Howard University opens a new campus at the Googleplex
blog.google
blog.google
I went to a really prestigious high school in New York City. For the summer of my junior year, our AP Computer Science teacher hooked up a few of us with internships at the finance firms, specifically in tech (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc.). Now, sure, I did really well and studied really hard to get into my high school. However, I did practically nothing to earn that internship besides taking AP Computer Science. My Computer Science "expertise" was hardly valuable. I knew just about as much as any other AP CS kid in the country.
In the end, that internship did wonders for me getting into college and getting future jobs. And plus, I made 3k that summer. And yes, I finished a useful project at the firm. But the reason I had that opportunity was totally orthogonal to earning the opportunity. I know we like to boast about being a meritocracy and all that, but this is one of those cases where it was correlation, not causation.
I think you do your high school a disservice. Almost everyone I have interviewed from your school has done better than average.
After graduation, sure we probably do better than average. But at the moment I received the internship, my skills were no more or less qualified than any other CS student. And, at the end of the day, am I really that much better of a developer than most people? I really doubt that.
It's wrong to give extra advantages based on genetics, essentially saying that some people "genetically poor" or "genetically rich", which is what Affirmative Action does.
> multiple axes of inequality in our society beyond the economic, including race and sex
is not clear or quantified at all.
Since affirmative action is provably bad because it is literal sexism/racism, the supposed inequality that AA offputs must be proven and quantified
It's wrong to give extra advantages based on genetics. Therefore, giving an extra advantage to someone who is not given those other extra advantages, evens the score.
Why not just use income?
There won't be glaring unfairness in the system where an upper middle class black kid gets preference over the child of poor, uneducated Fujian immigrants who can barely speak English
I'm of the opinion that university should be free.
Given that the top percentile of the test takers are the children of immigrant parents who don't understand American culture and whose primary language is not English, the tests appear to be very objective.
Now you're pulling kids out of regular high schools. Are they going to be able to keep up with the other Stuyvesant kids? Should we slow down others' education so lower performing students can keep up? How does this help these lower performing students? Note that these are individual people we are talking about who are getting thrown into classes that are difficult for them.
You could create programs designed to help underprivileged students that are close to the cutoff, to help them get admitted. NYC created that, but, you know, it helps asian kids too.
Another problem with doing corrections for population ratio is that NYC attracts top professionals, highly intelligent people that are having children. Even if you believe all races are geneticulturally identically distributed globally, or in the country, you can see that the high income professionals are mostly non-black, and their kids are going to monopolize Stuyvesant seats. The high IQ black/Latino kids that aren't getting into Stuyvesant are the ones whose parents never moved to NYC in the first place.
That's an extremely strong statement to make. The proportion of Asians in professional soccer is substantially lower than the population distribution. Are you claiming that the main reason for this is selection discrimination?
Essentially you had the system work in your favor and in turn knew how to work to system. You got a warm intro into an internship, this helped you get into college afterwards. These kinds of subtle boosts are mostly a function of being in the right place within the system and knowing how to pull the right levers, and if you don't know to look for those levers, you'll never know they're there and be disadvantaged as a result.
In your case, it was being in the right place and having the flexibility to take that internship. For someone else it might be knowing how to work the college financial aid system, or something else. I look back and see that throughout my academic career, if I didn't have people who knew how the system worked telling me, "you should do this, and this is how", I don't think I'd have gotten where I am.
Essentially, I got a better shot at things even though I was no more qualified on a purely intellectual basis.
AA is an imperfect tool to give people some of those same advantages, and I'm a little ambivalent about it. But I think it or something like it is probably necessary to give everyone an equal shot.
I don't see that as traditional Affirmative Action, which we primarily think of happening during an admissions process. This is just creating more channels to resources in tech, which is entirely reasonable, even from a conservative economics perspective.
In short, I think we need to do more than just let people from other communities simply join our prestigious institutions but to recognize that these institutions need to be changed to help these students achieve what students from other backgrounds get as well.
I know all the meritocracy crowd here will come after me with pitchforks for saying this, but I do think it is justified in putting all that effort into helping people that are born in disadvantaged families. Is it fair to the other kids who may have worked really hard but get less attention simply because of their family background? Maybe...but they were lucky to be born in a great family in the first place...
I too got very lucky by being born in a great family.... I'm eternally grateful for it having helped me to have a happy and fulfilling life. I hope others can have a shot at such a life as well.
As someone who spends a lot of time in Europe, I find this exclusively-individualistic view of "earning advantage" to be too limiting, and characteristic of US ideas about class and privilege (Europe has its own, different problems).
Yes, you personally didn't earn that specific thing. But there's a very high chance that your family unit earned itself into being in a position to collect that "free" (at the point of accrual) benefit.
I think the most fundamental problem we face right now in terms of equalizing the game for historically disadvantaged people (an important goal worthy of some sacrifices) is how to square that with the very natural, and IMO totally fair, desire for parents to be able to pass some forms of fairly-earned advantage on to their children.
If you ever bring up the point about, say, how the rate of criminality among blacks in America is so much higher than whites/asians/latinos, you'll frequently hear a response about the lurking variable of poverty(poor people are more likely to be criminal -> blacks are over-represented among poor people).
So, why doesn't that same logic carry over to affirmative action? If you made the test about income levels, and not race, it seems like some of the absurdity of the system that people hate would be lessened. Right now with AA, we implicitly say that a black kid from a multi-millionaire family is disadvantanged, and needs help, relative to the son of a poor Chinese immigrant.
Interesting term. Does that basically mean Asian (both eastern and southeastern) and White?
(Not trying to offend anyone, but feel safer with throwaway account.)
It's hard to pin this down because there's a powerful cultural normalization effect around "whiteness"; we accept the notion that there are "white", "black", "latino", and "Asian" people, in part due to history and in part because breaking "white" down further would be cumbersome.
But it's worth remembering that while there really is a sui generis "black" culture (the US African American culture, a product of displacing millions of Africans and stripping them of their original culture), there isn't "white culture". Irish and German people don't have that much in common culturally: they don't share a language, they don't eat the same food, they don't listen to the same music, they don't have the same folklore.
Since one important sense of the concept of "whiteness" is "membership in favored ethnicity", it's not unreasonable to predict that it will eventually expand to include non-European ethnicities, too.
On a related note, if being around so many white people bothers you so much, why aren't you living in, say, East Palo Alto or Richmond?
Sure, in some parts of the country, it is. But in other parts of the country, it isn't.
It's part of the DNA basically if you only look at big cities on the coasts.
Also, Palo Alto is a big city on the coast.
I much prefer being in more diverse areas, but I don't think where I grew up was somehow bad or wrong. It is a very middle class place, so it's not like the minorities were being pushed out, there just weren't many non-white people that wanted/want to live there! ...but to be fair, a lot of white people don't want to live there either, it's quite boring.
Further, if housing discrimination was still going on in the 90's and 00's, I have no idea where these people were being "pushed out" to. The closest towns/cities with significant racial minority populations were at least 250 miles away...the city I grew up outside of was 90% white (currently 82% white) and there were/are plenty of undesirable locations there. It's middle America, there are just a ton of white people (sorry?).
So, what could be seen as white people seeming to have a pathological need to observe those with different melanin is, I'd argue, a representation of our awareness of that compact. If we're all living here, and they're all living there, is it possible that they're not too happy, or that they're being forced to live with substandard lives or living situations? If that's the case, that could potentially breed societal instability and rupture, as happened in the '60's and '70's.
From my personal perspective, I don't necessarily want to live in Compton or Camden, but it's certainly the case that I want people who live there to be able to move to where they want in America-- "not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
1) Framing diversity as being about white people avoiding anxiety by surrounding themselves with people from other ethnic groups is egocentric and weird. Pushing for diversity is ideally about expanding access to lucrative careers, not bringing in people-as-window-dressing.
2) On the note of lucrative careers, comparing membership in a well-paid, prestigious career field within (say) the United States with being born in a more ethnically homogeneous country is disingenuous. It's the very fact that we don't live in a mono-culture that should make us wonder about the high correlation between being white and male and being in our field.
The issues of race in American are legacy issues that won't just dissolve in time. And full dissolution cannot take place if the underlying issues of poverty are not corrected (read: aggressively attacked). This is but a small step in that direction.
Full disclosure: I'm not (totally) white.
How do you know this?
I didn't grow up in a diverse community, and living in one now I certainly feel the lack. How do you quantify a cultural divide? How do you quantify what it means to you?
Given your comment, I can guess, but that would be rude.
I'm curious how much the internet has helped bridge this gap today and whether this idea of diversity through government-backed forced integration policies are really relevant/useful anymore. It seems very difficult to grow up in a culturally homogeneous environment today, you'd basically have to be a Luddite to accomplish that.
That plus living in a city like most young people are starting to do today, I find exposure to different cultures to be highly accessible with little investment. This is not really the result of forced integration policies but simply through technology, market options (restaurants, entertainment, etc) and proximity in dense housing areas.
It's interesting that not long after the Civil Rights act passed (which included legislation to make mandatory increases in housing and school integration) that there was a big migration from cities to suburbanization starting in the 1970s - reducing integration in both schools and housing. Most people falsely believed 'white flight' to be a cultural thing when if fact it was largely the result of regulatory policy making. There's a great book about how local government policies was the largest cause of this shift towards suburbia: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933115157/
I've read that statistically today's schools in the US are even more segregated than even before the civil rights act. Yet one could argue that despite this the young generation is the most open and accepting to other cultures than ever before.
So I'm not sure that (mandatory) integration policies are a necessary construct in order to improve social conditions and relationships between communities/races - as much as it used to be. The solution may simply be to reverse a lot of the existing legislation that pushed so many communities away from dense naturally integrated urban areas to small towns and suburbs.
Trying to improve economic and quality of education via integration is another question (I'm mostly looking at cultural considerations). Although I've also heard of mostly black charter schools in poor communities doing as well as public schools in upper class neighbourhoods. So, again, on the surface that seems to be more about access to quality services rather than racial integration.
You have to be careful not to mistake the chicken for the egg.
In my opinion the internet makes it just as easy to be culturally homogeneous if you want to. There are many people that, due to interest or necessity will be exposed to a variety of cultures, but you can just as easily filter your internet usage so you engage mostly with people that are like you. It doesn't help that on the internet, in text discussions, you don't know what someone's background is without research due to anonymity. For example, by default I assume everyone on HN is an upper middle class or wealthy white male in his mid-20s to early 40s, unless otherwise stated in the context of the comments, even though I know this isn't true. This creates the problem of, instead of viewing internet communities as diverse collections of people, they are viewed as stereotypical hive minds, further enforcing discrimination and stereotyped views of large groups of people.
Desegregation works. Saying that the issue is access to quality resources reduces to separate but equal policy, doesn't it?
https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/th...
Based on internet comments, I'd say it has made things worse.
I've read that statistically today's schools in the US are even more segregated than even before the civil rights act.
Do you have a pointer to that data? I find it hard to believe, but I guess it is possible given that communities tend to be highly segregated still.
You don't consider the thousands of immigrants who grew up in completely different cultures with different primary languages in Asia and Europe as diversity?
Instead, you consider the American born Black person whose primary language is English and who grew up with American culture as "diversity"?
It's fine if you want to lament the lack of black people in any given domain, but to generalize and say there is no diversity at all because a lack of black people is short changing not only the efforts of many people, but many people as well.
The problem here is the word "diversity", which is very easily hijacked to distort discussions. I think we're all pretty much on the same page that the concern being addressed here is the exclusion of specific, prominent ethnicities from SFBA tech culture, not the absolute number of different ethnicities being represented.
Excessive advertising can be used to poor people's disadvantage by creating more debt by encouraging more unnecessary expenses. AAs consist of a disproportionally large percentage of poor people and have chronically low wealth levels [1]. One could argue Google is bad for AAs by making advertising more mainstream and accurate.
In any case, at least they're trying, PR or not. Some companies do nothing. I do feel strongly about this because the amount of segregation in Boston is ridiculous.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/27/news/economy/racial-wealth-g...
For example, Google could just simply give internships to those at HBCU's, an action one may see as definitely positive. However, if for whatever reason those students fail to perform, in the eyes of the non black colleagues, stereotypes of incompetence will be created, if not exacerbated. Black people are punished more harshly for signs of incompetence of similar magnitude than Whites [2].
A somewhat similar thing happened with minority lawyers, as law schools tried to prop up the supply with affirmative action policies [1].
Things are just complicated, in general.
[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/08/29/is-affirmative-action-at...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/black-students-puni...
This is a straw man. Google isn't doing that. Google and Howard are providing instruction.
Gonna have to strongly disagree, here. Declaring that a "positive" outcome is "almost certain" is an invitation for punting on specifically defining what that "positive" outcome is and then hand-waving any measurement of progress. This is especially dangerous when the "positive" outcome comes at non-trivial expense.
Edit: a word
"The system" here being, imho, the role advertising plays in our society.
But in this case? It seems like they're trying to optimize the pipeline from college into the work force. It seems like it would be trivially measurable.
Let's not talk about how Google made access to an entire world of information 100x easier and cheaper, so anyone with a cheap tablet or phone can get information you used to need a $1k encyclopedia for.
Let's not talk about how Google drove Android, a platform which gave a huge number of people internet access by giving them $100 phones or tablets.
Let's not talk about how Google has (done its best) to scan every book ever written to make books available online and free.
Google has done vast amounts to level the playing field, making top-tier services like Gmail and Google maps free, where previously people had to pay for Garmin navigation or Outlook or w/e.
The kind of argument the OP makes is shallow, petty, and out to use a hammer for every grudge. Yeah, Google makes money via ads. No, that doesn't mean they are racist, sexist, or whatever the hell you feel like making up just to complain about advertising.
It's whataboutism, to distract from the actual conversation. "Oh, Google is doing a good thing, but what about all the bad things they do"
If you feed it, you talk about what they want you to talk about, which is inherently negative about Google in this case. It's a standard tactic of state-sponsored propaganda machines (not that I think it is in this case).
They're not saying that Google is "out to get" poor people - they're saying that Google's advertising practices cause disproportionate harm to the poor. I don't think that Google's executives mean to diminish the welfare of the hardest off, but that they're (possibly willfully) ignorant of the broader consequences of their business model.
This collaboration with Howard, as well as the other humanitarian/public services you've mentioned, seem to support the latter.
You cannot fix racism by implementing racist programs. You do it by removing race from the hiring equation to the maximum extent possible, and making it known that applicants of all races are welcome and that they will be judged based solely on their skills and qualifications. The kind of program announced today will, and should, backfire on Google.
Race is a society-wide issue, and it's not possible to solve without recognizing and correcting for it. If you close your eyes and ignore it, racism will still exist and continue to affect people. Even if racism disappeared from America overnight, the issue would not be solved because there would still be lingering cyclical effects from past racism. Parents with fewer opportunities raise kids with fewer opportunities because we live in an imperfect world, and these things require active correction.
You're right, it is a shame for race to play a part, but we have a responsibility to work for the betterment of our society and not ignore the bad parts that don't affect us directly.
And like I said, even if Google recruiters are somehow completely free of bias, that doesn't solve the problem. Black people are less likely have the necessary qualifications because of lingering effects of racism in the past, which means they're less likely to get well-paying jobs and move up the socioeconomic ladder, which means their kids are less likely to move up and the cycle continues even if racism completely disappears. Obviously it would be nice if we could solve this problem at the source by making education and childhood development completely independent of socioeconomic background, but that's sort of an impossible ideal. I don't think it's unreasonable for Google to try and address the symptoms when the cause is fairly insurmountable.
And one more thing, you're right that anyone hired by Google has exceptional qualifications, but consider what it takes to get your resume in front of a recruiter. When I applied to Google, it was through a friend who had just been hired giving my name to their recruiter. This clearly gave me an advantage over just uploading my resume to a job site. And during the application process, they asked for the names of anyone I knew currently working at Google so they could ask for recommendations. This is a fine step to have in a recruiting process, but you can see how network effects would continue to affect a group that's been discriminated against in the past, even if they're treated completely equally today. They're less likely to have a direct connection to a recruiter, less likely to have internal recommendations, less likely to get that extra boost.
You can do nothing about the gunmen in the corridor. You cannot move. Its a thought experiment.
Do you:
a) Say the cost is $5. Because to do otherwise would be racist. No people from group A can take your course.
b) Say that the cost is $5, unless you are from ethnic group A, in which case the cost is $2. Everyone who shows up can take your course. Because to do otherwise would fail to acknowledge the inherent racism of the larger system.
In the US, the larger system is demonstrably racist. People who should have $5 have $2. People who should have 4.0s have 2.0s.
This will backfire on Google in the same way that the "But they ask algorithms questions in their interviews" will backfire on Google: they'll attract smart people who can do the job.
No, it will backfire on them by discouraging people of other races from even applying because they know they are starting with a disadvantage.
Who is to say they have any? You're implying they're somehow racist because they haven't met a black engineer? Just because of their skin color you're gonna judge 'em? Well sounds like you're the racist.
There is little diversity to be gained from black engineers. Black engineers end up in the category of another nerdy American.
Race is not a good metric for diversity.
Diversity would be Arabians, African immigrants, Thai, etc.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/03/21/292456211/...
https://newsone.com/1859475/black-people-receive-60-longer-s...
Race is not a good metric for diversity. Nationality completely trumps it.
People of the same nationality with the same primary language have much more in common with each other. You can actually see this dynamic play out at work where people hang out with others from the same nationality. Americans hang out with Americans, Mandarin Chinese hang out with Mandarin Chinese, Indians with other Indians (don't know enough about Indian culture to split this group up further), Germans with Germans, etc.
Cultural_Difference(random_nationality1, random_nationality2) > Cultural_Difference(same_nationality_different_race1, same_nationality_different_race2)
With this metric, tech is one of the most diverse fields in the world.
Seen through this new point of view, the racial categories are very shortsighted. The difference between Indian and Chinese (or even Chinese and Korean) cultures is immense, yet they are assigned as part of the same category. African Americans have their own category, yet they are culturally and linguistically(same native language) very similar to white Americans.
Now let's move onto the controversial "disadvantages" discussion.
African Americans generally have family whose native language is English and who understand American culture and can impart these skills and knowledge to their children. They have the language and cultural knowledge to fight for their interests and a powerful organization (NCAAP) to back them up. With these advantages, African Americans are basically seen as honorary Americans similar to white Americans. These advantages even put them in a better position than white immigrants (and sometimes their American born children who have a harder time assimilating).
With these advantages and affirmative action based advantages(educational programs, scholarships, diversity internships and hiring, easy access to colleges/universities from affirmative action[works out to something like +150/2400 SAT and +0.2 GPA which is huge when competing in top percentiles]) middle class and upper middle class African Americans are very privileged.
Edit:
And on disadvantages in the workplace.
Americans are the largest group and the language spoken is English, so Americans (of any race) and native English speakers are privileged.
Every study I've read relating to economic mobility points to having economic leverage in the first place as the greatest factor. Blacks have a disproportionately low share of wealth ownership in America (can't cite this atm), which combined with systematic biases puts them at a pretty significant disadvantage. Speaking English isn't enough to counteract that.
You make some interesting points re: how to categorize diversity, but it sounds like you're just moving the goalposts.
It seems like you wrote a reactionary comment, rather than a well thought through one.
This is laughably inaccurate. Try again after you've met and spoken with at least _several_ African American families from each class stratification, education level, and region of the country.
Examples of Google’s programs include:
● Google’s Computing and Programming Experience (CAPE): This four-week experience is for 8th graders to gain exposure to CS. This summer we will have around 130 students, and we hope to further expand this content to organizations and schools around the country. We are looking to test this new model with MS2 in Washington, DC this summer.
● LEAD Program for Computer Science: This is a rigorous and exciting summer residential program for underrepresented minority students in grades 9-11, held at four universities in its upcoming inaugural year..
● Trailblazer Award: This is an award (in Europe) that is given internationally for participation in national science fairs. Winners are all treated to a 2-day Trailblazer retreat with fellow winners to learn more about the possibilities of a career in CS.
● Counselors for Computing: This program trains counselors to teach their fellow guidance counselors the benefits of CS degrees. Through our partner members at NCWIT, we are hoping to scale impact through these critical influencers.
● CS4HS is an initiative sponsored by Google to promote CS and Computational Thinking in high school and middle school curriculum by hosting CS teachers at campuses worldwide to learn about leading edge practice in the field.
● Computer Science Teachers Association: We are an ongoing supporter of the CSTA and, in particular, recently hosted their CS&IT symposium for 200 CS teachers at our Mountain View campus.
1) Join forces to donate to educational institutions specifically to increase the number of students they enroll. If there are X spots being reserved for AA, then ask the school to add X additional spots not usable for AA. Donate specifically for them to build additional dorms, classrooms, etc.
For some schools, their endowment is so large, they don't really need the donation, they just need pressure. I think pressuring them to expand should be more likely than pressuring them to end AA.
2) Invest in poor communities. AA stems from the desire to end a cycle of poverty. If we worked to "upgrade" poor communities then the need for AA would greatly decrease. So invest to improve K-12, housing, and businesses in poor communities.
I use the word "invest" because real estate in poor areas is usually under market. I think you can make a really good return if you build high quality housing. Just make sure you are willing to sell/rent to the current residents at below market prices. You should still be able to make a profit from the housing you build that is sold/rented to the middle class looking for better deals in your "upgraded" community.
There doesn't have to be a zero-sum battle between those who benefit from AA and those who don't.
When resources (jobs, college admissions slots, government funding for programs, etc.) are scarce, there often will be.
When I was in college, one of my classes included a unit on public speaking. We were encouraged to speak on a contentious topic and attempt to be persuasive. On the day I presented, I sat through multiple presentations on the subject of affirmative action. All of them were against it on the basis that it hurt certain ethnic groups. None of the people presenting on that subject were white.
(Me? I was ranting against DRM. Not important.)
Where is my misunderstanding?
No.
> Rising juniors and seniors in Howard’s computer science (CS) program can attend Howard West, for three months at a time.
This is why extraordinary efforts have to be made, and made at scale.
Then again, if you start talking scientifically, the concept of "race" is shaky at best, but there's no denying the cultural implications of the idea.
I personally don't mind African American for the same reasons I don't mind Asian American. Both subnational groups are comfortable with their designation I believe.
Speaking of Asian Americans, are you peeved with the term "Asian American"? Would you rather them self-identify as "yellow"? I ask because I like consistency.
Dunno man, good point. I hadn't thought of it because all of my "Asian-American" friends have very distinguishable country-specific characteristics that they can identify because their family migrated more recently than your average Black family's, and they don't have a history of slavery obfuscating their origins.
EDIT: Thinking more on it, I believe I'm used to hearing "Asian" to describe race, as opposed to "Asian-American" to describe heritage or nationality.
EDIT2: And also thinking more, I believe my friends use "FOB" to describe an actual Asian, i.e. someone born in Asia. Which probably will be a horribly offensive slur one day and I'll be the 2060 equivalent of "the grandpa that says 'negro' way too much."
But my larger point is African American "works". Its not offensive, speaks to a unique identity the same way Italian/Jewish/German American does, and for the most post is accepted by the black American community.
Also the genetic pool won't equalize anytime soon. Admixture leading to a near homogenous population of humans outside of small sparsely populated areas is millenia away.
> However, if for whatever reason those students fail to perform, in the eyes of the non black colleagues, stereotypes of incompetence will be created, if not exacerbated.
It's not really a concern. Nobody's worried about competent students underperforming.
"Nobody's worried about competent students underperforming."
I didn't say this, nor did you... so who are you replying to? Unless you assume all black students will be competent or somehow black students don't have regular instances of incompetence like their white, asian and hispanic peers?
Regardless the people that go to Howard are pretty well off anyway. Its a private U so either you have money or enough educations/connections/... to get a scholarship.
Edit: Im not criticizing this. I think it is great.
However, there are Hispanic Serving Insitutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic-serving_institution
I also wonder how much you cared about Hispanic schools before you heard about someone helping a Black school. Why the sudden interest?
While Hispanics have faced disadvantages and discrimination, they have not faced the kind of outright exclusion that blacks faced for about a century under Jim Crow.
Many HBCs pre-date the civil right changes and school integration prior to the 1960. Many of them go back to the Civil war and some event pre-dated the war.
There's also HSI, short for Hispanic Serving Institutions. This concept was create in the mid-1960s. Unlike HBCs, institutions could be designated HSI as a result of a federal law. And the law didn't require that these were primarily representing hispanics. Instead the law allowed general institutions to be labeled HSI if they enrolled a certain percentage of latina/latino students along with some additional socio/economic pre-conditions.
As you can see HBCs / HSIs are somewhat different concepts and have a different history. Additionally, in recent years there's been an iflux of hispanic students to HBCs as well.
I hope that other large organizations like Google have more partnerships with HBCs/HSI/Native/Tribal educational organizations. This seams like a start, no real to not cheer it on.
There's no reason to pit groups against one another... it's much better to work together. There's a great datapoint in the history of the VRA (Voting Rights Acts) the people who became enfranchised with the first passing of it fought for expanding the VRA via the 1975 amendment to expand the VRA to other groups including Hispanic/Native/Tribal & Asian minorities. Prior to that states and manipulates in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, south California were actively working to suppers the Hispanic (such as the Chicanos) vote.