Slashdot Mirror
Intel Pledges $300 Million To Improve Diversity In Tech
AmiMoJo writes: Intel CEO Brian Krzanich announced plans to improve diversity not just at Intel, but in the wider tech industry. Krzanich wants "to reach full representation at all levels" of the company by 2020. For instance, Intel's workforce is currently four percent black; if the company were to adjust its numbers to reflect the number of qualified workers in the tech industry, that number would increase to about six percent.
To help address one of tech's underlying diversity problems — that there are fewer qualified women and minorities available to hire than there are white or Asian men — Krzanich pledged to spend $300 million over the next three years. According to the New York Times, much of that money will be allocated "to fund engineering scholarships and to support historically black colleges and universities."
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age," he said to the NYT. "I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
To help address one of tech's underlying diversity problems — that there are fewer qualified women and minorities available to hire than there are white or Asian men — Krzanich pledged to spend $300 million over the next three years. According to the New York Times, much of that money will be allocated "to fund engineering scholarships and to support historically black colleges and universities."
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age," he said to the NYT. "I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
If you don't understand the problem first, there will be no real solution later. Why don't we have "diversity"?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
That's the right way to do it (or one of the right ways), through college scholarships in STEM disciplines.
Does he want bog-standard, shallow, progressive "diversity" - everyone looks different on the outside but diversity of thought or opinion is not tolerated while every member is assigned rigid roles based on mere appearance, or real diversity where no one cares about how to categorize group members into various victim classes?
Obviously women in the western world are forced to become housewives... but hey, it would sure be nice if women would overcome stereotypes and their own free wills and repay the charitability of intel and join the labor force with a technology background and reduce their labor costs!
For instance, Intel's workforce is currently 4 percent black; if the company were to adjust its numbers to reflect the number of qualified workers in the tech industry, that number would increase to about six percent.
So what stopped them from hiring these qualified workers in the first place? Maybe there's more to the story?
How about hiring the best person for the job, and fits well with the rest of the team regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc? If it happens to be someone who is white, hispanic, or black who cares?
What are we doing to combat the critical under representation of men in college?
No it means that you are currently positively discriminated.
If anything changes in hiring practices it's less positive discrimination and more active searching for candidates that are a minority. Instead of only actively searching for white and asian males because you happen to know candidates like that.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
1. Profess shock 2. Start an investigation 3. Promise to do better 4. Apologize and abase yourself to every aggrieved group you can find 5. Throw some money at anything related, esp. self-appointed "community spokesmen"
Looks like Intel has hit stage 5.
Will those that have a sex change still meet the application criteria for the scholarship?
For instance, Intel's workforce is currently 4 percent black; if the company were to adjust its numbers to reflect the number of qualified workers in the tech industry, that number would increase to about six percent.
So what stopped them from hiring these qualified workers in the first place? Maybe there's more to the story?
A few things.
Intel is a global company, and I doubt black make up 6% of the global tech force.
Also, here in the US, their fabs are generally located in areas not known for a large black population..
Arizona, Oregon, New Mexico....
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age," he said to the NYT. "I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
Yeah, I'm sure a couple of rich white girls whose father is the CEO of Intel are going to have all sorts of problems finding "equal opportunity" in the tech industry unless he acts quickly.
Do you have ESP?
Why don't Asian men count as a minority?
Except the reason why an ethnic groups is underrepresented in a a certain category of jobs is usually not that people of that ethnicity are not "actively sought after" but that they are underrepresented in the pool of potential candidates.
Any policy that seeks to actively influence the ethnical makeup of the people doing a certain job is discriminatory. Ethnicity or skin colour should not matter in any way when hiring.
If Intel is wildly successful at this, maybe the NFL and NBA will create programs to address the obvious diversity problems in their own workforces.
What is it about wanting to introduce more people into IT that gets people into a blind spitting rage? It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game guys.
Maybe its the gross unwelcoming attitude that puts people off.
I'll bet they're outsourcing $300M of work o India and China. Best spin ever!
Maybe Googe wouldn't have a problem getting qualified people if they stopped pulling stupid shit like this.
Years ago, my placement office told me about interviewing for a certain company. One of the questions was "Hoe many diapers are sold in the US per year?"
There must be some industry organization that has the numbers or I could get it from annual reports of the diaper makers or find how many newborns from the Census.
Here's the answer that got someone hired because it showed how they "think":
"Well, there are 300 million people in the US and 10% are child bearing age. 10% of those have newborns. So, 3,000,000."
Well, then people who know how to bullshit and sound good get jobs - not facts.
Why did this company have such a BS hiring process?
Because one of their C-level PHBs read it in an inflight magazine and saw that Google and Microsoft does BS like this and if they're so successful, it's because of that.
Hiring wouldn't be so fucked up if PHBs would stop with the management ideas du jour, stop reading the business books on the NYT bestseller list and let their first lines pick the candidates that they want.
One of the reasons for no diversity is the money however 300mil is a chump change.
Those who are willing to work for less and don't look like H1B workers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age," he said to the NYT. "I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
That's funny, because I have a cousin who is coming up on college age, and I also want my cousin to have a world that has got equal opportunity available. Problem is, my cousin is finding doors shut in my cousin's face for gender-related reasons. Does that mean we should discriminate against the opposite of my cousin's gender?
No, you do not get to know what the gender of my cousin is. Whether boy or girl, man or woman, female or male, the answer should be the same; a hearty, resounding NO.
If you want to live in a world without gender discrimination, then you need to figure out a way to remove gender from the equation entirely. You don't fix discrimination with more discrimination.
Fuck this industry.
I'm curious why this type of "diversity" drive only pops up in tech-related office jobs? Where is the drive in getting more men into child care jobs or social services? Why not more women in construction work? Why not more women in the army? Why not more women in sanitation, mining, welding, or fishing?
As it stands, it doesn't seem like diversity is the goal at all.
More gynocentric gender-leveling behavior meant to destroy the male aggressive creativity of a company. A company and an industry gets what it deserves.
E Proelio Veritas.
Diversity is an even bigger scam than AGW.
Diversity pimps claim on one hand that you need different people, then claim there is no difference between the people. Then there is the faulty logic of what diverse companies look like. They claim that all companies should be x% these, y% those, and z% the others. Is it really more diverse to have 3 companies like that or is it more diverse to have 3 companies that are 100% of each group?
...their own countries again...
Then all these 'minorities' (LOL) can live among their own kind. Wouldn't that be just awful for them.
'Diversity' means 'genociding white people out of existence', and is an international war crime, punishable by death. Good luck trying to talk your way out of this lot, arrogant nation-wrecking scum...
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age. I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
--Intel CEO Brian Krzanich
Really? The CEO of Intel crying about a lack of opportunity for his kids? Absolutely disgusting!
In EU where tuition is zero or low, students can study what they choose. In US with high tuition, we create a web of offers that will remove this high tuition if you do what oligarchs and rulers want:
- join the military (GI Bill)
- study security for n years, then work for the NSA for n years (offered at NYU / Brooklyn Polytechnic)
- agree to be herded by a giant corporation trying to improve its diversity for whatever reason
I understand it sounds like a nice thing, but it's taking advantage of something ugly in that this program would be meaningless in Europe, and that it's a bit twisted that it's getting really cheap for women or Black people to study only things that statistics say they might not want to study. The right answer to social problems is social programs that allow children similar opportunities independent of parental wealth. Philanthropy from corporations with nebulous goals is an ugly answer, in a larger context, even if in a smaller one we may want to compliment Intel for doing this.
I can read. I can check the stats on Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias. 3 of the top 4 earning nationalities in the US are Asian countries.
By ethnicity, Filipinos make a much higher average income than Caucasians - it's not even close. THere's a handful of Caucasians in America that make buckets. The rest is disintegrating into white trash because foot eating neo libs control the policy and are foaming at the mouth to do everything in their power to destroy Caucasians.
I'll say it:
All other things (education, experience, interview, etc.) being equal or close enough between two candidates, one of them being a white male and the other being someone in a racial or gender minority class, yeah, I'm going to hire the person in the racial or gender minority class.
It isn't for a metric - it's because, all other things being equal as you stipulated, a person from a class not normally found in the field is likely going to have had to overcome obstacles and challenges on the way there that the other candidate has not.
Let's look at some reasons why the minority candidate who is otherwise equal to the non-minority candidate is the better pick:
1) In every single discussion of diversity in tech on Slashdot, people will trot out REASONS why minorities don't do well in tech: Black people don't do well because they get called out by their friends and families for acting white if they go to school. Women don't because they get called out by other women for being in such a nerdy profession. Etc. etc. etc. If that is true, then yes, I want the candidate who has demonstrated persistence and determination in the face of hostility. They will be use to adversity and overcoming it, and as a hiring manager I will want that in a candidate.
2) In every single discussion of diversity in tech on Slashdot, people will trot out BIOTRUTHS about women and minorities and why they are not well represented in tech. If that's true, then yes, I absolutely want the candidate who is exceptional and defies their biology to have somehow managed to be equal to the non-minority candidate. There's more potential for them to be exceptional in other ways, and as a hiring manager, I want exceptional people.
3) If everything else is equal, why NOT hire the candidate who will also improve an arbitrary metric? As a hiring manager, I want to not have to have people crawling up my ass telling me to do things just so the team looks better, and this would reduce one more thing people could crawl up my ass about.
So yeah, unless you're a fucking idiot, hire the atypical candidate when they are literally close enough to equal that flipping a coin would be the only "fair" way to determine who to hire. Duh?
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Oh, and furthermore:
If conditions 1 and 2 above are actually true (I personally think it's racist/sexist bullshit, but those are arguments people trot out on the regular): 2 candidates being equal means to me that the white male candidate must be exceptionally lazy. After else, if whites and males are both socially and biologically more suited to working in the field in general, how then could a white male manage to not do a better job given equal education and experience?
The answer has to be either that white men aren't actually better or more suited to doing this stuff than other races or women OR that if they are, in this particular case, the white male candidate must either be defective or lazy.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I know many people who support socialism. I have never met one that wanted to be the "horse" from Animal Farm.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Your logic is distinctly faulty. It probably means 1 and 2 being true, then you've found an edge case where the race/sex matched the generalisations of another set. What you've effectively said is that if all things are equal, then you discriminate against the while male for no other reason than "why not" (your given reasons of hardship etc. carry no real weight; all backgrounds can, and do have hardships they've overcome).. If you want to do it, fine by me, but don't kid yourself that this is ethically superior reasoning.
The problem is not with the race, but with the ecconomy of the neighbours/countries those people grow up. It doesnt matter if you are white, black or pink. The thing is that if you grow up in a poor place, with bad education and a particular culture, you will reproduce that enviroment. We are result of the place of we live on, the things we are teached and what we see as models as children. The problem isnt that the IT companies dont hire people from different races, but that a skilled professional probably will not come from poor parents that cant pay college to their children, and most of the time those poor neigbours have a high population from minorities, because of multiple factors (inmigration, culture, nothing racial). Obviously there are always exemptions, but probably you will not get too many engineers from a poor neigbour in zaire (random example, if someone from zaire is reading not take it peronal), not because they are black but because there isnt any infrastructure, culture or money to provide such education.
The diversity comes with the eccualization of oportunities to all children,
Men are getting shafted. Women complain of unequal pay (which even the GAO has refuted at least when Bush Jr was in office), yet expect men to pay for them and want men to treat them chivalrously. Well chivalry came about at a time when women and children were property of men. But we still have it in our culture and by the looks of it , it's in women's DNA. Or at least the women who believe in equality are getting pooched by those of them who say it but also say they want chivalry too. For those, I say they should be paid less than men. In any case, if what's good for the goose is good for the gander then what's good for the gander should be good for the goose. Too bad men and women can't just trade genders back and forth cause right now I think a lot more women would realize how it's getting way better to be a woman these days than a man . It hasn't been so much of a recession as a he-session of men loosing work more than women. How'd the women complaining about gender equality feel if it were men that get the government perks that women are getting ?? I don't dislike my gender as much as dislike how screwed out of work and pay and equal expectation on me I feel as a man. Depressing.
What a surprise...yet another company jumps on the politically correct bandwagon. It seems that the strategy is to jump out ahead of this "issue" rather than wait for some shake down artist like Al Sharpton to come knocking on your door.
The quotes around "issue" are intentional, indicating that there is no issue at all. The reason that there is a lower representation in Tech is simply that there are fewer applicants that are Black or female or from other minority groups. Simple as that. All you have to do is take a walk around a college campus and visit a CS101 class. What will you see? Predominantly white males and asians. Is that because colleges are discriminating against others in their CS programs? Of course not. It just means that those people chose to study other things.
If Intel wants to give money to historically black colleges that's great. I'm all in favor of that. But to suggest that it will fix some supposed problem is ridiculous. In typical American fashion, the solution to every problem is to throw more money at it. It rarely works. To blame companies for "not hiring enough people from group X" is certainly convenient, and probably popular in some circles, but in the end its not accurate.
Companies hire from the pool of labor that is available to them. To suggest that they are overlooking qualified people because of the color of their skin or their gender is absurd. It is nothing more than a thinly veiled racism/sexism charge to which there is no substantial evidence to support it.
Quite frankly, there is more evidence to support discrimination based on age or medical health than age or gender. Where is the outrage over that? Where are all the big companies promising to throw all sorts of money to address it? Crickets.
I have never met one that wanted to be the "horse" from Animal Farm.
That would be Boxer.
That is all.
Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes. I see you're still trying to live up to your hormonally imbalanced delusion you are a real woman: Ok. Can you bear children? No. See subject. Says it all along with your known and proven trolling shown here.
Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes. I see you're still trying to live up to your hormonally imbalanced delusion you are a real woman: Ok. Can you bear children? No. See subject. Says it all along with your known and proven trolling shown here.
Schools force boys to act and behave like little girls, because that's how the female teachers want their students to interact.
Is that all it's going to take to make women and Negroes "equal" to the AWESOME WHITE MALE GODS that roam the land and control it? I think not!
Diversity as in, yet another Linux distro?
If you would be so kind as to listen to my experience as someone who went through a computer science program (and completed it with a degree) in the late 00s, I'd appreciate it. The one thing I learnt, is that computer science and tech is difficult, yet everyone wants to do it. I was fortunate enough to get into a relatively high end private university. However, at the start, computer science courses were absolutely filled to the brim with people. Males, females, different races, etc The majority were there to do things like make games and other basic things. They weren't in it to learn how computers work, to do low level stuff, etc. My courses were filled all the way up for computer science for 100 level courses. 35 people with a wait list. And do you know what happened after those 100 level courses were over and people just had things like writing sorting algorithms in C and programming in x86 and SPARC assembly that wanted to make games or some sort of app to get rich easy? They all bailed. The end of the program, I had courses that got cancelled because there weren't enough people there. The university I chose was different from the others, they had a more academic approach still and wanted to teach you how computers worked. It was academia and not a school to teach you how to get a job. And it was a bloodbath of people failing out of computer science. Men, women, Whites, Asians, Blacks, etc.They all bailed so hard when they realized things were not what they wanted. Ironically enough, by the end of the program, there were a significant amount of females left in my small sample size of a program, however, the White ones were nearly gone and all that were left were Chinese students from abroad and some local Asian females. To be completely honest, as a white male, I was in the minority by a huge margin. As mentioned in this thread, women are more than capable of sciences. They do very well in fields like biology. Tech is just not an easy field and people flee it like crazy. You have to keep up with things, it's always changing. If you learn biology, it takes a long time for things to change due to evolution. If you learn math, well it rarely changes. People don't go back and make addition obsolete. It has zero to do with women's ability in comparison to men or anything and it has to do with people just failing at the programs in general. Does no one remembers the whole "how can we get the next generation more into computer science?" thing that was going on years ago? Well, the solution was to lower the bar and make computer science into "write some Java applications, well it doesn't even work but here's a B" But that's not the case with computer science and tech in general. And that makes it a far more difficult field to get into, for everyone. Not just women. Not just minorities. But EVERY SINGLE PERSON. I think people are confusing maliciously denying certain people opportunities with the field being a difficult one that most will fail in, regardless of race, gender, etc. Proof of this is that this group of people generally is complaining that minorities don't have an advantage, yet Asian people are ahead in tech so far that universities like UCLA will shy away from admitting them because they already have too many. Which brings me to the next point that changing tech fields to be more accomodating to people who aren't up for the task is only going to leave us behind. We have places like Tokyo where the Japanese are literally breeding to make genetically superior babies and they're extremely competitive. We have places like Vietnam pushing computer science education from an extremely early age. The rest of the world is pushing people further and if they can't make it, tough. The West, specially the USA, feels compelled to lower standards and requirements to make things more accomodating. I took a course at public university just for extra eduction (and ironically enough my professor was another Asian Female), and I got to experience the watered down computer science programs that have been coming. In fact, I
"I have two daughters of my own coming up on college age," he (Intel CEO Brian Krzanich) said to the NYT. "I want them to have a world that's got equal opportunity for them."
Just what does this bleeding heart liberal want? Equal Opportunity for his daughters, or affirmative action for a bunch of people who may not have earned it and are just coasting along on the liberal charity? Because you can't have both Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, and this sure sounds more like Affirmative Action than Equal Opportunity.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Let the most qualified do the job.
Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes. I see you're still trying to live up to your hormonally imbalanced delusion you are a real woman: Ok. Can you bear children? No. See subject. Says it all along with your known and proven trolling shown here.
Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes. I see you're still trying to live up to your hormonally imbalanced delusion you are a real woman: Ok. Can you bear children? No. See subject. Says it all along with your known and proven trolling shown here.
Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes. I see you're still trying to live up to your hormonally imbalanced delusion you are a real woman: Ok. Can you bear children? No. See subject. Says it all along with your known and proven trolling shown here.
My first thought was they probably want to increase diversity in tech by researching some alternate tech like something not based on silicon, or not based on electricity at all or some such. Then I read on... oh... its like being pulled back to reality from a star trek-like utopian universe... it was a pretty depressing experience...
Intel already has extensive scholarships. Spending $300 million over 5 years is the same as spending $60 million per year. If they are talking in future value of the money it could mean they are spending less than that.
So what part of this "investment" is new, and which is relabeling? Is this a noteworthy advertisement or just spin?
As always time, market-share, and profitability are going to tell the rest of the story.
How about hiring the best person for the job, and fits well with the rest of the team regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc? If it happens to be someone who is white, hispanic, or black who cares?
If you're hiring one person for one job, then of course that's what you do.
This isn't about hiring one person. They're trying to build a deep bench of candidates for the workforce a decade from now.
Right now, they're doing what you suggest, hiring the top people for their jobs. Suppose Intel, being a really big name with lots of clout, is hiring the top, say, 0.1% of all qualified graduates. The very best of the best, because they're a big, profitable company and they can pick and choose.
Now suppose, as a growing company, they want to double their headcount over the next decade. How does that hiring strategy work for them? Either they dip deeper into the pool, and start hiring the second-best-0.1% -- the sort of less-qualified guys that they're passing over today -- or they double the size of the pool, so that they can stick with the best of the best and still get the totals they need.
Demographics are destiny, and there just ain't enough white-and-asian males to go around. The asian population grows only through immigration, which is far from certain, and the white population is stagnant or declining. That pool isn't getting any deeper as it is.
And consider that India and China have 3-4x the population and no cultural hang-ups about women going into technology. (They have plenty of other strange ideas about women, but tech jobs are not among them.) If the US tech industry keeps hobbling itself by drawing only on the white-and-asian-male demographic, it'll get buried.
Will that make their products better or worse? Only time will tell but they won't be able to identify the cause of their problems. On the plus side, Intel processors now come with a martini glass embedded on the chip.
To create diversity, first create inequality.
I am not against diversity at all. But it does almost nothing to make the workplace a better place. And to the people that say that lack of diversity is indicative of different opportunities for different genders/races, that's not necessarily true. There are going to be the same opportunities for women and blacks and other races that are available for everyone else, if not more because of these programs for only women. Its whether they take advantage of these opportunities that matter, and if they dont want to thats their choice. Stop wasting money and discriminating by creating programs for only one race/gender/whatever.
Animal Farm is a critique of Stalinism. Socialism does not requires turning everyone into soap, just like Capitalism does not requires sending other people to their deaths for kickbacks from your buddies.
improve on that and you probably have a better chance of increasing minorities participation in tech. I doubt however if parity with the population structure could ever be achieved and I do not think it makes sense.
You've never met a furry.
The problem with diversity in tech is in the human resources departments at tech companies. It's extremely hard to get a job as a minority, because of the screening and hiring practices: the life experiences of minorities often disqualify them for employment. There are plenty of minorities who have a genuine interest and that have tech related skills who never get opportunities in the field. The only way that there will be more diversity in tech is through minority entrepreneurship.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... VERSUS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism