Hacker News Reader

Comment by malandrew | Hacker News Reader

I don't know if you even need to see the whole presentation. A few of the full sentences on that one slide are more than enough to project a strong us vs them attitude of hatred and victim versus oppressor, especially the following bullets:

    - "This is not work for white folks to lead"
    - "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women"
    - "we need solidarity with our Asian friends and colleagues"

This is blatantly racist language and policy.

View on HN

It's actually written into GitHub's Open Code of conduct. (The 'Open' Code has not accepted any changes for quite some time even though this particular issue was under discussion [1].) The Open Code expressly excuses discrimination against some races and genders, specifically by explicitly ignoring any critique which might fall under a 'reverse'-ism; 'reverse-racism' or 'reverse-sexism' [2]. This line in the Open Code was previously discussed here [3].

[1] https://github.com/todogroup/opencodeofconduct/issues/82

[2] https://github.com/todogroup/opencodeofconduct/blob/gh-pages...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10043668

I wasn't aware of this history. One thing to note is the sentence that precedes 'reverse'-ism:

>Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: > ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’

Coded language for sanctioned discrimination.

It also fails to understand and accommodate intersectionality needs with respect to cognitive diversity.

Ozark English: http://ozarque.livejournal.com/176349.html

When Nerds Collide: https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c

Thanks for the great reads and a fresh perspective (to me)

I'm okay with it, because I can get a job elsewhere. Some minorities can't. I don't need to be able to get a job at GitHub, because for some stupid reason, society has a general bias in favor of me. I can work anywhere, but the folks they're giving a shot are folks who don't have it as good as I do.

If this continues to proliferate, instead of achieving a World where minorities have equal opportunity with non-minorities, we will instead end up with a mix of institutions where those in the majority have an advantage and other institutions where those who are minorities have an advantage. This doesn't look like equality, but a reversion to something looking like "separate but equal".

Every human being should be judged for the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

The law disagrees with you. I can very easily see Github on the losing side of workplace racial discrimination claim here.

I wish your world existed. It doesn't, however, and minority groups need advantages over me in order to get the kinds of jobs I can get.

I hope we can move past this some day, but that's not happening today.

What a load of tosh. Are there no disadvantaged people in America with light coloured skin?

Because of their skin color? No.

For other reasons? Yeah. They get help too, though.

Poor and middle class white people are a figment of your imagination. West Virginia basically is Narnia.

Oh well thankfully hating white makes is just plain old racism and sexism not some reverse-whatever nonsense. So I guess we're good ;-)

> (6) Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women.

I'm just glad I dumped Github. I'm pretty sure they'd find my white female friends [some of whom needed to transition] being discriminated against as okay based on those slides.

Reverse racism is a myth.

Do you mean that it does not exist or that it cannot exist? I've heard this exact phrase before, "reverse racism is a myth," and it seems like an example of a thought-terminating cliché.

Don't know about reverse racism but I know very well that reverse sexism exist where I live so I'm tempted to say you are likely wrong.

Given they are publicly singling out white women, I'm not really sure that is true.

You shouldn't be generalizing on race if you want me to believe that.

So, as far as I'm aware, there is "racism-as-defined-in-some-academic-circles", where it's only racism when it's systematic and directed by a privileged ethnic group against an unprivileged ethnic group. Which is (IMHO) different from what non-academic people understand racism. Maybe that's what parent means?

Yes, it's clear that some parts of academia has people with really suspicious agendas.

> "when it's systematic and directed by a privileged ethnic group against an unprivileged ethnic group"

Honest question: does it have to be directed by "a privileged ethnic group" or is it valid if it is by any general group or even a single, privileged person?

Presumably, the "privileged group" should have a perceived ethnic composition different from that of the "unprivileged group", otherwise discrimination can't be based on ethnicity. But I guess it doesn't mean that all members of that ethnic group need to share this outlook.

That said, I'm no academic, but I remember reading something about this a few years ago, in the case of a woman in France accused of anti-white racism.

I suppose I think I'm just pissed that they target white women. xD

- "This is not work for white folks to lead"

Well, it's not. It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people.

- "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women"

Second wave feminism, largely led by white women, often leaves out women of color. I mentioned this below, but the publishing industry is 79% white and 78% female. This has a huge impact on the types of stories that get to be published, which subsequently has real results on culture and society.

- "we need solidarity with our Asian friends and colleagues"

I mean yeah, sure, nothing super deep on that one. There should also be solidarity with white friends and colleagues, preferably ones that do a lot of listening and understand how not to take up all the space.

> - "This is not work for white folks to lead"

> Well, it's not. It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people.

On the one hand, sure, it would be odd if it were entirely led by a group of people that the initiative is not meant to directly benefit.

But on the other,

1. The title implies it is white people that must be left out of leadership there. It does not mention Asian people, which is odd, as the tech industry is currently mostly white and Asian men. Asian people are highly overrepresented, much more than white people, relative to their percentage in the country. That means if you have objections to putting a white person in a leadership position for a diversity initiative, you should have a similar objection to an Asian person. Not having that mentioned can't help but seem racist against white people.

2. Diversity initiatives need to work with everyone, not just the newcomers, but also the existing tech industry, which is mostly white and Asian men. White and Asian men could be helpful in guiding the industry towards more diversity, in particular, by doing so in a way that gets as many other white and Asian men on board with such changes. They might know best what would work to convince them, for example.

3. And, in the end, it is just always wrong to say "this is not work for [race X]". That's racist and offensive. Instead, it would have been fine to say "this is work where we need a strong leadership presence of currently underrepresented groups".

    Asian people are highly overrepresented, much more than 
    white people, relative to their percentage in the country.

But not relative to California. This is important to note because the base rates of the state in which a company is located or an industry is concentrated matter. Very very few people move farther than 500 miles from the place where they are born. This means that the overwhelming majority of the people in this country would never take a job in California.

That said, I believe Asian people are overrepresented, more than white people, relative to their percentage in California, but it's not nearly as disproportionate as the figures relative to the entire country.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

No, even relative to California, their overrepresentation is far larger.

Your link shows 14.4% for Asian people in California, but in the tech industry, they are at least twice that. Whereas in California white people are 73.2%, which is about equal or even less than their ratio in tech.

And about most people not moving more than 500 miles - is that true for tech jobs in California? See for example

http://www.siliconvalleyindex.org/index.php/people/talent-fl...

which indicates that your general rule might not apply, as over a third of Silicon Valley people are foreign-born. That means even from outside of the US, not just outside of California. And it's obvious the valley is full of people from the rest of the US, in fact tech workers that grew up in the area are a clear minority.

Thanks for this thought/argument about mobility. It's extremely valid and not one someone has yet made when I bring up base rates.

With this in mind, I'm very curious if we're asking the question of what these overrepresented groups are doing differently and if there are lessons to be learned by and applied by underrepresented groups.

As someone born in Brazil, when I meet a Brazilian in SF, we get to talking about where in Brazil we're both from at some point and one thing I've discovered is that Brazilians from the state of Goias are very much overrepresented in SF despite the fact that São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are typically more represented globally with Brazilian expats. Why are Brazilians from Goias over-represented in the Bay Area? Near as I can tell from the numerous conversations is that there is a strong network of weak ties, à la Granovetter, at play and that this is the same phenomena that can be see among Asian and Indian communities in SF.

In fact, the only Indian-Brazilian person I know in the Bay Area (and in the world, since there isn't much cultural exchange between Brazil and India) is a VC and he has commented that he wishes there was as much community and support on the Brazilian side of the Silicon Valley as there is on the Indian side, because he has seen that as one of the greatest external factors (i.e. outside what the individual himself is capable of) helping Indians move to the region in the first place and be successful once they arrive and establish themselves. Perhaps more efforts to establish professional and social networks of weak ties would be an effective strategy within identities group that are underrepresented. I'm curious how effective directing energy towards helping those within your identity in-group is versus fighting for your identity in-group as a whole relative to other identity in-groups?

"...you should have a similar objection to an Asian person. Not having that mentioned can't help but seem racist against white people."

It's not purely about representation, although that is important too. It's about centuries of white dominance. A couple decades of people of Asian descent having a strong presence in an industry isn't enough. How many of those overrepresented Asians are holding positions of senior leadership?

"And, in the end, it is just always wrong to say "this is not work for [race X]"."

You're missing the ending part of that statement, which is "to lead". That makes it very different. No one said white people can't be involved, as long as they are not taking up all the space.

The historical question has to address the current facts on the ground, though. Those centuries matter in some ways, for example, in currently poverty rates among black people, for example, which are a disgrace to the US. But how do those centuries justify focusing only on white people in that slide, if the goal of the slide is diversity?

I didn't miss "to lead", I referred to it. My point is that no matter the position - rank and file, or leadership; technical or non-technical; etc. etc. - it is never ok to say "this position is not for [race of gender X]". It's just wrong.

Again, it's fine to say "it would be helpful to have a presence of [group X] here". That focuses on the positive, doesn't exclude a specific group, and there are valid reasons to indeed want a presence of underrepresented minorities, because it's about them.

In other words, this entire initiative could be done in a non-racist way.

"But how do those centuries justify focusing only on white people in that slide, if the goal of the slide is diversity?"

Again, no one said white people can't be involved. It says it is not for white people to lead. No one is leaving white people out of this.

"...and there are valid reasons to indeed want a presence of underrepresented minorities, because it's about them."

Think about that for a second. Do you see the subtlety in what you're saying? You're acknowledging that some power should be yielded from those that hold it "because it's about them", but you're not giving people of color the power to run the thing that is in and of itself about them. Only giving up token pieces instead of yielding power is one of many ways that white supremacy gets passed on over the centuries.

No, I disagree with that point of view. You see things as groups holding power and that distribution of power shifting. I think that's a combative and counterproductive perspective.

Instead, I focus on fairness and equal treatment. Individuals - all of them - should be given respect and opportunity. That's what really matters, and if we do that, then we can wipe out discrimination and intolerance.

Our points of view lead to some identical things we want - we both want to end any and all existing discrimination against underrepresented minorities. However, from there, there is divergence.

This is a political difference of opinion. It can't easily go away. What I think is important is that people like you and people like me find ways to meet on common ground and work towards those shared goals. But to do so, we have to accept some political viewpoint differences.

Side note: I find comments like "think about that for a second" etc. from you as potentially condescending. As if you're trying to play the role of a teacher, guiding me to some truth that you already grasp. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it that way.

Sorry if I came off as condescending, that wasn't my intention. I once held a similar position as yours, but it was because I wasn't well read about the subtleties of white supremacy and power structures. That changed as soon as I first read Malcolm X and had my mind blown as a teenager. I thought maybe you also didn't see it, but now I realize you do see it but don't think it's about power. My apologies.

But yes we disagree. Of course all individuals should be given respect and opportunity, no one is arguing otherwise. The fact of the matter is that that's not the current state of the world. We can talk about fairness and equal treatment all we want, but that doesn't address the systemic racism that is happening right this second. People of color don't have the time to wait around for white people to decide to be respectful and fair. I don't see any way to overcome it than from a yielding of power.

I'm down to find common ground, but it has to be on something concrete, not vague ideas of fairness (which are subjective anyways). I personally think it's silly to have diversity initiatives led by white men. What do you suggest?

> I once held a similar position as yours, but it was because I wasn't well read

Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but I think any reasonable person could interpret that as condescending.

> I personally think it's silly to have diversity initiatives led by white men.

I might see a 10-person board of a diversity nonprofit that is 100% white men as silly. But to have some Chief of Diversity officer in one company happen to be a white man sounds fine to me - if he's good at it. No more odd than a professor of Russian history being Indonesian.

To say otherwise, as you just did, strikes me as racist. Do you really not see it?

> What do you suggest?

For example:

1. Educate hiring committees on implicit bias.

2. Make sure hiring is done as blindly as possible, e.g., coding tests can be done via text and not in person. This has worked wonders in other industries.

3. Have companies' HR departments focus on diversity, e.g. talking to employees (anonymously, or as they prefer) to see if there are current issues, and if so, to try to address them.

All those steps are already being taken by most major software companies, including the one I work at. Progress is happening. And it can happen without

1. Posing the problem as "group A" vs "group B", as you are doing. That's the type of thinking that got us into this problem in the first place, that led to prejudice and racism.

2. Acting and talking in ways that appear racist to a large segment of the tech industry, as Github is doing.

Nope, I really don't think saying the chief of diversity should be non-white is racist. I can intellectually understand the impacts of racism, but I'm seen as a cis-gendered white male when I'm out in the world and don't experience the effects of racism personally. It's a different thing to live in the US as a person of color and experience the small daily abuses that that comes with. When I come home with my girlfriend, who is a woman of color, and she starts crying because a white person followed her in a store, or assumed she didn't have money, or she overheard a comment made about her, yet I was treated with respect and dignity all day, it's very difficult to deal with. I can intellectually understand the effects of racism, yet I don't experience it.

Forgive me if I think she is more qualified for that job running diversity initiatives than I am, even though I'm very well read on the topic.

That's all true, and definitely that perspective matters a lot.

But it's not the only qualification necessary for the job. The other is to effect change in the organization. By your logic, if a black person is better at understanding the problems black people face, perhaps a white person would be better at getting white people to change things in the company.

I actually think both of those are wrong. You can feel horror at the Rwandan genocide or the holocaust or other massive injustices without being African or Jewish. You don't just intellectually understand racism in the US - I hope - you also feel it has to change.

Again, I agree the perspectives of underrepresented minorities are crucial here. But that doesn't lead to "every single chief of diversity must be non-white."

"But it's not the only qualification necessary for the job."

Exactly, but it is one qualification of many. If you have a white man with a stellar application for that position, and a woman of color with a similarly stellar application for that position, doesn't the woman of color necessarily get the job because she has more qualifications than the white man?

The point is there is always going to be a person of color that is more qualified than the white man for that leadership position because their experience as a person of color makes them more qualified for the position, everything else being equal, and they should thus be given it. Is that not reasonable?

I don't actually believe the following statement, but just to play devil's advocate, what would you say if I made the argument which is a direct corollary to the argument you are making:

"The head of diversity should be a white male because they are the only ones qualified to understand white male privilege and therefore will be more effective at working and communicating with others that also have the same privilege and coming up with ways to get others with privilege to change their behavior. Seeing that those with privilege are a majority in the industry, a white male leading it would be more effective leading more people to changing attitudes."

You're ignoring the parallel argument I made to yours (not that I believe it, but I'm saying it makes as much sense as yours), which would suggest the white man is more qualified.

Anyhow, in practice, I doubt it matters: most applicants to such positions are likely not white men anyhow. So the racism inherent in such statements as "white folks are not suitable for this role" is not only wrong, it is also unnecessary.

Again, no one ever said white people are not suitable for this role or can't be involved in any way. This is the third time I've pointed this out. No one is saying white people can't be empathetic, or thoughtful, or innovative when it comes to topics of race. It's just that people of color are even more qualified to lead these programs as they have first hand experience existing in an exceptionally racist system.

White people are already in charge of everything, they don't also need to be in charge of diversity. That's exactly why these positions are being created in the first place.

You're refuting something I didn't say. What I did say was an argument directly against

> It's just that people of color are even more qualified

which you're ignoring again. Is it because the argument wasn't clear? Should I try again?

I made your point clearer with my devil's advocate reply. I too am curious about the answer.

>>It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people.

How can anybody who advocates equality say no white person can lead a diversity movement? Just because somebody is white doesn't mean they aren't an oppressed minority (female, transgender, Jewish or some other oppressed group like a furry).

I think we collectively need to declare it's not okay to say "people with skin color ____" cannot possibly understand Y or have an opinion on Y. To do so is institutionalized racism.

edit: typo

Who said anything about equality?

When the discussion is about "social impact", the conversation is about diversity. Diversity != equality. In the view of many, equality isn't enough, because the "un-oppressed" are fundamentally privileged. The concept of "reverse racism" is there to deflect the inevitable awkward questions that arise, when clearly biased statements are made and practices get institutionalized.

IMO, all this stuff is problematic. I wish we could all embrace the golden rule and move on.

I don't understand what you're arguing. Equal opportunity will lead to diversity. Equality is about removing processes that look at privilege (e.g. your rich father donated X dollars so welcome to our college).

If your idea of fairness requires we become systematically biased against certain majorities (white, heterosexual, male, cis-gender) for your cause then I don't want to be part of your cause, and moreover I find that cause discriminitory and dangerous.

> If your idea of fairness requires we become systematically biased against certain majorities (white, heterosexual, male, cis-gender) for your cause then I don't want to be part of your cause, and moreover I find that cause discriminitory and dangerous.

Exactly. As mentioned earlier, in the case of Github the cultural transition appears to be from prioritizing meritocracy to codified diversity for the sake of diversity.

"In the view of many, equality isn't enough, because the "un-oppressed" are fundamentally privileged."

Then that's not equality - equality is, or should be enough, because if the issue of diversity and equality is 'minimizing / eliminating privilege' then by definition, equality is that privilege is the same for all (or zero).

For many though, this becomes a good cover for 'preferential treatment above and beyond equality, in the name of 'compensation'.'

I'm sorry to move the discussion to politics, but such affairs trigger sentiments among White people which end up in favor of Trump, if I understand politics properly. So would it be clever for the Trump team to highlight and exaggerate such stories/Is this article the result of it?

Who is saying they can't have an opinion?

To be prevented from participating in a process is to be prevented from having a meaningful opinion about that process.

I don't agree that if they can't lead the program, that means they are being prevented from having a meaningful opinion about it. That's all they're talking about, right? Who leads the program?

Yes, presumably the leaders are to issue orders and everyone else is to follow them. That is not the kind of participation that allows opinions.

You may be saying that the non-white leadership is the kind of leadership that allows collaboration and influence from followers, which is what I would do, but the evidence in the Github case is to the contrary.

Yes, presumably the leaders are to issue orders and everyone else is to follow them. That is not the kind of participation that allows opinions.

This sounds excessively harsh, do you really think that's how GitHub will run the program?

Considering that they are moving to a more enterprise-y management style where there are lots of middle managers, I would imagine that that is a very real possibility.

Race is a goofy power structure which puts certain people ("whites") on top of others.

Whiteness changes with political needs. Hilariously, Irish-Americans, Jews, etc weren't always considered white. They had to become white. Nowadays, certain Asians are held up as model minorities and may get some honorary whiteness.

With children getting murdered by the state for being black, it's obvious race is about white supremacy. (Analogously, sexism is about male supremacy, also known as patriarchy.)

> but the publishing industry is 79% white and 78% female

The US is 77.7% of the US population. I hardly think that a 2% imbalance is an issue to create divisiveness over. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...

"The US is 77.7% of the US population"

I think you mean 77.7% white? It should be noted that the census counts North African and Middle Eastern as white, which is inaccurate. That number also drops to 62.6% when you take out Hispanics that describe themselves as white. So it's probably more like a 20 point difference than 2.

Do you want to also take out the jewish % from the white group, and see how much of an 'imbalance' there is amongst top management / successful founders?

This sort of thinking is stupid.

Again, are you arguing that it's ok for the publishing industry to be 79% white and 78% female? Do you oppose diminishing white supremacy and racism? Because it sounds like you do.

You: White people are 79% of the publishing industry. Do you oppose diminishing White Supremacy (I mean, they're way overrepresented!)? Are you saying it's okay?

White Supremacists: Jewish people are 2% of the american population, but they hold the majority of top positions in the publishing industry. Do you oppose diminishing Jewish Supremacy? Are you saying it's okay?

Both of these arguments are terrible, and are both based on the premise that over-representation of some group in some industry or position constitutes a serious problem and probable conspiracy.

"...based on the premise that over-representation of some group in some industry or position constitutes a serious problem and probable conspiracy."

Ah, ok, so you don't think representation is an issue. Most people of color that have dealt with white gatekeepers will disagree with you. If you care to examine the part of you that holds that belief I'd suggest reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X, followed by some James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Frantz Fanon, and bell hooks to start. Hate read it if you must, but give some experiences orthogonal to yours a chance.

So, to what number does the publishing industry "whiteness %" drop if you were to remove all those groups from it too?

By none, they correctly had a separate category: http://blog.leeandlow.com/2016/01/26/where-is-the-diversity-...

Diversity does not just mean skin color. You might as well try to empty the ocean with a spoon then pat yourself on the back for "doing your best."

> Well, it's not. It's kind of missing the point if your diversity initiative is being run by white people.

1) Diversity isn't just about race and the fact you think it is is why I'm honestly horrified by you.

2) Sexual orientation, transgender issues are serious problems and not really protected classes in many respects and they have as much of a "fixed" bag from genetics as you do.

The really sad thing is that there actually is sexism and racism towards women and minorities in various subtle ways at lots of tech companies. I've seen it first-hand myself. But this antagonistic line of thinking isn't helping. It just makes things worse for everyone.

The majority of sexism and racism that I've seen is probably subconscious and doesn't really seem intentional per se. People often just don't realize the side-effects of what they're saying or doing, or how it can come across to people sometimes. You certainly won't build shared camaraderie and empathy by antagonizing entire classes of people.

     - "This is not work for white folks to lead"

This one I actually don't think is so bad, in context. The title of the slide is "Diversity and Inclusion in Tech". It is difficult for someone that is not part of a minority to spearhead efforts to outreach to one, because they don't experience the same issues. Literally, they don't have the right experience for the job.

It's a stretch as a comparison, but no-one gets sued for refusing to hire ugly models. It's because a model's job is to be good looking. That's just the way it is. In a similar way, a head of diversity should probably be... diverse. Although that could include gay white men, for example - maybe that text is shorthand that was qualified in the actual presentation, none of us know.

The white women one mystifies me, though. Women are usually a minority in the workplace, surely their views are valid.

I'm a white person. My family came from Cuba with the clothes on their backs 50 years ago. Everything they ever had was taken by the Communists. Like millions of other Cubans, they came here with nothing and had to rebuild their lives. I grew up in a very unique environment, the Cuban-American community in Miami. I'd say that's a pretty "diverse" background. But I guarantee that in Github's book, I'm one of the "white folks" that shouldn't be leading this.

I'm sick of this politics of division. It pits people against each other and treats them as members of some helpless group instead of as individual human beings, with their own unique story and their own untapped potential.

But I guarantee that in Github's book, I'm one of the "white folks" that shouldn't be leading this.

I don't see how you can guarantee that. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand what you're saying. But this is a one-line bullet point in a slideshow, I'd like to see some more context before I grab my pitchfork.

> It is difficult for someone that is not part of a minority to spearhead efforts to outreach to one, because they don't experience the same issues. Literally, they don't have the right experience for the job.

We've invented tools to deal with this: language and literature. Almost everyone has experienced some form of discrimination, even if for many it is only occasional and minor, and that's enough to give a good writer an opening to get inside the reader's head and use that to build upon and paint a vivid picture of the more frequent or major discrimination the writer has dealt with.

I really don't think that reading about racism is the same as experiencing racism. For a start, it's quite easy to put a book down.

A middle age white man could be gay. Or have one leg. Or have psychosis. Or be a Muslim.

Yes, sorry, I just edited my comment to address that. I wonder whether the point was expanded upon in the actual presentation to address that or not - bullet points on slides are usually "launching off points".

I'm honestly shocked at the lack of empathy on display in this comment thread. The technology world has a diversity problem—why not assume that this is a good-faith effort to address it, just expressed in words you don't like? Why instead flip directly into Internet Outrage Status?

This kind of outpouring of rage, to be frank, is why Hacker News has such a bad reputation. Look around at the comments here: there are people complaining about the very notion that there might be something wrong with how hiring and promotion happens in technology. There are people, like @yoodenvranx, equating their own anecdotal problems with the victimization of white men. There are countless comments asserting that we are capable of "pure meritocracy," a notion that is invalidated by research on implicit bias.

The overwhelming consensus here is that (a) there is no problem, and (b) GitHub's attempts to address it are unjust. This is why Hacker News looks to the outside world like a self-affirming bubble with no grounding in reality.

Did you read that slide and the comments others have made addressing it? Even after going through some seriously generous contortions to assume good faith, it's racist and alarming.

I also don't think your comment extends good faith you are demanding to the comment and commenters which you're addressing.

    there are people complaining about the very notion that 
    there might be something wrong with how hiring and 
    promotion happens in technology.

I haven't gotten past the topmost comment thread on this HN post, but I have yet to read one comment here that makes this argument. Many here are addressing a particularly troublesome form of racism using a slide and other primary evidence as exemplary of this type of creeping racism. I haven't yet read a comment that argues that "(a) there is no problem", so the "consensus" you're asserting isn't there. I do agree that there is generally consensus about your second point " (b) GitHub's attempts to address it are unjust.", but maybe it's because GitHub's attempts just might be unjust?

Comments like the one you replied to, threaten to derail our discourse with the distortions you've already pointed out.

Comments like yours, on the other hand, are the reason I come to HN. Measured rebuttals without being too biased one way or the other-- it really enhances the reading experience of those going through this thread.

It's hard to convey my appreciation through an upvote, since that can be confused for just popularity, so I had to say it here.

Personally it irks me that tech has excellent representation of diversity in the forms of people of colour, specifically Asians from different a diverse set of backgrounds, yet they don't count in the tally of diversity.

Yes, that's worth celebrating!

But we also have to remember that, to someone not in those well-represented groups, it's not a huge consolation. Diversity isn't a floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0.

True, but we need to ask valid questions like "Why do we have a bunch of diversity in this vector, but not this other vector? If tech was fundamentally intolerant of diversity in general like many claim, wouldn't we lack diversity in all vectors? Why causes might contribute to the disparity between these two diversity vectors with different representations?

Overall, I rarely if ever see anyone arguing for diversity asking hard questions like "Why are there many Asians and Indians even though there aren't many Women, Hispanics/Latinos and Black people?". What are these successful identity groups doing differently that is affording them much success in being well represented or even over represented? How might the under represented groups adopt the same approaches to achieve the same success?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve unconscious bias as well, but I'm less inclined to first consider solutions that address unconscious bias if those solutions are proposed by someone who hasn't also considered other explanations and solutions because they aren't applying the null hypothesis in their thought process.

Also, how about some multi-variate analysis to determine which factors most greatly contribute to the diversity gap for each underrepresented group? We can't adequately fix what we don't measure and I really don't see a lot of measurement going on. For example, all successful startups understand and apply concepts of a user acquisition funnel and pipeline, but then people complain loudly in simplistic terms that the "pipeline problem is a myth". I don't understand how you can the former technique with great success and hold the latter incongruous thought in your head at the same time.

https://medium.com/life-tips/the-null-hypothesis-loves-you-a...

I want to reserve judgement for now, but the slide is very upsetting.

Why is it OK to make these kinds of generalizations?

Perhaps you should actually take some time and read the article? This was given at a presentation not aligned with Github (so this isn't an official policy as you and others are making it out as). Further, its context is obviously needed to limit all of this specious extrapolation on how this is a contribution to the current shifts at Github; I'm impressed so many have been so easily taken in by this blogspam.

This is the brave new world we're living in.

If people can get thrown out of conferences for their tweets on unrelated things, if Eich can get in hot water over a political donation, then it is little surprise to see the knife cutting both ways.

You wouldn't forgive a developer for speaking at an MRA conference--why should these people be forgiven for unrelated presentations?

This is the future you chose.

EDIT:

Downvote all you want. This is the kind of goodthink/badthink politicking that happens once you move away from "Does the code work?"

The thing being complained about by my parent poster here is completely consistent with the social norms that have prevailed lately. I would say don't be surprised at the sudden double-standard, but logic apparently isn't the strong point of the mobs.

We've spent so much time lately attacking meritocracies that it is somewhat cathartic to watch the inevitable consequences.

EDIT2:

Just to make this painfully clear--we have decided as a community that it is okay to judge people based on their actions in unrelated contexts. That applies just as much to folks that have slides about "white women being obstacles" in some unrelated context to their work in HR as it does to people that tweet bigoted things while being maintainers of projects.

The logic and principle is exactly the same.

Women of color have always complained about being left out by mainstream feminism. This is not new.

I don't understand it completely, but here is a related wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_feminism

solidarity with asian people is racism, you heard it here first

Is this Sanchez a SJW? Is she trying to destroy the company?

"Racial" is not the same as "racist." I don't think it helps the conversation to conflate them, and it's anti-intellectual criticism that inhibits even speaking about race.

Please explain:

- what you mean by racial?

- how what I read on that slide is racial, not racist

Reply on news.ycombinator.com