I'm assuming some HNers are soon to arrive saying things like "why does it matter that a founder is a female?", "why make an excluding event? isn't it sexism all the same", "imagine if someone make a 'male founders conference'?" I would like to ask you to think for a moment, before raising this concerns (I am not bothering here to debate with haters, only with those who are genuinely concerned that this might sexism…
I would like to ask you to think for a moment, before raising these concerns (I am not bothering here to debate with haters, only with those who are genuinely concerned that this might be racism, all the same).
If a group is underrepresented in some professional, economical, academical field, it is worthy to understand the causes. Sometimes is a historical gap in fields that have a self-perpetuating cycle of dominance (such as women in politics). It is tough to address such underrepresentation, and it take generations to make any change (as it took generations and generations to create the initial gap).
This is not the case for black founders. Here we have a much simples issue: stigmatization. At least, this is how most people in this field, including the organizers of this event, seems to classify it. It is easier to address because a cultural perception is easier to change than institutionalized cycles of power (as in politics).
And, as I see it, this is the only goal of this event. No one is claiming that blacks are better than whites or asians in founding startups. Or the opposite, that blacks are worse than whites in founding startups and that they need special treatment. This event is only trying inspire blacks, and that founding startups shouldn't be stigmatized as a white and asian club. Blacks can have a good life in founding one if they give this thought a chance.
So there the only assumptions I see in this event are that: (i) founding a startup is a good thing that they should inspire people to do (something largely supported by HN audience I would guess) and (ii) that blacks aren't currently being correctly or ideally presented, attracted and inspired to these opportunities of founding a startup.
These two assumptions may be contested. If you disagree with assumption (i) you a have a much bigger fight to pick, basically the whole illusion that Sillicon Valley sells to the world, this event isn't particular relevant in this broader debate.
And if you disagree with assumption (ii), that this event is not necessary, it means that is no harm done by such an event occurring. It would by useless at most, but not particularly harmful.
This is my perception of this, and I am writing it hoping to avoid a thread full of heated debate based on false assumptions. Maybe I am being pretentious, but I swear I am just trying to help and expose my thoughts on the subject.