Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

#FFFFFF Diversity

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#61

Post by provemewrong »

tajen wrote: post #35
Kiro wrote: post #15

Am I the only one who think it's perfectly logical that the speaker ratio is the same as the ratio of the tech population? Of course we should try hard to find minority speakers just to be proactive since we do have a diversty problem. However, when you go to a conference you want to see the best speakers and then it's only logical that a minority is less represented since, you know, there are less good speakers to c…

In other words, women are overrepresented in conferences compared to their presence on the field, and it's going to be the same with ethnicities. In my business experience, women are already overrepresented in management positions compared to developer positions. Who wants to remain a developer anyway?

> Who wants to remain a developer anyway?

I do.

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#62

Post by [deleted] »

tajen wrote: post #35
Kiro wrote: post #15

Am I the only one who think it's perfectly logical that the speaker ratio is the same as the ratio of the tech population? Of course we should try hard to find minority speakers just to be proactive since we do have a diversty problem. However, when you go to a conference you want to see the best speakers and then it's only logical that a minority is less represented since, you know, there are less good speakers to c…

In other words, women are overrepresented in conferences compared to their presence on the field, and it's going to be the same with ethnicities. In my business experience, women are already overrepresented in management positions compared to developer positions. Who wants to remain a developer anyway?

[deleted]

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#63

Post by paulojreis »

onion2k wrote: post #28
paulojreis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if we forcibly try to overrepresent every minority where do we end up? "50% black trans women speakers"? I wouldn't go to such a conference since the probability of bad talks would be too hig\ You end up with hiring quotas in companies, where a less-than-competent candidate can be hired instead of a competent one because he/she belongs to a minority. Will the bet on minority over competence will yield greater g…

That point you've apparently missed is that current hiring practises among some companies can be discriminatory. There are hiring managers out there who won't hire a female developer because they're just outright sexist. Quotas get introduced because there are brilliant minority developers who get passed over because they're in the minority. All that said though, I don't believe there's any actual evidence that peopl…

> That point you've apparently missed is that current hiring practises among some companies can be discriminatory.

Yes, I know they are. My question ("Will the bet on minority over competence will yield greater gains in the long run?") was genuine; I really wish I knew if positive discrimination to counteract the existing discrimination will improve the situation.

> All that said though, I don't believe there's any actual evidence that people end up hiring less-than-competent people because of quotas.

Evidence? Maybe not. But believe me, there are quotas with perfidious results in large companies. I've seen it happen somewhat like this: department X has 5 vacancies to fill; due to department "demographics", company mandates that 3 of the 5 vacancies are for female candidates; due to candidates "demographics", department X ends with a pool of N candidates for 3 vacancies and another pool of 10N for the other 2.

But, as you said, it's theoretical. If the candidates had a quantifiable "skill", the "no subpools" approach would yield better results - a bigger "skill" quantity for the total of vacancies. However, in practice, you can't quantify skill, and much less the impact a candidate will have in the department. The apparently sub-optimal "subpools" approach might get the 5 vacancies with "more than enough" skill; The apparently sub-optimal "subpools" might even yield better results due to e.g. diversity. That's why I said that this is a question for the ages - only cohort-like analysis of hiring practices will give us something close to a answer which isn't merely speculative.

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#64

Post by lucozade »

azima wrote: post #43
lucozade wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely that depends on what problem you're trying to solve. If what you're trying to solve with a diversity programme is opening up the potential talent pool, it's entirely conceivable that focusing on white women and Asian men could be sufficient. If what you're trying to solve is a greater diversity of opinions and experiences to foster ideas, say, it's entirely conceivable that hiring white women and Asian men cou…

To your last paragraph, that completely ignores intersectionalism in thag there isnt just 1 type of woman. There are many types of women and diversity efforts should be approached with that in mind. And sure if you want to hit diversity quotas, then hiring asian men and white women does that. BUT, it limits the advantages of diverse companies and hurts society overall which is kind of the whole point of diversity. Fo…

I'm not talking about quotas. They're a political tool usually.

I'm talking about the well researched and well documented advantages of diversity for an organisation.

You appear to be assuming, somewhat ironically, that there is only one point of a diversity programme and that that is to have some kind of impact on society as a whole. A worthy goal, sure, but not the only one.

My point is that an organisation may have a diversity programme, the main aim of which is to improve the financial position of the organisation, say. My contention is that does not necessarily require them to go beyond gross corrections in their diversity profile. The fact that they may have to for legal reasons or may wish to for societal reasons is a separate matter.

Now clearly you don't hold that taking such a position meets society's needs and you may well be right. You may also feel that all organisations should use diversity programmes for societal ends and that's not an uncommon view. It just happens to not be the only reason for having a diversity programme.

Oh, and thank you for the advice regarding intersectionality. You appear to have mistaken my not considering it important for my point for ignorance of it. Easy mistake to make.

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#65

Post by scintill76 »

Kiro wrote: post #15

Am I the only one who think it's perfectly logical that the speaker ratio is the same as the ratio of the tech population? Of course we should try hard to find minority speakers just to be proactive since we do have a diversty problem. However, when you go to a conference you want to see the best speakers and then it's only logical that a minority is less represented since, you know, there are less good speakers to c…

> "50% black trans women speakers"?

Bingo, this seems the natural end (or just the beginning of absurdity, really) of emphasizing equal representation of intersectionality, and it doesn't seem productive, dignified, or fair. Can anyone show that this is distorting the article's point? I don't see why transexuality should be minimized more than race or gender, and why it's not a component of intersectionality. Or defend why it's actually a good idea to turn people into a tuple of (gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, sex, sex at time of birth, religion, caste, language) and select uniformly (or oppression-intersectionally)? How are you even going to find all those things out? (In some cases, asking would be a legal liability, and doesn't seem the most appropriate thing to ask.)

I'd rather wear down barriers where I see them and let diversity organically grow, than to constantly be categorizing people and fudging the numbers into something artificially diverse.

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#66

Post by onion2k »

bshimmin wrote: post #54
onion2k wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That point you've apparently missed is that current hiring practises among some companies can be discriminatory. There are hiring managers out there who won't hire a female developer because they're just outright sexist. Quotas get introduced because there are brilliant minority developers who get passed over because they're in the minority. All that said though, I don't believe there's any actual evidence that peopl…

There are hiring managers out there who won't hire a female developer because they're just outright sexist. Do these people actually really exist in 2015, and are there organisations that would allow them to behave like that? I've known quite a few hiring managers, and some of them have definitely made stupid comments about "how nice it'd be to have a hot girl on the team" (though equally they might also make stupid…

Anecdotally, yes I've met people who won't hire a woman. Reasons vary from an assumption that they won't be as capable because they have interests outside of coding, a belief that other developers won't be as productive if there's a woman on the team because they'll be distracted, or that they won't want to be a part of the company long term because they'll want to leave to have a family.

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#67

Post by richmarr »

scintill76 wrote: post #55
richmarr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't this just promote the idea that people of different ethnicities really are that different? This is pretty much the "but we're a meritocracy" argument, and it's unfortunately wrong. Having worked extensively with the behavioural science behind things like hiring processes, performance reviews, etc. I can conclusively tell you that we do not live in a meritocracy. People get discriminated against, constantly.…

I don't think this is really related to the comment you're replying to. Whether or not discrimination exists is not the same as whether or not "the value and importance of intersectionality and representation" (article quote) is something we should consciously pursue. How does that not carry a bias towards reverse discrimination? I agree with the OP, I'm scratching my head about how the article simultaneously argues…

Yeah, I think you're right. I should read more slowly :)

> You can either argue for ignoring all labels or for special label-based treatments, not both.

So, your question is how to square the value-add of diversity against the idea that race/gender doesn't affect technical ability?

If that's the case then I'd call out what I think is an incorrect assumption; that technical ability is perfectly correlated with either productivity (as an employee) or interestingness (as a speaker).

Nor does the performance of the individual equate to performance of teams or large organisations.

While it's not conclusive, there are studies that show that diversity in the workplace correlates with increased performance, and diversity as a nation correlates with increased GDP.

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#68

Post by azima »

lucozade wrote: post #64
azima wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your last paragraph, that completely ignores intersectionalism in thag there isnt just 1 type of woman. There are many types of women and diversity efforts should be approached with that in mind. And sure if you want to hit diversity quotas, then hiring asian men and white women does that. BUT, it limits the advantages of diverse companies and hurts society overall which is kind of the whole point of diversity. Fo…

I'm not talking about quotas. They're a political tool usually. I'm talking about the well researched and well documented advantages of diversity for an organisation. You appear to be assuming, somewhat ironically, that there is only one point of a diversity programme and that that is to have some kind of impact on society as a whole. A worthy goal, sure, but not the only one. My point is that an organisation may hav…

Not considering it important is ignorance. Cheers

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#69

Post by spoiler »

Let me preface with what I'm about to say with this: I am very pro-equality in all aspects. Also, I am not a supporter of this new-wave Feminism which is full of misandry, anti-patriachy and other similar bullshit. Men of all skin colours get discriminated every day by women, too. Yes, women are not magical all do-good creatures; they can be horrible, regardless of skin colour. With that being said...

However, I am afraid we'll soon have this trend where a black woman[1] with lesser qualifications will be hired in favour of a white man with better qualifications, simply because she is a woman and black. Same applies for speakership (or whatever you call it).

That's not equality.

Re: #FFFFFF Diversity

#70

Post by scintill76 »

richmarr wrote: post #67
scintill76 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is really related to the comment you're replying to. Whether or not discrimination exists is not the same as whether or not "the value and importance of intersectionality and representation" (article quote) is something we should consciously pursue. How does that not carry a bias towards reverse discrimination? I agree with the OP, I'm scratching my head about how the article simultaneously argues…

Yeah, I think you're right. I should read more slowly :) > You can either argue for ignoring all labels or for special label-based treatments, not both. So, your question is how to square the value-add of diversity against the idea that race/gender doesn't affect technical ability? If that's the case then I'd call out what I think is an incorrect assumption; that technical ability is perfectly correlated with either…

> If that's the case then I'd call out what I think is an incorrect assumption; that technical ability is perfectly correlated with either productivity (as an employee) or interestingness (as a speaker).

OK, that's interesting and a good point.

> While it's not conclusive, there are studies that show that diversity in the workplace correlates with increased performance

But how should that affect a hiring manager? Should they round-robin through categories of people for each hire? Isn't that just reverse-discrimination? (Or "regular discrimination" if it's the WASP straight male's turn to get hired.) Doing one's best to look past those labels seems to make sense, but the article seems to say we need to consciously label and balance the representation.

Post reply on HN