Thank you for sharing. Love the infographic and 500 is totally badass...Global, diverse, forward thinking. Love the HustleCon concept - "a kick-ass conference focused non-tech startup founders."
Curious to know what percentage of White men felt it was important:
"Unsurprisingly, women and minority groups value diversity most, with 72 percent of women, 89 percent of African Americans, 80 percent of Asians, and 70 percent of Latinos calling it an important factor. Interestingly, military veterans were also among those most likely to value diversity at 65 percent."
And this is just embarrassing:
" 'Many people that I’ve interacted within the tech space, particularly white men, never really talked to a black woman before. Never held a conversation. It’s shocking.' In other words, if you’re the only black woman at a company full of white men, communication may be a bit strained."
"What Hazlett doesn’t see right now is any one company or model with the inside track on the future of TV. 'It’s all in flux. No one knows really where it’s going to go,' he says. 'There’s a graveyard of failed experiments and it’s growing. And we’re going to see Apple TV, Roku, Google, Sony, Samsung, and others we’ve never heard of all take more shots at this. No one’s gotten it right, and that includes Netflix, which I think may be in the most precarious position of all.'"
"Listen and believe. Talk to your coworkers who belong to underrepresented groups. Listen to their stories and experiences. Don’t be defensive, just listen. And then when they’re done, believe what they’re saying. Don’t explain it away, don’t play devil’s advocate. Believe that they know just as much as you, are as smart and capable as you, and have had experiences that you don’t know about.
Stop ignoring the issue. Specifically, we should acknowledge that we haven’t said enough about anti-Black and anti-Latino attitudes, and that we have not articulated our complicity in industry sexism and misogyny. Indeed, we have often helped build these systems of exclusion, not merely remained silent while they were enforced. We must understand that trying to pass under the umbrella of whiteness will not save us from discrimination. Indeed, the statistics show that Asians make $8,146 less than white workers at tech companies—not as underpaid as other minorities, but certainly an enormous disparity that makes clear why solidarity between underrepresented communities is essential."
Number one, I am the author of aforementioned blog. I'm aware that my writing may come across less warm and fuzzy than I am in person, however, I don't consider it to be "white privilege articles" and I especially don't do it for ratings and mouse clicks, although if I didn't hope for the latter, I'd merely journal. Why shouldn't people click? It's an important topic - at least to some. That said, I easily get more clicks to my entertainment blog, and if anything, I write knowing that it can have a detrimental effect on how those endorsing the status quo - who may not be so A16Z-esque towards iconoclasm - perceive me.
There are a number of unpublished posts on that blog on various topics that are cathartic for me to write about. I have published several around tech and diversity because, as a woman of color who has academic credentials in ethnic studies, and who is navigating the tech / SV ecosystem (and documenting the journey), I have a perspective that is underrepresented in Silicon Valley and needs to be voiced. While I don't claim entitlement to much, I emphatically proclaim entitlement to my story and opinions (and thus won't be "shushed").
As Marc Andreesen points out in his recent Bloomberg / Dreamforce talk (at 38:30), there is both a pipeline and an access problem. Women and minorities will not be able to apply if they don't have access - e.g. the "referral from a funded company CEO" preference that many VCs openly require. If women and people of color disproportionately unlikely to have a "good ol' boy network," they don't have access. And there are more complex factors at play (that have been documented) even when women and underrepresented individuals do have "players" in their network. These are related to implicit bias - such as a higher rate of unreturned emails from those capable of making intros - or the fact that both male and female VC are less likely to fund a woman over a man - even if pitching the same idea:
And tell me, if founders are told to focus on product (and not attend conferences)
and whereas underrepresented individuals outside of their existing network may not meet them otherwise...
and whereas, even if they succeed in meeting them, fail to secure an opportunity to "bond" or earn a referral...
How many underrepresented individuals are likely to gain access to VCs in order to pitch? Everything about the paradigm currently endorsed is structured to further disadvantage the disadvantage (see below).
3) "I have many friends who are people of color and women and don't want to learn how to program or IT or anything a VC would want to invest in."
Are they looking for funding? Can they create an MVP without learning to code and demonstrate demand? There are many open source alternatives to coding. Why should they have to learn to code any more than an MBA (or if they can find a technical co-founder - even if outside of SV)? Part of the problem (which I poke at in annotations of SA's "How To Start a Startup" link on Genius.com) is the acceptance of what VC's deem fundable.
Look, I follow several VCs (Brad Feld, Hunter Walk, Fred Wilson, Marc Andreesen, et al) and I like a lot of what they have to say. Their posts are informative, entertaining, provocative... One thing that can be gathered from the best of them is that they know they are not almighty and all-knowing...in fact, the Kauffman Foundation released a rather scathing critique of the track record of VCs (to which there were noteworthy rebuffs - namely by Hunter Walk).
Perhaps it is faulty to stifle innovation by imposing criteria that are more cultural or convenient that statistically sound (as the statistics are vague and so limited, it is impossible to identify and isolate the variables).
4) "It seems if a woman or minority is not qualified for an IT job they give them blog duty instead."
Who is "they" and what do you mean by "blog duty"?
It seems to me that many in IT lack qualification in the humanities sufficient to understand the cultural and historical dynamics at play in the #DebugDiversity tech discussion. However, if one were to read my blog and referenced resources, they might find themselves farther along.
I also agree with Steve Blank that there may be a fear of more diversity because diverse candidates may "kick ass" (from 25:50, and especially at 32:08, below) / have a greater pulse on the wider consumer universe and the problems of the underserved. There may also be an unspoken fear that widespread outsourcing / offshoring will devalue tech labor stateside - the price we pay for not keeping up on education.
And as to your implication that women / people of color are not interested in IT, anecdotally, IT was never an option for me beyond learning DOS and Word Perfect in the one computer science class offered in High School. I didn't grow up with a computer in the home like many hackers. However, when I did finally get access to a home computer, I began building websites and learning to code when it became relevant to me (due to a series of events starting with a Ghanian friend gifting me with Robert Kiyosaki's "The Cashflow Quadrant" in 2000).
I'm sure they are many other people of color who don't have interest because they don't have access, exposure, examples, or opportunities around them - which is what organizations like #HackTheHood aim to address.
#CODE2040, on the other hand, as well as organization like MESA: http://mesa.ucop.edu/
NSBE: http://www.nsbe.org/home.aspx,
& Grace Hopper http://gracehopper.org/, demonstrate the rich talent that exists among underrepresented groups - although cuts to affirmative action and their presence outside of Silicon Valley (given the adage against distributed teams), surely inhibits their integration into the tech / VC ecosystem. All issues I'm very interesting in addressing, solving - and yes, writing about. By the way, a recent article points to similar claims made about women in the orchestra:
And as an aside in response to your "White privilege" remark: I was raised in a White family, having a White mother, and I am very conscious of not only White privilege, but the privilege I had being raised in said White family - something as simple as my family owning real estate and receiving a trust fund that helped pay for my first year of graduate school.
I am also conscious of the disparities - not because I derive some pleasure in seeking them out, but because from the time I was child, school children in my predominantly White community - well versed in the most vulgar racial slurs - berated my complexion and features - incredulous that I could be brown and have a white mother... It is a topic that some choose to take the uncomfortable task of addressing, but which was imposed upon me.
So, while I have no desire to make assumptions about what you might mean by "social justice warrior" (I think it is a rather noble title, all-in-all), I would hope that you likewise would refrain from making assumptions about what is likely a vast pool of women and people of color outside of your immediate social circle, and rather, continue to call for more statistics so that we can collectively identify and solve the lack of equitable access to opportunity in and beyond tech.
5) "I don't want all VC funding and IT jobs to go to white males"
I find that encouraging. Thank you for sharing...and engaging in the topic - even if we may not agree on every point. That is how progress is made.
Thank you, you have answered many of my questions.
I've myself tried to acquire VC funding and built my own MVPs, and gotten nowhere. It is not as easy as I thought it was.
I grew up poor in a poor St. Louis neighborhood. All my father could afford was a Commodore 64 and I was laughed at by the IBM PC and Apple 2 crowd. My high school didn't teach computers so I volunteered for the desegregation program to be transferred to a magnet school on math and science that taught on Apple // and IBM PC systems and it was an integrated classroom.
I had a friend at the time I got into an argument with, he claimed computers were a fad, going nowhere, and that I should try to become a sports star instead. He said in ten years that Microsoft and Apple would be out of business so there is no reason to learn computer programming. He went for Football and injured his knee and lost his scholarship but remembered the talk we had about computers so he went into learning computer networking and did better.
Our high school had an anti bullying policy and zero tolerance on racial slurs. The high school before I transfered was full of bullies and they used racial and homophobic slurs. Picked on me for being a nerd and geek.
So yeah it depends on the high school, it also depends on the support of friends. If I had listened to my friend that computers were a fad, I wouldn't have gotten to where I went. It was because of his statements that he influenced others not to study computers because he was popular and I was not popular.
I find that we need more statistics on these subjects to fully understand them better.
But I want to state that white privilege thing, I had a really bad childhood growing up and was picked on and bullied and harassed a lot for being a geek and nerd. Looking for a job was tough as well, I had to do temporary light industrial jobs and work in fast food even with a computer science degree until I was able to earn minimum wage at a computer shop building computers and then it lead to another job as data entry which led to another job in programming. I never had it easy, and even had times I went without a job and looking for whatever I could find.
Diversity is a good thing, and I'll tell you why. People of diverse backgrounds have different ways of observing things and figuring things out and might notice something someone else might not notice. It might be a product or service has a flaw in it that gets noticed before it ships, it might be they make an improvement on it. If a business discriminates against people they are really setting themselves up for failure by hiring all of the same group of a type of people.
But my story, I worked so hard I got a stroke in 2001 and ended up on disability in 2003. Trying to recover from that, but once you are disabled, nobody takes you seriously anymore. I assume my career is over? Nobody seems to be there for us who have a mental illness, esp when we developed it in the line of duty.
This article does a good job of pointing to the "barriers to entry" that disproportionately impact women and people of color (who, for example, the "needle in the haystack" tech community - even those of color - may be more adverse to taking a risk on if no one else does).
Although I am of the camp that has developed the tech skills to build MVP (near release), I think the least groups that are seriously committed to closing the gap can do, is get behind women and people of color despite some of these barriers, and in doing so, support them in demonstrating traction, proof of concept, etc. so as to be more successful in securing other resources.
This doesn't have to be in the form of a million dollar investment. It could be an EIR program, and micro-grant / accelerator program, or something of that nature.
Although women and people of color will overcome the seemingly insurmountable, as throughout history, the game often changes as soon as they begin to do so, and expecting them to overcome these hurdles in order to get on the field is, in some fashion, passing the buck.
It is fair to say that the YC experience adds value to the companies that participate - even if only by virtue of screening and vetting companies for investors - although that is clearly not the only benefit. For a company that comes in as an idea, and has no revenue / implicit value, the equity (in exchange for funding and value add) makes sense. Companies are not obliged to apply if they don't see value.
Good point. I started working from home as a contractor (and partially as a college instructor)long before my daughter was conceived. I took zero maternity leave and went right back to work when she was born - literally - while still in the hospital (those food trays make decent work stations). There was a very short learning curve on integrating motherhood into work life.
I'm shocked by how hard people make it seem to be a working or entrepreneurial parent. Life is not easy for anyone anyway, but I feel like I'm even more driven and emotionally centered as a mother.
Seriously - could your comment be any more patronising? Just because your experience gave you the impression that this "working or entrepreneurial parent" lark isn't as hard as it's made out, doesn't mean that's the case for everyone.
I went self-employed the week after my 2nd child was born, working from home around my two children. I was profitable in my first month and every month after that until I stopped nearly 2 years later. It was one of the best learning experiences of my working life so far but it was also HARD. Really, really bloody hard.
Patronising? I find it interesting when people take offense to things so easily. How is sharing my personal experience patronising? I didn't say it wasn't hard - or "really, really, bloody hard," but given that there are people mining for coal, risking life and limb in the armed forces, and children digging through trash heaps for a living, I'd venture to say it's not THAT hard.
The first three years of my daughter's life I was also caregiving for a dying parent and working full time. Life is hard. But parents are just as capable - if not more driven and willing to sacrifice - than anyone else and I don't think we should marvel at that (or as in recent news, imply women should freeze their eggs to pursue their careers). People have been having kids and working from the beginning of time. I know women from previous generations who have had ten or more kids and worked full time. Very common in the American South during the 20th century.
Sharing your personal experience isn't patronising. Telling the world you're shocked at how hard people make it out to be based purely on your single personal experience IS patronising.
You're right, of course people have been having kids and working single "the beginning of time", but that doesn't change whether or not they find it hard, does it? Playing "who's got it worse" top trumps only serves to alienate those who ARE struggling at a time when they most need support.
"Telling the world" I'm shocked at how hard people make it out to be BASED ON MUCH MORE THAN "purely" my "single personal experience" is not patronizing. Why would you assume it is based on my experience alone? I've referenced other examples elsewhere, including a self-made millionaire and mother of four - and there are countless others. Your response speaks much more to your personal experience of how hard it was for you.
pa·tron·ize
ˈpātrəˌnīz,ˈpatrəˌnīz/Submit
verb
verb: patronise
1.
treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
"“She's a good-hearted girl,” he said in a patronizing voice"
synonyms: treat condescendingly, condescend to, look down on, talk down to, put down, treat like a child, treat with disdain.
I don't look down on fellow parents or treat them with disdain (nor do I consider myself superior). If anything, I think the notion people hold that WOMEN IN PARTICULAR cannot be effective or even exceptional parents AND entrepreneurs is patronizing.
Even more so, the suggestion that they are unworthy of the support provided to other entrepreneurs by virtue of said parenthood is patronizing. So I believe your [insert adjective of choice] response is misdirected.
If you are not offended by my comments, your choice of words and the tone of your response suggests otherwise.
Interesting you should make that comment. Earlier today (while I was on hold with server tech support for those who might question my work ethic - lol), I was commenting on the whole egg freezing perk that hit the news. My suggestion was that providing on-site daycare and other work-life integration perks was preferable to the dream deferred mentality with a 25% success rate (for which the implication is deferred career suicide).
That said, to have children as an entrepreneur, a support system of some kind is critical.
Got my link ('cause I'm a hustla baby) http://prelaunch.hustlecon.com/?ref=37a9a7ecc3