While you bring up a good point, I'd say artificlally expanding the number of <insert group here> in a particular field is just going to lead to large numbers of people that hate <insert field here>. Of the programmers here (which nearly everyone in this topic, is from my memory), we've all seen the people that get into the field "for the money". The vast majority of them are miserable and hate what they do.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. Are you actually trying to say that the set of people who go into the field "for the money" is the same set of people who were selected for diversity reasons? That people in the game industry who aren't of the (white male) dominant demographic are only there for money? That's not an insulting (and demonstrably wrong) insinuation, at all...

Obviously, admitting more people will likely admit more people who are only doing it for the money - because those people are present in every demographic in every well-paying field ever.

The best way to create role models is to cultivate the people in <insert group here> that do go into <insert field here>, and allow them to succeed.

Correct - and I believe that's what most "diversity initiatives" are. ;)

Expanding the number of <insert group here> in a particular field increases the number of potential role models for members that group. Without role models, people who might be interested in a field tend not to go into it. This doesn't just apply to programming or other technical fields; how many girls choose not to go into (eg.) carpentry as a career because they look at it and see that it consists mainly of men? How many boys choose not to go into nursing because most nurses are women?

Role models need visibility. Programming doesn't have the same kind of idolatry that sports players or movie stars have. People see what those people DO. They don't see what WE do, they see what we MAKE. And they only see what we make if they play it.

Unfortunately, the gaming environment is a toxic cesspool of hostility and immaturity, even before factoring in gender. People constantly get into massive flame wars over game balance, "learn to play, idiot!", PS4 vs XB1 vs PC vs Mac, etc. Bullies latch onto and thrive in this environment.

Gender just makes it easier for these bullies to bully. Ever play an online FPS, and the moment a girl says anything on voice chat, a few of these guys *immediately* start harassing her? Who would want to stay in an environment that's actively hostile towards them?

Guys harass guys about what they say/do. Guys harass girls *simply because they are girls*. The insane levels of hostility and immaturity forces girls to hide their identities and feel like they'll be victimized if they ever try to participate fully. That not only drives them out of gaming, it kills their ambition to get into game development, if they ever had it to start.

Gender just makes it easier for these bullies to bully. Ever play an online FPS, and the moment a girl says anything on voice chat, a few of these guys *immediately* start harassing her? Who would want to stay in an environment that's actively hostile towards them?

This is pretty much a non-true trope at this point (At least in PC gaming), as someone who plays tons of FPS games, including with my girlfriend.

Unfortunately, the gaming environment is a toxic cesspool of hostility and immaturity, even before factoring in gender. People constantly get into massive flame wars over game balance, "learn to play, idiot!", PS4 vs XB1 vs PC vs Mac, etc. Bullies latch onto and thrive in this environment.

It's banter 90% of the time to pass the time in lobby/timeouts, I can't even remember the last time I had a legitimately toxic game in CS:GO or Ark.

This is pretty much a non-true trope at this point (At least in PC gaming), as someone who plays tons of FPS games, including with my girlfriend.

As someone who also plays PC FPS games (albeit not as often as I used to), I disagree. Things may be better now, and it may not happen as often, but harassment is still happening. I have personally witnessed it as recently as a few months ago.

Ignoring the headline, look at the data

Keep on mind, this is on Halo/Xbox live, which is known to be the worst of the online gaming communities.

http://gamerant.com/study-bad-gamers-rude-to-women-opponents-teammates-125/

http://imgur.com/zXYYEbH (can't embed it)

Variations of low single digits, and when people are "average" (1:1 k/d) it's almost non-existent.

Of all the verbal outbursts against the female-voiced test subject, 13% were considered hostile sexism, while the rest were insulting in a more general way.

So extremely few (of the very few) insults were about gender as well.

Flaming based on gender's basically dead now adays. Play a bunch of games and count the number of times guys insult each other vs guys insult girls (because of them being a girl). It rarely happens now that gaming's mainstream.

The problem is a cultural one, starting from the day someone is born.

Agreed. I disagree that it's too late to do anything.

One person is born into a world in which the lifelong message is that they're second class. They're told not to take math because they won't need it to become a baby-making machine, or maybe that they'll just end up in jail anyway because that's the way the system is. Hard work doesn't matter because you're not the right type of people.

Another might be born into a situation when of course you can grow up to be anything you want to be. You just have to work hard and the results will stand on their own.

Then along comes a large well-known institution, part of the system, and explicitly cancels an event because it's only for the second kind of person above, not for the first kind.

Do you really think it's too late to be sending a message to the first group of people that there is hope for them to become something?

Do you think that first group, at an early age in which they make decisions about what to do after high school, are too unqualified to make decisions about their future based on how people act and react?

Do you really think that second group is too hard done by because they want something but they can't get it just because they have dangly bits and not enough melanin in their skin?

Marshall McLuhan famously wrote "the medium is the message." The medium here is the holding or cancellation of an event that was within the institution's jurisdiction. The message is that you're included, or it doesn't happen. Trust me, young girls get the message and it affects their decision making.

I mean, I guess it's up for the market to decide, but if I read this, I'd never attend there. Hopefully their application rates drop after this.

While the school as a whole could be that way, to me personally, the poor unilateral decision of one mid-level administrator doesn't reflect badly on the school as a whole.

While you bring up a good point, I'd say artificlally expanding the number of <insert group here> in a particular field is just going to lead to large numbers of people that hate <insert field here>. Of the programmers here (which nearly everyone in this topic, is from my memory), we've all seen the people that get into the field "for the money". The vast majority of them are miserable and hate what they do.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. Are you actually trying to say that the set of people who go into the field "for the money" is the same set of people who were selected for diversity reasons? That people in the game industry who aren't of the (white male) dominant demographic are only there for money? That's not an insulting (and demonstrably wrong) insinuation, at all...

No, I'm saying that the vast majority of people who are artificlally influenced into a major (STEMs in this case, since it's what I'm familiar with) do it at least partially for the money. I didn't think that would be terribly controversial.

The main tool Universities and SIGs use to push "diversity" is the scholarship. Scholarships for low-income or high-achievement students are great, but major-specific are terrible. I can guarantee you that if you dangle a full-ride scholarship in front of someone who didn't go to college on the stipulation that he enroll into a specific (class of) major(s), more likely than not they will take it, and more likely than not, they will find they hate it.

While you bring up a good point, I'd say artificlally expanding the number of <insert group here> in a particular field is just going to lead to large numbers of people that hate <insert field here>. Of the programmers here (which nearly everyone in this topic, is from my memory), we've all seen the people that get into the field "for the money". The vast majority of them are miserable and hate what they do.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. Are you actually trying to say that the set of people who go into the field "for the money" is the same set of people who were selected for diversity reasons? That people in the game industry who aren't of the (white male) dominant demographic are only there for money? That's not an insulting (and demonstrably wrong) insinuation, at all...

No, I'm saying that the vast majority of people who are artificlally influenced into a major (STEMs in this case, since it's what I'm familiar with) do it at least partially for the money. I didn't think that would be terribly controversial.

Well you're making the assumption from the start that people with no interest are going to be pushed into a field...
Most people would instead see it as not pushing people with an interest out of the field.

If we stop pushing interested people away, then the number of people who hate the field and are just in it for the money will obviously decrease... which is the opposite of what you fear.