[rootedbox]

I'm hispanic living in the mission, and for a long time I also had 2 black roommates. We've had many conversations about direct blatant racism, and also indirect just people being ignorant in what they say bigotry. Of course a lot of non-minorities have issues understanding the difference in racism, and bigotry.

This being said. What is brought up in this article is racism. Specifically the institution of racism. If you are not actively doing things to fix the institutions of racism, and sexism; then you are actively part of an institution of racism and sexism. Silicon Valley / San Francisco has done very little to fix racism, and sexism. If we all got together and wanted to defeat these institutions we could do so in 20 years; and work at places where the race, and sex of workers is representative of the general public.

[greenyoda]

"If you are not actively doing things to fix the institutions of racism, and sexism; then you are actively part of an institution of racism and sexism."

If I'm not actively trying to stop murderers or fraudsters, am I "actively part of an institution" of murder and fraud? If not, then why would your assertion about racism and sexism be true?

[Noted]

You're comparing apples and oranges. If there was institutional murder and fraud then your comparison might make some sense. If there there was institutional murder, say every left-handed person was killed at birth, and you did nothing about it because you're right handed then he's claiming you're actively part of that institutional murder. While I don't necessarily agree, there are differences between the types which you are ignoring

[sxtxixtxcxh]

we DO have institutional murder. how else could you classify a death penalty?

[Noted]

True, however having an institution against criminals convicted of capital offences is still an apples and oranges comparison to racism/sexism. No one is born a murderer.

[jedmeyers]

What actions do you propose Silicon Valley should take to fix the issues of racism?

[rootedbox]

Short term.. make sure the race and sex of people filling the jobs at your company are of the are of the same ratio as the available pool. If x % of a group (sex / race) is graduating from school with the degree for a given job then for that job your company should have the same ratio. If your company is not meeting that ratio then there is an issue with how your company hires. You shouldn't hire too meet those percents the system by which you hire should naturally hit those percents(i.e. the institution). example of what can be done... Have your HR remove names from resumes before they are sent for review. This will remove gender cultural race identifiers.

If men for a job are getting paid more than women.. Don't put the blame on women for not asking for more. Fix your compensation system to be equal independent of sex / cultural background / racial background.. ie.. this job pays x if you meet these qualifications not more or less.. just this set amount.

Make the work environment feel safe. If you are in the minority it is a stressful enough knowing others can't share what you feel. I can only imagine the stress of being the only female in a large group of engineers. Let alone if one asks you on a date. Make strict rules about fraternization.. what is and isn't acceptable.

long term... fix the schools.. if you treat kids the same independent of their culture / race / sex ... and they have opportunity to the same quality of schools.. then individuals for a certain job will start to match the general public.

The myth that men are more likely to be engineers because thats what guys are interested in.. Is just that.. a myth. People are interested in things because they have had access to learn about said things.

[jedmeyers]

About that "myth". I had 60/40 ratio of girls to boys in my high school class. They all had access to Comp Science classes and computers and everything else that I had, but none of the girls wanted to become engineers, me and four other guys did. So please, do not say that girls are interested in engineering but not pursuing that interest just because they do not have access. Thanks to mass culture that sees guys interested in technology as dorks and "not cool" I have a lot of doubts in the claim that lack of access is the culprit of the perceived discrepancy. At least in the US and Europe boys and girls have similar access to technology, and no one is taking computers away from girls.

[Noted]

Your short term plans aren't all that short term. Most of what you describe is obviously the ideal that society should strive towards, but incredibly difficult to actually do. That's not to say we shouldn't work towards it, and you gave 1-2 very concrete examples, but it really depends on your definition of how long "short term" is whether or not it's feasible in that timeframe. "The myth that men are more likely to be engineers because thats what guys are interested in.. Is just that.. a myth. People are interested in things because they have had access to learn about said things." is absolutely correct.