Hacker News Reader

Comment by sokoloff | Hacker News Reader

> How would all the companies collude to collectively bring in more marginalized people?

Supporting pipeline programs (middle and high school education, summer programs, internship programs, bootcamps and other career-change programs, etc.) seems to be the obvious paths for companies to exert lasting positive influence on the industry and world.

Sure, there's some fringe backlash when some company supports a program that is targeted at underrepresented groups, but I think that's the way to create lasting change.

Unfortunately, it doesn't move the needle on D&I OKRs this quarter or next. Poaching from someone else is the fastest way to move a key result metric.

"Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome."

View on HN

>>Sure, there's some fringe backlash when some company supports a program that is targeted at underrepresented groups, but I think that's the way to create lasting change.

It's not "fringe backlash". It's a recognition that success in the job market isn't determined by skill despite what's claimed but by quota. The companies partaking in these diversity and inclusion ventures however don't want to admit the full depths of their assessment regarding the "underrepresented" but still try to keep the PR benefits that come with it.

>>Unfortunately, it doesn't move the needle on hiring OKRs this quarter or next. Poaching from someone else is the fastest way to move a key result metric. "Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome."

Yes. Because any sensible business would take the least risk needed to produce highest payoff. Showing proof of success at a major competitor is a great indicator of that and that also works wonders for employees in the form of massive pay raises.

By fringe backlash, I meant to reference programs like "Girls who code", "Black Girls Code", internship programs for under-represented groups, and the like.

I'm 100% supportive of these programs, while being opposed to quota-based hiring models.

Aren't discriminatory programs insulting to the intelligence the youth? And communicates to them that cultural stereotypes aren't just stereotypes, they're truths that need intervention programs to fix? Isn't it a put-down to tell the targeted group that they need the extra help the program is meant to deliver? Isn't it a disrespect to someone who wants the thing a program aims to deliver, but isn't part of the target population?

These are fringe concerns?

Fuck me then I guess.

Just wondering though: Are we assuming that the youth are too stupid to notice what we're doing? Or are we assuming they already know the score well enough to bite their tongues when we deliberately foist more of their parents culture war into their faces?

I think it depends. If there's some cultural or expectations bias that is self-reinforcing to reduce the number of women who consider tech (to include their peers thinking that tech isn't cool/is nerdy/whatever), I think these programs are a fantastic way to interrupt that cycle. I don't see it as insulting to their intelligence in any way, but maybe I'm not understanding your concern properly.

>I don't see it as insulting to their intelligence in any way

Were you not exposed to hamfisted intervention programs growing up?

They say that you never notice the propaganda that works, and I think there are lots of programs that are just outright good that even a cynic can't cut down, but I remember lots of insulting messaging baked into "lets fix X" initiatives too.

I grew up watching “this is your brain on drugs” commercials*, so yes I know what you’re referencing there.

“Girls who code” and similar programs don’t strike me as the 2020s version of the war on drugs, though.

* https://youtu.be/GOnENVylxPI

An interesting effect is that railing against bootcamps in general is common and uncontroversial.

But railing against any of the bootcamps you named above would be career suicide.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com