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

[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

[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

[ProfBooty]

You're a single jewish woman?

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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*

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ).

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)