2

In reading a recent article in Business Insider on changes at GitHub, I noticed a rather surprising bullet point by Nicole Sanchez regarding "Diversity and Inclusion in Tech", which was

Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women.

It reminded me of a claim I read in an American Institutions class long ago that racism displayed by Caucasians against Native Americans didn't really set in when it was mostly male trappers and explorers interacting with Native Americans; it was only when women arrived that racism got really bad. At the time, I wondered if that was actually true or just sounded good (to male textbook writers!), and decided that historical records were probably not accurate enough to settle the matter (even of the order of events, let alone to establish causality).

But the claim in Ms. Sanchez' slide is apparently about the situation today. It's not entirely clear what the context was of the presentation, but Ms. Sanchez recently wrote a USA Today article about the tech sector in general where she makes a similar but weaker set of claims.

So at least with the (lack of) context presented by Business Insider, it sounds like the claim is: "Some of the biggest barriers to diversity and inclusion in technology are white women". (From context, we can probably assume this means "in the U.S.".) The statement, in this form, has been picked up by number of niche regular and social media outlets (including Reddit, BZNews, etc.). But is it true?

There ought to be a good deal of diversity data that could shed light on the situation. For instance, if there was an inverse correlation between ethnic diversity and white-female-to-white-male ratio in tech companies, it would demonstrate that the claim is true for at least some metric of diversity or inclusiveness.

Rex Kerr
  • 5,543
  • 1
  • 38
  • 31
  • 2
    This is a very wide question, but it's based on a statement that likely had a context. This question should be restricted to that - for example, does it apply universally? Limited to her company? To her country? Etc. – Sklivvz Feb 08 '16 at 00:51
  • @Sklivvz - I do not know what the precise context of that presentation was. I'm asking the most universal question (see: title and bullet point in conjunction with title of slide) I can in the hope that there might be enough data to bear on the issue one way or the other. Shall I reword the question to be clear I'm asking about that scope? (Is that adequate?) – Rex Kerr Feb 08 '16 at 01:00
  • @Sklivvz - What do you think about the present edits? I've tried to make it unambiguous what the question is. – Rex Kerr Feb 08 '16 at 01:20
  • 2
    I must admit, even with the edit I've having a hard time understanding what the claim is. *Why* are white women supposedly a barrier to progress? *What type* of progress specifically? *How* is this progress supposedly being impeded? 33% of what being what isn't enough to change culture? (I *think* this one is % of workers in tech in the USA who are female?) – user56reinstatemonica8 Feb 08 '16 at 11:13
  • @user568458 - I don't understand what the "why" and "how" have to do with being able to detect whether the phenomenon exists. (The 33% is an aside.) Are the goals of "diversity and inclusion" so obscure to need explicit spelling-out? I'm having a hard time understanding how you're having a hard time. – Rex Kerr Feb 08 '16 at 15:28
  • 6
    What *is* the phenomenon?! Right now we have "White women are a barrier to diversity and inclusion" - that's three abstract nouns. Guessing wildly here: does "diversity and inclusion" mean hiring people from ethnic minorities? Or making sure STEM teaching is accessible for kids with disabilities in schools? Or stopping homophobic bullying in the workplace? Etc etc. What form is this "barrier" they are claimed to be? Is it hostile attitudes? Discrimination in hiring decisions? Something to do with policies or quotas? How do you prove or disprove "Is X an abstract noun to these abstract nouns"? – user56reinstatemonica8 Feb 08 '16 at 15:48
  • 1
    @user568458 - If you are not just being pedantic, then perhaps you lack sufficient background in equality and race relations in the United States to answer this question. There are a variety of commonly-used proxies for "diversity and inclusion" (proportional representation, income disparity, etc.). I think this is outside the scope of what should be in a question; questions aren't intended to be comprehensive tutorials of everything relating to what they ask about. And again, you're asking for mechanism ("what form is the barrier") before even establishing that there is a phenomenon. – Rex Kerr Feb 08 '16 at 17:13
  • 3
    I don't know why you're being so hostile. The question was put on hold by a moderator for being too broad: I'm trying to help find a way to get it opened again. If the question is, "Is there any conceivable way in which white women are any kind of barrier to any kind of diversity and inclusion", that is *way* too broad. There's simply no way that could be proved or disproved. Your last sentence is an answerable question (narrows it to ethnicity of staff), this isn't. – user56reinstatemonica8 Feb 08 '16 at 17:19
  • I am asking if evidence of a certain sort exists. This can be answered, definitively, by a single piece of compelling evidence of a type that is commonly used. You seem to want me to guess, in advance, at which data exists, which will make the question unanswerable because I have guessed wrong (or will require me to already know the answer, so that I can fill in the right question). Also, I don't know why you think I am being "hostile". I was wondering if _you_ were being so (hence "pendantic"). Note your choice of non-neutral language like "guessing wildly" etc.. – Rex Kerr Feb 08 '16 at 18:59
  • Seems from the "33% is barely enough to change culture" line that there are two entirely different goals being discussed: 1) hiring non-white male employees, and 2) changing workplace culture. Would perhaps be more answerable if they were separated. – jamesqf Feb 08 '16 at 19:30
  • @jamesqf - I never asked about the 33%; that was background. I have now dropped it from the question since it seems distracting. – Rex Kerr Feb 08 '16 at 23:11
  • I don't see how, without finding how she explained it, we can be sure what Sanchez claimed in that bullet point. I agree it's possible she meant that the presence of white women in a given workplace can be a barrier. But that article of hers you linked suggests at least two other possible meanings. – Dan Getz Feb 09 '16 at 00:09
  • @DanGetz - Indeed, but I didn't ask "what did Sanchez claim". I asked if a claim that might have been what she meant was supported by evidence. – Rex Kerr Feb 09 '16 at 00:12
  • 1
    @RexKerr Right, but would this be a notable claim, if it wasn't actually claimed by Sanchez? – Dan Getz Feb 09 '16 at 00:19
  • @DanGetz - It is notable because that interpretation is a natural one to draw based on how it's been quoted in the media (e.g. Business Insider). Whether or not Sanchez *meant* that, the claim is now "in the wild". – Rex Kerr Feb 09 '16 at 01:35
  • @RexKerr then maybe you could try ask about the media reporting instead of her? – Sklivvz Feb 09 '16 at 10:36
  • @Sklivvz - Shifted focus to the media reporting. – Rex Kerr Feb 09 '16 at 16:35

0 Answers0