SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a stunning example of failure to understand the meaning of the word equality, Github's "social impact team" is now actively discriminating against people based on gender and skin color; white women in particular:
One insider criticized GitHub's "social impact team," which is in charge of figuring out how to use the product to tackle social issues, including diversity within the company itself. It's led by Nicole Sanchez, vice president of social impact, who joined GitHub in May after working as a diversity consultant.
While people inside the company approve of the goal to hire a more diverse workforce, some think the team is contributing to the internal cultural battle.
"They are trying to control culture, interviewing and firing. Scary times at the company without a seasoned leader. While their efforts are admirable it is very hard to even interview people who are 'white' which makes things challenging," this person said.
Sanchez is known for some strong views about diversity. She wrote an article for USA Today shortly before she joined GitHub titled, "More white women does not equal tech diversity."
At one diversity training talk held at a different company and geared toward people of color, she came on a bit stronger with a point that says, "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women."
From a site policy standpoint, this really makes me want to argue for finding another host for our rehash repository, enormous pain in the ass though that would be.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Monday February 08 2016, @08:46PM
Not.
Look the reason people are outraged is because that's blatant racism, and outside of the SJWs and the Stormfags, the rest of us have left that behind and find it offensive. No matter who practices it and no matter whom they focus it on.
Can you imagine the howls of disapproval, the bitter denunciations, the diatribes and the hashtags and so on if someone were to write that 'non-whites can be allies but cannot be allowed to lead?' It's one of those few cases where you don't even feel the need to understand the context before condemning it. Decent people simply don't think like that. This is the 21st century and we expect people to be judged by their ideas, their abilities, and their accomplishments - not the colour of their skin.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @08:56PM
> Look the reason people are outraged is because that's blatant racism,
It is blatant racism to say that non-white people can't leave it to whites to make sure that non-whites get a fair chance at employment?
Really? Permanent aggrievement must have rotted your brain.
You have ONE out here. One chance to save face. Admit you misread #1 and thought it meant "all work" rather than the work of implementing equal opportunity.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Monday February 08 2016, @10:25PM
The 'work' they are talking about is creating a fair hiring process, an even playing field for all applicants where they can be judged solely on their own individual merits, and not by the colour of their skin or their political beliefs or anything else not actually related to doing their job. That's exactly what HR is supposed to do, in each and every company on earth! So what they are really saying is that a white person can never be qualified to lead HR. And that's just racist nonsense, that's flat out wrong.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @10:29PM
> So what they are really saying is that a white person can never be qualified to lead HR.
Wow you made up a whacked out story there. Going from leading diversity initiatives to be being head of HR.
I guess your brain really is just rotted.