> 72.4% of Americans are White, yet 61% of Google employees are White. Technically Whites are under-represented.
> Women earn 18% of computer science degrees, yet 30% of Google employees are Women. Technically women are over-represented.
How come you use "Americans" as the universe of comparison in the first sentence and "CS degrees" in the second? I suspect that neither is the universe of comparison that Google is looking at -- particularly the latter, given that one of their approaches for addressing diversity is to support programs that are designed to expand the number of women and underrepresented minorities graduating in technical fields.
> Another 10 years of this diversity mania propaganda and we'll have the same quotas for Whites as the ones that were used against Jewish high achievers.
No one is talking about adopting quotas, except for the reflexively anti-diversity crowd.
> Between the lines they are indeed hinting towards "soft quotas".
No, they're not. They're talking about increasing the number of qualified candidates in the recruiting pipeline. I've said it before in this thread and I'll repeat it here: Google wants to hire _as many qualified candidates as possible_. We've got a huge pile of money but not enough people!
You should be sorry for having such a persecution complex. How you can read the original article as an attack on white people is astonishing.
It is beyond question (although I'm sure you question it) that white people are by far the most privileged group of people around today. To see yourself is a victim because of your race and gender is simply an excuse for whatever insecurities you might have.
Most people in this world are born with a tremendous handicap. You had an advantage* . If you still feel threatened, then I'm sorry for you.
( * You may have been disadvantaged in other ways, but by being white you do have an advantage, whether you like it or not.)
> How you can read the original article as an attack on white people is astonishing.
He probably had that reaction because that's almost always the undertone in American discussions about diversity. It's never actually about reaching relative demographic parity.
Example: Google's charts show whites as slightly underrepresented compared to the working-age population at large and Asians as vastly overrepresented. Despite that, on their brand-new diversity-at-google page[1], what group do they choose to highlight? Asian Googler Network (AGN), under the banner "Connecting and advancing the Asian community at Google".
Interesting, huh?
I hate making comments like this, because it sounds like I'm resentful toward Asian people for their success. I'm not. I love it. Keep at it, guys and gals.
I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of the situation.
> It is beyond question (although I'm sure you question it) that white people are by far the most privileged group of people around today.
"Beyond question"? That's a quasi-religious thing to say. What about Asian-Americans? And what happens when you separate Jewish White Americans from non-Jewish White Americans? Do things change in your mind?
> You may have been disadvantaged in other ways, but by being white you do have an advantage, whether you like it or not.
It's complicated. In many ways, for a given income level, White American children do have it worse than American children of other ethnicities. One minor (but personal) example: They are the only children repeatedly and harshly conditioned to feel guilt and shame toward their ethnicity's success. That really messes you up as you're growing up.
Back to Google. According to your HN profile, you work there. What is the extent to which employees' lives at work are affected by Google's new-found focus on demographic diversity, and how has this cultural shift effected the company's output?
> African Americans (12% of pop.) make up 80% of NBA players". I am pro-diversity and I have no problem with this. I don't want to change this that 80%. That 80% is based on their ability. Which just so happens to be gifted to people of their race. Good for them.
Thanks white person for explaining what black people are good at. Nope, no blatant racism here at all.
> Women earn 18% of computer science degrees, yet 30% of Google employees are Women. Technically women are over-represented.
How come you use "Americans" as the universe of comparison in the first sentence and "CS degrees" in the second? I suspect that neither is the universe of comparison that Google is looking at -- particularly the latter, given that one of their approaches for addressing diversity is to support programs that are designed to expand the number of women and underrepresented minorities graduating in technical fields.
> Another 10 years of this diversity mania propaganda and we'll have the same quotas for Whites as the ones that were used against Jewish high achievers.
No one is talking about adopting quotas, except for the reflexively anti-diversity crowd.