> doesn't say much for democracy does it? Hundreds of millions of indians living without electricity, indoor plumbing and in abject poverty.
Wow what a cherry picked example. I guess being a "democracy" should just magically solve a millennia of colonialism and thousands of years of rigid class hierarchy? And even if it absolutely should, the wealth gap in india is at an all time low due to Reservation policies.
> Sure, but the article is talking about riots and attacks. And it's a taiwanese company they are rioting against. The irony.
Yes, they haven't been paid for months. In india the workers don't take that sitting down.
> "China's policies of suppression". China's policies were copied from japan, korea, singapore, etc who in turned copied from the US. Parrots parroting.
Interesting, I never saw nets along the company housing in japan/us preventing workers from killing themselves, nor have I heard of american workers sneaking letters in products begging for help.
Also, I love how you're equating humans rights with "virtue signalling". Spoken exactly like a privelaged fool who doesn't understand the value of right, yet deems them unworthy for others.
Cherrypicked? How is electricity, indoor plumbing and abject poverty cherrypicking? Those are the basic necessities of modern life. It's almost 2021.
> I guess being a "democracy" should just magically solve a millennia of colonialism and thousands of years of rigid class hierarchy?
Except that china also had the exact same issues. In many respect, china had it worse than india when it came to colonialism. Yet look at china and look at india.
> And even if it absolutely should, the wealth gap in india is at an all time low due to Reservation policies.
Talk about cherrypicked. Who cares about wealth gap when you don't have electricity?
> Interesting, I never saw nets along the company housing in japan/us preventing workers from killing themselves,
Once again, that's foxconn. A taiwanese company and a major supplier for japanese and american tech goods.
> nor have I heard of american workers sneaking letters in products begging for help.
You mean the silly propaganda you hear every 10 years? Ever wonder what becomes of those stories?
> Also, I love how you're equating humans rights with "virtue signalling".
No. I equate hypocritical virtue signaling about human rights as "virtue signaling". Never mind that we benefit from chinese "slave labor", we have been murdering millions of people world wide. We cause more human suffering than the chinese in the name of "human rights".
> Spoken exactly like a privelaged fool who doesn't understand the value of right, yet deems them unworthy for others.
I guess I am privileged since I've always had electricity. Something millions of indians sadly do not. So virtue signal about democracy and human rights some more like hundreds of millions live without electricity, plumbing and food in india.
After ww2, both india and china were in the same position. 70 years later, india has fallen behind considerably leading to immense human suffering. Instead of focusing on that, hypocritical virtue signalers whine about nonsense.
India achieved (or at least claims to have achieved) 100% electrification under Power for All policy last year. India also lifted 270 million people out of poverty just in past 10 years and spent $30 billion on fixing sanitation. Things are not in a good shape under any stretch of imagination. But the progress is at an unprecedented rate in Indian history.
Is this a troll? Comparing a single point on greenpiece's agenda to literally hundreds of millions of dollars Koch dollars to climate change deniers as a whole are simply incomparable.
Just in case this is somehow contestable, let me highlight a few points
* Climate change deniers oppose solutions that don't involve oil/gas/coal - this means nuclear power
* Koch funding > greenpiece funding
* greenpeice didn't start nuclear fear mongering, pro-oil lobbyists did - AKA climate change deniers.
Greenpeace's annual budget for activism (as opposed to fundraising, which eats roughly 1/3 of their budget) is on the order of $200 million. That's more than the lifetime spending of the Koch brothers, and Greenpeace does that volume every year. They're not some scrappy little actor, they're one of the single largest lobbying groups in the entire world.
Their expenditures for all their "program services" (their various activism campaigns) was $27.4M in 2019 and $26.3M in 2018. If the Koch Bros. spend about $200M a year on activism, they're actually substantially outspending Greenpeace. Which, well, is to be expected: Greenpeace is a non-profit that's very often taking positions opposing major corporations.
(Greenpeace is actually a collection of quasi-independent groups around the world, but since the Koch's activism is primarily focused in the US, it makes sense to compare them to Greenpeace USA.)
I've spoken out against HR for dissimilar reasons and found myself out of the job not too long later. I don't blame him for not raising his head at his workplace...
I think you need to spend less time attacking people who bring issues to light, and more time recognizing and agreeing that there is a problem in the industry that needs to be solved.
Attacking the person who is bringing the issue to light makes it seem like one is trying to distract from the issue being brought up, and put blame on the individual for talking about the problem.
I make it a point to not be in SV, but I work for/am applying for companies based out of there.
Short answer? Yes. Especially if you have an accent. Less so if you don't, however I face plenty of exactly what the author speaks of when I went to my predominantly black college next door to a powerhouse technology school
"Wir haben es nicht gewusst" is what the Germans used after WW2, but part of me can believe it because the world wasn't as connected as it is today.
Today though? It does not fly. People know about it, and if they are not actively participating in stopping it, they are complicit - "not my problem, I don't care, blue/all lives matter, what about these crime statistics, muh freedom", these are all people that know about it but do not care, or they do care but they're on the wrong side.
Wow. This confirms something I saw SO often as an undergrad.
I went to a predominantly black city college right next door to Georgia Tech, so we got plenty of big companies knocking on our door.
Only they never took us seriously, gave rushed presentations, and never collected resumes. Tech? They got parties, dinners, entire clubs rented out. It was posh, and if you were like me - you figured out ways to get into these exclusive events, evade bouncers and find an engineer just to talk to them.
There are a few people in this comment section talking about how 'minorities and women simply skew differently'. Maybe try walking a mile in our shoes
Do you think it could possibly be that the black city college might be a lower ranked school than Georgia Tech? Or did Georgia Tech not have any women or minorities? I went to a lower ranked school that was the most diverse in the state, and I've also taken classes at Stanford and Berkeley. There is no question that the students at Stanford and Berkeley were way more motivated, worked a lot harder and were academically much stronger than the students at my school. So I would expect those schools to get a lot more recruiting attention than my school. That doesn't mean the students at my school can't be successful, but it did mean that you had to put in a lot more work than the median student at the lower-ranked school to be successful.
Right. So much of the "racism" that gets exposed in the US is discrimination against poor or less educated people, which needs to be cast as racism to keep the outrage machine flowing. You should tend to discount any race-based statistics that don't correct for economic status.
Of course, there are no examples of elite black-dominated universities abutting poor white technical colleges, so it's not possible to look for an anecdote in the opposite direction here.
There's plenty of historic and systemic racism that keeps black people poorer and less educated. That's where people's outrage should be focused.
The subtext of the story is that the HBCU was visited to check a checkbox, but the students at that school were treated with such disrespect that the underlying bias was clear.
Nobody has any trouble understanding that Duke is a higher-priority recruiting target than A&T.
I think the GP is trying to say there's obvious bias and disrespect, but it's not obvious that the disrespect was primarily due to racism or primarily due to school ranking. No school of comparable ranking to A&T but a more Duke-like racial makeup was visited in this instance. There was racism and/or elitism displayed, but there isn't enough information in this story to rule out elitism being the primary driver for the lack of respect.
Certainly the students should have been treated with much more respect. Multiple people clearly confused priority and respect. The two student bodies should have been treated with equal respect, but we can understand why they might not get equal priority. However, there's not enough evidence to rule out plain elitism for the lack of respect.
Why bother going to NC A&T if you didn't want the students from there? It's performative at best. Why choose that college in particular? For a diversity quota?
Often these sorts of inconsistent decision making occur because multiple people making decisions disagree. Maybe some person high up in HR in change of recruiting scheduling decided Duke and A&T would be visited on these days. Maybe the person in charge of planning the details felt very strongly they were better off putting whatever resources earmarked for A&T toward events with minority-focused engineering student groups at Duke, and so raided the budget without going head-to-head with the person in charge of recruiting scheduling.
For the same reason you don't serve leftovers on a first date with someone you're trying to impress. Which was ostensibly what this firm was trying to do at A&T.
I'm of the opinion it's better that they go, but reasonable people disagree. There are certainly potential economic benefits to the students at A&T at the time, but it could be argued that longer-term cultural progress is hindered by such token displays.
While perhaps not the most professional on the recruiters' part it's hardly racist to half-ass a 'check the checkbox' assignment. Unlike the racist tokenism and just outright disrespectful facade of visiting a school when there is little to no (apparent) interest in hiring from.
It's definitely a little racist to half ass it so hard you're serving leftovers from another school.
I don't think I really agree that visiting HBCUs is racist tokenism unless it is 100% just to get diversity brownie points and nothing else: it's still better than not visiting them entirely and to provide opportunities to underrepresented minorities for which, while the intent is to put them into the corporate grinder, having a high-paying tech job is still a material benefit.
> It's definitely a little racist to half ass it so hard ...
Without seeing how they treated students at a similarly ranked non-HBCU, it's difficult to distinguish racism from colorblind elitism. It's probably a bit of both racism and elitism, but without a comparably ranked school for comparison, I wouldn't be comfortable using the word "definitely".
Ok. If you are going to agree that the situation is almost certainly the result of at least implicit racism, and the alternatives are pretty unlikely then cool. You agree.
The second sentence of my post begins "It's probably a bit of both racism and elitism." I was careful to point that out before pointing out that it's jumping to conclusions to use the word "definitely".
While perhaps not the most professional on the recruiters' part it's hardly racist to half-ass a 'check the checkbox' assignment.
This is exactly why you can't reasonably accept treating one group of people differently - it might be a lazy recruiter half-ass'ing their job, but it might also be actual real racism. There's no way to tell by looking. The outcome is the same.
If you're willing to give them a pass you might just be enabling a racist.
A. What you'll have to do will depend in how finely you divide your population. E.g. recent african immigrant vs. Slave descended are quite different demographics with different life trajectories and you'll be able to tell one from another very easily.
There will be huge political fights over these categories.
B. If you do hire based on population demographics then two things will happen: You'll get a bit more inefficient workplace due to unperforming workers. But more importantly, you'll be surrounding people with a bunch of Xers (whichever the underperfoming demographics is. Hillbillies? African Americans? Republicans? Left handed folk?) who are underperforming. This will cause a strong association in their mind that X=less capable. Xism will then increase.
The influx of women to my workplace really didn't help my colleague's sexism.
Or, you know, like people have pointed out the Cisco has done when other people were speculating this might have been them - invest/donate to the school in ways that improve their graduate's outcomes...
"Cisco, at least at a time did invest in A&T and NC State, far more so than UNC which it didn’t recruit from for a period."
What do you really think about the matter at hand? It sounds like you're playing devil's advocate, but you're not expressing how you feel about the unfair treatment itself.
If we are going to talk about Georgia Tech, it is worth noting, GT is:
No.1 in engineering doctoral degrees awarded to African American students
No.1 in engineering undergraduate degrees awarded overall to minorities
No.2 in engineering undergraduate degrees awarded to African American students
No.3 in engineering doctoral degrees awarded overall to minorities
I can confirm this from the other side. I was a computer science grad from Georgia Tech. When talking with people from Morehouse, the events they experienced with recruiters was very different and less engaged than mine.
Some positive feedback that may be overlooked with all the UI changes:
Love that releases are shown prominently on the repo page! It's always been a 'trick' of mine to check for releases for a repo by appending `/releases/` to the URL. Now I don't have to, and can just peek at a glance.
