[deogeo]

If most were either Chinese or Indian, then they were greatly over-represented compared to US demographics. If you replace Chinese with white, it'd be taken as a sign of racism and privilege. So why isn't it racism in this case?

[maxxxxx]

I remember a while ago there was an article about a company that openly promotes women and discriminates against males. The article was in a positive light. It seems that only whites are guilty of racism and and only males are guilty of gender discrimination.

[colpabar]

More and more people are adopting new definitions for racism and sexism -- "prejudice (against a certain race/sex) plus power." Combined with the concept of white male privilege, these new definitions imply that only whites can be racist, and only males can be sexist.

[philwelch]

Approximately 1/3 of the world population is either Chinese or Indian. Probably even more if you consider only countries with a certain minimum level of economic development.

[deogeo]

Do you mean to imply we should be using world population statistics to judge if US companies are sufficiently diverse? Because by that standard, we could judge the US itself, by not reflecting global demographics in its population, to not be doing enough to advance minorities.

Minorities by US standards, since otherwise white people would also be a minority, and not even the largest one, depending on how you define 'white'.

[philwelch]

> Do you mean to imply we should be using world population statistics to judge if US companies are sufficiently diverse?

Nah, I'm just saying that the tech industry hires from a global pool of candidates, and it's not entirely surprising that a bunch of them are from China and India. If a bunch of them were from Malta and Andorra, that might be weird, but it isn't so.