[_pius]

I read your rant a few times and I've yet to see your point.

Charities should be based on need and helping the greater good, not on playing favorites.

This isn't a charity. A black woman started this program to address a legitimate need that she saw. Others who agreed with her gave her money to do it.

Where is the bad in this? How is this anything but a net positive for the world?

[vijayr]

I understand where the GP is coming from.

Teaching kids to code is an absolutely nice thing to do. But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class? They'll be turned away?

To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc. In many educational institutions, huge percentage of seats are reserved for the so called "lower" castes. So a kid, who gets very low grades, can get into a good institution, just because he is from a lower caste, even if that kid's family is rich. On the other hand, a poor kid from a so called "higher" caste, can't get in, even after getting high grades, as there are only so many seats and competition is tough. This has wrecked havoc in the Indian society, as absolutely dumb kids get into good colleges, while bright kids are left out.

Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only. Any kid who wants to learn to code, should be welcome, irrespective of their color. It does however, make sense to say no based on affordability - meaning, saying no to a rich kid makes sense, as he/she will find another teacher anyway, because he/she can afford it.

Again, she is doing a great noble work, no question about it. It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids.

[king_jester]

> But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class?

Charities are free to focus on where the most need is based on the limited resources they have. There is a significant lack of women of color in US tech circles, so there is nothing wrong with a charity targeting that. Charity by definition won't be able to focus on everyone.

> To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc.

This is a US-based charity targeting people of color living in the US. Comparisons between the US and India are not helpful here.

> Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only.

This is nonsense. Those that would benefit the most from this charity program already face discrimination and lack of opportunity BECAUSE OF their race and gender.

> It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids.

It would also be awesome if social barriers didn't exist at all and this kind of program wouldn't be needed, but we don't live in that world. That said, this program is absolutely doing good work and is right to target who needs this kind of assistance the most.

[JPKab]

The assumption that people face discrimination because of race is ham fisted and wrong. People face discrimination in the U.S. largely because of their CULTURE. Dress the wrong way, speak in the wrong dialect (whether that is an Appalachian dialect or a Memphis African American dialect) at a job interview, and you are likely to be discriminated against.

A huge number of black Americans in the U.S. face discrimination because they grew up in a culture which affects the way that they dress, speak, and act. The Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson has a fascinating book called Disintegration about the various cultures present in the African American population in the United States. The particular culture of African Americans that faces the huge barriers of discrimination, bad schools, and bad upbringing are referred to in his book as "the Abandoned." As a white American who grew up in a trailer park in a mostly black area of the rural south, I happen to have a knowledge that most white Americans I encounter don't SEEM to have. And that is that the vast majority of discrimination against black americans is selectively directed against the "Abandoned", mainly in a passive, rather than active way. It is much more insidious in that sense.

I bring this up because too often I see whites who simply don't know anything other than what they learned in a college class say that "blacks" face barriers. It is much, much more complex than that. Here's a quote from a New York Times book review of Robinson's work:

"During the past four decades, Robinson persuasively argues, black America has splintered into four subgroups: the Transcendent elite; the Mainstream middle class, which now accounts for a majority of black Americans; an Emergent community made up of mixed-race families and black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean; and the Abandoned, a large and growing underclass concentrated in the inner cities and depressed pockets of the rural South."

[king_jester]

> The assumption that people face discrimination because of race is ham fisted and wrong. People face discrimination in the U.S. largely because of their CULTURE.

Ah of course, if only people acted more white they wouldn't have all these problems! /s

Improving ones class status or conforming to mainstream, white ideas about acceptable culture do not in any way stop or erase racism. Systemic and institutional racism affects all people of color. That some have different experiences or are affected differently is to be expected given how racism intersects with class and gender.

> As a white American who grew up in a trailer park in a mostly black area of the rural south, I happen to have a knowledge that most white Americans I encounter don't SEEM to have

You definitely may have a different experience compared to other white people, but you aren't black and don't live that experience, this factoid isn't relevant. By definition you cannot claim to know black experience first hand because you are not black.

> And that is that the vast majority of discrimination against black americans is selectively directed against the "Abandoned", mainly in a passive, rather than active way.

I don't dispute that the most marginalized people are the most affected by racism, classism, etc. However, that doesn't mean that racism doesn't affect people of color who have class privileges.

BlackGirlsCode is a program directly targeted at the people you call "Abandoned" (get way to establish other-ness by not calling them people and implying that at some point these people were cared for by the mainstream). The whole reason why this program exists in the first place is to help people who have been hit the hardest by racism, classism, and gender discrimination.

[JPKab]

'Abandoned' is Eugene Robinson's term. He is a famous, left of center political commentator and writer for the Washington Post. He is black, and if you had any idea of what you were talking about, you would realize that 'Abandoned' doesn't reference them being taken care of by the mainstream at one point. It references the fact that the 'white flight' of the 1950's - 70's is a misnomer. It was really a middle class flight from cities, but the black middle class was delayed in their "abandoning" the inner cities due to racist housing discrimination policies in white suburbs. Once these were taken away in the 60's, the black middle class also fled the cities.

"Ah of course, if only people acted more white they wouldn't have all these problems"

This statement is exactly what I'm talking about. As if there is one 'white' culture in America. There isn't. I speak in a different manner at work than I do at home. My native dialect is not considered acceptable in business. I don't say y'all or ain't, and I shorten my words into the Anglo-Saxon, northeastern dialect that is the de-facto business standard English of the U.S. If I don't, I suffer the consequences. 'White' is a race, not a culture. But again, you completely miss this. I guess you also think that a black person who speaks in a north-eastern anglo-saxon dialect is 'acting white' correct? This is such bullshit, and it is the epitome of a person who learned about culture in a classroom, rather than living in a truly integrated environment.

My best friend growing up was victimized (physically attacked) by 'Abandoned' kids because he did well in school and 'acted white.'(there words, not mine) Nice to see this type of thinking isn't limited to just them. /s

The majority of white people I encounter who claim to be multicultural have never even spent the night under the roof of a person of color, let alone attended churches or social gatherings to truly understand that its about culture, not race.

[king_jester]

> It was really a middle class flight from cities, but the black middle class was delayed in their "abandoning" the inner cities due to racist housing discrimination policies in white suburbs. Once these were taken away in the 60's, the black middle class also fled the cities.

You are right that white flight is really a class flight, but we should be clear that whites overwhelmingly benefited from this movement for a variety of reasons, including their easier access to better economic status and the enactment of racist laws that prohibited non-whites from participating in moving to the suburbs.

However, calling people "abandoned" still doesn't make any sense. How can a group of people be abandoned if they were never included in the mainstream in the first place? In a capitalist economy like the US, the middle class depends on the poor to continue to function and that kind of classism is a big part of our society. Ultimately all that matters is that people of color still face many barriers and oppressions, micro and macro, every day and those oppressions are intersectional with race, gender, and class, among other things.

> This statement is exactly what I'm talking about. As if there is one 'white' culture in America.

In the US, there IS only one mainstream culture and it places whiteness above other races. When I say white culture, I do not strictly mean the various cultures and histories of lightly skinned people. Rather, I'm talking about mainstream American culture: white, hetero-normative, imperialist, capitalist, and patriarchal enterprise.

> My best friend growing up was victimized (physically attacked) by 'Abandoned' kids because he did well in school and 'acted white.'(there words, not mine) Nice to see this type of thinking isn't limited to just them. /s

I'm sorry that this happened to your friend, but if you are insinuating that calling point problematic statements is the same as physically beating someone, you are saying that problematic shit is above criticism.

[andyjsong]

> So a kid, who gets very low grades, can get into a good institution, just because he is from a lower caste, even if that kid's family is rich. On the other hand, a poor kid from a so called "higher" caste, can't get in, even after getting high grades, as there are only so many seats and competition is tough. This has wrecked havoc in the Indian society, as absolutely dumb kids get into good colleges, while bright kids are left out.

This vaguely sounds like affirmative action in the US.

[wpietri]

> So a kid, who gets very low grades, can get into a good institution, just because he is from a lower caste, even if that kid's family is rich.

Wait! You're saying that the process of undoing centuries of systemic unfairness might not be perfectly fair itself? And that groups who were historically privileged are now sometimes experiencing a small fraction of what their ancestors dished out? The horror!

That's not to say that we shouldn't work toward a world which is perfectly fair. But I'm ok with the unfairness getting sloshed around a little as we reduce it. As a white USian, it kills me to see people who suddenly discover their sense of fairness only when they might be on the receiving end of a little inequality. Or, often, just getting demoted to mere equality.

[fitzsnaggle]

FYI, Hispanics were present at the workshops. It should be called "Minority Girls Code", but I still think this name is better and its too late to change it. If a white girl came, I doubt they would be turned away. Men definitely would, as girls demure easily with boys in the room when it comes to tech.

[dinkumthinkum]

No, apparently we need complete and utter equality or the kids get nothing. :)

[JPKab]

The bad in this would be a young black girl trying to bring her hispanic friend. Exclusion is exclusion. If this were the WhiteBoysSew club, you would call it racist, despite the fact that very few white boys learn to sew.

[prayag]

exclusion != racism. Racism has power dynamics associated with it. If exclusion (or special inclusion programs as I would call it) leads to a more racially and gender balanced community it is a good thing.

[brandoncapecci]

Whether or not something is good has nothing to do with what it's labeled. Sure by definition it might not be racist but certainly that's how it would play out. A better equation might be:

exclusion != racism ≡ you're a minority

[jbattle]

I would be a little surprised if anyone seriously objected to a sewing for boys class

[_delirium]

There actually are groups like that for areas where men are historically underrepresented, such as the American Assembly for Men in Nursing (http://aamn.org/). As far as I know they don't get a lot of flak.

With white people in specific there is a bit of eyebrow-raising, because "white" is a bit broad, a historically dominant group (in the U.S.), and has some history of "white organizations" being intended mainly for exclusionary purposes. Despite being white myself, I would probably be skeptical of the intentions of someone who asked me to join an organization with "white" in the name. More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry. There are also a number of initiatives targeting "Rural Appalachians", which is not definitionally white, but is almost exclusively an identity held by white people.

[rmc]

More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry.

Lots this non-Anglos weren't considered white back in the day. JFK was asked if his being Catholic would hinder him.

[mibbitier]

I'd guess the bad bit is the sexism and racism.

Would you be so positive if it was some program that excluded any applicant that wasn't a white male?

[_pius]

This: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262233

[mibbitier]

I disagree. Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population.

To claim "white males" are a majority is just an arbitrary distinction you're making. Everyone is a majority or minority depending on your criteria.

You don't fix racism/sexist/etc with more racism/sexism/etc. You fix it by being inclusive, and judging people on their merits.

[natrius]

The goal of this program isn't to fix racism or sexism. It's to encourage a group of people to explore programming who do so at lower a rate than many other groups. If the talents and desires needed to program are evenly distributed among the population, this is a targeted way to improve the lives of people who wouldn't discover programming on their own. A program that wasn't narrowly targeted would have a lower return on investment.

[mibbitier]

And that's fine. But you can't have it both ways...

If you believe in free speech, you have to accept people saying things you don't like.

If you believe in freedom to set criteria on who you accept for something, you should also accept "white men only private clubs" etc.

[natrius]

While I might find someone's speech distasteful, I'd fight for it's legality. While I'd find "white men only private clubs" distasteful, I think they should be legal.

When it comes to taste, however, I'll absolutely have it both ways. Some racial preferences are noble. Some are repugnant.

[nollidge]

Nobody wants it both ways here. I do accept "white men only private clubs". I think they're shitty and absurd, but so be it, it's a free country.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against. Nobody said they're excluding non-blacks or non-girls. Maybe they would, and I would definitely disagree with that. What they are doing is focusing their attention on black girls. Other children are not being disadvantaged in the process just because there isn't a group that caters specifically to their demographic.

[rmc]

This is not an either/or, black/white situation. It's not just A or B. There are lots of options here. Don't pretend there are only 2 options.

[rmc]

Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population.

Correct. But not all minorities have the same amount of power/wealth/prestigate/social stigma/advantages. "Minority" was originally a term to refer to some people. Don't take it too literally. It's not "minorities" per se that's bad, it's when one "minority" has much less power and advantages than the people who aren't in that minority.

[nollidge]

What exactly do you disagree with?

> Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population.

No, not if they "decide to". I think you mean that every person on the planet has minority status within any number of categorizations, but we're talking about categorizations that actually matter in terms of discrimination.

Or do you mean to argue that U.S. soccer fans, marathon runners, and male nurses (all minorities) have similar life experiences as racial minorities?

> To claim "white males" are a majority is just an arbitrary distinction you're making.

It's not arbitrary if it's a salient factor in determining a person's social and economic outcome.

> You fix it by being inclusive, and judging people on their merits.

Indeed. Interesting, though, that you're more concerned about how this group is acting in regard than how society at large is...

[_pius]

Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population.

In other news: down is up, black is white, and true is false, depending on your criteria.

There are actual facts in the world and you don't get to change them to suit your side of the argument.

[slurgfest]

It's all about how it's framed and who is watching. If it is a local men's club dedicated to charitable acts in a county that is almost entirely white then the response would likely be very positive. I say this confidently because there are a huge number of such groups, they just aren't NAMED "club for white men only".