It's now disportionately impacting white people, and in the 80s-90s it was disproportionately impacting black people which the US govt and media used to paint a negative image. So now it's hitting closer to home, so it's getting more attention and treated with a lot more sympathy.
i think it's more that he already has way more money than he needs. And needs to inspire confidence with employees and show his commitment to creating a better Twitter. to him it doesn't mean much financially, but he's probably hoping it shows that he's committed.
It wouldnt be tolerated if it was spoken outright. Unfortunately its pretty easy for a hiring manager to dismiss someone officially because of something on her resume or in the interview officially, while being sexist or racist, or just having embedded biases in their head. Ive heard it often enough.
Those could be contradictory. If you're consciously categorizing people in order to "be inclusive", you are discriminating ("make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things"), and probably instituting your own mental quotas to monitor the balance.
If you just mean don't throw "Latoya's" job application in the trash just because she sounds Black and you don't want any of those, few here are going to disagree, and few here would do that either, so it's not very helpful.
seems like you're jumping through mental gymnastics to discount being more inclusive. none of that applies when you're actively going out of your way to be more inclusive of POC.
I am in no way arguing against the actual idea of including every human being, regardless of whether I think they have historically been oppressed. I'm arguing against the idea of choosing one slice of humanity that I need to "be more inclusive" to today, and the idea that that alone is practical, effective, fair advice.
"Be more inclusive" sounds like a platitude that's not very actionable. How do I know if I'm failing? Is it when I don't meet some arbitrary quota or percentage? But I thought quotas were bad. And who gets to decide what the numbers are? Do I know I'm failing when people write articles like this? By that standard I'll never succeed.
> none of that applies when you're actively going out of your way to be more inclusive of POC.
So, should I not go out of my way to "be more inclusive" of Jews or gays? In other comments, you talk about how Asians are successfully assimilated or whatever, so I guess you would prefer I "be more inclusive" more to Black people than to Asian people? Does that mean Asians are excluded from being POC? Or just that "who I need to go out of my way for" is constantly changing and entirely subjective? I feel like a racist for even googling POC to make sure I know the definition, let alone the idea of evaluating what I think someone's racial heritage is, to decide what race-based treatment they should get. ("Does she just pass as white, or is she really white? Hmm, I'd better consult Wikipedia on racial nose shapes and eye colors." This is a deliberately absurd response, but my point is that being "inclusive to POC" means being able to reliably identify POC, which is difficult and pretty much racist.)
I may have gotten a little carried away here. A simpler, less-likely-to-offend way of saying it: Making any given person feel completely at ease and welcome, is a gift that not everyone has. Telling someone without that gift to just "be more inclusive" won't magically give them that gift.
It's possible that collectively stregthening our capacities for empathy will make that gift occur more often. But again, I don't think dividing and sub-dividing each other into classes that effectively merit more or less empathy relative to each other is the way to do it.
So, one of the issues I have here is that a lot of interviewing is done without structure, and judgements are so often made based off woolly ideas like 'culture fit' which often just mean rapport.
It's actually often the interviewer who feels nervous interviewing a woman, or a person of colour... and that prevents them from forming a rapport.
With the best will in the world, if you tell someone to be meritocratic and sit them down with someone with whom they have little in common and may never meet socially they'll be less at ease and may not make a human connection and that indirectly penalises the candidate.
One thing that helps here is to have very structured interviews, as having a clear and uniform structure can help interviewers feel more at ease. There are other benefits too.
You know that brown people went through this years ago as did asians? We had to fight to be apart of society. Now we have the privelege of being "model minorities" while others don't.
She talks about being black because she is black and shes talking about her feelings and perspective. It's ignorant to dismiss that.
Unfortunately for many people of color. They dont have the same opportunities that a white or asian person would have so you cant understand their persoective so it's best to listen because there are thousands of examples out there. The more you listen to them the more youll learn.
And she's shitting on the industry for ignoring races while being inclusive to white women. It's obviously great that women are getting an opportunity but it's ignorant to ignore women of color.
Theyre speaking not because they have the most to win. Theyre speaking because they want to be equal, which they arent in the tech world and outside of it. they want to go from below equality to at equality, not above it.
Frankly, i'm embarassed when minorities speak from their privilege ignoring the fact that indians/asians have been through it until white america said "no no guys, these asians are cool". That hasnt happened with black people yet.
Companies primarily hire out of networks/referrals. If your company is full of white guys, and their friends are very likely to be white guys, you end up hiring white guys.
that doesn't change the fact that quotas are a shitty solution, perhaps having people vote publicly on topics that are on an agenda, while witholding the author's name?
content is what is important. technical content and content of character.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day
live in a nation where they will not be judged by the
color of their skin, but by the content of their
character."
How about running conferences on a completely blind process where the identity about the potential speakers are obscured by hashing, and people instead choose which speakers will present based on abstracts of the topic they will present on and some indication that they are qualified/knowledgeable to speak on the topic.
The best solution for inclusion is by eliminating the privilege through a blind process.
