As an engineering educator and advocate for increasing diversity and inclusivity in thought and perspective within the technology industry, the last couple days have been exciting times. The elevation in prominence and increase in depth of the diversity and inclusion conversation, afforded by Saturday’s release of the “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo authored by James Damore (a now fired Google engineer) has been inciting. While the memo was coined by the press as “anti-diversity,” what I feel was offered is a candid and unapologetic peek into Silicon Valley, offering perspective that not only substantiates, but motivates the even deeper work (the cultural work) that is needed within Silicon Valley—to truly move the tech sector’s diversity and inclusion needle.
Work that leads to a re-framing of Silicon Valley’s approach to diversity and inclusion come from: (A) attempting to programmatically “right wrongs” led by organizationally siloed diversity and inclusion offices and initiatives to (B) approaching diversity and inclusion as the integral and vital component of designing, developing and deploying technology that it is and should be. While simple in premise, this, obviously, is not easy work.
The norms, values and beliefs around diversity and inclusion that can be gleaned from the memo and through supporting commentary around the memo, reflects viewpoints and tensions (i.e. push back) that, obviously, exist within Silicon Valley. Notions, regardless of one’s ideology, that must be recognized in order to enact a sustainable cultural shift. While I feel that these thoughts are not necessarily birthed and shaped by Silicon Valley, per se, I would offer that they are cultivated by the relatively closed system that Silicon Valley has become. A system that is hyper-driven, behaviorally, by both insular networks and one’s perceived “cultural fit” (particularly, in regard to entry and belonging within Silicon Valley).
Silicon Valley’s traditional way of operating reflects recruiting talent, formally and informally, from certain schools, from certain degree programs typically concentrated in certain geographical areas. Consequently, as a function of this type of behavior, a culture built on the optics and norms of these environments, inclusive of analogous biases and stereotypes, emerges. As such, a true understanding and appreciation of “differences” outside these bounds are often limited and, therefore, questioned in their place, value and belonging. Recent comments made by Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., in discussing his organization’s challenges associated with black diversity in particular, starkly echo this premise.
"The reason it’s different is because it’s a different history, a different background. A lot of African Americans didn’t grow up in the same neighborhoods as white people,” he said. “Whites are maybe less comfortable with them.”
Moreover, coupled with Silicon Valley’s seemingly continued financial successes, a mentally of not disrupting the status quo (“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”) is not only fostered, but due to the system’s often more short-term centric rewards structure, is often incentivized.
An opening of the system is needed. Openings in the pathways for entry, organizational structure, and, in particular, the more active engagement of technical efforts that organically embrace diversity and inclusivity in thought, perspective and context in their exploration, are required. These are the types of integrative business efforts that could offer Silicon Valley the requisite exposures and interactions that could “normalize” notions of diversity and inclusion; mitigating the questioning of its value and place, and, similarly, the constant and often counterproductive need for building a business case. Clearly, the case exists.
Fortunately, change is happening that demonstrates this concept of opening the system. Under the premise of making diversity “everyone’s responsibility,” Deloitte made a strategic decision to eliminate their employee affinity groups. Moreover, recently, Howard University announced the opening of a campus, Howard West, at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, where “Howard students and Googlers can grow together”. While exemplar, I would offer that these and like means of opening the system – in better integrating diversity and inclusion – can go deeper; offering engagements also outside of Silicon Valley.
I had the opportunity to attend a health education program around lead exposure in the predominately black Lincoln-Lemington neighborhood outside of Pittsburgh, PA. This program was both designed and delivered by mostly local-to-the-area high schoolers recruited through Youth Enrichment Services, Inc. (YES). I was so impressed with their efforts. In particular, I was intrigued by the insights offered around the challenges in disseminating information on available resources and services in responding to this growing health crisis.
There were unique and salient cultural factors uncovered by the students that impacted the effectiveness of dissemination activities that were often overlooked by most providers. In thinking about these discovered gaps, my mind immediately went to envisioning the possible social media innovations that could be spurred through collaborating and partnering with Facebook or Twitter, for example, with these students and like students and initiatives in this context. Imagine the mutually beneficial possibilities. Imagine the afforded narrative: organic technological innovation through and by diverse voices and contexts. Think about the change in norms, and even optics in Silicon Valley that this opening of the system could engender.
The wake-up call has been received. Catalyzed by the now infamous anti-diversity memo, the motivation to re-frame diversity and inclusion within technology is clear. Silicon Valley, as a system, is primed for opening. Through the needed deeper cultural work, the potential in finally “normalizing” diversity and inclusion is great. And the opportunity to make real and sustainable gains is now.
