The data available shows that women and minorities ARE under represented in the tech industry. Corellation does not imply causation, but if you have a limited number of causal factors during the hiring process, the logical conclusion is that parts of the hiring process contribute to this under representation in significant ways.
Perhaps the focus is wrong. Perhaps it's not the 'technical' part of the technical interview that causes this disparity. Perhaps it's just good ol' fashioned racism or prejudices, and really the part of the technical interview that causes a disproportionate number of white males to be hired is simply the fact that the interviews happen with the interviewer fully cognizant of the applicants race and gender. You'll notice that the article also mentioned their disdain for being able to see the applicant.
To dismiss a fact that reasonably straightforwardly follows from empirical evidence and limited options for causality is simply obstinancr.
1. women and minorities are underrepresented. True. That does not imply there is sexism. In reality, women have a 2:1 chance over men to get hired, just because everyone is desperate to hire women. Be it to improve the image, whatever. Source http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-o...
2. Norway (correct me if I'm wrong on the country) experimented with genderless and faceless applications. The result: Men were actually favoured over women in STEM. How can we explain that? It's certainly not sexism.
At the end of the day, it comes down to this: it is very controversial to say men and women chose differently, but they do. And there's nothing wrong with that! Isn't that what early feminists fought for? Were is the "sexism" in plumbing, oil rigs, and other less desirable jobs? There are virtually only men on those jobs. Tells you what these "diversity" people really are: jealous.
Sexism isn't real. Men actually have it twice as hard as women, because companies hire women just to make them look good. Here's a link to one source that proves this forever.
Norway hired men more often than women with genderless applications. Science cannot explain this, just like the tides of the ocean, or magnets.
At the end of the day, people fighting for equal representation are just jealous, and they can't accept that their Y chromosome made them not want to work on an oil rig.
> To dismiss a fact that reasonably straightforwardly follows from empirical evidence and limited options for causality is simply obstinancr.
Simpler explanation: there are less women applying and therefore less women selected. IMO framing an individual getting a job as “representing” a particular group is just faulty thinking created by a faulty ideology.
Perhaps the focus is wrong. Perhaps it's not the 'technical' part of the technical interview that causes this disparity. Perhaps it's just good ol' fashioned racism or prejudices, and really the part of the technical interview that causes a disproportionate number of white males to be hired is simply the fact that the interviews happen with the interviewer fully cognizant of the applicants race and gender. You'll notice that the article also mentioned their disdain for being able to see the applicant.
To dismiss a fact that reasonably straightforwardly follows from empirical evidence and limited options for causality is simply obstinancr.