain, but rather
downweight it to countervail the sensationalism. I'll switch this one over.

------
cowpig
My experience in trying to raise capital is pretty similar to the author's,
and I'm a white guy. However, I don't think that detracts from her point.

If the system were more meritocratic, the demographics of people being funded
would more closely match the demographics of the world. But it's actually a
game of personal connections, theater, and psychological manipulation that has
little relation to competence in most business domains.

I think VC (and financial) culture in general is totally broken and far from
meritocratic, unless you feel that getting good at the wealthy-capitalist-
image-of-success-signaling metagame is a measure of some kind of merit.

~~~
bagacrap
Structural racism ensures that whites have better access to
education/experience from an early age. By the time VCs get involved, it may
well be meritocratic.

------
oh_sigh
An insidious effect of racism is that one can explain any negative interaction
through that lens if one is inclined. Based on her post, I don't actually see
racism, I see someone with a stronger background and more bona fides being
more successful at pitching than someone with less of those things. In most
other situations, HN commenters would be saying something like 'anecdotes are
not data'. I think it's hard to draw large scale conclusions of a 'different
reality' from this.

~~~
manaman
Did you read the linked TechCrunch article and how some of the VCs mentioned
wanted to help some demographics which founder belongs to?

~~~
oh_sigh
Yes, and?

