Is There an Institutional Bias Against Black Tech Entrepreneurs? 645
An anonymous reader writes sends this excerpt from CNN:
"The vast majority of top executives at the leading Silicon Valley tech firms are white men. Women and Asians have made some inroads, but African-American and Latino tech leaders remain a rarity. About 1% of entrepreneurs who received venture capital in the first half of last year are black, according to a study by research firm CB Insights. ... 'The tech industry is pretty clubby,' said Hank Williams, an African-American entrepreneur in the NewMe program who had success in the Internet boom of the 1990s. 'There are really no people of color in Silicon Valley.' Others say the issue could be rooted deep within the black community. The NewMe co-founders said African-American families don't typically encourage business leaders or programmers to pursue interests in tech."
Not just blacks, what about other minorities? (Score:5, Interesting)
So this story is based off the CNN documentary "Black in America: Silicon Valley." I haven't seen the actual show, but CNN has been pushing it a lot the past week and showing clips from it.
One really interesting clip that I saw had an Indian who had experience with VCs and start-ups and was also a professor somewhere giving a talk to the African American entrepreneurs.
Now Asians in general, and Indians specifically I don't think are as rare in Silicon Valley and are found amongst high level executives. Additionally, this particular individual was well spoken and articulate, capable of creative thinking, didn't have a strong accent, and in other ways didn't fit the stereotype of an Indian caricature.
However the ONE thing that he said was to get a good looking white guy to be your front man when going to VCs. He said that when we wanted to get funding, he got a (admittedly very capable and accomplished) white guy to be his partner. He said that's just how things work in the Valley. The African American audience he was speaking to was very shocked by this.
The point made was that VCs look for what works. And if they see a bunch of "successful" start-up companies run by young white guys, that's what they look to fund. Plus add in the inherent bias towards good looking white guys in business who fit the common archetype (with as Dilbert says good hair).
While we're on the topic, what about women (white or otherwise)? Are VCs more likely to discount a company being led by women as they're not thought to be "techy"?
So, any thoughts form people with experience here, either for or against this argument. Do all races (not just African Americans) need Caucasian male partners to improve their chances for success.
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
In regard to an issue as important as this (why a certain sector is not reflecting society), it would be a lot easier to accept someone's opinion if they could refer to some kind of research or statistics instead of just offering blunt statements and/or rants.
Why isn't the NBA reflecting society?
Re:No people of color my ass (Score:5, Interesting)
as a middle aged USA born white guy, I find myself VERY MUCH in the minority in the engineering areas of silicon valley.
I have no idea what this guy is talking about, but if you want to complain, complain about being passed over for a job because you are *not* desi. or even if you are desi but from the wrong part of india.
silicon valley may be white at the top, but its not in the worker classes. and the top is the 1% guys; who the fuck cares about which 1-percenter gets this or that.
Re:No people of color my ass (Score:3, Interesting)
On top of that, I've seen racism against Asians, and on occasion even Whites. But I don't recall hearing any racism against blacks. Or for that matter Latinos.
Re:No. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds like the fault of the parents, not Silicon Valley. Then again, I _am_ white. Perhaps black people are subjected to additional testing and requirements when buying electronics that I am not aware of?
Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked at a Fortune 100 company in a large IT department in a major coastal city. We had some choice in where we worked. I first worked in a group alongside a black guy, who told me he worked in his group because he didn't get along with someone in another group, he was vague about who. I then went to work for that group. I got along with my manager, but he had it in for this black guy from the other group. In fact I would socialize with the manager and co-workers. At the bar, he would sometimes speak disparagingly on Arabs, Muslims, blacks, Mexicans and the like. When there were layoffs, the black guy was let go. He didn't have direct influence over the group, but having one of the managers there against you was certainly not a help. There didn't seem to be a logical reason for the antipathy either. Honestly, I still get along with this former manager, although I don't agree with his thinking in this respect.
I worked at another company, Fortune 1000. I worked alongside a black co-worker, with whom I had a common manager - white, from the Midwest, late 20s. Again, the manager had a lot of antipathy and made life hard for this co-worker, for no reason I could see. I think it's difficult to work in conditions when your manager is against you and is waiting to jump on any error you make (it happened to me once when a new manager wanted to push me out and get his friend in my position, which is a long story itself). Eventually my co-worker left, or was pushed out, or whatever - the co-worker never wanted to talk about it when I spoke with him after.
So from my experience, the racism is usually not from co-workers, or from upper management and HR, who would probably be happy with some functional, if token, black faces. It's usually from lower management types, who in my experience are often a bundle of neuroses and incompetence to begin with.
On another topic, to quote George Jefferson, with enough green you can always get people to forget the black. When the dot-com boom happened years ago, money flowed into the web properties of Vibe magazine, UBO, BET, Black Planet etc. Plenty of companies were interested in reaching the "urban" market. There is even cross-over - plenty of white teens listen to not only Eminem, but black hip-hop artists. I just read a piece in Adweek on how Android had captured the African-American demographic in the US. Of course, this still is a ghettoization of sorts - it really opens up when blacks get venture capital for new chip designs, or software products or the like, not just web and social media properties geared toward the urban market.
Re:Access to a Computer (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was a kid the computer "wasn't there" already. (Of course that way about 1980.) There wasn't any in school either.
My parents basically bought me a VIC-20 to make me stop taking apart the household electrical appliances I found in the house or in the garbage. Someone who likes to tinker with technology can't be stopped by not having a ready-made computer around.
I also volunteer in a youth / children centre. There is a HUGE gap between kids that DO stuff and are INTERESTED in stuff, and a large group of "Me, I don't care about anything, do something for me, entertain me...." kids.
An *entrepreneur* can only come from the first group. The others might still be able to get well-paying jobs somewhere, even in programming and/or IT, but the will almost never really *start* something like a company themselves.
Re:anonymous reader? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cause/Effect (Score:3, Interesting)
On your points 3 and 4:
What is common in both technology and business executives is that there is a lot of "discussion" and "argument", even stuff bordering on "fighting" going on. That's pretty normal when people favouring different technical / economical solutions try to push their solutions.
Perhaps minorities then tend to think "Oh, gosh, they shoot down all my proposals, they must be racist / sexist / etc ..." and leave. Basically some "self-fulfilling, self-inflicted racism"
Re:observing a lack is not proof (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cause/Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
"Now, as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. But it does hint pretty heavily that there is something involved."
No, it most definitely does not. You err whenever you make an assumption like that.
Note that the saying is not "correlation does not prove causation", the saying is "correlation does not imply causation". That is no accident. No conclusions, or even implications, can be drawn at all from simple correlation.
It is at least as likely that some other factor is involved. Take, for example, the fact that there are relatively few women in IT. A great many women have used that correlation to make claims of discrimination or worse. Yet study after study have consistently shown that women simply choose, early in life, not to pursue careers in IT.
So while it might seem to be common sense that this correlation means there just must be discrimination going on, in fact there is no evidence of that at all. In fact I know a lot of IT workers who would prefer that there were a more equal mix.
Re:anonymous reader? (Score:0, Interesting)
And 100% of the women who have come forward to complain about him have been white...
And Democrat.
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you got evidence that the NBA in fact doesn't reflect society?
Would you ask for proof if I stated the sky was blue? Look out the god damn window, you lazy racist bastard.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_NBA_players_are_black [answers.com]> (about 82%) And the US is about 13% black. I'll leave it for you to confirm that. So, now that you have evidence you asked for, are you going to answer the original question, or were you never going to answer it and were just being a jackass by lying (by implication) that the reason you were not answering is that you have no reasonable idea about the racial makeup of the NBA vs the USA (which if that is the case, no one will care what you have to say, as you'll be so dumb that nothing you could say would be worthwhile).
Re:I don't buy it. (Score:4, Interesting)
A "business leader" has their kids in school, under care, etc. They're hardly ever active parents, because they don't have that kind of time, they delegate those responsibilities -- both because they can afford to, and because it makes them better -- a lot better -- at their job. They also tend to arrive as leaders; they're not in "build a company" mode or anything like it.
I built five companies, four of them successes. I'd *never* have pulled it off if I was burdened with kids in the traditional sense. And no, I'd never hire a parent in a role where I needed serious time commitments -- that is, more than 40 hours with constant time off for their kid's sniffles, parent-teacher meetings, ball games, and the rest of the interminable list of tasks and responsibilities any good parent will decide will come first. I have seen this over and over: parents are highly undependable employees -- and they should be, unless they can delegate that attention. But an undependable employee is really, really bad news for a startup -- engineer, secretary, janitor -- you need to be there, pushing the wheel as hard as everyone else, period.
It is politically correct to pretend that these things -- parenting in particular -- should not matter. But in fact, they do. Consequently, they are taken into account at investing, at hiring, at tasking, at promotion, and WRT transfer. Quietly and unaccountably, but with enormous weight.
You tell me you have (a) kid(s) or you or your spouse is pregnant and you're seriously expecting me to believe you're going to put in the energy needed to launch a startup? Sorry, even people who *don't* have that baggage often don't manage to put out enough energy. I'd have to be out of my mind to put money behind such a bad bet.
Re:observing a lack is not proof (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the problem is that the barriers to entry into tech are now too low ... so low that there's no skill needed to get into it. Just look at all the interviews of people who are laid off who say that they'll try to make some money "doing web design" as one example. There's been a real tidal wave over the last 5 years of "computers by desperation" (though the trend really got its start back before the turn of the century).
Couple that with the "me-too-product" feeding frenzy that any idea that gets any publicity inspires, as others hope to cash in on the next big thing, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Now throw in VC terms that make vulture funds look like little angels ... "for our investment, we want 50%, plus we're taking out $X per month in management costs, plus we need to see an exit strategy in place for us." This is not some made-up instance, or something new - I had the misfortune of working for a startup in 1995 that had such a deal - the VCs got their initial seed capital back (and more) just in management fees and fees for getting second-round investors in and in a royalty from all revenues, etc ...
The interests of the VC are not aligned with the interests of the founders, not short-term, and certainly not long-term. They will make sure they will not lose money, no matter what. After all, it's their business.
Let's not kid ourselves about institutional racism (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the primary component in a lack of minorities in IT is access to technology. And, yes it's silly to suggest that PC at the public library. I attribute my career choice to having PCs in my home that I had total access to; not kiosks with restrictions on availability and built-in security.
But, I also encounter racism in the industry. I've had White Americans flat out laugh in my face when I told them I was a software engineer; after all how can a Black person work with computers? One of my biggest annoyances is the "White Test" I get when IT people try to surreptitiously quiz me to prove that I really am in IT. Usually it's by someone who's not as smart as they think they are which adds to the frustration. I've heard coworkers drop N-bombs at work when they thought I was out of earshot. With all that, can you honestly say the playing field is level?
For all of you writing your speculative posts on what "must" be going on in the industry, how about going out and talking to someone instead of extrapolating from your limited experiences?
When this racism shit ends (Score:2, Interesting)
From the wikipedia article on white privilege [wikipedia.org]:
and
(emphasis mine).
Re:observing a lack is not proof (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh really? (Score:5, Interesting)
I reject that this is entirely up to exposure.
My circles of friends growing up were nerds. We swapped commodore 64 pirated games. We played dungeons and dragons. At least until 13-14 or so we all fit the mould. The computer dorkery lasted a lot longer, through high school.
Of my 30 or so aquaintences, nearly all the anglos and asians have found themselves doing something technology related. A few are pretty hardcore doing EE or embedded programming. Many are more IT or programmer types like me. Some had other focuses and created web sites or "social networking" whatever (retch). Some went into videogames, or makeing art or music for them. Not one of the 5 african american kids ended up in anything tech related. One's a counselor, one's a piano teacher and church organizer, one dropped off the face of the earth, and one's an accountant.
There's a *huge* skew here. These kids were given computers as very young people. We played videogames together as teenagers. On the c64 sometimes you had to fix the basic that would screw up due to a bad crack. I shared my exp tracking program I wrote in BASIC, and someone added features to it (it was bad). But all the african american kids dropped it, and they dropped it after the age of 16-17, when I no longer was following their lives so closely.
This can't be soley from a lack of exposure and opportunity. There's more to it.
Re:observing a lack is not proof (Score:5, Interesting)
A black person who goes to college for computers is not going to compete with a white kid who has been plastered to his computer monitor since he was 11, anymore than a black kid who starts playing hockey when he turns 18 is going to make an NHL team (or any kid who starts playing/doing/learning anything is going to make the Pro level of it if there are other people who have already been doing it 10 years - that counts musical instruments, sports, etc.)
The problem is twofold: Lack of access to computers for black children/teens, and a culture that doesn't support "wasting time" messing with technology. (Not that white culture was greatly supportive of my nerdy endeavors but at least my parents didn't stop me beyond demanding I go outside more.)
This is what Michael Gerson calls "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Oh, those poor negroes never really had a chance. The ghetto is such a terrible place... s Shenanigans! It's possible for anyone with the drive, determination and ability to achieve success. Racism may be an obstacle, but it's not insurmountable.
I've had a computer in front of me, nearly continuously since I was 8. I finish my Master's Degree in C.I.S. in five weeks. It's absolute bullshit that there are serious external impediments to black success. If people can find a way to buy $400 sneakers, they can buy a computer.
It's an open secret in the black community that there is a serious anti-intellectual influence. Black kids who strive and achieve academically are ostracized by other black kids and resented by the white kids for making them look bad. It takes a strong will and a strong support system for a kid to deal with that. My parents brooked no excuses for not living up to my potential. I will do the same for my children. I can't explain it, and I can't excuse it, but it's real and thank God that it's not universal. Just like in the society as a whole, you're seeing a bifurcation of the African American community. You have black achievers who are going to college and having successful careers and you have people who don't achieve. People who think that the drug game is their only ticket out of poverty. This is why you have 30% of black men being incarcerated at one point in their lives. It took generations to create the problem, and will likely take generations to fix it, however I don't know what the answer is. All I can do it be the best father I can and raise my children to achieve in life.
LK
2% of masters degrees in EE (Score:5, Interesting)
NSF statistics [nsf.gov] show that in 2006, 2.2% of masters degrees in electrical engineering were awarded to people who described themselves as "black, non-Hispanic." This is compared to 13% of the population that is black. This goes a long way toward explaining why "About 1% of entrepreneurs who received venture capital in the first half of last year are black,[...]" This applies to any field where you're talking about a group being underrepresented; you have to look at the talent pool. If the group is underrepresented in the talent pool, then it's too late to fix the problem. They're simply going to be underrepresented in the field.
And why is it necessarily a problem if a particular group is underrepresented or overrepresented in a particular field? There are a lot of Jewish doctors out there. Is that bad? It's only bad if the underrepresentation is the result of injustice. What if some of it is the result of culture, preferences, or factors such as becoming a dentist because your mom is a dentist?
It would be extremely interesting to know what fraction of entrepreneurs who receive venture capital come from families with below-median incomes. I'll bet you a nickel the figure is much, much lower than 50%. But the US is allergic to talking about class. We only want to talk about race.
Re:2% of masters degrees in EE (Score:2, Interesting)
"the US is allergic to talking about class. We only want to talk about race."
The US is allergic to talking about facts in relation to race and class. There are some facts that are popular, such as that if you are born to wealthy parents, you're more likely to succeed. Those get talked about a lot. There are some other facts that are unpopular which get suppressed. Even mentioning them will get you labeled a racist.
Re:observing a lack is not proof (Score:4, Interesting)
"The graveyards are full of indispensable men" is far more true than people want to admit. The world will go on, but there's no rule that says the company will.
Re:observing a lack is not proof (Score:4, Interesting)
Supporting evidence: It is extremely difficult to determine the skin color of a well-spoken, educated person by staring at the monitor the subject is on the other side of an internet connection from...
It is also difficult to determine that someone's race, religious preference, or sexual preference via a phone interview.
Meritocracy, indeed.
Allow me to add some anecdotal evidence: I met my wife on IRC, and for 2 years after I met her, I thought she was a guy. She had a gender-ambiguous nick, was an "oper" in a large channel, and was an intelligent person with a keen wit. My experience up to that point had indicated to me that the only females on IRC were lonely housewives looking to cyber, so I never suspected that someone with a vocabulary including words larger than two syllables was anything other than "just another geeky dude". Like female gamers, female geeks used to be rare.
Re:observing a lack is not proof (Score:4, Interesting)
As a black nerd guy, the only thing I think you got right is the culture aspect. My parents didn't like me 'wasting time' with computers, but I worked around them and 'wasted time' with computers anyway.
I don't think that's a race thing. All of the adults in my nearly 100% white suburbs were saying the exact same thing when I was growing up. I was told it was wasted time. Teachers didn't want me typing up papers on my computer. They asked "How will you do it in the real world when you don't have your computer there to do it all for you?" One professor at my very expensive private university said "The internet will never amount to anything. It's a toy for computer geeks." The older generation really got caught with their pants down on the whole computer thing.