Again, I think the outreact YC is doing is amazing, and I applaud them for doing it. I'd rather have this kind of conversation (about the wording of something like this) rather than not have the outreach effort exist at all.
Honestly the point of my comment was to do with tact and wording. It's super clear that YC is trying it's best to be accessible to all, and to do the right thing by groups that may feel marginalized (whoever they may be) -- however with the current hubbub (that has no end in sight) around these issues, a great deal of tact should be applied.
More than 0 people feel that the whole "diversity" spiel is antagonistic, as well as more than 0 people feeling that it's completely justied/the opposite. It's a touchy subject, and I feel that wasn't respected by this post. Yes, you want to help a specific group of society that you see struggling, but it's also divisive to make it seem like a group is inherently more valuable for no reason other than the color of their skin, or life choices, or whatever.
> but it's also divisive to make it seem like a group is inherently more valuable for no reason other than the color of their skin, or life choices, or whatever.
it is also the truth, and it is a problem. labelling is like a joke compared to all the things that discriminated groups experience.
edit - apologies, i thought you said 'vulnerable'. valuable? where did you get that from?
Well a lot of the current diversity zeitgeist is (mis)represented in terms that are too simplistic.
diversity is good/desirable -> minorities are more valuable than white people at your company (since you clearly already have enough white people) seems to be the point of a lot of blog posts/conversation. This kind of thinking is most clearly visible in when companies state that they try to hire X underrepresented people to some position, as if you just need to get a certain number (and/or when corporations lower meaningful meritocratic barriers to hire people that otherwise wouldn't have been in the ballpark).
"meaningful meritocratic barrier" to me means "show me you can do fizzbuzz", rather than "tell me which ivy you came from"
There is obviously a case to be made for diversity (independent of morality), but most modern literature doesn't seem to address that at any meaningful level of complexity. I discovered this when talking to a colleague who was annoyed with what seemed to be a devaluing of potential hires just because they weren't "diverse" enough.
> diversity is good/desirable -> minorities are more valuable than white people at your company (since you clearly already have enough white people) seems to be the point of a lot of blog posts/conversation.
when blog posts that make such absolutely ridiculous claims get commented on here, then we can discuss that and heartily agree, ok? :D but in this discussion here, you are the one who said that this action implies minority founders are more valuable. this is simply not true.
i do agree that affirmative action is a bit crude, but it's done for a greater social good, by people who recognize the problem, sympathise, and want to help. the field is, after all, uneven. an asymmetric situation that needs asymmetric action to correct it.
Honestly the point of my comment was to do with tact and wording. It's super clear that YC is trying it's best to be accessible to all, and to do the right thing by groups that may feel marginalized (whoever they may be) -- however with the current hubbub (that has no end in sight) around these issues, a great deal of tact should be applied.
More than 0 people feel that the whole "diversity" spiel is antagonistic, as well as more than 0 people feeling that it's completely justied/the opposite. It's a touchy subject, and I feel that wasn't respected by this post. Yes, you want to help a specific group of society that you see struggling, but it's also divisive to make it seem like a group is inherently more valuable for no reason other than the color of their skin, or life choices, or whatever.