White? Male? You work in tech? Let us guess ... Twitter? We KNEW it!

Twitter has revealed its diversity numbers and – surprise, surprise – they're terrible. The babble-chat service published a breakdown of its employees by gender and ethnicity on Wednesday [coincidentally, right alongside Facebook's earnings report – Ed]. The figures aren't encouraging for those concerned about the lack of …

[Trevor_Pott]

Question 1: how does the % of $_minority in $_company compare to the % of $_minority within the general population?

Question 2: is a company bad/evil/racist/etc because it has the same % of $_minority as in the general population, but not the same % of $_minority as there are whites/males/etc?

Question 3: Question 1: how does the % of $_minority in $_company compare to the % of $_minority trained to do tasks relevant to the company within the general population?

Question 4: is a company bad/evil/racist/etc because it has the same % of $_minority as are trained to do the tasks relevant to the company, but not the same % of $_minority as there are whites/males/etc?

Question 5: are such audits actually about equality at all?

Question 5a: how/how not?

[Mark 85]

The answer to all your questions is that "it doesn't matter". The Politically Correct crowd don't give a crap about real world ratios. All they want to do is scream "injustice!!!!".

[Anonymous Coward]

"Political Correctness" is just a "tool" and like any tool it's open to stupid people abusing it.

PC was supposed to do good by being sensible and letting everyone know that nasty terms like spic, chinky, coon, paki, wog, nignog, poofter, bender are nasty and derogatory and that we need to grow up and respect each other.

Sadly too many cretins have hijacked PC and used it to justify their own pathetic, hyper-sensitive agendas, the classic "Baa Baa Black Sheep" debacle being to name just one.

[Anonymous Coward]

"letting everyone know that nasty terms like spic, chinky, coon, paki, wog, nignog, poofter, bender are nasty and derogatory and that we need to grow up and respect each other"

And of course,if we can prevent speechcrime then that'll make it all right, will it? By banishing the "unapproved by the liberal political elites" words, you'll magic up a society of tolerance?

Get a grip.

[Gannettt]

And you hardly see anyone who is directly offended, it always seems to be someone who is afraid that someone else might be offended.

[Anonymous Coward]

A Better Question

Is the percentage breakdown at Twitter, the same percentages as college graduates with a tech degree? I have read the percentages elsewhere about another non- diversified tech company and the percentages were almost equal. Also the schools used were California schools, because the company is located in California. Also because California has the second largest percentage of Asians as a part of population. The largest is Hawaii. If you compared the company nationally or to Brigham Young University, the percentage of Asians to population would be much lower.

[Trevor_Pott]

Re: A Better Question

So you only use graduates as your comparison barometer? Why? Why not the totality of the industry, including those who have been working in it for some time? The demographics of current graduates probably look nothing like the industry as a whole.

Also, we have to look beyond just the tech industry. CxOs don't have to have tech backgrounds to run a tech company. Same with secretaries, janitorial, marketing, etc...

I'd say your proposed means to answer my questions demonstrates a great deal of bias on your part, almost like you have a predetermined conclusion you'd like to discuss, but need a way to twist facts or narrow the discussion so that the your point seems valid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A Better Question

"CxO don't have to have tech backgrounds to run a tech company"

Are you sure? Some of the most spectacular failures of some tech companies can be directly traced into thinking that selling potatoes and creating high-end tech products is after all the same, and thereby you can put in leadership positions anybody who manged something in his or her life.

If you look a the most successul tech companies, they are are run by people who understand the market, customers, and environment their company lives in, and often, made a good part of their career inside the company.

And if you look at the graphs, in the "non-tech area" numbers are 50%-50%, it's when it comes to tech roles that the percentage chages to 90%-10%. And I guess in some other roles you'll see much more women than men.

[Pete 2]

Fun and games with numbers and their meaning

Strictly speaking, in america, MEN are a minority.

in the United States — 143.4 million of whom were female and 138.1 million male

However, regarding race and recruitment. One issue is that a company can only recruit from the applicants it gets. So apart from looking at the diversity of people actually in the company, any properly conducted research should also consider the make-up of the people who apply for the advertised positions (if it's even possible, moral or legal to have that information - if not, you can't really draw many worthwhile conclusions).

If the same proportion of young, white, males in jobs is the same as the proportion who apply for jobs, the disqualification is being applied elsewhere - not in the recruitment or retention policies. Simply put, the whole issue is far to complex to be summarised in a headline, a Powerpoint presentation, or maybe even by the little brains of the H.R. department.

It may be, for example, that many people from diverse backgrounds don't actually want to work for Twitter.

[Anonymous Coward]

The computer doesn't care whether you're black, white, male, female, green, or a fish. If you write shit code, then you get shit results.

If you want more green fish to be hired in good tech positions at good tech companies, then encourage more green fish to get good tech skills at school.

[Dr Scrum Master]

Asia?

Asia's a big place featuring people of many different colours, eye shapes and nose sizes.

[HipposRule]

Re: Asia?

In US speak (and pr0n) Asian tends to mean what us in the UK would call Oriental.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Asia?

Well, in the Valley it will generally does mean all of Asia, though predominantly South Asia (India) and East Asia (China, Taiwan, Korea).

[Infernoz]

Please stop publishing this Frankfurt School Political Correctness nonsense already

Not enough quality women like tech jobs, so it doesn't matter how some clueless socialist feminist or excuse for a male wants to change the male/female ratio, and racial diversity without merit is a complete load of cow dung too.

Seriously, this Marxist rubbish is getting so very old, boring and tragic! Marx was mostly wrong, because Socialism always fails eventually, and fails faster in more extreme cases like the USSR and Maoist China. It's a great pity that the USA has got a nasty case of metastasizing Socialism cancer now.

The facts are White Men and Asians are generally more interested in tech and/or smarter than the alternatives, and these businesses select for the best staff! Also a smarter women would have children when she is younger rather than the absurd super career women nonsense, because it gets harder to get pregnant, to have healthy babies and to have the energy to take care of the children when she is much older!

[Goat Jam]

Re: Please stop publishing this Frankfurt School Political Correctness nonsense already

"Seriously, this Marxist rubbish is getting so very old"

True that. I'm extremely sick of this shit. El Reg standards have slipped over the years. Try going back to mid noughties articles and note the difference.

[Ashton Black]

Re: Please stop publishing this Frankfurt School Political Correctness nonsense already

Big ol' difference between Marxism and Socialism. Agreed that the Stalinist / Maoist flavours of Marxism were nought but totalitarian dictatorships wrapped in a red flag, but socialist democracies can and do flourish, for example the Scandinavian counties.

On your general point with reference to Tech Businesses I agree that one shouldn't look at the business, a good one would be colour / gender agnostic, but look more into STEM education in schools and how it could be improved to be more inclusive at a younger age.

[SundogUK]

Re: Please stop publishing this Frankfurt School Political Correctness nonsense already

People keep bringing up the Scandinavian countries as some kind of socialist success stories. It's rubbish. The Scandinavians are generally more economically liberal than even the US. It's in social issues that they are left of center.

[Mike VandeVelde]

Socialism always fails eventually

Can you point to a form of society that has lasted forever?? I hate to break it to you but capitalism always fails eventually too. Actually that was quite enjoyable ;-) Just because there are a few capitalist countries that have managed to precariously teeter along to the current day balancing on the top of pyramid scheme empires built on imaginary fiat money commanded by misguided theories about capital based on measures of gross domestic product that have almost no basis in reality, well that doesn't guarantee that you and yours won't be picking through refuse for scraps to eat and fighting off your neighbours amid the decaying riot burnt rubble of your cities within the next six months.

[disgruntled yank]

Re: Please stop publishing this Frankfurt School Political Correctness nonsense already

Frankfurt School? It's All About the Benjamins?

Frankly (or frankfurtly) I don't see what in particular the USSR and Maoist China (which had pretty much male & not especially diverse leadership) have to do with this. And when I compare Richard Nixon's domestic agendas with those of any Democratic candidate since about 1976, I'd say that the Socialism cancer is pretty thoroughly in remission.

[Chewy]

Re: Please stop publishing this Frankfurt School Political Correctness nonsense already

Would you like to tell me what Marx had to do with feminism? I'll answer if for you - nothing. Don't let your anti-left bias get in the way at all will you.

The issue is not that companies should represent the racial/gender breakdown of society but more that it should not discriminate against other groups. Frequently there are articles in the IT press where women who work in IT have been harassed by some anonymous cowards threatening rape etc. If this is the case then who is to say that those anonymous cowards don't work in IT and have discriminated against women in the workplace. Perhaps they have influence in the hiring process.

In regards to "the best staff" if these IT minority groups are being discriminated against how do we know that the white and Asian men are indeed the best staff since the others may not have had a chance to prove themselves. If this is the case does this not mean that I as a white man got my position purely by luck of being the right race/gender/class. Again if companies aren't recruiting from across all socio-economic groups then how can they ensure they have the best person for the job.

Obviously this is a theory but unless companies investigate their own hiring process it is no more a wild theory than sticking your head in the sand and saying everything is fine.

[DN4]

This problem will solve itself

If the current trends contiune, soon it will be unacceptable in the US to label explicitly anyone as black, asian or whatever (white being the only exception). So it will be impossible to produce similar reports. Problem solved.

[T. F. M. Reader]

Not only Blacks and Latinos are under-represented

Twitter is a US company, right?

According to the same 2010 US census cited in the article, 72.4% of the US population is white. So only the top leadership of Twitter has roughly the average proportion of whites, while in all the lower layers whites are horribly under-represented. Probably indicating a discriminatory practice.

Right?

[daemonoid]

Re: Not only Blacks and Latinos are under-represented

Maybe not... the demographics for California are 40.1% 'non-hispanic white'.

[GitMeMyShootinIrons]

It starts with statistics...

..and carries on until the more obsessed looks start looking at ideas like "Positive Discrimination" and quotas that are inherently racist/sexist - i.e. You're screwed if you're a white male in this example.

Not one lefty-PC drone considers whether it is simply a case that, for whatever reason, less people in some of their discriminatory groups/labels are just not interested in a given career, or perhaps that the few candidates who are just aren't as good as their peers.

Jobs, pay etc should be on merit, not meeting made-up statistics.

[Anonymous Coward]

equality

For some reason I never see the PC crowd complaining that there are not enough female miners around. They seem to think that equal representation is required only in nice clean office environment. BTW, the communist countries experimented with radical equality, they tried to get women into mining and other dirty/physical jobs too but gave up after a few years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the f*ck cares?! As long as they do a good job, nothing else should matter. Please, politicians, learn to respect private property.

[Piro]

Pretty much.

It's not as if the company deliberately is going to shun a black guy.

It's simply a matter of the best people applying and getting jobs are white or asian males.

That's not a problem with the business, it's a problem with attitudes or education, and frankly, overall demographics. In a country where whites are still the largest group, it would be understandable that that was shown in other stats.

[Chris Miller]

In a lifetime of working in IT, I'm struggling to think of any UK operations that would get anywhere near 30% female participation, most of them are more like 10%. This certainly includes the ones I was responsible for, even though the only recruitment criterion I used was to find the best person for the job. Women were relatively over-represented in my management teams, because in my experience [WARNING: sexist statement, nervous readers should look away now] women tend to make better managers.

The most extreme example I came across was doing some consultancy at a large German tech company. When I got back to my hotel, something was nagging at the back of my mind. I realised that during the day, I'd met 3 women, two PAs who joined out table for lunch, and one seconded from the UK head office. And I'm sure all the males I'd met would have vehemently denied being sexist.

[localzuk]

Odd

Its odd how apparently intelligent people seem to obsess over things like this but use completely the wrong statistics and place blames in completely the wrong places.

The stats that need comparing are company make-up vs appropriately qualified graduate populations, not general population make-up. It isn't Twitter's fault if there aren't enough people from whichever ethnicity graduating with applicable degrees. No, that's the government's job to sort out.

This lack of understanding of appropriate statistics seems to exist everywhere too. The media is basically obsessed with it.

[Trevor_Pott]

Re: Odd

The stats that need comparing are company make-up vs the total appropriately qualified populations, not simply graduate population make-up.

T,FTFY.

[TrishaD]

Re: Odd

Yes, I think that this is the key to it.

If you think about it logically, equality of opportunity, far from being socialist or communist, is basically just good common sense that should benefit businesses just as much as it does individuals. If, for example, a talented black woman doesnt get the opportunity to make best use of her talents, that's not just a tragedy for her but a wasted opportunity for an intelligent business to make a few bucks.

Similarly if you have any ethnic minority who, as a whole, tend to bump along on the bottom in terms of relevant affluence, that isnt just an issue for that minority, its an issue for society and for business because their potential talents arent being exploited.

So a level playing field makes sense for just about everybody - it's essentially a win-win.

Unfortunately a set of figures like this are bugger all use to man nor beast. If company A employs more women in a senior position than company B is that a sign that they're not looking at the wider talent pool and are discriminating, or is it a sign that company B have already nicked the best, most experienced women in the job pool? Or is it a sign of something else completely? These figures dont help in asking those questions.

[Alistair]

Re: Odd

I'll second that fix Trevor, I've not one piece of paper relevant to computers in my past. Although physics might be relevant at some bizarre layer.

[sisk]

Re: Odd

The stats that need comparing are company make-up vs the total appropriately qualified populations, not simply graduate population make-up.

I would point out that, while that's true, the graduate population is a much easier statistic to get and probably reflects the total population of appropriately qualified applicants. The reason I say that is that the graduate population for a given field will almost certainly give you an idea of what sorts of backgrounds find said field attractive, which, logically, should give you a very good idea of what the pool of qualified people in that field looks like. After all, if you have a field where only 10% of the graduates are women (a field like, say, IT) you can be pretty sure that women as a whole aren't very interested in that field.

Why women don't seem interested in IT on the whole is a whole 'nother issue, but you can hardly blame Twitter for that. Personally I think that has more to do with the long-standing stereotype about computer types (you know, the one that says we're all socially awkward, unattractive men? If you had that idea and were a woman would you want to be in the IT field?)

[Trevor_Pott]

Re: Odd

"I would point out that, while that's true, the graduate population is a much easier statistic to get and probably reflects the total population of appropriately qualified applicants. "

Except that's full of shit. The IT industry has a much higher % of white males as extant practitioners than graduates. New graduates are simply more diverse, and it is irrational to hold the whole industry to that standard. To do so would be to say to every white male "we're sorry, but because this industry existed for 30 years as overwhelmingly white and male we're going to massively limit your options for getting a job. Sorry you don't have any say in how you were born."

In an industry that has already largely achieved artificial equality then basing it off of graduate %s may be rational. For IT, however, it's not. People older than 25 don't just die off, you know. We keep working in the industry into our 70s.

[localzuk]

Re: Odd

I'm slightly confused by your post @Trevor_Pott. Are you saying that the industry as a whole should be made up, demographically, the same as the demographics of "new graduates"? Or are you saying this would be bad (it would) as it would basically tell the existing set of appropriately qualified while males "we don't want you"?

The reason I'm confused, is that I haven't seen anyone saying anything about the industry reflecting "new graduate" statistics here?

[Trevor_Pott]

Re: Odd

@localzuk

Ultimately, in the fullness of time, the industry would ideally have a makeup that looks very much like the general population. To get there, we need to make IT seem open and friendly to individuals of all races and genders. I think, quite frankly, that should be the goal of all industries.

That said, if we are to judge the equality of hiring practices of a company, I believe we should judge the company based upon the gender/race composition of the available talent pool.

Judging a company based upon the gender/race composition of graduates will be dramatically out of step with the actual practicing talent pool in IT for the simple reason that the practicing talent pool - especially the older, more experienced individuals - is almost exclusively white and male.

By the same token, judging a company based upon the gender/race composition of the general population is outright bonkers because the available talent pool for our industry doesn't reflect the general populiaton at all.

Should we be putting effort into encouraging more diversity in individuals entering the feild? Absolutely. Should we punish, berate or chastise companies because they can't meet an arbitrary diversity standard when the talent pool they have to select from is so dramatically universe? Absolutely not.

If we go after Twitter/Google/etc and say "you need to have a diversity in your workforce that is roughly equal to the general population" or, worse, "you need to have a diversity in which all races are represented equally" we are crippling those companies. We are basically telling them "you must select only from amongst the youngest, most experienced graduated, and you must throw out white male applications, even if they are massively more qualified."

That has two very nasty effects. First, it dramatically depresses wages for white males, as they become persona non grata that only very small companies or those who flat out don't care about their public image will hire.

Second, it means a lot of very talented individuals who just happen to be white males can never contribute to the "big boys" because of the colour of their skin or because they posses a penis. This means that those smaller companies which pay less for their talent potentially get top quality labour, enough to drive the big guys out of business. This results in fewer jobs available for everyone, but also kills off the companies that were deeply invested in what I can only term "irrationally disproportionate false equality."

Unless there are a much higher % of really smart, talented people amongst non white males, the above seem inevitable to me. Mediocrity is okay under radically disproportionate false equality because the demand for bodies amongst a tiny potential pool of individuals will vastly outstrip any natural excellence-based selection pressures.

So what then? If you turn the Finger Of Shame towards these smaller, but now incredibly successful companies that are composed of cheap "reject" white male labour do you honestly think they're going to suddenly start having bad feels about the whole thing and slit their own throats they way they just watched their competition do? Or do you think they'll say "fuck it", stick their middle finger in the air and keep the "evil" white males on staff who made them successful?

So what then happens to those minorities? They go elsewhere, seek employment...but will they now face a stigma? A question around "are you getting the job because of diversity requirements, or because you're good at it? The last place you were at imploded!"

No. I think the best path forward is to work on encouraging diversity amongst those entering the feild and to leave those employing individuals the fuck alone. They have a hard enough time finding people who excel as it is without attempting to artificially limit the pool of talent from which they should be selecting. We need to accept that IT is radically UNdiverse as an industry, and that it will be for decades to come.

We shouldn't be punishing people for this. Using the stick is going to help noone. But careful application of the carrot will solve the problem in due time.

[localzuk]

Re: Odd

I think you've basically just repeated what I said originally. Companies should not be compared to the population as a whole - it is illogical. I use the term "appropriately qualified graduates" simply because the majority of people in the IT industry are graduates. People in the skilled roles/leadership roles are certainly majority graduates. But yes, the term should be "appropriately qualified people" instead, to catch those of us who are edge cases (myself for example - no degree, working hard in the IT industry).

[Trevor_Pott]

Re: Odd

The way you phrased it A) would lock out all those of us who don't have a degree...and there's more of us than just make an "edge case". B) it sounded like you wanted to compare to the number of individuals graduating from the tech programs that year. I.E. that this year's graduates would somehow be representative of the industry...not remotely the case in IT.

[fixit_f]

Re: Odd

Not all IT people are graduates. Particularly the old school ones.

Or there are lots of other people who have migrated over from other things when they realised that their degrees were useless. I'm a dev, but my actual degree was philosophy which vocationally speaking is about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

[Unicornpiss]

@Political Correctness being a tool

When all you have is a hammer in your toolbox, everything starts to look like a nail.

More worrisome than any population breakdown in a company would be if this was really because of prejudices existing. But you can't tell from statistics if this was because of prejudices/discrimination, because of lack of interest from ethnic groups for certain jobs, or lack of qualifications. I agree that it looks damning that decent, higher-paying jobs seem to be populated by mostly one gender and ethnicity, but if it weren't for the perception that these are choice jobs, would there be outcry over this? Would anyone blink if a study was done showing that there aren't enough female lumberjacks or enough white people working in Indian restaurants, for example?

I want everyone to be treated fairly and honestly, with no bias or preference because of any factor except for actual qualifications and ability to do a job, and hopefully all of us feel this way. Everyone should have the same choices and opportunities available. In the USA, we've long suffered from forms of reverse discrimination called "affirmative action" and company diversity policies where ethnic groups are given preference just because the company wants to be seen as being "diverse" And in certain jobs you can be the highest-scoring candidate, yet not even be considered unless you a member of a minority group that may have scored far worse. For a while in certain jobs being white and male was poison to your chances of landing the job if more "diverse" applicants existed. Fortunately, reverse discrimination like this is becoming a thing of the past in the USA, albeit slowly. "Fake" diversity like this does nothing to promote equality in the long run and only feeds resentment.

[NogginTheNog]

Terminology?

the company is supporting an organization named "Girls Who Code" to bring more women into its technical organization along with hosting "Girl Geek Dinners" and its affiliation with a local San Francisco group named "sf.girls."

Stopping referring to adult women as 'girls' might help them get taken more seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Terminology?

It's true IT people don't understand women... tell any woman she looks young, younger, like a girl, and you'll make her happy...

[Christopher E. Stith]

Re: Terminology?

They aren't necessarily encouraging grandma to take up coding. They're encouraging high school and early college females to go into lifelong careers in the future. You know, those adolescent females who, being adolescent, are particularly not entirely adult and might sometimes be referred to by the word suggesting youth.

[Trevor_Pott]

Re: Terminology?

But it's perfectly okay to refer to grown men as "boys". Or any other derogatory term, for that matter, hmm? Just, heaven forbid, don't use a slang term to refer to someone with a vagina!

[John 156]

You cannot be serious!

We know where all this is leading: the total removal of all white heterosexual males from anything other than menial roles and their replacement by 'minorities', some of whom appear to in a far greater majority in purely numeric terms although not necessary at the higher reaches of the Bell Curve. This is what Cultural Marxism is about; so we can all look forward to a Nirvana where absolutely nothing works which is reputed to be the case where many of these 'minorites' originate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You cannot be serious!

Thanks for that Mr. Griffin. More time on your hands to post now eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain me why a basked team hires only tall people? Where's the diversity? <G>

So tall people are just a small percentage of the population... maybe because tall people play basketball better - and many of them are attracted by basketball? That's also true for IT - most men, white and asians are attracted by IT. Most blacks and Latinos are still deeply grown in subcultures that keep them away from IT. Sure, there's also the issue that they may be poorer on average, but the real issue is the cultural one - if you don't see IT as an appealing profession because your model are different, you won't ever become a good IT professional?

So what should IT company hire? Those who spent their time learning IT, or those who didn't? And if the former are mostly white, asian and male, what IT company should do? Hire less talented people justr because of diversity? If so, please ask the NBA to force team to hire short people (and pay them millions of dollars anyway), NFL ones to hire slow, small people - and some short-sighted quarterbacks, why not? and MLB some people without arms....

Some people talking about diversity should read Swift's Gulliver again, but not the travel to Lilliput, but the one to the Laputa Island, where, just to be "diverse" they decided to force people to build watermills on hills top, not at the bottom where the water flaws fast...

If you really want Black and Latinos in IT, tell them - and convince them - they should stop in believing in their silly subcultures made to ensure they will only be Black and Latinos forever. That sciences won't make them less "masculine". That "nerds", outside schools and the few lucky professional athleters, earn much more than anybody living on its muscle only. Stop the silly broadcasting in Spanish - IT language is mostly English, and if you live outside it you will never go far.

And stop asking IT companies to hire people who don't deserve it just because of "diversity". Or apply it to any area - including sport, cinema (why only beautiful people? where's diversity), music (if my voice is not good, why shouldn't I sing professionally?), etc. etc. Or there are situations where the lack of "diversity" is welcome?

[pompurin]

Re: Can someone explain me why a basked team hires only tall people? Where's the diversity? <G>

Can we do a diversity graph for the NBA in America?

[TomMariner]

Activists

If we elect a Community Activist as our leader, do you expect something different?

Here's the drill "The ______ are unfair to you. I will punish them. vote for me."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Activists

Actually, the communist in Russia were far better at employing women - but they sent them also into heavy-duty jobs and their propaganda depicted women able to work not in "intellectual, high-paid jobs", but strong, muscular women able to work on heavy production line jobs - not only the trendy, high-end well-paid ones. This is not really a communist approach, which would send women also into jobs they would despise and avoid whenever they could, it's more a very radical-chic approach, they need some silly battle to fight to feel "noble" and "correct", and while pretending to fight sexism and racism, they become sexist and racist because instead of judging on skills and achievements, they want to force decision based on sex and race.

Communism never thought about sex and race, those who were better at controlling and enslaving the others - and stay alive - got the top jobs. At least, a skill-based selection, although based on the wrong skills...

[sisk]

In the US at least there seems to be little female interest in technology. I'd be willing to bet that an overwhelmingly large percentage of Twitter's qualified applicants are male and either white or Asian just based off of the demographics of computer science majors, who are, shocker, mostly male Caucasians and Asians. THAT is why you see such a lack of diversity in American tech companies. What you're looking at is reality, not discrimination. It's simply a reflection of who chooses to go into the IT field. Diversifying in this context means turning away qualified people simply because of the color of their skin or their gender. That's illegal, though for some reason I never quite got it gets a pass if you call it 'affirmative action'.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there have been studies that it largely is related to discrimination, but not by the hiring company.

There's a rampant winnowing out of girls in intermediate school from courses and groups known as "boy's interests". Fix the social problems in the schools and the families and you'll help balance the workforce. This is not just outside discrimination. Self-selection figures in, too

Certain ethnic groups in the US are also underserved by quality schools or have parents in poorer paying jobs because those groups often live in economically blighted areas. There's also a bit of "that's white stuff" surrounding math, science, and computers that is used against those of African descent (including within their own communities) going into those fields. There are well-educated and wealthy blacks, sure, but by percentage there are fewer blacks in the well-educated and wealthy groups than in the population generally. This is not just outside discrimination. Economic factors and self-selection figure in, too.

[Bucky 2]

There's a rampant winnowing out of girls in intermediate school from courses and groups known as "boy's interests".

I've heard that, too. But the thing that doesn't make sense to me is that most of my elementary school teachers were women. So to make this explanation true, the people discouraging young women must primarily be...other women!

It sounds like an abuse spiral. But it doesn't really help us with the current situation. Removing women from the teaching profession as being serial abusers based solely on their sex doesn't seem reasonable.

The best thing I would say is it doesn't MATTER how the populations of men vs. women skew. The only thing that's important is that THIS man or THIS woman is treated fairly--as an individual, with individual strengths and weaknesses. Anything else is a distraction.

[TheJokker]

Race and sex should "never" enter into the decision to hire somebody. It should "always" be based upon merit. Forcing quotas is discriminatory.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there an issue?

As a 30+ year Valley resident, I'm baffled why Twitter is wringing its hands. The Valley is largely a meritocracy. Virtually no analysis as to how Twitter's (and virtually everyone else's) tech workforce fails to mirror the local tech labor pool.

A more interesting figure is the percentage of minority applicants that appear to meet qualifications, but aren't extended offers. If statistically different than white or asian males, then there may be discrimination.

And the reverse is true. The US postal system in urban areas has been deemed a modern plantation system because of the disproportionate number of African American employees.

It's worth reviewing http://www.cypress.com/?rID=34973 for a different perspective.

[Yugguy]

Equal but different

As a dad of a bright, engaged 8 year old girl I firmly want her to have the same opportunities as her mindlessly-crazed-at-this-age male classmates. But in the quest for equality we forget that we are DIFFERENT.

Perhaps there are less female CEOs because women generally aren't as interested in power over others as men are? (Yes of course I know there are exceptions.)

[Dave Bennett]

RACIST

According to the latest stats, white male Earthlings represent a tiny 0.0000000000000000001% of the population of all human-habitable planteary bodies.

TWITTER YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!