Slashdot Mirror


Tech Workforce Diversity At Facebook Similar To Google And Yahoo

theodp (442580) writes Facebook is mostly white dudes, writes Valleywag's Sam Biddle, cutting to the chase of Facebook's inaugural disclosure of diversity figures. "We're serious about building a workplace that reflects a broad range of experience, thought, geography, age, background, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture and many other characteristics," said Facebook, which has a tech workforce that's 15% female and only 1% Black. By contrast, Wikipedia's Baseball Color Line article notes that "by the late 1950s, the percentage of blacks on Major League teams matched or exceeded that of the general population." So, is it surprising that the company whose stated mission is "to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected" is having problems connecting with the general population in 2014?

265 comments

  1. SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who cares? This isn't a national tragedy.

    1. Re:SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      ....said no one who wasn't white, male, and middle-class.

    2. Re:SO by itzly · · Score: 1

      If someone was discriminated against unjustly, it's still not a national tragedy. However, the individual could take the company to court.

    3. Re:SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try getting hired now, especially with these headlines.
      You want to know something funny, their population is greater than the number of CS undergrads at the univ I attended. There were 3 Females and no Blacks in the grads for this year our of 30+ graduates for CS. So from my sampling I really have to wonder, after all not everyone is able to be a good IT or software developer. In fact most of the CS dept is filled with people who are socially awkward. Has anyone ever given a thought as to why the guy who fixes their computer isn't the best communicator, heck we even have TV shows that make fun of this. (e.g. "Big bang theory") Is it just possible that the female mind and the black culture may have a better social structure that may influence these statics. I don't see anyone up in arms that many places have a predominately female housekeeping staff, or even that some places have a far larger than average native staff. But when it's a high paying field like CS it's a PR nightmare when the distribution does not exactly match the national demographics.

      The only thing that will come our of this is that now if you are black, or female, and you go into CS you don't need to be good or even qualified, your pretty much guaranteed to get hired, and it is unlikely you will be fired any time soon. The better qualified applicants are going to be pushed aside to make room for you. Is this a good thing? Well if I hear you complain about crappy or buggy software I'll be giving you the middle finger, after all us good developers are loosing our jobs because you think it's more important to have a proper distribution than have a qualified staff. And you wonder why software has so many bugs?

    4. Re: SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope companies can hire the most talented candidate and not base decisions on something else. Reverse racism is still racism.

    5. Re:SO by James+Clay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article is wrong. Facebook (and Google and Yahoo) isn't mostly white guys. It is mostly white and Asian guys. White representation in tech is not, by and large, larger than their percentage of the population at large. It is that Asians are vastly "over represented". These articles always lump Asians in with the white guys because they have no interest in pointing out that if your metric is proportional representation you are talking about getting rid of Asians.

    6. Re:SO by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Non-hispanic whites are 64% of the US population, but only 57% of Facebook's employee base. White people are under-represented.

    7. Re:SO by ahaweb · · Score: 1

      Asians are invisible, I guess.

    8. Re:SO by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's because the Asian-American experience doesn't speak in favor of the sort of social engineering desired by the types that favor affirmative action and other sorts of reverse discrimination. They're literally at a loss to explain why the Asian-American community isn't mired in poverty in spite of the best efforts of the evil white man to keep them down. They also ignore the experiences of the multitude of different white peoples (Italians, Irish, Poles, etc.) that faced discrimination and somehow managed to build productive lives for themselves and their progeny.

      The only answer they have is to take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful, which brings to mind the quote about teaching a man to fish....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:SO by ahaweb · · Score: 2

      Asians are the invisible demographic.

    10. Re:SO by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      well according to the bullshit and ever changing definition of 'racism' and 'minority' Asians aren't always considered a minority. Since compared to whites they have higher average incomes, lower incarceration rates, and better educational attainment.

      If there has ever been a field that is democratic it's technology. Up until (and it's probably still the case) all you need is a computer (price is constantly decreasing), internet access (still decreasing in price), and possibly a book or two(still cheap), and some ambition (free).

      There are no guilds, no real degree requirements, and certification is optional at best. The only limit is a desire to learn. Instead of wondering why these companies aren't hiring more of $race or $gender, how about asking why these people are not interested in picking up skills that are by and large, available via autodidaction.

    11. Re:SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no guilds, no real degree requirements, and certification is optional at best.

      I'll still defend the usefulness of a good CS degree, but self-training can easily rival the benefits of a common CS degree. As a basic hint, if you are being taught how to do things in one language, you could probably get the same results with Google. If you are being taught how to weigh the benefits of different ways to do things and getting some mild familiarity with multiple languages, you'll be better off than most (as long as you can handle the tuition debts).

      As for CS related certifications, yeah, most of them are just there so you can take some fairly random trivia quiz and get a little paper to help impress the managers who don't know any better. There are some specialized certifications that really do require study and thoroughly test you on real-world applicable skills, but those are the exceptions in the field.

    12. Re:SO by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Yar, but compared to other professions (law, medicine, engineering) IT is one of the few that you can be reasonably successful at without having a degree in the field. A CS degree isn't bad, but it certainly isn't necessary.

    13. Re:SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about asking why these people are not interested in picking up skills that are by and large, available via autodidaction.

      The actual answer to this seems to be that the industries where these skills are used tend to be generally hostile to them. Of course, stating this fact brings out all the Men's Rights Advocates who like to try and pretend that white men are these put-upon victims because in "SOME OTHER industries, men aren't a majority!" (Can you imagine?)

    14. Re:SO by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      In ways it is a tragedy. There's a violence ridden ghetto right between two of most wealthiest companies Facebook and Google.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    15. Re:SO by thedonger · · Score: 1

      Non-hispanic whites are 64% of the US population, but only 57% of Facebook's employee base. White people are under-represented.

      • Too many white males == racist hiring practices
      • Not enough white males == Excellence in diversity hiring practices.
      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    16. Re:SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the Asian-American experience doesn't speak in favor of the sort of social engineering desired by the types that favor affirmative action and other sorts of reverse discrimination. They're literally at a loss to explain why the Asian-American community isn't mired in poverty in spite of the best efforts of the evil white man to keep them down. They also ignore the experiences of the multitude of different white peoples (Italians, Irish, Poles, etc.) that faced discrimination and somehow managed to build productive lives for themselves and their progeny.

      The only answer they have is to take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful, which brings to mind the quote about teaching a man to fish....

      Imagine that -- two people moderated to 5 whilst eschewing decidedly non-progressive/liberal ideas on /.

    17. Re:SO by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Imagine that -- two people moderated to 5 whilst eschewing decidedly non-progressive/liberal ideas on /.

      Yeah, I was expecting that sentence to end, "... walked into a bar."

    18. Re:SO by graffic · · Score: 0

      Could you care to explain what is that "generally hostile" attitude?

    19. Re:SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They yellow man is keeping us down!

    20. Re:SO by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've found it a lot easier to learn new things with some sort of structure, like a job or a course. Learning that expands on what I've already got is much easier to pick up reading books.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:SO by tomhath · · Score: 1

      As a basic hint, if you are being taught how to do things in one language, you could probably get the same results with Google

      If all you're being taught is a language you need to find a new school.

    22. Re:SO by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I said Agents, Neo.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    23. Re:SO by fractoid · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that, as you say, no-one focuses on these minorities.

      Wanna know why? It's because (in general) they have a culture of working fucking hard and achieving things. If you have that, you don't need 'affirmative action' or any other kind of hand-me-down or pick-me-up. You get there under your own goddamn steam.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    24. Re:SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd get use to that. Eventually everyone will just be various shades of brown through interbreeding. This is happening in Europe as well. Before we know it, the whole world really will be a various shade of brown. Now if only I could understand why exactly that matters.

    25. Re: SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps there is no aggressive response to there being a disproportionate number of female housekeepers because housekeeping jobs are not particularly desirable.

  2. This means nothing without context by FictionPimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is the percentage of black, women, etc people with the skills and training that google, facebook, etc is looking for?

    Are there out of work fully qualified programmers that can't work at facebook because they are black? Maybe the ratio is the way it is simply because there are not enough minorities looking for high end development work (Unlike baseball). That doesn't make it Facebook's fault if it is truly hiring the most qualified workers.

    1. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      that's the most racist comment I've ever seen

    2. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He also mentions women. That's sexist.

    3. Re:This means nothing without context by neminem · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure that is factually incorrect, unless you literally have never been to Slashdot, or any other site that allows comments, ever.

      It's also completely accurate. It is certainly not completely impossible that there are occasionally racists (or more likely, people who have slight biases and don't even realize it) in hiring departments for major companies. It is, however, much more likely that this issue is more cultural and/or class-based: one, minorities are more likely to be poorer by virtue of having been marginalized in the past, and poor people are less likely to have had the opportunities required to get into the tech field. Two, cultures push different things, and minorities who stick together form cultures. That is not racist, that's, well, obvious. Not all skin-color-based minorities stick together, obviously, but enough do (which is also partially class-based, as you don't really have a choice to have been born in a crap environment, and it's harder to get yourself out of one.)

      As for women, there's a lot more evidence that HR departments do discriminate, and some more obvious reasons why they might want to (which are still BS and should be burned mercilessly, but which still make sense why they happen). Still, it is *also* almost certainly true that more men than women have the inclination and ability (more the former than the latter) required to get hired at tech companies, and that's not really the fault of those companies.

    4. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the type who sees racist everywhere, aren't you.
      There's nothing racist in his comment, if there's no minorities or women looking for a high tech job with the proper qualification, it's not the fault of google/facebook and others.

    5. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you choose to read it that way. It's a simple truth: if there aren't minorities looking for work that meet Facebook's needs, then Facebook can't hire more minority workers without compromising its standards, which it should not have to do -- so long as "must be white" isn't one of those standards. If there aren't documented cases where a company has passed on a qualified minority worker without apparent cause, then the problem is elsewhere in society: school, culture, economy, etc.

    6. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok, so let's ask the question in a different way:

      What percentage of college technical graduates are black, female or black and female?

      What percentage of applicants for technical courses are black, female or black and female?

      It certainly feels like there is a problem here, but maybe it is not in the HR departments of Google, Facebook et al. Maybe it is the college system, or the high school system that is at fault. This is simply one data point that does not tell the whole story.

    7. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This means nothing

      Well done - your strawman has been modded to +5 and played right into the hands of prejudice.

      Maybe precisely what it means is that it is harder for BME and female workers to get into the trade, and perhaps the culture fostered by Google/Yahoo/Facebook contributes toward this.

      I'm a Spanish woman (not "Hispanic" in the usual sense, in that I'm actually an immigrant from Spain) and I've not found technical problems getting work, but I really don't jive with the values of these big companies. In particular, the whole "might makes right" thing, whereby companies such as Facebook and Google work entirely against respect for the privacy of the individual, perhaps has a macho flavo(u)r?

    8. Re:This means nothing without context by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I went to a local Google office yesterday to watch the IO keynote.

      Number of people in the room? 40

      Number of women in the room? 2, 1 was from corporate.

      Free to sign up, free to attend, so where were the ladies? I think this is just another made up issue people are looking to find a solution for.

    9. Re:This means nothing without context by fermion · · Score: 0
      The skills argument is the traditional method used to segregate the workplace, college, whatever. When the pentagon said that women had to be allowed in combat, one thing that was stressed is they had to pass the tests. There was no admission that the tests were somewhat arbitrary, developed not on some absolute basis, but on a subjective set of requirements. It is like the old SAT. If the inner city kids were getting a question correct more than the northern prep school kids, then it probably was not a valid question, because who has the better education?

      Really, what this boils down to is if diversity is, in itself, a benefit. Because of the way I was raised and educated, in a very diverse schools where actual skills, talent, and discipline were the primary method of selection, I think that diversity is a benefit. I understand that others do not. I understand that a private firm should be able to select the best workforce for it's situation, diverse or not.

      But I also understand that for a long time, and sometimes even today, the white male is considered the bast choice if available. It is assumed that he will command respect, be at work everyday, and not get emotional or get in a fit because of 'oppression'. It could that this is best way to proceed. Or it could be that firms, if they had a employees with wider points of view, different experiences, they might be more successful.

      One thing we have seen specifically with major firms like Google and MS is they tend to recruit from very specific schools. This is more a problem for me because this will invariable create an echo chamber and lead to problems we have seen at these firms in which consumer perception is often not considered because a distinct lack of diversity.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    10. Re:This means nothing without context by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You're the type who sees racist everywhere, aren't you.

      You're the type that misses painfully obvious sarcasm, aren't you?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:This means nothing without context by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think I'd go so far as to call the GP racist, and I can see the point GP is trying to make. I live in an area that is predominately white... and by predominately white... I mean like 99.9% or something like that. During a brief time I was entrusted to do the hiring interviews for my department. I only interviewed one black person and one woman. I ended up hiring them both because they both seemed to have the skills we needed. The guy I hired ended up not really being able to handle the work, and was let go. The woman I hired ended up leaving for a more challenging (and presumably better paying) company. From the outside you could say that the company was racist because we didn't have any black developers, or that we didn't have any women developers... but the truth is much more complex: Our sample size for non-white non-male programmers is too small to be statistically significant, and within the sample size we had one under-qualified, and one over-qualified. We actually hired both, and both left the company for perfectly normal reasons, bringing the development staff back to an all-male all-white mix.(not a mix really)

      So when the GP asks about the ratio of available talent, I get the sentiment... although with a company the size of FB or Google and with a local diversity like Kalifornia's, you'd think the statistical significance of those numbers would mean more, which is why people are a bit outraged about it.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    12. Re:This means nothing without context by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      but I really don't jive with the values of these big companies. In particular, the whole "might makes right" thing, whereby companies such as Facebook and Google work entirely against respect for the privacy of the individual, perhaps has a macho flavo(u)r?

      Sounds like you'd be better suited to working in academia, health care, or some other non-profit social environment. The onus isn't on Google and Facebook to change their culture to jive with your personal moral structure.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:This means nothing without context by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really.

      I live in a black suburb (it's cheap) with poor people, 3 blocks down from a Jewish white suburb. The black suburb is full of trash, broken down cars, town homes with no yards, rental properties, liquor stores, and copious gang and firearms violence--all the amenities of a poor, black ghetto. The white suburb is made up of large single-family homes, huge yards, separated residential and commercial zones, and clean, well-maintained roads--because the city sends more road work out there so the people they collect the most taxes from don't leave.

      There's also a poor white ghetto out east. Muscle cars, double-wide trailers, booze, slutty girls, drugs, and people occasionally get hit with a pipe wrench. These white folk aren't like those white folk, or like those black folk.

      People identify culturally by geographic area, by surrounding interests, and by race and smaller cliques (IT people, security people, bouncers, car people, martial artists, etc.). Putting any critical mass of people together will develop a unique culture. We have plenty of black doctors and lawyers, probably as a result of racial tension: black people get out of slavery, they either become angry, miserable, violent sub-humans or they become philosophers who want to work for the greater good. Time goes on, and black people get rights, but they still get treated like shit. The racial tensions still exist today, and it creates the same forces: they either become angry, miserable, violent sub-humans or they become philosophers who want to do something in the world.

      White people, by contrast, are largely just coasting. Racial tensions to us are mostly in the form of black people getting angry at us for saying something stupid. Nobody has told us white folk that the black man is keeping us down. We aren't living under the world's first black president. No white man in history has ever given a speech about how, one day, his children might be allowed to go to school and learn to read and write like all them black children. There is a lot less pessimism, and we just find it natural that everything we want should be at our fingertips.

      Trying to cross that barrier is easy for a white man, but a black man has to get over all this shit that basically makes him feel like the world's holding him back. The ones that can push by that naturally have more energy--more optimism--and reach for higher goals. Lots of white folk can't imagine being a doctor or a lawyer or a physicist, but can imagine being a computer programmer or some other mundane job that sounds meaningful but also doesn't sound too hard.

      It's just culture. Humans recognize patterns; the most disruptive effect of this is recognizing patterns in human appearance. If we were all white, we would start recognizing round-faced humans separately from square-jawed humans.

    14. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that's the most racist comment I've ever seen

      THAT'S the most racist comment I've ever seen.

    15. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coming from a country which enjoyed 25 healthy years of post-fascist social democracy before the neoliberals hoodwinked the population (i.e. they offered something other than what they actually delivered), I'd say that it is perfectly possible to create a society where the people have expectations of business ethics. However, you're right that I chose to move to the US where the people probably have a more open understanding of the more pro-capital social contract they've formed.

    16. Re:This means nothing without context by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of industries in the United States that would jive with your sense of business ethics. There's no reason to try and shove a square peg into a round hole when there's plenty of square holes looking for pegs.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh bullshit.

      Pointing out the obvious, that minorities are not well-represented in the academic circles from which Google/Facebook et al hire from is NOT racist. It's recognizing reality.

      If you're running a competitive company, you hire the best workers in order to maintain your competitive edge. By "best", I mean those with the necessary qualifications... and since minorities are underrepresented in these fields, that by definition means that you're going to end up with a bunch of white guys as coders.

      The companies aren't actively discriminating - they're playing the hands they're dealt. If you want to improve the % of minorities working in tech, you have to get them trained first. Focus on getting people trained & qualified to work at Google/Facebook/HyperMegaDyne Inc, and they'll actually end up there.

    18. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A+++++++!!+!+! Would laugh at lengthy responses again. Well trolled.

    19. Re:This means nothing without context by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      OK, I wasn't going to say it but now I'm going to say it. Black people are good at sports. Better than me. By the numbers, anyway.

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    20. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are there out of work fully qualified programmers that can't work at facebook because they are black?

      No, but if the Equality Of Results crowd had their way, there would be fully qualified programmers who could not work at facebook because they are white.

      Remember, racism is bad, regardless of who it is targeting, and regardless of why they are being targeted.

    21. Re:This means nothing without context by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Hey, to me, "Hispanic" in the usual sense means "pertaining to or coming from the former Roman province of Hispania", you insensitive clodette!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    22. Re:This means nothing without context by unimacs · · Score: 2

      Part of the problem happens well before Facebook or anyone else has a job opening. Not everyone has equal access to the education required for many of these positions.

      Another part of the problem is the hiring process itself. An initial requirement for one position I've taken in the past was a Masters degree in computer science or related field. Nothing about the job required a Masters degree and they got no applicants. The reason for the requirement? The hiring managers all had MBAs. There is a tendency for people to hire people like themselves, - people who fit their stereotype.

      I've also witnessed more direct discrimination. At a former company we were trying to fill several tech positions. Several of us were going through resumes when I discovered that my boss had tossed out a few of the candidates I had thought had potential. When asked why she said that their names weren't "American sounding" and she just wanted to hire Americans. She was at least honest about it. Many aren't or don't ever realize why they're excluding people.

    23. Re:This means nothing without context by pla · · Score: 4, Informative

      What is the percentage of black, women, etc people with the skills and training that google, facebook, etc is looking for?

      Black: Blacks make up only 3.6% of CS graduates, 6% of CE graduates, and 7% of generic IT graduates at the moment.
      Female: Female CS/CE graduates peaked in the '80s at 37%, and has fallen ever since to a current low of only 12%; the previous link also shows them at about 50% higher rates in generic IT, or 17% total.

      Sorry if that doesn't give your axes a nice fine edge, folks, but the likes of Google, Yahoo, and Facebook don't hire only misogynist racists for their HR departments - In fact, all three soundly beat the above graduation rates, making them arguably biased against hiring white males.

    24. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're also better equipped for bed sports.

    25. Re:This means nothing without context by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As for women, there's a lot more evidence that HR departments do discriminate

      Which is ironic given that almost 60% of HR staff are women, apparently. Maybe HR companies should start hiring more men to bring a male perspective and lived experience to these roles?

    26. Re:This means nothing without context by HappyPsycho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remembering (early 2000s) my comp sci classes (and to a lesser degree higher math) I was pretty heavily outnumbered (compared to my classmates back then I'm black), the few girls in class had it even worse. As soon as I went to one of my electives (even something science like Bio or Chem) the makeup changed, e.g. enter the arts department and I was once again outnumbered but then again so were the white dudes (mostly women with a decent mix but still dominated by white chicks).

      While I have no issues with diversity (I stand to benefit), I fail to see how facebook and family can do much about this other than they are currently doing (the various competions or http://tech.slashdot.org/story...). They could just hire the applicable minorities and have them stand around just to make up numbers, but I don't think that helps anyone.

      I guess in their defense these companies should post the matching numbers of the diversity of the applicants, problem is that is near impossible due to not everyone gets called in for an interview and it would most definitely get called racist to require your resume to include your skin color (sex can probably be guessed with a high degree of accuracy).

    27. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about stirring pots.

    28. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In my ~250 employees IT company 100% of the HR staff are woman. I don't think they would hire men for the job even if they found any qualified.

      As for the IT people themselves I think around 15% are woman, for the managers the ratio is a little better though. But really that is a lot better my college class, I actually think my company is biased to hiring woman because it is so hard to find them (and because the HR staff is 100% woman.)

    29. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is ironic given that almost 60% of HR staff are women, apparently. Maybe HR companies should start hiring more men to bring a male perspective and lived experience to these roles?

      Ironic maybe, but absolutely common. It is no different from muslim women who believe that wearing a burqa is empowering. Just because someone who is part of a class that is discriminated against has bought into the justification for the discrimination doesn't make their actions any less discriminatory.

    30. Re:This means nothing without context by wired_parrot · · Score: 2

      What is the percentage of black, women, etc people with the skills and training that google, facebook, etc is looking for?

      Are there out of work fully qualified programmers that can't work at facebook because they are black? Maybe the ratio is the way it is simply because there are not enough minorities looking for high end development work (Unlike baseball). That doesn't make it Facebook's fault if it is truly hiring the most qualified workers.

      8% of MIT's class is black Among the general college population the numbers are closer to 14%. But even assuming Facebook, Google and Yahoo were exclusively recruiting from the top Ivy-league universities, their numbers should be significantly higher than the mere 1% of black employees that they are showing. If my company were showing such significantly different demographics from the graduate population they are recruiting from, especially among such a large employee base, we'd be under investigation for racial discrimination.

    31. Re:This means nothing without context by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Here in Cambridge, computer science has a worse gender balance than mathematics, which is worse than the national average. I think the only department with a worse gender balance than us is the veterinary school (which is something like 90% female - apparently it's easier to find women who want to to take a degree that involves a lot of time with your hand up a cow than to work with computers).

      I find it hard to credit logic that says women have more of a natural aptitude for mathematics than for computer science, but something is putting them off applying. I've just become responsible for admissions at an all-women college, which currently has two students in computer science in total for the three-year undergraduate course (both just about to enter the second year, no new admissions entering the first, no second years moving to the third). The college wants to increase its intake in STEM fields, but it can't do much without more applicants - it's not going to do it by letting in women who aren't qualified, because that's self-defeating in the long run (and in the short term affects the college's ranking within the university, which affects applications, and so on).

      And, honestly, given some of the male students we've had getting 2.iis, I find it hard to believe that there weren't potential applicants of both genders who would have made better use of a Cambridge education.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good post. +1 Agree.

    33. Re:This means nothing without context by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      (compared to my classmates back then I'm black)

      How about compared to your coworkers now? Are you still black? ;)

    34. Re:This means nothing without context by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Having interviewed for both Google and Facebook I think this really does come down to skills (knowledge and ability). Being a white male didn't do shit for the fact that I simply just didn't understand linux file systems, networking and software development as well as I thought I did. In fact I didn't get a single question as to my age, race, or sexual preference during those first phone calls where I was ripped to shreds with technical questions. It was quite apparent after 5 minutes of the 2nd interview that I wasn't going to get the job, and I had a LOT to work on in my chosen field.

      These are not racially bias questions where you need to be white, unless netmask questions and being asked to write a program are racially bias.

      Then again, it is google, they probably know more about me then I know about myself. The interview was probably just to gather metadata to advertise to me better.

    35. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White people, by contrast, are largely just coasting. Racial tensions to us are mostly in the form of black people getting angry at us for saying something stupid. Nobody has told us white folk that the black man is keeping us down. We aren't living under the world's first black president. No white man in history has ever given a speech about how, one day, his children might be allowed to go to school and learn to read and write like all them black children. There is a lot less pessimism, and we just find it natural that everything we want should be at our fingertips.

      Maybe you shouldn't project your own sheltered life experience onto all "white people". I grew up a minority white in a place where "racial tension" meant actual violence against white people. I know white people who have beaten up and killed for being white. Do you really think all white people live a cozy life in big houses in the suburbs?

    36. Re:This means nothing without context by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      Full MIT numbers are not necessarily representative, because the majors people pick in MIT are not really all that close to those found at tech companies.

      It's like looking at STEM as a whole vs Software companies. There are plenty of women entering STEM field, they just tend to focus on the S or the M (pun not intended, really), instead of on the T and the E. And even in Engineering, you'll mostly find them working on biotechnology. You'll find plenty of them in companies working on genetics, but not on your typical web company.

      If you want to look for discrimination, look at which specialties within computing end up having more women. Everywhere I've worked, DBAs and testers had a much higher representation of women than programming, and it's not as if most people choose to become testers instead of program, since we are still paying those jobs less, although a tester today could end up writing quite a bit of code.

    37. Re:This means nothing without context by wired_parrot · · Score: 1

      Even taking into account the lowest of your figures of 3.6% black graduates in Computer Science, this would still leave the 1% rate of black employees at Facebook substantially lower than their potential hiring pool. Also consider that Facebook reported that their percentage of black employees among non-tech workers is not any better at a measly 2%. Considering that blacks represent 10% of all college graduates, this would imply that your average black college graduate is 5 times less likely to be hired at Facebook than a person of different ethnicity.

      Sorry if that doesn't give your axes a nice fine edge, folks, but the likes of Google, Yahoo, and Facebook don't hire only misogynist racists for their HR departments - In fact, all three soundly beat the above graduation rates, making them arguably biased against hiring white males.

      Their hiring numbers for women may be in line with graduation rates in computer science, but their minority hiring is significantly lower than graduation rates, no matter how you look at the numbers. And given their large employee sizes, this a statistically significant hiring bias. Turning a blind eye to the statistical reality won't make the problem go away.

    38. Re: This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you are making incorrect assumptions about Google being the most desirable employer. The black 8 and others from MIT may prefer to work in many other less trendy but better paid jobs.

    39. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right.
      They should start firing asians and hire more white people to make up for the under representation if whites.

    40. Re: This means nothing without context by larryjoe · · Score: 2

      One interesting study would be the correlation between the characteristics of the hiring manager and team members. In my experience the correlation is strong, especially in terms of race and ethnicity. At Bell Labs in the 90's, one out of the three research area organizations had a very high representation of Indian managers and researchers. At Sun, the same was true except that most managers and researchers were white (Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc.). I worked at another company where the manager was Serbian and two other researchers were Serbian.

      This is a hypothesis that can be fairly easily corroborated with statistical studies. I'm fairly certain that the bias exists. Of course, whether that bias is good or bad is a separate question.

    41. Re:This means nothing without context by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      Because you are now touching on one of the more interesting issues / intractable issues when it comes to closing the "gender gap". IIRC women who have the same skills and job experiences as their male counterparts earn 95% of what they earn. The reasons why women earn far less than males is that they tend to choose careers which have a better work / life balance.

      You can take 5 years off from being a HR person and you skills won't be out of date. Harder to say for a engineer. A saw one study that women who graduated from law programs had lower average wages than their male counterparts not because they were women but because of what type of law their practiced. Family law pays less than corporate law but offers better work / balance than corporate law. Women tend to pile into family law. Those women who go into corporate law earn about the same as males. The studies did adjust for the school and rank where they graduated.

      In addition, because women tend to pick these types of jobs one has many women pilling into the same workspace depressing wages. High supply of applicants and a fixed demand. Males have a much wider dispersion in careers chosen.

      This is why HR departments tend to be stuffed with women.

    42. Re:This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it racist? He just asks the reasonable question...is Facebook discriminating? Or are they hiring fairly but from an unbalanced pool?

    43. Re: This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Pennsylvania you would see the same bias by Penn State grads toward other Penn State grads. It extends all the way to the state government - notice that the Joe Paterno scandal didn't break until after he won the game that gave him the most victories of any coach in NCAA history; that was not a coincidence.

    44. Re:This means nothing without context by fractoid · · Score: 1

      This is what shits me about 'affirmative action'. Companies shouldn't have to be "serious about building a workplace that reflects a broad range of experience, thought, geography, age, background, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture and many other characteristics". They should be serious about building a workplace that reflects excellence in achieving the company's purpose. All of the things listed above are supposed to be irrelevant and most certainly shouldn't be used to screen applicants.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  3. No Story Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No one besides those looking for racial inequality cares. The industry that they draw applicants from isn't a perfectly balanced mix either. This isn't even news.

  4. We all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That the color of your skin matters more than your abilities! Yay for ending racism!

    1. Re:We all know... by AnOnyxMouseCoward · · Score: 2

      Yea, damn the NBA for having so more black people than the US population average. This is discrimination against the whites, and has nothing to do with abilities.

    2. Re:We all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No No No....minorities can't be racist. Haven't you listened to Sotomayor?

  5. Angry Woman Here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I applied for a job at Google but they didn't hire me. They are LYING!!!!

  6. wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Wain13001 · · Score: 0, Insightful

    wtf are you even talking about? No, it's not surprising that not many black USians work for facebook. Seeing as how not that many Black USians work for tech companies of any sort. Wouldn't you think the latter has a lot more to do with facebook's potential diversity, or lack thereof? Wanting to be diverse doesn't mean refusing to hire white men if that's the majority of the available pool of applicants (not even getting into who's better qualified).

    1. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the parent is implying that since baseball is over represented by minorities- that baseball must be racist too.

    2. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is a USian? I hate you

    3. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As much as I hate "USian", what's the preferred alternative? American? America isn't a country, it's a pair of continents. Argentinians are no less American than New Yorkers are. "Citizens/residents of the United States of America" is too wordy. So it's down to "USian", which is retarded, or "American", which is ridiculously arrogant. When it comes down to it, I'll take retardation over arrogance.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    4. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://memecrazy.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/comics-captain-america-sephko-722159.jpeg

    5. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      What's a 'Chuuch'?

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    6. Re: wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know that you prefer the dumb choice. The rest of us will stick with "Americans".

    7. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I take it you're not familiar with the work of Archbishop Don Magic Juan. Chuuch.

      "Chuuch" is an exclamation or interjection largely synonymous with "okay". It is used to express assent, agreement, or acceptance.

      Unique to a particular branch of African American Vernacular English, it is most commonly heard in the pimp community.

      Let's turn to popular culture for more:
      Snoop Dogg's thoughts on "Chuuch".
      Urbandictionary on "Chuuch".

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    8. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      As much as I hate "USian", what's the preferred alternative? American? America isn't a country, it's a pair of continents. Argentinians are no less American than New Yorkers are. Argentinians are no less American than New Yorkers are.

      Nobody uses the term "American" to refer to a resident of one of the two American continents. That would be as dumb as referring to somebody as a "Eurasian", or an "Afro-European." Argentinians aren't "American;" if you insist on referring to them as residents of a continent, then they are "South Americans."
      The "USian" name is an attempt by the PC brigade to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. In English, the term "American" when applied to a person always refers to citizens of the United States of America.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    9. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... they do!

      A Brazillian refers to himself as American if using the english language.
      http://www.usaisnotamerica.com/index.php

    10. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      Don't be a dolt. A smug dolt.

      By your logic the Irish would be "British" too since since they are residents of the British Isles.

      American in most contexts refers to the USA. Argentinians are as you said, Argentinian. Both the New Yorker and the Argentinian live in the Americas, but one is Argentinian and one is American.

      If you're referring to the continents, you'd say "Americas"

    11. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      But... they do!

      A Brazillian refers to himself as American if using the english language.
      http://www.usaisnotamerica.com...

      It's kind of amusing that your link starts with the assertion: "America is the name of a whole continent."

      Which is, of course, incorrect. There is no continent called America.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    12. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate "USian", what's the preferred alternative? American? America isn't a country, it's a pair of continents.

      There is no continent named "America". There is North America. There is South America. Just like there is the country United States of America. If you are consistently ignoring the beginning of each of the names, nobody can be called an American because there is no such place named just "America". But you're not, and I'm not sure why you arbitrarily decided to do that.

      Argentinians are no less American than New Yorkers are.

      Actually, I would argue they are because "American" when used in the context of continent is ambiguous: North or South. Whereas when used in reference to national origin, is not.

      So it's down to "USian", which is retarded, or "American", which is ridiculously arrogant.

      You do realize that Americans are not the only ones to refer to Americans as American, right? It is the accepted terminology to use in reference to US passport holders all over the planet. The terms history, including the transition in reference from First Americans (1570s-1590s) to North American residents of British descent (1640s) and then later to residents of the United States of America ("shockingly", 1770s), primarily flows via the choices of non-Americans.

      Using abbreviated terms like "American" is not arrogance, it is how language naturally develops. Communication requires presumptions as to the meaning of whatever word, phrase, or gesture that is used. Communicators that share more knowledge, presume more and communicate less: Spouses can just look at each other, whereas strangers have to describe the entire situation to avoid ambiguity. Using "American" is simply somewhere in between a subtle gesture and having to explicitly state "A citizen, resident, or passport holder of the nation United States of America".

    13. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no continent called America.

      Maybe geography is taught differently where you're from, or maybe you didn't pay attention to that class. Either way, there is more than a single way to divide the world in continents. Three of the five models shown here have a single American continent. Likewise, some models join Europe and Asia into a giant continent.

      Here in Brazil we're taught the different models but refer to America as a single continent. Latin America, which is a political, not geographical, division, is also used when convenient. We call the United States of America as United States, instead of America. If I'm not mistaken this is done in the other countries of the region as well.

    14. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone from South America, I would never call myself American.
      I don't even call myself a South American.
      I am from Suriname, so I call myself Surinamese.
      I have a Dutch passport, so when it's convenient I call myself Nederlands.
      I don't call myself European, and certainly not American.
      Everyone knows exactly what you mean when you say American.
      Otherwise it would be like an Australian calling themselves Asian.

    15. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by readin · · Score: 1

      Please don't use insulting slurs like "USian". The polite term in English is "American".

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    16. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation please? (your link doesn't back your claim). AFAIK most Brazilians call themselves Brazilians if they use the English language. If they use Portuguese they call themselves brasileiro/brasileira.

      They even use Americano to refer to US Americans. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The city was known as Vila dos Americanos ("Village of the Americans") until 1904,

      In 1866, the region started to be effectively populated with North-American immigrants from the defunct Confederate States of America, who were fleeing the aftermath of the American Civil War. The first immigrant to arrive was the lawyer and ex-senator of Alabama, colonel William Hutchinson Norris. Norris installed himself in lands near the seat of the Machadinho estate and the Quilombo River.

      The small town formed around the station was officially named "Villa da EstaÃão de Santa BÃrbara" (Santa BÃrbara Station Town). Its inhabitants consisted mainly of American families, and the town became thus popularly known as "Villa dos Americanos" (Town of the Americans).

      See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Same goes for the rest. I've never heard a Canadian or Mexican call him/herself American. Maybe those channeling their "asperger's" would . The rest won't.

      I doubt many of them really want to associate themselves with "Americans". When terrorists take over a building/aircraft/etc how many Canadians, Brazilians will say they're Americans?

    17. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but here's the thing. You are speaking the language of these people. This is what they call themselves and is something you should respect. No american is going to call themselves USian. You don't get to pick what should an entire nation be called in their own language. You're free to call them whatever you want in your own language, but to learn theirs and decide to call them something different in it is beyond silly, it is insulting.

    18. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      What if language started to gradually change such that citizens, residents, or passport holders of Luxembourg became known as Europeans? Wouldn't that necessarily imply that they're more European than other Europeans? Wouldn't that come across as arrogant to you?

      Also, a majority of commonplace continent models include a single continent named "America" which can then be further subdefined into North, South, and possible Central regions, much like Asia is often further subdivided as Minor, South-East, etc. Much like many would argue that there is no continent named South-East Asia, so too would they argue that there is no continent named North America. I was never taught this in US public schools, so I'm not surprised to hear so many "Americans" bring this point up.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    19. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up: Troll

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    20. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      You don't get to pick what should an entire nation be called in their own language.

      The English language doesn't belong to the United States of America. What if I'm Canadian. Am I not allowed to speak English?

      Cue the Quebecois and their "Fuck you, Anglais!"

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    21. Re:wtf does baseball have to do with anything? by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      What if language started to gradually change such that citizens, residents, or passport holders of Luxembourg became known as Europeans? Wouldn't that necessarily imply that they're more European than other Europeans? Wouldn't that come across as arrogant to you?

      That is in no way a similar situation. Is it the very first country on 2 continents? Does it have "Europe" in its name? Was the name first chosen by non-locals? Was the name selection a choice of the entire English speaking world? Did continent suddenly become synonymous with country?

      Also, a majority of commonplace continent models include a single continent named "America" which can then be further subdefined into North, South, and possible Central regions, much like Asia is often further subdivided as Minor, South-East, etc. Much like many would argue that there is no continent named South-East Asia, so too would they argue that there is no continent named North America. I was never taught this in US public schools, so I'm not surprised to hear so many "Americans" bring this point up.

      lol we're done.

  7. The problem with all of these stories by d0rp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "general population", and the "population of qualified tech workers" are two very different things...

    1. Re:The problem with all of these stories by kick6 · · Score: 1

      The "general population", and the "population of qualified tech workers" are two very different things...

      If only the post made that comparison, but no...the comparison is to 1950s professional baseball players. I have neither enough faces or palms for this one.

    2. Re:The problem with all of these stories by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      Finding enough talent is getting nearly impossible now. As an employee of an up-and-coming Silicon Valley startup, let me assure you - the form factor of the meat package of a prospective developer has zero influence on our decision to hire.

  8. See: Morgan Freeman by xdor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stop talking about this crap.

    1. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit! Wish I had mod points for you.

    2. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." -Chief Justice John Roberts, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 2

      The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." -Chief Justice John Roberts

      Roberts is a fool. Sure that sounds great to conservatives and libertarians, who are opposed to anti-discrimination laws out of principle (and some hidden racism) but that's not how the world actually works...because people don't stop discriminating. Sometimes it's even subconscious.

      In a perfect world without assholes, Roberts might be right, but we don't live in that world.

    4. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by ionymous · · Score: 1

      "I can smell you" - Morgan Freeman

    5. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      So your solution to a handful of people being assholes is to disadvantage everyone of European and Asian descent, even though the vast majority of the disadvantaged are not assholes? My family came here in the 1930s, from Germany, and settled in the Northeast. We had nothing to do with Jim Crow or slavery. Not that it should matter, even if my ancestors had been guilty as sin it shouldn't carry down to me, unless you wish to bring back corruption of blood.

      Affirmative action on the basis of race will be dead within a generation.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      So your solution to a handful of people being assholes is to disadvantage everyone of European and Asian descent

      Leveling the playing field isn't disadvantaging, though I can imagine some are upset that they are being called on their unearned privilege.

      My family came here in the 1930s, from Germany, and settled in the Northeast. We had nothing to do with Jim Crow or slavery.

      But that doesn't mean you or I (my ancestors arrived here in the 1630's in Virginia and New York) didn't benefit from it, because we're still feeling the effects from it and our ancestors didn't have to compete fairly.

    7. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Tilt at this particular windmill until the cows come home if it makes you happy. You've lost the battle of public opinion, as well as the legal one, and whether you like it or not racial quotas are soon to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "historical racism" theory of yours would do a great job of explaining why Jews and Asians in America are such failures.

      The problem is, of course, that they aren't failures.

    9. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by russotto · · Score: 1

      Leveling the playing field isn't disadvantaging, though I can imagine some are upset that they are being called on their unearned privilege.

      Unearned privilege... that's like original sin, right? Everyone white or male has it, and it's sufficient unto itself to justify any punishment which may be dished out.

      Yeah, at least until you invent baptism, I don't think I'll be subscribing to your philosophy.

    10. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      So your solution to a handful of people being assholes is to disadvantage everyone of European and Asian descent

      Leveling the playing field isn't disadvantaging, though I can imagine some are upset that they are being called on their unearned privilege.

      Race-based hiring is not leveling the playing field, it is leveling the score after the final results are in. The game started long before the job applications were submitted; before college; before primary; before birth even.

    11. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Those are some pretty big assertions you've got there. Care to back them up with a little more than cliches typically rattled off by early-twenty coffee shop liberal arts majors?

    12. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Unearned privilege... that's like original sin, right? Everyone white or male has it, and it's sufficient unto itself to justify any punishment which may be dished out.

      It's NOT punishment, you may see it that way, but leveling the playing field to reduce the effects of unearned privilege is not taking something you earned by skill or right.

      It's something you had, no matter how good intentioned you were.

    13. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Race-based hiring is not leveling the playing field, it is leveling the score after the final results are in. The game started long before the job applications were submitted; before college; before primary; before birth even.

      Fine...then what do we do to remedy it then? Nothing? How do we fix the game then? If having a high paying job helps the next generation, then you need to fix things so that the hiring of the next generation is more balanced. But no one is wanting to do that because it means some overprivileged white guys in the burbs have to basically give away their unearned privilege and they don't want to do that. And they're resenting being told they should. The entire fucking anti-affirmative action movement is basically white guys upset they have to be nice to everyone and not show favoriism to other white guys, which is what they have been doing.

    14. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Fuck You Mr. Over Literal slashdotter using "Citation needed" to deny problems exist. Read a fucking news magazine or watch TV or read the demographic data.

    15. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      You've lost the battle of public opinion, as well as the legal one, and whether you like it or not racial quotas are soon to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

      You know why quotas are gone...a bunch of guys like you didn't want to give up their power and privilege so they got a conservative court to agree with them and made statements like "affirmative action only gives us unqualified people" just so they could keep on doing the same bigoted crap they'd been doing for ages.

      What other measurement can you use? Really, how do we solve this problem? or do you think it's not a problem? Or do you just not care, you've got yours, who gives a damn about anyone else?

    16. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      That "historical racism" theory of yours would do a great job of explaining why Jews and Asians in America are such failures.

      1. Jews can't immediately be indentified as such. Many jews early in america changed their names to be not identified as jews. Ever watch Gone with the Wind? Leslie Howard...Jewish. And they didn't have to deal with slavery, and often emigrated with trade skills or money. which gave them a leg up. That said, there was open discrimination against Jews in various ways till recently recently. Sure, maybe they'd hire a jew for certain jobs, but they wouldn't let them in the country club. There's still a bit of the anti-semitism of "I wish the jews didn't run hollywood" sort going around.

      2. And asians? Continental Railroad...Hello? Internment camps for japanese-americans? Restricted Immigration Quotas from asia but not Europe? And again, they didn't have to deal with slavery in america.

      There's also a LOT less Asians and Jews, and they're more concentrated than African-Americans.

    17. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I make $32,000/yr and live in a one bedroom apartment. Sorry if the power and privilege has gone to my head.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The entire fucking anti-affirmative action movement is basically white guys upset

      Damn white guys.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    19. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      His next trick will be to call you a racist.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      But no one is wanting to do that because it means some overprivileged white guys in the burbs have to basically give away their unearned privilege and they don't want to do that.

      What did "Mr. Black" do to earn the legal requirement that he be hired over "Mr. Yellow"? For that matter, what did he do to earn the right to be hired over "Mr. White", a poor hick that grew up in a 1-room shack with no running water, taught himself to read & write and worked his way through college completely on his own?

      And they're resenting being told they should. The entire fucking anti-affirmative action movement is basically white guys upset they have to be nice to everyone and not show favoriism to other white guys, which is what they have been doing.

      Put aside your bigotry (or racism? Is that it?) so a discussion can be had.

      Fine...then what do we do to remedy it then? Nothing? How do we fix the game then?

      Whether or not my ideas could pass your bigoted thought gates is irrelevant to whether or not AA is a workable solution. The logic that supports it is obviously, deeply, flawed and the program's history only confirms such.

    21. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      "Over literal"? Please explain. "Leveling the playing field" and "unearned privilege" are cliches that are essentially meaningless. I cannot literally (overly or otherwise) take them to mean anything because they do not mean anything. They are brandished almost entirely by completely ignorant people that think insulting anyone that disagrees with them and saying "fuck" a lot are valid forms of discussion.

    22. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by russotto · · Score: 1

      "Leveling the playing field" is what is being said, but "evening the score" is a better fit for what is meant.

    23. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      What did "Mr. Black" do to earn the legal requirement that he be hired over "Mr. Yellow"?

      He didn't, because the AA laws protect Mr. Yellow too.

      For that matter, what did he do to earn the right to be hired over "Mr. White", a poor hick that grew up in a 1-room shack with no running water, taught himself to read & write and worked his way through college completely on his own?

      Because THAT type of Mr. white, was statistically more likely to be hired, even if Mr. Black had better qualifications. And the fact that Mr. Black was statistically more likely to live in a 1-room shack than Mr. White was. Doesn't mean there isn't poor Mr. Whites, but statistically Mr. Black is more likely to have that background.

      Sure, AA should probably be class based, but when race is so closely tied with class in this country it really doesn't matter that much.

      Put aside your bigotry (or racism? Is that it?) so a discussion can be had.

      It's not bigotry to call the anti-affirmative action movement what it is... Angry White Men upset about having to give up unearned privilege.

      Whether or not my ideas could pass your bigoted thought gates is irrelevant to whether or not AA is a workable solution.

      It IS relevant, do you have a solution or not? If not, we use what we have. It may not be perfect, but it's the best we got.

      The logic that supports it is obviously, deeply, flawed and the program's history only confirms such.

      I don't know, lets ask someone who is a minority person who isn't a Slashdotter about that.

    24. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      CIRA, the group that represented Gratz had a conservative agenda. Gratz was contacted by CIRA, not the other way around.

      also:

      It has been argued by some that Jennifer Gratz lacked legal standing to bring this action. Gratz applied in 1995, three years before the University of Michigan adopted its points system. Gratz could not claim injury as a result of the points system, and thus, under traditional legal rules, Gratz lacked standing. Gratz chose not to attend the University of Michigan by declining the university's offer to be placed on a waiting list. Every Michigan student who agreed to go onto the waiting list in the spring of 1995 was admitted to the University of Michigan for the Fall 1995 semester.

    25. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Please explain. "Leveling the playing field" and "unearned privilege" are cliches that are essentially meaningless.

      They may be cliches to you, but they're not, don't you read books, newspapers, or magazines. These concepts have been discussed for decades now.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      John Scalzi, you know the guy, wrote for EGM, science fiction writer, has discussed race/class/gender privilege many many times.

      http://whatever.scalzi.com/201...

      They are brandished almost entirely by completely ignorant people that think insulting anyone that disagrees with them and saying "fuck" a lot are valid forms of discussion.

      Look, I get a little bit ticked off at the general overprivileged semi-libertarian overly selfish mood of Slashdot sometimes. Especially when people go out of their way to try not to admit that class or race privilege exists. Even more so when said people are obviously trying to get out of admitting they have it or that they have any responsibility to the future to get rid of it.

      And I don't know why you called me on using fuck when plenty of conservatives/libertarians use it on Slashdot all the time.

    26. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      To you maybe, but you didn't earn your score fairly.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      http://whatever.scalzi.com/201...

    27. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I'm not privileged, I'm single and live in a one room apartment and make $32000!

      What you are doing is called "Denial of privilege", sure you may not be donald trump, but:

      http://whatever.scalzi.com/201...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      I know your average slashdotter geek doesn't realize it, but you're privileged. You don't think so and that word bugs you, but you are. The fact that you don't know you are is sad, but privileged folks tend to be blissfully unaware of it in general.

    28. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by graffic · · Score: 0

      Is it a problem in the first place? Why country demographics should be mirrored in a company?

      "should" might not be the right word. Although affirmative action means "push for it". Are we entering in an era where it is not important what you decide to do but how many individuals with some of your characteristics are in the country you live in order to find a job?

      Are you creating other problems? Because quotas have been introduced in other countries (management quotas)" and the effects measured:

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
      "the average effect of gender diversity on firm performance is negative [my emphasis]. This negative effect is driven by companies with fewer takeover defences. Our results suggest that mandating gender quotas for directors can reduce firm value for well-governed firms."

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
      "The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance, consistent with less capable boards "

      It is good that quotas happened. We now have studies showing their effects.

      Also quotas go against many management principles, if mirroring demographics is a problem:
      - Don’t push growth; remove the factors limiting growth.
      - An underlying problem generates symptoms that demand attention. But the underlying problem is difficult for people to address, either because it is obscure or costly to confront. So people “shift the burden” of their problem to other solutions—well-intentioned, easy fixes which seem extremely efficient. (
      - The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.
      - The cure can be worse than the disease. (poor company performance after adding inadequate candidates).
      - Faster is slower. (Fixed the percentages right away, didn't fix the root cause and now it is hidden and nobody cares)
      - Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space. (The people being hired right now were trained and decided their careers many years ago).
      - Living systems have integrity. Their character depends on the whole. The same is true for organizations. (It is not just balance genders in management, it affects many other things in a company).
      - There is no blame. (Blame priviledge: male, white... whatever that allows you to shift the blame instead of improving to meet the requirements of the job)

    29. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by graffic · · Score: 0

      Making 32$K per year is not a special advantage.

      For sure someone eating every day and having a roof over his head is in a much better position from someone who don't have food or housing. But it is not a special advantage.

      Worst, instead of teaching people how to be able to make 32$K a year, we attack those who do in order to make them feel "bad" for getting there.

      It is a "let's feel all bad! What, are you doing something that makes you get out of the bad feelings pool? Privileged!!!! And you deny your privilege".

      I don't know much about the average slahdotter geek. But if he did something right to get where he is... I might learn it too, instead of claiming he is privileged. (Shifting the burden doesn't help)

      IMHO you have fallacy there: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

    30. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      They are cliches as you are using them. Just like "don't you read books?" is a cliche. You do not think- you regurgitate. These concepts have only been "discussed" in that any criticism of the concept is immediately labeled as:

      Especially when people go out of their way to try not to admit that class or race privilege exists. Even more so when said people are obviously trying to get out of admitting they have it or that they have any responsibility to the future to get rid of it.

      Translated into Christian to exemplify its stupidity:

      You're only an atheist because you want to sin.

      Fools like you cling to "privilege" as an argument because it is designed to be unfalsifiable. "What? Denying privilege? That just means you're the most privileged of all". There is no meaningful discussion that can be had about the topic because the concept is self-referential in nature. Like a racist dismissing anything black people said because they think they are less intelligent.

      Yes, everybody that disagrees with you and calls you on your bullshit is overprivileged and that's why they do it. Keep safe from that cognitive dissonance. I wouldn't want you to suffer an original thought.

      People get called out for being idiots all the time. I'm calling you out because all you've offered is cliches and pejoratives and you act incredulous when people don't just accept your assertions. Then stamped your feet and whined: "but the conservatives did it first!"

    31. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The big problems here are that the law is a very blunt instrument, and race or sex isn't really what we want to correct for. Discrimination is bad, and in many cases (including race and sex) is illegal in the US. Fine. Racism and sexism are still alive and quite well and thriving, which isn't so fine. However, discrimination can be hard to identify, let alone prove, and I'm not in favor of laws about thought crime.

      To be clear, I think that women and certain minorities are discriminated against in many ways, and that this is wrong. I believe I received unjust advantages in life for being the socially advantaged sex, sexual orientation, and skin color in the US, which were not of my volition and I'm not going to apologize for them. (I also received unjust advantages in my talents and abilities, which enable me to live a very good life, and I didn't do anything to acquire those either. Life isn't fair.) I'm dubious about trying various legal remedies for a subtle social problem. I believe that affirmative action, when it appeared, was good and justified. That was most of my lifetime ago, and many things have changed since then, not including the reasons I hear for affirmative action.

      Anti-discrimination laws typically only apply at certain points in certain ways in an oppressed group's lifetime, and those aren't necessarily the important ones. You can't legislate exactly how teachers interact with their students, for example, and I suspect that's a critical factor. Similarly, racial discrimination is really hard to prove when it's subtle, and the law really can't do subtle. Laws that push towards desired outcomes generally have problems. First, they may be attacking discrimination at the wrong point. If girls are pushed away from STEM when they're young, or in the course of their education, that's far more of a problem than getting hired when they apply for a job they're qualified for. Second, they cheapen legitimate accomplishments. A Native American woman who is successful in college and gets hired as an engineer is going to be perceived as benefiting from affirmative action, and she's going to have to work harder than usual to impress people with her actual competence. Third, they can disadvantage people who aren't in the classes being protected. A college that's pressured to admit many more Martians, or whatever group, is likely to admit unqualified Martians at the expense of qualified Earthlings, and the functioning of the college will be hindered by having a lot of unqualified people in it. Fourth, they tend to overlook certain groups. How many Native Americans are there in Google or Facebook, for example? They're about 1% of the US population, so out of maybe 30K employees you'd like to see roughly 300. I'd bet the numbers are significantly lower than 1%, but I don't actually know, since they don't seem to get reported.

      They also miss the point in many ways. A group's overall lack of success is likely due to many things. For example, it may suffer from substandard education in general. People from all groups get substandard educations, although not in the same proportions. Ideally, we'd like to help people with substandard educations, rather than people of one racial group that gets a lot more substandard education than the general population.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      Put aside your bigotry (or racism? Is that it?) so a discussion can be had.

      It's not bigotry to call the anti-affirmative action movement what it is... Angry White Men upset about having to give up unearned privilege.

      Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

      Assigning ignorant, negative labels to those that hold a different opinion than yourself is the very essence of bigotry.
      I'm not interested in a discussion about topics like this with people like you, sorry.

    33. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Making 32$K per year is not a special advantage.

      Economic privilege is still privilege. A full-time minimum wage employee earns $15,080 annually.

      Worst, instead of teaching people how to be able to make 32$K a year, we attack those who do in order to make them feel "bad" for getting there.

      Oh? But what happens when companies like google try to increase diversity? (Essentially trying to teach people how to make 32K a year) You know what happens on Slashdot, Google gets attacked for it. It's not about making the people with 32K feel "bad" per se, it's about making them realize their privilege and want to help. They make "themselves" feel guilty.

      But if he did something right to get where he is... I might learn it too, instead of claiming he is privileged. (Shifting the burden doesn't help)

      But lots of people didn't earn it themselves. They had college educated parents, grew up in the burbs, had early access to technology, and schools with a LOT more money. For example Bill Gates didn't exactly earn his wealth, he is where he is because of his parents. They sent him to a private high school school that had early access to computers in 197! and then on to Harvard. When he first met with IBM, one of the IBM people said. "you're Mary Gates son aren't you?" His mother was on the "national" board for the Red Cross. To get on a board like that, you basically have to be VERY privileged.

      So he had a "head start", same applies to Zuckerberg (parents were a dentist and a psychiatrist, went to Philips Exeter), and even RMS

      IMHO you have fallacy there: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

      No, because the debate on privilege is based on numbers and statistics at it's core.

    34. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Just like "don't you read books?" is a cliche. You do not think- you regurgitate.

      What, you think every programmer should write their own version of K&R C book? No? Why not, they're just regurgitating.

      If people have been writing and discussing something for years, shouldn't we use those resources? But no, that's not good enough for Libertarian Slashdot, it's "citation needed" and then it's back to making Soviet Russia, Natalie Portman and $$$ Profit jokes.

      Translated into Christian to exemplify its stupidity:

      The difference is the study of privilege is based on numbers at it's core. It's statistics and math.

      Fools like you cling to "privilege" as an argument because it is designed to be unfalsifiable.

      And Fools like you deny it because you simply just don't give a damn about anything but yourself. You want to talk about privilege? The first black man to attend ol Miss is still alive... it happened in 1962, only 5 years before I was born. They had to send in Federal troops. The staff car of the commanding general was mobbed and set on fire...while he and his staff were in it... they escaped the car...and were shot at.

      4 years later James Meredith was shot while leading a march to get people registered to vote. The guy who shot him, got a 5 year sentence with 3 years suspended....

      You know those 3 civil rights workers who were killed whose story was told in the film Mississippi Burning?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      The man who planned their murder is still alive. Do you know when they finally convicted him? 2005.

      It hasn't even been 100 years since the 19th amendment was ratified.

      Did someone ever threaten you with a gun for trying to register to vote?

      A few years back there was a segment on 60 minutes or Dateline NBC about an HR guy at a company that was having trouble with people he had to fire because of performance or their job was being downsized. They'd get angry/upset at him, and the company, they'd refuse to accept that their job performance was poor or that their job was now gone, and security would have to be called in. He decided that if it was a white guy, he'd cater to their ego and tell them they lost their job because of "Quotas and affirmative action". He said on camera that he didn't care if it made people say or do bigoted things, that it was better they got mad at minorities than himself or the company. He got caught out because one of his firees threatened to sue about the so-called "reverse discrimination" and found out why he was actually fired...and then told the press about the HR guy.

      Shit still happens and denying your privilege isn't doing us any good.

       

      I'm calling you out because all you've offered is cliches and pejoratives and you act incredulous when people don't just accept your assertions.

      It's not cliches, it's numbers and statistics. Did I not make reference to demographics?

    35. Re:See: Morgan Freeman by graffic · · Score: 0

      "Economic privilege"... Interesting, that having a job is a "special" advantage. Of course whatever I don't have and you have, it might be subject to be an advantage. Although not a "special" one.

      Google increasing diversity giving money "only" for girls like it was shown some days ago? Bigotry for diversity. Still I cannot understand why someone will try to mimic demographics. In the very moment you hire someone for "diversity" reasons, you're teaching them exactly the opposite of improving themselves: they just need to be a minority to be hired. Google could have helped with studies to learn more about why women choose the degrees they choose, and men choose the degrees they choose, and act on those results. Even use existing studies... But no: just pushing a % up to mimic demographics.

      Is interesting that the "famous" people you talk about are college dropouts. Don't know if it could be related to the special advantage. Even for those whose parents had difficulties to pay for college: college debt as a special advantage. There is a book about these people: Outliers: The Story of Success (Malcolm Gladwell). Their privilege in the book? be born at the right time and have the opportunity to take a decision no one else had taken before.

      This also links with your "head start". (Stolen from Gladwell book) Young children that are months older are smarter, they have a "head start". Being smarter, stronger, faster gives them preferential treatment in schools/teams/etc and that makes them even better. They're privileged because they were born months before the rest.

      Numbers and statistics are numbers and statistics. The most common misuse is to think that correlations are causations. It is called the "texas sharpshooter" or affirming the consequent. Begging the question is about the circular argument of privilege and being privileged for not recognizing privilege.

      As a summary:
      - There is advantage, and there is special advantage.
      - I don't know why on earth would anyone believe that creating special advantages: bigoted/dogmatist/prejudiced/intolerant hiring practices and education; would be the best way to increase equality and contribute towards an egalitarian society. But I guess we will discover it together (perhaps soon)

  9. Diversity is not a virtue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why force diversity? There is nothing worthwhile in diversity in and of itself, despite the dogma of 40+ years of social engineering.

    I had to laugh at Google's I/O presentations yesterday; they were obviously finding every single non-white, non-male person, sexually ambiguous person they could find for the presentations. Don't get me wrong: None of the talks were bad; everyone was competent. But it was obvious that Google was going out of its way to seem inclusive. It just comes off as needy and foolish. "See, we're INCLUSIVE!". /notes from a white patriarch

    1. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by lucm · · Score: 2

      They probably hired communication specialists from the LAPD.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by aicrules · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's certainly fine for google to see that statistic and do some due diligence to make sure their are not any issues in their hiring managers/process. But the answer is almost certainly in the available pool of people who apply. I'd definitely be interested to see the percentage of people who applied that are white vs black, male vs female. If those percentages are way different than their work force make-up, then maybe there's something more to look at. However you'd then have to investigate a large number of individual examples to see if qualifications and interview results show a valid reason for the difference. All-in-all the likelihood that it involves racist HR/hiring managers at google is extremely unlikely.

    3. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the talks were bad; everyone was competent

      What are you talking about? It was the worst keynote I have ever seen. Talk about boring, dry and useless. Not to mention nothing really of note was said. It was like an army of freak show workers was frog marched across the stage. The only entertaining aspect was trying to guess whether Pat was a man or woman.

    4. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by bmajik · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is nothing worthwhile in diversity in and of itself

      This is the attitude that needs to stop. Diversity may not be a value in your pantheon, but it's not social engineering to want an inclusive society. It's wisdom.

      Why does it need to stop?

      A huge problem -- that few people seem to speak about -- is that using gender, nationality, or, most frustratingly -- race, as a measure of "diversity" is implicitly bigoted.

      The diversity that people _claim_ to want is one of perspectives, life experiences, etc.

      The things that are relatively easy to bucketize - gender identity, race, socio-economic status, etc.... these things in and of themselves are not a valuable source of "diversity"

      The implicit bigotry in the "diversity" argument says that, if you hire more black people, you'll get much different ideas than what you already have. Why? Because all black people are different from the white people you already have.

      I've never seen a more stark illustration of _racism_ then that.

      The conjecture here is that if a population distribution doesn't' look the way certain people expect it to, then there is some upstream social problem that needs tinkering with.

      That conjecture is only ever true or false on a case by case basis. The real problem that needs to stop is for people to believe this conjecture in the general case; the real problem is that people don't even agree or are not willing to state what their expectations are for the "ideal" population distribution, but, are still willing to cry foul and to assert that a problem exists.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    5. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want diversity, just not the diversity of my views. Nice tautology you have there.

      At least my assertion is provable (the three tech companies mentioned are all quite successful without the kind of diversity you seem to champion). I challenge you to prove your assertion that diversity is wisdom.

    6. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Loopy · · Score: 1

      Lucid, cogent and very much what I wanted to say, here. Thanks.

    7. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no ideal population distribution. You could have a selection of tokens if all you wanted was the appearance of diversity. Here, "diversity" is shorthand for different viewpoints and cultural backgrounds. It's natural for people to want to associate with people who only share their views and background.

      No, it is not bigoted or racist to assume that someone of a different skin color may have had a different upbringing than you. Arguing from a colorblind perspective one might assume that not even bringing it into consideration is just. But if you even try to examine the complex context that diversity brings into the picture with respect to elite tech companies hiring talented individuals in California, one of the most diverse states in the country, you'd see that diversity means much more to society than just different viewpoints and cultural backgrounds.

      The technocracy in California being entirely white is a problem from a sociological perspective (a monopoly of power). The employee base of tech companies being entirely white is a problem from an economic and civic perspective (a monopoly of money and politics) as well as an academic one (a monopoly of funded ideas). The gender gap being 85-15 male to female in tech companies is a problem from a feminist perspective (a monopoly of position).

      Diversity is not just a feel-good strategy designed to create a more integrated society. It is the "trust-busting" of established social majorities, and people will not be satisfied until nobody holds a majority position. It is natural to feel threatened by this, as the goal of diversity is to take power away from those who have it now.

    8. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by unimacs · · Score: 1

      When you have certain fields dominated by a subgroup of people you have to ask the question why. In this case the question is why are well paying jobs in high tech companies going mostly to white men? Is it really because that genetically white men are more likely to have the necessary skills? I highly doubt it, at least not in the proportions we are seeing reflected in the hiring of technical talent.

      So where is the problem? Many would argue that it starts well before Google and others make hiring decisions. I think it does too but I also think that having so few women and non-white males getting these positions helps perpetuate the problem. If you're a young child, knowing and seeing other people like you holding technical positions like that makes it more likely that you yourself would entertain them as an option.

      As much we'd like to say that color and gender are no longer barriers, it's just not true. We don't treat everyone the same way.

      Pro-baseball was brought up as an example. I don't know that it quite works as an argument in the way it was intended but sports is just one way I see people pigeonholed all the time when it comes to race or gender. My son loves football. We spent last year looking at different options for high school for him. Now, my son is not nearly good enough to make a career out of football and most of the criteria we were using for choosing a high school had nothing to do with sports. However, he's good enough to at least play at a high school level. I did have one friend seriously say to me that if my son wants to play varsity football he should stay away from school "x" because a lot of black kids go there and he won't have a chance. Seriously? He'd never even seen my son play football.

    9. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by bmajik · · Score: 1

      No, it is not bigoted or racist to assume that someone of a different skin color may have had a different upbringing than you

      It is certainly racist.

      You are using race as the determining factor to make a presumption about an individual human.

      What other useful definition of racism could there be?

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    10. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, there are numerous studies indicating diversity increases performance, productivity, creativity, and project success rates.

      I'm sure there are countervailing studies as well, but there is plenty of evidence-based benefits to diversity.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=diversity%20increases%20productivity

    11. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      No, it is not bigoted or racist to assume that someone of a different skin color may have had a different upbringing than you

      It is certainly racist.

      You are using race as the determining factor to make a presumption about an individual human.

      What other useful definition of racism could there be?

      The actual one: that inherited differences between the races naturally makes one inferior to another.

      Believing one race has a tendency towards some cultural beliefs or another is not racist. As the different races come from different geographic regions, and cultural influence tends to be likewise limited to geographic regions, it is perfectly accurate (and historically verifiable) to say race & culture are tightly coupled without implying inferiority.

    12. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      it is not bigoted or racist to assume that someone of a different skin color may have had a different upbringing than you

      Which is why nig^H^H^H people of color steal cars. That's what you're getting at right? That people should lock their doors if they see one of these people. And that "driving while black" is totally grounds for being pulled over.

    13. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Irony is seeing you use a _google_ search to defend google in a diversity contest... (dons tinfoil hat)

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    14. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      "Diversity is not a virtue", said the straight white dude who fears he will lose his unearned position of privilege if diversity is valued in the workforce.

      "There is nothing worthwhile in diversity in and of itself," said the straight white dude who fears he will lose his unearned position of privilege because diversity in the workforce makes his character traits less valued.

      Of course you are right, straight white dude: diversity in the workforce doesn't do a whole lot to directly make things better for you. But there are other people in the world who matter too. As much as you do, even (if you can wrap your self-centered solipsistic little brain about that). It is a virtue, because it's worthwhile for them.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    15. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, there are numerous studies indicating diversity increases performance, productivity, creativity, and project success rates.

      I'm sure there are countervailing studies as well,

      I am sure there are not. Who would be willing to publish such research? Larry Summers got fired from Harvard for suggesting that researchers should look at such things.

    16. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why force diversity? There is nothing worthwhile in diversity in and of itself

      Exactly. There is no reason. It doesn't matter if a worker is man or woman, black or white. So therefore, no reason to go for one or the other. Hire the one with the best grades or best CV.

      Bringing more women in makes no sense, for there is no special "female perspective". Or "black perspective" either. For gender and color does not matter! That is what equal opportunity is all about. Those that claims that "some under-represented group has qualities of its own", need to be more careful. For if there actually is difference between genders or colors - then surely it must be ok to discriminate. And not just against whites or other over-represented groups. Do you want job ads with "no blacks" or "women need not apply"? No? Then don't push "differences".

    17. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The implicit bigotry in the "diversity" argument says that, if you hire more black people, you'll get much different ideas than what you already have. Why? Because all black people are different from the white people you already have.

      I've never seen a more stark illustration of _racism_ then that.

      Good point, but reality is even worse. For if they manage to sell the idea that "blacks are different than the whites you already have", then racial discrimination is not merely OK, but mandatory:

      Not all hiring managers needs "diversity". They want the job done, not discussions at the workplace. (Not all work is 'creative'!) Sell them the idea that blacks are "different", and you sell the idea that "they won't fit in as easily". So they'll hire whites only to keep the profits up. (Not out of hate, but out of greed. Similiarly, a place with blacks only won't hire whites either. Won't fit in, won't perform as well, won't hire those.)

      Equal opportunity was all about "race doesn't matter". If "race suddenly matter" then hiring managers will want the race deemed best for the job - instead of "diversity". Might be blacks, might be whites, might be asians. But usually, a monoculture. Anybody goes for "the best", not "a mix of best & worst". A football team don't hire some fat guys for 'diversity'. Entertainment, universities and research institutions might go for 'a creative mix', but factories and businesses simply won't.

    18. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In general, including people of more subcultures will bring diversity, and trying to include people who look or act different will bring in different subcultures.

      However, I had my son in the University day care system at one time. There were people of all skin colors, nationalities, and religions. In some ways, it was one of the least diverse groups I've seen. Pretty much everybody thought the same way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:Diversity is not a virtue by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 1

      Why force diversity? There is nothing worthwhile in diversity in and of itself

      Plenty of research shows that diversity within a team contributes to better problem-solving, and a better overall outcome.

      HOWEVER, the kind of diversity that counts most isn't skin color or genital configuration. The diversity that counts is a person's skills, personality, and problem-solving approach. It's about pairing big-picture thinkers with detailed ground-up thinkers. It's about partnering organizers with people who need to be organized. And so on.

      Companies know all this. They know what makes teams effective. They talk about skin and genitals because that's what's expected of them.

  10. The can of worms... by ZeroPly · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... congratulations on opening it without any further ado...

    Is it really skills and training? Or is it something more innate like IQ or visualization ability, especially for the technical jobs? Do we really want to find out?

    --
    Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
    1. Re:The can of worms... by rlwhite · · Score: 1

      The females and minorities I've worked with have had equal ability. It seems that there's just far more white men in the US that are inclined to be software developers than there are females and minorities who are inclined to do so. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and many others are merely reflecting the demographics of the broader industry.

      Sure, you can emphasize females in computer science education as Google is doing, and you'll likely see some improvement in the numbers, but we'll probably never see a 50/50 split because these inclinations are part nature as well as part nurture.

    2. Re:The can of worms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The females and minorities I've worked with have had equal ability.

      Thus the reason you were working with them and not some other female or minority. Your point does not address his question.

    3. Re:The can of worms... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      The females and minorities I've worked with have had equal ability. It seems that there's just far more white men in the US that are inclined to be software developers than there are females and minorities who are inclined to do so. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and many others are merely reflecting the demographics of the broader industry.

      I think it's just demographics of who goes into CS and engineering, though slightly skewed because I could swear a majority of students in STEM tracks were Asian, not white. Though all those companies generally have a fairly big showing of Asians (roughly 33%), it does seem a bit on low side given they can easily make up 60-80% of a graduating class.

      Though, the percentage of female Asian students in STEM was also fairly high - perhaps 10% of that population.

    4. Re:The can of worms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      May of those Asians are likely foreign students on visas that returned home after getting a degree.

    5. Re:The can of worms... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      It seems that there's just far more white men in the US that are inclined to be software developers than there are females and minorities who are inclined to do so.

      And part of the reason that there are fewer females and minorities who are inclined to do so, is because when a woman or a black guy shows up in a CS class they're an oddity, subject to (usually subtle and unconscious, but sometimes stupid and obvious) sexism and racism. So they're more likely to say "screw it" and go study something else, so there are fewer women and African-Americans in CS, so when a woman or a black guy shows up in a CS class they're an oddity...and the cycle continues.

      There is no quick fix. But over time a little attention by folks who work in tech to the basic rule "don't be a dick" can cut it down.

      we'll probably never see a 50/50 split because these inclinations are part nature as well as part nurture./

      ...and making unproven and unprovable claims about the natural abilities of various groups of people, would be a fine example of "being a dick". Cut it out.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  11. discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    well, one could say that the white population is being discriminated in Major League ?

    1. Re:discrimination by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      That's not discrimination. That's Progress.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  12. Companies can't create a diversified talent pool by Brannon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    out of thin air. The internal demographics of these large companies reflect the demographics of graduates in the relevant fields. The right answer is to get a more diversified college population in computer engineering and computer science, which requires getting more K-12 interest in those fields amongst underrepresented groups. And that's exactly what the big companies are doing--investing in programs that will build a more diversified pipeline of future employees.

    The comparison against MLB is outrageously stupid. African-Americans were already playing baseball in high numbers in separate leagues; MLB just started poaching players from those leagues. Are you claiming that there are some all-female or all-black companies full of millions of computer engineers that Facebook could start hiring from tomorrow?

  13. Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where's the statistic for how many Indians?

    1. Re:Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hindeed.

    2. Re:Where? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That was a nice jab. In fact, it was a veritable pun-jab!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  14. we speak english here by fche · · Score: 1

    "So, is it surprising that the company ... is having problems connecting with the general population in 2014?"

    Stupid loaded question. It is not having problems "connecting with the general population", unless by "connecting" you mean a completely different verb.

    1. Re:we speak english here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yessir, Facebook and Google are the most failed companies in history at connecting people? Who thinks and writes this drivel?

    2. Re:we speak english here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension FAIL. "Company having problems connecting with the general population" and "company connecting people" are two completely different things. Learn to English.

  15. This is only facebook's problem if by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    HR discriminates based on gender or race rather than ability. The composition of its workforce tells us nothing about this, as correlation does not equal causation. ... which is not nearly click-baitey enough, so we get tripe like this "article".

  16. I call BS by m0s3m8n · · Score: 1

    I am positive these big companies go out of their way to only hire white dudes. I bet the CEOs all have white sheets and pointy hats in their closets.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    1. Re:I call BS by kick6 · · Score: 1

      I am positive these big companies go out of their way to only hire white dudes. I bet the CEOs all have white sheets and pointy hats in their closets.

      I bet they only print on white paper too, those bastards.

  17. predominantly white countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Predominantly white countries, founded by white people have predominantly white people working for them. The horror...
    Go to South Korea where I spent a few years working. Almost noone there is non Korean..

  18. White Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder the Internet—like running water—is so Evil!

  19. Segregation By Choice by timrod · · Score: 1

    This debacle with people complaining about Silicon Valley's low female/minority hiring rate sounds to me like a case of segregation by choice - Facebook, Google, et al are not actually discriminating against females or minorities. There's just no evidence of it, because if there was, there would be federal lawsuits pending. What this sounds like is a case of segregation by choice - there aren't a whole lot of female or minority CS grads out there applying to Silicon Valley firms. Attempting to regulate segregation by choice is never a good idea, because it can't be fixed without a complete social upheaval.

    To get an idea of how much trying to regulate this kind of thing can screw stuff up, all you have to do is look at Connecticut. In CT, about 20 years ago, we had a major lawsuit known as Sheff v. O'Neill. The suit concerned the fact that schools in the urban areas of Connecticut have a very high minority population - I believe that when the suit was filed, Hartford (our capitol city) had schools with a 90% minority population, and the plaintiff (an eight year old boy named Milo Sheff) couldn't get state aid to go to a school in another area where the schools weren't 90% minority populated. Hartford's schools are also well-known for being some of the lowest-performing in the state.

    The state lost that lawsuit, and their solution to the problem so far has been to spend millions of dollars subsidizing magnet schools to attract white students to Hartford and bussing students long distances to try to meet the racial quotas set by the Sheff suit. They really haven't been successful, because the population demographics continue to remain the same, and there's only so much the state can do to fix that.

    The same thing is true for tech companies - they can subsidize computer science education for girls and minority students all they want, but that doesn't mean that the girls and minority students are going to take that offer.

    1. Re:Segregation By Choice by hsmith · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is because people don't find those companies do anything worth note. Google and Facebook try to recruit me once a year and I simply have no interest in working for them - I don't find anything compelling that they do for me personally. Perhaps females want to work somewhere that has a better mission than what they offer?

      Everyone is looking for the discrimination angle but I think it is simpler than that.

  20. Gawker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and SJW's.

  21. New Employee of the Month... by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    A beige hermaphroditic dwarf with a Mohawk and a love for Polka and yodeling with vegan nudists on double shifts..

  22. creation is trysexual every imaginable color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so why do we keep trying to count each other as 'others'?

  23. Weird comments by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've been reading a few comments about how poor people can't afford technology.

    We're in 2014, I don't believe such arguments. You can easily get more-than-capable computers for absolutely free. It may be older Pentium 4 era computers, but you can still code, program and use the Internet with them. You don't need powerful computers for the things that Facebook, Twitter and others are doing. And we're also not talking about games or HD video here, so even a low-end DSL connection will be sufficient.

    1. Re:Weird comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so even a low-end DSL connection will be sufficient. ... for $25 per month

    2. Re:Weird comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on where you are, you can have internet for free. Local charities and various non-profits sometimes hand out computers (and again, some places have labs like universities and cafes). If you're in the country, then borrow your mom's car!

    3. Re:Weird comments by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Strangely, even in 2014, there are still low income people don't have computers. Around here part of the problem is that tech recyclers have shown up to recycle the machines that might have gone to lower income people, to sell those to small businesses and non-profits. The computers the non-profits/small businesses replace basically get junked (maybe even sent overseas) because they're VERY old. (P3's/older P4's)

      Also, since poorer people don't have computers, they can't take advantage of the geek resources we'd use to find one in the first place. (Picking up a refurb from fry's or something)

      Now, some of the tech recylers have some deals...but again you pretty much have to be online to get one....and they often sell the machine sans-OS. Which means getting an OS, and being able to install it.

      If they're lucky they might have the cash for whatever crap wal-mart has...but you KNOW how Slashdotters love to bash people for buying computers from in-store mass market retailers.

    4. Re:Weird comments by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      It's a class issue all around. Just because a poor person can afford an inexpensive compter doesn't mean they will have the time and money to attend college. Degree's aren't strictly necessary but you need some combination of experience, education, and genius. A degree is something that is more and more considered a given for young adults from the middle class. Meanwhile the minorities that are frequently of the most concern when talking about diversity in the work place are over represented among the ranks of the poor.

      I guess the bottom line is that just because you can afford the money for some technology doesn't mean you'll be rich enough in other critical resources to move past being simply a technology consumer.

    5. Re:Weird comments by unimacs · · Score: 1

      I happen to have a phone number at work that is almost identical to the one people call for energy assistance. I get calls on a regular basis from people who can't pay the gas bill or electric bill. Do you think they can afford DSL?

  24. Re:Stupid Blacks by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    You say that as if George W. Bush wasn't a simpleton.

  25. I call bullshit by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    can we get over these complete bullshit stories about gender and race prejudice in high tech offices? Nothing I have seen during my 35 years of being a software developer at many different companies has suggested this is even remotely true.

    Literally every company I have ever worked at has gone above and beyond all existing laws to make sure there is absolutely no racial or gender-prejudice in hiring in any way . In fact they err on the side of caution so much it actually seems to be a positive advantage at interview time to be a female, or racial minority, or disabled. if you're all 3 you could probably name your own salary (joke).

    I refuse to believe that these days anyone can't get a job at a high-tech company just because of skin color, gender or racial origin. Not least because if they could even slightly prove that, they could sue and it would be all over the news, and the companies themselves are hyper-sensitive to this.

    I'd bet a stack on that the fact that high-tech companies are still more filled with white guys than anything else solely because that where nearly all the (actually suitable) job applications come from in the first place.

    If you want to force an actually very biassed and unnatural 50% racial and gender balance in the work place, then you need to look at why its still mostly white guys that apply in the first place, not blame the companies for hiring from the pool of suitable applicants who are actually out there.

    1. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd bet a stack on that the fact that high-tech companies are still more filled with white guys than anything else solely because that where nearly all the (actually suitable) job applications come from in the first place.

      I think they are full of white guys because they hire on the basis of ability and do not otherwise discriminate.

    2. Re:I call bullshit by gewalker · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that there are IT positions where the people responsible for hiring are biased in terms of gender or race. You know its true because they are people and some people suck.

      From my observations, It is more likely that they are biased against Chinese or Indian developers than they are against blacks or women though. However, this is not general racial bias as much as it is language / culture bias in that they find them difficult to understand or work with.

      I am more than ready to just let life go on without the constant cry or "racist" or "sexist" coming from the nattering nabobs of negativism.

    3. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone help me out here. I've been trying for months to remember the sociological term for when people use their own experiences to fill in the gaps when extrapolating to the experiences of everyone else.

      Have a friend who worked for ASUS in California. Out of a 300 person office, somehow they managed to have fewer than 20 non-Asian employees. Of those Asian employees, somehow all of them seemed to come from a very specific subset of ethnicities within the general Asia-Pac region. Out of those 20 non-Asian employees, none held a position above your basic supervisor when my friend was there. I'm still waiting for anyone to be able to offer up an explanation for how that can happen if race is not being taken into consideration. You ask me, it's out and out racism.

      And let's remember, we're not talking about only technical jobs. There are secretaries, accountants, and all kinds of other office jobs that are part of any sufficiently large company. It's not just engineers or programmers we're talking about.

      Diversity for the sake of diversity is actually a good thing. Going back to the example of my friend who worked for ASUS. In a nearly all-Asian environment, my friend was routinely harassed on a weekly, if not daily, basis. After several months of this, my friend complains, suggesting that it could be because of his race. The ASUS HR rep puts in writing that my friend made complaints of being discriminated against, but no investigation of any kind is conducted into the complaints, and it's also easy to see that said complaints were the foundation for the HR investigation into my friend as opposed to his coworkers. It's about as textbook a case of retaliation as you can get in the real world. An effectively all-Asian company going after one of the token non-Asians for expecting to be treated with basic human dignity. This sort of thing is considerably less likely to happen in a workplace where there is greater racial diversity. Not only the harassment by one group against another, but the circling of the wagons and the company being far from the impartial arbitrator they're supposed to be.

    4. Re:I call bullshit by unimacs · · Score: 1

      Every company I've ever worked for at the very top level of management says all the right things. At the same time I've personally witnessed hiring practices that excluded people who didn't fit the mold, - some applications being rejected based solely on fact the applicant's name wasn't "American" enough. The latter was for a technical position. I reported it and soon left. I doubt much was done because the hiring manager was on the fast track to move up in that organization.

      I don't think a company's level of diversity has to exactly match the larger community's but clearly the numbers at these tech firms are completely lopsided. I'm not blaming them necessarily but yes I think they could and should do more. That doesn't mean hiring people who aren't qualified but it might mean doing more than looking at the pool of applicants that comes to you, you may have to find them. For example, they could start apprenticeship programs to train people with potential rather than only choosing from among those who could afford college.

      On the bright side many of these same companies are promoting programs to get a more diverse pool of people into the necessary academic training.

      If we as a society don't do these things, zip code, ethnicity, and even gender will play too a large a role in determining who becomes a "have" vs a "have not"

    5. Re:I call bullshit by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >>If we as a society don't do these things,

      I disagree. I think there's already plenty of opportunity in the tech field in the US no matter what gender or race you are (and no... I'm not an American white guy). You just need to get off your ass, do the schooling and go get a job. Yes its hard so it takes continued effort. That's really the part that most people actually dont like. Personally I dont see much of a problem with the current system, or feel society has any responsibility to change it.

      >> zip code, ethnicity, and even gender will play too a large a role in determining who becomes a "have" vs a "have not"

      Again I call bullshit. Unfortunately I've seen first hand all to many times that some people automatically just play the minority card each time to avoid ever having to make an effort to help themselves. The only reason they still do it is because it works thanks to most white men having already been programmed to feel socially guilty for everyone elses failures by a society with a screwed up socialist agenda like yours.

    6. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I'm of Chinese descent and from my experience a higher proportion of Chinese are racist compared to say the "whites". Why'd you think we call you bunch gweilos? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Or the blacks http://www.urbandictionary.com...

      Yes some whites do discriminate against the chinese, but in many US companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft - there are plenty of employees of chinese descent.

      In contrast I won't be surprised if your friend's experience in Asus is true. And that's what I'd call "real" racism. Not this bullshit people accuse Facebook and Google of. Perhaps there are some people who are closet racists in Facebook or Google, but if they have any brains they'll keep it to themselves.

    7. Re:I call bullshit by unimacs · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I've seen first hand all to many times that some people automatically just play the minority card each time to avoid ever having to make an effort to help themselves. The only reason they still do it is because it works thanks to most white men having already been programmed to feel socially guilty for everyone elses failures by a society with a screwed up socialist agenda like yours.

      So some people playing the minority card means that there aren't any talented minorities out there that are being held back by their circumstances?

      You know what I have seen first hand? A hiring manager rejecting a resume solely based on the ethnicity of the name of applicant. In fact they had rejected several resumes for exactly the same reason. I couldn't believe that this stuff still happens but it does. And that's just an overt case. I'm sure minorities are passed over for more subtle reasons that have little or nothing to do with their actual qualifications.

      Once I was literally told to think long and hard before offering a job to a black candidate we were interviewing by somebody who wasn't even involved in the interview process. This was for a business unit of a larger organization that prided itself on its diversity record. When I first started working in that unit I'd actually been a little surprised at how lily white the staff was compared to my previous job in the company. After awhile it became very clear that it wasn't exactly an accident.

    8. Re:I call bullshit by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I have just been lucky in my 35 years of working for quite a few different companies to never have run across anything even remotely like your bad experiences.

      For each of these incidents I very much hope you reported all the associated ass hats to someone high up enough to actually do something appropriate, like fire them all immediately.

  26. vast majority ordinarians will not do dirty deeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we just do not think that way due to intact conscienses? no wonder we've been unchosen again? just ask noam promotion going well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CKpCGjD8wg&list=PL456D453B409DF8D1

  27. Awesome by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So when can we expect to see the diversity reports on players in the NFL and NBA? How about gender diversity as it relates to employment in the healthcare industry?

    1. Re:Awesome by callahan2211 · · Score: 0

      And gender diversity in human resources.

      --
      "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and
  28. Re:Stupid Blacks by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Do you know what Obama's approval rating is amongst blacks?

    87%

    (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-approval-center.aspx)

    My god, how our country is cursed by these nitwits.

    If "diversity" means putting more of those simpletons into positions of power, fuck diversity.

    You realise there may be all sorts of legitimate reasons for this. Maybe the approve because they see Obama as no worse than most other politicians, but see that he also provides a positive role-model for blacks. Maybe more black people are in demographics that benefit from his policies. Maybe they value different things to you when evaluating how good he is.

  29. silly premises by stenvar · · Score: 1

    If employee populations should be representative of customers, would Facebook be better off if they made the education and salary of their employees representative of their users? If paid their engineers $50k a year and hired mostly non-STEM majors? Would your hospital deliver better health care if its medical staff was representative of its patients in terms of education and salary? Would teachers teach better if they were representative of the student population? The whole point of an economy and division of labor is that businesses and their customers are not representative of each other.

    Of course, as far as race is concerned, it is just irrelevant. I mean, who but a racist would seriously believe that you have to be (fill in some race) in order to write web software for (same race)?

    1. Re:silly premises by unimacs · · Score: 1

      Of course, as far as race is concerned, it is just irrelevant. I mean, who but a racist would seriously believe that you have to be (fill in some race) in order to write web software for (same race)?

      Unfortunately it is not irrelevant. Few people believe that a black person CAN'T do software development (for example). However it's a hard road for many, many black people to take, - especially if they are poor, which black people disproportionally are. What you have to realize is that even though the legal barriers have fallen, the social and economic barriers are alive and well.

      I'll give you an example. I don't know if you're familiar with the radio show "This American Life". Anyway, on one episode they interviewed a number of talented but poor college kids that were given scholarships based on their academic achievements along with their lack of ability to afford college.

      One of the kids was black and got an scholarship to MIT for some technical degree program (which I don't remember). He talked about how much he loved the classroom and lab work but how hard it was for him at the school. He felt like he didn't fit in. There were few other people there that shared his background. He felt like he continually had to prove that he deserved to be there. He had to dress better than most of his peers, and he had to behave better than most of them as well. His high school academic training had been woefully inadequate in some areas so he had to take additional classes to make up for that.

      It was almost worse for him at home. While his family was proud, many of his old friends didn't want to hang around him, - accusing him of acting "too white" and selling out. Even the friends who stuck by him were on different paths and he couldn't share with them what was going on school and have them understand.

      The other students told very similar stories. The point is that the inequalities in our society are deeply ingrained and won't go away simply by making it illegal to not hire somebody based on gender or ethnicity.

    2. Re:silly premises by stenvar · · Score: 1

      You're completely missing the point. Facebook says (I'm paraphrasing) "we need to be racially diverse in order to be able to develop software for our racially diverse user community". That means that they are saying that people of one race can't develop software for people of another race. That's racist.

      What you are getting at, namely the fact that African Americans and Latinos are statistically underrepresented in high tech, is obvious. But when you're saying that "inequalities in our society are deeply ingrained", that's misleading. The problem isn't with our "society" or inequalities, it is with a particular youth subculture that rejects academic achievement and (for historical reasons) is particularly common among some minorities (but by no means limited to them). You illustrate that yourself: "many of his old friends didn't want to hang around him, - accusing him of acting 'too white' and selling out". That's not a problem society has the power to address, it's only something parents and kids can change.

    3. Re:silly premises by unimacs · · Score: 1

      Aren't all youth cultures in the US part of the society as a whole? Doesn't one culture affect another? To me these things are all related, - all connected. You can't simply say that the problem is for the parents and kids of minority communities to fix, - although it's a very convenient solution to suggest for those outside of those communities. And also I can't think of any parent who doesn't want their child to achieve academically. You may have young peers who value other skills more, - regardless of ethnicity.

      As to Facebook's concern those are legit as well. Don't you ever get spam from a non-english speaker trying to get you to do something or another and entirely missing the mark? They do so because they don't understand the language and the culture enough. Same with Facebook or anyone of these companies trying to appeal to a wide audience. It's not that I can't write software for any particular audience but I'm smart enough to know that what appeals to me and people like me may not appeal to people living under different circumstances or different cultures.

      Have you ever considered that our whole approach to developing software has been largely created by white men? Perhaps that's part of the reason so few outside that group do it.

    4. Re:silly premises by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Aren't all youth cultures in the US part of the society as a whole? Doesn't one culture affect another? To me these things are all related, - all connected.

      Which culture I and my kids are part of is a free choice I make; it's probably the most fundamental choice I can make in a free society. Society has no right to interfere in that.

      And also I can't think of any parent who doesn't want their child to achieve academically.

      Quite right. So what you're saying amounts to saying that white society should go in and change the way black parents raise their kids because you believe that white society can do a better job at it than black parents. Your attempts at couching interfering in parental rights as helping the weak and helpless has a long tradition in racist and totalitarian thinking.

      You can't simply say that the problem is for the parents and kids of minority communities to fix, - although it's a very convenient solution to suggest for those outside of those communities.

      It's you who is trying to pick the easy answer: "let's impose what the majority/experts believe is the right thing and then everything will work out". Even if it weren't racist and totalitarian, it just doesn't work; decades of spiraling education costs and flat test scores tell you that education experts have no idea how to implement successful education policies.

      Have you ever considered that our whole approach to developing software has been largely created by white men? Perhaps that's part of the reason so few outside that group do it.

      Asians are disproportionately represented among software developers, or do you consider them "white" now as well? And even the "white men" come from all over Europe and the US, and they include many gay men too. They are all part of the "white men" group according to you because... why?

      Your premise is wrong too, since there is a huge range of approaches to software development, languages, and tools, and companies differ radically from each other, from complete anarchy to Soviet-style top-down approaches. The idea that someone can't find a range of companies that matches their style and preferences is ludicrous.

      They do so because they don't understand the language and the culture enough.

      Yes, another expression of your racism: you think that people's race determines their language and culture.

  30. Re:Companies can't create a diversified talent poo by Shados · · Score: 1

    This.

    First, you start with the talent pool, which is very low on minorities and females.

    Then you cut off the 95% bottom part, as these companies get more applicants than the average tech company, and can be somewhat more picky. You have even fewer (not because women or minorities can't be good, but certain demographics statistically do better at showing off their strengths in the shark pool).

    Now of whats left, these companies have a biais to hire ultra monitivated/no work life balance/eat and dream computer science people. That cuts off anyone whom's life doesn't revolve around the field.

    And then the coup de grace, they favor younger applicants, and women and minorities usually have kids younger (the gender age gap stereotype of women usually dating older guys doesn't help here...it means usually the woman will be significantly younger when they have kids). So a young man is more likely to not have kid than a woman of the same age, and thus will have more time to dedicate to the career.

    All that together means you end up with white males, asians and indians. Its just the correlation between these groups and the criteria the hyper-competitive companies use to hire that cause this.

  31. You're talking to wrong end of the horse. by style7711 · · Score: 1

    You can hardly blame tech companies for a lack of diversity when the talent pool coming out of universities is milk toast. Source: Seeing 5 minority or women (non Asian) graduate in my 4 years at U.

  32. Bloody nonsense by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


    At the end of the day there is a SHORTAGE of qualified IT professionals. We need all the qualified tech workers we can get our hands on.

    Big companies like FB, Microsoft, Google etc are SCARED SHITLESS from getting their image ruined by a big public discrimination lawsuit. You know why? because the maximum amount of compensation is UNLIMITED. That means it takes one badly handled discharge or some bigoted idiot to lose millions.

    Why do you think they keep hammering their equality statements etc? A: Reputation, B: Fear of lawsuits

    What about Amish people? how many Amish does FB employ? why are there no more Amish people in google? What about Sikhs in Microsoft?

    Honestly, this is not tech news, this is garbage.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  33. Careful what you wish for.... by erp_consultant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know, the deeper we look into these kinds of issues the more interesting it gets.

    The real question here is not "why are there so few minorities at Company X" it's "why are there so few qualified candidates from minority group X to fill open positions?". We already have diversity legislation in place at Universities in America. In fact, there are more women graduates than men. Yet so few of the females grads are getting degrees in CS. Why is that? It is certainly not because of lack of opportunity. Could it be that maybe - just maybe - women don't want to be programmers?

    How about African Americans and other minority groups? Well, clearly the number of University students as a percentage of the total population is much lower than society in general. The question is why? Partly economic to be sure. But loans and grants are available to nearly everyone. Yet the number of black and latino college entrants is far lower, on a percentage basis, than they are for whites. Why is that?

    Is it possible that, in general, black and latino kids just don't put as high a value on a college education as white kids do? And, therefore, just don't work as hard to get the good grades necessary to get into a good college? What part does having children out of wedlock play in this? Black and latino women have a much higher instance of this than either white or Asian women.

    I'm not trying to point fingers or cast blame here and I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers. But it does raise some interesting questions.

    1. Re:Careful what you wish for.... by jmd · · Score: 2

      >> Is it possible that, in general, black and latino kids just don't put as high a value on a college education as white kids do? And, therefore, just don't work as hard to get the good grades necessary to get into a good college? What part does having children out of wedlock play in this? Black and latino women have a much higher instance of this than either white or Asian women.

      My father was a professor of education and his main focus was in the public education system. K-12 and beyond. In his writings it is clear he believed that a committment to education gave the best result. In both education for enlightenment or for job prospects. He would also speak of disadvantaged people (not only race and gender etc but developmentally disabled or physically handicapped etc as well) not having a strong committment to the educational process. And he attributed most of this to each person's life experiences. Hence, if you grow up without some sort of affirmation that an education will be beneficial you will not committ to the educational process. i.e If I grow up in a poor violent neighborhood do you think I will commit to a higher education? That person's world view is: As far as I can see McDonalds is the only place hiring in my neighborhood.

      This in a nutshell is what the affirmative action ideas was to address. Until a given group of people begin to believe that change is possible and that they would benefit from the change, that group will not risk time and energy let alone financial resources to make the changes.

      I agree with this poster. This kind of article only scratches the surface. There are no easy answers.

    2. Re:Careful what you wish for.... by erp_consultant · · Score: 2

      Well said. I think that the environment that a person grows up in is a much bigger factor than race or gender. If your parents don't instill in you the value of a good education then many kids will miss out on that. Growing up poor already puts many of these kids at a disadvantage. Having parents that don't stress education just makes it worse. For the vast majority of these disadvantaged kids, education is the only way out. Sure, maybe you'll get a sports scholarship but that's a long shot.

      I think that Affirmative Action legislation is well meaning but ineffective. It does not address the core issues, it merely masks it without offering any long term solution.

    3. Re:Careful what you wish for.... by jmd · · Score: 1

      I would agree that today affirmative action is a bust. However, in the early part of its implimentaion, one could quantify benefits to poor people in general. when looking back at "The Great Society" with an honest eye one will find there were lots of people (across all spectrums) rising out of poverty. As with most well intended programs they disolve into generic programs that become quite ineffective.

      "One of Johnson's aides, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., has countered that "from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century."[26] The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968."

      The above is from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

      In my mind the reason we cannot acheive these goals is simply that there is a powerful contigency in the US who feels strongly that government has no role in these matters. I suggest if there is no role for the government, who then will insure this remains a civilized society. And not a dog eat dog world?

  34. I hate to be Captain Obvious here but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But last I checked at my local county park, I never once seen a group of black kids all huddled around there laptops swapping code snippets for fun, but have seen them playing hoops and dreaming bout being the next Jordon. However I have seen white kids who play D&D spend hours on hours writing code for a simple dice algorithms.. Lets put things in perspective please do not expect percent's to be different when the general population prides B-Ball skills over tech skills. Its not a job thing, its a society thing. Also, do not make a tech company feel it needs to hire personnel who are black just so they seem more equal. People go where they want..or where the money, fame and posterity is. For Black kids it's sports, for white kids its anything lazy that lets you sit on you butt for long periods...(and remember white kids can't jump)

    -Written by Angry Asian Woman

  35. Wrong diversity pools being measured... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    I love everyone complaining about diversity at the tech companies and comparing against the diversity of the general population. The problem is that is not the pool they can hire from. They can only hire from the pool of people graduating with degrees in things like computer science, software engineering, computer engineering, or have great personal knowledge/experience in those fields. That is the diversity pool that they have to work from. I forget which company it was, but last year one company hired 50% of all the African American new graduates with a Phd in Computer Science in the entire country. They hired 1 person to do that...

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:Wrong diversity pools being measured... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Good thing they didn't hire 33% or 66% of all the African American new graduates.

  36. Given little variation between them... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    ...it seems like this is obviously due to larger cultural factors with the *applicants* rather than with the people doing the hiring.

    The idea that HR departments at both Facebook and Google could be not only both racist, but equally racist, defies imagination.

    On the other hand, Facebook and Google draw applicants from the same demographic pool - and those whose culture is technically and academically successful happens to correlate with self-identified "race" (a sad and arbitrary distinction if there ever was one).

    Inner city urban thug culture is a failure, period. It just so happens more dark skinned people are stuck in those cultures than light skinned people. Unfortunately, the only people who can make the choice to change *their* culture are the people in it.

  37. Re:Stupid Blacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they value different things to you when evaluating how good he is.

    They value his race. Doesn't that make them racists?

  38. Resume requirements by jmd · · Score: 1

    How can poor minorities obtain employment in the tech giants when one of the requirements is to list "lived in Mom's basement for 1 year"

    1. Re:Resume requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Clears Throat *

      Hey! Some of use had an attic, you insensitive clod!

  39. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we going to force women, blacks, Jews and every else to sit in front of computers and become programmers?

  40. "White Male" isn't the issue here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you compare demographics of society to those at Yahoo, Facebook and Google, the "White Male" is not overrepresented - in fact, there are almost perfectly represented from the rest of the American workforce. Blacks and Hispanics are greatly underrepresented, while Asians are greatly overrepresented. Asians at these companies are about 3x the level of the workforce or population in general.

    The question everyone should be asking is why the Asian minority is doing dramatically better in these fields than black and hispanic minorities.

    1. Re:"White Male" isn't the issue here... by ahaweb · · Score: 1

      Because white privilege, duh.

  41. When was the last time a White dude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When was the last time a White dude acted as your clerk at the DMV, or taught your kindergarden class? Pimply faced white dudes were playing with computers in the 80s while the rest of you did something else. This is the inevitable outcome. Deal with it.

  42. Which is one reason there is so much focus on STEM by QilessQi · · Score: 1

    ...education right now. One important question is whether the relatively lucrative STEM fields, like Software Development in this case, are drawing from candidate pools that are skewed toward certain demographics simply because those demographics have greater access to resources and encouragement in the first place.

    So if American Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in the Software Development field compared to the overall American population, one question to ask is, is it because Blacks and Hispanics are "simply not interested" in Software Development, or is it because they generally come from less affluent backgrounds, in school districts that cannot afford to provide the same resources toward educating and encouraging students who might otherwise be interested in these fields?

    Likewise, are American women somehow "innately not interested" in Software Development, or is it because they have traditionally been steered away from high-tech industries because of pervasive cultural messages (in school, at home, on television) that "those are professions for men"?

    The reason some people care about equal access and encouragement for STEM fields (as opposed to, say, food service) is that they pay extremely well and yet, unlike sports, these careers are attainable by nearly anyone with determination and encouragement.

  43. Re:Stupid Blacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe they actually are, in general, as dumb and unsophisticated as the stereotypes say they are.

  44. Scholorships by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    Lets start seeing some sponsored scholarships to organizations like SACNAS ( https://sacnas.org/ ) by these companies, if we want to promote more diverse geek workforce, and not just give lip-service about it.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  45. Orange may be the new black .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but apparently Asian is the new white. Asians or Asian-American make up 34% of Google's workforce. http://www.ibtimes.com/googles-workforce-predominately-white-or-asian-male-reveals-newly-released-diversity-data-1591646 You going to fire those over-represented asian-whites and hire under-represented hispanics, african-americans, and white-whites?

  46. Re:Stupid Blacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I side with you, your logic is nonsense. Bush the younger never had an 87% approval rating among whites. Heck, he never had 87% approval among repugs.

  47. Less white than the general population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I took the liberty of examining that data, and I discovered that the headline is utterly misleading. What proportion of whites do you think the company would have to reach to be criticized as "lily-white" in the linked article? 90%? 75%? Surely higher than the 64% in the general population, right? No - in fact, Facebook's tech workforce is just 53% white - far less than the population as a whole. (Yes, the proportion is higher for "all of Facebook" rather than "tech", but let's keep things constant and stick with the department Valleywag chose to highlight - for reference, non-tech is 47% female, and still has a lower proportion of white people than the general US population).

  48. Much ado... by wyseguyonline · · Score: 1

    Seems like this is a lot of unnecessary or unwarranted hand wringing in an attempt to dredge up controversy. This almost seems like some kind of post hoc inference that since these companies are predominantly white males, there must be some kind of bigotry at work here. Are these companies engaged in actively refusing to extend offers to minorities? If yes, take them to court. If no, then there is no story here.

  49. Similar, you say? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Tech Workforce Diversity At Facebook Similar To Google And Yahoo

    Well then, that can only mean one thing - they must all be equally racist! ...or they're not racist at all, and that's just the way the world is when it comes to finding people with the right skills for the job.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  50. This means nothing without context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The other missing context is the actual proportion of white people at Facebook. Considering that the proportion in the general population is 64%, perhaps this "lily white" (Valleywag's words) company is 80% white? 90%? No, in fact just 53% of tech employees are white - you can check for yourself. The actual overrepresented group is asians, who make up a whopping 41% of Facebook's tech employees - more than 8 times higher than the proportion of the overall US population.

  51. Diversity, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the new racism.

  52. SO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all slashdot reported was national tragedies, it would be a pretty boring place to be... one news piece every few years?

    Really, what news would an entire NATION of people truly care about? Not that many things, actually.

  53. as a "person of color".. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here's my point of view....

    I became a software engineer because I liked tinkering around with programs at a young age -- tooling around with qBasic source code on my uncle's 486 laptop. That's pretty much the same path that every software developer who is passionate about their craft took. In order to get there, I was arguably fortunate enough to have access to a computer. At the time, the great majority (ballpark 80%) of my friends had 0 access to computers or compilers. I had an hour of computer time every 1-2 months.

    Long story short, forced diversity is wrong. In my 15 year career, I've never felt as if I was held back. Maybe that's because I always knew that I was "brilliant at code". I turned from a high-school drop out to a researcher at Princeton and a career at Microsoft. That was all self determination, goal setting, and lack of fear. I didn't get any financial aide, scholarships or forced diversity quotas (that I know of). I was always challenged via interviews and tests and was typically in the 95+ percentile. That probably sounds like "you" if you're reading this. Regardless of skin color or racial background -- the path of a successful person is largely the same -- passion, goals, grabbing your destiny.

    Perhaps I'm an outlier or my view is short sighted?

    I think research and technology fields are largely self selecting and run as a meritocracy. Just think back to when Indians first join the scene and everyone derided them as sub-par programmers... now an Indian guy is head of virtually every IT or Research department at every big tech company in the Valley.. as it should be -- we select the best individuals to lead.

    So let me reiterate. Forced diversity is wrong. Is there racism? yeah. Is there sexism? yeah. I'll be honest in that I assume a male programmer is better than a female if I know nothing else about them. That's based on the only information that I have.. I've seen 90% male engineers and 99% male speakers at conferences and blog hosts. Similarly, it'd be racist, but I'd assume that a Black person would have less skills than a White geek -- assuming no other information about the two people -- for the same reasons. I think we all make these generalizations. What sets us geeks apart (for the most part) is that we DO prefer having the ABSOLUTE most talented person coding our servers or designing our new machine learning algorithm -- so we will dig farther -- past our generalizations, and hopefully uncover the truth. We are scientist at heart.

    The best we can do is ensure that children at a young age have options available to them, passionate teachers to challenge them, and hopefully parents who give a damn. After that, I believe that if they find Computer Science or Engineering to their liking.. they will chase it down. It will become part of their culture. They will join at the level they prefer. Some will become brogrammers others will join my D&D sessions and bitch about version X ruleset nerfs. :)

  54. Re:Which is one reason there is so much focus on S by russotto · · Score: 1

    So if American Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in the Software Development field compared to the overall American population, one question to ask is, is it because Blacks and Hispanics are "simply not interested" in Software Development, or is it because they generally come from less affluent backgrounds, in school districts that cannot afford to provide the same resources toward educating and encouraging students who might otherwise be interested in these fields?

    I believe you'll find the difference, at least for blacks is not fully explainable by economic factors. There is a significant middle-and-upper-class black population.

    The reason some people care about equal access and encouragement for STEM fields (as opposed to, say, food service) is that they pay extremely well and yet, unlike sports, these careers are attainable by nearly anyone with determination and encouragement.

    No, they really aren't. Just because the difference between a person with intelligence and talent and one without in more cerebral fields isn't as obvious as the difference between a person with talent in sports and one without doesn't mean the difference isn't there.

  55. Re:Stupid Blacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You say that as if George W. Bush wasn't several orders of magnitude more intelligent than you are.

    So, what countries have you run, exactly? Yourmomsbasementistan?

  56. Race Relation Bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Affirmative action is at it's core racist. Any time you use race to judge someone it's racism, even if it's positive. Tired of seeing race bait all over the internets :(

  57. To hell with diversity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a company, you hire the best and brightest you can find. Period. That gives you a chance of becoming a successful company. Let local communities improve its public education by throwing out school administrators, bad teachers and bad unions to better qualify students for higher education. Then and only then can they have the opportunity to work for Google, etc.

  58. The Scroliphant In The Living Room: Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm quite curious to see these same types of demographic analyses done for age; regardless of ethnicity.

    You think THESE numbers look skewed?

    Just wait until THOSE puppies hit the Internet.

    They way they will work around it is to use extremely wide ranges, like 15-34, 35-55, 55-65, etc.

  59. Is the job getting done? by Lockdev · · Score: 1

    Is discrimination happening? Or are the companies hiring those who can get the job done?

    I worked in a software development department at a government contractor who was pressured by HR to bring in minorities, mainly black females, into a department of "mostly white dudes".

    The problem? There were not enough qualified minority applicants.

    We hired in 5 new grossly underqualified developers that were minorities in one way or another(one was filipino, the rest were black, 2 were female), passing over numerous qualified "white dudes".

    Fast forward 6 months. Only one of the 5 was still working in software development. The rest had to be transferred out.

    Not saying that there are not "not white dudes" that can't handle these jobs. In certain parts of the country, there just happens to be a lot of "white dudes" who can, and a lot of "not white dudes" who can't.

  60. SJW types by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, this kind of person. They absolutely hate white males.

  61. Re:Which is one reason there is so much focus on S by QilessQi · · Score: 1

    I believe you'll find the difference, at least for blacks is not fully explainable by economic factors. There is a significant middle-and-upper-class black population.

    Here's some data on economic factors separating American black families and white ones. TL;DR: the presence of a few successful black families in America does not negate the fact that white households continue to have significantly higher median incomes, and thus, access to greater resources for their children:

    - http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...
    - http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
    - http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    Just because the difference between a person with intelligence and talent and one without in more cerebral fields isn't as obvious as the difference between a person with talent in sports and one without doesn't mean the difference isn't there.

    But the range of opportunities are totally different. Software development is not a "geniuses only" field. You can be of average intelligence and still have a good career as a software developer, or beta tester, or system operator, or network admin -- just like you can be a decent electrician, carpenter, or architect. But if you want to go into professional sports (in the sense of earning big bucks), you have to be physically exceptional, period.

  62. Re:Which is one reason there is so much focus on S by russotto · · Score: 1

    I didn't say economic factors didn't matter; I said they weren't sufficient. Something like 33% of black households earn more than $50,000 per year, compared to 52% of white households. For $75,000 and up, it's 18% compared to 32%. For $100,000 and up, it's 9.3% compared to 20.1%.

    So perhaps by economic factors alone you'd expect black tech workers to be under-represented by 50% compared to white people. Non-Hispanic black people make up 12% of the population, non-Hispanic white 64%. Facebook has 53% white people in tech, so you'd expect maybe 6% black people...actual number 1%.

  63. Over-hyped issue by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

    I've been working in high tech for 15 years and from what I see there is virtually no discrimination. Nobody cares about race or gender. Sure there are some jobs naturally draw more men due the physical demands, which sometimes discourages women from the entry level jobs (cabling, rack-and-stack, desktop support) that can lead to more advanced IT work. That aside when I look around I see plenty of women in engineering. As for racial minorities, it's certainly about participation rates and not hiring practices. Schools are generally bad at exposing students to technical skills and opportunities. If anyone wants to be an engineer, the best thing is you don't need anyone's permission. If you develop the skills and seek the education the opportunity is there. The hard part is that no one is going to tell you how to get there. You have to self-motivate, you have to figure it out for yourself. You have to try things and find the specific skill set that you are suited to master among the skill sets that are in demand in the market. There are complex social issues that go into the participation rates only some of which society is likely to change. We must also accept that free will is always going to create statistical anomalies. The big name high tech firms are like the finish line of starting a tech career, they are not the gatekeepers of who starts or finishes the race.

  64. Worked at Yahoo (white male here) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I interviewed tons and tons of people. I never interviewed a white person. All of my interviewees were Indian or Asian, about 7 to 3 Indian to Asian. I knew of about 3 black people at the entire company total.

  65. Apples to Oranges by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

    Since when is Facebook like baseball in the 50s? Athletes and the nerd class are worlds apart. so how can there be ANY comparison? How come there aren't more nerds playing pro basketball? If you want the tech job then tool up or shut up.

  66. I, simply, don't believe it. by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

    My entire life, I've been told diversity is a critical component of success -- building a robust and varied environment out of people from a range of different experiences, etc.

    Now you're telling me that two of the most successful companies on the entire planet are, in fact, super homogeneous?

    Yeah, right. This flies in the face of everything I was indoctrinated to believe.

    lllll AJ

  67. This again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot did this story just last week. Why again?

  68. Obama's own IT department... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had no African American workers during the 2012 campaign. There's a picture for heaven's sake. If he didn't care, then why should anyone else?

  69. sexist double standard by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this has anything to do with the double-standard that Facebook applies to nudity in images. Posting a drawing or painting of a male butt can get your photo removed and your account suspended, while posting a photograph of female breasts gets nothing. Too many straight guys reviewing people's image uploads?

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  70. Typical Anti-White Guy stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is also disprortionately Asian Male. Don't see any articles saying, "too many Asian guys here. Let's fire them."

    If you WANT good technology, you'll have to have nerdy, smart, driven White guys ... and a few Asian guys with the same attributes. That's who produces said technology. If you want a good basketball team, it will be nearly all Black. White and Asian guys cannot compete save an odd outlier or two. No sensible owner would stack his NBA team with White or Asian or Mexican guys. It will be big tall Black guys all the way. Same with the NFL outside a few positions like kicker or QB.

    Diversity implies that different groups of people are good different things. No, you will NEVER get Black or Hispanic or Female people to do the amount of work that the most talented White or Asian male engineers do. You just cannot. Its not in their genes or ability and short of massive DNA manipulation it never will be.

    Other than pandering to the rampant Anti-White guy sentiment among Women, Blacks, and Latinos, there is no excuse for this article. White guys (and Asian guys) will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS be the dominant groups among the best, most talented, technical people. Should you care? Do you want Dr. Conrad Murray or a really talented White or Asian male as your doctor? Dr. Conrad Murray ticks all the right/correct boxes: Black, male, etc. Did not work out too well for Michael Jackson.

    Math and Science are open to anyone. You don't need any magical bloodlines, or special athletic ability, to succeed. A couple of bicycle mechanics who only graduated from High School beat the Smithsonian and Harvard Professors to creating the airplane. A spud farmer from Idaho with a HS education created TV.

    It is just that the interest in technology and the ability to create it is concentrated overwhelmingly among White and Asian men. Just as the ability to dunk a basketball is concentrated overwhelmingly among Black men. LeBron James is not evidence of a master race any more than say, Steve Wozniak is; they just illustrate the principle of different groups being far better at different things and not trying to hammer everyone into (objectively: Anti-White Guy) quotas.

    I'm fine with Black guys being a whole lot better at athletics. I can admire the most talented athletes among the super-elite level doing things that don't seem humanly possible. I don't expect anti-Black guy quotas and jihads to get rid of Black guys in Basketball. I'm fine with the NBA being 90% Black. Just as I'm fine with the tech sector being 90% White and Asian and Male. That's where the talent is and an adult accepts the fact that talent among humans is not evenly distributed by either race or gender. Period. Full stop. Part of the human condition and wonder of diversity.

    1. Re:Typical Anti-White Guy stuff by euroq · · Score: 1

      FYI to your racist rant, actually it's just African Americans that are athletically superior, not blacks. African Americans are genetically superior athletically due to selective breeding due to slavery and therefore physical work. This does actually confront the "baseball" comparison of the 1950's which does not relate to 2014 Facebook racial makeup.

      Comparatively, horses are incredibly larger, stronger, faster, etc., than they were just a mere 2000 years ago due to the military importance of them and therefore the immense selective breeding that came of it. The reasons a few certain countries in Africa such as Kenya always win marathons is due to genetic makeups, but it's not a "black" thing it's a gene pool thing.

      "Asians" in your view are actually American Asians. The Asians who come to America are financially superior than their counterparts who could not come.

      However, humans are 99.9% genetically similar. There is no plausibility that any human by race could not become equal to another by another race within a few generations of genetic swapping.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  71. so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's time to complain about the underrepresentation of white folks in basketball?

  72. Re:Stupid Blacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, he did get better grades at Harvard than Al Gore and John Kerry. Probably got better grades than Obama, but Obama won't release his transcripts for some reason. Attacks on Bush's intelligence are nothing more than left wing propaganda.

  73. Re:Stupid Blacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would anyone need a role model of a particular color? Role models are about admiring someone for what they do - not for what they look like.

  74. Re:Stupid Blacks by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone need a role model of a particular color? Role models are about admiring someone for what they do - not for what they look like.

    I think its more about culture - thinking "wow someone like me could be president".

  75. Professional Sports Teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NFL, NBA, MLB seem to have a lack of women players. Let's correct that first :)