Hacker News Reader

> One final point: I decided to create a throwaway to post this because I am confident that I would be pilloried by people in these organizations if I were to bring up these points with my real name attached. There is not a healthy climate of discussion around this topic right now.

THIS. So loudly this. Any kind of climate where asking the wrong question or expecting evidence for a claim automatically makes you a villain. And not a whimsical, comical fictional villain but, where people actively seek you out and try to get you fired for asking questions isn't something that people want to engage. There is too much risk and too little reward.

Speak out and you could lose your job, do the right thing and people will say "This is how it should have been the whole time". Even taking credit for a win in this area incorrectly will lead to villainy.

What I would love to see a case study company in tech that "spent 25% of their time on diversity and inclusion efforts" and did not just better than the baseline in tech but, made up for the opportunity cost.

People are social animals and the instinct to get everyone's opinions somewhat aligned is universal and mostly beneficial. While it may hamper the next Galileo, it also allows a level of peaceful coexistence that just wouldn't happen if we had to relitigate every moral decision or scientific opinion every day.

In this case, society has converged on the opinion that diversity benefits so overwhelming, you don't have to explicitly list them each time but can treat diversity as if it were the end goal itself.

But here's a few:

- Basic fairness requires us to encourage diversity in order to create a more balanced distribution of power and money (considering the mere presence of women or minorities tends to depress wages across industries and jobs)

- Diverse teams are better, especially when creativity or social skills are required (there actually are some studies on this I believe)

- Discriminatory hiring practices make it impossible for some people to reach their full potential. When they labor in jobs below their potential, the society as a whole also loses out (remember that for every Einstein, Feynman, Picasso, there was an equally qualified woman who was married off when she was 15 and never had a chance).

...and so on. People react negatively if you challenge diversity because they suspect that you've probably heard the arguments before and have other motives than "opportunity costs" for your recalcitrance.

Most people don't challenge diversity. They're challenging the self-importance of saying "you, the people who have nothing to do with hiring, are the reason teams are not as diverse as I would like them to be". I have no issue with diversity, I just don't like the people who claim that "white men shouldn't talk about diversity" and that sort of crap.

Not to mention that diversity shouldn't be the end goal, it should be getting the best people for the job. Given the fact that talent is essentially uniformly distributed, that should still result in diversity -- it just shouldn't be the parameter you're optimising for. You should always aim to employ people because they're good at what they do, not because you need to fulfil your diversity quota and it just so happens they're good at what they do.

The benefits of diversity is many and there are many more examples I can think of (such as industries that only recruit from 50% of the population has generally problems when demand change).

But... as it often is, I don't see the interest for diversity to be consistent by those who claim to be in favor of it. Let me ask you one question:

The state is the biggest employer of people. They could have a hiring policy of a minimum 40% men and women per job (sorted by either title, assignment, union membership, or what else attribute one might like). Such policy would have a major effect on several professions with currently sits with a ratio of around 90% and higher.

As it stands, only a few professions ever address problems of diversity. Technology is one of those, and it's gender ratio is fairly average compared to the majority. only about 30% (2010 statistics from Sweden) of recognized professions have a balanced gender distribution of minimum 40% men and women. In the remaining 70%, the most extreme had 99.7% women to 0.3% men.

But you haven't backed up your "pipeline" assertions by anything either.

Many of their specific questions are about whether a workplace is supportive of women and minorities. It's plausible that if many workplaces fail these tests, then tech would be a less appealing career choice to young people "up the pipeline" no matter how strongly it's promoted in school.

Yeah that is reasonable. Large companies can probably make a big difference.

Small startups have a tough enough job already without also optimizing for employee diversity. Max Levchin talks about this as well: http://firstround.com/review/the-trick-max-levchin-used-to-h....

He was taking about diversity of ideas, not race & gender.

Startup's job is not to accommodate "young people's career choices". If you spend 25% of your time thinking about how to make your company more diverse when you're a 5 people company instead of thinking about your customers, your "diverse company" will probably be gone by next year.

You're absolutely right. 100% of your employees time should be spent maximizing profit and growth, and any unwarranted deference to human values is just going to inhibit survival and wealth, which are the most important things in the world.

One day we'll all be cockroaches: great at surviving with zero appreciation for culture.

Good to hear you agree.

/s

I didn't see any of the quotes you pointed out in the article itself?

Looks like they are drawn from here: http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/

"Actual actions will depend on your size and your current state of diversity."

I feel like its really easy in these arguments to make a decision that the other person is just utterly disconnected with reality. On both sides.

In this case I think the author is realistic that practical constraints will make this hard.

The 25% comment is posed as a "What if".

"If you are unable to understand why these recommendations make sense, you are probably part of the problem." (http://projectinclude.org/moving_forward/)

That's nonsensical. You may as well say, "Everyone should spend 25% of their startup's time on ensuring African children have access to food and clean water."

When someone asks, "Why should we do that?" you respond with, "What, do you hate African children?"

"Burn the heathen".

Perfect example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Kafkatrapped! http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122