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

91–100 of 246 posts

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#91

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

drhayes9 wrote: post #53
pedrorijo91 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda have the same thinking. Saying that "we have no Black/African-American (...)" seems way more racist that don't saying anything at all. People should get hired according their skills, not race/gender/etc. If a company is focused in hiring non-white males, aren't white males in disadvantage on recruitment processes?

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.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#92

Post by mynameisvlad »

dijit wrote: post #75
djtriptych wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly less comfortable for the most-privileged people on earth; probably more comfortable for everyone else. cf. Every other American industry's initial foray into diversity.

Oh, it's fine that it's racist, because I as a white male have it so good? Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class. Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would, don't judge me on that merit it's bullshit. FWIW I grew up incredibly poor and my "advantage" in IT was that people don't care about your background. If I had…

> Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would

Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#93

Post by reader5000 »

zjaffee wrote: post #59
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…

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.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#94

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

jason_dstillery wrote: post #34
ajhurliman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This strikes me as centralized planning for jobs. It seems like the best way to go about this is focusing on the pool of applicants and making sure everyone gets a fair shake. Making assumptions about the outcome of those hiring decisions independent of the actual applicants seems neither fair nor good for business.

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 population at large. You can't hire black coders in proportion to the general population if black coders form 5% (or whatever it is) of coders while black people form 14% of the general population. The math just doesn't work.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#96

Post by dijit »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #92
dijit wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it's fine that it's racist, because I as a white male have it so good? Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class. Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would, don't judge me on that merit it's bullshit. FWIW I grew up incredibly poor and my "advantage" in IT was that people don't care about your background. If I had…

> Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

Ok... My point was really:

> In my opinion being heterosexual does not make me better or worse at my job in IT than being homosexual.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#97

Post by jsmthrowaway »

zyxley wrote: post #20
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…

> 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…

> It's not "just to please other people"; it's to attempt to counteract the institutionalized discrimination against minorities that exists throughout the country.

Your counterpoint to that quote can itself be reduced to "just to please other people," for what it's worth; it just slightly changes who the "people" are and what "pleasing" means, if you really think about it. Perhaps you and GP don't entirely disagree, depending on how one interprets things.

Important: I am not stating an opinion on this because I know better in these threads. That is an merely an observation on the observation.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#98

Post by cgy1 »

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…

Affirmative action, as commonly practiced for university admissions, don't hurt whites at all. They primarily hurt Asian-American applicants.

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#99

Post by dijit »

t0mbstone wrote: post #44

Amidst the forest of diversity demographics, I found this little tidbit: "We have a flexible paid time-off policy and our maternity/paternity leave policies exceed the tech industry’s norm. In addition, our policies do not differentiate between maternity or paternity leave." Now THAT is cool. I really wish more companies did that. When my wife had a c-section with our son, she got 6 weeks off of work. I got nothing.

Come to Sweden, Paternity leave and Maternity leave are basically tied up into a shared "Parental" leave, a couple of new parents get upwards of 400+ paid days between themselves to divvy up as they see fit.

Source: my colleague just had a child and I have to do all his work as well as my own now :( (not salty, glad we have this!)

Re: Diversity and Inclusion at GitHub

#100

Post by wskinner »

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"…

GitHub is focusing on the very bottom of the funnel. They are noticing the distribution of their employees doesn't match that of the larger population, then attempting to make it match. But what if the reason their company distribution doesn't match up is that the distribution of people with the requisite skills doesn't match up? They are trying to treat the symptoms of a supposed problem rather than the ailment itself, and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by doing so.

Affirmative action doesn't work, except for the short-term career prospects of those individuals lucky enough to profit from it, and the virtue-signalers who propose it.

Post reply on HN