Here's an easy test to see if such statements are racist. Swap "white" for any other race. If it sounds like racism, then the original statement is by necessity also racist.
That's a terrible test, really. It presumes that all races/ethnicities are treated equally by society, when they fact they aren't. A test like that only works when you swap like for like, and you don't.
For instance, many ethnic jokes (racist jokes) only work because they exploit racial stereotypes. Those jokes cease to work when you swap in a different race. Does that mean the original jokes were not racist? Of course it doesn't.
Saying "there are too many white guys in the senate" is not racist, because the US senate is disproportionately white. Saying "there are too many black guys in the senate" on the other hand is racist, because there are only 2 of them!
Saying "there are too many white guys in tech" isn't racist for the same reason, and actions to diversify tech are not racist against white people either. Conversely, preserving the white-dominated status quo is racist.
> A test like that only works when you swap like for like, and you don't.
Maybe I'm odd for thinking that black people and white people should be treated equally. But sure, let's pretend that racism is only possible to be inflicted on minorities.
> Saying "there are too many black guys in the senate" on the other hand is racist
No. It would be racist to say "there are too many black guys in the senate -- let's get rid of all of them!". The same applies if you say the same for white people.
> and actions to diversify tech are not racist against white people either.
I support diversity. But hiring only one group of people is NOT DIVERSITY. It's the _precise opposite_. Historical context or no, by definition you cannot claim that you're making a workplace more diverse if you're only making a decision to systematically hire only one group of people (even if they are the minority, because after X years they will become a majority).
1. Equal treatment would be correct in a counterfactual society that is not racist. Acting as though society is not racist, when it fact it is, will just preserve the status quo. Racism needs to be actively counteracted for society to get better.
2. No, just stating that "2 out of a 100 black senators is too many" is racist by itself. To get proportional representation for all minorities the number of white people in congress would -- necessarily -- have to go down. So saying "fewer white people in congress" is not racist because that's just how arithmetic works.
3. I don't know where you got the idea that diversity efforts are about hiring one group of people, but you're mistaken. Diversity efforts are about becoming more inclusive towards different races/ethnicities, religions, LGBTQ folks and so on. White men comprise only 31% of society and business and government should reflect that. I think you're just confused about the purpose of diversity efforts.
Points 1 and 2 I'm not _entirely_ sure if I agree with them (I agree there is a problem with racism, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions about what is and is not racist as a result), but point 3 is the only one I feel I need to respond to.
> 3. I don't know where you got the idea that diversity efforts are about hiring one group of people, but you're mistaken.
This thread is about hiring managers that have publicly stated they only hire minorities, and GitHub having internal presentations where they say that "white middle managers have no empathy".
I agree that diversity requires hiring a diverse group of people you hire (by definition). But that's not what the GitHub hiring managers appear to think (and that was the whole point of this thread).
"Minorities" is a diverse group of people by itself. Github already employs tons of white guys, so focusing future recruitment on women/minorities is perfectly sensible.
The diversity professionals at Github aren't the ones confused about what is and what isn't racist.
Even if github did discriminate against white guys (they don't; it's still a company owned and directed by white men) that wouldn't be a societal problem. There are thousands of companies out there where people of color and women face harsh discrimination, so counterbalancing that with companies that favor them would just help balance the scales. White men (in aggregate) face the least discrimination of ANY demographic, so panic about discrimination against white men is totally unjustified.
Yes, "no Asians" as a hiring policy is absolutely racist. It is of course possible to be prejudiced against white people (and that's bad) but on a societal level white people don't suffer from prejudice so there can be no comparison to the racism people of color face.
> Why is the solution not more accountability? More policies in place to make complaints about discrimination more vocal?
That also needs to be part of the solution. Racism is such a pernicious problem that it can only be tackled with an "all of the above" strategy. You also have to realize that any empowerment of women and people of color necessarily comes at the expense of white men, because societal influence is a strictly zero sum game. There is no difference between saying "more minorities in the senate" and "fewer white men in the senate". This is discrimination against white men in the technical sense, but this isn't a situation where everybody can gain at nobody's expense. If minorities are to be represented in politics and in business then white men will have to step aside to make room.
> on a societal level white people don't suffer from prejudice so there can be no comparison to the racism people of color face
You can only argue that this is true in "white" countries (I'm not even sure if I would agree that it's a country-wide thing either). In Asia, this statement is _far_ from true -- white people are very much stigmatised (especially in Japan). The world is much bigger than California.
> because societal influence is a strictly zero sum game.
Employment, especially in the tech industry, is far from a zero-sum game. There are more job openings than university graduates. "Societal influence" is such a hazy term that I'm not sure I can make any meaningful comment on it.
White skin is still looked at favorably in Japan. Japan isn't very open to any kind of outsiders, but white people still get treated much better than black people or darker skinned Asians. Western/European beauty standards also dominate Japanese culture.
That said, the subject was Github's diversity program, and Github is in California. So Japan really doesn't have anything to do with it.
Instead of worrying about immaterial discrimination against white men, perhaps worry instead about people who actually suffer from discriminatory practices. Just google "diversity in silicon valley" and you'll find plenty of articles (with charts) showing you exactly how widespread real discrimination still is.
