Hacker News Reader

Comment by discoursism | Hacker News Reader

I don't know if this guy has taken a look around, but Google is like 75% white and Asian males, and 25% everyone else. That might even be slightly generous. It skews even more for those in power. Doesn't seem like these classes are having any trouble succeeding at the company.

It might not be hard to convince a jury that it would be 80 or 85% if Google stopped all pro-diversity measures. It might be hard to convince them to penalize Google for it, though.

(FWIW, I'm on a team that consists solely of white and Asian males, and everyone on my chain is a white or Asian male, all the way to the top.)

View on HN

> Google is like 75% white and Asian males, and 25% everyone else.[...] Doesn't seem like these classes are having any trouble succeeding at the company.

At a first glance the racial category "white" on its own is obviously underrepresented at Google both relative to the population of California and relative to that of the United States.

California is ~79% "white" (2005 data here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California ) whereas Google is only ~56% "white" (2017 data here: http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/ ).

It is probably even more underrepresented if you sample just tech graduates.

You cannot have racial diversity without massive discrimination if the source is biased.

If it can be shown that Google refused to interview certain candidates because of their race or sex, that is illegal discrimination, regardless of the demographics of Google's workforce.

Yeah, I'll be surprised if that can actually be shown, but I guess it wouldn't be the first time I've been surprised.

I mean, an email explicitly saying "We should only consider L3s from our underrepresented groups" seems pretty clear no? Or did you not read the article?

I see that there is a claim that such an email exists. I don't think this has actually been established yet. Even if this email was sent, I expect that either we'll find that in context it wasn't exclusionary (e.g. the group in question was to be dedicated to hiring from underrepresented groups, while other groups handled candidates from all backgrounds), or we'll find that it was in contravention to Google's policies on the issue. We'll also eventually learn that objecting to this email was not why the plaintiff was fired.

That's my expectation.

Since you mention that you deal mostly with whites and Asians, what kind of issues do you deal with that you wouldn't think we be as bad under a more diverse team.

I am not one who espouses a utility perspective on diversity. The research I've seen, such as it is, does not seem compelling. I care more about the justice aspect.

What If I said there was evidence to say diversity is a net-negative? From communication issues to cultural conflicts between employees?

Would there be a point where the negatives of diversity can outweigh the justice (Which i assume is something along the lines of offering employment to those who otherwise wouldn't be offered)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com