
Michael Arrington on Racism: The Game - stickfigure
http://uncrunched.com/2011/11/02/racism-the-game/
======
jerfelix
The fact that Michael can't come up with a single black entrepreneur, when
asked to come up with one off the cuff, actually speaks more for his LACK of
racism.

Michael talks to a LOT of entrepreneurs. He looks at their quality of their
companies. Sounds like he doesn't look at the color of their skin first.

I really appreciate the fact that he does NOT categorize them in his brain,
like: "This is my list of entrepreneurs. Blacks on the left, whites on the
right." No, he thinks of them first as entrepreneurs. When asked to come up
with a black entrepreneur, he has to think through the entire list, checking
their skin color.

I really didn't find his comment snippet to be particularly offensive either.
He was asked to come up with one on the spot, and couldn't. BFD. (I wish he
would have said "I don't consider the color of the person's skin when I meet
entrepreneurs", because isn't that the ideal world? And he basically said the
same thing by struggling to come up with a black entrepreneur.)

Ask him to come up with an entrepreneur that drives a blue car, or has red
hair or has an ear piercing only in his left ear, and you'll probably get the
same struggle, where he has to think about it for a while, and can't come up
with one. So what!

~~~
wlievens
> When asked to come up with a black entrepreneur, he has to think through the
> entire list, checking their skin color.

Heh, reminds me of database column indexing.

------
nadam
I am with Mike on this one. I am in the position of seeing this whole story
from far away from SV from a small Eastern European country. I think to be far
away helps me have a perspective on this 'playing the racism/sexism card'
story. I know lots of Eastern-European guys who has been programming since
they were 12 yeaers old, are very good at it, are intelligent, etc. but have
incomparably worse 'social status' than anybody in the U.S, even black people
or women. Lots of talent wasted, lots of people earning fractions of money
what they could with a little more connections and 'social proofs' behind
them. Here in Eastern Europe we are used to that life is hard, you have to be
so good that they cannot ignore you. You have to convince people about how
good you are through email or skype, you have to try to get a visa, etc...
Women and black people who are born in the U.S. are much more privileged
compared to most of the world's population. I have worked at local branches of
U.S. companies. I had lots of white/black males/females as my bosses. All of
them earned much more money than me and not all of them had the knowledge I
have on software development. Anybody with even absolutely mediocre knowledge
and not very much experience from the U.S was called 'senior associate', but
even very experienced eastern europeans were sometimes titled simply
'associate', etc... I've seen lots of brilliant people with Ph.D-s doing the
most boring grunt work, because that's what is outsourced here. But that's
life. You have to earn 'social proof' with hard work. I don't think black
people or women who are citiziens of the U.S are in especially bad situation
in this regard.

~~~
calibraxis
Are you aware the US jails more of its people than any other nation? No other
country comes close. Like 5% of the world's population but 25% of its
prisoners.
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcerat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate))

As you can verify by digging deeper into the data, the US is highly racist;
massive numbers of Blacks are incarcerated. (This is what happens when a
society was recently forced to stop formal slavery, without other fundamental
changes. You still have to control them.) You can imagine how this destroys
Black families, as well as the pervasive racist attitudes which are necessary
to keep otherwise decent people from uniting to tear the system down.

The argument that racist attitudes make a difference is all the more
compelling, when you consider that tech investors often make snap judgements
on pitches which last mere minutes. Assuming you can even get to that point.

So with all due respect, I'm not sure you have a clear view of the US. Though
I have no doubt that your country is exploited by foreign powers, like the US.
(People who'll do that to their fellow citizens will happily do the same — or
worse — to you.) And I don't just mean relatively skilled software
programmers.

~~~
grammaton
I'm terribly sorry, but you're making a huge leap here. The fact that "massive
numbers" of blacks are incarcerated does not automatically imply pervasive
racism. The one does not necessarily imply the other.

~~~
Rariel
What about the fact that Black men were disproportionately executed for rape,
so much so that they stopped making the death penalty an option for rape
cases? Is that institutionalized racism or just bad luck?

~~~
grammaton
I was under the impression that it was actually _poor_ men who were executed
disproportionately for rape. And while we're tossing stats around, how about
the general amount of crime committed by said Black men? It is higher per
capita, is it not? Is that due to racism too?

~~~
Rariel
You are incorrect, it is not poor men. "Of the 455 men executed for rape in
the United States between 1930 and 1967, 90 percent were African American."
Although I'm sure the vast majority of those men were poor.

re: stats please provide some if you'd like some in return because you've made
a huge generalization and I'd say that it's your bias speaking (not racism).
In response to your question, if it is true that black men commit more crimes
I'd say that the situation of blacks in america is directly tied racism,
slavery and the like so yes, it is due to racism too.

~~~
grammaton
"Between 1930 and 1967"

You're going to have to do better than citing stats that are 44 years old. All
this proves is that 44 years ago, there was a problem, which is not exactly a
point of contention among most sentient beings at this point.

"you've made a huge generalization and I'd say that it's your bias speaking
(not racism)."

Seriously? These are not obscure statistics I'm talking about here. Here,
check this one out:

"As of 2005, statistics show that offending rates for blacks were more than 7
times higher than the rates for whites."

Taken from
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Char...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Characteristics_of_offenders)

Or how about:

"These specific facts about the Bell shooting are just a few of the hundreds
of thousands of data points that reveal a hard truth: any given violent crime
in New York is 13 times more likely to have a black than a white perpetrator.
While most black residents are law-abiding and desperately deserve police
protection, the incidence of criminal activity among young black males is off
the charts."

Taken from <http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-02hm.html>

And that was with five minutes of Googling. I'm not making some wild, off the
wall assertion here. This is a well known and exhaustively documented fact.

"I'd say that the situation of blacks in america is directly tied racism,
slavery and the like so yes, it is due to racism too."

I figured you would. Slavery ended 150 years ago, so if you want to assert
that some 7 generations later it's still having effects, I welcome you to
provide data to that effect. This, right here, is the problem in a nutshell -
the minute these facts are mentioned, the hue and cry of racism and slavery
goes up, and all further thought on the matter stops. The causes of this
situation are complex, and reducing them to one dimensional truisms does no
one any favors.

~~~
Rariel
First of all, I was talking about the death penalty in rape cases, the
statistics are old because it's an old problem, "The 1977 Coker v. Georgia
decision barred the death penalty for rape, and, by implication, for any
offense other than murder."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States)
So your point is moot.

As for your wiki cite, first of all you're talking about murder when your
first comment was regarding the total number of black people incarcerated.
Which would you like to discuss? You pulled that quote (as of 2005) off of a
graphic, had you read the text to the left you would have seen this: "As of
2008, statistics report that of 16,277 murders, 10,568 were committed by
males, 1,176 were by female, and 4,533 were committed in which the offenders
sex was unknown. Likewise, 5,334 murders were committed by white offenders,
5,943 were committed by black or black and Hispanic offenders, 273 were
committed by offenders of other races, and 4,727 murders were committed by
offenders whose race is not known. [12]" So white people murder about the same
as black people. There are less black people in the united states, what do you
think the reason behind this is? You think black people just have more bad
apples in their bunch than whites? Are blacks just more prone to be criminals?
Or is it based on the conditions of their community? How did their community
get that way? Was it their own doing or did it have anything to do with Jim
Crow laws, were those laws racist?

Your other statistic is NY specific therefore I will not address it because I
am talking about a systematic problem, not NYC which is a major metro area and
therefore likely to have more crime.

"Slavery ended 150 years ago" But how long ago was it that Jim Crow was in
effect? How long did it take for Jim Crow to be completely abolished? There
are still signs up that say whites only because they haven't been removed--
I've seen some with my own two eyes.

It's unfortunate that you cannot see the connection between the current state
of the black community and the trans-atlantic slave trade, hundreds of years
of enslavement followed by legal racial segregation that just ended 40 years
ago--I know plenty of people who went to segregated high schools.

"The causes of this situation are complex, and reducing them to one
dimensional truisms does no one any favors." I don't believe I ever said it
was due to one thing. Racism in itself is highly complex and in no way one
dimensional.

I really have no interest in continuing this debate with you. I'll agree to
disagree.

------
philk
It's times like this that I wish there was more scrutiny of the media itself.
We've got a reporter, Soledad O'Brien, who is cynically exploiting an issue so
she can get a good story and she doesn't have to answer questions about her
behavior because she's got the bigger megaphone.

~~~
staunch
People read something on CNN or NYTimes and think it must actually be true.
The assumption is that stories are thoroughly fact checked and are free from
any significant bias.

Once you've seen firsthand just how biased and intentionally misleading they
can be you will see how fundamentally flawed their model is.

You shouldn't trust what Soledad O'Brien says just because she _happens_ to
work at CNN. Even the best of these organizations don't do enough to maintain
the standards that would be necessary for you to trust everyone who works for
them.

Hopefully in the future journalists will live and die by _their own_
reputations, and not get to hide behind the power of "trusted" brands. The
system as it is causes great harm to individuals, companies, and the world at
large.

Just look at what certain people were able to do by leveraging the power of
trusted news sources in the lead up to the the Iraq war. A few corrupt
individuals were able to abuse the public's trust to push an agenda based on
lies.

On a much smaller scale this is what Soledad O'Brien is doing to Arrington.
She had an angle for a story and she did what was necessary to cast him as the
bad guy. It's an unfair abuse of power and trust -- power and trust that she
clearly doesn't deserve.

~~~
zby
Story is everything for the media. I used to trust BBC until their subsidiary
did a documentary on migrant workers that featured myself. Not that it was
something vicious like the thing CNN did to Arrington - but it was so clearly
manipulated to fit what they decided to make the story - that it makes me
laugh. Things like:

1\. For maybe 6 hours they spent in our flat my daughter cried maybe a minute
or two - but they put it as one of the first scenes to set the emotional tone
of the story.

2\. When I say "There used to be lots of job adverts in this newspaper - now
there is so few of them, everything is in the Internet" they cut it to "There
used to be lots of job adverts in this newspaper - now there is so few of
them."

~~~
Alex3917
At the end of the day, much of the blame for racism and inequality in the US
lies with those who work for or subscribe to advertiser-supported media. Both
Arrington and Soledad O'brien are part of the problem.

------
OoTheNigerian
As a black founder in Technology, I have writeen what I think are two good
posts on this issue. Like Michael said hewas advised, people rather not
discuss this or instead argue on a tangential.

If there is a problem, talk about it and fix it. If not it will persist. Like
I always say discussions about race ishould not be equated to racism.

In case you are interested, here are my 2 posts on the issue

Race andTechnology: Are There Renowned Internet Startups With Black Founders?
<http://oonwoye.com/2010/04/05/black-founders/>

Hackernews And The ‘dirty’ Black Founder Question.
[http://oonwoye.com/2011/03/21/hackernews-and-the-dirty-
black...](http://oonwoye.com/2011/03/21/hackernews-and-the-dirty-black-
founder-question/)

It is hard not to notice that the usual top commenters avoid ths topic like a
plague.

If you can though, I'd like feedback on my posts. If you wish you can email me
your comments, It will be kept private.

It is rather ironic that Mike says he is open to discussing about Race issues
but has closed comments on this post and the previous one. I understand he
might be avoiding mudslinging. But sadly, the race topic is a really difficult
one to moderate. However, if it is to be solved, it MUST, be discussed. I
cannot think of any other way around

~~~
hvs
As to your second post, I think you are on the right track. I think -- in the
U.S. -- when race is brought up in discussions, white people are immediately
on guard for a couple things: 1) Being perceived as a racist for something
they say, regardless of whether it was meant in that way, 2) being in a
conversation where someone _else_ says something that could be perceived as
racist and that they are going to be inadvertently associated with someone
that is racist. For these reasons, I think most white people, when in mixed
company, will generally try to avoid any discussions of race.

I'm assuming that you aren't from the U.S., so I will add that race is
probably the most sensitive subject that you can discuss in this country. A
label of "racist" has been known to ruin many prominent careers (whether it
was deserved or not). When presented with opportunity to discuss this subject,
most people will avoid it, not because they are racist, or because they don't
think it is a problem, but because they are honestly afraid -- and rightly so
-- of being called a racist.

Until we can have a discussion where white people are not immediately assumed
to be racist because they said one thing that isn't in the accepted canon of
"valid statements about race," we won't be able to have honest and open
discussions about race.

Full disclosure, I'm a white, male, American.

~~~
binarycheese
I believe you are right. Honestly, I don't Mike is racist but the "Passive
Attitude" that he can't think of any black founder - when he clearly knows
some is kind of dishonest.

~~~
kstenerud
Quick! How many redhead entrepreneurs do you know?

Tick tick tick DING! Time's up! Don't know any, huh? What about Mr Brown? Oh,
so you DO know redhead entrepreneurs. So you're just being dishonest!
Obviously, you're biased against redheads then.

It sounds just as ridiculous when you insert "black" in there.

------
wisty
My advice to Mike - keep talking. I doubt he's a racist. He's kind of the
product of a racist system (just like all of us), and I have a lot of faith
that talking about it will bring about something positive.

Of course, there's whiney postmodernists who think that talking about the
problem will make it worse. They think that the problem is racism, per say,
and not the _legacy_ of racism - the broken system. Most people are acting in
basically good faith, and I think the more talk there is the more stuff will
get fixed.

------
bilbo0s
Can I ask a serious question?

To me, what Arrington is saying sounds totally reasonable. It doesn't sound
racist at all. It sounds like he is trying to be a part of the solution. Why
are people pummeling him from every side?

Is this what America has come to? You make a reasonable and moderate statement
and the people at the extremes immediately rush to the center to knock you
over the head. I never thought I would see the day when most of America
positioned itself at ideological extremes.

Kudos to you Mike! Keep up the good work!

Oh...

and incidentally...

ignore your friends' advice.

To paraphrase the Feminists...

"Well behaved men rarely make history!"

------
JulianMiller520
(full disclosure: I'm a black founder) Mike's friends were right to tell him
to stop talking because this is one of those issues, as evidenced by 90% of
the responses below, that quickly gets twisted to help sharpen the axe that so
many wish to grind. We've got posts citing the percentage of prisoners who are
black and some focused on what they perceive to be the lack of ethics in
journalism. Someone talks about Obama being described as black when his
heritage was predominately white. None of which have anything to do with the
reality of your situation with regard to CNN and this interview.

Mike, you were used as the key to open Pandora's box. Doesn't mean you have to
stay in the keyhole. Move on. You aren't the first and you certainly won't be
the last. Instead of worrying about what a sea of individuals think, worry
about what you can control. You've got a new platform with
Uncrunched/CrunchFund. Use it to be future focused.

------
nakkiel
Interview 101: record the session too.

At the very least, you won't be fooling around with "What I think I said in
the interview".

------
stickfigure
What I find most interesting about this is the surprise tactic of the
interviewer. This is one of my nightmares; I'm often terrible at recalling
sometimes absurdly obvious facts (say, the names of friends) when I'm
surprised or under stress. I can't count the number of times I've thought
"damn, I should have said..." just minutes after it's too late.

I've been interviewed a few times (fortunately by friendly interviewers on not
particularly important subjects) and I have to confess that it's not one of my
innate skills. I'm pretty sure the right person with a video camera and the
right editing software could easily make me look like an idiot.

I have a lot of sympathy for Arrington, even if he is a loudmouth.

~~~
nakkiel
Let's assume for a while that Arrington was really racist and that it was
common in the whole tech industry.

As a journalist, would you approach him openly saying you intend to study
racism in the tech industry or would you rather approach him under a general
angle and gather what you can in the process?

The second approach has a lot of value because Arriginton talked without the
"racism" topic in mind, which _could_ underline latent racism quite well.

Now, it's easy to use the wrong word, etc..

I suggest people who have never experienced racism as a victim to go abroad
for a while and get the chance to reflect on their own behaviours. I
personally find that the small everyday words that nobody notices are the most
difficult to deal with because loud words and fights are easy to discard as
the products of some odd minds.

Now, racism in tech? Of course, just like anywhere else. No more no less.
Arrington, a racist? He wouldn't be the first nor the last.

There are figures though backing the representation of blacks in the tech
world. Those figures are that of education in the US [I'm sure you'll find
them]. The correlation is so obvious that the journalist barely deserves her
title.

Perhaps the whole US system is a bit racist. Not a delusional Nazi-style
racism, just a little latent racism. The kind of racism that makes a part of
the population a little less comfortable everyday.

But eh. So is the whole world.

PS: I'm sorry for the rather personal tone and the emotions out there.

~~~
klipt
> Let's assume for a while that Arrington was really racist

Even if that were true, the last thing you should do is call him one.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc>

If someone makes a racist comment, attack the comment, not the person.

~~~
nakkiel
Thank you for missing my point.

------
praptak
A journalist misstates the scope of the interview, asks aggressive questions
about an issue that has accumulated a lot of emotions ( _"save the children!"_
) and then posts out-of-context blurbs? This isn't exactly new but still worth
remembering whenever someone asks you for an interview.

------
CWuestefeld
Nobody has yet commented on Arrington's thread of discussion regarding the
non-minority status of Asians:

 _And by minorities CNN meant blacks and hispanics, because Asians, who have
disproportionate success in Silicon Valley, don’t count._

When people claim that there's a double-standard between whites and
minorities, it's generally overlooked that there is in fact a triple-standard.
The fact that Asians have become successful despite huge historical
disadvantages should make us wonder if the approach we're taking to racism is
constructive at all.

And it strikes me that the unspoken attitude that Arrington refers to is,
itself, highly racist. Consider this article, "How the Asians became White"
[1]

 _Ultimately, the only way to solve any of our problems, including our racial
ones, is to tell the truth. We should celebrate the fact that Asians have
succeeded. We should do things to make sure that all people, regardless of
their race, have a chance to succeed. But in our fight for this success, we
should be scrupulously honest about what's really going on._

[1] <http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/asian.htm>

~~~
shantanubala
Since the financial barrier for immigrating from Asia is much greater than
immigrating from Latin America, a greater portion of the Asian population in
the United States will inevitably be skilled or educated. A person who can
barely afford food isn't going to think about buying a plane ticket when they
can eat a few more meals. On the other hand, a person who can barely afford
food may consider walking in the Sonoran Desert because it doesn't require a
significant amount of money.

There's a lot of selection bias when it comes to the Asian population. Yes,
Asians were discriminated against many years ago. However, educated and
skilled immigrants skew the averages.

Just to clarify, this doesn't say anything positive or negative about Asians,
Latin Americans, or anyone for that matter. It just implies that it's easier
to travel from Latin America than it is from Asia. Calling Asians a "success
story" or using Asians as a "model" for other minorities is at best idealistic
and at worst destructive.

~~~
CWuestefeld
I'm sure there's something to your explanation, but I don't think that you hit
the target squarely.

It seems to me that in discussions about racism, what we're usually talking
about is an "old white guys' club" that, through cronyism, manages to mostly
keep out people other than white men. Even if it's true that geography tends
to filter out low-quality immigrants from Asia, those high-quality ones would
still be discriminated against by the white guys. The fact that this is not
happening seems to show that the standard narrative of racism no longer holds
water.

~~~
kenjackson
_Even if it's true that geography tends to filter out low-quality immigrants
from Asia, those high-quality ones would still be discriminated against by the
white guys._

They probably are. How many Asians do you know that are CEOs of Fortune 500
tech companies? There's a well documented theme in the American Asian
community that if an Asian and White guy are up for a promotion, the White
will get it despite the quality of work by the Asian.

Asians do fine on the front-line of professional positions, but they're
horribly underrepresented in management (versus their numbers in the front-
line).

------
wh-uws
I've said my piece on the racial part of the issue here
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3170071>

But this what I admire about Mike quoted from the article:

"I, in contrast, don’t say politically correct things. But I have educated
ideas about how to begin to fix the problem, and I’m willing to both speak my
mind and listen to others (but only if they don’t scream at me, or throw me
under the bus to write niceties about doing more while doing absolutely
nothing). And in the meantime I’m funding, promoting, hiring and generally
doing what I’ve always done to help out women and minority founders."

And that is exactly it. All of the "write niceties about doing more while
doing absolutely nothing" is not helping at all.

And the fact that Mike is much more focused on having and discussing "educated
ideas about how to begin to fix the problem" is what will

------
jarin
I think he's hit on a very good point: Many minorities are not pushed from a
young age to excel in areas that are useful in tech startups.

There is definitely progress being made in that direction, but it's probably
going to take a decade to start seeing real effects. Minority children
learning HTML in middle school right now simply need time to get through high
school, (maybe) college, and then get through the 5 years or more of actual
work that it takes to get good at programming or graphic/web/UI design.

In the meantime, the best thing we can do is encourage as many children as
possible to get into technology and science, and make the best use of the
people we currently have available to provide good role models and mentors for
those children.

------
cousin_it
Politics is the mind-killer. As a Russian person living in Switzerland, I
would enjoy HN more if I didn't have to look at articles about racism, gender,
US foreign policy, US finance, etc. If that's just my personal preference, it
could be implemented as some sort of personal filter. But if enough HN users
think the same, I think mentioning any political topic in a post or comment
should merit a ban.

~~~
fedd
i'd say, we russians dont even understand these race problems. in general we
dont give a damn on races and ethnities.

~~~
binarycheese
Проверьте это

From Russia With Hate [http://current.com/shows/vanguard/84906361_from-russia-
with-...](http://current.com/shows/vanguard/84906361_from-russia-with-
hate.htm)

~~~
cousin_it
I mildly dislike the parent of your comment, but strongly dislike your
comment. The investigation you linked to demonstrates about as much
understanding of Russian issues as the incorrect auto-translation you opened
with (I guess you wanted to say "Check this" but ended up with "Verify this").
Please do not take this as an invitation to discussion, because it isn't. You
started a thread about racism under my comment which explicitly asked to not
start such threads. Boo.

~~~
binarycheese
I am trying to tell you "things have changed".

------
jim_kaiser
Correlation doesn't imply causation. Under-representation doesn't imply
racism.

For the sake of argument, one could call the rock/metal music industry as
favoring whites and the hip-hop, rap music industry as favoring blacks.

Whats wrong with my logic?

~~~
cousin_it
Many online forums today are plagued by pointless repetitions of very weak
arguments without any systematized attempt to make them stronger. For example,
"underrepresentation implies racism" is a very weak pro-PC argument, easily
sniped by any anti-PC debater. I wonder if the pro-PC crowd ever came up with
a strengthened version of that argument?

More generally, maybe discussions of controversial topics would benefit from
detailed argument maps where each side can state their actual best response
instead of the watered-down version. Have you seen the detailed map of William
Lane Craig's Kalam argument for theism, which he used to beat Hitchens and
other prominent atheists in debate? No one should ever need to restate or re-
refute weak arguments when stronger versions are available.

My personal impression is that anti-PC arguments tend to be slightly more
robust than pro-PC ones, when strengthened as much as possible. But a
systematic mapping attempt could very well change my opinion, because I'm
probably not even aware of the strongest arguments for either side.

------
temphn
Interesting asymmetry: if A calls B a racist, the onus of proof is on B to
defend themself, and the standard for innocence is so high that this is
usually impossible. B's reputation is usually besmirched.

If A calls B a socialist or communist, however, then the burden of proof is on
A to prove the charge, and the standard for guilt is so high that this is
usually impossible. In this case it is A's reputation that is usually
besmirched.

We live in an era of racial McCarthyism. It's all the more strange as the most
powerful man in the world is black, and Arrington most likely voted for him.
Strange kind of racist that does that. Strange kind of "institutional racism"
that keeps blacks down in Silicon Valley yet gets the majority of the country
(and the Valley) to vote for Obama as president.

~~~
bgarbiak
You're implying that being called a socialist is as damning as being called a
racist? Really? What is so evil about these Danes and Swedes?

~~~
wlievens
I think the term "socialist" has a different connotation in the US than in
Europe. In Europe, a third of all voters (roughly) vote for parties that call
themselves socialist, while these parties are really center-left, in all
likeliness quite to the right in terms of what the average American considers
socialist.

~~~
middus
Moreover, there is no mainstream socialist movement in the US. Merely calling
Obama a socialist does not make it true.

~~~
michaelcampbell
That's his point; it's used as a perjorative in the US where in Europe it is
not (without regard to the truth of it.)

------
DanielBMarkham
It's interesting to me today how so many people view "business" as some sort
of monolithic political entity, just like teacher's unions or the NRA.

So if a politician is upset about the economy (and who isn't?) he meets with
"business leaders", much the same way if he were upset about proposed rifle
regulations he might meet with the NRA, or just like if one country doesn't
like the way another is acting they meet with the leader of that country.
Likewise, if a CNN reporter is upset (or smells a story) about minorities in
the startup scene, she ambushes a leader of the startup community with
questions about racism.

It shows a complete lack of understanding the thing you are talking about.
While you might make a case for institutionalized racism when it comes to
funding, there's no way in hell an internet user is going to know the race,
gender, religion, nationality, or sexual preference of anybody who runs a
webapp. Traction on the net is for the most part stereotype-free. Plus from
what I hear funding doesn't have the impact on startups that it had say five
years ago. The dynamics have changed. You'd have to be an idiot not to fund a
startup that had traction because of the race of the founders, and if you're
not using team and traction as primary metrics, good luck with your VC
business.

The entrepreneurial world is not a centralized, monolithic thing that somehow
you can talk or meet with any small number of people and understand and/or
control. It's a very poor mental model to use and promote.

I just find it weird that somehow reporters, or even politicians, expect there
to be a person they could go to in order to talk about the pantheon of
entrepreneurship. It doesn't work that way _by definition._ It's not like
there's a startup club where they hand out all these freebies and you're not
invited. To slant the coverage that way, even unintentionally and subtly, is
really whacked. It implies that economic problems are simply dependent on
meeting the leaders of various groups and gaining consensus -- that economics
is really just politics by another name. I understand why politicians do this
-- they have a faulty mental model of everybody being in some sort of
political group to be negotiated with -- but reporters need to up their game.
This kind of reporting screws over the viewer big time.

~~~
mattmanser
I disagree with your pov. I'm putting aside the trap this journalist sprung
and focusing on your contention that going after certain people in not
representative.

You seem to be totally ignoring how humans inherently work on a social level.

Why do people move to the bay? To be part of the community. And if that
community is racist, it presents extra barriers. Not that I think it is in
_any_ way.

There are people who hold the keys to success or failure in terms of funding
as you mentioned, but there are people, like the Mikes, pg, Steve Blank, Fred
Wilson, Eric Reis, Joel Spolsky, etc. who hold an enormous influence over the
community just from what they write. There are also many face-to-face
communities in the bay area that are equally influential. There are also key
schools where a lot of startups seem to emanate from in the US, so by
extension those schools are also influential.

You can't pretend these 'power' centres don't exist in the startup world and
if you were to try and identify why this demographic anomaly exists, who would
you ask?

Them.

The reason it's the same in business is because generally business owners end
up networking with other business owners, like startups network with other
startups, because they want feedback/help/discussion from their peers.

That's what a community is and that's why politicians and reporters will go
talk to these people, precisely because they know what they're talking about.
In fact it is/was Mike Arrington's job to tap into the thoughts/hopes/fears of
the startup community.

~~~
jriddycuz
Of course there are influential parties in the Valley, but that still doesn't
make it one thing. What the OC seems to have reacted against was the
reification[1] of the industry into a single thing. Of course you can
influence an industry, but the key to understanding what that means lies in
the the "fluid" part of "influence." The whole thing is a dynamic, swirling
mass of people and groups constantly interacting with and reacting to one
another. An industry isn't really a thing so much as it is a convenient way
for us to refer (somewhat nebulously) to a collection of companies that
operate in certain fields.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)>

~~~
ahoyhere
I agree with you. As I get older & more persnickety, it's got to the point
where every time I hear somebody refer to "the community" or "the industry" as
if it's a coherent entity with goals and plans and capable of taking action
(or even having a stance), I cringe. What that really says to me is "I live in
a fantasy land, run! run away! fleeee!"

In any "community" or industry ("community" in quotes here because people
abuse that word so much worse, calling swathes of people with no connection
whatsoever a "community" if they share some superficial trait), there will be
a small handful of people who DO lead opinions and DO do things and DO make
plans.

But then the rest are a swirling mass with no particular inlets or outlets.

~~~
mattmanser
But you can see it happening before your eyes every day.

You can see it in how everyone's website or logos look the same. How some
ephemeral concept of lean startup infects through people talking about
startups. How startup incubators start popping up everywhere.

The influence is there, to dismiss it as childish or 'fantasy' is strange to
me. It's just not a physical thing, it's a subtle form of group think. And
it's quite easy for someone like Techcrunch to use their influence over that
group think to engage in positive discrimination, which Arrington says they
have, highlighting Black and Hispanic startups more than they technically
merited.

------
natrius
Some objections:

 _"Or the coverage wasn’t good enough.
[[http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2011/10/arrington-race-
and-...](http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2011/10/arrington-race-and-silicon-
valley-i.html) ]"_

Hank said nothing of the sort. He said there is no proof that Arrington goes
out of his way to cover black founders as he had claimed. Hank didn't say
Arrington _should_ go out of his way, nor did he call Arrington a racist. Hank
just said that Arrington's claim was incorrect, and from where I'm sitting,
he's right.

 _"There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much
more easily than their white or asian counterparts."_

First of all, making claims of employment bias without evidence is generally a
bad idea. Secondly, Arrington is implying that underrepresented minorities in
the Valley are less qualified than their white and Asian colleagues, which, if
untrue, is a dangerous implication to make.

 _"And the list of mentors at his TechStars accelerator program – well let’s
just say they did manage to get a token black man and a token black women on
to that list of hundreds of mentors, but it sure doesn’t look like “take
action” to me."_

Referring to people as "tokens" implies that their presence is just for show.
I'm sure those mentors don't appreciate that sort of attack on their
professional accomplishments, and to assume that they're there just for show
is—dare I say it—racist. Consider replacing "token" with "single" in that
sentence if that's not what you mean.

Few reasonable people think Arrington has a conscious bias against black
folks, but he's not really helping his case here.

~~~
petenixey
"There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much
more easily than their white or asian counterparts."

This does not imply that underrepresented minorities are less qualified, only
that they're more likely to be hired. If you swapped "minorities" for
"Cambridge Math grads", you would probably infer that they were more
qualified.

The statement speaks to the likelihood of hiring, the implication of lower
quality you see is your own inference.

~~~
natrius
You are correct, but assuming similar distributions in talent among
underrepresented minorities in the Valley and among everyone else, my claim
holds. I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions, and I
don't think Arrington had that distinction in mind.

~~~
vidarh
> I don't think there's any evidence of differing distributions

Why do you think this? It is not unreasonable to assume that if a group is
underrepresented, and there might be a perceived glass ceiling, for example,
that those who do give it a go are more likely to be people who believe their
skills are sufficiently above average to give them a decent shot at overcoming
limitations.

Whether or not that's the case in SV is not something I have a basis for
saying anything about, but it's also too easy to just write it off and assume
the distributions are the same.

E.g. in many Western countries, the education of immigrants often vastly
outstrip the average education of the native population, for example, in part
because of restrictions on immigration, in part because the threshold for
moving if your skills are perceived to be of low demand is vastly higher. It
is perfectly possible similar self-selection applies to minority groups moving
into an area of business where they are underrepresented.

~~~
natrius
It is certainly possible; I just said there's no evidence of it that I know
of. Whether or not that is the case is immaterial because it's not what
Arrington was suggesting.

~~~
vidarh
Really? How do you know this is not what Arrington was suggesting?

That is exactly how I read and understood that comment given the context of
the rest he's written on the subject.

~~~
natrius
Because that interpretation makes zero sense in context.

 _"There are very few minorities here. When they are here, they get hired much
more easily than their white or asian counterparts. There is no conscious or
subconscious desire to keep minorities out [...] It’s the complete opposite."_

He's saying that people consciously desire to hire minorities, so they make it
easier for minorities to be hired. There is no reasonable way he was
suggesting that underrepresented minorities in the Valley are more competent
than everyone else. If that were the case, one wouldn't need to desire to hire
underrepresented minorities; you'd just get them as a byproduct of seeking out
merit.

~~~
vidarh
Your logic doesn't hold. You're making assumptions about why minorities are
sought after (or rather why Mike thinks they are sought after).

If minorities in the valley are people who are above average, then that would
make them more desirable in itself. All else being equal, if you got to pick
candidates only by race, and you knew (or _thought_ you knew) that one group
was above average, it'd be hard not to let it influence you.

And your argument that one wouldn't need to desire to hire them is flawed,
because if being a member of a minority in SV actually makes you more likely
to be highly skilled, then that is an easy signal for you to seek out the
person. You wouldn't _need_ to, but it's human nature to consciously or
subconsciously try to take "shortcuts" in evaluating other people, especially
when other knowledge of the person in question is lacking.

~~~
natrius
Can we at least agree that your point is contrived? I've never heard anyone
claim that black people in the Valley are more talented than everyone else, so
this is a silly argument.

------
TamDenholm
This is one of the very few times i'll come to Arrington's defense, i think
Arrington is a tool but i really dont believe he's a racist. Like he mentions,
his mind categorises people and companies by what they do, if they're smart,
get funding, have a track record, gaining traction etc etc, ye know, actual
merit, rather than things that dont matter, like what race the founders are.

------
yaix
Just another symptom of a society where success is defined by the amount of
money one makes, and not by one's ethical integrity.

Get eyeballs for CNN, whatever it takes.

~~~
Newgy
Actually I think this is more about a specific ideology in the newsroom at
CNN, and pushing that agenda.

------
loso
I think at this point its best if everyone waits until the interview actually
airs before making any more judgements. It seems a little crazy that the
situation has gotten to the level that it is at before the interview is even
shown.

~~~
martinkallstrom
I think Arrington is right to worry that the interview actually won't air, but
only the out of context sound bites that confirms CNN's version of reality.
And he is right to pre-empt that situation by posting that assumption in
public. Because then he can use the age old defense "I told you this would
happen" which, perhaps contrary to common belief, actually is effective
despite its banality.

------
Rariel
This idea that you're either "racist" or "not racist" is ridiculous. We all
have bias and prejudice, very rarely are people making n-word jokes or saying
things like "Tim is great but he's black/latino so I think he's not as smart
as Sally because she's white."

To have any sort of useful and truthful discussion about race in this country
we must look at it from a holistic perspective and be honest with ourselves
about the ideas and bias we have, it's less about shouting racist at somebody
and more about understanding how our society socializes us to believe certain
things (e.g. Asians are good at math, black people are good at sports and
entertainment, Jews are good with money and law). If we own up to the fact
that we all carry around bias and prejudice (often times without any malice or
cognizance of its' existence) we can start really getting at the issue of
racism and institutionalized racism.

All that being said, I think Mike is just a white guy who doesn't like to be
called racist even if some of the things he's said are offensive to people of
color and considered racist by them. He's a whiner to me and I've never liked
his attitude, I was done with him when he went after Warren Buffet for saying
rich people should pay taxes using tech crunch as his platform. He thinks he's
above any and all rules (journalistic integrity [even though he's not a
journalist], being racial sensitive, etc) and it is disturbing that he
continues to be so insensitive and offensive despite being told by several
people to be quiet.

------
rythie
Interestingly in a world of blogs and HN (and sites like it) he actually gets
to tell his own story, where as in the old media world you couldn't because no
one would really print your side.

------
vph
I don't think the interviewer intends to portray Arrington as a racist. I
don't think a reasonable person looks at this interview and conclude that
Arrington is racist. I think Arrington himself probably misses the point here.

At worst, he's "reverse racist", in the sense of affirmative action.

I don't understand why it is alarming that African Americans are
underrepresented in Silicon Valley. They are also underrepresented in the NHL
too. Is that a problem? Or for that matter, Asians are way underrepresented in
the NBA. Is that a problem?

It's just the way things are.

Now if an Asian guy shoots like Michael Jordan and can't get a job in the NBA,
then we have a problem. Or when a black guy has a great idea for a tech
company, and can't get funded, then we have a problem. But you shouldn't
simply invest in a company because the founder is black. That ain't right.

------
PagingCraig
As a black guy I really dislike the "Black in America" series that CNN runs,
it's like a self-loathing subtle form of self-inflicted hatred, or something.
Population of SV has 2-3% black people, so I don't know what they expected, or
are trying to do. Women have the same issue, just the facts.

------
Jd
The real problem here is that Arrington couldn't keep his mouth shut then and
probably can't now either...

Extended version: Arrington should have simply walked out of the interview
when he realized he was set up (which he should have realized quite quickly).
There are very real problems here, but it certainly does not to help to
address them via pomo hitshots or reality tv shows (looks like CNN is using
this to promote a "black in america" entrepreneurship reality tv show that
takes place in Silicon Valley). Likewise, all of this chatter is useless.
Recipe for success: Build good products. Take your earnings and invest them in
future generations (family, education, etc.). Repeat.

~~~
jarin
It's easy to say that, but when you're being interviewed by mainstream media
it's very easy to get a "deer in the headlights" feeling and just hyperfocus
on the interviewer. If you get nervous, the adrenaline can really hamper your
brain-mouth filter.

------
pedalpete
I don't wish any ill will on Arrington, but I have to wonder if he's not
created a story out of context in the past himself.

It may not have been anything as damaging as racism, and I'm not suggesting
that this is ok. It is a lesson that even those in the business, those who are
writers themselves need to be VERY aware of what they are saying and how any
little statement can be mis-cast and blown out of proportion.

------
charlesju
The funny thing here is that Michael Arrington doesn't care what we think.
He's just glad to be in the spotlight without Techcrunch. This is really a
giant F U to AOL, telling them that he can control the talk of the town
without his old outlets.

------
joelmichael
I'm with Arrington. He isn't racist in the normal way the term is used, it's a
very serious accusation to make, and rudely stifling his ability to speak his
mind on this is disingenuous and a typical tactic of those criticizing him.

------
hipsterelitist
All things aside, there seems to be more talk about Arrington than the
possibility of racism in start-up culture. I see this as a very big win for
his hype machine.

------
fistofjohnwayne
There is a magnificent confounding of race and class occurring in this
discussion.

------
ahoyhere
I was recently beaten down by an interview with a local tech reporter, who
twisted my words and put words in my mouth. She wrote a 300-word article with
so many breathtaking falsehoods or near-falsehoods that I just had to shake my
head and laugh.

She wrote that I "admitted to having a feminine touch" in the way my husband &
I teach our JavaScript workshops, when I did no such thing, instead spending
over an hour saying, repeatedly, "it's got nothing to do with the fact that
I'm a woman," "it's irrelevant," "the people I learned from are all men, with
the exception of Kathy Sierra," etc.

So, despite the fact that I think Arrington is an arrogant (and awesomely
alliterative) asshole, I can see exactly how this could happen, and would
totally believe that he was misused and misquoted in this instance.

Which sucks, for everyone.

~~~
chc
It really can get ridiculous. A reporter once attributed to one of my Japanese
friends a sentence she couldn't even understand because of the vocabulary and
complex grammatical structure. When that sort of thing happens, I suspect that
the writer literally wrote the story before doing the reporting and then made
minor modifications afterward.

------
earl
The quote from Adria Richards is breathtaking [1]: "The guy he had on stage at
TechCrunch Disrupt NYC, he’s known for several years…and he basically called
him a clown. Clarence Wooten sold his company, ImageCafe, for $23 million to
Network Solutions in 1999, that’s over 10 years before Arrington sold
TechCrunch to AOL for the same amount.

I’ve now likened it to Southern White male slave owner saying he has no idea
why there are mixed babies cropping up on this plantation even though he damn
well knows he’s been creeping down to the sheds at night.".

So Arrington being clueless about the structural causes of racial differences
in the valley is just like rape? No one has accused him of being personally
discriminatory. There must be some other way to interpret her statement
because Violet included it as well without comment...

[1] [http://butyoureagirl.com/12611/arrington-and-cnn-problem-
or-...](http://butyoureagirl.com/12611/arrington-and-cnn-problem-or-symptom-
of-diversity/)

~~~
natrius
Here's what she's referring to: "His startup’s really cool. But he could’ve
launched a clown show on stage, and I would’ve put him up there, absolutely."

Arrington said he put Clarence Wooten up on the stage just because he's black.
"He could've launched a clown show," and he still would've had him up there.
Because he's black. That torpedoes whatever merit Wooten had in the eyes of
the audience. Looking at Wooten's track record, it's clear that he's
competent, so Arrington probably didn't mean what he said, but people really
need to understand the implications of the words they use.

Her analogy is weird, though.

~~~
jodrellblank
Why would the phrase "clown show" make you think "black"?

If he said "I would put KNuth on stage even if he wanted to launch a clown
show", it doesn't sound like a mocking statement, but one of unconditional
_approval_.

~~~
reduxredacted
I think you've answered your own question here.

I'd put Knuth on stage, because, he's Knuth. You know he'd have something
interesting to say that would be relevant to your audience, assuming your
audience was the typical reader of this site, of course.

My wife is an avid cook. If she attended a conference on cooking and the
organizer put Knuth on stage because he wanted greater representation on
cooking from the programming community, even if Knuth was secretly a brilliant
cook, the audience would dismiss him.

This is, obviously, further complicated by the fact that putting a person on
stage because of an attribute that no person has control over is an
unacceptable bias. I'm not saying that's what happened (clearly it's not
because the guy had been successful in the past), I'm just putting into
context how a statement like that is perceived.

------
cq
"Statements like that, by the way, scare the hell out of me. They can be used
to justify almost anything. Like how we’re all racists. I wonder if Kapor
could argue that he himself is rational and objective, even though no one else
is."

Yes, we are. That study Kapor refers to is actually really good,
groundbreaking science. You should probably read it.

Just because you're a racist doesn't make you a Bad Person (since we're all
racists and we can't ALL be Bad), it means you need to come to terms with it
and look more critically as your decisions that might have been influenced by
our society to discriminate unfairly.

I'm sorry to be rude, but this article was written by someone who not only
won't take responsibility for making potentially racist comments, but won't
even reconsider whether the comments are racist or not.

Also, from the way he writes about it, I highly doubt Arrington has been
exposed to the great colonial (racist) history of "Entrepreneurship".

------
Rariel
The only thing I agree with Mike on is this "The way to fix this problem is to
try to get more very young minorities interested in business, science and
math, and create a culture that celebrates these interests in the same way
that being good at sports is celebrated today." Yet he doesn't even realize
that "the same way that being good at sports is celebrated today" is extremely
offensive coming from him. The only reason Black people excelled at sports was
that there weren't many other options for making a great deal of money without
a good education. A quick survey of black athletes will undoubtedly show that
they weren't at the top elementary schools and high schools in their areas.
When you don't have a solid education or any place to get one because of your
socio-economic class you turn to other options for making money, namely sports
or entertainment if you're "good" selling drugs and crime if you're "bad." The
comment itself is true but the idea that he can't understand the historical
context of his proposition or the reason it isn't already the case is sad.

