WSJ: Facebook's Point System Fails To Close Diversity Gap

theodp writes: Gizmodo and others are picking up on a Wall Street Journal story (Warning: may be paywalled) which reported that Facebook's failure to move the needle on diversity is all the more surprising because the social network awarded Facebook recruiters double points for a "diversity hire" -- a female, Black, or Hispanic engineer -- compared to the hire of a White or Asian male. Facebook declined to comment on whether this points-based system is still in effect. The WSJ also notes that Intel has paid its employees double referral bonuses for women, minorities, and veterans. The reward schemes evoke memories of gender-based (and later race-based) incentives offered for K-12 coding and STEM programs run by tech-backed Code.org (to which Facebook just pledged $15 million) and Google, which offered lower funding or no funding at all to teachers if participation by female students was deemed unacceptable to the sponsoring organizations. Facebook's efforts also seem consistent with the tech-backed Every Student Succeeds Act, which calls for increasing CS and STEM access to address a tech-declared national crisis, but only "for students through grade 12 who are members of groups underrepresented in such subject fields, such as female students, minority students, English learners, children with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged students." Hey, sometimes "every" doesn't mean "every!"

Comments

More proof

[110010001000]

More proof of systemic racism: even though the white recruiters were given an incentive to hire for diversity, their innate racist tendencies overrode that incentive and they continued to hire cisgender white males.

- AmiMojo

Re:More proof

[XxtraLarGe]

More proof of systemic racism: even though the white recruiters were given an incentive to hire for diversity, their innate racist tendencies overrode that incentive and they continued to hire cisgender white males.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I have to wonder why race & sex are usually the only criteria for "diversity"? I'd be willing to bet that most tech companies have a much higher proportion of LGBTQXYZ employees & also more atheists. Why aren't things like sexual preference or religious affiliation considered in these statistics?

Re:More proof

[Wycliffe]

More proof of systemic racism: even though the white recruiters were given an incentive to hire for diversity, their innate racist tendencies overrode that incentive and they continued to hire cisgender white males.
  - AmiMojo

Nice try but if you look at the actual numbers, facebook, google, etc.. are hiring a *higher* percentage of minorities than are graduating from college. You can't hire what doesn't exists. You either need to start much earlier in the process (high school, grade school) or you need to admit that people are different and their interests and abilities push them to different paths. You rarely hear anything about the lack of male nurses, male teachers, male social workers, etc... The one traditionally male profession that does attract a large percentage of females (doctors) has flipped to being more female. The truth is that most women don't want to code and the ones that do have no problem getting a job.

Re:More proof

[Viol8]

LGBT people and atheists don't usually have a massive great chip on their shoulder and go out and riot if they don't get what they think they're owed by society. Isn't it odd how there's no quota required for indians? Perhaps its something to do with them working hard and not expecting a good job to be handed to them on a plate simply because of their skin colour.

Re:More proof

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that I had to do a double take as this was entirely believable.

Racism is now a thought crime. You can't prove that you don't secretly hate all people for being different and any attempt to argue the point makes them hate you, which only proves that you're a racist. It was one thing when we were talking about the KKK who were actually doing things and being cruel to people, and society rightly rejected that nonsense. But when people are trying to misuse statistics, like seeing if you meet certain quotas without even looking at the pool of applicants you have to draw from, it gets silly fast. Especially when we lay collective blame on groups of people based on their skin color in doing much of this.

Re:More proof

[BitZtream]

... Giving them more for recruiting not recruiting white and asian males is the very definition of sexism and racism.

So to fix racism/sexism ... they are being racist and sexist.

Maybe the problem isn't racism or sexism ... ever consider that? Nope, you didn't. You keep assuming the lazy option.

Re:More proof

[tripleevenfall]

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Re:More proof

[tripleevenfall]

LGBT people and atheists don't usually have a massive great chip on their shoulder and go out and riot if they don't get what they think they're owed by society.

They don't riot, they litigate.

Re:More proof

[ausekilis]

Maybe, just maybe, it's not really racism but a dominance of two particular races that apply to jobs within the industry. When I think Engineering and Math, I tend to think of Germany and Japan, two cultures that are known to have a strong work ethic and an aptitude for solving complex problems. Sure, one country may be predominantly white and the other asian, but that's a superficial difference. There's certainly no race-specific barriers preventing Hispanics, Blacks, Women or other minorities from getting the appropriate Math and Science degrees... could it possibly be that those degrees just don't interest them?

My college CS classmates were dominantly Chinese, Middle Eastern and White (in that order), with one or two Indian (eastern) students. This is in New Mexico, where half the phonebook is hispanic last names. Looking at the broader Engineering school, there were a handful of hispanic students, but they were vastly outnumbered by Asian, Middle Eastern, and White students. The hispanic and native american students tended to go toward business, medicine and art.

Don't jump to the assumption that racism is at play when there are many more variables that could account for this perceived slight.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

From TFA:

"recruiters donâ(TM)t actually have the power to hire any of the diverse candidates they find; hiring managers make those decisions"

In other words, they could only feed candidates to the hiring managers, who then selected the best candidates. Which leads us to

"Facebook blamed its lack of diversity on the applicant pool"

Which explains why they are spending so much money to increase it. It's hardly surprising either.

This story is just race-baiting, trying to make people angry over the "points based system" as if they are trying to lower the bar for minorities and women. They aren't, they are just trying to get more of them to apply in the first place.

Re:More proof

[fey000]

Except they are above the ethnic distribution.

If they wanted to match they would need to hire more native americans and fire a whole bunch of black people and asians.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

Sexual preference is more of a private thing, people can't tell you are straight or gay just by looking at you unless you advertise the fact. Therefore it tends not to be something that is discriminated against in hiring, although obviously where there is overt homophobia it's a concern.

Religious reference is just that, a preference, and thus generally not protected in the same way as genetic factors. Society does allow some consideration for religion, mostly for historical reasons, but only to the point where it doesn't have a major impact on anyone else. Again, it's only of interest re diversity if there is a detectable problem, so if you have evidence of one you should post it.

Re:More proof

[bluefoxlucid]

Isn't this really just a handicap system? If you're not X, you get an advantage; that is logically-equivalent to being assigned a handicap for being X.

Re:More proof

[bluefoxlucid]

Because you can't see it. If you are a huge flamer and act fantastically gay, that's your fault; but any class of obviously-heterosexual white male might actually be deepthroating 78 cocks at night and getting horny over the thought of being all soaped up and wet with a barracks of marines. It's not your business and you just can't tell.

It's harder to hide being black or having tits.

Re:More proof

[TooManyNames]

*whoosh*

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

are hiring a *higher* percentage of minorities than are graduating from college

Do you have some stats for that? TFA links to this paywalled article that says there are more minority graduates than jobs. This US government report says the same thing.

male nurses, male teachers, male social workers

Read the news, at least in the UK this has been a major issue since the 90s at least and is getting millions of Pounds spent on fixing it. Men looking to become primary school teachers get massive incentives, for example.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

I find it interesting that I have become some kind of legendary "SJW", with all these stereotypical "SJW" traits and beliefs that I don't actually have. It shows how powerful this kind of labelling is - people just assume you fit their imaginary caricature and don't pay attention to the detail of what you say any more.

Fortunately there are still some people who read with care. I'll admit I'm not always one of them, but at least I do admit it.

And for the record, I would never post a statement like that. To be absolutely clear, in cases like this I don't think that the individual managers are racists. It's an institutional problem, meaning that it's a combination of historical disadvantage and current culture, and blaming individuals is neither fair nor productive.

Re:More proof

[cryptizard]

Where do you get this? Hire native americans, yes, but they are substantially under employing black people by percentage. 12% of people in the US are black and less than 2% of people at Facebook are.

Re:More proof

[XxtraLarGe]

Again, it's only of interest re diversity if there is a detectable problem , so if you have evidence of one you should post it.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm saying that there's more to diversity than what the diversity echo chamber says there is.

Re:More proof

[cryptizard]

It is less about racism in hiring than it is about structural racism that leads to lower opportunity for black and hispanic students earlier in the pipeline. If you are a black or hispanic child, you are much less likely to have a computer growing up than a white child. By the time you get to college you will be miles behind other students that have been tinkering with computers for their whole lives. Computer Science is one of the only subjects in college where the average student has substantial experience before they even start the major. It makes for a somewhat hostile environment for underprivileged students, so they go with a path of less resistance like one of the subjects you listed.

Re:More proof

[ProfBooty]

You're a single jewish woman?

That's what I thought SJW stood for, for the longest time.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

Facebook's latest diversity stats: http://newsroom.fb.com/news/20...

The are doing well in some areas but poorly in others. Apple is fairly similar, with minorities in particular being over-represented in the low paying, low skill retail jobs and underrepresented in the more desirable skilled jobs.

And before you say it, the solution isn't to fire them and hire more white guys at retail. We are trying to make things better, not worse. The solution is to increase opportunities for the better jobs, which will also allow the balance at retail to correct over time too.

Re:More proof

[TooManyNames]

I thought that the story was that URMs weren't given enough opportunities for recruitment, or were actively discouraged from seeking open positions. Now that a strong recruitment push favoring URMs has apparently failed, you're saying that didn't matter anyway, since racist hiring managers blocked hiring of URM recruits? What will it be next? Say URM recruits are hired, but, surprise surprise, don't perform as well (since they necessarily cannot represent the best available talent as a group -- obviously individual URMs may represent the best available talent), and are either let go or leave after dealing with a "toxic work environment" (of people who actually care about results). I suppose that'll just represent workplace racism, won't it?

By the way, do you actually know if the point system (or something similar) did or did not extend into hiring manager ranks? It'd make sense -- and would fit with Facebook's MO -- that there would be some bias favoring URMs at that level as well, but the article just speculates that there wasn't. If there was an incentive at that level, maybe hiring managers largely preferred quality over quantity (of URMs).

Re: More proof

[jmcvetta]

If you call people with differing political opinions "assholes" in online discussion, there's a good chance it's you who's the asshole in person.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

This is more or less what Facebook is saying, that there aren't enough candidates from those groups so even offering incentives to find them doesn't help.

The stats seem to show that minority and female STEM graduates have a poorer rate of employment than other groups, but also for minorities and some sciences much lower graduation rates too. So Facebook isn't entirely wrong there, but isn't entirely right either.

They are at least investing a lot in education, recruitment and making the jobs more attractive to minorities and women, so to my mind this is more just quibbling about the details and slow rate of progress.

Re:More proof

[Octorian]

And also a much higher proportion of foreigners from Europe. But for the sake of diversity statistics, those people (who all speak difference languages and come from different cultures) tend to be considered the same as plane 'ole white Americans.

Re:More proof

[Anonymous Coward]

LGBT people and atheists don't usually have a massive great chip on their shoulder

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh wait, you were being serious? Let me laugh even harder. BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Re:More proof

[BarbaraHudson]

LGBT people and atheists don't usually have a massive great chip on their shoulder and go out and riot if they don't get what they think they're owed by society.

They don't riot, they litigate.

Would you rather people take assholes to court or just cut to the chase and punch them in the face?

Some of us would rather encourage civilized behavior than be part of the problem.

They only give points for traditionally disadvantaged groups who are visibly different. Female, check. Non-white, check. That hardly captures all the ways people are different from one another, and it doesn't even take into account other ways people are discriminated against that are easily visible. Ageism is rampant at Facebook, and this program has it built right into it. Ignoring half the population because they are too old for you and then complaining about a shortage because you don't want to hire older people is discrimination, and yet this program reinforces it to everyone's detriment except the H1Bs.

Re: More proof

[Grishnakh]

I have no problem calling someone an asshole if they think it's acceptable to deny equal rights to classes of people.

Re: More proof

[Triklyn]

meh, it's minor enough that i'll allow it.

everybody who you disagree with online is an asshole.

though... to be fair, most people are assholes in general, so... you know, safe bet.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

facebook is the one being racist by treating some races different than others

Racism is only present when one group is believed to be inherently superior to others. The fight to mitigate socioeconomic barriers for underrepresented groups does not come close to fitting the definition of racism. It does fit the definition of inclusive discrimination, which so far has been the only successful way of fighting institutional exclusive discrimination.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

The summary is misleading. The recruiters are rewarded for finding minority candidates, but they only feed them to hiring managers. The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best, with best being some combination of qualifications, interpersonal skills, experience, wage requirements etc.

Frankly the summary is just flamebait, the way it frames what is happening. It's actually kind of ironic that people are modding me down as flamebait when they have been triggered by the inaccurate trolling summary.

Re:More proof

[HBI]

Molding a definition to fit your politics is 1984-esque.

Racism is discrimination or bigotry on the basis of race, not that load of crap you just spewed.

Re:More proof

[Rande]

When I first read the singles classified in the paper, I thought GSOH meant 'Good Salary, Own Home' and commented that at least these women were being honest about what they were after.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

They have made some progress due to better recruitment, TFA points that out. What they are saying is that they are struggling to get to the point where hiring is representative of society, and they are blaming it on graduates not being representative either.

Once again, to be absolutely clear, I'm not accusing anyone of being racist. What is happening here is institutional bias, not individual racists being biased. Institutional bias is the term we use to describe the way, for complex reasons, minorities are disadvantaged when it comes to graduation rates and the like. It's the system, the historic situation that causes it, not individuals who hate minorities.

Re: More proof

[jmcvetta]

I'm all in favor of equal rights for everyone. But this trend of dismissing those with whom one disagrees as "assholes", "shitlords", and similar puerile insults does nothing but diminish the quality of public discussion.

Re:More proof

[Grishnakh]

I think the truth is a lot more complicated really, and all we really have is conjecture. My opinion is that:
1) programming and engineering are not very prestigious jobs in the US, unlike medicine or law, and also unlike other societies (like India or China). In addition, these jobs are generally not paid that well (compared to being a doctor), and don't have much upward potential.
1a) layoffs of engineers and programmers are constantly in the news, and have been since I was in high school over 2 decades ago
2) males are far more likely to have very very mild autism-spectrum disorders like Asperger's which cause them to not be terribly social, and prefer jobs where they spend most of their time working on a computer rather than talking to people
3) little girls are generally not encouraged to have an interest in math and science by their parents (and maybe teachers), unlike little boys. It's usually more conservative people who have more kids anyway, so they raise them with these backwards attitudes

Add up all these things, and what you get is that when a girl is really smart and wants a high-paying career, she's going to go into medicine or law. In medicine particularly, the jobs are far more stable, higher paying, you have a direct and positive impact on peoples' lives (I sure as hell can't point to much I've done as helping people), you get far more prestige, and you get to interact with people instead of sit in a noisy open-plan work area, with streams of people walking right by your desk, with headphones on to block out the din, staring at a screen all day, and then being pressured to spend extra unpaid time to meet some arbitrary deadline. Why would a smart woman want this job?

Re:More proof

[Kunta Kinte]

We could consider it isn't racial bias. But then we have years of scientific research ( remember science? ) that tells us otherwise.

Re:More proof

[TimSSG]

So many universities are racist against Asians even by your definition; while by my definition nearly all are racist.

facebook is the one being racist by treating some races different than others

Racism is only present when one group is believed to be inherently superior to others. The fight to mitigate socioeconomic barriers for underrepresented groups does not come close to fitting the definition of racism. It does fit the definition of inclusive discrimination, which so far has been the only successful way of fighting institutional exclusive discrimination.

Re:More proof

[Kunta Kinte]

The typical "they're not smart enough" comment, even though years of studying the racial education and occupational gaps have shown us otherwise. For some reason science goes out the window when discussing race.

Re:More proof

[tsqr]

Molding a definition to fit your politics is 1984-esque.

Racism is discrimination or bigotry on the basis of race, not that load of crap you just spewed.

You're right. Here's the dictionary definition of "bigotry": "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." Note that the concept of "race" is absent from the definition, so "bigotry on the basis of race"? Not a thing, according to the definition.

Words end up meaning what most people generally agree they mean, which often diverge from dictionary definitions. Most people would generally agree that someone who believes that persons of a specific race are inherently inferior, is a bigot.

Re:More proof

[Grishnakh]

...and is getting millions of Pounds spent on fixing it. Men looking to become primary school teachers get massive incentives, for example.

There's a good reason we don't do that in America: any man who wants to be around little kids like that is automatically deemed a pedophile and has a cloud of suspicion around him. Almost no man is dumb enough to go into that field because of this, even though I'm sure many would like to if society weren't so paranoid about it.

Re:More proof

[110010001000]

You said "It's an institutional problem". Thats why I said "systemic racism". It captures you perfectly. Thanks for proving my point.

Re:More proof

[tnk1]

There may be racism at play, but I don't think it can be solved in quotas at this level. The problem is that the pool of candidates is low to begin with.

While I note that percentage-wise the discrepancy between say, white and black hires is significant, in actual numbers, there are significantly more whites who graduate, but do not get jobs. There are more whites who don't get jobs than there are black candidates in total. To me, that means there is a bigger problem than a mere percentage gap. The fact is that even if 100% of black grads were hired (which is unrealistic), they'd still be a tiny part of the workforce, and they are clearly only a tiny part of the CS program to begin with.

In other words, while 2% out of 4.5% is a big discrepancy percentage-wise, the actual numbers we're talking about probably end up being a rounding error when it comes to the overall pool of candidates. It would not take much for there to be a 50% gap between your grads and hires when you only have 4.5% of the number of total graduates. There are separate factors that come into play by simply being a massive minority in any group to begin with that have nothing to do with racism.

Strictly speaking, racism is something that has ceased to be acceptable in most companies and that means that you won't find many people now actually saying that they don't want to hire minorities, but there are lingering issues with social and economic issues where blacks in general have to overcome the fact that they face economic disadvantage and other cultural and demographic disadvantages which have to be taken on. Without that, you start minority kids down a path which leads them away from a CS education and the tech workplace and no matter of high school or college quotas can turn that around because by that time, its too late, they're already a disproportionately small minority of those advanced programs.

I don't think that racism is going to ever go away. I think the best we can do is remain conscious of irrational prejudices. There is always going to be someone who is different that you are, and that will subtly and irrationally affect your view of them. What needs to happen is both legal enforcement of an actual level playing field, but also steps from within those communities to turn things around culturally. I don't think the disadvantage that was created by racism can be turned around from outside the community. Black culture was definitely pushed down a certain path by racism, but at this point it has so much internal momentum that it has to be tackled as much from within as from without.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

Racism:

1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
a program to combat racism

1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:

Language is fluid, and there is certainly a push to consider policies to fight racism as racist themselves, but that is not the traditional definition. And it is not a useful change because it only seeks to protect the privileged of certain groups by preventing attempts to level the playing ground for underrepresented groups. If your new definition became the new norm there would be no need for the word racism since all discrimination would be racism. You are only trying to use the word to inflame the discussion.

Re:More proof

[BarbaraHudson]

There's enough evidence right here on slashdot - no need to look further :-)

Though if you make the mistake of going on Facebook, you'll find so much evidence of open hate that it will leave you wondering about whether large swaths of the human race aren't deserving of a major extinction event.

[deleted rant with examples of Facebook's various contributions to the Internet Hate/Rage Machine. I'll just say that they reached a new low when they repeatedly censored posts with a picture of a cancer survivor showing how she camouflaged the scars with tattoos because it showed a breast - a breast that didn't even exist.]

Facebook is a cesspool. In this respect it caught up to Craigslist a long time ago.

Like any cesspool (or politics), the big chunks float to the top. So, trying to attract everyone, you're going to get every kind of "big chunk of sh*t" going, same as the hate storms on twitter.

Cater to a specific demographic, and you're only going to get a limited amount of those chunkies. Social media is doomed (which is a good thing, since even the name is a lie - it's really anti-social media).

Re:More proof

[Grishnakh]

> My college CS classmates were dominantly Chinese, Middle Eastern and White (in that order), with one or two Indian (eastern) students.
  If you are a black or hispanic child, you are much less likely to have a computer growing up than a white child. By the time you get to college you will be miles behind other students that have been tinkering with computers for their whole lives.

If that's the case, how are the Chinese, Indian, and middle eastern kids getting their hands on computers at such young ages? They don't seem to have any problems overcoming any disadvantages they had.

Sorry, I don't buy it. It's not because of having computers growing up, it's because of cultural differences. Asian and middle eastern cultures value engineering and think of it as a prestigious career; black and Hispanic cultures simply do not.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

So many universities are racist against Asians even by your definition; while by my definition nearly all are racist.

Believing one group has socio-economic advantages is not the same as thinking the group is inherently superior.

I grew up in a middle class home where my parents had a home computer in the early 80's and I had my own computer before I was 10, so I certainly am more likely to be competent with technology than your average inner city African American. But that does not make me inherently superior because of my race, it merely means I had advantages which make it more likely I will pass CS college admissions or CS job interviews regardless of my own inherent merit.

And while in the short term it may still be beneficial for a company to hire the best worker regardless of why they are better (and even that is very debatable), in the long term it is damaging to society to waste our human capital this way.

Re:More proof

[NotInHere]

This US government report [census.gov] says the same thing.

Does it? I've looked into it and what I saw on page 16 (figure 9) was that 70.8% of STEM workers are white and not hispanic or latino. On page 19 there is figure 19, which shows that 70.7% of Science and engineering graduates are white and not hispanic or latino. So the other races are represented just as fairly in the workforce as they are in the graduation stats.

The only difference I can see in the stats is that 77.2% of females with science and education degrees are employed, while for men the number is 87.7% (figure 12 on page 20). Still, in other fields there is a difference too, just look at [2], it says that in july 2016, 81% of the males that were 20 or older were employed in (civilian) jobs, while it was only 71% for the females (note that I had to calculate the percentages myself as the link only shows absolute numbers).

The most probable cause for this difference is the women staying at home to take care of the children, out of free choice, and not some discrimination by the employers. Also maybe because they didnt find proper child care and getting children were more important for them and their spouses than the woman having a job as well. But, it is present in all fields and not just STEM.

So I don't think this reports says what you claim it says. On the contrary, the report shows that employers are fair and dont advantage whites over minorities, they just take what's graduated.

[2] : http://www.bls.gov/news.releas...

Re:More proof

[geek]

...and is getting millions of Pounds spent on fixing it. Men looking to become primary school teachers get massive incentives, for example.

There's a good reason we don't do that in America: any man who wants to be around little kids like that is automatically deemed a pedophile and has a cloud of suspicion around him. Almost no man is dumb enough to go into that field because of this, even though I'm sure many would like to if society weren't so paranoid about it.

That was my profession of choice once upon a time. I would have loved working with those kids. It's my favorite age group and their energy is contagious. I skipped over it though for two reasons. The one you stated and the horrendous pay. I know teachers that qualify for EBT the pay is so bad.

Re:More proof

[tsqr]

1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

The concept I see being pushed these days is that only a member of an oppressed minority can be a victim of racism, and a member of an oppressed minority cannot be a racist, regardless of who he/she discriminates against.

Re:More proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're always going to find some reason why "it didn't work." You're doing all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to come up with an explanation of something that is already perfectly explained with a far simpler truth: People are not all the same, and groups of people are not all alike. People within groups share certain biological and cultural similarities (which is why they are grouped), and those differences are sufficient to explain why some people will be interested in tech jobs and others won't.

Does "systematic racisms/sexism" exist? I don't know because that's a meaningless term used by the intellectually lazy. If you want to stop actual racism and actual sexism that is happening, then that's great. So do I. But you need to target something specific. Tell me specifically which institution is racist/sexist and let's go solve that problem. Then we'll move onto the next one until there are no more. But crying about "systematic" problems with vague evidence -- though it may make you feel a false sense of accomplishment -- doesn't solve anything.

Re:More proof

[avandesande]

That's just plain wrong. I live in Albuquerque and while there are plenty of poor here there are a huge number of Hispanics with well paying jobs in every walk of life. It is to the point where you don't even think about it (ie there is nothing remarkable about it). So as the OP observed, why so little interest in CS or engineering? I doubt it is for a lack of computer.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

No, the whole thing is just wrong.

The recruiters were not given an incentive to hire anyone, they only feed people to the hiring managers.

I would never say any of the second part, the stuff about "their innate racist tendencies overrode that incentive and they continued to hire cisgender white males". I don't think I've ever written "cisgender white males" in my life until this post, and I certainly would not imply that it is due to an individuals "innate racist tendencies". Especially after I said the problem is systemic, rather than individuals.

It's incoherent nonsense, which proves that you don't actually understand my position. I don't know if you heard this elsewhere and attributed it to me somehow, or are just confused, but you clearly have no idea.

Re:More proof

[tomhath]

The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best

I really, really doubt that's true.

Every large company has policies for quotas/affirmative action/cultural diversity/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. In the last Fortune 500 company I worked, a hiring manager had to write a letter justifying why they didn't offer a job to any minority candidate sent for an interview by HR. No letter was required for white males.

Re: More proof

[__aaclcg7560]

If you call people with differing political opinions "assholes" in online discussion, there's a good chance it's you who's the asshole in person.

I work in IT. So, yes, I have to be an asshole. Otherwise, nothing will get done.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

It's the same in the UK. About 20 years ago we reached peak paedo-panic, and have been trying to combat it ever since. It died down a bit after the papers stopped fearmongering and whipping up anger, but that was only after people started rioting.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

The concept I see being pushed these days is that only a member of an oppressed minority can be a victim of racism, and a member of an oppressed minority cannot be a racist, regardless of who he/she discriminates against.

They can be racist if they are discriminating under the belief their race is superior. That is rarely the case for reverse-discrimination though. Minorities certainly can exhibit unfair discriminatory practices though, its just that the word racism is not appropriate. The only reason to use the word racism in that manner is to dismiss the damage real racism has done and still does by diminishing its meaning. If some people want to believe affirmative action is even on the same magnitude as believing other races are sub-human they are deluding themselves and making a very weak argument.

I also believe racism is used too often to explain every time Caucasians dislike cultural attributes common to certain races. I don't think disliking Sharia law or inner city thug-like behavior is racist even though they are often depicted as racist beliefs.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

Um... I've always said they should hire the best candidate. The post you quoted doesn't say otherwise. Do you just assume everything I post I automatically object to or something? What kind of idiot are you?

Re:More proof

[meta-monkey]

So is ecnomics the determining factor in one's ability to succeed in technology? We've solved "nature vs. nurture" and the answer is nurture?

Re:More proof

[cyberchondriac]

Which is ironic, because knee-jerk labeling is exactly what true SJWs do best and foremost: blanket label anyone who doesn't subscribe 100% to their fanatical outlook as one or more of the following: haters, racists, homophobes, islamophobes, sexists, patriarchal, bigots, "old white male" (as that's rapidly becoming a hate label) or whatever other label they can dredge up (I'm waiting for "culturalist" or "culturophobe" to become a thing next). They typically make it pretty clear as to what they are, due to their extreme vitriolic soapboxing before being labeled as such.
But anyway, it seems some missed the sarcasm in your original comment.

Re:More proof

[stdarg]

If some people want to believe affirmative action is even on the same magnitude as believing other races are sub-human they are deluding themselves and making a very weak argument.

That's exactly what affirmative action is. It says blacks are not as good as whites, can't compete, and thus need a loving, guiding hand to help them up.

Re: More proof

[meta-monkey]

I don't think you'll find many people who want to deny anyone equal rights under the law. More likely you have a disagreement about what those rights are, and what "equality" means in context. But what do I know? I'm just an asshole on the internet.

Re:More proof

[cyberchondriac]

Two wrongs make a right in political correctness.
True justice would be to stop hiring people on any basis other than their qualifications, and ensuring people have equal opportunity to achieve those qualifications. Providing opportunity is not the same as enforcing the end result however. What this is, is revenge.

Re:More proof

[gfxguy]

But what if the problem is those graduation rates don't reflect skill level? So sure, a degree in CS should mean there is a certain minimum level of skill, but surely you agree that not everybody in a graduation class is "equal" in skill level? So the raw stats of graduation vs employment rates don't tell a whole story. Moreover, you can't look at today's graduation rates when half the people looking for jobs graduated 5, 10, or even 20 years ago.. It's not graduation rates, but the pool of applicants.

But I agree with you - things are at least starting to balance out, but SJW's think you can pass legislation or punish a company into making things equal overnight. It has to start earlier, there needs to be more encouragement at earlier ages... and then things slowly start to adjust as those kids grow into technical careers, and encourage their own kids to follow suit, and, seriously, it takes decades. Things are actually getting better all the time, and I don't know how to answer the problem of historically occurring abuse of minorities can be fixed overnight... I don't think they can. The generation before mine was still living under segregation in this country; how can I expect their kids to match the skill levels of white kids in my generation when they had little or no opportunity?

But it takes time. The same thing is true of women. Right now they are graduation at higher levels than men, but that doesn't make the industry "equal" overnight.... but wait a generation for them to be the ones running the companies and dominating upper management.

We've come a long way from the 1950's - we're more inclusive, less racist, more open than we've ever been, and we're always trying to steer in the direction of being treated equally, and we're largely succeeding. But it just doesn't happen overnight. I know the current generation doesn't like to hear that, but it's just how it is. You can't pass a bill that mandates there be a proportionally equal number of qualified minorities for a job.

Frankly, while I think we've come a long way, I think all of these studies and surveys are absolutely trying to be divisive and push us in the wrong direction by spurring resentment from white people who are trying to be more inclusive and still getting hammered for not succeeding through no fault of their own. It seems to me there are a lot of divisive minority leaders and movements out there - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, La Raza...

Re:More proof

[ranton]

You're right. Here's the dictionary definition of "bigotry": "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." Note that the concept of "race" is absent from the definition, so "bigotry on the basis of race"? Not a thing, according to the definition.

Reading comprehension fail. The definition refers to the intolerance found in someone's creed, belief or opinion, not intolerance about someone else's creed, belief, or opinion. For instance, having the opinion that a race is inferior and being unwilling to accept you are wrong (intolerance) would be bigotry.

Words end up meaning what most people generally agree they mean, which often diverge from dictionary definitions. Most people would generally agree that someone who believes that persons of a specific race are inherently inferior, is a bigot.

Words certainly do change over time, and the worst examples of this include when two very different (or even opposite) meanings are given to the same word because of ignorance of the population. Literally literally meaning figuratively is a good example.

Racism apologists are certainly attempting to re-use the word racism to mean any form of discrimination in an attempt to imply inclusive discrimination is just as bad as considering another race sub-human. It is a deeply ignorant attempt by people unwilling to accept their own privilege or at least who are unwilling to extend that privilege to others.

Re:More proof

[meta-monkey]

Well, FaceBook are a bunch of racists who can't tell the difference between an Anglo and an Aryan. All white people look alike to them.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

A more likely explanation is that it's because there are 1.4 billion Chinese and 1.2 billion Indians. There are 7.4 of them for every American.

I think culture probably does have something to do with it, but not as much as some people think. Being a cultural thing, it's something we can change, something that is worth changing.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

So is ecnomics the determining factor in one's ability to succeed in technology? We've solved "nature vs. nurture" and the answer is nurture?

No, the answer is both. No reasonable person could possibly believe either nature or nurture are the only determining factor in one's ability to succeed in technology, or anything else.

Re:More proof

[stdarg]

Scientific research is a dangerous area to go into if you're into social justice. Science tells us there are group differences in races and genders, for instance.

Re:More proof

[stdarg]

the solution isn't to fire them and hire more white guys at retail. We are trying to make things better, not worse.

But that would make things better, if your goal is to move closer to the workforce being representative of the population. That is the goal right?

Re:More proof

[ranton]

That's exactly what affirmative action is. It says blacks are not as good as whites, can't compete, and thus need a loving, guiding hand to help them up.

No, it is saying socio-economic factors make it less likely for African Americans to succeed, and this will not be changed for hundreds of years if society does not lend a hand. The average household wealth of a white family is $656k, while the average for African Americans is $85k. This disparity was $355k vs $67k thirty years ago, so the gap is widening in both real dollars and ratio. (source)

And it makes sense the gap would widen without significant societal assistance. If you believe it often takes money to make money, or that school districts with better funding often provide better education, it is painfully obvious this inequality cannot be reduced without outside assistance.

Re:More proof

[JustSomeProgrammer]

So it is perfectly acceptable for a group to hire no one who is not a member of their own race as long as they don't espouse the belief that their race is superior?

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

To be honest I think it's mostly projection.

The people who whine about "SJWs" oppressing them usually want to oppress people being critical of them. They elevate beliefs to the same level as objective facts because of religious freedom or they just don't like reality. They are the ones conspiring to down-mod and mass complain. And they are typically blind to the irony of it all.

Re:More proof

[meta-monkey]

It's an institutional problem, meaning that it's a combination of historical disadvantage and current culture

So it's purely a socioeconomic thing? We've solved "nature vs. nurture" and the answer is 100% nurture?

Re:More proof

[meta-monkey]

So, is FaceBook racist until 12% of their employees are black?

Re:More proof

[ranton]

So it is perfectly acceptable for a group to hire no one who is not a member of their own race as long as they don't espouse the belief that their race is superior?

Do you think my contention is no action can be considered bad if it doesn't fit the definition of racism? If I kill my brother its okay because it isn't racism? If I beat my wife its okay because it isn't racism? Because your comment only makes sense if you believe my contention is everything is acceptable if it isn't technically racism.

Of course affirmative action and other forms or inclusive discrimination could be taken too far. It almost certainly is already in many cases. But considering the wealth gap between white households and Black / Hispanic families is growing, its nearly impossible to make that claim towards all programs assisting minorities as a whole. Unless you think white people are inherently superior to minorities that is.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

I meant that the "fake me" you created said "systemic". I am saying that if I had used that word, I wouldn't have contradicted myself later in the same sentence, because I know what it means and because I don't blame individual racists or think that the hiring managers are racists or whatever it is you think I think.

Re:More proof

[tsqr]

You're right. Here's the dictionary definition of "bigotry": "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Reading comprehension fail. The definition refers to the intolerance found in someone's creed, belief or opinion, not intolerance about someone else's creed, belief, or opinion.

The reading comprehension problem I'm having is with your twist on the definition, not the definition itself. The definition I posted was copied from dictionary.com. Let's try another source. "bigotry: Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Not having intolerant opinions, but actually being/acting intolerant.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

The reading comprehension problem I'm having is with your twist on the definition, not the definition itself.

No, you clearly didn't understand what the phrase "intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" means. This is evidenced by your contention that the lack of the word "race" in that statement means intolerance of someone's beliefs on race could not be considered bigotry.

The definition I posted was copied from dictionary.com. Let's try another source. "bigotry: Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Not having intolerant opinions, but actually being/acting intolerant.

The is a reason we have different words for discrimination, racism, and bigotry. Bigotry is not accepting your views on race could be wrong. The actual beliefs on race themselves are what could be considered racist. It just so happens someone could not be racist without also being a bigot unless they are never introduced to the idea they could be wrong.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

What exactly are you suggesting? Minorities have a genetic predisposition to be less able or less inclined to so STEM/CS? I'm genuinely asking for clarification before I respond. What sort of "nature" are we talking about here?

Re:More proof

[meta-monkey]

Sure but you said the reason you're better off is because you had a better economic situation growing up as opposed to the average inner city African American. But what about your genetic advantages? Assuming you're white, what percentage of whites have an IQ as high as yours? What percentage of blacks do? If every white kid and every black kid had a computer like yours growing up, would you get the same percentage of whites who are able to make it in CS as blacks who could make it in CS?

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

Um, again, the only people I see whining about EVERYTHING are the anti-SJWs. Company changes a characters design, must be because SJWs forced them to. Company cares about diversity, must be because SJWs shamed them. My ice cream melted, must be because an SJW was screaming "cultural appropriation!" at it.

Which one of us was triggered by this race-bait article? It was you. You assumed it was the SJW conspiracy, and the Chief SJW Amimojo would turn up and write some nonsense about it. And now you are complaining that I get upset about everything. You are projecting your own behaviour on to me. You think I think and act that way because it is the way you think and act.

Also, I'd point out that in Facebook's diversity report, which is where the numbers in TFA come from, they do actually count "Asian" as a group, and even further break it down.

Re:More proof

[110010001000]

No, no, no, it is YOU that I see whinging about EVERYTHING. See how that works? I wasn't "triggered" by anything, although I realize that "triggers" is part of your religious nomenclature. I constantly think people like you are silly. You aren't out for "social justice", you don't even know what that means in reality. And no, "diversity" in this case means women, black, or Hispanic. This mirrors exactly what "diversity" being produced by the various relevant schools. It isn't a mystery.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

But what if the problem is those graduation rates don't reflect skill level?

Sure, I fully accept that *might* be the case. I expect there are some stats somewhere, because if it were the case it would be something we could correct relatively easily.

SJW's think you can pass legislation or punish a company into making things equal overnight

Interesting, to what laws are you referring?

I think all of these studies and surveys are absolutely trying to be divisive

Which studies? TFA seems to be a race-baiting bit based on some recent details Facebook published.

I think we mostly agree, especially about things like it taking time to happen. I don't know why you would assume I disagree with that, I've said it more than once. I'm pragmatic about this stuff.

Re:More proof

[110010001000]

Which minorities? Asians and South Asians (Indians) are overrepresented in STEM/CS. What "minorities" are we talking about here?

Re:More proof

[meta-monkey]

You need a higher than average IQ to make it in tech. Let's say ~115 minimum for an engineer or CS major. Well that's one standard deviation above the mean for whites in the US (average IQ 100) and two standard deviations above the mean for blacks in the US (average IQ 85). So even if you solve all socioeconomic problems for blacks (and whites) such that everyone has an excellent education and opportunity to be whatever they want to be you're never going to have 12% of engineers in the US be black because a much smaller percentage of blacks than whites have the raw intelligence to be engineers. You can't solve that problem with social engineering. You need some kind of eugenics program, and I believe those are "frowned upon."

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

The goal is to make things better by creating more equality of opportunity. Seeing that the workforce is more representative of society is an indicator, it's not the goal itself.

Re:More proof

[cryptizard]

Believe it or not but the country is made up of more places than Albuquerque. In fact, MOST of the country is not Albuquerque. 99.9% of people live elsewhere in the US, and might have different experiences from people that live in Albuquerque. Surprising I know.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

Page 20:

"Of all science and engineering grad-uates, 83.3 percent are employed, 3.9 percent are unemployed, and 12.8 percent are out of the labor force. While the unemployment rate is lower among science and engi-neering graduates than in the total civilian labor force, unemployment rates vary by race and Hispanic origin.31 The unemployment rate among Black and American Indian and Alaska Native science and engi-neering graduates is 6.6 percent. Older science and engineering graduates are less likely to be in the labor forceâ"nearly 23 percent of those aged 55 to 64 are not in the labor force (Figure 12). Female science and engineering graduates are also less likely to be in the labor force. Nearly 1 in 5 female science and engineering graduates are out of the labor force, com-pared with fewer than 1 in 10 male science and engineering gradu-ates. American Indian and Alaska Native science and engineering graduates have the highest rates of labor force exit: 17.9 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native graduates are out of the labor force."

Keep reading and it discusses the wage gap and reasons for this variance.

Re:More proof

[TooManyNames]

They have made some progress due to better recruitment, TFA points that out.

From the WSJ article:

Even so, Facebook has shown little progress. Last month, the company said 4% of its U.S. employees were Hispanic and 2% were black, the same as the two prior years.

What you said doesn't appear to agree with what was in the article. I'll grant that the article mentioned that women hires were up 2% since that time as well, but given the minimal difference for women, and the lack of progress in other URMs, I'm skeptical of the claim that "some progress was made due to better recruitment." Regarding the bump in women hires, I'd suspect that visibility of high-profile women at Facebook (ex. Sandberg) may have had more to do with better availability for recruitment, simply by building interest in the company when many of those women recruited would have been choosing majors, than just recruiter incentives.

At this point, assuming that recruiters did pay attention to the points and associated bonuses tied to URM recruits, how can you claim institutional bias? If URMs were recruited, then they'd have already overcome the graduation hurdle, so poor education and education opportunities wouldn't be an issue for those URM recruits. By the time they were recruited, the only "institutional racism" they'd face would be in terms of hiring managers at Facebook, which, let's face it, does not represent an institution. It seems to me that, if at that point, you're claiming any form of racism as the reason for those recruits not being hired, you must necessarily be claiming individual racism.

By the way, returning to my other point, do you know that there wasn't an incentive to actually hire URMs as well?

Re:More proof

[BarbaraHudson]

No - it was triggered by complaints by assholes. The posters were so notified.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

Ah, okay, IQ. Well, the thing is, IQ is related to education and culture. The questions on most IQ tests are biased towards some cultures and against others, and you can improve your score by practising and studying. So populations with certain cultures and better access to education have an advantage.

Consider this. IQ tests have been getting harder. A score of 100 in 1950 would only be worth 85 now. So unless white people evolved their brains in the last 66 years by an average of 30-40 points (because younger people, the notoriously intelligent millennials, would need massive IQs to swing the average up 25 points) there must be other factors at play.

Re:More proof

[thegarbz]

Racism is discrimination or bigotry on the basis of race, not that load of crap you just spewed.

Actually he copied and pasted from a dictionary so regardless of what you think, he's actually right.

If I have 2 candidates with similar scores, one black and one white, and I pick the white person because we all know white people are better programmers, that's racism.
If I have 2 candidates with similar scores, one black and one white, and I pick the black person to counteract an inherent imbalance in my company based on past actions and hiring decisions, not only is that not racism, but it also makes logical sense when attempting to prevent a monoculture. Facebook has a diversity problem. Fixing that problem by hiring more diverse people does not constitute racism despite what people here seem to think.

Re:More proof

[tsqr]

ranton: "Bigotry is not accepting your views on race could be wrong." Oxford Dictionary: bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". I'm not having a hard time figuring out which is pedantically correct. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, words eventually mean what most people accept them as meaning.

Re:More proof

[110010001000]

Again which "minorities" are you talking about? Asians are a "minority" in the US, but are "overrepresented" in the graduation rates. How can that be? Is the institution not biased against Asians (or South Asians/Indians)? Why do you never ask yourself these important questions? Are you afraid of the answers?

Re:More proof

[yuriklastalov]

Does "systematic racisms/sexism" exist? I don't know because that's a meaningless term used by the intellectually lazy.

No. And stereotypes aren't racism either, unless that is you're a Feminist in which case you're already suffering from enough brain damage to believe just about anything.

Re:More proof

[Grishnakh]

A more likely explanation is that it's because there are 1.4 billion Chinese and 1.2 billion Indians. There are 7.4 of them for every American.

Wrong. They are a small minority in America. It's not like every Indian or Chinese person who wants to be an engineer comes to America; they have their own schools and the vast majority of Chinese and Indian engineers live in China and India.

Look at the actual percentages for how many Chinese and Indian people (anywhere) go into these professions, compared to black Americans and Hispanics (both in America only and also in Latin America as a whole). I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I suspect that the percentages for Indians and Chinese are much higher, much much higher.

It's absolutely a cultural thing. And no, it's NOT something "we" can change, unless you happen to be black or Hispanic yourself. I'm not, so it's not something I can change any more than I can change misogynistic middle eastern cultures (nor should I; it's not my place to dictate to other cultures how they should be, in fact that would constitute arrogance).

Re: More proof

[Grishnakh]

I completely disagree.

It's 1967, and a bunch of people don't want equal rights for black people; some of them even want to bring back lynchings, and they all want to deny them voting rights, the right to sit anywhere on the bus, the right to use the same drinking fountains and bathrooms, etc.

Are you seriously going to tell me that it's "puerile" to dismiss these people as "assholes"? That we should have a rational discussion with them? Sorry, but fuck that.

It's no different today, it's just the group being oppressed is different (homosexuals/LGBTetc.). Heck, they still don't want them using the same bathrooms.

If you're in favor of making a whole group of people second-class citizens, then you're an asshole, full stop. This isn't about "disagreement", it's about basic human rights. Even Donald Trump thinks trans people should use whatever bathroom they feel comfortable in. There's a little room for rational discussion at the fringes (like the wedding cake issue: equal rights. vs. rights of business owners to choose who to do business with, but this was also mostly settled with the CRA in the 60s, mainly it's just extremist libertarians who want to regress on this out of some misguided notion that "the invisible hand" of "the market" will magically correct this), but not much. Mostly it's just a bunch of religious assholes who want to deny people equal rights under the law, and it's little different from what those peoples' brethren in the 60s and before did to black people.

Re:More proof

[TooManyNames]

The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best

Care to back that up? That runs counter to the, admittedly anecdotal, evidence that I've encountered dealing with HR at the tech companies I've been involved with (ex. IBM). Both you and the Gizmodo article just seem to be asserting that as fact, which may or may not be the case... I don't know either, so I can't just say one way or the other.

Regarding the summary being flamebait, I don't think that it really is: while it has a polemic element to it, it's got that for a reason, as the recruitment practices at Facebook seem to be encountering a brick wall that exists, in no small part, due to erroneous, PC assumptions made on the part of Facebook. It would seem to me that pointing out those assumptions, and how they've failed in this instance, is only flamebait if you have a problem with framing those assumptions as problematic.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

words eventually mean what most people accept them as meaning.

While that may be true, a very specific definition is required if you want to make assertions using certain words. Assertions such as "racism cannot be fought with racism" require incredibly specific and unbending definitions of the words used. By the traditional meaning of the word racism this assertion is probably correct, but using the more loose colloquial definition of racism is couldn't be farther from the truth.

Re:More proof

[cellocgw]

Google's first hit for GSOH is Girl Scouts of Ohio's Heartland.

How's that for ya?

Re:More proof

[meta-monkey]

That's not true, though. IQ is heavily correlated with genetics (smart parents have smart kids) and even negatively correlated with the IQ of adoptive parents. A child born to low IQ parents raised by high IQ parents still has their IQ correlate to the birth parents' IQ. The "bias" accusations have been debunked.

There is no reason for groups of people separated geographically by tens or hundreds of thousands of years to have identical intelligence distributions. Blacks and asians and whites and everyone else have different average heights, weights, penis size, skin color, and intelligence.

Now one should always judge an individual as an individual, but when we're talking about demographics (percentage of employees of a certain race) we need to make sure we're adjusting for the percentage of employees of that race who are capable of being educated to do the job.

Currently the playing field is not level and blacks face socioeconomic challenges that prevent them from reaching their potential. But when you talk about "the system" you're only correcting for nurture, and ignoring nature. You'll never achieve equal outcomes unless you fix nature, too.

Re: More proof

[meta-monkey]

I'm offended. I'll have you know I've moved on to double Hitler status.

Re:More proof

[yuriklastalov]

You've just explained perfectly why these kinds of systems don't work. You'll never get all the variables right and someone is always going to be left out. The more you try to make it exhaustive the more they're going to differ.

Bias is endemic to the human mind, trying to invent technological and organizational work-arounds isn't going to work. Until we can embrace the fact that we are as different intellectually (i.e., opinions, biases, world views) as we are physically (skin color, body features, etc) we'll just keep going 'round and 'round in a vicious cycle of preferential treatment for this group or that.

Equality of outcome is a pipe dream, the best we can hope for is equality of opportunity and there's still work left to do.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

You want me to respond to what you imagine I said, not what I actually said? Fuck off.

Re:More proof

[kimanaw]

More proof of systemic racism: even though the white recruiters ...

Um, why do you think the recruiters were white ? A quick scan of job posts on DICE/etc. that include a recruiter's name would lead one to believe many (esp in SillyCon Valley) are Indian (which may also be relevant to diversity issues due to racial/cultural biases).

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

It's in TFA, the incentive is only for the recruiters looking for candidates. Even when they did find extra candidates, they found that the hiring managers tended to reject them anyway, so the incentives didn't work.

Re: More proof

[jmcvetta]

It's 1967, and a bunch of people don't want equal rights for black people; some of them even want to bring back lynchings, and they all want to deny them voting rights, the right to sit anywhere on the bus, the right to use the same drinking fountains and bathrooms, etc.

Are you seriously going to tell me that it's "puerile" to dismiss these people as "assholes"? That we should have a rational discussion with them?

Correct, it would be puerile to dismiss those folks as "assholes". Many of them were doubtless fairly pleasant people in their daily lives. (I am not one of those people who thinks almost everyone is a douchebag.)

The right word for the group you describe would be "racists". And yes, calm and rational discussion can be an effective way to deal with individual racists. That kind of racist is not very common anymore, but I've encountered a few. Know what in my experience reliably makes them stop and reconsider? If they're denouncing $RACE, just say to them calmly: "You know, I've met quite a few nice/smart/etc $RACE people. Have you really never met at nice $RACE person?" Maybe that sounds too simple, but it does seem to work.

Somehow I bet that shouting "FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!11!!!1!" would not work quite so well.

Otoh, if you're thinking about the macropolitical picture in the 1960s US, don't overlook the armed proto-insurgency of the Black Panthers & friends. Mao was pretty spot-on about where political power comes from.

Re:More proof

[Pfhorrest]

If the real problem is that poor people need a hand (which they do) and it's just that black people are generally more poor than white people (which they are), then policies that address the disadvantage of poverty directly will, as a consequence of the existing racial bias in poverty, automatically help black people more than it does white people, to exactly the extent of that bias, and for only so long as that bias persists.

No need for policies to directly address race at all.

Re:More proof

[penguinoid]

That's exactly what affirmative action is. It says blacks are not as good as whites, can't compete, and thus need a loving, guiding hand to help them up.

No, it is saying socio-economic factors make it less likely for African Americans to succeed, and this will not be changed for hundreds of years if society does not lend a hand.

Then why not base assistance on those socio-economic factors, instead of racist discrimination based on race?

Re:More proof

[avandesande]

The OP specifically mentioned New Mexico ... and you attributed his observations to minorities being disadvantaged. Are you talking about New Mexico or not? Hispanics are not a minority in New Mexico, but rarely take up engineering. WTF are YOU talking about?

Re:More proof

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

No, it is saying socio-economic factors make it less likely for African Americans to succeed, and this will not be changed for hundreds of years if society does not lend a hand.

If that were true, then why are we doling out extra assistance based on "race" instead of basing it on socio-economic status? The checkbox on the form asks to which "race" you belong, not how well off you are.

Re:More proof

[TooManyNames]

Please point to the actual quote from the article that says what you said. What I see is the following:

Recruiters bring in candidates, but it is up to hiring managers to make job offers. Therefore, attracting more candidates doesn’t necessarily result in a more diverse workforce.

That doesn't imply that hiring managers don't also receive similar incentives for hiring URMs; it just indicates that hiring managers are under no obligation to hire according to the proportions recruiters supply to them. Now, the Gizmodo article said what you said, but it's clear that that's a supposition on the part of that article's author. In short, they're just assuming, as you did, that hiring managers have no incentive to hire URMs. Again, that's not at all in line with what I've actually seen.

Re:More proof

[yuriklastalov]

Hence why social engineers, left and right, utilize litigation and judicial activism to further their goals.

Re:More proof

[penguinoid]

When I think Engineering and Math, I tend to think of Germany and Japan, two cultures that are known to have a strong work ethic and an aptitude for solving complex problems.

What if the hiring managers think the same thing? Hm, this candidate just doesn't look very mathy...

Not saying you're wrong, but just because a stereotype is true doesn't mean there can't be discrimination beyond the percentages justified by the stereotypes.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

It doesn't say that hiring managers insist on conducting interviews in the nude either. I can't prove a negative, but given the context you would think they would mention something important like that if it were happening.

Re:More proof

[NotInHere]

The unemployment rate among Black and American Indian and Alaska Native science and engi-neering graduates is 6.6 percent.

Well the difference is very small overall, especially if you consider that the employment rates are very close to each other, so there is not much discrimination, or at least not enough to justify these radical means.

Female science and engineering graduates are also less likely to be in the labor force.

Well that's just statistics speak for "women are more likely to be homemakers than men", probably because they chose to stay at home because they wanted children. Nothing wrong with wanting children, is there?

http://www.census.gov/people/l...

Not in Labor Force – All people 16 years old and over who are not classified as members of the labor force. This category consists mainly of students, homemakers, retired workers, seasonal workers interviewed in an off season who were not looking for work, institutionalized people, and people doing only incidental unpaid family work (less than 15 hours during the reference week).

American Indian and Alaska Native science and engineering graduates have the highest rates of labor force exit

Well this too can have multiple reasons, but if a racist boss kicks someone out solely because they are American indian, or they quit because of discrimination inside the job, that person is unemployed, and not outside of the labor force.

Re:More proof

[HBI]

Then the dictionary definition is wrong. Not so hard to imagine - those who write such things aren't authorities to be appealed to.

An analogy would be an encyclopedia misprinting the speed of light as 186 mph and you insisting i'm wrong and it is right.

Re:More proof

[sinij]

I can only see what you wrote, if your mastery of written language and logic prevents you from effectively communicating your ideas, perhaps you should work on improving it?

Re:More proof

[XxtraLarGe]

Would you rather people take assholes to court or just cut to the chase and punch them in the face?

How about just finding another baker or photographer? No need for violence. And yes, litigation is violence, because it's enforced by men with guns.

Re:More proof

[TooManyNames]

This isn't asking you to prove a negative; this is asking you to support your reasons for presuming a practice, other than just assuming it because it aligns with your argument. By the way, I'm not making some unfalsifiable claim on hiring at Facebook: all you need to do is point to the hiring policies of Facebook that are provided to the hiring managers. If there's no mention of any incentive to hire URMs, then you can claim what you did; if, however, there are incentives outlined (as I suspect there would be based on prior dealings with other tech companies), then you're just spreading a falsehood. Moreover, that potential falsehood seems to be pretty central to a lot of other arguments that you're making, so it's kind of a problem if it turns out to actually be false.

Now, neither you nor I have access to that information. The difference between us is that I'm not claiming something with certainty, but you appear to be. I said that I suspect there are hiring policies that favor URMs at Facebook (and have good reason to make that claim), but I don't know for sure. You said that there aren't hiring policies to favor URMs. Period. Now you've gone on -- in a pretty intellectually dishonest manner -- to dismiss my challenge to your claimed knowledge, which you still haven't addressed, as some sort of ridiculous demand.

Re:More proof

[cryptizard]

How do you know what the engineering interest level of hispanics is in New Mexico? Did you find any sources for that? The only thing I can find states that at New Mexico State University they have about the same number of hispanic students seeking PhDs as white students, which is definitely not the case is other parts of the country. So maybe New Mexico does prove the point but I don't know.

Re:More proof

[Ichijo]

Yes, that's the reason for the massive incentives.

Re:More proof

[Darinbob]

They don't hire the best candidates most of the time. I see them hiring idiots, hiring friends, etc. A referral from someone the manager knows oftens counts much more than any resume or experience. Just look at the average corporations and you can see that the hiring processes are not geared to finding the best because those work places are filled to the brim with people who were clearly not the best. The workplace is not a meritocracy and never has been. Who you know counts for much more than what you know. So trotting out the tired line that minorities just don't measure up to very high standards is bullshit when the standards are very low in practice.

I look around at companies I worke with and different teams have different demographics, even if they're all engineering teams. Hispanics more represented in one group, a different team seems to have a large group of friends that hop together to different jobs and startups, the team with lots of Vietnamese (and I know one person who was turned down for a transfer because she was told she didn't speak Vietnamese which was a clear violation of policy and law), and so forth.

The way a person feels during an interview often beats out other qualifications. It's extremely subjective. No one doing the interviewing is unbiased, no matter how hard they try. Hiring happens based on gut feelings.

Re:More proof

[thegarbz]

Then the dictionary definition is wrong.

That's the wonderful thing about dictionaries, they aren't wrong because they aren't the authority. They are just common documentation of the current correct usage of the word. If you think it's wrong, chances are people won't understand you.

Your analogy however is wrong.

Re:More proof

[Darinbob]

The incentives seem approrpriate too. Lots of media articles about the predominance of white/asian males in silicon valley companies, so companies wish to counter that instead of going the whole anti-PC rhetoric preferred here. Having recruiters try to target more minorities does not actually bypass any hiring decisions, it just tells the recruiters to try and be more diverse (and let's face it, it's not called "Man Jose" because of the balanced demographics). However the ultimate hiring decisions aren't happening there, no one can be an asshat and accuse the incoming hires of being quotas or tokens because of the recruiters.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

If the real problem is that poor people need a hand ... No need for policies to directly address race at all.

This is simply not backed up by facts. Four in five black children who started in the top three quintiles experienced downward mobility, compared with just two in five white children. Three in five white children who started in the bottom two quintiles experienced upward mobility, versus just one in four black children.

Minorities really do have more trouble with income mobility than whites in similar economic situations. Twice as many relatively well off black children experience downward mobility than similar white children, and well under half as many poor black children see upward mobility when compared to similar white children.

We should certainly have programs which help all poor individuals, but that does not exclude racially targeted programs from being necessary as well.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

See my response above for citations, but minorities really do have more trouble with income mobility than whites in similar economic situations. Twice as many relatively well off black children experience downward mobility than similar white children, and well under half as many poor black children see upward mobility when compared to similar white children.

We should certainly have programs which help all poor individuals, but that does not exclude racially targeted programs from being necessary as well.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

See above for a more detailed response, but race still plays a significant factor after economic factors are ruled out. That leaves social factors, which in this case is our relationship to race in this country.

Re:More proof

[sinij]

You need a higher than average IQ to make it in tech.

At least for some definition of 'make it'. There are plenty of Wallys out there.

Re:More proof

[ranton]

And what you completely and utterly fail to understand is that an imbalance in average SES doesn't automatically imply it's a race issue. Are you saying that a dirt poor white person is somehow better off than an equally poor black person?

I am absolutely saying this. Much better off. In fact poor black children have less than half the chance of upward income mobility as compared to poor white children. (source)

Re:More proof

[moeinvt]

"They have made some progress"

Right. Figuring out new and creative ways to undermine white men is obviously a sign of "progress".

Re:More proof

[Pfhorrest]

In that case the problem isn't just that black people are poorer and so lack the advantages of wealth, as your post I first replied to suggested. There's evidently some other factor (besides wealth inequality) racially biasing income mobility (which in turn leads to wealth inequality and the disadvantages that brings), and that's what needs to be addressed (in addition to wealth inequality).

Re:More proof

[jedidiah]

None of this is Facebook's fault.

Start with Vogue and Glamour.

Of course the painfully obvious answer here is LACK OF SUPPLY. If Facebook wants more girls or more blacks then it has to go cultivate them. The big machine as it stands is simply not producing them. Recruit in high school, recruit in middle school, do whatever it takes.

Corporations have spent the last 30 years shitting on labor and leaving them out in the cold. They're like Ned Flanders' parents.

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."

Re:More proof

[jedidiah]

"Words certainly do change over time"

How perfectly Orwellian.

It's like you people don't even hear yourselves.

Re:More proof

[jedidiah]

If you need to change what words mean, then your argument is corrupt. If you need to change what words mean to suit your agenda, then perhaps you are hiding something that you are unable to face. You need to corrupt language as a means to hide from what you are.

Re:More proof

[jedidiah]

> So it is perfectly acceptable for a group to hire no one who is not a member of their own race as long as they don't espouse the belief that their race is superior?

Yup.

Racism is not the outcome, it's the intent.

You are trying to assume a cause when one might not be there at all. You are confusion equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. If there is discrimination present, you need to prove it and not just assume it.

That's the problem with this entire topic.

You seem to have absolutely zero experience with many of these "minorities" if you think them so feeble that they can't fend for themselves.

Re:More proof

[jedidiah]

> and I pick the black person to counteract an inherent imbalance

Nope, that's racism.

You're just changing definitions so you don't feel like a Grand Wizard.

You are using race as a criteria. You are a racist. There is no glory or honor in this.

Re:More proof

[Darinbob]

Of course, when people try encouraging girls in middle school then they get slamed on slashdot for too much political correctness, followed by assertions that girls just don't like STEM anyway. Ie, status quo is good enough. Some even going so far as to claim there's no problem and thus no solutions are needed.

Encouraging the recruiters to target more minorities is has the goal of increasing the supply of diverse resumes to the hiring managers. There is supply even in silicon valley. But not much supply if it's not actively being looked for and instead just picking low hanging fruit. The whole job of recruiters is to do some actual work instead of just checking the inbox for resumes.

Re:More proof

[jedidiah]

...except I can turn it around so that the white candidate fits the description of "disadvantaged". Based on someone's skin color, you really have no way of knowing what kind of challenges they have faced in life. If you're assuming that they're from the ghetto just because they have dark skin then you're a flaming hypocrite and terribly clueless.

By the time a smug jackass like you is interviewing them, they have already conquered whatever "challenges" they may have had. It's a bit too late to make yourself feel better by pitying them.

Again, the do-gooders and SJWs miss the mark by a wide margin.

Re: More proof

[ShieldW0lf]

Racism isn't bad because it's mean. Racism is bad because it is stupid. Like, having a heartfelt belief that red cars are faster than blue cars kinda stupid.

Tribalism and identity politics, on the other hand are bad because they make enemies of everyone outside the tribe.

That's what's happening. All these people trying to push their tribe forward are creating bad feelings. They're not helping anyone, including those they purport to support.

Re:More proof

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the point of hiring one candidate over another, because one of them is the better candidate?

Put another way, if you're about to have life-saving brain surgery and you're given the choice between a highly-skilled, top-of-his-field, well-paid neurosurgeon and a diversity hire who made it in to fill a quota, who are you going to choose? High-flying ideals are all fine and dandy when it's someone else's skin on the line, but they crumple when made to apply to those same idealists.

Re:More proof

[TheGeneration]

This problem is pretty complex. It's not as simple as "Johnny didn't get a CS degree" you have to go back further and find out if Johnny was ever put on a path where he could have received a CS degree. Sure he may have attended the same elementary, Jr. High and High School as some children who did eventually get CS degrees, but even within the same school their paths may have been laid out differently due to expectations by the adults they came into contact with. Perhaps Johnny was exceptionally tall, and he was encouraged to spend all of his time playing basketball rather than study math. Every year that went by the possibility that Johnny could successfully enter a math intensive program like a CS program in college became more unlikely, even if it would have been something he'd have done well at had he received the same preparation as the kids who were encouraged to study math rather than perfecting throwing balls into a net.

Re:More proof

[prisoner-of-enigma]

What I see is that women who are very smart get hired, average and dumb women don't get hired. However average and dumb men do get hired. Just look around and see all the idiots you have to work with and ask yourself if those idiots are more qualified than every woman or minority who wanted those jobs.

Given that hiring an unknown is always something of a gamble, wouldn't this outcome be the EXPECTED outcome when there's an oversupply of male candidates and relative scarcity of female candidates? By Jove, yes it is! The scarcity of female candidates virtually guarantees the vast majority of them are in the field because it is a passion for them. The overabundance of males also virtually guarantees many are there because "I need the money" and have no real interest in what they do. Certainly there are outliers in each category but they are, after all, outliers; they make the exception, not the rule.

Re:More proof

[TheGeneration]

Asian and middle eastern cultures value engineering and think of it as a prestigious career; black and Hispanic cultures simply do not.

A more likely explanation is that they have teachers who think exactly like you do, and that is why black and hispanic children are treated differently. Sometimes it's conscious decisions adults around them make, sometimes it's subconscious, but if they are thinking like you, it's pretty evident that they will be treated differently than their asian, middle eastern and white peers.

Re:More proof

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Here's a radical idea: why don't we do a decent job of educating early teens of what fields are hiring out there and how rewarding they are, then leave them the hell alone and let them choose what they want to do? This whole "diversity is our goal" crap is morphing into a grand social engineering project where young girls are going to be told "you must be an engineer so you can better represent females!" and young men are going to be told...well, I'm not sure other than "you represent oppression and the male patriarchy and must be punished."

Re:More proof

[Cederic]

White males are a minority in the US though. I mean, 52% of the population is female so white males are a subset of a minority.

Sounds like the HR department need disciplining for racism.

Re:More proof

[Cederic]

They can push the concept all they like, the moment it goes to an employment tribunal they're fucked.

Re:More proof

[tsotha]

Sure, we have "scientific research" from sociologists and psychologists who can't seem to be able to replicate more than 30% of their studies. So let's talk about bias...

Re:More proof

[Grishnakh]

I don't know what kind of teachers you had, but I didn't have any which encouraged me to take up engineering. I don't remember teachers encouraging anyone to go into any particular career in fact.

No, I think your explanation is BS. A much more likely explanation is that kids learn this stuff from their parents; that's how culture is passed down after all. Some cultures (namely Asian cultures) strongly encourage kids to study math and science and go into envineering. Other cultures, such as the white American culture I came from, encourage kids to ridicule children who like math and computers (that's how it was when I was in school), and to glorify sports and to major in business.

Re:More proof

[Grishnakh]

It takes a while for general society to accept changes in the job market like this.

Also, nothing's changed about medicine; you'll still make way more money as a specialist doctor or surgeon, have much, much higher prestige, and you'll get to work in a mixed environment instead of a sausagefest. You'll also be doing far more important work for people and humanity in general.

Re:More proof

[Grishnakh]

Who do you think does all the engineering in China, Taiwan, etc.? There's a LOT more engineers over there than they've sent over here. And considering that 30 years ago, China was a backwater basicallly, your argument doesn't really hold up.

Re:More proof

[Grishnakh]

What good are incentives if any man who takes them has to worry about being falsely accused of molestation and constantly looked at strangely?

Re: More proof

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, I agree with the other commenter here, and George Takei.

Re:More proof

[kaatochacha]

Bah. I work for a school district in a very ethnically diverse city. One that WANTS to hire people of underrepresented groups.
We recently had an open job made available, in the technology field. Basic technical support. Advertised on our website, sent out to the various public job opportunity sites as well.
I spoke with one of my coworkers about this, one who was tasked with interviewing the attendees. Interviews were only done AFTER they passed a basic skills test.
Of the 300 people who applied for two positions, 4 were female. FOUR. Of those four, only one passed the skills test. When interviewed, she stated she had a problem with one of the requirements: the ability to lift 25 pounds on an occasional basis ( think printer). Following that, she stated she did not want to move computers around because they were dirty, someone else would need to do this.
Even then, the recruiters kept telling our department to consider her for the position.
Racially, the group was overwhelmingly white or hispanic, with black or asian interviewees being underrepresented based on the population.

Re:More proof

[Citizen of Earth]

Does "systematic racisms/sexism" exist?

A better question would be: *Can* systemic racism/sexism exist in an industry dominated by cut-throat competition? If you don't hire the best engineers, you lose to a competitor who does.

Re:More proof

[Altrag]

Racism is now a thought crime.

No its not. You can think whatever you want about other races, religions, sexual orientations, favorite woodwind instrument, or anything else you choose.

What you can't do is express those thoughts in a way where it negatively impacts people, such as refusing to hire someone or yelling obscenities and threats at someone purely because they like the alto sax and you only believe in tenors.

But you're still perfectly free to be as much of an asshole as you want inside your own head.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

I think a lot of people missed that my "original comment" wasn't even written by me.

The whole SJW label reminds me of homophobia in the early 90s. People who were gay and ashamed of it accused everyone else of being gay.

Re: More proof

[AK Marc]

now what in my experience reliably makes them stop and reconsider? If they're denouncing $RACE, just say to them calmly: "You know, I've met quite a few nice/smart/etc $RACE people. Have you really never met at nice $RACE person?" Maybe that sounds too simple, but it does seem to work.

Maybe we know different bigots, but in my experience, nothing makes them reconsider. Bigotry is a religion. All evidence against is the work of the devil, and coincidence for is confirmation.

Have you ever hear someone say that Usain Bolt is proof of white supremacy? I have. "Those Niggers are all faster and stronger, because that's how monkeys are built, and if they were as smart as us, they'd be better off than us. That they aren't is proof they must be dumber." "I know some smart Black people." "Yeah, some soft descendents of house Niggers." There is no response that would get through, so why bother?

Re:More proof

[AK Marc]

And Facebook has never lied to anyone about anything? Wouldn't it make sense to Facebook to report all automated takedowns as "community reported" to deflect blame?

Re: More proof

[jmcvetta]

Yeah, honestly I've never heard anything remotely like that in real life. I guess we've had different experiences.

Most of the expressed racism I've personally heard has been based on fear of violent crime or economic insecurity. I think that kind of racism comes from segregation and precarity. And it certainly can be addressed with calm discussion.

Of course there's also the now-popular "hate whitey" meme that's being pushed real hard by the capitalist propaganda organs. But that's a different variant of bigotry best left to a different conversation.

Re:More proof

[AK Marc]

You whined first. You whined loudest. You were triggered by an article about "diversity" to mock and insult AMJ. You started this with all your outrage over anti-racism.

Re:More proof

[AK Marc]

The last Fortune 500 I worked for didn't do any of that. There were no incentives to hire diverse. Wat you say is borderline illegal as well. Quotas are almost always illegal.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

Yes, that's the point, you need to find candidates who are both the best and improve your diversity level.

Just remember that "best" isn't "most highly skilled, best in their field" for most jobs. It's "meets the salary expectations, isn't over qualified and likely to leave quickly, plays well with others etc." Even in your brain surgeon example, unless you are rich the chances are you are looking for someone who is competent and who you can afford and who works somewhere you have access to. And most importantly, someone you know of. Unless you check every surgeon in the world, including the ones in in China and France and North Korea you can't be sure you chose the "best".

Re:More proof

[stdarg]

You can't have it both ways though. You can't say it's good to game the indicator by having things like "bonus points" for hiring minorities, but bad to game the indicator by hiring more white guys in retail.

The reason gaming the indicator actually works is that it has an effect upstream. If blacks see that they have a good shot at a good job in Silicon Valley, then they will be more likely to go into computer science and end up working in the industry.

Yet apparently you're not willing to concede the same for whites, that white people who right now are poor, on welfare, etc won't see "hey look at that, white guys can also get good jobs working retail, it's not all girls and minorities hired to prop up diversity stats" and do the same thing.

Re:More proof

[stdarg]

And it makes sense the gap would widen without significant societal assistance.

And as others have pointed out, that's false. Significant societal assistance wasn't needed to make Chinese immigrants, who used to be among the poorest, into one of the most successful immigrant groups.

or that school districts with better funding often provide better education

Anybody who pays attention to education funding knows that's not true. Obviously there has to be a baseline of funding as well, but past a certain minimum (which we're well past) it stops making much difference. Hence examples like Washington DC and NYC public schools that have the highest funding per student in the nation and some of the worst results.

Re:More proof

[JustSomeProgrammer]

To the contrary I do have experience with minorities. And I don't think them feeble. I'm also aware of the barriers that they face. Though honestly while I think a lot of the barriers they face are economic in nature, some of them are truly racial. The combination of the economic and racial and societal barriers can be insurmountable for a lot of people. Not everyone, but why should anyone be held down or held back simply because of their birth? The intention of my comment is more along the lines of I think it is ridiculous to say something that has qualifying characteristics including race is not racist.

Re:More proof

[JustSomeProgrammer]

The bigger intent of my comment was to indicate that the idea that something whose defining characteristic is race based is not necessarily racist is ridiculous. There might be organizations out there specifically targeting disadvantaged races for privilege, but that doesn't make those organizations not racist. The ESSA thing bothers me because one of the rejection criteria is race. That's pretty horrible. Like saying only women and non-white, non-Asian minorities should be programmers. If they were encouragement based and not segregation based I would be really glad about it. I would also like it more if it was socioeconomic based rather than race based. Meaning have the program mostly for economically disadvantaged children. That would result in better race statistic while also not telling kids it's ok to make decisions based on the color of someone's skin.

Re:More proof

[beastofburdon]

You hit the nail on the head with that attribution.

Re: More proof

[beastofburdon]

I would call that person a traitor, and they should be dealt with as such. Unfortunately the people of the US have become far to fearful of the government to do what should be done.

Re:More proof

[david_thornley]

My religion is not evident from looking at me (most people probably assume I'm some sort of Christian unless and until they find otherwise) and neither is my sexual orientation. I don't talk about either in situations where it doesn't matter. On the other hand, it's going to be pretty hard to convince those who meet me that I'm not a white male.

I'm somewhat concerned that everyone get a fair shake, and that means that people have as few problems as possible from stuff they can't change or hide.

Re: More proof

[david_thornley]

You'll find a lot of people who think it's fine that I'm taxed a little to support things that are of a religion I personally am not a member of (actually, if you name a religion, I'm not a member of it). Other than that, I'm not coming up with counterexamples right now.

Re:More proof

[david_thornley]

However, there are reasons for groups of people united geographically and separated by less than a century chronologically to have different IQ distributions, it would appear. Check out the Flynn Effect. If modern US blacks have an average IQ of 85, are they different by nature, or are they just in the same general situation as whites of the 1940s? IQ scores are a really bad way to separate groups reliably.

Re:More proof

[david_thornley]

Hiring from a larger pool is going to be a competitive advantage, but how big of one? Businesses usually have lots of inefficiencies, and hiring slightly worse people is unlikely to doom them.

Re: More proof

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, honestly I've never heard anything remotely like that in real life. I guess we've had different experiences.

Perhaps you are priveliged to not have been raised in a family with Fundamentalist Christians. Count your blessings.

What I see as a problem with the idea of treating every single person as having an opinion that is equally valid is like thinking that Jerry Sandusky is as entitled to molest children as I am to think that just maybe sort kinda, that's an ultimate asshole thing to do. If I saw the guy, Id call him an asshole, and not have any liberal all things are equal angst about it.

I don't have time for racist assholes, people who believe that the worldis flat, or that if a woman commits adultery, she should be put into a pit up to her neck and stoned to death. Do you in any way shape or form consider that as deserving equal treament with peopel who believe that all people are equal, that science shows the earth isn't flat, or that maybe adultry isn't a crime at all, much less one that demands the village get together and murder someone?

Simply being homsexual used to be a imprisonable crime. A capital offense in some countries. Are you saying that a person who still thinks that way should receive equal consideration, that maybe they should come into schools and tell the kids that?

If you do, I'll be happy to judge you as an asshole. Because you would be. Sorry, no negotiations on those matters any more.

Re:More proof

[david_thornley]

The problem is that we don't understand the social forces involved. We can't figure out from basic principles if girls are not good at STEM or if girls are pushed from STEM. We don't have a society where people do what they like without pressure from gender roles. We know darn well that boys and girls get different treatment in a lot of ways. If we had some way of knowing that STEM would be X% female if everyone did what he or she was good at and liked to do, that would be really handy. We don't, and so a proposal to just let people do what they do now may be good or it may enforce discrimination we don't really understand.

Re:More proof

[david_thornley]

It's hard to evaluate socio-economic factors, and they can be faked. Look at all the effort expended trying to make sure welfare recipients don't get what they're not entitled to. It's easy to look at someone's skin, hair, and a few other features.

Re:More proof

[Ol Olsoc]

Sexual preference is more of a private thing, people can't tell you are straight or gay just by looking at you unless you advertise the fact. Therefore it tends not to be something that is discriminated against in hiring, although obviously where there is overt homophobia it's a concern.

It was a crime at one time in the USA, and is still a capital offense in some countries.

Religious reference is just that, a preference, and thus generally not protected in the same way as genetic factors. Society does allow some consideration for religion, mostly for historical reasons, but only to the point where it doesn't have a major impact on anyone else. Again, it's only of interest re diversity if there is a detectable problem, so if you have evidence of one you should post it.

At this time, perhaps. I grew up in a town that was ruled by the religious, with blue laws of no stores open on Sunday, absolutely no evolution or anything that spoke to an old earth - Science classes were weird, and no doubt. Legally require Sex education was 1 day of "If you have sex you will get VD and die."

I have always had a big issue with Diversity dogma's "We must embrace all cultures." Sorry, I am not going to embrace cultures that are mentally in the stone age, and treat women like chattel. and people who have the temerity to believe in some other Sky Fairy as people that need killed.

Nope, nope, nope!

Re:More proof

[Ol Olsoc]

Though if you make the mistake of going on Facebook, you'll find so much evidence of open hate that it will leave you wondering about whether large swaths of the human race aren't deserving of a major extinction event.

I stopped wondering about that a long, long time ago - we do.

Re:More proof

[meta-monkey]

If modern US blacks have an average IQ of 85, are they different by nature, or are they just in the same general situation as whites of the 1940s?

Given that we don't know exactly how the Flynn effect works, it's hard to say. I don't think most of the suspected causes apply, though. Neither malnourishment nor lack of stimulation really apply to modern American blacks, yet they have about the same median IQs as African blacks (depending upon region). Also, the IQs of adopted children correlate with their birth parents, not their adoptive parents. So, that looks genetic, not environmental, but of course over the generations genes are a product of the environment, as non-advantageous genes are selected against. If that's the case the modern welfare state may lead to a reverse Flynn effect for blacks. It's a dysgenic rather an eugenic system.

It's tough to say, as very few people are interested in doing studies of intelligence as it pertains to racial groups because they fear they'll be accused of racial hatred and lose their job and reputation. Say racial groups have a genetic difference in twitch muscle performance or susceptibility to skin cancer or hypertension and no one bats an eye. Start talking about intelligence and everyone loses their damn minds.

Also, the left has a vested interest in not exploring base differences between ethnic groups: this is how the left gains political power. First, declare two populations that are different to in fact be identical using emotional rhetoric rather than scientific evidence. Then point to the difference in outcome between the two groups. Since the false premise of equivalence is already accepted, declare the difference in outcome must be due to oppression or unfairness on the part of the higher-performing group and demand political power to fix this "injustice." Since they've never acknowledged the root cause, whatever corrections they apply will fail. This further failure is used to reinforce just how insidious and effective the oppression of the higher-performing group is, which justifies further power grabs. This is how in, say, Baltimore we wind up with a situation where a black man dies in the custody of black officers on a 40% black police force with a black police chief, black district attorney, black mayor in a country with a black Attorney General who reports to a black president and the left blames white racism.

In the meantime, we have to make do with what we have. Regardless of the cause of the IQ discrepancy, it exists, but it is beyond politically incorrect do discuss, so nothing will be done about it. I live in the rural south and I'm part of a program where I tutor math and science for young men who have been involved in the judicial system (read: black) and are now trying to go to community college. There are a few success stories including a CS major I'm very proud of, but sometimes I get a student who's obviously in the middle of that IQ distribution. Have you ever tried to explain Newtonian mechanics to someone with an IQ of 85? It does not go well. There's nothing I can do to cram this person through the school system and have him coming out ready to design space rockets.

But what we're doing right now is looking at a 12% slice of the population with an average IQ of 85 and when FaceBook can't fill 12% of their workforce from this population group, blaming FaceBook for bias. That's never going to work.

Re:More proof

[AmiMoJo]

Homosexuality was criminalized in the UK too. That ended in the 60s, fortunately. What I mean regarding work is that it's generally not something that is apparent when interviewing, so is difficult to discriminate against. Obviously where someone is outed as gay and then fired there is a case to be answered.

I'm not a huge fan of multiculturalism myself. That's different to diversity though. I'm as unwilling to accept barbarism and oppression in the name of religion of culture as you are, but I think that's different to say labelling natural African American hair as "unprofessional".

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to assume my position is more absolute than it is, even though I frequently state otherwise. The debate is extremely polarised.

Re: More proof

[AK Marc]

Midwest Racism is "We're not racist, we just don't want *those people* near us or dating our daughter." They may respond to logic. Southern racism is a whole 'nother beast. If you weren't raised there, you likely didn't get to experience much of it. The racists know they are despised, to they hide it, effectively lying, when not surrounded by their kind. They are also the core anti-SJW anti-PC group. They want to be able to call a fucking nigger a fuckin nigger without some prick calling them rude. They know it's rude, how could they not? They just want the freedom to deliberately insult and abuse everyone they don't like all the time.

I don't doubt that your tactic would work on some people. But I've met thousands it wouldn't work with.

I get labeled an SJW here because I'm not an SJW. I'm just not afraid to point out social problems I've personally seen.

You do realize that there's still explicit segregation in schools, right? At least the last time I talked with a student athlete at Texas A&M University, the athletic dorms are officially segregated, with no white person living in the same room with a non-white, unless they specifically requested it. When you spend your whole life seeing explicit segregation enforced by the government (The State of Texas "owns" TAMU), you have a different vision from those that grew up in different circumstances. My parents were from the Midwest, so I got to see both sets of racism, and managed to see both as racist, even if different.

Of course there's also the now-popular "hate whitey" meme that's being pushed real hard by the capitalist propaganda organs.

I primarily see "hate whitey" as being pushed by the white racists. They want to push for a confrontation and encourage riots, because it serves their narrative.

Re: More proof

[Grishnakh]

Then you're an idiot. Please point to any evidence that there was ever a problem with this. Even Donald Trump doesn't think it's a problem.

Personally, I wouldn't want my kids sharing a bathroom with religious nuts like you, since you might try to convert them, but unfortunately the law doesn't allow us to forbid religious nuts from using public restrooms.

Re:More proof

[Grishnakh]

Your daughter has never watched a Disney movie? Kids are shaped by their environments; they don't grow up in vacuums, nor do they get exposed to only the things their parents want them to see, unless they're sequestered in some weird rural cult or something.

Finally, I never said kids *should* be encouraged to go into anything, I just pointed out that our (American) culture does not assign prestige to programming or engineering careers the way it does for doctors and lawyers and CEOs. So any parent trying to encourage their kid to go into programming or engineering will actually be fighting against general society and its values. I was explaining why I think a lot of people avoid these professions; I never made a judgment about what parents should or shouldn't do, nor did I even claim these careers were great or that the "shortage" is actually a problem. Did you even read my comment?

Re:More proof

[BarbaraHudson]

Or it's a way to fight back against a culture that sees intimidation against certain people as normal and acceptable.

Re:More proof

[BarbaraHudson]

Why don't they work? Someone harasses, you take the same measures as anyone else, no matter what their religion, race, ethnic origin, culture, sexual orientation or gender identity etc - you take them to court for harassment. The same law works for everyone - even white males.

Re:More proof

[BarbaraHudson]

Would you rather people take assholes to court or just cut to the chase and punch them in the face?

And yes, litigation is violence, because it's enforced by men with guns.

Litigation is not violence. According to your definition, stop signs are violence, food inspections are violence, voting is violence, being required to go to school is violence.

Gee, requiring a hospital to treat anyone showing up in emergency is violence according to your stupid, stupid definition. Better not go shopping, because after all the rule about having to pay for your purchases is ultimately enforceable by people with guns. Better you stay home and starve to death rather than risk violence.

The world has always had its' share of violence. You are not going to change that by whining about people who we've assigned to keep a lid on violence.

Re:More proof

[BarbaraHudson]

You're assuming that all, or even the majority, of lawsuits are frivolous. If someone sues for discrimination and loses, it doesn't mean that their lawsuit was automatically frivolous, same as any other lawsuit.

Your idea of just letting businesses run rough-shod over civil rights, discriminating against people for any or no reason "just because" is as absurd as letting people beat up on others for any or no reason "just because." Institutionalized unfairness ultimately is bad for everyone - otherwise we'd still have legal slaves.

Re:More proof

[BarbaraHudson]

In homes where both spouses work, the woman still ends up with more than the fair share of housework. Additionally, people who say that lifetime earnings are the same after adjusting for things like fewer years worked because of child and family responsibilities miss the point - overall earnings still are less, so less savings, etc. Caring for aged parents falls mostly to the woman - another financial hit, and emotionally and physically draining. And the more kids, the less equally the housework and child rearing is shared.

So, debate it all you want, but you're still wrong. The gender pay gap exists, and life actually gives us a pretty good controlled experiment, where the only variable is gender - the person stays the same in all other respects. Someone transitioning from female to male makes the same as their male peers. Someone transitioning from male to female makes less than other males or females.

Transsexuals’ experiences working both as men and as women can be framed as a kind of experiment that illuminates the subtle ways that gender differences and gender inequality are socially produced in the workplace. While transsexuals have the same human capital and pre-labor market gender socialization after their gender transitions, their workplace experiences often change radically.

Existing autobiographical and scholarly research demonstrates that for many MTFs, becoming women brings a loss of authority and pay, as well as workplace harassment and, in many cases, termination (e.g. Bolin 1988; Griggs 1998; McCloskey 1999; Schilt 2006a).

On the other hand, for many FTMs, becoming men can bring an increase in workplace authority, reward, and respect, as well as new job opportunities and promotions (e.g. Griggs 1998; Schilt 2006a, 2006b). Transsexuals’ before and after workplace experiences, then, can help make the hidden processes that produce workplace gender inequality visible.

And then there's this.

Re:More proof

[Cederic]

In homes where both spouses work, the woman still ends up with more than the fair share of housework.

And far fewer hours spent actually working.

Additionally, people who say that lifetime earnings are the same after adjusting for things like fewer years worked because of child and family responsibilities miss the point - overall earnings still are less, so less savings, etc.

If it makes you feel any better, the men wont get to benefit from the savings - they'll be dead. Don't go expecting sympathy for widows.

Caring for aged parents falls mostly to the woman - another financial hit, and emotionally and physically draining.

That's a choice. Women could say no.

And the more kids, the less equally the housework and child rearing is shared.

..because the man is now working longer hours to pay for the family.

So, debate it all you want, but you're still wrong.

So women under 30 don't earn more than men?
Women don't get a higher proportion of NHS funding?
Charity research into cancer doesn't favour women?
Women don't receive more money in total from the state pension?

No, women are not disadvantaged. Women's life choices may lead to adverse outcomes but so do those of men. Don't go blaming gender equality for people choosing to work less, spend more time with their family and suffer lower physical stresses.

Incidentally your transgender references aren't terribly helpful. For instance, it could be suggested that they demonstrate how much more freedom women have than men, in that someone born a woman can choose her public facing gender without penalty whereas men must societally stay male or face discrimination. I've certainly seen no loss of authority, opportunity or pay for the MTF transexuals I've worked with.

Re:More proof

[cryptizard]

Except that equal in 2016 is not equal. Black people were enslaved and oppressed for hundreds of years, up until very recently. You don't get to go, "okay everything is fair now, no discrimination against white people" when you have centuries of head start.

Re:More proof

[david_thornley]

Until we know more about the Flynn Effect, I'm going to regard a difference of 15 IQ points between different populations to be inconclusive. Are modern blacks about as well-nourished as 1950s whites? Both groups had/have nutrition issues. Stimulation? It's not hard for me to think that the two might be roughly on a par here.

The cases I've seen of people studying intelligence and race have not impressed me as good research. You've said the average IQ of US blacks is 85, and I haven't seen much of a fuss over that. Claiming that blacks are inferior based on that fact is going beyond the evidence, and that's what some people do. Stephen Jay Gould wrote "The Mismeasure of Man", a book about failed attempts to distinguish population intelligence, with details about why the attempts were screwy.

It is a political flashpoint, with (very generally speaking) the right wanting to find proof of inherent racial inequality and the left wanting to find none. Whether this is genetic or not is not really important in itself, since we need to deal with individuals on a day-to-day basis, not racial groups. If there is no difference, it suggests that we might get an overall brighter population by trying to help blacks succeed (which is a very large and complicated issue in itself). Having it come out as "no inherent difference" would make people concentrate more on individual differences, which is why I'm hoping for that. Any attempt to make a definite statement is going to have large political consequences, and unless it's founded on really really good evidence it's going to be more trouble than it's worth. (Undergoing major social and cultural changes and then finding there is no population difference is probably the only way this is going to be resolved without too much rancor, but the rancor involved in the changes is going to be massive.)

I'm glad you're helping people who've been through the judicial system, and wish you all the success in the world, but why there's a population IQ gap doesn't matter, because it's almost certainly too late to change the basic intelligence of people that age.

Saying that Facebook is at fault for not mirroring population statistics is stupid. They can't do much better than their hiring pool. It is something we should pay attention to as an issue with society, and try to figure out why and what we can do to encourage individuals to live up to their potential.

Nice though, but wrong approach

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

In most European countries favoring someone for the color of their skin would be be illegal, even if it was 'positive discrimination'.

People who think this is a good idea should watch the Equal Opportunities episode of Yes Minister.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[ranton]

It certainly is the wrong approach, but not necessarily because of any unfairness. It is wrong because it simply doesn't work. We need to fix the pipeline of incoming workers before we can expect companies to do anything through recruiter policies. I just went back to get my Masters in CS finishing a couple years ago, and each class was at least 75% white / asian males. Some classes were 100%.

The only thing Facebook could do is set up their own training programs for people with little to no STEM background designed to make them ready for a Facebook job by the end of the program. This would be massively costly, so the next best thing is to support educational programs for the youth. This will take a decade or two to bear fruit but is likely the only option.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[JaredOfEuropa]

Most European countries allow "positive discrimination", in the form of minority candidates being preferred over white males, if the candidates are otherwise equally qualified. In some countries this even stood up to a challenge in court.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[cryptizard]

That's a bit of a different situation considering that most European countries did not have government sanctioned segregation and racism as recent as 50 years ago, and slavery just over 100. The effects of those policies don't just disappear after you say they are done. "So sorry we did that to you but now we're square? We will judge everyone equally! Oh don't mind that white people have generations of accumulated advantage, that will sort itself out I am sure."

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[jcr]

In most European countries favoring someone for the color of their skin would be be illegal

It's illegal in the USA too, but you can't get anyone to prosecute a case if the discrimination is against a white or asian applicant.

-jcr

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[JaredOfEuropa]

At least in Norway,Sweden, Austria,Germany and the Netherlands. Here's a comprehensive report By the way: I meant to use the term English term for favouring minorities when equally qualified: "positive action". In my own country this is literally translated as "positive discrimination", but in English this generally means favouring minorities even when not equally qualified.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[cryptizard]

I think you are confused about the meaning of the word most. Also about what year it is and how to do math. To your actual point though, there are very few Jewish people left in Germany. If they made up a substantial portion of the population, and were statistically underrepresented in important job sectors, you can bet there would be similar affirmative action programs like in the US.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[gfxguy]

That's the problem I have - you cannot legislate equality, and you can't make it magically happen by discriminating against the majority.

There is a problem of underprivileged kids not getting the resources and, more importantly, the encouragement from their parents and peers, to study and work hard in school, or to enter the STEM fields. I look back and realize that my generation was the first (child of the 60s) in which segregation was actually illegal - but that means the parents of my minority peers suffered systemic racism and being held back from succeeding, and few black kids in my area didn't live in the equivalent of "section 8" housing. Racism didn't disappear overnight just because of desegregation. In fact, desegregation probably made it worse for a while.

But the problem is that it takes time, and it has to happen at an earlier age. I think we're doing this, but things have to happen generationally. I think that, despite some racism, we have moved substantially in the last 50 years towards an environment of equal opportunity. There are still a lot of things holding it back, but it's not the fault of the companies - especially the tech companies, who are likely blindly hiring the most qualified applicants.

I also, sadly, feel that there is a culture of ignorance being perpetuated not just in minority communities, but still mainly in minority communities. A culture that believes that schooling and working hard is selling out your own culture; the "gangsta rap" community that treats women like objects and focusses on flash over substance. I also believe there are more divisive minority leaders that thrive on the division and make it difficult to progress faster; Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton to name two... they've collectively done more to hold back race relations than any white person in the last 40 years. The focus on race in every issue is not helping, it's dividing.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[swillden]

government sanctioned segregation and racism as recent as 50 years ago, and slavery just over 100

There's a very good argument that slavery didn't actually end until the 1940s, and it was even *more* government-sanctioned from the 1880's to 1940's than it was before the Civil War, since local government actually played a pivotal, essential role in post-emancipation enslavement. The antebellum form was government-approved but almost entirely private. Technically, the post-emancipation slaves were convicts working off court fees which had been paid on their behalf by a white farmer, mine owner, etc. who then got to use them as indentured servants for a period of time. Except that in many cases the indenture only ended in death and the initial "crime" was trumped up specifically to fill the need for manpower, or as a way to deal with uppity blacks. The court fees were set deliberately to ensure that poor blacks couldn't pay them and would have to provide years (at least) of labor. Oh, and there was no state oversight of living conditions, etc., meaning they were often far worse than had been experienced by antebellum slaves. Actual slaves were expensive capital assets, while convict labor was cheap enough it wasn't cost-effective to feed, house and clothe them adequately.

See: https://www.amazon.com/Slavery...

So, less than 100 years.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[cryptizard]

Thanks for the info!

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[Pfhorrest]

FYI I think the English phrase you're looking for is "affirmative action", not "positive action".

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[swillden]

Thanks for the info!

Very welcome. Read that book... it's an eye opener. I find it sad, but unsurprising, that none of that history was covered in any of my classes in school.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[Cederic]

A more accurate term is 'racism'.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[Pfhorrest]

Affirmative action is not confined solely to racial issues; it can deal with gender and other things too.

GP's native term "positive discrimination" really captures it best, though the "positive" could still be questioned.

Re:Nice though, but wrong approach

[cryptizard]

Yes but that was hundreds of years earlier. We had slavery much longer in the US than other western countries. That is the whole point of my comment.

Points based systems are inherently racist.

[DatbeDank]

So we're going to discriminate white and asian applicants over one of another race?

Goodness, isn't that similar to what happened to blacks during the early 20th century too?

Being racist to stop racism doesn't solve the problem. It's just more racism.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[ranton]

Being racist to stop racism doesn't solve the problem. It's just more racism.

Racism is the belief one group is inherently superior to another. The belief that one group has socio-economic barriers which need to be mitigated is not racism. The process of fixing these barriers does include discrimination, but only because the English language uses this same term for multiple things. Exclusive discrimination can only be fought with inclusive discrimination, because a group being excluded because of institutional discrimination could never catch up without inclusive policies.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[ranton]

No need to be AC. Your views are far more popular in a group which believes itself to be nearly perfectly meritocratic. I assume many of my posts for this article will be modded down, as one nearly identical this one already has.

Such as believing that one race is unable to lift itself out of the poverty; unlike the Irish, Italian, etc... populations of the past.

It is almost certain underrepresented groups will catch up on their own eventually. One study predicts African Americans could reach wealth parity with Caucasians in 228 years without any assistance. These policies do not assume the disparity could never be improved without help, just that we don't want to wait hundreds of years.

Other ethnic groups over the past couple centuries had the advantage of still being Caucasian and being in a developing country. Disenfranchised groups could still just "move west" where they weren't as affected by ethnicities with more wealth in the East. And the most important difference is that Caucasian ethnicities greatly benefited from social programs after WW2 which weren't given to other minorities. This is perhaps even more damaging to current wealth inequality than slavery was.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[dj245]

So we're going to discriminate white and asian applicants over one of another race?

Goodness, isn't that similar to what happened to blacks during the early 20th century too?

Being racist to stop racism doesn't solve the problem. It's just more racism.

It's a kludge to try to solve the problem of income inequality. My kids are mixed-race and enjoy all the advantages of a family in a comfortable financial position. They got more attention when they were very young since one parent could afford to stay home. That means they heard a lot more language on a daily basis. They go to a good Pre-K program and will go to a decent school when the time is right. They also have college savings plans so they won't have to worry (so much) about paying for college and can potentially make a better choice.

Poorer families are at a big disadvantage. They can't afford to live in neighborhoods with great schools, they can't afford to stay home for the first couple years of life, and won't be able to save as much for college. Poor kids will always be on an uphill climb to get to my kids level since my kids have enjoyed advantages from the very beginning.

I don't see race as being relevant to the above, other than the fact that minorities are disproportionately poor and therefore more affected by these problems. The best way to solve these issues is with universal Pre-K, paid paternity/maternity leave, and making sure that the schools in poor neighborhoods are equivalent to those in better neighborhoods. Trying to solve these problems with incentives and preferential treatment at hiring time is way too late.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[guruevi]

If you have institutional discrimination, don't support the institutions that discriminate. If a shop keeper doesn't want you to buy in his store because you're black, don't go there and tell others so they don't go there either, eventually they close shop.

If Facebook doesn't WANT black people in their workforce and has a policy to discriminate against blacks (which would be illegal but that's besides the point), don't support them.

Institutional racism has largely been outlawed and is otherwise untenable for any business. The problem here is that certain minorities have communities that actively denigrate STEM fields and science in general. This is done primarily by black churches and communities that rather focus on "their own" than working towards a homogenous society. Talk to ANY successful black person (Neil DeGrasse, Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman...) and they ALL say how difficult it was to work against their own community to get where they wanted to be.

If you want to say Facebook and Apple etc have a low percentage of black people or the entire business world has instituted racism, you should also be pointing out they have a low percentage of Amish, Fundamental LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses and the business world has institutional bigotry against late 19th century religions. The fact is those religious groups have an active ban against higher education, have poor integration in society and science does not align with their world view.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[Solandri]

But to prove that's what's actually going on, you'd have to look at the pool of applicants Facebook got, sort them by how qualified they were, and compare to which ones they hired. Then look at the races of the hirees vs similarly-qualified non-hirees to see if there were statistical differences in the racial make-up of both groups. Simply comparing their hiree group with the general population is statistically and mathematically provably the incorrect way to do it.

And hiring quotas can't change the socio-economic barriers you're purportedly trying to mitigate. That has to be done much earlier in the process - at the education and upbringing stage. If you're building a cabinet which needs 1" screws, and the pack of 1" screws you bought has a mix of 1" and 3/4" screws, shrugging your shoulders and using the 3/4" inch screws in place of the 1" screws does nothing to reduce the number of 3/4" screws being produced. It just makes a weaker cabinet. You need to go back to the factory making the screws, and say "Hey, a bunch of your 1" screws are coming up short. You need to fix whatever problems are causing it."

The process of fixing these barriers does include discrimination, but only because the English language uses this same term for multiple things.

In Engineering, this is called a weighting function on a feedback loop to drive a system to reach a desired output level more quickly. But there are two crucial aspects to implementing it properly that aren't being done by the people currently advocating affirmative action:

• The loop has to feed back to before the output function you're measuring is produced. As I explained above, this means your hiring quotas have to somehow lead to minority applicants being more qualified and thus more hireable. Educational quotas achieve that. So do economic assistance programs for the poor. But hiring quotas don't achieve that.
• The weighting has to be temporary - you have to remove the feedback loop once you've achieved the desired output level. Otherwise you'll overshoot and go right past the desired target. Unfortunately, I have never seen an affirmative action program define when it will be removed. In the case of gender, it's caused significant overshoot with boys now lagging girls in all areas.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[ranton]

Thankfully your suggestions were shot down by the civil rights movement. I'm not going to argue against these opinions other than to say segregation became illegal precisely because these forms of "free market" solutions are worthless.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[ranton]

I agree with almost everything you said here. As I stated in other posts for this article I think these policies are pointless until we fix the pipeline problem.

My only disagreement is whether we need to even start thinking about when to remove the feedback loop yet. Wealth inequality between white and black/hispanic families is only growing, so we are nowhere close to needing to stop. On the contrary we likely need to at least double our efforts (or more precisely to start using methods which are more effective).

The gap between men and women is on a different order of magnitude, so perhaps talking about what success looks like there is reasonable.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Other ethnic groups over the past couple centuries had the advantage of still being Caucasian and being in a developing country.

Asians are Caucasians?

Now, some Asian immigrants are a self selecting lot as only the more wealthy/educated could afford to move, but then there's the Vietnamese

Most of them migrated because of Vietnam War back home. Most came with almost nothing, were poor and less educated

In 1989, 34 percent of Vietnamese Americans lived under the poverty line, but this number was reduced to 16 percent in 1999

Read: they started worse off than blacks, but in 10 years they are now better off than blacks. I'm pretty sure they neither benefited from post-WW2 social programs than Caucasians got, nor the affirmative action that Blacks got.

Great, now I feel like some Pho

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[twistedcubic]

Goodness, isn't that similar to what happened to blacks during the early 20th century too?

I suppose racism against black people ended sometime before 1950.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[guruevi]

The civil rights movement was about racism and segregation in public places (eg. public transportation, governments etc). It's STILL legal for non-public private business to deny you services because you're black (or more likely because you're gay which happens to be the case in some southern states) - the civil rights acts only cover privately owned places of public accommodation although some states have wider and prior definitions it wouldn't cover facilities like Facebook or Amazon.

Yes the civil movement helped put an end to ALL businesses segregating but that was just a byproduct of public opinion, businesses that continued segregating eventually went out of business (although many churches and social clubs still exist that explicitly deny services based on race)

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[AmiMoJo]

If you have institutional discrimination, don't support the institutions that discriminate. If a shop keeper doesn't want you to buy in his store because you're black, don't go there and tell others so they don't go there either, eventually they close shop.

That's not what institutional racism is. It doesn't mean that the people in the institution are racist or deliberately discriminate, it means that the system as it exists discriminates.

For example, there is a severe lack of male teachers of young children. They provide important role models, and we know men want to become teachers but are put off because any man who wants to work with children finds themselves subjected to rumours and speculation about their motives. That's not because of individual misandrists, it's because of decades of the media whipping up hysteria over paedophiles and the ability to make anonymous accusations on social media etc.

No-one set out to discriminate against those men. The people whispering about them are probably not misandrists, just idiots who were mislead by newspapers who only did it to increase circulation. That's institutional sexism.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[guruevi]

And what do you think the system consists of? If the members of a collection don't have a property of being racist then the collection can't have the property of being racist. It's a nice way of making an excuse for behavior without having a valid target for blame.

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[AmiMoJo]

Interesting theory. So how do you explain how the example I gave happens? Are you saying that teaching is full of misandrists who want to keep men out?

Re:Points based systems are inherently racist.

[david_thornley]

The market solution doesn't work. We had a fairly stable situation for a long time where institutions discriminated against blacks and could get more white business because of it.

Female CS Grads were only 18%....

[clifwlkr]

Given this statistic:

In 2013, 18% of bachelor’s degrees in computing were earned by women

How in the heck do they expect to get equal numbers of female and male people into programming jobs in the field. It would seem 'equal' hiring would be around 18% of the population of programmers to make it apples to apples. That would indicate 'fair' hiring.

That said, I do believe in encouraging everyone to get more experience in STEM at a younger age, then to make informed decisions about if this is a career they would like to pursue. It is nuts to me that they are trying to hire 50% of the work force out of 18% of the graduates. That is just not going to work. Just goes to prove we really do need better math education at all levels.....

Re:Female CS Grads were only 18%....

[XxtraLarGe]

How in the heck do they expect to get equal numbers of female and male people into programming jobs in the field. It would seem 'equal' hiring would be around 18% of the population of programmers to make it apples to apples. That would indicate 'fair' hiring.

That's easy: hire unqualified candidates.

Re:Female CS Grads were only 18%....

[mwvdlee]

A significant number of people working at Facebook are not programming.
They also hire marketing, sales, HR, management, support and lots more non-IT jobs.
I wouldn't be surprised if IT personel were a minority within Facebook.

Re:Female CS Grads were only 18%....

[clifwlkr]

Then they aren't really tech or STEM hires, like the article is talking about..... Giving them more exposure to STEM at a younger age is not going to help them much at getting hired as marketers, sales, or HR.... Anyone can do support and I sure hope we are not trying to get more of our young minorities working at call center jobs.....

Re:Female CS Grads were only 18%....

[Octorian]

This is why I don't like the (media driven?) obsession with beating up a few select highly-visible tech companies over their hiring diversity statistics. The applicant pool is small enough, and the real energy needs to target the middle-school (or earlier) levels.

By pushing hard to improve these ratios, the highly-visible companies are just depriving the rest of the entire industry of any opportunity diversity whatsoever. Heck, the numbers feel so bad, that if they actually did drop the bar low enough and hire every single tech person meeting "diversity criteria," every other less-visible tech company would end up 100% non-diverse.

Re:Female CS Grads were only 18%....

[misexistentialist]

Simply shouldn't allow them to major in chick-bait subjects like psychology, art, and feminism. It's for their own good, and stops them from burdening society

Re:Female CS Grads were only 18%....

[tnk1]

Actually 18% hiring would be too much. There isn't a guarantee of a job just because of the completion of a degree program. If you're hiring 100% of that group's grads, you are definitely taking C and D level players into your company. That shouldn't happen unless all groups have 100% hire rates due to demand outstripping supply.

Re:Female CS Grads were only 18%....

[AmiMoJo]

Or, perhaps, invest $15m in helping to create more qualified candidates and point out that the stats will take a long time to change due to training taking many years too. Which is, as the summary points out, what Facebook has done.

I know the article is long and boring, but at least read the god damn summary.

Can't hit what isn't there

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, it's almost like women just aren't interested in the tech fields and there just aren't qualified female applicants out there.

But that can't be true, because that would be admitting that there are innate differences between the sexes and that's just not PC to talk about.

Re:Can't hit what isn't there

[cryptizard]

But that can't be true, because that would be admitting that there are innate differences between the sexes and that's just not PC to talk about.

This is easily disproven by looking at countries like China, Iran and others where women make up close to 50% of computer science graduates. Whatever the problem is, it is not "innate".

Re:Can't hit what isn't there

[tnk1]

It is probably more complex than that. Realistically, the differences may have some roots in sex based differences, but its mostly a cultural thing.

Of course, the question then becomes, if it is cultural, does that mean we actually have to change it? What is so superior about an IT career that a woman, for instance, would need to have that job? More money?

Any woman who actually likes CS or IT work and has consequently become good at it should have a reasonable shot at getting those jobs, and I support any law or program that removes barriers to a woman or minority person with appropriate skill levels from being hired due to irrational prejudice.

What I don't support is the idea that we have to change cultural preferences so that there is some sort of artificial parity of the sexes and proportional representation of groups. What we are effectively telling women is that, "you should not be happy unless you have an IT job". Well why do we get to tell women that?

I hear all about the benefits of diversity, but I keep coming up short on how that actually helps anyone when you have to force it. It's like saying that I have a team with skill X, Y, and Z, but I am missing out if I don't have a candidate of a different skin color even though their skill level is inferior. What benefit are they actually bringing my team with their diversity? An unskilled and underinformed viewpoint? I mean, if that's the case, why don't we insist on flat earthers being admitted to graduate astronomy programs?

Re:Can't hit what isn't there

[BarbaraHudson]

Gee, it's almost like women just aren't interested in the tech fields and there just aren't qualified female applicants out there.

But that can't be true, because that would be admitting that there are innate differences between the sexes and that's just not PC to talk about.

There's enough evidence that there are innate differences between the sexes. Some of it is from socialization, some of it is genetic, some of it is epigenetic. We can only affect the first of those three factors.

I don't see them calling for an end to economic discrimination against left-handed people, even though it's easy to see ho's left-handed.

In this paper, I argue that the phenomenon of handedness can provide insight into some of the issues surrounding economists’ recent exploration of early biological and environmental influences on people’s long-run outcomes. I review prior research showing that left- and right-handed individuals have different brain structures, particularly with regard to language processing. Using fivedatasets from the United States and the United Kingdom, I show that, consistent with prior research, both maternal left-handedness and poor infant health increase the likelihood of a child being left-handed. Thus, handedness can be used to explore the long-run effects of differential brain structure generated in part by genetics and in part by poor infant health.

Lefties exhibit economically and statistically significant human capital deficits relative to righties, even conditional on infant health and family background. Compared to righties, lefties score a tenth of a standard deviation lower on measures of cognitive skill and, contrary to popular wisdom, are not overrepresented at the high end of the distribution. Lefties have more emotional and behavioral problems, have more learning disabilities such as dyslexia, complete less schooling, and work in occupations requiring less cognitive skill. Differences between left- and right-handed siblings, which offer a way of controlling for qualities of family upbringing, are similar in magnitude. Interestingly, lefties with left-handed mothers show no cognitive deficits relative to righties. Some of these facts have been documented previously, though not across the range of datasets used here.

Lefties also have 10–12percent lower annual earnings than righties, roughly equivalent to the return to a year of schooling in these samples. A large fraction of this gap can be explained by observed differences in cognitive skills and emotional or behavioral problems. Lefties work in more manually intensive occupations than do righties, further suggesting that their primary labor market disadvantage is cognitive rather than physical. This paper is the first to document these patterns

Re:Can't hit what isn't there

[cryptizard]

This is a good article on the topic. It talks about STEM overall but has some parts about computer science. http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/facult...

A case in point is computer science in Malaysia and the U.S. While American computer scientists are depicted as male hackers and geeks, computer science in Malaysia is deemed well-suited for women because it’s seen as theoretical (not physical) and it takes place almost exclusively in offices (thought to be woman-friendly spaces). In interviews with sociologist Vivian Lagesen, female computer science students in Malaysia reported taking up computing because they like computers and because they and their parents think the field has good job prospects. The students also referenced government efforts to promote economic development by training workers, both male and female, for the expanding information technology field. About half of Malaysian computer science degrees go to women.

Diversity quotas make things *worse*

[sethstorm]

Not only do you get people that are worse off, it tends to overcorrect to remove non-minorities.

Then you wonder why your bigoted policy ends up with lots of incompetent diversity candidates.

Re:Diversity quotas make things *worse*

[El Cubano]

Not only do you get people that are worse off, it tends to overcorrect to remove non-minorities.

Not only that, but then the actual best qualified minorities get looked at and they wonder to themselves, "Are they looking at me and wondering if I am actually the best qualified or of I'm here because of a quota? Am I going to have to prove myself by working 50% or 100% harder than the white guy sitting next to me at the table despite the fact that I already worked 50% or 100% harder to get here because I love what I do and this what I was born for?" As a minority who has worked very hard and has a passion for technology that has been a fear of mine. I am thankful that I have not encountered that (or at least if I have I have not taken notice of it), though I have had friends (both other minorities and women) who have experience it.

Then you wonder why your bigoted policy ends up with lots of incompetent diversity candidates.

And that's the other problem. These diversity programs actually end up becoming a drag for the minorities and women who are passionate and worked hard because they love the field and not because someone trying to fill a diversity quota recruited them.

Sadly it is much more difficult to measure these sorts of effects, so success is defined by number/percentage of minorities/women hired and pay parity/disparity, which are actually atrocious metrics to use for too many reasons to enumerate.

Re:Diversity quotas make things *worse*

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it remarkable how the supposedly intelligent people who support diversity quotas are unable to consider the consequences of people knowing that there are diversity quotas. A hiring quota immediately creates doubt about anyone who fits the demographic.

Also, an interview quote is completely meaningless. A friend of mine was informed at an interview that he was just there to meet the interview quota, and while they weren't going to tell him to leave before the interview went its full course, he could leave at any time and the result would be the same.
I have been in interviews where the required skill set was so specific and eclectic that it was clear they had sculpted the job listing for a single person, but were required to interview some minimum number of applicants before offering him the job. While my experiences were not as offensive as the above one that my friend experienced, they were still wastes of time just to meet some hollow quota for someone else's bookkeeping.

Re:Diversity quotas make things *worse*

[AmiMoJo]

Read TFA, there are no quotas. The summary is trolling you.

Re:Diversity quotas make things *worse*

[swillden]

Then you wonder why your bigoted policy ends up with lots of incompetent diversity candidates.

That is only a problem if you lower your standards to achieve diversity. It is possible to maintain standards while favoring minorities if you do it by casting a wider net. That's easier said than done, of course.

Re:Diversity quotas make things *worse*

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Q1: Are they looking at me and wondering if I am actually the best qualified or of I'm here because of a quota?
Q2: Am I going to have to prove myself by working 50% or 100% harder than the white guy sitting next to me?

If the answer to Q1 is 'quota', then isn't the answer to Q2 "no"?

No racism, just statistics

[alphad0g]

I have a daughter that graduated high school. In her class, most of the top 10 students were female (she was one of them). They all excelled at Math and Science - Calc, AP Physics, AP Chem, etc. She is the only one pursuing a tech degree.

The point is that part of the reason there are less candidates is interest. And if you are hiring a position, and 90% of your candidate pool is white male, it is not racism, if the best person for the job is a white male.

Should a less qualified candidate be hired for a job just to check a diversity box? I enjoy working with a diverse bunch, i believe it adds value - I am against H1B as it has lowered salaries, but I am all for more women and minorities in tech. I think the way problems are viewed, and needs identified are different for others from different backgrounds. But I don't think racism/discrimination is the main reason we don't have diversity in technology fields.

Re:No racism, just statistics

[cryptizard]

I think the question of women in technology and minorities in technology are two different things. For women, it is a result of longstanding cultural bias that women are not meant for IT jobs, which causes lower interest because people will pick the path of least resistance. That is very difficult to even get an understanding of let alone solve since it is wrapped up in unconscious feelings, expressions in popular media, etc.

For minorities it is much simpler. As a black student in the US, you are much less likely to have a computer or access to a computer growing up. Since CS is one of the only majors in college where the average student has substantial experience in the subject before they even start, and that experience is not available to many minority students, it is incredibly difficult to catch up and, again, they will pick a path of less resistance by choosing a different major.

Re:No racism, just statistics

[Grishnakh]

I have a daughter that graduated high school. In her class, most of the top 10 students were female (she was one of them). They all excelled at Math and Science - Calc, AP Physics, AP Chem, etc. She is the only one pursuing a tech degree.

The point is that part of the reason there are less candidates is interest.

Has anyone bothered asking the other girls why they aren't going into tech? And what are they going into instead? Is medicine considered "tech" (I doubt it)? Are they going into that? Considering the relative differences in pay and prestige and job security between tech and medicine, if these girls are smart enough to become doctors, why on earth should they want to become programmers instead?

Re:No racism, just statistics

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] they will pick a path of less resistance by choosing a different major.

Did it ever occur to you that minority students might have a different focus than white students?

Meanwhile, black students may also be inclined to give back to their communities by pursuing traditional fields. "If you're an African American who majors in math, you're more likely to become a schoolteacher. If you're a white male who majors in math, you're more likely to go on to grad school in business or to seek out higher education opportunities," Carnevale explained to The Wall Street Journal. This doesn't mean black students should stop being teachers, said Carnevale. Instead, colleges need to expand their career counseling to boost awareness of other majors and what they earn.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-arent-black-students-picking-majors-lead-high-003356529.html

Citation please?

[Kunta Kinte]

Nice try but if you look at the actual numbers, facebook, google, etc.. are hiring a *higher* percentage of minorities than are graduating from college.

Citation please? Where are those "actual numbers" you reference?

But here's my citation, putting black CS grads at 4.5% but hires at 2%...

But last year, 4.5% of all new recipients of bachelor's degrees in computer science or computer engineering from prestigious research universities were African American, and 6.5% were Hispanic, according to data from the Computing Research Association.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/12/silicon-valley-diversity-tech-hiring-computer-science-graduates-african-american-hispanic/14684211/

Re:Citation please?

[LordLucless]

4.5% of new recipients were African American, and 2% of technology workers at seven self-selected Silicon Valley companies are African American.

Firstly, there's the issue of the companies not being representative, but instead self selected. Secondly, the fact that new grads are being compared to the entire workforce make it an apples-to-oranges comparison. You should be comparing to the total number of hires of new grads - it would take a generation for graduation numbers to percolate through the entire workforce.

This again?

[m76]

When will they finally learn that equality of outcome is not equality.

Having exactly the same number of every ethnicity and every group and every gender in every job is not some sort of final equality, because it doesn't account for personal choice. Unless they want to do away with freedom of choice too, to achieve their equal outcome utopia.

And somehow they never complain that cis white males are over represented in the lumber industry.

Re:This again?

[ProfBooty]

You will notice that the push now is for equity, not equality.

The world is an inherently unequal place. It is much easier to give people equal opportunity than achieve equal results.

Re:This again?

[gfxguy]

Agree completely - and I believe "newer" companies - companies like Facebook and Google, are quite substantially equal opportunity employers. If they haven't gotten "equal results," there's another reason for it. Again, it comes back to equal opportunity for kids to have access to STEM both in school and at home, and minority students don't seem to get that equal opportunity.... but that's not Facebook's fault.

some stats

[buddyglass]

This Reuters article has more detailed info. Among U.S.-based tech employees the stats are 3% Hispanic and 1% black, vs. 4% and 2% respectively among Facebook's global workforce. 17% of its global tech employees are women.

As one data point of comparison, here is some demographic data for AP Computer Science test takers in California for the year 2012. Looking at students who take the AP exam may be a good proxy for identifying students who will one day be applying for top-tier positions. Among this group, 7% were Hispanic, 1% were black and 21% were women. If those stats are representative of the pool of top-tier talent in the workforce, then Facebook isn't far off in terms of its hiring of blacks and women. It seems further off with respect to Hispanics. Though, California has a higher-than-usual Hispanic population, so maybe nationally the % of Hispanic AP Exam takers is less than 7.

This article in USA Today also has some stats. They looked at the demographics of CS and CE graduates from "top" U.S. universities. Not sure what "top" means. They claim that 4.5% of such graduates are black, 6.5% are Hispanic. They didn't report on what % were women.

Re:some stats

[buddyglass]

So, at least 0.5%.

Re:some stats

[aardvarkjoe]

hough, California has a higher-than-usual Hispanic population, so maybe nationally the % of Hispanic AP Exam takers is less than 7.

"Higher-than-usual" is putting it mildly; as of 2012 38% of the california population is hispanic, as compared to 17% of the U.S. population. (Source here), which seems to agree with other sources I found with a quick Google.

Re:some stats

[__aaclcg7560]

Though, California has a higher-than-usual Hispanic population, so maybe nationally the % of Hispanic AP Exam takers is less than 7.

You're be surprised by the number of white people who are clueless to the fact that California once belong to Mexico and most cities have Spanish names (San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles).

Re:some stats

[__aaclcg7560]

Believe it or not, most white people know that "Los Angeles" and "San Francisco" are spanish names.

The people who scream "go back to your own country" are the same people who don't know squat about the area that they live in.

So you and your reconquista friends can fuck off. We've had it for over 150 years.

Charming.

We've had it for over 150 years.

And Spain had California for nearly 300 years. Your point?

Re:Racism is not a tool to fight racism with

[m76]

The only way to stop racism is to stop using the race card to get preferential treatment.

The fix

[Ol Olsoc]

We need to contact Ariana Huffington - She has managed to fix the problem: https://mic.com/articles/14417...

Stop hiring males, only hire white women, and a token Asian woman to fetch coffee. You'll see the complaints stop immediately.

Asians are minority enough

[number17]

There are less Asians then Hispanics and Blacks in America yet they aren't minority enough to be hired.

how far down this rabbit hole do we go?

[argStyopa]

I have strabismus (wandering eye) - is my group 'underrepresented' in the tech field, can I get free training and preferential hiring?

How about inverted nipples? My wife has them. Are there enough inverted-nipples in the tech fields that she could get some help too?

Without enough wandering-eye and inverted-nipple programmers, are we REALLY doing our best to promote diversity?

aren't enough candidates so we need H-1B's!

[Joe_Dragon]

aren't enough candidates so we need H-1B's!

Beyond Stupid

[ComputerGeek01]

So the same guy who is complaining that there aren't enough STEM graduates overall is confused about why he can't find any minorities among the already limited pool to hire from? Does somebody need to give this jack-hole a lesson in basic math and what the term minority means?

No, I don't wonder

[Kunta Kinte]

Then you wonder why your bigoted policy ends up with lots of incompetent diversity candidates.

Aren't you begging the question? Any proof what you said is what actually happens? Because I believe what happens is that by casting a "wider net" recruiters do get minority candidates who are equally qualified.

Skin color is not diversity

[SmaryJerry]

The fact people think having different skin colors is diversity only highlights how stuck in the past they are. Having different skin colors is only diversity of you think each group of people of each skin color are the same already. Look only at England where each city 10 miles apart they have different accents, mannerisms, styles, and more despite many having the same skin color. Each black person is so different, each white person is so different, each Hispanic person is so different yet companies categorize them on this feature alone.

Re:Skin color is not diversity

[ThosLives]

The wording of this post made me realize something - what we need isn't "more diversity" - what we need is "less systemic discrimination". Those are subtly different things. You can have zero systemic discrimination and still have relatively homogenous-in-some-attribute populations in particular vocations or geographic areas. Conversely, you can have heterogenous populations and still have massive systemic discrimination.

Re:Being aware of race

[geek]

Being aware of race and related problems does not necessarily make one a racist. .

Bullshit. All you need for awareness is a pair of eyes. This is discrimination. Text book definition.

Re:What happened to hiring the most qualified?

[tnk1]

Facebook is successful. What they are trying to do now is gain PR points and assuage their progressive conscience by paying out from their largesse to accommodate lesser skilled applicants. I assure you, if they did not have the success they had, this program would be a non-starter. Note that their concern comes out now after they have made it big. Before that, it would have received lip service at best while they hoovered up the best coders and techs that they could get.

This is the sort of pork barrel program that clogs the arteries of companies once they get big.

Re:Or

[__aaclcg7560]

I am a white male who was unemployed until recently. I have a pretty nice resume with a couple of degrees. I found it difficult to find employment simply because I am a white male.

I would suspect that your "pretty nice resume with a couple of degrees" was probably less than stellar. Degrees don't matter as much. Experience counts a whole lot more these days. Blaming diversity programs for your lack of employment opportunities is a cop out.

This is (one reason) why the US is losing business

[davide marney]

If you reward based on irrelevant factors, you will be overtaken by a competitor who rewards based on relevant ones. Is there anything more irrelevant to the performance of a worker than what color their skin happens to be?

When did you start "seeing" yourself as a engineer

[Kunta Kinte]

It relates more to Stereotype Threat. It's not that black American cultures do not see engineering as a prestigious career. But rather they don't see themselves as engineers. They then self-select themselves out of the educational track needed for these jobs.

Stereotype threat originates both from within the Black communities ( Studious kids are picked on for "acting white" ), and externally ( Teachers do not push Black kids as hard as they do other racists due to their bias ).

Asians get SUCH a raw deal

[DNS-and-BIND]

Seriously, nobody likes Asians. They did everything wrong when they got to America. What's SUPPOSED to happen is that they're supposed to be oppressed victims, racism, blah blah. What happened instead is they put their heads down, worked hard, kept strong family structures, and succeeded against all odds.

This is NOT the left-wing immigrant narrative. For this crime, they get the same manner of discrimination that guilty racist whites get. Doesn't that suck? I really feel for them. They got none of the benefits, and yet are discriminated against and it is 100% legal. Damn, man. All because they dared to succeed.

Re:Asians get SUCH a raw deal

[__aaclcg7560]

What's SUPPOSED to happen is that they're supposed to be oppressed victims, racism, blah blah.

Never mind that the Chinese built the western half of the transcontinental railroad in the 19th century, and the Japanese-Americans were put into internment camps in the 20th century.

Re:Asians get SUCH a raw deal

[DNS-and-BIND]

The Chinese were paid for their labor and then went home afterwards. The only reason they were even imported in the first place is the blueblood assholes who owned the railroads didn't want to pay market rate for Americans. They were the H1Bs of their time.

What happened to Allied civilians who were in Japan when they sneak attacked Pearl Harbor? Oops, they went into internment camps too...BZZT BZZT INCONVENIENT TRUTH, DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE...

Re:Asians get SUCH a raw deal

[__aaclcg7560]

The Chinese were paid for their labor and then went home afterwards.

I'll try to remember that the next time I visit China Town in San Francisco.

What happened to Allied civilians who were in Japan when they sneak attacked Pearl Harbor? Oops, they went into internment camps too.

That justifies violating the constitutional rights of American citizens of Japanese descent by locking them up and confiscating their property? That mistake cost taxpayers $1.6B in reparations.

http://www.democracynow.org/1999/2/18/wwii_reparations_japanese_american_internees

BZZT BZZT INCONVENIENT TRUTH, DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE

You're stupid. No surprise there. :)

Re:Asians get SUCH a raw deal

[DNS-and-BIND]

You know, dismissing the intelligence of people who disagree with you is one of the main reasons you leftists are so hated. Feels good though, doesn't it? This feeling is exactly what racists feel about black people.

Anyone who talks to the Japanese will find out they were Japanese first and citizens of wherever second. The Japanese in Hawaii were expected - by the Japanese Army! - to rise up and attack the US Army when the Japanese invaded. This never happened due to Midway, but it was in the plan. The US Army was expecting it too, because duh. When the Germans attacked Poland and France, German people rose up and aided the invaders. I notice you didn't say a word about the treatment of Allied civilians by Japan, because it doesn't agree with your narrative. Oops! It's always the inconvenient truths that ruin things!

Re:Asians get SUCH a raw deal

[__aaclcg7560]

You know, dismissing the intelligence of people who disagree with you is one of the main reasons you leftists are so hated.

What makes you think I'm a leftist?

I notice you didn't say a word about the treatment of Allied civilians by Japan, because it doesn't agree with your narrative.

That's your narrative, not mine.

Explain how FB's point system isn't racist

[mattwarden]

Explain how FB's point system isn't racist And sexist. Ready, go.

Skin color, adoption, and success

[GuB-42]

I am wondering something...
Is is a good strategy for a white, well educated couple to adopt a black child and give him the kind of education white people typically get. This way he is likely to have the same skill level as white guys in their own fields but with all the "diversity" benefits.

Re:When did you start "seeing" yourself as a engin

[Grishnakh]

Studious kids are picked on for "acting white"

You've pointed out the problem right here, along with the other responder's comment about white teachers.

Change in a community has to come from within.

And it's not just black Americans; I saw the same stupid attitudes among poor white kids when I was young. But people like you don't pay attention to them because 1) they're white and not a minority so you don't really care, and 2) since they're not substantially ethnically different and their numbers are buoyed by their richer white counterparts (who usually come from entirely different regions and socioeconomic backgrounds), they don't attract any attention from do-gooders.

Diversity is about more than gender and race.

[lophophore]

What about age? What's the age makeup of Facebook's staff?

Consider that over 60% of the American workforce of "Computer and mathematical occupations" is over 35, how did facebook do?

Not diverse. At all.

(http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.htm)

I'm just gonna be the "jerk" and say it...

[WeezulDK]

There's nothing wrong with not having your racial makeup of your company according to population percentages, and people need to stop thinking that there's something wrong with a company if there is.

The current SJW/PoliticallyCorrect/RacistLiberals need to get a frickin' life and go shut their little liberal mouths on this whole "diversity" BS. The problems I see with hiring for "diversity" is that it's based on a fallacious set of arguments, that are racist in and of themselves. (Like the notion that minorities are some poor disadvantaged souls who need the White SJW's "help" as if they're helpless children who need patronizing "whitey" to help them... ) It's insulting and contributes nothing to society.

First, you have this silly notion that having "diversity" of racial makeup in a company is somehow "required" in order for them to be "righteous" in the eyes of the liberal SJW mindset, which is only for their ego purposes anyway, when all it ends up being is a circlejerk for them. ("See how gracious and unracist I am, I made that evil company hire more Black people! Somebody pat me on the back because I'm so special!")

Speaking of "proportional to population" nonsense, WHY oh WHY do people still use this nonsense measurement? Please, show me where the law states you have to have a proportionate amount of people in any company vs the general population in any company, OR ELSE? Exactly what is the "penalty" for having an "out of balance" proportion of people? What, you'll be ridiculed by SJW bullshit racists?

They're surely not using this measurement when it comes to the NFL or the NBA, so why do they get a break but corporate America doesn't?

It's only "unfair" all because of the misguided SJW mindset of "well, their skin color is different thus it's not fair if they're not represented" equality of OUTCOMES instead of equality of access.