Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Facebook manager quit after being 'harassed' over views on diversity (cnbc.com)
70 points by allsunny 33 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 100 comments



>“I want to spend my time at a place willing to push further on diversity and inclusion. One where it’s not OK to write on Workplace that white privilege doesn’t exist.”

As a person of color, I would be very happy if it became policy to never use the phrase “white privilege” inside a workplace.

First of all it is making a blanket statement about an entire group of people. Saying <race> <attribute> is problematic as a principle.

Second, this too close for comfort to “white supremacy” for me. Both phrases describe white people as having a superiority to other races through the virtue of their whiteness.

Third, the phrase alienates people and makes them defensive. Most people can agree that having an environment where everyone can achieve their best is important. However, when you use words that cast people and their families as the villains and imply that they are not as deserving of what they earned as other people, then you turn them into your enemies.

I understand the phrase is trying to emphasize the historic and ongoing injustices against people of color. However, I think Trevor Noah’s phrase “black tax” is much more useful. This puts the focus on removing barriers and disadvantages, rather than on trying to remove someone’s “privilege”.


Not being American (and not being from a European country that colonised), I think POC is misleading as people of Asian descent don't seem to be nearly as stigmatised as people of African descent.


If this was reddit, I'd give you gold. Well said.


Heck, I would like Facebook to start hiring some enrolled tribal members so we can stop seeing accounts closed for having fake names. Just an FYI to any Facebook employee, the last names Good Iron, Yellow Horse, Walking Eagle, and Flute Player are an actual family names. I would welcome some diversity when talking about your customers.


Better yet, stop checking for "real" names. If I use something as a name of Facebook, it's because that's what I want to go by. What does it matter what's on my birth certificate?


Even better, let users choose whatever but have _every_ user account backed by a (not publically displayed) verified government ID.


According to this article, Facebook is "still largely white."

According to Facebook, in 2018 46.6% of their US staff identified as white and 41.4% identified as Asian (50.3% percent of US technical staff identify as Asian vs 42.7% who identify as white.)

https://www.facebook.com/careers/diversity-report


> One where if I call out that our board has too many white men

With only 1 woman on facebook's board of 9, men are considerably over-represented. But white people are not.

The board has 5 non-hispanic white people, 3 jewish, and 1 black. US demographics for those groups are 60%, 1.77%, and 12.6%.

This means white people are 92% represented, black 88%, and jewish 1880%.


"Jewish" and "white" are not considered to be mutually exclusive. It's very odd to see that categorization. Why do you group them like that?


A Jewish friend of mine once told me to pay attention to instances where they were classified as white or not and, dang, was she right. She called it being _selectively_ white. I think this is a good example of that.


Asians get the same treatment, though. They're the minority that gets forgotten about, because it doesn't fit some convenient narrative of e.g. "White males are dominating STEM fields", or "Minorities are discriminated against and thus fail to achieve success and affirmation".


They were treated as a separate group throughout most of Europe's history, and faced extreme prejudice and suffering because of it. Hardly seems fair to dilute their achievements and experience by lumping them under 'white'.


[dead]


Do you have a source for this? Because as the founder of Facebook is jewish, Facebook might not be a representative sample. I.e. it's expected, since a large part of his social circle (family, friends) are also jewish.


I kind of don't want to touch this issue for obvious reasons, but a while ago I read that 20-25% of Ivy League students are Jewish [1]. It makes sense that they'd be over-represented in education-driven professions.

1. https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-co...


It's not just Facebook. Jews are massively over-represented at the highest levels of society in most fields.

<2% of population in America, <0.25% globally. But:

20% of Nobel prize winners

10-25% of Harvard students (depending on source and school)

33% of US supreme court (3/9)

6% of US Congress

8% of US Senate

There are equally or more extreme numbers for things like movie studio leadership, rech company leadership, newsmakers and opinion writers, actors, comedians, etc. I just don't have time to look up the figures atm.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong or right about this; it's just an easily-verifiable physical fact.


On a world scale this is interesting:

Jews are only 0.2% of the World’s population, but 17.46% of the World’s billionaires. Thus their representation is 8,730% of their population share.

Of course any non-idiot would see this as simply an interesting fact worthy of researching out how being a jew correlates with success in a merit-based competency hierarchy... and not a reason to hate jews for conspiring to take over the world. While we're at it, we should probably also chill out on white men in general too.


Although i think this is normal behavior, it seems like a double standard. Wouldn't a white euorpean be inclined to do same thing (hire people similar to themselves)?

I hope that as tech expands to all continents and becomes a truly globally distributed sector, we'll stop caring about race at a specific company since tech will competitive and diverse on a global scale. (e.g. a firm in India competing with a firm in Germany competing with a firm in Brazil)


To the point, they are orthogonal and it's an incorrect comparison (regardless of any viewpoint on diversity).


In fact, even "Hispanic" and "white" are not considered to be mutually exclusive! These ethnic classifications are just weird.


For me (a Hispanic) it's odd to see any race categorization at all, it seems like an obsession for both right and left wings in the US. Why does it matter so much? White and Hispanic is not mutually exclusive in a lot of cases, the same for Black and Hispanic or Native American and Hispanic, in most cases it's difficult to even set a race tag.


Race used by statistics and government is of course a simplification, so if you have to do it, you kinda need to embrace the simplicity of it. Personally I think the term caucasian works well.

Jewish has of course a historic racial component, but practically (again, the simplicity) is more like an identity such as "hispanic". So if you are white hispanic, you're white. If you are jewish, you are white. If you're a black hispanic, you tick the box for black.


How are the jewish people 'white'? Are black people white? Arabs? How are YOU drawing the line?


Most of the Ashkenazi Jews are certainly white, as in they have white skin. I’d say that even the Sephardic Jews would be considered white based on their skin color alone. But categorizing people by skin color is one of the stupidest things ever, though, as I for myself am white (as in I have white skin) while my brother is more brownish, the reason for that being that our father is white-skinned while our mother is more dark-skinned.


Is zuckerberg white or jewish?


I wonder what is the correct way to look at the board representation. Sure you can use gender or race (are Jew's white or a separate race?). But what about BMI, hair color, eye color, height, sexual orientation, gender identification or index-ring finger ratio. How do we decide on which demographics we want to equalize? Surely, whatever board we decide on there will be one set of attributes which will show an unfair distribution.


It's out of topic, I know, but there's something I've wondered for a long time: if a Spanish person immigrates to the USA, do they count as Hispanic?


All the jewish people I know are white, so I am not sure these categories make sense. It may make more sense to refer to caucasians (albeit a broad category).


If the goal is diversity then I'm not sure "white" makes sense. If the goal is to be culturally diverse, then yes jewish people tend to have different experiences and culture than other "whites".


Most of the time people use the word “caucasian” because it seems somehow more “technical” or “scientific” than saying “white people”. It’s an unfortunate word, for sure.


Well, what did she write? How did she "criticize the lack of diversity"? I feel like it's a non-story without detailing what she wrote and what the backlash was.


That's the key piece of information that's missing here. If you start complaining constantly about things not related to your job then yes you're going to be an earsore.


part of what she wrote is in the article:

> I want to spend my time at a place willing to push further on diversity and inclusion. One where it's not OK to write on Workplace that white privilege doesn't exist. One where if I call out that our board has too many white men, I don't get harassed by other employees on Blind with transphobic messages saying I should be fired.

workplace harassment is certainly related to one's job...


> One where it's not OK to write on Workplace that white privilege doesn't exist

For some reason Sillicon Valley missed out on a "golden rule" that exists everywhere else -- do not talk about personal politics at work. I don't see someone denying white privilege as a problem so much as the fact that such discussions were happening using company resources on company time.


There may be lot of problems with diversity in Facebook, but you can't really be harassed on Blind: it's all about getting real raw opinions. If you don't want that, don't use Blind.


Of course you can be harassed on Blind; I've seen it happen plenty of times. It's no different than the kind of pervasive harassment that caused the death of Yik Yak.


Is it harassment to know that other people don't like you? I've seen (and held) opinions on both sides: middle-school me would've said yes, adult me says no.


There's a large difference between not liking someone, saying how much you don't like someone in a public space and actively spreading rumors or saying how much you'd like someone fired.

In that sense, the middle school analogy is apt considering how people can behave.


I'd say transphobic comments constitute harassment.


True. It also seems rather odd to be mad at HR for not being able to find the person who posted anonymously about you on the app you specifically went on due to it being anonoumous.

I mean it sucks that the world has racists, bigots, homophobes and all tons of other sorts of rubbish people. But you can’t really fault a company for the fact that they manage to get hired as long as they are dealt with when they are actually discovered.

Where they supposed to ban every employee from making any kind of anonymous comments online after this case?


Who was mad at HR?


Of course you can be harassed on Blind, "real raw opinions" and "harassment" are not the same thing. And "don't use Blind" doesn't really help with the knowledge that people you work with are willing to express those attitudes.


Obviously, the comments on Blind are not direct harassment, as you are not expected to read them, or can obviously choose not to read them.

The point is that it provides: hard data about the whispering campaign going on behind your back, the conversations from which you are excluded.

that the harassment does actually exist, and is not a mere allegation by you being paranoid.

that other people can go verify the hostile attitudes and expressions for themselves.

provides real, externally verifiable evidence of problems at facebook, not coming merely from the famous "disgruntled ex-employee"

Stop trying to minimize serious issues (and if you do want to minimize them, at least make sound points that are better than trivial sophistry, a half step up from complaining about typos).


And it provides a mechanism for people to spread lies about you and collaborate against you. You can't simply turn a blind eye to this stuff; it does affect you, whether you read it or not.


Lies are a bad thing, but in this case if you read what people wrote she probably went too far and hurt people who had no other way to defend themselves, but to organize againt her. Also mass lies are hard to do with Blind, as you can't just register 100 users, there are real people working at big companirs behind each user, that's why I like it so much.


This is probably one of the more absurd takes I've read, since it's essentially saying that the harassers are somehow the real victims in this situation.


Why can't there be multiple victims? People don't just start attacking a person for fun. There's always a reason. You may not agree with me, but in my experience diversity initiatives are nowdays extremely aggressive.


You're making an excuse for a woman suffering harassment, enough so that she clearly felt unwelcome at the company while acting like it's her fault for 'going too far' somehow, a claim which is entirely unsubstantiated.

Your logic is absolutely absurd. Acting like people 'don't just start attacking someone for fun' ignores the fact that people can and do face racism, sexism, transphobia and so forth. Especially when she clearly encountered transphobic comments, some of which I even saw spread here on HN.


It also ignores the fact that bullying exists, i.e. people indeed literally do "just start attacking someone for fun", and it doesn't stop with childhood. Anyone who's ever visited the comments section of any website knows this.


Exactly! Another one I missed


The issues of the people who are using blind to voice their opinions are at least as serious as the problems the woman who quit has. I understand that she felt harassed, but the point was not to hurt her, but to organize against her behaviour that others felt was too much. Also the article proved that Blind was needed: Facebook management was looking for the people and they could have got into trouble.


What's the difference between going onto blind (a non-work-sponsored app as I understand) reading dumb/offensive internet opinions and going on to 4chan and reading dumb/offensive internet opinions?

Was she required to use this app for her job?


One difference is that Blind requires you to verify your account through your work email address. So users of Blind's Facebook section are presumably Facebook employees, while (most) 4chan users are not.


And Blind is explicitly for workplace discussion, whereas 4chan is just a random discussion website.

A useful analogy would be that one bar near your work that lots of your coworkers go to often, and end up talking about issues at work. That bar isn't officially affiliated with the company, and you don't have to ever go to said bar to nevertheless be affected by what transpires there. Except Blind has more to do with the workplace than said bar because a lot of people post to Blind from work.


At what point is a workforce sufficiently diverse? Is it just a matter of “too many white males in this room - remove some of them, replace with politically acceptable demographics”? Feels like even in a diverse workplace there are always going to be people not happy about “not enough people like me here”. Do we set quotas and start passing over qualified candidates to hit them? I’m all for fixing real problems, but the target on this one seems exceptional fast moving and mired in destructive unintended consequences.


You're missing the point.

There are structural problems that inhibit participation from underrepresented groups. The objective is to level the playing field so everyone has a fair chance at success.

disclaimer: i am a black engineer who is tired of wasting time arguing with people who harbor views such as yours.


So you end up with unqualified people in positions just to meet the quota. All of a sudden sterotypes about these people start and anyone from this group starts getting labeled as dumb because they are hiring candidates by appearance rather than qualification. Sounds like a real good idea.


There are hundreds, if not thousands of posts and comments on this very website about under qualified individuals working various positions in tech. This community preaches looking past impostor syndrome and recognizing that most people are technically underqualified, and that is the job of the company/superiors to nurture talent.

All of a sudden we don't want to extend this same treatment to people who face structural problems that inhibit participation?


there are more posts about mistakes and bad employees

yes there is a difference between skills and talents of people


There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who could do most of our jobs adequately. The idea that hiring a diverse staff inherently means hiring an unqualified staff is laughable. It just takes a little more effort because the first qualified candidate to come across your desk is statistically (at least in our profession) more likely to be a straight white male. The qualified minority candidates exist if you put in a little work to find them.


diverse on skin color? thats racist


I'll worry about that if it actually happens. Thanks to hundreds of years of discrimination, America has had tons of incompetent white males in high positions, simply because pretty much anybody in any position of power was white and male, regardless of whether they were competent or not.

For some reason, the racial stereotype of white males being unqualified lazy freeloaders didn't really take root, apart from maybe a small group of vocal idiots.


Stop assuming that people from underrepresented groups are inherently unqualified.


> Stop assuming that people from underrepresented groups are inherently unqualified.

They're not. They are commenting how the criteria for hiring changed to include other attributes not related to skill.

If I hire people based on a mix of skill and how much they like baseball, I am inherently hiring on a different measuring stick. I could end up hiring someone with the most skill out of the hiring pool, but that doesn't matter - I'm not hiring based on skill, I'm hiring on some combination of skill and baseball.

It does not mean that the person who gets hired isn't the most skilled. But it also does not mean that the person who gets hired is the most skilled. I stopped caring about hiring the most skilled the moment I added a largely arbitrary hiring attribute into the requirements, how much they like baseball.

Generally I have a problem with this, but I think it's less of a problem than people make it out to be. Yes, we are not hiring based on skill alone.. but, we never were. We were hiring based on skill, attitude, work ethic, how they work with people, etc. A long laundry list of things we want a candidate to be, and difficult to figure out to boot. So yea, if we stop hiring whites because we've got too many, we may miss out on some skill - but when so many of the hiring requirements are vague, difficult to judge and largely a meta-game itself, we stopped caring about hiring skill long ago. Hell, even skill is difficult to judge.

Plus, eventually it'll even out. Suddenly we'll have to stop hiring minorities because there's too many in X company. Which is ironic heh. In the same way that males in some colleges are becoming a minority. Irony.


Imagine you have a pool of 10 candidates from a minority group and 100 white males.

Only 20% from each group are qualified enough.

If you need to hire 5 people and want them to be from the minority group, you end up hiring 2 qualified engineers and 3 - not so much.

Congratulations, you've met your diversity quota.

Also, the condional probability of a minority engineer being underqualified is 3/5 now, but this number is declared racist.


That doesn't seem like the assumption OP was making. OP was making an assumption that people are racist though.


And what does that have to do with Facebook? If there are very few PoC software engineers, how is it your fault for not hiring enough of them? The article mentions the technical staff is 22% female which seems remarkable.


Alright, but the structural problems are upstream of recruiting and promotions. It's simply bad engineering to try to solve the problem downstream rather than at the root.


In this case, solving the problem downstream does tackle the problem at the root.

A lot of people in engineering went down that path because they were inspired by someone when they were younger. If there were more women and minorities in engineering, then other (young) women and minorities would be able to see them as role models and follow suit.


>A lot of people in engineering went down that path because they were inspired by someone when they were younger. If there were more women and minorities in engineering, then other (young) women and minorities would be able to see them as role models and follow suit.

This is really interesting claim and perhaps somewhat biased. Some preliminary testing of VR teachers suggests that young women prefer to be taught by women, and boys have a preference for robots/drones.

My own personal experience is that mecha anime got me inspired to work in STEM, I can see why that might not have universal appeal, but the claim that people need role models who look like them isn't universal.

source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190108095108.h...


> A lot of people in engineering went down that path because they were inspired by someone when they were younger.

Who? I started programming because computers are fun. If you really care about getting more women and minorities involved in tech volunteer at a local high school -- there are dozens of programs which seek to get young people exposed to programming. Anything else is just blowing smoke.


Well if we're using personal anecdotes, I had never touched a line of code until college and had just assumed I wasn't smart enough for it. I did study engineering though, which was an easy choice because I had tons of family who were engineers. Freshman year I took Java as a core requirement and discovered I was pretty good at it, so I stuck with it.

It shouldn't be a stretch of the mind that programming would be more accessible to someone who was raised knowing programmers, than to someone who was raised without.

> If you really care about getting more women and minorities involved in tech volunteer at a local high school

This is great advice. That doesn't discredit the impact that having diversity in tech has.


wait. why is it "bad engineering" to try to solve the problem downstream?

the company itself knows as well as or better than anyone upstream what its own jobs require. the company itself is in a good position to train/educate a person (of any particular group) to do that job.

upstream educational institutions can promote diversity and graduate people all day long -- but you still need a company to actually hire those people.


How do we solve it at the root without having aspirational figures for young people to look up to? Representation is important for creating role models, otherwise young minorities get the message that a particular field isn't accessible to them.


Is there any evidence that kids need aspirational figures that match their specific gender/racial identity? If so, what(if any) other factors are in play? Sexual orientation? Hair/eye color? Height?


Yes. I didn’t know programming was a career I could pursue. I did know I could become a basketball player, though.

I know that my existence continues to influence my younger siblings, and the children of family-friends. I’m known as “the one who worked at google”. Without me as an example, tech wouldn’t be in the perceptual sphere of attainability within much of my family and community.


How did you become a programmer, and not a basketball player?

Obviously people in the lives of children impact them. Does seeing, possibly, a black engineer on TV count as being in the life of a child?


I grew up in poverty, dropped out of high school in the 10th grade, and gave up on life. Then, floundered until I turned 21. Decided to try to turn my life around.Was encouraged by a significant other to try school again. Got a GED. Enrolled in a state school. Discovered I am actually not bad at college math. Realized that computer science is at the intersection of computers and math, and that I might be able to succeed at it. Aced every class and applied to the top 10 schools in the country. Was accepted and transferred to Stanford. Then, took advantage of every opportunity to get involved in the software engineering profession.

It was an uphill battle the entire way. Should we be looking to my life-path as a scalable way out of poverty?

> Obviously people in the lives of children impact them. Does seeing, possibly, a black engineer on TV count as being in the life of a child?

Yes, definitely. TV is realer than real-life for most people. It's the average person's lens into the world, for better or worse.


by looking up to people based on character instead of skin color

that would solve the problem


The objective is also to ensure that the structural problems do not prevent you from finding, attracting and/or promoting great candidates from underrepresented groups. The default process does not let them shine, and does not appreciate the value in the diversity that they bring to a team.

If I'm going to set up a medical team, I don't want the best and most lauded 4 surgeons in the world, I want only 1 of those so I can also have the best anesthesist (sp?), the best physio, the best psychologist... you get the idea. (Edit not you in particular, of course... I mean everyone)

"Culture fit" has become an accepted "soft" value for which a technically superior candidate may be passed over; why this resistance to diversity as a soft value too? New points of view, new mental patterns, new sources of inspiration... that is better than the same pov repeated 4 times. Why does it need to be explained over and over? (we know why, whether we like it or not) It doesn't mean diversity takes precedence over other soft or hard skills and valuable aspects of a candidate, it just means it takes is place among them.


The way to fix structural problems is look at the funnels way before these people get to the company.

It's at the preschool, primary school and university level.

Why are we somehow pretending 100% of responsibility rests on the employer?


Should some minority groups be over represented, because they are so minor, that even in a medium sized company with proportional representation, they may be the only member of their minority there?


nothing structural stopped you and the evidence is that you got the job you want

why does it matter so much that other people look just like you? why cant you look past other peoples skin color?


[flagged]


Without meaning to be too cruel, you don’t sound like a very nice person.

You should care about diversity, because it’s an inherent good. If you have no diversity, you are missing part of the picture. Your family values, for instance, might be different from others.

And let’s be clear, describing transgender people as “despising what they once were” is not a very acceptable view.


people only think of diversity in skin color which is the problem


You're fortunate to be in a position where there are no structural obstacles impeding your progress. Show some consideration for those who aren't.


how do you know anything about that person?


never because diversity just means skin color which is racist

but nobody will admit it


[flagged]


Can you explain what biological changes women went through in the 1980s that would suddenly cause a large dropoff of women studying in computer science [1]?

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...


This headline is extremely non-specific. Wasn't James Damore also harassed over views on diversity?


Not that anyone ought to continue at a place they feel unwelcome, but if people that fall under the diverse demographic they're advocating for quit, aren't they just bolstering the status-quo they wish to disrupt?

That said, according to the article's statistics diversity is continually increasing at Facebook.


She is openly racist and sexist so good riddance. Let's hope she never is in position of power again. It's interesting that those posts are always flagged on HN. Being openly racist and claiming moral high ground is increasing cultural problem. More discussion on it could be helpful.


As somebody who's just incapable of acknowledging group-identity diversity is a thing worth respecting (though, I find individual diversity beautiful and fascinating) This was something of a rollercoaster:

Oh wow, a woman headed react? That's cool.

Oh wait, a trans-woman... so that's socio-cultural diversity though not biological diversity - still born a white male.

Unless transgenderism isn't a choice but part of somebody's biological nature, then it is biological diversity, right?

erm, is being biologically predisposed to not liking chocolate also biological diversity? Wow, how much biological diversity goes unnoticed by diversity advocates? Maybe fb is biologically diverse after all!?

Isn't it cool we're all unique individuals with unique interests, although fb has mostly people who all share an interest in tech. True diversity would be to get people not interested in tech at fb.


What about calling for the big tech companies to move to a blind hiring system?

You wouldn't see a candidate's face, name, hear their real voice, know their educational background, what economic class they're from.

You would conduct interviews over chat and voice (maybe use voice morphing software), which seems entirely plausible these days.

If anything, it would probably improve the hiring of qualified people. Interviewers can penalize candidates for all kinds of irrelevant things, not just sex and gender.

This would largely eliminate the very toxic problem of "diversity hires" that serve to perpetuate stereotypes. It would truly level the playing field.


Sophie was the best thing to happen to React. She lead React’s adoption at the first company outside of Facebook, and single-handedly answered almost every question about React on stackoverflow for the first two years of its existence. She was the number one github contributor to and bug-fixer for React before she joined Facebook.

React as we think of it today simply would not exist without Sophie. The entire front-end ecosystem would be drastically worse.

It’s really sad to hear she won’t be leading the react team anymore, and worse to hear how some employees of Facebook treated her.

She’s hands down the best engineer I’ve ever worked with, and also a wonderfully kind and caring person.

Her leaving Facebook is a loss for the entire tech community. I hope her next endeavours treat her with the respect she deserves.


Recently I was at a tech meetup event at a bar with about 30 people, and two elderly ladies were leaving. They came over to our tables and asked, "What kind of group is this that there's all these men and only one woman?" "It's a, uh... a technology meet-up." "Ah, I see!"


[flagged]


[edited for typos] I am 100% for actual opportunity for all people, but sadly diversity and inclusion has become a code word today for tribalism/identifying people who have "progressive" political views and subscribe to it as a religion. When you have double standards and don't walk the walk it takes away the moral high ground. I've seen too many of the vocal Diversity and Inclusion types go after women, minorities etc. who truly grew up with every disadvantage because they do not have the correct political/ progressive pseudo religious beliefs. And when they go after these individuals, they try to destroy their career, their reputation, character etc.. Actions speak louder than words and for these types there is a big disconnect between the two.


Looking at the numbers, my first thought was that it's fairly diverse as is, and apparently it's getting more diverse. 8% LGBT or trans+ is way higher than I would expect.

Black employees being 4% sounds like little, but it's not exactly Facebook's fault that African Americans have been marginalized for a long time; the important thing is that they're giving everyone a chance. But that does not mean just hiring blindly if the market is not able to provide the candidates they are looking for.

It's sad to hear about bullying still happening - you'd think FB culture would be beyond that. It's also worth noting that people are generally hypersensitive these days, so what is considered bullying by someone is seen as innocent by others.

At some point you have to toughen up and handle some criticism and not see it as bullying (although I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here).


Why are you focused on gender and race? If there were 0% LGBT or 100% LGBT, it wouldn't matter. The fact that you think it matters is a problem.


[flagged]

NathanCH 32 days ago [flagged]

I don't think it's uncomfortable. Enjoy your diversity hires...


It’s unfortunate that the more diverse an organization becomes the more drama it seems to invite.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: