Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday February 08 2016, @07:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the money-talks dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday February 09 2016, @01:23AM

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday February 09 2016, @01:23AM (#301093) Journal
    I'm not angry, and I am certainly not that easy to bait into anger, frankly. Your points are not entirely without merit.

    That said, it's a very concise term that refers to a very well defined group and everyone knows what we mean. I really don't see it as a slur because it adopts their own language - in fact if I'm not mistaken they actually invented the term themselves. Certainly it's exactly what they portray themselves as - warriors for 'social justice.' That's what they act like. And that's exactly what's wrong with them.

    We don't need "social justice" just "justice" is fine please. "Social justice" is what you call it when you don't actually want justice, you just want your socialist demands to be *viewed* as just, because you know that will make it more likely that people bend to your demands. And frankly we don't need warriors either, we have quite enough of those as well. Instead of social justice warriors, let's have people of peace promoting real justice through reason and understanding.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:48AM (#302015)

    That said, it's a very concise term that refers to a very well defined group and everyone knows what we mean.

    Since when? I've been asking for months for somebody to tell me what an "SJW" is, and the best answer I can come up with based on how its used is "anyone who disagrees with the one calling another an SJW". If thats not the case, I would love for you to tell me to which group this refers and what it means. Should be easy, right, since its such a very well defined group that everyone but me apparently knows what it means?