Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/meta-facebook-layoffs-h...
Bonus: almost half of Meta employees are from Asia.
Reminds me of a screenshot of WPengines ‘diversity’ pledge on their website that proceeded to state nearly 80% of their staff were female. They changed it not long after.
That seems low for a global company as around 60% of the global population is in Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_and_contine...
Edited for clarity
Because America has a moderately[0]-restrictive immigration system, people who come here on a visa are committed workers. If you decide you don't want to work for one company after moving here, your options are to leave the country in 30 days or find another firm knowledgeable enough about the immigration system to adopt your existing visa application.
The reason why this happens is because the system is designed to be deliberately difficult to use. The idea being that if it's hard to hire an H1B visa worker, you'll hire an American instead. But because this works as intended, companies that know how to work the system get access to hordes of cheap, pliant labor. So instead of protecting American workers, we protect well-connected businesses that can screw over American workers.
[0] Compared to EU nations, at least
Sincerely, someone who dealt with the nonsense of multiple European visas.
I've come to terms with it as the results have been pretty impressive in the last place I worked. It creates a 'put up or shut up' environment where excuses don't really get much traction. I led a team of eight SWE and six were women, representing both the top and bottom of skillset and teamwork in my crew, one in particular being easily top three engineers I've worked with in my 25 year career. She has the potential to go very very far.
Explain what you mean by this, without making a hacked butcher job of it.
I’ve got a fresh drink and plate of snacks, I’m actually giddily excited to see how you do (and of course have the X-posts drafted out already)
I'll offer one explanation: because the women that go into the field get treated like shit and burn out. There are many documented examples of tech businesses with systemic sexual harassment problems[0]. If your business takes steps to ensure its corporate culture does not fall into that same trap, then women who don't want to be sexually harassed will flock to you. That's how you get 50% women in a sexually-discriminated field: do the hard work of actually rooting out sex pests.
[0] Ubisoft, Activision-Blizzard-King, Microsoft, etc
Is it conceivable to you that women may also be inherently less interested in tech- and more so in people-jobs compared to their male counterparts?
Maybe this interesting talk titled "Autism and the male brain" can serve to enlighten you on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjE_yaJjXE8
If you are hiring equal numbers of women and men from a talent pool which is 80% male then you are almost certainly illegally discriminating on the basis of a protected class.
Also say what you will about it, once a company/team gets known for having women other women will flock to it.
Edit: haha people downvoting for the reality that women like working with other women.
In my university not too long ago, my classes were maybe 14% women? May have been slightly more in others, but I remember counting at one point
We need to stop accusing companies of being sexist, they are bending over backwards to try to be the ones who get closer to 50%, which reduces the available female talent pool for other companies.
All these sexism allegations are completely toxic
The fix comes from outreach towards teen and preteen girls to convince them to consider stem. I’ve attended lectures on this
It’s just not possible to get 50% of women in without significant handicaps to the interview process.
If a business is, say, 100% white men, it's extremely unlikely for this to have happened purely by chance. Like, "all the fast molecules in a can of air moving to one side" levels of impossible. If you want to argue that the problem is education or qualifications instead of overt refusal to hire minorities, that's one thing[1], but that's not an argument against measuring the company's diversity at all. That's an argument against affirmative action policies.
As far as I'm concerned, deleting this page is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the problem.
[0] Or sex, gender, class, caste, sexual orientation, etc...
[1] Though I will disagree vehemently with the idea that it's purely an education problem. The minorities are here, they just don't stick around because big tech treats them like garbage.
Forcing airlines to hire people who are not qualified just to meet a quota is the absolute worst way to solve this problem. In fact, it exacerbates it. What do you think happens when you force employers to hire people who are unqualified, and those people are all women or minorities? Well, now you just might create a perception that women and minorities are inherently less capable. Obviously untrue. But let's fix the pipeline instead of mandating "equity".
We should also work towards accepting that people are different and they have different drives and passions in their life. I imagine most Hindu women do not aspire to being professional rappers, or construction workers, for example.
If your business is able to properly enforce workplace rules against harassment, then you will have more women and minorities than other firms purely because they will remain at the company. No need for quotas, diversity hires, or affirmative action.
Targets can be missed, and reasons for the miss can be explored, e.g. were there sufficient qualified candidates in the pipeline? If not, what can be done about it. The hope is that over time, a target will be hit.
That said, I agree with you that quotas are problematic. They are the wrong solution for the problem of lack of diversity.
And if it's not, surely the company can find a hiring manager "a bit more motivated to hit company diversity targets".
If you run a mom and pop shop and need a new employee, sure, this strategy is great. Codifying it at major corporations creates all of the same bad incentives as quotas, just implicitly.
Affirmative action is indeed based on this fundamentally flawed premise. Such statistical bias occurs quite frequently, even in the absence of racism/discrimination. This is, among other things, evidenced by some minority groups being disproportionally successful in many societies. I strongly recommend Thomas Sowell's book on the topic: "Discrimination and Disparities".
Also - Twitter have offices in Ireland, don't they? How is religious diversity coming along in the Dublin office? The Catholic-Protestant conflict is less bitter in Dublin than in Belfast, but one cannot pretend discrimination and division is about race everywhere.
But wow on the woman quota, I can’t imagine how easy they had to make those interviews to hit that number.
:/
They said the same about MIT (50-50 gender ratio). In reality smart women just like studying with other smart women. I doubt it's different in the workplace.
In other words, there's a positive feedback loop.
Realistically assuming a 4-8x larger pool of potential male engineers, as well as assuming equal average skill among males and females, hiring 50% women is what's disgustingly sexist.
If 10 woman and 40 men apply and you hire 5 each based only on sex, you are sexually discriminating against the 35 other men some of whom are statistically highly likely to be better candidates than some of the 5 women hired.
Get your identity politics off this forum, it does not belong here.
The men aren’t being “sexually discriminated” against, they’re being competed against and that threatens you. Grow up.
Just keep it fair!
Can we agree that men and women are equally capable and intelligent? You have 40 male candidates and 10 female candidates. Let's say only the top 20% of all candidates are good enough. That would mean 40/5 =8 male candidates and 10/5=2 female candidates would be suitable hires.
If instead you hired 5 male and 5 female candidates under these conditions, then you would've been discriminating against male candidates in that you hired female candidates that didn't meet your "top 20% of total candidates" criteria.
It looked at Virginian public school graduates. Non-URM (underrepresented minority) men and non-URM women who majored in computer science scored similarly on the math part of their SATs. Women scored 3% better on their verbal.
In fact, taking that paper, it suggests that males are about 30-100% or even more more likely to enroll in an ECS major across the range of math scores.
For example, among those participants with a math score of 700, about 15% of females vs 30% of males end up enrolling in an ECS major.
do you have data to back this assumption, given the effect of self-selection within each group?
So if anything, any data would suggest that males are more skilled engineers than women, but I'd like to go easy on the critics here and assume males and females on average are hypothetically equal in that regard.
See the header at https://careers.twitter.com