[throwcommonsns]

This is a contrarian take that may get me downvoted and unfairly labeled, but I encourage critical thinking instead:

I've struggled with people telling me that these FAANG companies have "diversity problems," as a person of color myself. A majority of software engineers are female and male immigrants from East Asia and South Asia. These population centers are some of the most diverse regions of the world. The engineers who have been hired by preparing for and passing these companies' selective merit based coding tests had to overcome adverse conditions in their home countries as well, including extreme poverty, starvation, and totalitarian regimes.

Why do they not count toward diversity, to some white and white-adjacent critics? What message are we sending to people who are ethnic minorities from certain groups who earned their spots through merit and have also been targeted in recent newsworthy attacks, just as others have, when we make these kinds of accusations? What does a non problematic ethnic composition look like? What are these companies doing right toward some minority groups and wrong towards others?

[hattmall]

There is literally no right answer, the very nature of modern diversity is that it will always be a moving target. That is until we get over the entire concept of diversity which is racist / discriminatory at it's core.

[wpietri]

That's incorrect. The main use of diversity is in an antiracist fashion. I'd suggest you read one of Kendi's books. Stamped from the Beginning has clear and readable descriptions of the difference, but it's a relatively long work, so you might start with one of his shorter books.

[throwcommonsns]

Instead of dismissing the argument with a tawdry negated statement and a book suggestion, do you have some thoughts of your own with this matter, or at least some kind of summary?

[wpietri]

No.

Long ago I learned that it was rarely worth my time to try to argue online people out of their ignorance. A rando with a throwaway account, a strident tone, and a fair bit of ignorance on the topic is almost a guarantee that that's no point.

If you're interested in knowing something about the topic, you'll do some work. If you aren't, no amount of me spoon-feeding you summaries of serious scholarly works will change that.

If you do end up learning something and have questions, feel free to email me. I'm glad to discuss the topics with people who are serious about it.

[throwcommonsns]

What distinction does a throwaway account make on an otherwise-anonymous online forum? No need to take discussion offline. Within the next decade, I am in confident the pendulum will swing the other way, and the people who are able to vocalize their opinions now in public will be the ones needing throwaway accounts.

[wpietri]

That's another very ignorant question. You can look up the literature on it. (Heck, you could have just followed a link in my bio to get a start.) But again, I'm not spoon-feeding you.

[ummonk]

South / East Asia has more than half the world’s population yet doesn’t count towards diversity.

[throwcommonsns]

Why not? My point is that it should! What percentage of the US population is from South / East Asia? How does it compare to the representation of others? If it's similar or less, and it still somehow doesn't "count," then we have a diversity problem.

[wpietri]

Nobody is saying they don't count toward diversity. What people are saying is that the conspicuous exclusion of less favored racial groups does not get erased because they have some people from other groups.

Put more frankly, the success of recent immigrants does not erase America's long history of brutality and exploitation toward blacks and Latin Americans. The latter is a problem that we have to solve regardless.

And I think it's worth noting that some of the immigrants have brought their own biases with them, such that caste discrimination is now also a problem in Silicon Valley: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/27/indian-...

[ummonk]

> Put more frankly, the success of recent immigrants does not erase America's long history of brutality and exploitation toward blacks and Latin Americans.

But given that America was far more brutal and exploitative towards Chinese immigrants than towards Latin Americans, why are Latinos so prioritized by these initiatives to favor certain racial groups?

> And I think it's worth noting that some of the immigrants have brought their own biases with them, such that caste discrimination is now also a problem in Silicon Valley: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/27/indian-...

Ironic that in a discussion about diversity, you believe in a prejudiced stereotype about a major ethnic group in Silicon Valley. Casteism is pretty much a nonissue in Silicon Valley, if only for the simple reason that most Indian-Americans tend to be ignorant about the castes of most other Indian-Americans.

[throwcommonsns]

Sure, and we are discussing the existence of racial discrimination in engineering hiring at top tech companies, not American history or South Asian culture. Asian immigrants on H1-B conducting coding tests as interviewers at FAANG did not involve themselves in the American Jim Crowe south, for example. It's saddening to see America's own past being used to justify discrimination in the present, even to people who aren't originally from the US.

You might not share the beliefs of others that are gainfully rallying behind diversity as a cause to justify penalizing some minority groups for "doing too well" and bolstering others (the literal definition of discrimination), but it IS happening -- and certainly more people than "nobody" are backing it, provoking my original statements. Someone had to put Prop 16 on the ballot, for example (which was thankfully voted against by a large margin of fellow CA Democrats).

[wpietri]

The notion that American tech companies are somehow entirely separate from and unrelated to American history is quite a belief to hold. It's not one that stands up to any understanding of the topic, alas. But since that's a hill you've chosen to die on, I'll leave you to it.

[strken]

The short answer is that tech companies run diversity programs for three reasons: they believe in righting wrongs, they don't want to be sued for biased hiring practices, and they don't want bad PR. All three require under-represented minorities.

Turning it back on you, what should the point of a diversity program be? What's meant to be achieved outside those three goals?

[throwcommonsns]

While I certainly understand bad PR (a surprising number of people lack critical thinking skills), what is wrong or biased about hiring for coding positions based on merit-based performance on an objective coding test? Anybody regardless of background or group membership that passes will be hired, meaning it is fair and unbiased, by definition -- that is the diversity program, and if there is some lack of objectivity, that is what needs to be addressed. If that is not the case, then yes, I agree with you, the hiring process would be biased.

[wpietri]

You really need to interrogate "merit" and "objective". Nominally objective standards have long been used to advance racial discrimination in the US. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

You should also look up the extensive critiques of meritocracy as a concept. There's a lot of literature there.

Further, I know of no major tech company who uses a nominally "objective coding test" as the only criterion for hiring. And they shouldn't, because being good at taking coding tests is not the job and not what we should be hiring for.

[throwcommonsns]

No, coding tests are not the "literacy tests" you have described, and if they were, why would some minorities be performing even better than Caucasians on them?

Coding tests examine the type of work actually required to be done on the job (as coders), and they have been correlated with post-hire performance successfully. Someone who is not familiar with efficient data structures will not write scalable code and will end up creating a burden on their teammates during on-call, for example. Asking someone to solve an engineering problem with a provably correct answer is an objective test for hiring engineers, and I will have a difficult time continuing to engage with anyone who counteracts this basis of reality and truth.

When I was hired there were three coding test rounds and one interpersonal round. You might argue that the latter is where racial discrimination seeps in, as well as the recruiter outreach step itself, but somehow I am optimistic that a bunch of tolerant Californians have moved past applying a Literacy Test here already by hiring a majority immigrant / minority workforce. In my situation, my recruiter was also an Asian-American minority.

[wpietri]

I didn't say coding tests were literacy tests. You also seem a lot like somebody who has not hired people, which would explain your poor understanding of how hiring actually works.

Since my comments here don't seem to be making any sense to you, I'm not seeing the point in trying again.

[throwcommonsns]

Why are you assuming that I haven't hired anyone before? And any reasonable observer would agree that you are falsely equivocating the literacy tests of yester century with the modern day objective hiring practices of FAANG companies.

[raxxorrax]

Actually listening to minorities instead of summoning some kind of sick quota for different ethnicities. Racists are in stark decline and it didn't even take a diversity program or a change in language rules.

The companies are then righting the wrongs on the shoulders of innocents, that most likely never were racists to begin with. In short, just committing to another mistake.

[mrpopo]

> These population centers are some of the most diverse regions of the world.

South Asia and SE Asia, maybe. But East Asia (NE China, Korea, Japan) has actually one of the most ethnically "pure" populations in the world.

[skissane]

> South Asia and SE Asia, maybe. But East Asia (NE China, Korea, Japan) has actually one of the most ethnically "pure" populations in the world.

Northeast China–usually defined as the provinces of Liaoning, Jilin, and Heilongjiang–does not belong on your list. According to the 2000 Chinese census, about 10% of the population of Northeast China comes from ethnic minorities – the majority of whom are Manchus, but also including significant numbers of Mongols and Koreans. That is far from being 'one of the most ethnically "pure" populations in the world'-especially when compared to Japan or Korea.

Indeed, even though Northeast China was (in 2000) approximately 90% Han, prior to the 19th century Han were a minority in the region, and Manchus were the numerically (and politically) dominant ethnic group.

According to the 2000 Census, the most ethnically homogenous part of China is not the North or Northeast, but rather Eastern China, which is over 99% Han (and, as well as being over 99% Han overall, 4 of its 7 provinces are over 99% Han too.) By contrast, North China is about 94% Han and Northeast China is only around 90% Han.

(There have been two Chinese censuses since, in 2010 and 2020, but I can't find ethnicity figures for them.)

[ummonk]

This is so ridiculously ignorant.