I disagree. Companies should allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders. Not doing so is ignoring the issue. Yes, schools need to reform and a majority of the blame lies there well before SF companies have a chance.
As I understood it, "bro culture" was supposed to be about overly techno jerks treating other people (most notably women) badly. Exaggerating to explain the point: bro culture means putting picture of naked lara croft on the wall and then pretend last women changed the job cause she was too weak.
The first half of the article is about minority candidates not even showing for interviews cause of structural problems in education (two quotes):
* (page 1) too many kids of color who think that they're going to be basketball stars or entertainers or Barack Obama,
* (page 1) By the time kids are applying for colleges, they're virtually out of the game.
Then the article shows stats that tech employs mostly white people, which is not surprising given education failures described on the first page. So far so good.
Out of nowhere, there is complain about bro/frat culture, as if the same article would not describe those minorities "out of the game" well before even applying. (Assuming you search for tech job after college). No relation between previous content is shown.
Then another jump and it turns out the article is just an advertisement for some startup hackatlon.
So, yes, companies should allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders. No, this article still has bad title.
Segregation and discrimination create suffering, and those doing the discriminating are responsible.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
I personally dislike discrimination because I find it to be one of the lowest forms of collectivism, and it is usually invoked by lazy fools in a vain attempt to see themselves as superior to someone. Racism has also been used to steal from the targets of discrimination, (usually by acts of parliament,) but this has become less common.
Your reason seems to be that your normative beliefs dictate that it is immoral for others to discriminate. I apologize if this is an unfair characterization of your point, but I am trying to accurately understand your post. This is a good explanation of why you would not discriminate, but does not mean you would embrace other cultures.
You did not answer my basic question though; why should corporate leaders "allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders"? A failure to "allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders" is not tantamount to discrimination or segregation.
Firstly, the earlier post said "allow and embrace", not just allow.
Second, I am not even sure how you can unfairly discriminate against a culture, and the problem here seems to be that there is not enough positive discrimination to accommodate differing groups.
