Literally 99% of white, male, nerds don't fit this description. Every day in Silicon Valley people show favoritism to individuals that, for purely economic reasons, got into Stanford or Harvard.
Investors that went to Stanford invest in founders that went to Stanford because their own investors (LPs) that also went to Stanford will favor them.
This is literally racist because it's a bias against socioeconomically disadvantaged people, of which people of color are disproportionately represented. And yet, this bias is openly accepted in Silicon Valley and even celebrated!
Looking at most investor bio pages, you would think the 99% would have almost nothing to contribute: https://www.ycombinator.com/people/
The 99% need to start a social movement in Silicon Valley to reform it into the semi-utopian meritocracy we all wish it was. We should demand an end to socioeconomic discrimination, which will enable people of all walks of life to lift themselves out of the shadows, turning Silicon Valley into the cross section of society it rightfully ought to be.
We should be calling for investors, universities, and companies in Silicon Valley to move to blind admissions and interview processes, and an end to all forms of "culture" testing.
We should call for #EqualOpportunity.
Poor people, regardless of color, have a remarkably similar experience (with education, the police, the criminal justice system), while yes, people of color are more likely to be poor - the harder we focus on race, the harder it is to fix the underlying issue, a lack of educational, and economic mobility for the poor.
Most racism (heck, most "-isms" in general), are born from a lack of familiarity with people who come from a different life background or culture than they do - if we both encourage opportunity for the poor, and encourage mixing of socioeconomic strata, the problem will melt away over 40-50 years.
The racism that will remain after solving poverty, will be of a very different nature I believe than that which exists now.
It's dangerous to fall for the trap that you can adjust for outcomes - but we can do a far better job of adjusting for inputs - or ensuring the poor have equal access to education, and economic opportunity.
Can you elaborate on this? I assume Stanford and Harvard had higher admissions requirements (grades, test scores) than my state university? Or is the comparison relative to other elite educational institutions?
However, they also practice affirmative action, which means some VCs who have a bias towards these institutions may consider minorities who they never otherwise would.
So it's not nearly as unfair as staunch is describing.
That's not true. Google "red-lining." Black people face considerable housing discrimination that white people simply do not. Studies have also shown that people of color face longer prison sentences for the same crimes. It is false to say that all poor people have the same experiences.
You are absolutely right that black folks face longer jail terms than white folks for the same crime - but we still need to fix poverty - we can work on this on its own, or after - removing poverty will greatly reduce the amount of crime anyhow, most of which is driven by a need to survive and lack of opportunity.
In other words, would you agree that a poor white person has a much harder life than a rich black person?
Having much experience with both demographics, it's clear to me that this is the case, which is why I also wish the conversation were focused more on poverty than race.
Yep. And yet the same effect exists for men (vs. women) and is about six times as strong. Yet our society is "obviously" sexist against women.
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_g...
'After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.'
Yeah, I was going to say that, in my experience, Stanford/Harvard graduate types are probably disproportionately favored in SV.
Saying "just start a company" is burying your head in the sand and ignoring the problem since many can't just start a company if it requires capital investment.