[0xDEAFBEAD]

There's a background assumption in this debate that society has a moral requirement to increase the representation of those who are underrepresented. I've never seen this assumption justified.

What if it is actually fine for Asians to be under-represented in the NBA, and over-represented in software engineering?

[guax]

I guess it depends a lot on the reason why they're under represented. Lack of skinny people in UFC makes sense. I'm not so sure companies and schools are just passive in a cultural preference environment. And by not so sure I mean I am pretty confident there is tons of discrimination, I've seen it.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

How about advocating for more objective hiring processes then? You could use AI to mask someone's voice and visage during a video interview. This was actually tried btw, see if you can predict the result:

https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technic...

[alephnerd]

> Lack of skinny people in UFC makes sense

UFC (and all other fighting sports) segment based on weight class. Plenty of flyweight fighters look scrawny when wearing a shirt. Also some of the most intense Muay Thai fighters I've ever sparred are skinny Thai guys from farming villages in Isaan who showed hallmarks of malnutrition (stunted height and extremely thin physique compared to Isaan Thai who grew up in BKK or even towns like Khon Kaen).

And this brings up a good point - you need to make an effort to build a pipeline from an fairness standpoint.

Not everyone has to be a SWE, but everyone should get an equal chance to try and become one. Plenty of kids end up in crap schools with few resources to succeed in a STEM major, or are limited by social or cultural norms from actually trying to major in STEM.

This goes both ways - women and African Americans are underrepresented in CS. No way around that. It should be solved. Same way men are underrepresented in teaching and nursing, and it should be solved as well.

This whole conversation around DEI became unneccesarily heated due to mutual political ambitions.

At the end of the day, everyone should have a fair chance at trying an industry or field, and because the world isn't a fair playing field, it doesn't hurt to try and build an ecosystem by incentivizing a pipeline.

[sojournerc]

If under-representation is because of preference and not discrimination, then there is no problem to be solved.

I work in a wood shop with a bunch of men. It's a physical job, but there's no reason a woman couldn't do it, but guess how many women apply?

The lack of women in our shop is not because of discrimination, but if we had to get 50% representation with women without a passion for woodworking, the product would suffer, or those women might not enjoy it, or...

Disproportion does not always indicate discrimination.

[alephnerd]

> If under-representation is because of preference and not discrimination, then there is no problem to be solved

I agree.

> I work in a wood shop with a bunch of men. It's a physical job, but there's no reason a woman couldn't do it, but guess how many women apply

Because it's a chicken and egg situation - if it's all guys you aren't necessarily sure whether or not it's because no women applied or because the shop purposely tried to make it difficult for women to join.

Even making a token statement that "hey, we aren't dicks - we'll accept anyone and everyone who has skills and is motivated" can at least signal to potentially interested women applicants that the shop is friendly.

And this is what plenty of DEI programs are in states like California that have strict laws and regulations against using race or gender based quotas. Plenty of organziations used a de facto quota system (eg. UNC) or treated DEI as struggle sesssions, but plenty of organizations tried to concentrate on the Equity part.

The whole naming of this as "DEI" was itself problematic. Just use simple English - it's about Equal Opportunity or Free Choice.

[sojournerc]

> Because it's a chicken and egg situation - if it's all guys you aren't necessarily sure whether or not it's because no women applied or because the shop purposely tried to make it difficult for women to join.

We're small, I know the owner. Women have worked there before. Somehow the default assumption is prejudice, where I think we should default to assuming good faith.

There may be social pressure that keeps women from wanting to be woodworkers, but that's not truly the responsibility of a small business is it?

Anyway, I don't think we're disagreeing here. Focusing on immutable traits over skill or interest is wrong, but I think people are to quick to see prejudice where there's is none