Based on the readings, it seems that diversity in technology is definitely a problem, but one that is being poorly addressed. I believe that diversity has little, if any effect on the overall efficacy of a company or workplace. However, the fact that discrepancies between the general population demographics and industry demographics exist indicates that barriers exist at some point that prevent or discourage certain minorities and women from entering tech fields. As someone who has found a lifestyle that I truly enjoy in technology, it would be irresponsible and unfair for me to dismiss the existence of deterrents preventing minorities (and people in general) from finding their potential calling in tech.
Answering the question of where these barriers are located should inform the way that we attempt to deal with the problem. Eileen Pollack makes an excellent point in her article “What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech”, stating that many girls do not explore computer science in their education because of a lack of an “ambient sense of belonging”. From my own experiences, I am aware that the way society frames particular hobbies and disciplines can effect one’s decision to pursue them. I can point to numerous occasions in my life where I refused to explore something because it was associated with people of high intelligence (a group that I felt I wasn’t a part of). Pollack’s anecdote about abandoning programming IBM mainframes resonated with me for this reason. The themes and images surrounding tech are a very real force that I believe discourage women from entering the field (even though it doesn’t outright prevent them from doing so).
When dealing with these problems, it is necessary to take an exacted approach to effectively identify the problem and eliminate it by attacking the source. In the past, I refused to even acknowledge diversity as a problem due to the approaches taken to remedy the situation. Approaches like hiring to meet quotas and directing anger towards majority groups and companies not only fails to attack the root of the problem but (based on my own feelings) lead to resentment among white males in tech. In my opinion, two of the largest errors in our current approach to the problem are trying to implement solutions that only treat the symptoms rather than the causes, and misidentifying universal industry issues as minority issues. These only serve to complicate the process of fixing the diversity problem.
Articles like “Google finally discloses its diversity record” and “Silicon Valley’s plan to be more diverse” demonstrate the pressure on Silicon Valley to address the issue of diversity and the response it has elicited. In my opinion, this approach is completely misguided and fails to address the problem itself. Companies in Silicon Valley are not only economically incentivized to be race and gender-blind in their hiring practices, but legally bound to these fair hiring practices. The problem of diversity in the tech industry clearly cannot be attributed to unfair hiring practices. As long as employee demographics are reflective of applicant demographics, it is difficult to claim companies have acted irresponsibly in their hiring practices. For industry critics like Vivek Wadwha to place fault on Google for not hiring 50% women when only 25% of their applicants are women is not only asinine from a hiring standpoint, but it completely ignores the issue: why are only 25% of Google’s applicants women in the first place? These types of solutions, many of which are outlined in “Silicon Valley’s plan to be more diverse” all amount to subsidizing minorities that actually make it into the industry rather than ensuring that more enter the industry (which is the sustainable solution). Solutions like these are not only economically disadvantageous, as they discourage hiring based on merit, but they ignore the very real problems and struggles that minorities face when considering whether or not to pursue a career in tech. They also serve to justifiably anger white males in tech who see themselves being passed over for less qualified but more “diverse” candidates. The resentment caused by policies like these may only serve to exacerbate resistance to finding solutions.
Other proponents of diversity in tech become entangled within the red herring of labeling universal tech industry problems as minority problems. Without being able to effectively nail down the problems that minorities (in particular) face, we have little hope of correcting them. Judy Robertson’s “Nerdy Strutting: How to Put Women off the Tech Industry” discusses a very real problem within the tech industry (or any industry that attracts intellectuals for that matter). Encountering “nerdy strutting” is not only extremely frustrating and off-putting, but part of the tech industry that I absolutely personally despise. To label this a “women’s issue” rather than a universal issue ignores the fact that everyone is affected by this sort of behavior. It may be true that women are disproportionately affected by it, but based on my own experiences, this type of behavior approaches an epidemic level in tech. “Why Doesn’t Silicon Valley Hire Black Coders?” also points to encounters with coders who started learning at a young age as discouraging and off-putting. This is another example of a nearly universal problem incorrectly labeled as a minority problem.
In addition to correctly addressing the root of the problem in my opinion, Eileen Pollack also identifies the ideal solution: detach computer science from gender and race images entirely in education. This is no easy task, which may be why “greedy” (to use an algorithms analogy) solutions like adjusting hiring practices so popular. Eliminating this kind of imagery from the industry and media can’t be achieved overnight, but is the only way to reach a true solution. Harvey Mudd provides an excellent example of the effect that these types of policies can produce. Achieving diversity in tech is not an impossible dream, but a problem that will require the kind of out-of-the-box solutions that Silicon Valley prides itself upon.
Peter Forbes 