The thing that I find the most interesting about all of this is that there isn't an overt attempt to actually remove purported discrimination from the hiring process. Suggestions to anonymize the interview process typically produce results that are even less representative of their desired distribution, because almost every company is actively discriminating in favor of women and "marginalized communities." If their accusations were actually on the basis of correcting bias/discrimination, this is the sort of strategy you'd see advocated, but it's not. They want arbitrary quotas that are, given the available pool of candidates to even consider, mathematically impossible to attain.
This is much like Soviet plant managers would lie about their production numbers to avoid getting sent to Siberia because the politically correct idea in those days was that communist production was at least equal or better than capitalist production. Similarly, in order to give praise to the imagined perfect world, we offer up a regular sacrifice to the imagined perfect world in the form of a persecution of non-believers, some would even call them saboteurs of the imagined world when they point out its lack of empirical observability, even though after the persecution the empirical dissonance remains and doesn't go away.
After all, they're 3/4 of the U.S. population. At Google, this means they're already underrepresented at 53.1% of all employees in 2018. That number does not separately identify whites as non-Hispanic, or more significantly (and most troubling to anyone who's seriously examined the implications of this type of argument), non-Semitic.
Why the dimension of race and not other dimensions? It is a real dimension with cultural and medical significance. Cancer presents differently for different races for example.
When you have large pseudo monopolies it is important to have diverse groups of people running them to avoid effects like this that can make marginalization worse.
Another classic example is voice recognition and accents. By not having more Spanish speakers at a company, if your company makes a voice recognition product it is easy to have blind spots. Your product may fail for those with an accent, and you won’t notice or think to measure along those dimensions.
I agree, however, that strictly proportional representation is not important. However promoting diversity is important and when you have numbers like 3 or 7 percent it’s easy to end up with large, important sub teams with no representation for historically marginalized subgroups. And this can lead to worse products, especially when looked at from the point of view of marginalized subgroups.
The main point of the article is that it is pretty sketchy to be hiding these numbers
This also brings up an interesting point of contention. The diversity dance has 2 arguments at odds with themselves.
Claim 1: All populations of people are inherently equivalent and should therefore have proportional representations in all things.
Claim 2: Diversity is a boon because populations are inherently unique and provide a unique set of characteristics to the table.
Pick one. You cannot make both of those claims simultaneously.
You are advocating in favor of Claim 2, which is fine, but what if the position in question doesn't actually benefit from a diverse set of skills? What if it's a low level circuit designer that tends to favor a particular skillset and personality type? Is it not possible that attributes more commonly represented in a certain population might be overrepresented in sectors that require those characteristics?
In contrast, if you advocate instead for Claim 1, then there should be no discernible advantage to diverse hiring, it's just that a failure to do so would be indicative of bias.
"All populations of people are inherently valuable and therefore should not be left behind by advancements in technology"
The examples I gave were both cases where it was not obvious at all to predict that the skills would be needed.
For example, while the low level circuit designer probably won't benefit from cultural and racial awareness, he may not always be a low level circuit designer in the company. He may rise in the company and start making decisions about how/where/which circuits are built. And at some point having cultural and racial awareness would be a benefit.
Individuals are valuable regardless of group memberships. Therefore it makes sense to avoid leaving large groups of people behind, regardless of which group it is.
Isn't that more diversity of experience versus diversity of racial makeup?
You could have a white guy who grew up in Latin America provide you with the insights. A Latino who grew up in the US might have absolutely nothing to contribute.
I think political orientation leads to lots of blind spots. If it is important that businesses have representation of their user-base, I think diversity of political opinion is a natural axis to consider.
Ok, but ... you've been talking about Latino as if it is a race. Does the word Latino describe a race or a culture?
And I'm not sure it's easy to tell to what degree/how much of a mixture you are.
1) if the first table is self identified data I would strongly expect it to underrepresent how many people are mixed. Unless you have gotten genetic testing, it’s hard to know like I mentioned. And there is social pressure to identify as white.
2) Even then, whites are still pretty much a minority in most countries, especially the ones that have more significant immigration to the US.
It's simply good strategy to hire a diverse workforce so your products/services can spread to all types of markets.
Minorities by US standards, since otherwise white people would also be a minority, and not even the largest one, depending on how you define 'white'.
Nah, I'm just saying that the tech industry hires from a global pool of candidates, and it's not entirely surprising that a bunch of them are from China and India. If a bunch of them were from Malta and Andorra, that might be weird, but it isn't so.
Given two curves on the same graph, you are not guaranteed to be able to min/max them simultaneously.
For example: say you are a mortgage broker at a bank and you have to give out mortgages to people in your community. Obviously, the people in your community are diverse. There are men, women, white people, black people, homosexuals, heterosexuals, etc. all wanting mortgages. Say you have some historical data that you know to be accurate, namely the credit score of successful applicants, the associated foreclosure rate, and some demographic data like race and sex. Also say that you want the bank to remain solvent and competitive, handing out loans to the best applicants and also garnering a reputation for being a 'fair' community bank that people will actually be able to get loans from. Now, the question is, what is the cutoff for credit-scores that will cause an applicant to not get a mortgage ?
Say, on the y-axis is the foreclosure rate, and on the x-axis is an applicant's credit score. You have some curves for white women, black women, white men, black men, and many other permutations of the human rainbow. These curves are all different from each other.
Now, if you set an arbitrary cut-off score, you may be setting a score that says that white people are less likely to get a mortgage than black people. That's obviously disenfranchising white people in your community, and you should change the cut-off to be more equitable to the people around you.
However, now that you have changed the cut-off for approval of a mortgage to be racial equitable, you have now made it such that men are less likely to get a mortgage than women are. This is also not good, and you should change the cut-off again to be fair to all sexes and genders. However, now you are back to being unfair to white people, again.
Given the data you have, you are in a situation where, no matter what you do, you are discriminatory. In fact, I'd say that this is the most likely situation to be in. That all the curves and graphs would align just so and that you could be non-discriminatory under ALL scenarios is extremely unlikely. Honestly, you do have to pick and choose who you will not discriminate against.
This may seem disheartening, and, yeah, it is . However, that does not mean that we shouldn't try to change things. If anything, understanding that you will very likely be discriminatory no-matter-what, is helpful. You now have a better view of what you can change and how that may affect things. You can choose where to set your parameters with better clarity towards your fellow humans. Maybe you oscillate between gender-parity and height-parity. Maybe you choose to focus on income-inequality for 5 years and then switch to racial-inequality for a focus. Whatever your thesis is on how to gain better equity in your community, maybe you now have a better understanding of the mechanics of the system and you can better affect it positively.
 In talking privately to friends that are also considered 'minorities', discrimination is occurring and is systemic. Though this is personal anecdata.
 I'm trying to simplify this as much as possible. Obviously, real applications are VERY nuanced and complicated.
 Unless you are a journalist. Then, well, this means you will always have a lot to write about!
If you're concerned for the capability of a given arbitrary population group to have a different outcome, then the goal posts need to necessarily be moved back. Why did that population have lower credit score, lower income, lower wealth? Historical racism? That certainly has some role, but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the present system is itself racially biased. Is it the code or is it the data?
Regarding your anecdata, consider an interesting thing I saw recently:
This was meant to highlight injustice, but really just shows how differently people can interpret the exact same events occurring to them on the basis of their preconceptions.
No matter what you do, you'll be discriminatory (to a very high likelihood). Even if you don't look at the break-downs of your data, you will be discriminating against some group or another. It is incredibly unlikely that you can max/min two curves at once, let alone for all the classes, races, sexes, castes, genders, etc. that exist.
I agree that root causes should be addressed first and is the best use of time and resources. However, that's not how journalists see it. They see a red-meat story and they go with it.
Federal investigators, journalists, community organizers, etc don't really care what metrics the banks are using/not-using, they care about the results. And I'm saying that there will very nearly always be discrimination if you use nearly any metric. And that's not a bad thing. Being in a Catch-22 is part of life. Trying to get out of one is the thing that matters.
Serious question: why? Why would you expect that? I’m seriously interested by a response to that, that would give way more weight to this affirmation.
In reality, the tech-tech participation comparison between SV and the US is closer than the article makes it seem. Look at the chart "INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION BY GENDER SEX AND RACE GROUP - HIGH TECH VS. ALL PRIVATE INDUSTRIES" in the EEOC report , and then compare to the numbers listed on the graphs for SV.
The proper corresponding stats for representation in tech between SV and US would be:
Black: 2.6% SV vs. 7.4% US
Hispanic: 6.4% SV vs. 8.0% US
Women: 32.3% SV vs. 35.7% US
So one could still point to the differences above for looking at the group disparities, but the article's statistics are comparing apples to oranges.
Not to mention location demographics and other factors attribute to differences between SV as a data point vs. the aggregate data for the US.
The pick-and-choose implementation of statistics is looking through a narrow lens.
E.g. google tells me that the Santa Clara population is 2.5% black, while it's 12.6% nationwide (2010 census). The article now says nationwide the tech industry is 14.5% black; 14.5 / 12.6 = 1.15, 2.5 * 1.15 = 2.9; So adjusted for demographics I'd expect the SV number to be 2.9% black employees in tech after adjusting for demographics of the area, compared to the 2.6% the article states.
However, it might be that the low black population in that area is highly correlated to the hiring practices of the tech companies in that area, or it may not be.
If you want to discuss race, let's look at perhaps the best coding college in the United State, MIT. We can probably all agree MIT produces some top talent programmers, right? I know HN is typically anti-college, but I think we can agree on that. 30% Asian, 9% black, and 15% Hispanic. That's 5x higher Asian percentage than the general US population and slightly lower for both black and Hispanic. If that's the pool that companies in SV are pulling from, then of course their diversity numbers won't match the US population as a whole. Look at the colleges near SV too - Caltech (43% Asian), Stanford (22% Asian), Berkley (42%).
No you probably wouldn't, as Silicon Valley attracts the top X% of the tech population
Could literally be summarized/rephrased as -
Silicon valley doesn't have a lot of black people, because it attracts top talent only.
I do presume you didn't mean it that way, which is why I didn't expand on it. But I want to point out that is the impression given.
One could argue that for a myriad of reasons, probably mostly money(again, for its own reasons), some minorities are underrepresented in the best tech schools and/or do not have the funds to up and move to the coast. That's an absolutely fair assessment. But I wouldn't assume that they are automatically not 'top talent' for those reasons. In my experience, the bay has a pretty low signal to noise ratio. Cheers.
Is this the result of institutional racism? I’d say so, but it also can be a cause or underrepresentation in higher skilled employment, even if the employers are not biased in their selection processes.
What he said was "the top x% of the tech population". The tech distribution as a whole is already skewed. If talent was independent of race, you'd expect an equally skewed distribution at whatever talent threshold you set. That's how conditional independence works. His statement is implying that is not true, and that if you set the talent threshold high, you get a different racial distribution. That's a very important distinction, if that is indeed what he's saying.
I really think this is what he's saying, because he's explicitly stating that large companies that recruit nationwide should be have a population equal to the skewed nationwide tech population, because they higher only "the top x% of the tech population". Not confounding geographic reasons (i.e. someone doesn't want to move away from their family), but specifically talent reasons.
For example DC has a huge college educated black population because the government was one of the few places you could get a well paying as a black person with less discrimination. So lots of people decided to settle there. Atlanta has a lot of historically black colleges - creating a pool of educated workers.
In CA, most of the black population came over as blue collar workers in the military, shipyards, and manufacturing. Whereas most of the Asian population is made up of professional worker or affluent educated immigrants.
Yes I am generalizing here. We don't do a good job of carving out the differences for Asian groups. East Asians tend to be super educated, southeast asians tend to not be, and the outcomes are also widely different.
As indicated in the article, there's evidence  that there is profound underrepresentation at the leadership level relative to junior representation.
You made this claim:
>the "anti-brown people" narrative absolutely dissolves in the face of the massive overrepresentation of Indians and other Asians.
Nothing you have said constitutes absolute dissolution of this narrative. The one measurable claim you made was overrepresentation of Indians and other Asians, which holds no water in light of drastic underrepresentation at the senior level. After I pointed that out, you responded with why you believe that discrepancy could be justified. How does that constitute irrefutable evidence that the narrative is misguided?
Two citations needed.
I've been on hiring committees for years, at both very large, and very small companies. I've hired and rejected both men and women. I've never seen a "diversity hire" done.
Also, you are the first person I've seen say that blind interviews decrease diversity. In fact, the study that gets cited the most involving orchestras showed the exact opposite.  I would love to read where you got your information.
If you want the most recent one from memory:
Blind/anonymized hiring (which I am in favor of and would love to see advocated) has examples going in either direction. The orchestra one you referenced is the go to example of it doing its job well, but if it generally produced the results they were looking for, it would be a noncontroversial strategy being pushed, which it is not.
As far as a lawsuit being filed, I'll reserve judgement until the case plays out, thanks.
There are roughly half as many black people in the "Bay Area" compared to 20 years ago. But the black population increased in neighboring counties significantly.
While Asians are "over-represented" in tech, they are under represented in leadership and senior roles - compared to their representation in the lower ranks.
While there are a lot of technical roles at tech companies, the results aren't any different for those non-technical roles either.
And let's not even discuss how hiring and recruiting practices lead to a very limited pool. If most black engineers come from HBCUs and tech companies never recruit at HBCUs - well they are missing out on a large pool. If most hires come from internal referrals and the average person doesn't have a diverse friend pool - it keeps the status quo.
So diversity is broken on multiple levels, and it is easy to hide.
1. tech workers don't match the percentages in the larger regional job force
2. non-white people are not represented in leadership, not even commiserate to their ratios in the larger tech workforce
3. There are a lot of non-engineering jobs that should have more diverse pools (sales, marketing, administration, etc) and these roles still have the race problem.
4. Recruiting and hiring processes reinforce the status quo on "diversity"
Something is broken, but we spend a lot of time trying to obscure that fact.
a. Countries that push for more gender equality see less women in STEM.
b. Girls in school perform just as well as boys in STEM.
Also, men are also highly over-represented in low-end jobs such as drivers, construction, mechanics etc . Is that also a sign to a bias/pipeline problem? Should we attempt to strive for diversity in those fields too?
To be clear, i'm including 'preference' as a sub-component of 'pipeline problem'. I think it's a cultural open question whether or not we consider this a 'problem'. I think the argument for preference is much stronger on the gender question though, than on the minority question. There's strong psych research indicating preferences against programming for women, but i'm not aware of any for say, African Americans. In the minority case, I suspect it's more of an access/opportunity issue early on, but i'm open to many views of these issues.
By all means, help people who desire it. By why 'correct' people who don't?
The makeup is similar at the college level: sitting in on CS courses at UW you see a sea of white, east asian, and south asian faces. I can count the number of black or latino students (out of the several hundred enrolled students I saw) on two hands.
It's a pipeline problem, full stop.
Companies can and should make an effort to ensure they're hiring a diverse range of people. However, it needs to be done with the bigger picture in mind - otherwise it becomes a defacto quota system.
It's time for the world to admit, there's reasons why some people are naturally pulled towards one discipline or another.
I have a 3 year old daughter, and I'd love to teach her math and programming. I sat her in front of the computer with me to get her interested and devised lots of fun math based games to play with her. But, no matter how fun I make the material, she's just not into counting things. "daddy, I don't want to count anymore" (after just a few tries) Stories about princesses and reading/writing however, this she can listen to all day long. I'm certainly not giving up on teaching her programming but you have to admit it when certain types make it clear their not into it.
Being a programmer wasn't something that was on my radar at all. I didn't know any. I didn't know it was a job that existed. As I got older it seemed like "computer people" only liked video games, magic cards, scifi books and didn't like to hang out with people. It seemed boring and antisocial - and not like my sort of people.
I probably would have been a great engineer. And while I work in tech, I am a marketer and have worked in more technical roles around software implementation, operations, pre-sales in addition to all of the marketing jobs.
So let's ask ourselves something else - how many people do we lose along the way because of exposure or the way we have socialized what an engineer is, does and likes.
Anecdotally. I've worked at a (hard core strategy) gaming company. Even there, Most of women that worked there, that I knew, did not like gaming at all (if we're being honest).
I’m also a transfer student. At my previous university, at which I was also a CS major, there were maybe like 5 women to every 15 men in a class.
This isn’t reflected at the tech companies I’ve worked at. There are far fewer women. This article, and articles like these: https://hbr.org/2016/08/why-do-so-many-women-who-study-engin..., point out that the number of women graduating do not match the number of women who choose to go into the tech sector, or who remain there.
Also, immediate suspension for kids who bully academically-inclined students for 'acting white'. Not only is it a racially charged statement that probably has no place in school (or so progs would tell us), but it seems levied exclusively against the kids who need education the most.
Also, it is time to retire this stereotype that every non-white kid who is academically inclined is being bullied for acting white at school all the time. I get the most grief from white kids about "acting white" growing up. From fellow black kids it was pretty rare - 1-2 times. Mostly other kids were more inclined to help uplift me.
The US is a long way from having its entire white population in the upper middle class: http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
There are a million different reasons someone may not want to do that or may be encouraged against it, but you'd have to look at every individual and culture to find out why. It may not even turn out to be a bad thing. What if someone wants to become a chef or athlete instead, is that a problem?
Still, it can be changed: in China studying is increasing social value much more than in Europe / US for example.
What about exposure to the field and introducing computational thinking into earlier pars of the education system? Not necessary making kids program as their first exposure, but exposing them to computational concepts (maybe start with power of twos when learning multiplication, or control-flow-logic for writing a story....).
Honestly I don't think any culture in the west has ever been truly supportive of becoming a STEM person. Until very recently is was extremely derided in even white American culture as being "for nerds".
A more positive exposure to technology at an early age can only be a good thing. I think we'll still find very few people want to become engineers due to the required workload and that will be ok.
I loved the show Numbers because it was a show about how math helped detectives solve crimes. Way more interesting than just doing algebra about speeding trains.
I think sometimes there is an idea that everyone has the same problem and your problem is universal.
For example I heard about a hackathon for black and latino kids. And the ideas that came out of it were really different. One app was a social networking platform for private school kids to connect with other black private school kids to talk about their experiences and vent. Another idea was a payment app to send money to Mexico without having to go to Western Union or whatever.
There is a startup in Oakland that has an app to help people who are caught up in the criminal justice system to keep track of court appearances and hearings and stuff so they don't need to go to jail for bogus stuff like missing a court appearance.
Technology has the opportunity to enable and transform - if we make sure everyone has access.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Here's one thread from an organisation that spent 10 years working on the pipeline and found many companies wouldn't hire their candidates: https://twitter.com/Code2040/status/1092853501766467585?s=19
(Edit: gah, pasted the same link twice instead of the Twitter thread I meant to post)
And some more links on the "pipeline problem": http://isitapipelineproblem.com
I'm not dismissing diversity and inclusion efforts. They're being made, and i'm glad they're being made.
> Here's one thread from an organisation that spent 10 years working on the pipeline and found many companies wouldn't hire their candidates: https://twitter.com/Code2040/status/1092853501766467585?s=19
> (Edit: gah, pasted the same link twice instead of the Twitter thread I meant to post)
> And some more links on the "pipeline problem": http://isitapipelineproblem.com
I'm certainly open to arguments of this form, though the links you've pasted here aren't very convincing to me. The Code2040 people say the companies said their candidates weren't qualified. I see no attempt at rebutting that (by e.g. trying to objectively measure 'qualifiedness' and then showing that these companies were preferring equally qualified white candidates).
Similarly, for the attrition rates for women, I think that very same data can be used to show a preference difference rather than an inclusion problem. If you wanted to make the case that it was an inclusion problem, you'd have to believe that fields like medicine and law, which women have become quite well represented in, were substantially less male-biased than tech. If you drill down in medicine though, you'll see that women sort themselves into sub-specialties that deal with human contact, where men sort themselves into sub-specialties that do not, on average. Again, pointing to a fundamental preferential difference.
In my own personal experience, i've known a few women who are excellent CS students and programmers. They had no shortage of capability relative to the men I knew. However, without exception, every single one of them aspired to be a project manager of some kind, rather than an actual engineer. They were more than capable of doing the engineering, and they did do it. However, their end goal was managing people and process. Most of the men I know who are engineers, hope to be writing code until they die. This is anecdotal of course, but it's an experience I see echoed a lot.
Looking at companies like Google and Amazon and Facebook and what not, you'd suspect any effects from having a diverse workforce are massively outweighed by other factors like selling a product/service more people want, good product design, price, marketing efforts, etc.
Hm - well, I agree that there's a lie floating around, but I don't think that's quite the lie in play. More often what they say is that you're hurting yourself by turning away qualified candidates based on their race/geneder/sexual orientation/whatever they're not seeing as many of as they think they ought to be. The problem is that, while this is strictly true, there's no evidence that qualified people of _x_ race/gender/sexual orientation are actually being turned away. For all the digital ink that's been virtually spilled on tech and diversity, I have yet to see _anybody_ claim, even anecdotally, that they, themselves are qualified members of diversity group _x_ but are unable to find employment. Instead, they express bewilderment that although they have no trouble finding employment, they don't see enough other members of group _x_... which they presume must be because all of the other ones are being turned away by prejudiced hiring managers.
If women’s behavior was constant, then we’d see the same relative growth of women compared to women, but we don’t. Just looking at bachelor’s degrees, we see women exit the field at 2x the rate of men, and enter at lower rates as well. (% YoY men to men, women to women).
It's a US problem that its society has failed to push the minorities up with better welfare and education; it just manifests itself as lower representation in SV.
Lately, as American-born Indian-background person, I have been feeling discriminated during job interviews. My friends and I are not really looking to changes jobs but are always interviewing passively.
My black friends have recruiters hounding them on LinkedIn. They get more job offers, have easier interview questions, and even higher salarier.
While my experience is usually average. But when we compare type of questions we answered at the same company for same role, it is pretty obvious that I was asked harder questions.
On other hand, I can tell when my interviewers are mostly Indian, they discriminate in my favor.
EDIT>> to put it another way, white people consider something "wrong" if different demographics aren't interested in the same subjects as they are, at the same rate. It's the ultimate self-centered worldview.
It's from an organisation (Code2040) that spent 10 years working to build a pipeline of qualified Black and Latinx candidates, only to find many companies had hiring processes that wouldn't hire their candidates anyway.
From a person who (after looking at their LinkedIn bio) is in no way qualified to tell companies what they need _at all_
From what I see of the company & CEO, it's a self serving & self preserving job role & company.
They started trying to solve the "pipeline problem" and it turned out that wasn't really the problem.
I have a hard time imagining that so much educated engineers who can be effetively underpaid are not being capitalized on. That sounds like a wasted business opportunity.
Businesses outsource work to india or east europe, why not exploit locally? I've read they also import workers on hb1 because they can pay less for same talent, so this doesn't add up for me. I can't belive racism vs black people specifically wins vs money on such large scale, since it doesn't vs other races.
>The vast majority of companies on the list that report their full diversity numbers are in the tech sector. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple have released reports on the demographics of their workforce in recent years, so it may be unsurprising that 75% of Fortune 500 firms publishing their numbers are in the tech space.
Businesses outsource work to india or east europe, why not exploit locally? I've read they also import workers on hb1 because they can pay less for same talent, so this doesn't add up for me. I can't belive racism vs black people specifically wins vs cash on such large scale, since it doesn't vs other races.
Isn't 40% of the tech industry made up of east and south asians? Do they not count as minorities? If anything, you'd think SV would be praised for being one of the most diverse industries.
"A growing body of research shows diverse perspectives bring tangible benefits to firms that support them"
You see this so much in these types of articles. "Diverse perspectives" doesn't necessarily mean "diverse ethnicity". A group of 3 white men ( CEO, factory work and homeless man ) will have greater diverse perspectives than 3 female CEOs ( black, white and asian ) who went to the same schools, hung out with the same crowd and live in the same area. Also if her assertions were correct, wouldn't more diverse firms naturally have beaten out less diverse firms and we wouldn't need to legislative or force diversity in these companies?
If what is being stated in this article is true, why doesn't YC or any VC firm gather the most diverse set of founders to start a new Google, Facebook, Apple, etc? "Research" has shown that the new diverse google, facebook, etc have tangible benefits which must translate into success. Right?
Instead of complaining about it, why not start a diverse company and take hundreds of billions from the less diverse companies like Apple, Google, Facebook?
Also, does this apply just to tech companies only? What about another highly successful firm in the silicon valley area - the Golden State Warriors. Instead of having 5 african american starters, why not diversify the team since "research" has shown that has tangible benefits.
I'm against racism of all kinds whether it benefits whites,blacks,asians,etc. I'm against sexism as well - whether it benefits males or females. If there are systematic obstacles, lets remove those rather than creating more racism and racial obstacles.
Even the general public is in a sense aware of it, when people picture stereotypical programmers, I doubt they have a black Muslim woman in mind.
Transparency is important.
Actually, if you can pay women and minorities less for the same job and get away with it so far, and the abusive companies do just that, I'd guess those abusive companies would hire more, not less, people of those groups to "save" even more money.
What I said was we should we work towards removing any obstacles underrepresented groups may face when trying to enter STEM careers.
Plenty of research that supports the existence of such obstacles and the higher drop out rates of these groups even after having a go at pursuing a career in a STEM field (particularly in tech - https://hbr.org/2016/09/what-it-will-take-to-keep-women-from...).