Intel Pledges Megabucks To Improve Diversity In Tech

Big ships take a lot of turning, but chip giant Intel claims it’s to forcibly accelerate the process. It’s planning to spend $300 million to improve the diversity of its own workplace and the wider tech industry, to attract more women to the games industry, and to make games and tech a more accommodating place to people who have traditionally been minorities within it.

While the primary motivation is to make a white and Asian male-dominated firm more societally representative, the Diversity in Technology initiative is partly in response to Intel last year becoming embroiled in the Gamergate controversy. In October, the processor manufacturer abruptly pulled an advertising campaign from trade site Gamasutra, in reaction to a letter-writing campaign objecting to pro-diversity editorials. Intel was heavily criticised for appearing to endorse a movement associated with anti-feminism and harassment, disputed that it shared those sentiments, and eventually restored the ads.

Now the hardware firm wants to put a whole lot more money where its mouth is. “This is the right time to make a bold statement,” Intel boss Brian M. Krzanich told the New York Times, following the announcement of the scheme at this year’s CES trade show.

Krzanich claimed that ‘the issue resonated with him personally’ as he wanted his two daughters “to have a world that’s got equal opportunity for them.” Right now, Intel’s 76% of Intel’s staff are male, and the numbers are similar at many other tech firms. As well as the funding, Intel plans to set up an all-women pro-gaming team and establish a non-profit to send female college students to games conferences.

The funding’s the big deal, though – not just because one of the world’s biggest tech firms is spending big to improve diversity at its own workplace, but also because where it goes, others may well follow suit. It’s not just women that Intel hopes to add to its ranks: over the next three years, it hopes to raise the number of women, blacks, Hispanics and other employees by at least 14%. The firm estimates that, were relevantly-qualified members of the black population fully represented, it would have 48% more black employees.

However, intervention is needed at a training level too, so Intel will be funding scholarships and better supporting majority black colleges in order to increase the diversity of the tech industry’s intake further down the line. It’s also working with a number of national organisations for a wide range of minority groups.

“We’re calling on our industry to again make the seemingly impossible possible by making a commitment to real change and clarity in our goals,” said Krzanich in a statement. “Without a workforce that more closely mirrors the population, we are missing opportunities, including not understanding and designing for our own customers.”

There’s more about all this here. It’s a big statement of intent. I hope it works, I hope it goes all the way, and I hope others follow suit.

124 Comments

  1. Herbal Space Program says:

    What if men and women were attracted by different kind of jobs Brian?

    • Jorum says:

      what if Norway was the shape of the Maldives. Eh?

    • Lars Westergren says:

      You could read the research, or try asking women what their experiences are?

      link to juliepagano.com

      My ex-boss was in an interview with a customer about placing a consultant there. The customer said, completely oblivious, to her face, “Yeah ok, but is she really a good programmer, or you know, ‘Girl good’?”

      • Herbal Space Program says:

        I did not see any research in the provided link, it is a blog refering to a slide with only one reference to a study on gender difference on mathematics capability.
        This is a peer reviewed study : link to dash.harvard.edu trying to explain why men and women don’t have the same taste in professional activities.

        The post below contains a real study explaining thant gender has no bearing on personality, cognition and leadership. None of which are related to my original post claim : Men and women have different taste in jobs.

        • Lars Westergren says:

          I didn’t think it was my task to provide a comprehensive list of research. And my claim is that your difference in taste is a tiny contributing factor to the gender gap, compared to the enormous amount of shit most women in tech have to put up with, which I have personally witnessed many times.

          • Herbal Space Program says:

            My bad, the word “taste” was unfit here anyway. Let’s agree to disagree but please, no more anectodal evidence.

          • jrodman says:

            Yes, we should stick with a mix of supposition and irrelevant research instead of anecdotal information.

        • Premium User Badge

          sethlock says:

          Did you just link the first paper you could find that used the words “Male More Than Females” in the title? That article does not even suggest its investigating choices in professions.
          What you should be trying to provide would be an article supporting your thesis that “Men and women have different taste in jobs.” and your implied explanation that this is chiefly biological and not nearly entirely social.

          Or I suppose you could explain your hypothesis that male infants’ propulsive motion tendencies leads to a lack of diversity in the tech industry. Flail away HSP

        • mrmalodor says:

          “Male more than female infants imitate propulsive motion”

          Please explain how the fuck the study you linked to has anything to do with occupational preferences.

      • Kompatriartes says:

        The only real problem has to do with whether or not there is a population of women who would like to be electrical engineers who can’t because of sexism. There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest this point, but there is plenty of evidence that there is simply a smaller population of women interested in STEM fields.

        The question to ask is why we would need a 50/50 split in STEM fields in order for there to be equality. This perverse, feminist notion of equality also implicitly assumes that the genders are closer to identical than not, which is also not borne out by the evidence.

        • Zephro says:

          I think the number of people banging around using feminist as a negative is something to do with why they “don’t want” to do it. Such as the number is bad assumptions in this, “there is a population of women who would like to be electrical engineers who can’t because of sexism. ” as the target audience. For one it seems to entirely place the burden of choice and employment upon the individual and happily ignores any amount of social conditioning or disparity in education that has gone into creating that individual.

          • Kompatriartes says:

            The percentage of women who are doctors in the United States is double the percentage who are software engineers. The same is true of lawyers, which raises the question “Why are women conditioned to be doctors and not software engineers?” or at least, less conditioned away from becoming doctors. They also aren’t conditioned against becoming creative writers, which is arguably a more challenging field than programming, and is, in terms of so called “great novels”, quite male dominated as well.

            The simplest and most plausible explanation is that in modern American society, where the phrases “You can be anything you want to be!!” and “You should pursue your passions!” are taken to idiotic extremes, women would actually rather try and become doctors than try to become programmers, and they’d much rather be creative writers or artists than even doctors. Now, I have personally met a few women who are passionate about becoming programmers, and I think that’s great. They should become programmers and there should be no artificial barriers placed in front of them. But I see no reason for us to panic about their low representation in tech, apart from my own dating life as somebody in a STEM field :D

          • Zephro says:

            That is nonsensical. They are conditioned to want to be doctors because they would rather be doctors? That’s pretty circular reasoning. You can be anything you want to be still begs the question of why they want that instead of another.

            It’s not like the same skills are actually used for creative writing and programming so someone actually had to pick between them.

          • Kompatriartes says:

            Yes, your facile understanding of my reply is indeed nonsensical, but if you actually bothered to at least try and comprehend it before replying, you’d have realized that I did not at any point state or even remotely imply that “women are conditioned to be doctors because they want to be doctors.”

            The point I was making was that if conditioning actually explains the discrepancy between the number of female STEMers and the number of male STEMers, one must then apply this same reasoning to other career tracks in an effort to be consistent, which results in something which undermines the notion that conditioning has much at all to do with the gender divide. Becoming a doctor is challenging, and the field was absolutely male dominated; doctors were men, nurses were women, and that’s the way it always would be. This presumably conditions women against becoming doctors. But women have made significantly greater strides in this domain than in STEM fields. If conditioning has anything to do with it, you need to somehow identify why STEM fields are so much more challenging without rendering conditioning a superfluous factor, and nobody has ever done this.

            Your point about creative writing is a true statement, but an irrelevant one, considering that all I was attempting to illustrate is that a challenging, male dominated field (literature) attracts a large number of women, raising the question of how conditioning can possibly have anything to do with gender discrepancies if there are numerous fields which are in much “better” condition with regards to equality which women were originally conditioned against pursuing.

          • Mr Coot says:

            It doesn’t raise the question: “Why are women conditioned to be doctors and not software engineers?” – it raises the question ‘Why are women participating in the workforce as doctors at greater rates than as software engineers?’. Your question is a true example of the concept ‘begs the question’, which does not actually mean ‘demands to be asked’ but ‘makes a beggar of the question’ ie. answers it before it is even asked.

        • Shuck says:

          “… a population of women who would like to be electrical engineers who can’t because of sexism. There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest this point”
          The hell there isn’t. You show your complete ignorance. There’s a mountain of evidence that shows how girls and women are discouraged from entering STEM fields at every stage, up to and including when they actually enter them and face various sorts of discrimination.

        • jrodman says:

          As someone who has worked in hard science and now works in software I can honestly say that software is more sexist.

          As for why there are basically zero black men and women doing software engineering (in my experience at 6 different firms) I would like to know more. Maybe we’re terribly racist too, but I haven’t seen it.

    • Colthor says:

      You’re begging the question that any such attraction is based on inherent biological differences rather than stereotypes, social pressure, discrimination or so on. Which there is little reason to believe is the case (for example). And even if there were, then you’d still want to have things determined by the properties of the individual rather than averages or stereotypes of the population as a whole, because there tend to be greater differences inside groups than between them.

      If we ever wind up with a reasonably-close-to-perfectly fair and discrimination-free society, and there’s still a discrepency in the take-up of various jobs between different groups, then so be it (and it will be interesting to find out why). But in the meantime schemes like this benefit everyone (and Intel must think so, or they wouldn’t be doing it; 300 million dollars is not a token PR spend).

      I love it when there’s an excuse to use “beg the question”, thank you.

      And to the article: cool.

    • RedViv says:

      What if women had been discouraged to join in with the IT crowd since somewhere in the mid-80s, which led to a visible decline in their participation in this field of science, whereas their involvement in most other “freshly female” was continuing a stride towards an approximate 50% of graduates and employees?

      • Herbal Space Program says:

        I’d like to read something which isn’t an opinion piece on the subject if you have any. Working in a 83% female work environement I’d like to understand the other side of the coin.

        • RedViv says:

          Something like this?

        • khalilravanna says:

          There’s a bunch of good info if you google “decline of women in computer science.” At least that’s what I searched anyway and got some pretty good articles interviewing women in the field as well as one with an interesting experiment that showed a difference in perception between men and women of people in the computer science field:
          NPR
          NYT
          WSJ

        • derbefrier says:

          i would be more inclined to ask you why you think any of this maters. I mean even if you were unequivocally proved right what would that mean and why should we care? Here We have a huge corporation making a pledge to spend an awful lot of money to educate and help find jobs for people. I mean even if most women have no interest in this kind of work this could really help those that do. I just don’t see what you are trying to prove here. Maybe you just need to knock that chip off your shoulder.

          • Herbal Space Program says:

            I guess I’m uneasy about affirmative action alongside liberalism but I’m working on it. Also thanks for the links provided by the posters above!

          • P.Funk says:

            Yes everyone is by now very jaded about affirmative action and all that, but lets look at what Intel is saying they want to do. For one they said they want to invest in minority universities with scholarships so that they can basically improve the opportunities for those people to access tech related educations. This means that rather than just hiring more people of a given minority from a limited pool of qualified individuals they basically want to encourage the growth of that pool so that they eventually they will hire those people anyway, provided their own hiring practices aren’t prejudiced against equally qualified minorities.

            I think the knee jerk reaction is a problem based on lots of reactionary bullshit thats been around for several decades of criticism of affirmative action. There are issues with how things like affirmative action are handled but if its an issue that needs addressing it needs to be addressed and the question should not be whether it needs to happen but whether how its being addressed is itself correct.

    • RARARA says:

      I was watching an Unreal Engine 4 programming tutorial on YT, scrolled down to the comments section, and found a big hubbub over whether the narrator was a ‘real programmer’… because she was a woman. Not because of her ability to program or to teach, but purely because of her gender. What followed was an unpleasant exchange over how bringing up sexism is being sexist itself, how women being discouraged from technical fields is a myth, etc. In a UE4 scripting tutorial, the commenters became something more unpleasant and antiquated than C++ (come at me bro).

      I can definitely see why women would be discouraged from taking up jobs in gaming in general with pervasive reactions like this (remember the Bioware writer Hepler being harassed for the combat in DA2?) I’m rather amused at how the GG campaign has backfired enormously. Like, $300 million worth of backfire.

      • aleander says:

        Well, she certainly was an unreal developer…

        /me grabs their coat.

    • Baf says:

      If that were the case, then I suppose that would be one of the problems Intel is trying to overcome with this initiative!
      I mean, seriously, look at what Krzanich said in his statement: “We are missing opportunities”. For Intel, the point of this initiative isn’t to benefit women, it’s to benefit Intel. If it were the case that women simply aren’t interested in tech jobs, it would still be in Intel’s interest to try to get them interested, for the reasons stated, and also just to increase the pool of job applicants and put Intel in a better bargaining position when hiring.

  2. Zephro says:

    About time too. It’s fairly obvious that this should be happening and who knows what sane objection one could have.

    Though really the state should be leaning on companies about this rather than toothlessly waiting until it’s a PR problem.

    • thedosbox says:

      About time too. It’s fairly obvious that this should be happening and who knows what sane objection one could have.

      Yep, and they’re going about it in a sensible fashion too. Increasing the pool of qualified candidates benefits everyone in tech, not just Intel. I just hope this is an addition to their existing programs rather than replacing them.

    • Palindrome says:

      There is little that any State could do without setting mandatory targets, which are not only unworkable they are also unfair. The only effective way to raise diversity in any work place or industry is to make a wide variety of people actually want to work there while allowing them access to the education and skills that they require.

      I would be interested in seeing exactly how Intel intends to spend this money. Things like improved access to childcare, flexible working hours or wider access to scholarships/bursaries would have a significant impact and would benefit everybody but on the other hand things like female only scholarships are hardly going to make things more inclusive by their very nature.

      • Zephro says:

        But setting mandatory targets isn’t the only thing a state could do… as education is such a big part of the state’s remit. At least where I’m from the State is the main provider of education. The state also enforces duties of care upon companies for various other reasons and I don’t really see why this should be any different.

        • Palindrome says:

          The ‘State’, at least in the EU, already does force work place equality through legislation and it promotes equality through education. I don’t see how the State can do more without using crude and short termist mandatory targets.

          • Zephro says:

            So far all it really does is a couple token scholarships and anti-discrimination legislation which doesn’t really work.

            There’s plenty it can do. They can force companies to put out more scholarships, to do more outreach programs at schools, enact legislation to force companies to pay for daycare. Etc. etc. etc. There are dozens of interventions they can make, they can also quite easily target industries that are failing the worst and scalp them for the money.

            I also don’t see how mandatory targets being short term is a bad thing. It breaks the cycle of all the hiring people being male, which puts off any women from even applying in the first place. It is unfair to a small minority of men, but they can suck it up as they’re in a frankly privileged position.

    • Premium User Badge

      Henke says:

      Just to play devil’s advocate, here’s a sane objection: it’s crazy expensive!

      • Llewyn says:

        Intel are not expecting to be $300m out of pocket on this move in the long-term. Quite the opposite, if they’re doing this they see it as having the potential to increase their profitability by improving the quality of their workforce.

        (Note, although this sounds cynical, I firmly believe that business doing the right thing for business reasons doesn’t stop it being the right thing.)

        • Premium User Badge

          Wisq says:

          Indeed. Diversity in the workforce is not only a great way to get workers that other companies don’t hire (at least, until they do similar programs), but also to improve your creative output and critical process, target a greater portion of the population, and protect yourself against a monoculture where everyone ends up pointed in the wrong direction.

  3. Distec says:

    “objecting to pro-diversity editorials”

    Gamergate is a mishmash of contradictory, vague aims and sour grapes. But I think it’s a bit much to say they made a letter campaign to Intel in opposition to diversity.

    • Premium User Badge

      RaveTurned says:

      Not sure what you’re objecting to here. The campaign certainly happened – Operation Disrespectful Nod is pretty well documented. The letters were emails, but distinguishing between email and snail mail seems like splitting hairs. The editorial in question was Leigh Alexander’s Gamers Are Over piece, which is certainly pro-diversity (amongst other things).

      I suppose there could be debate about whether it was the diversity aspect that they took issue with, but the rest is accurate.

      • Distec says:

        I am familiar with that flashpoint. My objection was what you described in your last sentence. It seemed people were mostly just pissed off at Leigh and how she wrote that piece.

        • Premium User Badge

          RaveTurned says:

          With GG being as disparate as you say, I think its hard to be sure exactly what was objected to.

          I think Alec was pointing out the editorial was pro-diversity because that’s relevant to Intel’s current actions, not necessarily because he believes that’s what those who orchestrated the campaign were objecting to.

          • Distec says:

            I have trouble reading that sentence any other way. It directly states the campaign was in objection to pro-diversity content and not much else. If GG is the fractured, incoherent mess a lot of people see it as, then I think that’s an unfair assessment; even if you think any other potential reason for the campaign was stupid. And if it’s hard to to be sure what was being objected to, then that makes the statement in the article questionable.

            I can certainly try a more charitable interpretation… But I know how people have tended to write about this topic.

      • Wulfram says:

        Intolerance and the celebration of exclusion is not “pro-diversity”.

        Good for Intel, anyway

        • AXAXAXAS MLO II: MLO HARDER says:

          Good thing that Leigh’s piece celebrates how more people are making games and talking about them, then.

          • Wulfram says:

            It celebrates the “sloughing off” of all those icky socially awkward basement dwelling nerds who embarrass Ms Alexander with their poor fashion sense and enthusiasm

      • ahac says:

        > which is certainly pro-diversity

        Is it?
        Or is it a distraction from the questions about ethics in games journalism?
        Or is it a bulling campaign against those they consider as antisocial nerds?
        Hard to tell when 10 different sites publish the same thing on the same day and when it’s written in such a hostile tone.

        But I wonder… are women in gaming any better off after those things have been written?
        To me it seems the “gamers are dead” narrative and the tactics used by some “pro-diversity” people only scare women away from gaming and do nothing to make them feel more welcome. By exaggerating the hostility against women and minorities it tries to push it from mainstream back into a nerd niche and as such does more to hurt diversity instead of improving it.

        At least Intel is doing the right thing… unlike the so called journalists and others who care about their patreon & advertising accounts more than the issue itself.

        • Premium User Badge

          Wisq says:

          FYI, anyone who unironically utters the term “ethics in games journalism” is a) automatically IDed as a GGer and b) won’t get much sympathy around here.

          • FriendlyFire says:

            Um, sorry, no. It’s a real issue and bringing it up is a valid discussion point.

            Taking four words and immediately branding the person is pretty much the epitome of stereotyping, and then people claim to be against discrimination and pigeon-holing.

          • Melody says:

            You may want to take a look at Leigh’s partial list of *actual* ethical concerns in games
            link to leighalexander.net

          • ahac says:

            And exactly that is the problem. They wanted a way to quickly silence criticism and found it. Is it true? Who cares, right?

            So what we got is that instead of debating the issues like grown ups, we have two sides who are going further and further apart. On one side you have these fairly organized journalists (90% white guys) and their paying supporters… and when you have paying supporters, of course you’ll tell them what they want to hear… and on the other side you have gamers who felt betrayed by the people who were supposed to be on their side. Maybe instead of flinging shit at one another they should realize that this isn’t doing any favours to female gamers and rethink their approach. And if the journalists can’t get together and make a better plan than insulting gamers… then who will?

            And… so I’ve been IDed as a GGer? A GGer who supports what Intel does here? A GGer who has always wanted to see more successful women in gaming and tech industry? A GGer who has opposed threats no matter if they were against Anita or when Nero got a needle in his mail? You know what? If that makes me a GGer then I have no problem with that.

          • Premium User Badge

            Wisq says:

            You may want to take a look at Leigh’s partial list of *actual* ethical concerns in games

            None of which GG has done anything useful to deal with. They seem strangely uninterested in “ethical concerns” committed by anyone they haven’t identified as “SJWs” or women who they feel are getting too much attention.

          • RARARA says:

            “So what we got is that instead of debating the issues like grown ups, we have two sides who are going further and further apart.”

            What’s there to debate? The whole thing started over ZQ having a relationship with formerly our own Nathan, who never wrote a word about her game. It’s basis is on absolute tosh. It’s not a journo’s job to take part into or legitimize a campaign of character assassination based on hearsay and conspiracies. If you want an example of journalists taking into consideration criticisms aimed at them, then look back to Doritosgate, which raised legitimate concerns leading to the updating of several major gaming sites’ terms of service.

            Also, the GG crowd was never as prolific as they pretend to be. Their boycott of ‘SJW’ sites like Kotaku, Polygon and RPS never led to a drop in traffic. Other than TB, all they had were fringe conservative nuts like Milo, Aurini, Baldwin, as their biggest spokespeople. No wonder everyone from Tim Schafer and Mike Morhaime to Joss Whedon and Stephen Colbert rallied against the movement.

          • ahac says:

            > None of which GG has done anything useful to deal with.

            Kotaku and especially The Escapist have changed their disclosure rules in response to GG. But some random Android site isn’t really what gamers care about that much.

            And I can see why Leigh would go after Youtubers… they are taking away business from classic game websites and it’s just some guys and girls playing games. They are not pretending to be journalists. But the most popular ones have disclosed or opposed deals that were not fair. Totalbuiscuit refused to accept a Steam key for Mordor (I think) when it required that only good things are said about the game. Instead he got the key elsewhere but talked about that deal and eventually the company dropped it. That is self moderation that journalists don’t seem to be capable of.
            So it’s no wonder Youtubers are the most popular curators on Steam, is it?

          • Mman says:

            I’d trust Youtube far less for the time being; Youtubers have been implicated in being paid to do positive impressions before (Shadows of Mordor just being the most recent, and one of the ones that actually got called out). At least when people talk about “paid reviews” with traditional games journalists it’s mostly figurative rather than literal.

          • DurpNG says:

            “None of which GG has done anything useful to deal with.”

            None of which have anything to do with Gaming journalism, actually.

        • RARARA says:

          “By exaggerating the hostility against women and minorities it tries to push it from mainstream back into a nerd niche and as such does more to hurt diversity instead of improving it.”

          No, the people who are harassing and running women out of the industry (because of their gender or what kind of games they make or criticizing pervasive infantile tropes) are the ones pushing gaming from mainstream back into a nerd niche.

          • Distec says:

            Gaming is not a nerd niche and hasn’t been for a good while. There is nothing that could cause it to backslide to that state. This actually appeared to be the general consensus from gaming media up until recently, and all of a sudden we’re concerned if gaming will ever be considered a legitimate, socially acceptable medium. (See also all the handwringing over Hatred)

            People who harass women in the industry absolutely have responsibility for their exodus. But that doesn’t exclude the opinion that gaming’s “PR problem” has a lot to do with its press as well.

          • joa says:

            It’s kind of unavoidable. Obviously the socially inept nerds aren’t going to to know how to communicate with women – simply by definition. So obviously they’re going to feel pretty left out if their one sort of “comfortable place” is taken away from them. There is always going to be that tension there.

    • Slaadfax says:

      It is deeply depressing that the cited article is considered “pro-diversity.” I’m honestly a bit disappointed that Meer put in that jab. It seems very petty and poorly represents a fairly complex issue.

  4. amateurviking says:

    This is objectively A Good Thing. Bravo.

    • Eightball says:

      Yes, there are far too many Asians working in tech fields. It’s about time this was corrected.

      • Hanban says:

        They’re gonna use the money to fire people?

        • Eightball says:

          Well presumably they’re going to start hiring a lot less of them. As the existing Asian employees retire or leave, we’ll have less of those almost-white folks oppressing everyone around.

          I can’t wait for our less Asian, less racist future!

          • Hanban says:

            Yes, if other minorities are hired, the share of Asian Americans will be lower. This isn’t the implication of what you wrote in your first comment. That might be because of the amount of snark in your replies, though.

          • P.Funk says:

            Nice way to spin it. Diversity is racist! Competition is racist! A lack of prejudice is racist!

            Basically any shift in the status quo that seeks to provide an equal footing for previously disenfranchised individuals is effectively against the interests of a group that is successful in that paradigm. You could say that women entering the work force is harming male opportunity because now they have to compete with 50% more people. Clearly women entering the work force is sexist and anti-male. Yup.

          • Eightball says:

            Well hey, far be it from me to criticize the decision of a bunch of rich white businessmen to have less of one kind of minority in their business.

          • Hanban says:

            Well, if that was what you were criticizing, that would be fair, but from what I understand there still haven’t been a suggestion to start firing Asian Americans meaning that what you’re claiming to criticize isn’t happening. Having more people from other minorities in the industry (which is what they hope to achieve, yes?) is not the same as having less Asian Americans in the industry.

          • Eightball says:

            I never said they were going to fire Asians out right. Just that their policy goals are to reduce the number of Asians working for them – which is true, and which is being celebrated here on this all-white owned and operated website.

            And isn’t it funny that whenever someone advocates more diversity in employment they never volunteer to give their job to someone more diverse than themselves? Which one of the board of directors is going to step down to make way for a differently-abled transperson of color? They’re as white as Abercrombie & Fitch or Rock, Paper, Shotgun:

            link to intel.com

          • Fenix says:

            RPS is not celebrating “less Asians”, RPS is celebrating “more diversity”.

          • Eightball says:

            And when there are too many Asians, as the article says in the first sentence of the second paragraph, what is the solution?

          • joa says:

            He does make a pretty good point. Middle class white people do love to go on about diversity; but when it comes down to it, would they give up their job to a more diverse person?

          • Hanban says:

            “Just that their policy goals are to reduce the number of Asians working for them – which is true, and which is being celebrated here on this all-white owned and operated website.”

            No. The way you choose to frame the issue is still not representative of what is happening. If they increase the number of other minorities in the industry, the number of asians won’t decrease. The share of Asians in the industry will decrease through what will hopefully be more diverese representation. The difference I’m trying to highlight here is not meaningless. To say that cheering on more diverse representation is the same as cheering on a decrease in Asian Americans in the industry is disingenuous to the point where I can’t tell if you’re being serious or if you’re trolling.

            If they were in fact firing people (which you agree with not being the case), then I could see your point. They’re not, though, which makes your snark in the comments here super weird.

          • Eightball says:

            So are the current Asian jobs at Intel (not just in the industry as a whole) going to be Asian in perpetuity, and from now on just new hires will be non-Asian? We both know that’s not true. Intel isn’t going to expand it’s workforce by 14% in three years. Asians are going to lose jobs (which is not the same as being summarily fired). Although one wonders what the problem would *be* with firing insufficiently diverse employees. Or at least buying them out – “Patel, Chow, if you guys quit we’ll pay you three year’s salary up front.” Maybe Intel just doesn’t have the progressive cojones to get the job done right.

  5. unitled says:

    Brilliant news, and well done Intel for putting its money where its mouth is.

  6. Premium User Badge

    Wisq says:

    When I see things like this, I wonder how GG will ultimately be remembered in the history books. So far, it seems like everything they’re doing is backfiring. They go around burning down houses of people doing the things they don’t like, but those people just build bigger, better, more fire-proof houses; organise neighbourhood watches; upgrade the firefighting infrastructure; etc.

    Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I wonder if they’ll end up being a force for good just because they so clearly and prominently highlight what needs fixing and galvanise the moderates into picking a side (usually not theirs), even if their goals were the exact opposite (oppose change, entrench the status quo).

    • Rizlar says:

      Remember who now?

    • FriendlyFire says:

      Funny, I felt the “anti-GG” (which is a funny term in and of itself) are getting more and more obscene, insane and disconnected from reality. The debate has largely moved on, but you still get absolutely ridiculous stuff like a charity stream organizer starting to bash on TotalBiscuit because he dared retweet the stream and that’d immediately attract noxious GG’ers (when the stream was about AbleGamers and had no relation to GG or anti-GG).

      • Mman says:

        Except for the part where GG openly attacked Ablegamers earlier?

        • Distec says:

          Source?

          • Mman says:

            Ablegamers refused to accept a donation from people who openly attributed themselves to GG. This made GG start attacking the charity, despite the fact they would still be able to donate individually just fine if they didn’t identify as GG in their donations. This demonstrated exactly what people mean when they talk about GG trying to weaponise charity (and what happens if a charity doesn’t allow that). Also Ablegamers just so happened to get DDOS’ed soon after turning the donation down and GG of course tried to act like the charity faked it:

            Ablegamer’s statement: link to i.imgur.com
            Various GG responses: link to storify.com

          • Distec says:

            With all due respect, I don’t find this very compelling. I see here a scribbled .PNG and a link to a Storify derived from a site called Gamers Against Gamergate (red flag there). Plus, if the tweets on display there were the worst offenders, then we’ve entered a golden era of civility on the internet, because I do not see anything wrong with the majority of them except perhaps the volume.

            We need to be a lot more specific when we talk about attacks and differentiate between harassment and criticism. I see a lot of irritation in those tweets for reasons not unjustifiable. And as far as I know, the DDOS attack were never conclusively proven and could have been a result of site traffic. Not saying they weren’t DDOS’ed (because obviously I wouldn’t know for sure), but there’s no slam-dunk here.

            I don’t like sounding like an apologist for GG. I truly don’t. But it should be criticized for what it is and does in actuality, and the less assumptions the better. All too often it seems to me like every conceivable evil or accident on the internet gets laid at their feet.

          • Mman says:

            “With all due respect, I don’t find this very compelling. I see here a scribbled .PNG and a link to a Storify derived from a site called Gamers Against Gamergate (red flag there).”

            I saw this (and many of these tweets) as it happened, so the obvious “it’s not real” tone you’re going for isn’t going to work. And that site didn’t make the storify, it just linked it later.

            “I do not see anything wrong with the majority of them”

            Those tweets are full of abelism and insults towards the charity.

            “I see a lot of irritation in those tweets for reasons not unjustifiable.”

            There’s nothing justified about it. Every one of these people could have donated personally and the charity wouldn’t mind, but they didn’t care about that, they only cared about using the donations as “proof” that GG does good things then got mad and instantly turned to insults when that was denied (and in the process showed exactly why the charity was right to deny it).

            Edit: Even if it wasn’t a DDOS multiple GG members still tried to accuse the charity of doing it.

  7. Buuurr says:

    In the U.S. diversity means you need more Blacks working for you… this article cracks me up.

    • Premium User Badge

      Wisq says:

      It does if blacks represent a large portion of the population but a small portion of your workforce.

      This sums it up perfectly.

      Quotas and targeted hiring initiatives are imperfect solutions, but we live in an imperfect world. Hiring bias is a vicious cycle: People don’t judge the minority workers fairly, so they don’t get the jobs, so they aren’t a major part of the workforce, so people don’t learn to judge them fairly.

      Alternative problems: minorities don’t study to get into fields because they’re not interested in them because the fields aren’t targeted at them, or because there aren’t any minority role models (which kids use to decide what they want to become), or because their parents didn’t get the good jobs and couldn’t afford to help educate them so their kids could get the good jobs, etc etc.

      You can’t directly change what people think, so you break the cycle by hiring more minorities until people are used to having them in the workforce and learn to stop thinking that way.

      (And by “minorities”, I’m talking about minorities in the workplace, not necessarily in the population. Just to be clear.)

    • PopeRatzo says:

      In the U.S. diversity means you need more Blacks working for you… this article cracks me up.

      Is there something you’re trying to say?

      • Buuurr says:

        No. I think I didn’t try and say it but rather very clearly said it. Companies like Intel, Google and any other big money maker often get nailed here in the U.S. by Black rights groups by lawsuits and slander that they do not hire enough ‘diverse’ workers. Now, anyone who lives in a city in the U.S. knows that everyone here has a really good chance at succeeding at whatever they want to do as long as they have a decent education backing them. We have many, many racial groups that are more then successful in their recent immigrations from other countries that seamlessly jump into the workforce with a very competitive career. For example: I work for a company that recently hired, transferred, relocated and established a kid from Turkey because he was the one who fit the bill best for the position we had on offer. Before that we did the same with some talent from Bulgaria that were relocated and all their expenses paid.

        I am from Northern Canada but live in Cleveland, Ohio. Where I am from if you don’t complete high school you are basically seen as someone with a mental disability and are often the receiver of social assistance. Here in Ohio, the high school graduation rate is just above 65%. If we break down the graduation rates by race you will soon see a pattern. Hispanics, Whites, Blacks and Asians all have a decent graduation rate in rural areas (above 85%). Move those same people to the city and the rates for Whites stay at or around 85% on average, for Hispanics they drop to 70%-75% and for Blacks they drop to 25%… yes, 25%. Asians we don’t even need to mention. All in all, if you simply omit Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, Cincinnati and Euclid from the data points the graduation rate for Ohio overall soars back up to 85%-95% for all the people mentioned.

        Now, ask yourself where these big companies have their footprint. Is it out in the sticks? Or, is it in the above mentioned cities? Correct. They are big employers in the cities. Workers rights associations, unions and racial-based groups, like the NAACP will moan about their not being enough Blacks in the high-end tech workforce.

        Now, based on the above, which can be found with a very simple Google search… What do you think the high-end tech graduation rate for Blacks is in these areas if there is only 25% of those people completing high school?

        Where do we get these ‘diverse’ individuals to hire from in the first place? If we have a job position come up but no Black folk apply to the position how do we hire them?

        I await your response.

        • unitled says:

          Not OP, but… “If we have a job position come up but no Black folk apply to the position how do we hire them?” Isn’t the answer to work on improving the education for ethnic minorities? Like, y’know, what Intel is offering to do here?

          From the article: “However, intervention is needed at a training level too, so Intel will be funding scholarships and better supporting majority black colleges in order to increase the diversity of the tech industry’s intake further down the line. It’s also working with a number of national organisations for a wide range of minority groups.”

          • Buuurr says:

            I think it is a great thing that Intel is trying to do. But ultimately it will fail in what it is trying to achieve. Why? I don’t know. I’ve just seen it happen here so much already I guess.

            A university level education for ‘diverse’ people here in Cleveland is basically paid for. I know this as my wife is ‘diverse’ and she actually laughed when they signed her up for it on the assumption that just because she was not White that she would need it. They could not believe that she had a career position at a large bank here that was paying for it all up front to up-train her so they could give her a promotion and justify the salary to match.

            Yet, there is a massive lack of ‘diverse’ grads from Universities and colleges here in Ohio. I mean, if I had this back in Canada during my education, I would be $80,0000 plus interest ahead of where I am now. But anyway.

            Throwing money at it isn’t the responsibility of large businesses is my overall point. This is America. It is a capitalistic economy. It’s how it grows and thrives. If you want the government to pay for everything, including your education and success, Europe is across the pond. I just cannot see how it is put on the shoulders of private corps to make things all happy and equal when business is about the dollar and only the dollar.

            Tossing money at it just doesn’t help. A great example, again, is Ohio. We pay $11,000 to get a kid from pre-school to high school grad with a grad rate of about 75%-80% for the average student and 65% grad rate for the average under-privileged student. Sounds okay, right? Not so. Texas pays $8700 on average and they have a grad rate of 86% for the average student and 84% grad rate for the under-privileged student. Well… that’s odd.

            Dare we look at the demographics of Texas vs Ohio now?

        • Melody says:

          Now, anyone who lives in a city in the U.S. knows that everyone here has a really good chance at succeeding at whatever they want to do as long as they have a decent education backing them.

          That’s where I just stopped reading your comment.

          • Buuurr says:

            Then I pity you.

          • Chris D says:

            I read the rest of your comment. She wasn’t missing anything.

            Although I did like how you posted “This is America” on a UK based website and expect us all to share your uncritical deificastion of the almighty dollar.

            I also like how your advice to anyone struggling to find a job is to emmigrate to Europe.

            You lack even a basic grasp of economics, social issues and empathy. Mostly I just hope that in time you reach the point in your life where you can look back on your post with a deep sense of shame becasue I can’t think of anything sadder than never being able to do that.

          • TWChristine says:

            I’d have to agree with Melody and Chris D..and if I might add, “Please don’t come back to Canada.” Not that I expect you would, as it sounds like you’re fitting in pretty well down there.

  8. Synesthesia says:

    This is awesome. Good for intel!

  9. Premium User Badge

    Bluerps says:

    That’s a lot of money! I hope other big tech companies do something similar.

    • Kohlrabi says:

      Sure, the GNOME foundation has nearly collapsed because they spent (well, still spend) a ridiculous amount of money on similar nonsense.

  10. Premium User Badge

    Ninja Dodo says:

    Good. Here’s to a more varied and thereby infinitely more interesting future tech and games industry!

  11. Premium User Badge

    Skabooga says:

    Well, it’s nice to start the day off with some good news!

  12. Jac says:

    Surely funding an all girls pro gaming team is not congrous with the goal of equality. It’s the same problem but the other way round. Why can’t we all just play together in harmony where gender, skin colour, religious belief and sexual orientation is irrelevant to the activity gamers enjoy which is gaming. And they are entirely irrelevant to this pursuit.

    • coffeetable says:

      lol

    • P.Funk says:

      Because people and society don’t work that way.

      • Jac says:

        I work that way and I’m people and since people = society and me = people and me = works that way then society and people must also work that way. Christ I am a genii. This is going in my memoirs.

  13. Tuor says:

    What a giant waste of money by Intel. Oh, well. I guess they can blow it on whatever they want.

  14. Buuurr says:

    “Chris D says:

    I read the rest of your comment. She wasn’t missing anything.

    Although I did like how you posted “This is America” on a UK based website and expect us all to share your uncritical deificastion of the almighty dollar.

    I also like how your advice to anyone struggling to find a job is to emmigrate to Europe.

    You lack even a basic grasp of economicss, social issues and empathy. Mostly I just hope that in time you reach the point in your life where you can look back on your post with a deep sense of shame becasue I can’t think of anything sadder than never being able to do that.”

    Awesome.

    Obviously you missed many points of the post. My talking about it being America was based on the situation in which I was talking about, not the UK. If you had an comprehension skills you’d know this. To quote me: ‘… big money maker often get nailed here in the U.S.’

    Nor did I say anyone struggling should move to Europe. I said if you want a whole bunch of free shit, move to Europe – France or Ireland in particular. That’s what a lot of my under-privileged Canadian friends did to gain low cost, high value educations and become successes. And yes, they all came back to work in Canada. It is a thing people do. Look it up. It isn’t called ‘the system’ for nothing.

    Irony, is the lack of economics grasp I have. Its my major. I have a shit ton of money. My wife has a shit ton of money. We know how and help others make a shit ton of money. The social issues you speak of are nothing but excuses and crap called up to reason from heart-bleeds who don’t know any better. If a half Inuk/half Irish man from Canada married to a Black woman from America is in the cozy position he and she find themselves in within this ‘racist’ and ‘unfair’ country and world we live in. There really is no excuse for the rest. I understand there are some extenuating circumstances that get in the way but it isn’t always this way for a certain group of individuals for just no reason. There are far and away too many paths to success for me to just step back and be nice to the less intelligent or lazy people of the world. Sorry, but I live in reality. Where it is a dog eat dog world and you have to do shit to succeed.

    I also would like to point out the basis of nothing on which you post this diatribe other then your not being able to have a debate without getting emotional. Maybe some fact checking or looking into the numbers I have presented and coming at me with what you think is the reason or reasons why this will fail – or not.

    How about an actual argument bearing weight? How about one where you don’t make three spelling mistakes as you are trying to talk down to someone else?

    I await your response.

    • Unknown says:

      Well hey, since YOU and your wife were able to find success, obviously everyone ELSE is just lazy and unintelligent! Systemic sexism and racism don’t exist, everyone, because this guy and his wife have a shitload of money!

      “everyone here has a really good chance at succeeding at whatever they want to do as long as they have a decent education backing them”

      Just because YOU succeeded at what you wanted to do, doesn’t mean that “everyone here” has a “really good chance”.

      “If we have a job position come up but no Black folk apply to the position how do we hire them?”

      By expanding the scope of where you’re looking for talent, and where your job postings are visible.

      • Buuurr says:

        Buuurr says:

        Unknown says:

        Well hey, since YOU and your wife were able to find success, obviously everyone ELSE is just lazy and unintelligent! Systemic sexism and racism don’t exist, everyone, because this guy and his wife have a shitload of money!

        Well, yeah. All my friends are successful and have full lives. Through hard work. What you are missing here isn’t that we have an issue with people being discriminated against as much as the media would have you clowns believe. What we have here is a case of people at Intel make a shit load of money. People who sit in Mommy’s basement want that money. By doing nothing. That’s why this doesn’t work. That’s why the people there that are successful are successful. Because the entitled are home bitching for money while they are not doing anything to make it. All these things do exist. But they don’t exist in the proliferation you would want to use as an excuse. Racism and sexism are a vastly minor hindrance to the actually real fact that most people just don’t want to do anything for what they get.

        “everyone here has a really good chance at succeeding at whatever they want to do as long as they have a decent education backing them”

        Just because YOU succeeded at what you wanted to do, doesn’t mean that “everyone here” has a “really good chance”.

        Well… that’s just a downer attitude. You’ll get nowhere with that. ‘Cept Mom’s basement. As well, what’s the point of all this funding if, as you say, its not going to make a difference in the end? Oh, yeah. To make fools feel good. To quote you saying education isn’t the solution, ‘“everyone here has a really good chance at succeeding at whatever they want to do as long as they have a decent education backing them” – that’s me.

        “Just because YOU succeeded at what you wanted to do, doesn’t mean that “everyone here” has a “really good chance”. – that’s you. So from this you are saying that you are against the Intel scheme to make fools feel better.

        “If we have a job position come up but no Black folk apply to the position how do we hire them?”

        By expanding the scope of where you’re looking for talent, and where your job postings are visible.

        Can you not read? We had to literally buy a guy’s house in Turkey and pay for all his expenses to get him here. Same deal with the two from Bulgaria. You think we would not have rather gotten a good ol’ hometown boy? You think we wanted to all have to go through Muslim sensitivity training for a guy who turns out to be an ‘in-hiding’ Christian? You don’t think we wanted to save money? You think this job posting wasn’t sitting in the local unemployment office for almost a year with ‘diverse’ people getting ‘first crack’ at an interview as per U.S. government mandate? lol. People. So silly.

        I await your response. And my next laugh.

        • Dorchadas says:

          Racism and sexism are a vastly minor hindrance to the actually real fact that most people just don’t want to do anything for what they get.

          Just as one example, white criminals are more likely to get a call back after an interview than black non-criminals: link to epi.org

        • P.Funk says:

          The arrogant “anyone can succeed and those who don’t are lazy” argument is so prototypical.

        • Unknown says:

          You’re peddling the same “if you just work hard, you’ll succeed” claptrap that everyone has heard a million times before, and most people understand is a lie. We know that the basement-dwelling moocher, like Ronnie Reagan’s “welfare queen”, is a myth. We’re not buying it. If you seriously think that laziness is a larger factor in income inequality than discrimination, you are simply delusional.

          Incidentally, I am successful too. I would never describe myself as having “a shit ton of money” because I’m not a grade-A toolbag, but I have a comfortable lifestyle and rarely worry about money. However, I have the decency to admit that I am not successful because I worked particularly harder than other people, but because I got lucky.

          • Buuurr says:

            Me and my wife laughed about all you silly people on the way home today. It was a riot. Also, I’ll note that no one on here this day has posted anything to refute the numerical data gathered by the government of the country of which I speak.

            Pardon me if I don’t care to reply further then insulting you basement-dwellers who lack in tenacity and achievement.

            But what could one expect from the idiots of this world nowadays? Note the ages. I just squeaked out of Mom’s fun box just ahead of you guys and don’t have the same sad puppy, fix the world agenda. Thank, God!

            More actual information for you clowns to ignore in your warped reality in regards to basement dwellers…

            link to census.gov

          • AXAXAXAS MLO II: MLO HARDER says:

            Well, the people arguing against your point made good points you failed to counter, posted links that are generally more reliably than yours, and made a lot more sense than you did overall. But you and your wife laughed at them and you called them stinky basement dwellers, so clearly you win this dicussion! Here’s your Nobel Prize.

  15. RogueNite says:

    Affirmative action makes me feel dirty.

  16. Eightball says:

    So which of the Rock, Paper, Shotgun crew are going to resign to make room for more diverse writers? The 100% white hive mind is whiter than Abercrombie & Fitch. You probably qualify for a “Ethnic Purity in Business” award from Stormfront.

  17. Kala says:

    Huh.
    Well, good for you Intel.

  18. AXAXAXAS MLO II: MLO HARDER says:

    Can I be cynical? I hardly believe sexism is a problem you can throw money at until it goes away, and I believe it even less that a company’s desperate attempt to clean its name after it accidentally associated itself with the equivalent of 911 truthers is something worth praising, even if some actual positive change is likely to come from it.

    • jrodman says:

      Do you think those two actions are related? I don’t. Or are you just comparing them yourself?

      The extremely poor representation in tech, especially in bay area software, by women and african-american/black men & women is really pronounced and has increased over time. People attempting to do something about it isn’t entirely novel.