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."

Comments

Waste of money

[aglider]

If you don't understand the problem first, there will be no real solution later. Why don't we have "diversity"?

Re:Waste of money

[jythie]

I don't know, it is hard to go wrong with scholarships. It may not address underlying issues, but it will get more people into the pipeline that might not have been able to otherwise, which means more mentors and role models down the road. A crude solution, but still stands a chance to do some good.

Re: Waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, what, there's no politically correct way to say things that are sexist bullshit? I wonder why that is.

Re:Waste of money

[Nemyst]

It also further exacerbates jealousy and a feeling of inequality from the disgusting straight white males (do I need to add more adjectives there?) we keep bashing. Perhaps this'll come as a shock, but not all white males are rich. By having a scholarship for pretty much every state of being but white males, you're going to segregate the people who already love what they're doing and do it because of that in spite of the monetary problems. You're telling them that they're not worth fussing over.

Re:Waste of money

[jythie]

True, not all white males are rich, but all other things being equal, they still get preferential treatment when it comes to jobs, career advancement, internships, etc. That tends to be the problem with invisible privilege, it is not absolute so it can be hard for individuals (who will always have others better off than themselves) to see it even exists, and thus any help that does not include them feels like a loss. In fact it often gets wrapped up in entitlement, the feeling that whatever they do get they simply deserve thus it is not an advantage and giving other people a leg up is undeserved.

But yes, it will further exacerbate jealousy, there is not much you can do about that outside sliding back or going as far as returning to 'only white protestant land owning ethnically local males are legally people' system, which naturally then you had jealousy in other directions. But as long as a dominant group with a diverse membership sees others rising, there will be jealousy and they feeling that they should be better off than they are and if those uppity minorities were not in the way they would be wealthier within their own demographic. Even though they would not actually be. Ok, I tangented quite a bit ther ^_^

Re: Waste of money

[kaliann]

Nursing is hard. Veterinary medicine is hard. Biological sciences, particularly at the graduate level, are hard.
All of these are heavily female dominated.

Women don't avoid hard fields simply because there is challenging material.

It's almost like the situation is more complex than "Tech is just too tough for delicate ladybrains".

Re:Waste of money

[cayenne8]

I guess it is outside the bounds of consideration that IT and tech interests in general might just be different between the sexes (genetic wiring) and even with races/ethinc lines due to culture they're raised in.

Is diversity for diversity's sake that important when it comes to coding something? 1's and 0's are pretty color and sex blind and don't seem to care who is juggling them around.

While I think the opportunities for anyone QUALIFIED to get jobs in the industry, why is it so important what the spread of the numbers are? What is the driving force to try to force behaviors and interests on folks just to manipulate a statistic? Often this leads to lowering the qualification bar just to get in someone from a category of birth.

Re: Waste of money

[Penguinisto]

...and at least some assurance that motherhood wouldn't throw them completely off their career track.

And therein lies the rub. Unless he mandates a hysterectomy before hiring at Intel, that biological clock will be there, ticking. There isn't shit that you (or the Intel Corporation) can do about it, either. I know quite a few women in tech (including Intel employees) - the highly successful ones are childless, and have no inclination of having kids (the only exception is a former manager of mine - and she has an MBA, not a CompSci degree). The reason why? They forewent the child-rearing thing and went all-in when it came to technology - just like the guys do.

When you bear a child, your priorities change - hard. All the sudden, that project/application/datacenter/whatever doesn't seem so damned important anymore, and your life's focus changes. It's not sexist to say that women in general are affected by this a hell of a lot more than men are. Guys are generally used to sucking it up and getting on with the business of focusing back on that whole hunter-gatherer thing - it's how we're wired. There are exceptions in either direction of course, but they're not the general rule. Generally, the business of getting that little snot factory raised, educated, nurtured, and prepared for the world becomes a woman's focus much quicker than it does for a guy.

Even with compromises (day care, schools, etc), it still changes the top priority for most (not all - most) women. This in turn throws the statistics off pretty hard for careers that require constant education and constant renewal.

Re: Waste of money

[Penguinisto]

That's the thing - it isn't that they put their careers "over" their families - they do it because of their families. That woolly mammoth isn't gonna kill itself, you know (or the modern equivalent? 'That mortgage ain't gonna pay itself.')

Most guys would love to stay home all day and help raise the kids, enjoying every moment - instead they have to get out there and make double-damned certain that the wife and kids were provided for, and kept secure, safe, fed, and warm. That's the hard-wiring I'm talking about. Some guys manage to do it (e.g. stay-at-home dads) - good for them! (no, really - I'd be totally envious of such a situation.) Most guys however don't get to do that - they have to get out there and work for the long haul, for the family.

That's why I specifically wrote "sucking it up" - not because they want to, but because they have to.

Re:Waste of money

[malkavian]

Ok, and let's get equal leave for paternity, money spent getting males into Vetinary sciences etc. where they're underrepresented, and a whole host of things that are directed at women. Plus, the same chance of being the stay at home partner when children arrive (males are vastly under represented here. Oh, and compulsory genetic testing at childbirth (so every male will have the same knowledge that the child is theirs as the mother has), so on, so forth.. But you know what, a male will never have the same bond with a child as the mother, because that's biologically impossible. What's the big picture here? The sexes aren't equal in all things; one sex has advantages in some areas. People make their own choices along the way. This insistence that there must be equal everything at each step, and that the company must have x people in post to match a general demographic of population by discriminating based on sex or skin colour is atrocious. I'm all for meritocracy (hell, my hiring practices of the past decade have had me hiring in approximately 50% ethnic minorities, as they were flat out the best candidates for the job that presented at interviews). This "discriminate against one group so we can get a demographic match up" is just plain silly.

Re: Waste of money

[LynnwoodRooster]

So how do you explain all those single moms who manage to do both?

Disclaimer: I was brought up by a single mother...

The truth is, the vast, VAST majority do no such thing. They typically have others (friends, daycare, relatives) take care of the kids during the day/afternoon/evening whilst mom is working. They are "out of the picture" as much as a father who goes to work to earn money and comes home at night to spend time with the family, eat, and sleep. The concept of a "hero-mom" who works 8+ hours a day AND is home for the kids all the time is a highly-flawed one.

Hire the best person

[master_kaos]

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?

Re:Hire the best person

[fey000]

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?

Because then you'll be approached by a frothing at the mouth "journalist", asking questions like "Why isn't your workforce 50% white, 50% asian, 50% black, , 50% hispanic, 50% homosexual, and 50% female?".

Hiring the best suited candidate is so 1990. Now it's all about the progressive stack and checking your privilege.

And 60% of college students are female

[Anonymous Coward]

What are we doing to combat the critical under representation of men in college?

Re:And 60% of college students are female

[BobSutan]

Well, the first thing we need is a leadership that doesn't actually _celebrate_ men being worse off in college:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012...

"“In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men,” Obama wrote. “This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.”"

The article continues...

"So if a 17% deficit was a catastrophe requiring federal intervention, what are we to conclude when that same federal intervention has created a 25% level of inequality?"

This is a good question, when women had a 17% deficit the govt enacted a host of laws to balance things out, to include Title IX. Now that there's a 25% deficit for men, where's the action to fix things? It'd be bad enough it was just crickets, but instead our president is lauding this even GREATER deficit than what women suffered. In what way does that make any sense?

And yes, federal intervention most certainly has made colleges more inhospitable to men. Case in point, the Dear Colleague letter and the kangaroo courts that have followed.

5 stages of handling a PR problem

[John Jorsett]

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.

Re:Asian men - not a minority?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't Asian men count as a minority?

Because they accept responsibility for themselves and actually work to succeed, and don't blame others - especially whitey - when they fail.

Can't have that, now can we?

Re:Why only in Tech?

[Dixie_Flatline]

The CEO of Intel can't affect those industries, except, perhaps, indirectly and through example.

All of those are good questions. Those are all places where we should be striving to see a better mix of genders and races. You tell ME why those industries aren't trying to change. Could it be the institutional sexism that's so pervasive in our culture, starting when children are young, allotting toys on a gendered basis? Is it because we don't discourage construction workers in many of our cities from catcalling really offensive things, making women wonder why they'd ever want to work on a site like that? Is it because when women DO go into the armed forces, they're raped or sexually assaulted at distressingly high rates? Is it because we tell men that caring for children is women's work, and simultaneously tell them it's a horrible thing to be feminine?

By the time someone is looking for a job, it's probably too late. The people that want to be in construction have already made their choice, male or female.

not the only thing needing defined

[frovingslosh]

"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.