Why Tech Degrees Are Not Putting More Blacks and Hispanics into Tech Jobs

@kamau - imagine how it was for the first indian or chinese in an totally white male company? how was it for when women started entering the workforce in the 60s/70s? Unfortunately such despicable racist attitudes are prevalent, perhaps widely.

But I would argue tech is a meritocracy - not perfect - but very much a meritocracy.

"Be the change you want".

Companies don't bear any moral responsibilities - people do

Hiring managers and executives should use all of the tools at their disposal in the context of recruitment and hiring - including moral and ethical judgement.

Setting moral responsibilities aside - if you want to hire talented, passionate engineers like me, you will get serious about building teams with people from diverse backgrounds.

I think that should be further specified. It's not just that culture matters, but cultural expectations and the environment that leads to.

See, I listen to a lot of rap, or "black music". And differences in taste aside, some of the stuff is REALLY complex. Look at Nas, Tupac, or even more recently, Kendrick Lamar. The sheer amount of detail these guys put into their art makes me feel bad about myself as a programmer. These guys work hard at their craft. But you know what, they're not coders.

But here's the thing, quoting Kendrick Lamars "Black Boy Fly": "The only way out the ghetto, you know the stereotype Shooting hoops or live on the stereo like top 40".

The reason why they're not programmers is the same reason why I'm not a rapper. Because I'm white AND asian, and I grew up with a computer instead of a boombox, that my friends coded and didn't rhyme. Not that I don't want to, or that I don't work at it, it's closed doors to me.

I'm fairly certain that black people from the neighbourhoods that I get my music from, walking into a coding interview, even if they've been trying to program for years, they'd be just as lost as me walking into a rap battle. It's not about how hard you work at it, or how hard you push at it. Social mobility takes commitment.

Or succinctly put from the same song " What am I to do when every neighborhood is an obstacle"

This I really don't understand. All it takes is a simple Google search about "what can I expect in a software interview?" and you'll see right away the importance of whiteboard interviews for so many companies, especially when you are coming out of college. I don't how true the quote actually is, but for anyone, regardless of race, I feel like this is just basic due diligence if you want a job.

I've barely been to any career events at my school, and professors never mention about whiteboard interviews. My friends in CS don't discuss this either. I just learned right away when I did some basic research on job searching.

It doesn't require a conspiracy. Those in power accumulate more power and exploit those with less power. That's human nature. Much power comes from technical leverage, and that's largely a historical accident. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel (or watch the tv version). It gets to the root of how technology happened, and how it gave some cultures a leg up.

Here's a precis:

In the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Iraq/Syria today), several species of grains grow natively - oats, barley, rye, etc. And several species of domesticatable large animals - sheep, horses, cattle - are also native. Very few animals can actually be domesticated.

Grains can be stored for a long time (years), but are hard to digest for humans. The accidental discovery of fermentation led to bread and beer. This gave the people living there a much more stable and high-quality food source than hunter-gathers. Improving the storage led to ceramics. Ceramics led to firing. Firing led to plaster, so they could also build much more durable structures. Experience with high heat fires led to smelting, alloying, and forging metal. The wealth these practices produced led to towns and then cities, and economic specialization - especially trained and well-equipped soldiers. Specialization led to writing, which created more wealth. Herding sheep and cattle, and riding horses, became practical and effective. The wealthy early kingdoms of the Middle East started conquering their neighbors and spreading their technologies.

Fast forward to the example of the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro and the Incas. Pizarro had 160 or so men, with horses, swords, and guns. He completely destroyed a 5000 man Inca army. How? Technology. The Incas weren't stupid or weak, as you're suggesting. They were unprepared. The Incas didn't have horses or sophisticated metalworking - their environment didn't lead to those discoveries. The Spanish sword was the deadliest weapon in the world, the product of a couple thousand years of refinement. Their horses and mounted warfare techniques were the product of thousands of additional years of refinement. Europeans, of course, knew how to fight men on horseback. You build long spears and polearms, and train soldiers to stand their ground against the terrifying charge. The Incas didn't know that. They panicked, scattered, and were easily slaughtered.

They weren't stupid. They weren't weak. They were outgunned.

The Spaniards, of course, were smart as we are, by your concepts. Imagine what would happen if 160 fully armed armed modern soldiers, with the latest weapons, traveling in modern armored vehicles, encountered a 5000 man army of Spaniards with horses and swords?

It's all luck. It's all an accident of history. You're not either intellectually or morally superior to any other race.