First, I want to state that I'm glad YC is making such a step to help struggling founders. While I don't run a startup, I'm super divided on this post, and here's why:
A) It seems both condescending and racist at the same time (i.e. you're a minority in SV? surely you're doing terrible - let us help. You're white in SV? you must be doing great, move along we're not looking to help you) -- As others have stated, it's also partly because of the specified groups.
B) If the ground really is that uneven maybe the problem is not the founders, but the system (again, how to change that is a super complicated discussion)
I feel like a more tactful way to put out such a call for people who would like help might be something like:
"YC is putting on a special series of office hours for struggling startups. In past series we've found that certain groups of people were underrepresented, and we'd like for that not to be the case, so we are going to prioritize the following groups: <group listing here>. This doesn't mean anyone who is not in those groups is unwelcome."
As others have noted, getting away from the group listing would be even better. Maybe just making a call for anyone who feels like they have been "marginalized" in the SV startup community, or aren't receiving enough help might suffice (without making a laundry list of underrepresented people).
I have many opinions on the whole "diversity" debate, but I think my most defensible opinion is for organizations to aim for population-parity demographic distributions, and work to upset any limiting functions that might be skewing your sector away from the wider population's distributions (again, how to do this is highly debated, and I have a ton of my own opinions on the subject, but I digress).
I've also intentionally left out my own race/cultural group/whatever in this comment, but make sure to check your own biases at the door - I could be caucasian, latino, african american, asian, lgbt, trans, whatever .
I think you can't look at open office hours in a vacuum. YC does tons of outreach - for example: college tour, startup school, Stanford startup class, speaking at conferences around the world, blog posts with advice to founders, etc. Most importantly, YC has an open application process and you don't have to have any sort of connection to get in. Open Office Hours is just another tool we can use to do outreach to startups and when considered in combination with our other efforts I think it's only fair to conclude that we are trying to make YC assessable to all (regardless of background).
Again, I think the outreact YC is doing is amazing, and I applaud them for doing it. I'd rather have this kind of conversation (about the wording of something like this) rather than not have the outreach effort exist at all.
Honestly the point of my comment was to do with tact and wording. It's super clear that YC is trying it's best to be accessible to all, and to do the right thing by groups that may feel marginalized (whoever they may be) -- however with the current hubbub (that has no end in sight) around these issues, a great deal of tact should be applied.
More than 0 people feel that the whole "diversity" spiel is antagonistic, as well as more than 0 people feeling that it's completely justied/the opposite. It's a touchy subject, and I feel that wasn't respected by this post. Yes, you want to help a specific group of society that you see struggling, but it's also divisive to make it seem like a group is inherently more valuable for no reason other than the color of their skin, or life choices, or whatever.
> but it's also divisive to make it seem like a group is inherently more valuable for no reason other than the color of their skin, or life choices, or whatever.
it is also the truth, and it is a problem. labelling is like a joke compared to all the things that discriminated groups experience.
edit - apologies, i thought you said 'vulnerable'. valuable? where did you get that from?
Well a lot of the current diversity zeitgeist is (mis)represented in terms that are too simplistic.
diversity is good/desirable -> minorities are more valuable than white people at your company (since you clearly already have enough white people) seems to be the point of a lot of blog posts/conversation. This kind of thinking is most clearly visible in when companies state that they try to hire X underrepresented people to some position, as if you just need to get a certain number (and/or when corporations lower meaningful meritocratic barriers to hire people that otherwise wouldn't have been in the ballpark).
"meaningful meritocratic barrier" to me means "show me you can do fizzbuzz", rather than "tell me which ivy you came from"
There is obviously a case to be made for diversity (independent of morality), but most modern literature doesn't seem to address that at any meaningful level of complexity. I discovered this when talking to a colleague who was annoyed with what seemed to be a devaluing of potential hires just because they weren't "diverse" enough.
> diversity is good/desirable -> minorities are more valuable than white people at your company (since you clearly already have enough white people) seems to be the point of a lot of blog posts/conversation.
when blog posts that make such absolutely ridiculous claims get commented on here, then we can discuss that and heartily agree, ok? :D but in this discussion here, you are the one who said that this action implies minority founders are more valuable. this is simply not true.
i do agree that affirmative action is a bit crude, but it's done for a greater social good, by people who recognize the problem, sympathise, and want to help. the field is, after all, uneven. an asymmetric situation that needs asymmetric action to correct it.
> If the ground really is that uneven maybe the problem is not the founders, but the system (again, how to change that is a super complicated discussion)
don't avoid this discussion, it is essential. it's not complicated. we are all part of the system, and if we all chip in to even the field, things will improve.
I just wanted to make explicit that "changing the system" is difficult, and there are many facets to the problem (and that I recognized that truth).
I discuss these issues somewhat regularly with some colleagues, so I feel like I have solutions that work for me (maybe I'll make a blog post sometime, but I am worried I'll just add to the noise).
it's difficult, and multi-faceted, and still it must be tackled. the system is the crux of this issue, there would be no issue if the field were not uneven.
A) It seems both condescending and racist at the same time (i.e. you're a minority in SV? surely you're doing terrible - let us help. You're white in SV? you must be doing great, move along we're not looking to help you) -- As others have stated, it's also partly because of the specified groups.
B) If the ground really is that uneven maybe the problem is not the founders, but the system (again, how to change that is a super complicated discussion)
I feel like a more tactful way to put out such a call for people who would like help might be something like:
"YC is putting on a special series of office hours for struggling startups. In past series we've found that certain groups of people were underrepresented, and we'd like for that not to be the case, so we are going to prioritize the following groups: <group listing here>. This doesn't mean anyone who is not in those groups is unwelcome."
As others have noted, getting away from the group listing would be even better. Maybe just making a call for anyone who feels like they have been "marginalized" in the SV startup community, or aren't receiving enough help might suffice (without making a laundry list of underrepresented people).
I have many opinions on the whole "diversity" debate, but I think my most defensible opinion is for organizations to aim for population-parity demographic distributions, and work to upset any limiting functions that might be skewing your sector away from the wider population's distributions (again, how to do this is highly debated, and I have a ton of my own opinions on the subject, but I digress).
I've also intentionally left out my own race/cultural group/whatever in this comment, but make sure to check your own biases at the door - I could be caucasian, latino, african american, asian, lgbt, trans, whatever .