Congress Thinks Diverse Hiring Can Stop Tech’s Racist Bias. History Says They’re Wrong.

Discrimination endures long after minority employees join powerful institutions.

Scott Carson/ZUMA Wire

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Wednesday, Congress held a hearing on diversity in the technology industry to address the sector’s abysmal statistics on inclusion. Lawmakers and expert witnesses touted increasing diversity as a necessary tool to reduce the potential harmful biases being coded into technology. 

“The industry’s workforce has remained mostly homogenous. People of color, women, and older Americans have all been notably absent from the tech workforce,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s consumer protection subcommittee, during her opening remarks. “The technology itself reflects that lack of diversity. That has real impact against Americans. We’ve seen algorithms’ bias in sentencing guidelines resulting in harsher sentences for minorities,” she continued, expressing a sentiment shared by many lawmakers during the hearing—fix diversity and you can fix many of the structural ills of technology that have been baked into its algorithms.

While ensuring more diverse representation in the workforce is an important step toward making technology more equitable, research and track records elsewhere suggest it is not a panacea in rooting out inequities, especially at big organizations in high-impact, complex fields. 

More diverse hiring practices have increased minority participation in police forces, but research suggests diverse departments do little to reduce law enforcement’s disparate racial impact; studies have shown they fail to reduce the disproportionately high amount of lethal force wielded in black communities and are not better at addressing the needs of black communities.

Policing isn’t the only area where better representation of a group hasn’t alleviated mistreatment of that group. More diverse educators have not closed the racial education inequity gap. The prestigious and clubby financial services industry, which has a comparatively better diversity record, is sometimes touted as a model for tech to follow. But those employees didn’t stop the industry from targeting black families with sub-prime mortgages. President Barack Obama’s race didn’t prevent his administration from pursuing housing policies that were detrimental to black wealth. Big tech doesn’t have to look far for similar examples: IBM has one of the oldest workforces among major technology companies, but that hasn’t kept it from being sued for age discrimination after firing thousands of its eldest employees.

Lack of improvement isn’t the fault of minorities working within these organizations, but is likely caused by societal and organizational factors that remain impervious to changes in personnel. As Charles E. Menifield and Geiguen Shin of Rutgers University, along with Princeton University’s Logan Strother, wrote in a paper on race and policing, improvements should focus on “fundamental macro-level policy changes, as well as changes to meso-level organizational practices” that are better equipped than hiring practices “to address the root causes of racial disparities.”  The tech sector is likely no different.

While it is possible that having more minorities at Facebook could have helped the company avoid creating tools that enabled advertisers to discriminate by race with housing ads—which it now says it has fixed—the social-media giant faces a host of problems that are reflective of real-world, systemic racial bias, and where it is less obvious how a more diverse workforce would guarantee change.

The company still makes it possible for advertisers to discriminate against groups of users by targeting ads to proxies for race like zip code, estimated home value, and estimated income. It’s hard to imagine how more diverse engineers would improve predictive policing algorithms when the crime datasets they’d be built with are usually biased. Facial recognition software is, for now, far more accurate at identifying white faces, which could make darker-skinned people more vulnerable to falsely falling under police suspicion. But even if that weren’t the case, the software wouldn’t address already existing issues of bias in the police forces set to use the software. Such limits in reducing bias make representation more of a first step than the solution lawmakers on the energy and commerce committee want it to be. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate