I think the larger point the author was trying to make was don't give lip service to specifically going out of your way to try and help Black founders if you're still going to use the exact same credentialing signals you always do: track record where someone has worked, name brand of their school, etc.
One might argue that without the special consideration these VC's rushed to say they would give, how would someone like the author ever have an established track record of starting/selling their businesses in the first place?
I'm frankly still expecting VC's to make decisions on what they think is going to be most profitable for them, full-stop. But plenty of other firms like large consulting firms, do set aside people and resources to work with non-profits for example. Why couldn't VC's do the same to try and level the playing field and eliminate some of these inherent advantages the well connected/well credentialed have? A "no" is potentially fine, but how you deliver that "no" can make all the difference.
> I think the larger point the author was trying to make was don't give lip service to specifically going out of your way to try and help Black founders if you're still going to use the exact same credentialing signals you always do: track record where someone has worked, name brand of their school, etc.
I think that's the mistake all these companies are making. They need to make it clear if it's their intent to help black founders, provided, all other things are equal / held constant.
That is if two people have the same or similar background and qualifications but they just happened to be different race then to not always pick the white guy cause, hey, we look alike or belonged to the same frat.
It should leave no room for interpretation as: "hey, you're black, let me throw some money at you cause you happen to be black."
Yes. Exactly this. If a VC is going to use the same filters for inbound deals. The same networks to connect to founders, the same metrics and stats. Then all their rhetoric is BS.
Are you arguing for equality, or affirmative action? (I am not going to take a stance on which one is the right choice, but I do think you are conflating the two.)
One might argue that without the special consideration these VC's rushed to say they would give, how would someone like the author ever have an established track record of starting/selling their businesses in the first place?
I'm frankly still expecting VC's to make decisions on what they think is going to be most profitable for them, full-stop. But plenty of other firms like large consulting firms, do set aside people and resources to work with non-profits for example. Why couldn't VC's do the same to try and level the playing field and eliminate some of these inherent advantages the well connected/well credentialed have? A "no" is potentially fine, but how you deliver that "no" can make all the difference.