[bigstrat2003]

> it's not possible to end up 80% white guy without discriminating.

That is not remotely true. Individual choices, as well as experiences which shape the candidate pool, can cause such lopsided numbers. In my view, the single biggest problem with the (quite well intentioned) diversity initiatives is that they assume, without evidence, that any organization with lopsided demographics must therefore be discriminating. But that is a fallacy and undermines the entire endeavor they are engaged in.

[phillmv]

there's loads of evidence, y'all just don't like engaging with it cos you don't like the answer because fixing it is work and fundamentally women and minorities are not seen as people with full agency.

i'm old enough to remember when software engineering conferences were _2%_ female. it's exhausting to be having this same conversation decades later.

[Manuel_D]

What is the evidence? Did we send identical applications, differing only by ethnicity, to Perkins Coie, and did they respond to the non-white applicants at lower rates? Did Perkins Coie institute policies like withholding bonuses if leaders hired too few white applicants? What indicates that Perkins Coie is preferring white applicants over equally qualified Black or Latin applicants?

You insist there's evidence of discrimination, but all you've done is point to the % of white people at the company and insist it's too high.

But as a counterpoint, 40% of the developers at my company are Asian, despite them making up 6% of the US population. That's an overrepresentation of over 6X. In fact, whites are slightly underrepresented. Does that mean we're discriminating against non-asians? Is this evidence that whites are discriminated again, on account of their underrepresentation? Of course not.