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

Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 246 posts

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#101

Post by reader5000 »

drhayes9 wrote: post #68
johnnyg wrote: post #56

"There are no Black/African-American GitHubbers in management positions, which is unacceptable." It is only unacceptable if people with the skills to be in management positions didn't get a promotion because of a non-relevant personal attribute. Otherwise, it is acceptable and in the best long term interests of the company. I acknowledge that America has equality of opportunity problems. There are strong and just his…

I think GH is starting from the point of "the distribution of our employees doesn't line up with the larger population of the country we operate in". If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy? I think they're saying, "We don't think the market is working." There are hidden biases at work. For example, people with "non-white sounding"…

"all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill"

What evidence is there to believe this?

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#103

Post by MustardTiger »

djtriptych wrote: post #32
guessmyname wrote: post #12

This blog post reads to me like the Pokemon motto "Gotta Catch 'Em All". Being non-american (I'm from a South American country) it is hard for me to understand the importance giving to these things associated to racism and sexism. The United States is the only place I have seen where people invest a considerable amount of time and resources just to put people from minor groups or specific genders in pedestals just to…

It's a privileged viewpoint to even suggest there is zero bias in extant hiring practices. You think that's what we would find if we measured? We can test for this you know.

>It's a privileged viewpoint

That is a meaningless way to try to dismiss someone's opinion.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#104

Post by drhayes9 »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #91
drhayes9 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think not talking about race is more damaging than talking about race in many contexts. I also think that a decrease in institutional privilege (white male, in this case) is not discriminatory. I also don't think "quotas" are a good solution, e.g., "Hire one more Mexican woman and we're good!" But acknowledging some statistical realities and taking a close look at what got you there isn't a bad thing.

Talking about race makes things which aren't about race about race, which introduces racism. Not talking about race lets the issue of race go quiet into that good night where it belongs.

Behavior introduces racism, not talking. Talking about it means we might find a solution or a mitigation.

You make it sound like the problem would go away if we'd just stop talking about it. That's not a solution; that's just sweeping it under the rug.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#105

Post by pron »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #94
jason_dstillery wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your organization's demographics don't match the demographics of the broader population of qualified candidates, there's a good chance it's because you're biased (intentionally or not) in your recruiting or evaluation. In that sense, "focusing on the pool of applicants and making sure everyone gets a fair shake" are pretty much exactly what diversity efforts are about.

>there's a good chance it's because you're biased (intentionally or not) in your recruiting or evaluation. I don't think this is necessarily the case. Or even likely the case. For example, we know that the number of blacks, latinos, and women studying CS, etc., is much lower than their proportion in the population. It follows that even the most equitable tech company is unlikely to have demographics which match the p…

But it's also possible that the reason that some groups are underrepresented because is because they don't like their prospects (say, in term of a welcoming work environment). Causality works both up and down the pipeline; not just up.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#106

Post by MustardTiger »

drhayes9 wrote: post #68
johnnyg wrote: post #56

"There are no Black/African-American GitHubbers in management positions, which is unacceptable." It is only unacceptable if people with the skills to be in management positions didn't get a promotion because of a non-relevant personal attribute. Otherwise, it is acceptable and in the best long term interests of the company. I acknowledge that America has equality of opportunity problems. There are strong and just his…

I think GH is starting from the point of "the distribution of our employees doesn't line up with the larger population of the country we operate in". If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy? I think they're saying, "We don't think the market is working." There are hidden biases at work. For example, people with "non-white sounding"…

>If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy?

Because you think wrong.

>Given the starting point of "all these groups of people have the same capacity for talent and skill"

Why take something we know to be false as your starting point though?

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#107

Post by MustardTiger »

jbob2000 wrote: post #10

I wish so much that I could be picky about my hiring like GitHub. I wish I could have so many qualified candidates applying that I am able to create a diverse team. But I put out job ads and get like 2 qualified responses. How the hell are they able to find all these candidates such that they can start being picky about who they hire??? Maybe Toronto just sucks for tech talent... Argh...

>But I put out job ads and get like 2 qualified responses.

And 200 completely unqualified ones. It is crazy how many people apply for jobs they have absolutely no qualifications for.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#108

Post by laughinghan »

said wrote: post #88
zyxley wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The United States is the only place I have seen where people invest a considerable amount of time and resources just to put people from minor groups or specific genders in pedestals just to please other people. It's not "just to please other people"; it's to attempt to counteract the institutionalized discrimination against minorities that exists throughout the country. Studies have shown[1] that, for example, peop…

Given the widespread use of pro-black affirmative-action (practiced by GitHub, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft; nearly every major university; many government contractors; and probably the majority of F500 companies), isn't it only logical to view black resumes with more suspicion? Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites. On a side note, af…

> Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites.

The scientific consensus is that the opposite is true, that black people need to display higher competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites, which is precisely why affirmative action is hoped to be valuable. See "Social Justice for the Highly-Demanding of Rigor" for a meta-analysis of over a dozen separate scientific studies: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/20/social-justice-for-the-...

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#109

Post by [deleted] »

drhayes9 wrote: post #68
johnnyg wrote: post #56

"There are no Black/African-American GitHubbers in management positions, which is unacceptable." It is only unacceptable if people with the skills to be in management positions didn't get a promotion because of a non-relevant personal attribute. Otherwise, it is acceptable and in the best long term interests of the company. I acknowledge that America has equality of opportunity problems. There are strong and just his…

I think GH is starting from the point of "the distribution of our employees doesn't line up with the larger population of the country we operate in". If you think each of those groups of people has the potential to be as talented as any other, then why is there a discrepancy? I think they're saying, "We don't think the market is working." There are hidden biases at work. For example, people with "non-white sounding"…

[deleted]

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#110

Post by resu_nimda »

reader5000 wrote: post #93
zjaffee wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies want to be in a possition where if a talented candidate is african american, female, gay, transgender, ect. that they wouldn't turn down the offer simply because they didn't feel comfortable working there/there is another company that is more diverse that makes this kind of person more comfortable there. The talent war is so competitive that companies are doing everything they can to keep up, including dive…

But the flip side of that is that talent not in the coddled identity class of the day will feel that they should find companies with actual important shit to focus on to work for.

I love the "too busy doing important things" argument for why nobody should spend any time thinking about diversity. Of course, deciding what is important in life is an entirely subjective matter. But just to aid in my understanding of this argument, I would be interested to hear some examples of which companies and activities constitute actual important shit.
Post reply on HN