Where the design community meets.
i'm sorry. i forgot silicon valley was exclusively white-american.
though site doesn't mention that the documentary is restricted to silicon valley. in fact, it clearly states:
IN DESIGN DISRUPTORS, YOU'LL MEET TOP DESIGNERS AT THE WORLD'S SMARTEST COMPANIES
A lot of the world's smartest companies happen to be in SF.
Oh yeahhhh! The kool-aid's just starting to settle in.
Look at the logos of all the companies featured in the doc. Overwhelmingly Silicon Valley.
Also, SV isn't exclusively white American, but by large majority it is. I said this to the other dude and I'll say it to you, getting mad at a documentary is like getting mad at a mirror. The people you should be upset with are the hiring managers at the companies featured.
Maybe we should be mad at Invision, for choosing to feature companies that are perpetuating racism in our industry instead of ones trying to make a difference.
A "companies that only hire designers based on demographicly proper race/gender/age statistics documentary?" I'm sure all you guys would be first in line to see that riveting content.
No—a "smartest people at the smartest companies" documentary. Let's not pretend that there aren't designers worthy of attention at these companies who aren't cisgendered white men.
One most consider that racism is an act (conscious and subconscious). Companies do not commit or act upon racism, but people do.
Further more - if you can't prove they did something based on a racial bias, you cannot prove racism. Yea, I'm that guy bringing up the legal ramifications of racism. Now, if you're saying they are acting in a potentially prejudice manner thats fine. But don't go running around throwing the word 'racism' around like its a fucking penny in a wishing well.
There are no legal ramifications to institutional racism, except maybe things like affirmative action, indirectly.
There actually is. It's called EOE (Equal Opportunity Employer). If you (as a potential candidate) can prove you were passed on due to a racial bias then yes, you can act on it.
And thats the real point that I'm making, you (generally speaking) cannot prove this is an act of racism based on a trailer. Oversight, maybe. Accurate portrayal of the current landscape in the documentaries vacuum, possibly. But racism? C'mon man. That's like assuming everyone with a criminal record (violent or non-violent) is an incredibly terrible person.
Documentaries like these reinforce stereotypes if they portray the "TOP DESIGNERS AT THE WORLD'S SMARTEST COMPANIES" as being of only one gender and one race.
Which is what kicks off the pipeline problem in the first place.
These issues are self perpetuating if someone doesn't get annoyed by them.
Ha Ha getting mad at a mirror. Ha Ha so simple and so true.
Do you think it's a diversity issue that 70% of basketball players in the US are black? Silicon Valley has a lot of 20-35 year old white males, it doesn't mean it's designed that way by some conspiracy.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be wrong.
Malevolent conspiracy and systemic inequity are two very different things. Presuming that the issue is a singular and cohesive intent to marginalize and exclude certain groups of people is just going to keep you from seeing that these inequalities are perpetuated by aspects of society that seem to us totally fundamental. These are aspects that we tend to take 'as is', things which seem simply to be truth now and always, and that are effectively invisible to us (almost like gravity). This is the problem with trying to address institutionalized forms of racism, sexism, etc., like the ones being discussed in this thread about the privilege white men experience in SF (but also obviously more broadly). The values being addressed as problematic are so deeply fundamental to how we conceptualize society and our identity that we often just don't even perceive them at all.
The ideas we're talking about aren't simply 'in theory', they can be observed in virtually all aspects of social life. If you're interested, there's a wealth of academic writing which is meant to study and understand this kind of stuff, and it's seriously interesting to learn about. The goal of academic articles is not to judge, it's to understand the how and why, and they provide a lot of insight into the kinds of institutions and interests that shape values of society at large. I think that designers are particularly in a position which requires them to take responsibility for educating themselves on these kinds of things. We play a not-insignificant role in shaping the messages of our clients and employers and remaining ignorant about the ways in which our work has the capacity to perpetuate inequities in society or marginalize groups within our audience is simply not acceptable if we feel any kind of moral obligation to those we affect with our work.
98% of NBA Majority Owners were White in 2013 so you tell me. Let's look at the numbers off the courts.
It seems to me that UI designers re-purposed the word "designer" to mean UI/UX designer and that graphic/industrial designers aren't graphic/industrial designers unless specified otherwise. So much on standing the shoulder's of the giants of the decades of knowledge from what are the industrial and graphic designers.
I'm sure there are significant smart companies out there that practice good design that aren't in tech or where the design aspect is anything but UI design. This sort of appropiation of the word "design" and "(smart) company" just says a lot of how much we live in a bubble.
A mostly-white representation isn't even a good representation of Silicon Valley, as far as I understand, with a large Asian population.
I completely agree with you, except here it's a matter of looking at the source. Invision is a UI/UX testing platform and as such they're spinning a story that will make their story look as relevant to them as possible.
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.