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

Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#91

Post by marcusverus »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #64
john_moscow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The elephant in the room is that due to rather dark times in the U.S. history, there are cultural differences between an average Black and an average White family. It doesn't mean that every family of a certain race will fit the stereotype, but if you look at numbers, they do check out. This isn't fair, this isn't nice, but it's a very important piece of the puzzle and you cannot solve the problem without admitting i…

> So the racial equality movement has been hijacked by politicians that offer a short-term solution: divide people by the most visible factor, such as skin color, then take from the overrepresented and give to the underrepresented. I think this is totally backwards. If anything, the U.S. government takes from the underrepresented and gives to the overrepresented. This is achieved through gerrymandering districts to d…

>Our social welfare programs pale in comparison to the subsidies and tax cuts given to big businesses, and other overrepresented groups.

Tax cuts aren't spending and untaxed externalities aren't subsidies. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the use of intentionally misleading language isn't as taboo as lying, so we'll keep seeing this old canard for the foreseeable future.

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#92

Post by cjohnson318 »

marcusverus wrote: post #91
cjohnson318 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the racial equality movement has been hijacked by politicians that offer a short-term solution: divide people by the most visible factor, such as skin color, then take from the overrepresented and give to the underrepresented. I think this is totally backwards. If anything, the U.S. government takes from the underrepresented and gives to the overrepresented. This is achieved through gerrymandering districts to d…

>Our social welfare programs pale in comparison to the subsidies and tax cuts given to big businesses, and other overrepresented groups. Tax cuts aren't spending and untaxed externalities aren't subsidies. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the use of intentionally misleading language isn't as taboo as lying, so we'll keep seeing this old canard for the foreseeable future.

I am not trying to mislead anyone, this is my reasoning for using the language that I did. A subsidy is a sum of money given by the government to a corporation, so it is analogous to government spending on social welfare programs. A tax cut reduces the government's income, which on a balance sheet, has the same effect as government spending. Sure, a tax cutting policy is not the same as a spending policy, but their net effect on cash flow are both negative.

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#93

Post by diffrinse »

john_moscow wrote: post #54
elisbce wrote: post #18

Any affirmative action is by definition discriminating on the basis of race. If you want the best candidate for the job, you don't look at race, you look at their abilities to do the job. Period. Any bias towards hiring one race implies bias against hiring from other races. Why is it okay to have almost no Asian players in the NBA while a small percentage of black people in tech is a big fuss? It is all hypocrisy.

The elephant in the room is that due to rather dark times in the U.S. history, there are cultural differences between an average Black and an average White family. It doesn't mean that every family of a certain race will fit the stereotype, but if you look at numbers, they do check out. This isn't fair, this isn't nice, but it's a very important piece of the puzzle and you cannot solve the problem without admitting i…

> The elephant in the room is that due to rather dark times in the U.S. history, there are cultural differences between an average Black and an average White family. It doesn't mean that every family of a certain race will fit the stereotype, but if you look at numbers, they do check out. This isn't fair, this isn't nice, but it's a very important piece of the puzzle and you cannot solve the problem without admitting it.

I am loving this utter shit assumption that is clearly being taken as gospel given the upvotes.

Do you actually believe the AVERAGE Black person you describe is not only engaging in tech with gusto but also good enough to get an interview for a senior staff position at Microsoft?

Ah, but the assumption is not only that this will be the case, but that Microsoft will also just blindly hire said person to "satisfy quotas"... WHEN HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED!?!?

You don't even have a personal anecdote of seeing this happen, and I doubt few of the people upvoting this dribble actually have, and more than likely not to any significant degree in the aggregate either.

Like, holy shit, if your description of an average Black is true, that entire curve on the bell don't even COME CLOSE to participating in tech AT ALL. Good job on the completely un-contextual resort to "statistical reasoning" to dunk on Black people.

Not to mention you show your colors when you fail to account for the children of African immigrants rather than the descendants of slaves in the US. But no, let's believe there's a line of unwashed Black masses, brutish and poorly educated, standing in an employment line that wraps around the Redmond campus waiting to get that hand-out job.

Fuckin hell, what is really happening in the tech industry is that a number of you aren't hiring perfectly qualified people because their afro or some such made you uncomfortable so they were told they weren't hired for "culture fit".

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#94

Post by john_moscow »

diffrinse wrote: post #93
john_moscow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The elephant in the room is that due to rather dark times in the U.S. history, there are cultural differences between an average Black and an average White family. It doesn't mean that every family of a certain race will fit the stereotype, but if you look at numbers, they do check out. This isn't fair, this isn't nice, but it's a very important piece of the puzzle and you cannot solve the problem without admitting i…

> The elephant in the room is that due to rather dark times in the U.S. history, there are cultural differences between an average Black and an average White family. It doesn't mean that every family of a certain race will fit the stereotype, but if you look at numbers, they do check out. This isn't fair, this isn't nice, but it's a very important piece of the puzzle and you cannot solve the problem without admitting…

I am not trying do dunk anyone. I am merely trying to suggest a solution that will be less divisive, because the current one is creating tension rather than easing it.

Also unfortunately, our brains are not naturally good with statistics, so many things may seem counter-intuitive until you look into details. Here's some napkin math model (numbers are arbitrary). Assume that we can assign an abstract "techiness score" to every person that will correlate with their chances of being hired.

Assume we have 10 people of population A and 10 people of population B. For population A it's:

* 1 person with score 0

* 7 people with score 5

* 1 person with score 9

* 1 person with score 10

For population B it's:

* 1 person with score 0

* 1 person with score 1

* 7 people with score 5

* 1 person with score 10

The difference it not that large, but if you simply hire everyone with score 8 and up, you get 2 people from population A and 1 person from population B. If you talk to these 3 people, you will see that there is no difference between them in terms of score and can easily conclude that the 2x difference is due to treating people based on their population.

If you introduce a hiring quota, you are forced to hire 1 person with score 5 from population B, and that's where the problem starts because they will be perceived weak and will trigger divisive behavior I mentioned.

As I said several times, I'm not concluding that ALL or MOST Blacks are bad or anything. I'm saying that there are statistical differences that are hard to measure and that can explain workforce underrepresentation. Other metrics you may want to look at is:

* Black-on-white crime vs. white-on-black crime.

* Families with both parents.

* Change in student loan principal after 5 years. This shows whether a certain population is choosing degrees that pay off.

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#95

Post by tzs »

throwawaysea wrote: post #84
tzs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at how Caltech went from 15% women undergraduates when I was a student there in the '80s to 45% now without discriminating on the basis of gender in admission. Rather than making gender a factor in admissions, they concentrated on getting more qualified women to apply. They would contact high school women who were very good in STEM subjects and their parents, and send someone to visit them and try to convince th…

Caltech, like other private schools such as Harvard, absolutely does discriminate in the admissions process. They are a fervent advocate of “holistic admissions”, which is modern activist speak for “process involving discrimination, most often against Asian races”. Take a look at http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/apply/first-year-freshman-... , which says “We have always reviewed students within the context of the op…

Caltech undergraduates are around 40% Asian, which is about the same as UC Berkeley or UCLA. Whites are about 30% at Caltech.

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#96

Post by DigitallyFidget »

At my work we simply do not have qualified black people applying very often. At all. We have one single black person in the 50ish management roles because that is all that we could hire. Our problem isn't with them being rejected or discrimination during interviews, but simply that we cannot hire a person who doesn't apply for an open position. Black people are not applying to our company. Does that make us non equal opportunity or discriminating for hiring 98% non-black workers?

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#97

Post by Hnrobert42 »

john_moscow wrote: post #61
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS could increase their diversity by broadening where they advertise job listings, developing mentorship programs at schools with more diverse populations, or even simply changing the language used in job postings. Building a diverse work force need not (indeed should not) be as simplistic as hiring inferior candidates because they meet some quota. Building a diverse workforce should be about making sure you get the…

Race is very strongly correlated with culture. And many cultural traits are crucial to doing work that companies need. It's just very hard to measure one's culture and it's very easy to measure their skin color. I don't think forcing companies to be diverse per skin color is a good idea. A much better way could be finding aspiring people from underrepresented populations and removing roadblocks on the way of specific…

Who said anything about forcing?

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#98

Post by Hnrobert42 »

john_moscow wrote: post #71
cjohnson318 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think forcing companies to be diverse per skin color is a good idea. Microsoft is not being forced hire more diverse leadership; this Microsoft's own internal initiative.

Someone at the board suggested it, and if anyone else opposed it, they would lose their seat as a racist. That is effectively being forced.

That sounds like speculation not fact. In such a emotionally charge discussion, we are better served by facts.

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#99

Post by mav3rick »

john_moscow wrote: post #71
cjohnson318 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think forcing companies to be diverse per skin color is a good idea. Microsoft is not being forced hire more diverse leadership; this Microsoft's own internal initiative.

Someone at the board suggested it, and if anyone else opposed it, they would lose their seat as a racist. That is effectively being forced.

Let me guess - you must be white ?

Re: Microsoft probed by US government over aim to double black staff numbers

#100

Post by mav3rick »

john_moscow wrote: post #77
cjohnson318 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the list of board members of major companies that have lost their seat due to real or perceived racism is extremely short, unless you have a long list of them lying about. I seriously doubt a whole board was strong-armed by a single person, and if it was a plurality of board members that suggested this, then that's how boards are intended to work.

I think, after the James D'Amore case, anyone with 10% of the wits needed to get to FAANG board learned to shut up and nod. You don't get that high up without playing the political game, and the rules of the game at this point are very clear.

Where's the list ? All your points are "assumptions". D'Amore made dubious claims at best and antagonized at least half the company.
Post reply on HN