>I can’t help noticing that 100% of the people I see who are building the future and making the big bucks are ethnically Chinese, Indian, or white. And 100% of the people I see who are washing floors or guarding doors or serving fast food are black and Mexican and Central-American.
Painting this social issue as racism is incorrect and using racism as a boogeyman, sweeps the real issues under the rug. I'm confident that now, especially in Silicon Valley, that no one in this social ladder is actively working against the issues of black and latino people.
Its my understanding is that you aren't actually seeing racism, but class discrimination. I wonder how many Indian or Chinese founders are actually immigrants from relatively well todo families that could afford to send someone half way across the world. I also wonder what is the class make up of white people in that same demographic. Are poor white people afforded the same opportunities? (which is another reason I'm opposed calling this "racism", you may be potentially leaving out an underserved demographic who is being told to "deal with it" because they were born white, yet poor - and alot of them don't exist in cities, but in Rural America)
Looking at it this way, you shift the problem from becoming one about chasing the racist white boogeyman who isn't giving black people jobs, and highlight a deeper social issue. Is the issue here actually that poor america has low social mobility?
Simultaneously, if we look at all the minorities in tech, what socioeconomic background do they come from? I'm willing to bet they are the same, and like me, college educated parents and high income.
So how come there are no poor white people at mcdonalds? Well whats the demo of san francisco's poor? The white poor may all be working at the mcdonalds in the flyover states.
I think you are mostly correct. More precisely, if you take away race you will see that the distinction is 90% education-based. Specifically talking about immigrants, those indians and chinese (and japanese, pakistani, nepalese, korean, iranian, etc) as well as the eastern eropeans that you do not see all have a good education an most likely come from at least the top half of their society.
The Hispanic immigrants are more likely from a lower class an much more likely to have arrived on something like a family visa with no higher education at all.
Your parent is arguing that the lines drawn along race are merely correlated, rather than the cause. Thus, not institutional racism.
In other words, the system is failing people not because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin, but because of their class, which happens to roughly line up with race.
The difference between "You are poor because you are Mexican/from Mexico" and "You are poor because you started out poor, and it just so happens that you are from Mexico where a lot of people started out poor".
I don't think I can refer to is as institutional racism. Maybe there are some laws that disproportionally effect minorities in California - I'm not an expert so I don't know. However, I don't think the term racism actually belongs. It seems to me that these are the effects are due to class, and (through the indirect effects of racism of old), blacks and other minorities are disproportionally poor. Because, especially in urban centers, that minorities make up most of the poor, I'm guessing, that one may mistakenly assume its due to racism, when its actually because of socioeconomic background.
"Institutional racism is any system of inequality based on race. It can occur in institutions such as public government bodies, private business corporations (such as media outlets), and universities (public and private)."
It goes on to say that the definition is contested, with one definition what you've quoted above.
Additionally: "Institutional racism is the differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society."
I started to read your comment and went "wuh oh" but kept reading. You made an excellent point that there may well be poor whites who are underserved as well.
I imagine that college educated parents with high income (or lack thereof) is a better predictor of future earnings than skin color or sex. I don't have any kind of study to back this up, it's an educated guess. I would love it if someone found something and posted a link with evidence for or against.
I grew up in one of the richer flyover states (MN) and I can assure you that 20 years ago and even 10 years ago there were plenty of poor whites working all kinds of unskilled jobs. Here in Texas (where I live now) it's very uncommon to see whites mowing, painting, etc for a living. Where I grew up in MN it was basically all whites doing that kind of work.
> I wonder how many Indian or Chinese founders are actually immigrants from relatively well todo families that could afford to send someone half way across the world.
From personal experience, I can say that it's not that expensive to send someone "half way across the world" (I grew up in Romania, but currently live in California). What is hard is immigration/getting a visa, but you can't really fix that with more money (unless you're going for the investor visa, which very few do).
Also, it's really easy to apply for BigCo (Google, Apple, Facebook) jobs in the Bay Area from outside the US (you get phone interviews at first, the get flown over for on-site interviews on the company's dime). It's really not money that's stopping people from getting "in".
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.
"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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is one of those unfortunate situations where no matter what he says it's going to make things worse. And now to nitpick:
>I can’t help noticing that 100% of the people I see who are building the future and making the big bucks are ethnically Chinese, Indian, or white. And 100% of the people I see who are washing floors or guarding doors or serving fast food are black and Mexican and Central-American.
As someone who works in tech and lives in the Bay Area, I can tell you without a doubt there are many people in the industry who are indeed 'black and Mexican and Central-American.' Conversely (and somewhat anecdotally), I see plenty of Asian-Americans and whites working in fast food.
>I can’t help noticing that 100% of the people I see who are building the future and making the big bucks are ethnically Chinese, Indian, or white. And 100% of the people I see who are washing floors or guarding doors or serving fast food are black and Mexican and Central-American.
I am sorry I used to think that Tim Bray was a smart guy. Hell Indians in India are far more poorer than African Americans. Now if some indians worked hard and pulled themselves up, and got jobs / started companies in SF. But hey its still racism. There is no institutional racism, what exists is a black latino culture that looks down upon education. Thats the problem that needs to be addressed not some institutional racism boogeyman.
People want to work with other people who will help them succeeds in fact Asians and Indians show that SF is not at all racist.
While he's definitely wrong on several accounts, you are as well.
1. How do Indians in India being poorer affect this? Obviously the ones in extreme poverty aren't the ones coming and working in the US.
2. You provide no evidence of black latino culture (I assume you mean black and latino cultures, since they're separate entities) looking down upon education. You seem to fail to grasp what exactly institutional racism is, because lack of education of minority groups who tend to live in lower socioeconomic areas is institutional racism.
3. SF can indeed be racist against other groups, even if it isn't against all minority groups.
He's probably still pretty smart with computer stuff, he's just not capable of talking about other topics. If I were him I'd generally try not to insult whole groups of people and entire cities.
This is such an un-informed comment. It is completely ignorant of American history. You understand that American game-rigging like redlining, and unequal drug sentencing, and racial profiling, exist now and/or have existed in the lifetimes of most adults today?
Sure, some people get lucky, or work really hard. But on average, the game is rigged.
If you want to overcome your ignorance of this topic, you might want to check out Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog. He's excellent on these issues. Some starting points that relate to what you've written --
This is a blog and therefore the author can of course present his opinion in any way he wants, but I'd really like to see this claim backed up somehow. Are there any statistics that show a difference in the distribution of wealth or well-paying jobs between the Bay Area and Vancouver?
This doesn't even reference Vancouver or Canada at all. It has some interesting information, so thanks for the link, but I don't think it answers the general question.
There is a selection bias here. Immigrating from Asia is significantly more difficult and expensive than Central America. I would hypothesize that immigrants from these areas are more ambitious, economically better off and more capable on average than immigrants from nearby countries (and maybe even "native" Americans). Additionally, immigrants are more likely to assimilate into local American life and have better relationships with American institutions (police, schools, etc.) than African-Americans who unlike immigrants, didn't choose to be here and are more likely to view such institutions in a negative light.
The same "racism" in Vancouver: "Most of Metro Vancouver’s Filipinos value being near transit hubs – since many need to travel inexpensively to low-tomiddle-wage jobs as nannies, cleaners, seniors care aids, security officials, service clerks, short-order cooks and practical nurses"
Yes, however think of the logic being used by the article: "Most Filipinos who work in low/middle wage jobs live near the Skytrain". OK, well, most people live near the Skytrain, regardless of what race or class they are, because those are the densest parts of the city.
It's just not a particularly interesting statistic.
I have to admit, this guy has balls for saying these things. I am not saying I agree with him OR disagree with him, but online reputation affects your ability to get hired by tech companies.
I have not read the whole saga of this, but this may positively or negatively his chances of getting another job in the tech sector.
Also, the comments are worth looking through, ageism has also been brought up (and, as an outsider looking at the Silicon Valley, is a problem IMO).
Mr. Bray is likely quite wealthy and unlikely has to worry so much about getting a job, both due to being a well-known technologist and having "fuck you" money (in his previous post about leaving Google he writes, "From a financial point of view I could just stop working, but that would be boring and unhealthy").
>I can’t help noticing that 100% of the people I see who are building the future and making the big bucks are ethnically Chinese, Indian, or white. And 100% of the people I see who are washing floors or guarding doors or serving fast food are black and Mexican and Central-American.
Hilariously, blacks and hispanics make up less than 2.5% of Vancouver's population:
Did you actually read that article? Or did I massively misread it. He never talked about blacks and hispanics in Vancouver.
"Our own racist stench is that Canada’s original inhabitants no longer number among what I called our “main ethnic groups”"
But, please, lecture us more on an article you didn't read
But then he says it's not the bad kind of racism, so Vancouver is still better: "So yeah, it sucks, but it’s not a systemic thing you see in every bloody burger joint and cleaning crew."
Ya, no doubt. But perhaps he took it as an opportunity as he was stepping away from prominence to do something positive with it. A favorite example being Eisenhower's farewell address.
Unfortunately, a great deal of the perceived "racism" in the US is actually cultural. The greatest example of this are Blacks. Yes, African Americans have an extensive, awful and horrific national history of racism and abuse, but there are numerous examples of African American culture holding itself back.
A couple examples: Bill Cosby[1], Jamaicans[2], black raised by whites[3].
(There are numerous others, but these are the easy three.)
Jamaicans for example, see African Americans as lazy and deserving of their place in American society and often hate being referred to as African American because it is both inaccurate, and because they do not culturally identify with them, seeing no conflict between their blackness and their ability to achieve the American Dream.
When you hear cries of racism, consider whether you actually see people being mistreated or considered inferior because of the color of their skin, or if their own (cultural) behaviors are ensuring their struggle. It's extremely unfortunate and my heart breaks for anyone suffering from cultural peer pressure or family pressures to not forsake their "heritage" by "acting white," especially since you don't have to act white in order to act successful.
My opinion is that you see this exemplified most in the Bay Area because you are viewing the top 0.1% of achievers in the tech industry. Adding a self-sabotaging cultural identity certainly cannot help, and I imagine going to non-top 20 public university probably also doesn't help, which is why so many in the Bay Area grads are from MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, etc... graduates.
FWIW, I acknowledge that there ARE in fact some cultural pressure to conform to arbitrary FLOABW "white" behaviors, which have similar ramifications to racism, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
Lastly, self-sabotaging culture is not uniquely black, white, hispanic, etc... which is why it's has nothing to do with race or racism.
You will mostly see Hispanic people working the types of jobs Mr. Bray lists because many of them are illegals, and are paid under the table. It keeps labor costs low. It's not really racism so much as economic exploitation.
Painting this social issue as racism is incorrect and using racism as a boogeyman, sweeps the real issues under the rug. I'm confident that now, especially in Silicon Valley, that no one in this social ladder is actively working against the issues of black and latino people.
Its my understanding is that you aren't actually seeing racism, but class discrimination. I wonder how many Indian or Chinese founders are actually immigrants from relatively well todo families that could afford to send someone half way across the world. I also wonder what is the class make up of white people in that same demographic. Are poor white people afforded the same opportunities? (which is another reason I'm opposed calling this "racism", you may be potentially leaving out an underserved demographic who is being told to "deal with it" because they were born white, yet poor - and alot of them don't exist in cities, but in Rural America)
Looking at it this way, you shift the problem from becoming one about chasing the racist white boogeyman who isn't giving black people jobs, and highlight a deeper social issue. Is the issue here actually that poor america has low social mobility?
Simultaneously, if we look at all the minorities in tech, what socioeconomic background do they come from? I'm willing to bet they are the same, and like me, college educated parents and high income.
So how come there are no poor white people at mcdonalds? Well whats the demo of san francisco's poor? The white poor may all be working at the mcdonalds in the flyover states.