A vanishingly small percentage of venture funding has been raised by black women
medium.comIt's the social graph. If the mainstream does not notice, do what countless immigrant groups have done in countries the world over, group together form your own interest group and serve your group. You also see this behavior with industry groups, or worker groups. Content producers group, telecoms group, so they can advance themselves and self interest.
Why do Nigerians do relatively well, they'll find other Nigerians, help each other and steadily climb. Or Russians or Chinese immigrants, etc. Help from the mainstream helps, and it'd be good to get even footing, but lacking that, create a self interest group. It's not as though there are no rich people who are minorities who are also interested in investing in startups. Pursue the issue in a multi pronged fashion. Don't count on anyone in particular.
That will work with Africans and other groups who have a strong sense of ongoing ethnic identity. American blacks descended from slaves have a lot of problems doing that for all sorts of reasons.
My guess is that a lot of African immigrants have raised money, just not via traditional routes, hence they don't show up in the numbers.
The important thing to recognize is that you can't easily analogize the experience of people who were enslaved 150 years ago and then faced systematic oppression after that for at least another 100 years to the experience of immigrants migrating to make a new start.
My bet is that we will see a lot more success from African immigrants before we see success from American slave-descended blacks.
Indeed, it's unsurprising the first black president is the son of an immigrant and not descended from slaves.
Nigerians and American blacks are worlds apart in terms of emphasis on education and work ethic. I say this as someone who has lived in Nigeria as well as in predominantly black neighborhoods in the US.
I don't disagree with you at all. Just a side note - don't you find it intriguing that Barack Obama is "black" and not "white"? Thinking about "one drop of blood" and all that. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule )
Only 12 Black women led startups (yes only 12) have raised
$1MM or more in outside funding since 2012.
As we all know, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
So, translation:
"I'm intentionally trying to deceive you when I say, NO (Meaning Zero) Black Women Have Raised Venture Funding. Definitely zero, not 12...shutup, math is hard, OK?"
Exactly. Don't be duped by this. If there were 24 black women seeking funding and 12 received funding, then they have a success rate of 50%. Whatever the real value for that figure is would be more telling.
Still, these attempts to slice and dice demographics in order to prove one class is held down for the sake of another is pointless and meaningless. It proves nothing. Attempts to use them to enforce draconian measures to elevate a class in the name of equality could just as easily backfire.
The other day, I saw a FB post from an old acquaintance about how racial economic equality needs to be mandated by law for minorities. To which I replied, "Yeah, Asians and Jews have it rough these days".
Astonishingly I was told Asians and Jews are not minorities (news to me). Apparently, minority is code word for being black (also news to me). To which I responded, "yeah Jay Z really has it rough these days".
Unfortunately, my point was lost on this poor soul. In his attempt to "recognize his white privilege" he fell into the Black == Poor trap and when Black != Poor it's just an anomaly. Sorry, but I call that racist.
The fact that Asians are generally a successful minority in the US has no bearing on a poor Asian person.
We need to elevate all the down trodden. Why do we have arbitrarily slice them by race and gender?
All fine in the philosophy realm. But real programs deal with real people. Different cultures respond differently. So solutions have to recognize race and gender, or they might not work at all.
It would have been more accurate to say "virtually no" black women have led startups. Though I guess she gets a pass for saying "statistically". It would have also been nice if a comparison was done as to the race of other startup founders and... I don't know more than a single chart listing the companies and how much they raised each? This isn't a very good statistic to trumpet around if its going to be presented out of context like this.
Ironically, saying 'virtually no black women have led startups' would still be 100% wrong, just emphatically so.
12/10000 is noise.
The margin of error is too high to say what the true value is (or should be), but in no way does that imply that the true value should be ZERO. A small number does not automatically mean zero.
You could make up similar lies and say that "statistically, the amount of lead in your drinking water is zero", and have it be well less than 12 parts in 10,000, and it's still non-zero, and at neurologically toxic levels. Just because a number is small does not mean that we cannot accurately measure it, nor does it mean that the expected value is zero. Claiming that the expected value is zero when there are twelve in your (large) sample is a horrible misuse of statistics.
The number of black women is 12, not 0. I don't understand what you wish to gain by egregiously twisting the numbers. Yes, it's a low percentage. No, it's not zero.
What do you wish to gain by being painfully pedantic? Black women are 5-6% of the population, but 0.01% of funded founders. That is a rounding error, effectively zero. Why not focus on the actual point of the post instead?
Because the title primed me to expect one thing, and then the post body rapidly contradicted it by providing twelve vetted examples of the class that the title claimed should not exist. My mind does not get over being misled and confused like that easily, especially when the fix to improve it is so trivial (like saying "virtually none" instead of "statistically zero").
OK. So... that's you entire comment? That's it? Problem solved?
You asked a question and I answered it. What's your deal?
The deal is that targeted pedantry like this completely derail the discussion, which is not 12 ≠ 0, but how and why black women are being excluded from tech.
Okay, but "effectively zero" != "statistically zero"
The "actual point" of the post is a lie.
So there's no discrimination, the entire post is a lie, because you found a point of math to be pedantic about. Got it.
The post is "statistically" a lie and you just used a straw man argument. Congrats.
I've got a great way of increasing the percentage by an order of magnitude! Doing the math correctly would immediately boost the number to 0.1% from your stated 0.01%. See, being painfully pedantic has already paid off handsomely.
(And don't worry, at least you were only off by a factor of 10. The original article is off by a factor of 100).
In the US there are 12/100000 suicides annually. So is the suicide rate in the US zero?
Are you people high? "Statistically" doesn't mean "12 == 0". It means "Effectively zero"
I may be extremely dumb for learning math and statistics incorrectly, but as far as I know, 12 statistically is not 0.
When you're comparing it to 10,000 fundraises, it is..
24/10000 = 0.0024 -> two tenth's of 1%.... ie... statistically zero..
Depends upon sig figs and other statistical calculations. I was kinda expecting to see some statistics that showed that the 95% confidence interval had a minimum of 0 within it, which would have made far more sense to claim 'statistically 0 black women have received funding'.
Some thoughts and questions here.
Should we in the tech industry feel obligated to spend energy on these social movements? Are we wrong and selfish to not?
Honestly, I'd rather not. I'd rather get technical things done, and let policy makers and influencers focus on those issues. If you're in on something with me, great AWESOME, I honestly don't care who you are. Things like race and gender don't matter to me as long as you can get work done. However, I do understand that being able to get work done in this industry is stemmed from a privileged advantage. -- Yes that sucks and is unfair, but how do we as a technical industry even change that when we need to focus on getting work done?
I think this is more important than just diversity in tech (and that is important) - and I'm a relatively recent convert to caring.
We all, even founders, benefit from diversity of founders. If start-ups predominantly get started by similar types of people you're missing out on competition and innovative ideas. I think this applies not only to general business concepts but especially to domain areas. One of the things that infrequently crops up on here is how much money there is to be made in Spanish language Christian apps, as a WASP I'm less likely to have the domain knowledge to break into that market. So it does seem rather odd that VCs might be missing out on being able to profit from a market of ~23m.
Then there are more social good focused start-ups that might emerge. Given all the problems the US has with racism and sexism I'd posit that a black female founder might be a good bet if they had an idea to try and improve things.
I was interviewing a white university student the other day who had managed to get through 2.5 years of a Computing degree before realising she was capable of being just a good developer as a man. Not that she was as good, just that she actually could be a developer, rather than being assumed to be the management / documentation type. I'm nowhere near Jon Skeet on the feminist scale but it really made me think about how under represented groups can be put off.
And that is the point of the article. The top thread on here can be arguing about whether 0.1% is "statistically zero" because what matters is perception. If a potential black female founder perceives an industry as being unwelcoming they're less likely to enter it. There is a massive opportunity cost to get to the point where you look for VC funding, it isn't an experiment you can just run on a whim. It is quite possible that the calibre of black women who could be founders are looking at the startup world and heading in another direction where there are much stronger social signals that they are likely to be accepted.
One of the communities I'm in has gone to war over its Code of Conduct, I'm largely uninterested, I think a CoC is probably required but the proposed one is terrible (cynical me thinks it looks like a power grab).
It's a tricky balance to get right.
It's your choice to ignore it. More precisely, it's your privilege to ignore it.
"...how do we as a technical industry even change that when we need to focus..."
The point of startups is not blindly attacking the biggest pile of work at hand. It's to find blindspots and exploit them. If every single one of your competitors is systematically undervaluing entire classes of potential workers, dontcha think that just maybe there's an opportunity to be had there?
But no. For all the talk of merit, getting shit done, hustle, etc, it's mostly about connections. You can't hold onto the meritocratic myth and ignore completely obvious evidence to the contrary forever. But damn, so many rich white guys around here love to try.
> If every single one of your competitors is systematically undervaluing entire classes of potential workers, dontcha think that just maybe there's an opportunity to be had there?
This is a common line of thought that I find myself having. I suspect it's a common fallacy, although I've never heard a name for it.
I call it "being too clever again by half". The idea that when others zig, I should zag. Or that any status quo structure has inefficiencies.
My reality is that zig/zag concept only works in certain situations. It'd be interesting to think more about the conditions for those situations, because then I could readily identify them.
In this situation, it's possible that your competitors are undervaluing an entire class of workers simply because that class of workers does not have value to them. If there are no technical, talented, black female engineers in the Valley, maybe the market isn't intentionally ignoring them -- it's just unable to find them.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but sometimes the status quo is an efficiency shortcut as well as being efficient.
Actually, a company called Andela is going to make hundreds of millions off of this inefficiency. It's focused on finding Nigerians who have top 2% IQ globally and teaching them to code. Labor arbitrage. Check them out.
So true. Tech things can't impact social issues, just like Facebook never did.
>DID found that even the WORST Startups led by white males raise more than the Best Startups led by Black Women.
This was big and in bold, but I didn't see any links to how they calculated this. Anyone else see how they found this?
Please change the article title to "A vanishingly small percentage of venture funding has been raised by black women". That is an accurate way of phrasing the facts. The current title is breaking my brain.
Ok, we've used your suggestion. If someone suggests a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.
Thank you. Now if only your editing privileges extended to medium.com ... :)
That would not be good.
I know that the narrative is that there isn't diversity in tech, but I'm curious about the numbers of Asians who managed to get funding for their startups.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown by all races and country of origin, I will grant you that.
That would be in addition to this article, not in opposition to it, however. The lack of success of black people and women in tech is PROOF that there isn't diversity, at least not for those groups; it isn't just some narrative. Even if, say, Southeast Asians are doing well, that doesn't change the fact that the groups that the article is talking about aren't.
0.12% for a group that you would expect to have about 6.50% in based on overall population is indicative of a problem.
But it would be nice to know where the problem is at. If 6.5% of applicants were black women and only .12% were accepted, especially if the ideas were rated as average in a found blind rating... that would indicate a huge problem.
If .06% of those applying were black women, but .12% of those accepted were, it would show the problem has nothing to do after the application and is all about getting people to apply to begin with, which is a different problem with a different solution needed.
Yes, that would be very useful info to have indeed.
I clicked around and couldn't find the actual report. I want to read that instead of an infographic or blog post. Does anyone have a link to the report?
Here's a little more background on projectdiane for those that are interested: https://medium.com/@KathrynFinney/projectdiane-breaking-tech...
Yes, and? Did any try? If so, what happened? If not, why not? I need more information for this to be interesting.
I don't understand why this gets down-voted. Maybe I missed some very subtle tone? I do agree that we need more information.
When I see an article with "statistically" in the title, I want to see some data and some robust analysis, not a PR piece.
Second paragraph.
Only 12 Black women led startups (yes only 12) have raised $1MM or more in outside funding since 2012.Out of how many? When were they founded? When did they raise the money? What's the trend (founded/total, funded/total and funded/founded)?
It's nonsense to talk about this kind of thing without the correct frame of reference. At least if you're trying to argue that not enough black women led startups get funded (which seems to be what the headline is getting at).
Also, what about other ethnicities? What about black men? What about white women? What about social backgrounds? Was their ethnicity the distinguishing factor at that point or were they preselected prior to becoming entrepreneurs?
The first step to finding out how to solve the problem is to find out where the problem actually stems from. The 5 Whys apply to social problems as much as to technical ones.
statistically zero rabbit-founded companies ever received funding. stop discrimination against rabbits now.
You're equating women with non-sentient beings. That's a reductive comparison that doesn't contribute to the discussion.
It's generally believed and accepted all animals are sentient.
I don't think that is a problem with venture funding in itself, more a symptom of deeper underlying problems.
it's not what you know, but who you know. or as they say in SV it's no the idea but execution.
I guess I'm supposed to care? I'm afraid I don't. Nope - don't care.
If the author instead showed how there were all these superb startups led by black women that failed to get funding - I would.
I guess the difference stems from the unshared assumption that if black women represent 6% of US population, they should get 6% of VC funding.
This is another aspect of survivor bias.
How many of the superb startups that are led by white men would be obviously superb if they hadn't received funding? How many of their founders would have been put off even trying without the role models, with the levels of doubt and likely lack of support that many others are suffering.
Plus if it is wrong you should care, that doesn't mean that you are necessarily in position to help but you can at least try to avoid being part of the problem and you may at some stage be in a position where you can help.
You should care if you agree there is discrimination in tech. If you are part of a minority and have never faced discrimination in tech, that might give credibility against such a claim.
I don't agree because I fail to see examples of said discrimination. Maybe it's there - what evidence points to it?
How many black women got 5 on AP CS test?
Is the AP CS test supposed to be some sort of impartial arbiter of talent and ability? What does the AP test have to do with anything?
Yes it is - it's a measure of interest in computers and drive/intelligence.
If you don't like AP CS test - pick some other parameter that indicates that this population that should (absent discrimination on part of money-bag holders) produce a number of startup founders.
Most schools don't even offer AP CS. Especially not public schools that primarily serve low-income students (which black people are disproportionately more likely to be). The course/exam is not equally accessible to people across racial demographics, and is, therefore, not a logical metric to measure potential (unless you're maybe looking at percentage of people getting 5s out of the total number of people of that demographic taking it).