Diversity On Principle
There are many good reasons to foster diversity in the tech space. For one thing, research suggests it’s good for business. Not only does diversity appear to benefit the bottom line, but it has the potential to genuinely create better products and research. Technological development is inherently collaborative, and a diversity of perspectives bolsters the ground covered. Furthermore, broadening the group of people interested in tech may create a bulwark against important gaps in the labor force. But speculative outcomes shouldn’t be the driving force behind efforts to increase diversity in the tech space. Instead we should recognize that, in the tech space, diversity is valuable in itself.
The intrinsic value of diversity in the tech space is rooted in the principle of equal opportunity. Everyone deserves an equal shot at achievements and career positions. Without diversity, this simply is not the case. This is because representation and representative mentorship are indispensable components of a successful career in the field.
Preference versus Access
Data suggests that exposure to inventors of the same demographic may be a more powerful determining factor of who becomes an inventor than academic success in math and science. In fact, there are likely large swaths of under-represented “lost Einsteins” in America. Furthermore, exposure in this context is provided “by mechanisms such as mentoring, transmission of information, and networks.” For rates of exposure to improve, the tech space needs to continue becoming more diverse.
The image of the tech space as a pure meritocracy falls apart once the self-reinforcing nature of under-representation becomes clear. By now it’s well established that success in science and technology fields tend to favor straight white men. What is sometimes omitted from this picture is the “bidirectional relationship in which stereotypes influence achievement and achievement influences stereotypes”. Evidence points to stereotypes and a feeling “being out of place,” rather than natural ability (or lack thereof), as the barrier that keeps women and minorities out of tech.
This causal link contradicts a common (mis)reading of studies showing under-representation in tech, that perhaps some demographics are simply less interested in or unsuited for tech. This reading completely omits the context of the studies in question. Until students have equal access to resources that adequately foster their potential interest in the field, it’s unreasonable to evaluate their success or involvement as an indicator of how well their demographic is “suited” for anything. The fact that fewer women and minorities succeed in tech today does not show that they are inherently less interested, it shows they suffer from a lack of representation.
Additionally, within a framework that acknowledges the importance of early exposure to representative mentors and role models, the concept of “reverse discrimination” doesn’t hold water. In fact, the argument that deliberate efforts to diversify the tech space are “unfair” and “arbitrarily limit success” begins to appear self-defeating, because we already have a system that does that. It’s just unacknowledged.
Experience matters
To me, one of the coolest parts of the tech space is the emphasis placed on real world experience over hypotheticals. In a way, it’s an extremely humble attitude, because it acknowledges that every mind is fallible and only trial-and-error can expose the truth. We can’t just count on our intellect, we need direct experience. Unfortunately, this experience-first attitude doesn’t always carry over outside of the innovation lab. If it did, the inherent importance of diversity wouldn’t be up for debate.
Data shows minorities and women tend to agree that discrimination is an issue in the tech space, but a much smaller proportion of white men agree with this statement. This is despite the increasing prevalence of compelling narratives about firsthand experience of unequal treatment, as well as data backing these narratives. There is an attitude gap between those with firsthand experience of unequal access, and those who couldn’t possibly experience it in the first place. Additionally, the nature of the problem is such that the people who don’t face unequal access based on their gender identity or skin color are also the ones in charge of a lot of decision making. This environment is less than ideal for solutions.
The statistical evidence cited above is a drop in the bucket compared to what exists to support the idea that lack of diversity is a cause, rather than an effect, of the disproportionate lack of success by minorities and women the tech space. But I suspect that this evidence may never be enough for some. The issue isn’t a lack of evidence, it’s an inability on the part of many to take the evidence seriously. This is especially disappointing given the tech space’s otherwise strong emphasis on the importance and validity of empirical information over intuitions.
What now
Diversity is in many ways a technical problem. It remains to be determined how much diversity is “enough” for equal opportunity, or what should count as diversity, or what negative externalities may come with different means for fostering diversity. All of those are important questions, and they require a style of thinking that the tech space does quite well. For this reason, I am tentatively faithful that the tech space will continue to diversify. I look forward to watching brilliant minds apply the same innovative furor to diversity that they have to other issues in the past.
At the same time, other aspects of diversity are non-technical. Convincing people to care, for instance, requires non-technical thinking. And that matters too. It’s important to center discussions about why diversity matters, and not just how to achieve it, to avoid the political trap of making un-strategic arguments in favor of good ideas. The challenge for diversity advocates in the tech space isn’t just to come up with sound technical solutions, it’s to simultaneously create the requisite attitude shifts. It’s to remind the tech space that experiences matter more than ideals, and encourage people to speak out and make their experiences known.
Sam Bhagwandin studies mechanical engineering and philosophy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He’s an avid artist, politico, debater, designer, maker, card tricker, and professional dabbler. He grew up in Seattle and Austin, occasionally visiting Denver in between semesters. You can reach him on Twitter: @rapaciousflux
