Google HR 'suggested medical leave' for racism victims(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Google HR 'suggested medical leave' for racism victims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56321568
174 comments
That makes no sense. If she were as you described, there would have been more people coming forward and exposing her. Google is facing a roiling PR crisis: if there were a bunch of people who truly thought she “used race/sex card for every situation” we would have almost certainly heard about it.
Instead what we have are articles in rather respectable publications describing an incredibly toxic culture at Google, and shifting statements from Google itself as it seeks to try and contain the fallout of the Pandora’s box of racism that has been opened.
Instead what we have are articles in rather respectable publications describing an incredibly toxic culture at Google, and shifting statements from Google itself as it seeks to try and contain the fallout of the Pandora’s box of racism that has been opened.
and if this article were about Timnit Gebru, this ad hominem attack would carry more weight.
You can find plenty of other ex-Googlers saying the same thing:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-advised-mental...
You can find plenty of other ex-Googlers saying the same thing:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-advised-mental...
An excellent reminder that (particularly as a big company) you shouldn't do anything unless you'd be happy with it appearing on a newspaper's front page.
Something sounds wrong with that logic. I'm not entirely sure what, maybe its the suggestion that you should always be afraid of doing anything that the media might not agree with.
If you're happy defending yourself to the Daily Mail (or whoever) then great! I'd be delighted by that.
But at least be aware that it could happen, and you might have to justify your actions.
But at least be aware that it could happen, and you might have to justify your actions.
Can't help but think that this type of mob justice is a contributor to why people on social media are so anxious nowadays
Link to the original source (from NBC, which has more context and details and the BBC article of the post):
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-advised-mental...
BBC, once again, basically repeating Twitter conversations verbatim with no deeper context.
[deleted]
Bit of an unbalanced article.
Whenever politicians, especially "controversial" ones say or do something, news articles happily provide "context" in the form of other things they've said or done that might anchor your perception of this latest thing.
Here, the anchoring wrt Timnit Gebru goes so far as:
Yet I recall a post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25292386
Google doesn't consider that they fired her; She posted an ultimatum and they accepted it as a resignation.
It's also not clear if 'encouraged to make use of "therapy resources"' is the same as medical leave, which is what the article purports to be about.
Whenever politicians, especially "controversial" ones say or do something, news articles happily provide "context" in the form of other things they've said or done that might anchor your perception of this latest thing.
Here, the anchoring wrt Timnit Gebru goes so far as:
Dr Gebru, whose firing led to an international wave of criticism of Google and widespread support from her colleagues
Yet I recall a post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25292386
Google doesn't consider that they fired her; She posted an ultimatum and they accepted it as a resignation.
It's also not clear if 'encouraged to make use of "therapy resources"' is the same as medical leave, which is what the article purports to be about.
[deleted]
This reminds me of a truism that most people seem to forgot...
HR is never your friend.
HR is there to protect the company and nothing more. What's worse, even if you try running an ethical one, if you grow big enough at some point you start hiring directly into HR people with experience with HR elsewhere, and that means importing the same bad practices - this is not a defense of Google, it's more a reminder to all of us that it can happen even in your own company.
HR is never your friend.
HR is there to protect the company and nothing more. What's worse, even if you try running an ethical one, if you grow big enough at some point you start hiring directly into HR people with experience with HR elsewhere, and that means importing the same bad practices - this is not a defense of Google, it's more a reminder to all of us that it can happen even in your own company.
What grates me is that HR is full of people who go out of their way to appear as your friend. It's plain deception.
If they were merely unapproachable and grumpy that wouldn't be so bad. But they put on their smiley faces, ask about your well-being etc all while screwing you behind closed doors.
If they were merely unapproachable and grumpy that wouldn't be so bad. But they put on their smiley faces, ask about your well-being etc all while screwing you behind closed doors.
Simultaneously both sad and funny is that sometimes they are genuinely trying. Which led to awkward case, when I - already leaving the company - joined so-called "haters meeting" which was supposed to bring feedback to the company, unfiltered... and I made head of HR cry by demolishing the whole "support for employee training and certification" program :(
The top management (i.e. owner representatives) didn't see anything wrong with their turbo-libertarian policy (or were unsuccessfully trying to hide that they didn't actually want to provide any support) and left HR holding the bucket. Learning that pretty much anyone who wasn't wide eyed junior that has yet to finish studies considered the whole training&certification program to be a fig leaf that was more hassle than its worth (the quote was "anyone self-motivated enough the way management claims they want, is also wise enough to not lose time on something with zero expected payoff and will get training/certs on their own - then leave for better place").
That company has later went with worse and worse HR, in fact - a friend of mine who stayed on for few more years talked about how successive changes in HR went worse and worse. The one I faced could be considered last somewhat good team :(
The top management (i.e. owner representatives) didn't see anything wrong with their turbo-libertarian policy (or were unsuccessfully trying to hide that they didn't actually want to provide any support) and left HR holding the bucket. Learning that pretty much anyone who wasn't wide eyed junior that has yet to finish studies considered the whole training&certification program to be a fig leaf that was more hassle than its worth (the quote was "anyone self-motivated enough the way management claims they want, is also wise enough to not lose time on something with zero expected payoff and will get training/certs on their own - then leave for better place").
That company has later went with worse and worse HR, in fact - a friend of mine who stayed on for few more years talked about how successive changes in HR went worse and worse. The one I faced could be considered last somewhat good team :(
Which applies to all areas. As your organization grows it more and more attracts people who typically just switch jobs between organizations of the same size, and bring their culture, "best practices" that are typically the worst, approaches to work and other values with them.
At the same time you can see founders caring less and less about what's going on.
Is there a way to stop this? I don't think so for as long as there's a lot of investment money in circulation. Raising money for any more or less successful tech business is so cheap these days that founders rarely think of the alternatives, such as not raising and staying lean.
At the same time you can see founders caring less and less about what's going on.
Is there a way to stop this? I don't think so for as long as there's a lot of investment money in circulation. Raising money for any more or less successful tech business is so cheap these days that founders rarely think of the alternatives, such as not raising and staying lean.
What you're describing is regression to the mean (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean). I would think avoiding this involves maintaining a high bar for recruiting, at the cost of having to hire more slowly and probably pay more than your competitors.
That, or you accept it and become a Java shop.
That, or you accept it and become a Java shop.
> That, or you accept it and become a Java shop.
This, in a topic focusing on HR... It hits far too close to home. Java is now our recommended language, and HR is implementing all kinds of policies like “pay leveling” and “engineering promotions require job reqs complete with interviews” and “pay raises can only occur in N month”.
This, in a topic focusing on HR... It hits far too close to home. Java is now our recommended language, and HR is implementing all kinds of policies like “pay leveling” and “engineering promotions require job reqs complete with interviews” and “pay raises can only occur in N month”.
When bureaucrats are in charge of the business, it will be run as a bureaucracy: focusing on standardisation, quantified measurements and derisking. It's a process of stagnation.
Well how else to make sure all your dollars go to the right place? I'm not suggesting that a rigid, top-down structure is necessary, but there must some way of pursuing effectiveness, knowledge, and efficiency with relying on serendipity or cargo cult superstition. With this in mind, I'd argue the opposite of your claim: stagnation by bureaucracy is a conditional failure to achieve your stated ends. It isn't the inevitable evolution towards decline that you suggest it is. A working bureaucracy should behave like a working scientific instrument.
Innovation can't come from measuring what you already have. You can use heuristics or metrics to confirm you've done the right thing once you try something but you can't use them effectively to innovate. Only to optimise, which is stagnation if you don't also innovate.
Yep a high bar has to be constantly maintained even if it mean that 'growth' is slow:
My thoughts on the subject: https://realminority.wordpress.com/
My thoughts on the subject: https://realminority.wordpress.com/
And also that choices of HR aren't easy. Should they've fired the other person for a remark that might've been with good intent? That would be at least as damaging.
And they probably had a talk with other people involved, not all actions are disclosed to the affected employee.
And they probably had a talk with other people involved, not all actions are disclosed to the affected employee.
Why jump immediately to firing? Talk to people first. Don’t start the process by making someone go on medical leave (medical leave is typically paid at a much lower rate than working; it depends on who the company hires (think Aflack and similar)).
Cruz pushed the topic three times, on the third (after being told the case was closed the 2nd time) they told him to go on leave.
"We have come to the conclusion that you shouldn't feel insulted by this, so we're going to force you to take a break on reduced pay and talk to a psychologist."
Repeatedly going back to HR with this issue clearly indicates that Cruz felt uncomfortable working in this environment. It's unfortunate how this would be enough to trigger a sexism claim (which is backed by law), but not a racism claim.
Repeatedly going back to HR with this issue clearly indicates that Cruz felt uncomfortable working in this environment. It's unfortunate how this would be enough to trigger a sexism claim (which is backed by law), but not a racism claim.
That's very speculative; it could indicate Cruz felt uncomfortable working in this environment. It might be enough to trigger a sexism claim - though I'm not sure if a single comment is enough to prove a hostile working environment.
I could just as well speculate that badgering HR over a single inconsequential incident got Cruz flagged as a nuisance s.t. they attempted to move him out.
I could just as well speculate that badgering HR over a single inconsequential incident got Cruz flagged as a nuisance s.t. they attempted to move him out.
Well, the comment could be made about work more generally, at least at any company that's bigger than say 5-10 people: Your work is not your friend, and even your colleagues who are your friends outside of work are not your friends while at work.
HR can very much act with your best interests at heart... so long as those best interests align with the company's best interests.
HR can very much act with your best interests at heart... so long as those best interests align with the company's best interests.
I remember many years ago working at a large company that was proud to display "HR Help Hotline" posters at conspicuous locations in all offices. We used to joke that the number was connected to an automated P45 printer....
The only time you'd see one of the HR folks about you knew someone was going to get fired - it was the only reason they'd ever show up at our site.
The only time you'd see one of the HR folks about you knew someone was going to get fired - it was the only reason they'd ever show up at our site.
This sometimes backfires hilariously when HR is trying to do something good.
Case in point from my job history: Official policy (mandated by parent company) was that externals (i.e. contractors etc.) weren't included in christmas event or anything like that. Due to unrelated things the "externals" made a significant chunk of the workers, and well, HR actually wanted to do something good and bypass the policy.
So they send an email telling everyone in the external group to meet on day X in conference room Y. Imagine bushy-tailed head of HR coming with "hey, the policy doesn't allow it, so we're doing it off the books, everyone is invited just without paper trail" to a big conference room full of people expecting to hear they are going to be fired...
Case in point from my job history: Official policy (mandated by parent company) was that externals (i.e. contractors etc.) weren't included in christmas event or anything like that. Due to unrelated things the "externals" made a significant chunk of the workers, and well, HR actually wanted to do something good and bypass the policy.
So they send an email telling everyone in the external group to meet on day X in conference room Y. Imagine bushy-tailed head of HR coming with "hey, the policy doesn't allow it, so we're doing it off the books, everyone is invited just without paper trail" to a big conference room full of people expecting to hear they are going to be fired...
> an automated P45 printer
For the non-Brits: a "P45" is a form you get given when you leave a job, for example if you're fired.
For the non-Brits: a "P45" is a form you get given when you leave a job, for example if you're fired.
>if you grow big enough at some point you start hiring directly into HR people with experience with HR elsewhere,
One does have the option not to grow, and stick with only the right people, correct? The temptation to grow big I guess is huge.
One does have the option not to grow, and stick with only the right people, correct? The temptation to grow big I guess is huge.
News related to this is getting buried and flagged on HN yesterday and today.
Flagged thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26383977
Another: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26383160
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26374822
So many insensitive comments.
Google already had sexual harassment issues stemming from some top leaders in the past. They didn't get punished.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-...
Also, these threads often cause comments that have no clue about the reality of black people. For those who are ok with videos, here are some good but enjoyable ones. You may use 'NewPipe' from fdroid or the youtube-dl command line utility to download them:
[1] How to pretend systemic racism does not exist? (with eng subtitles) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ciwjHVHYg
[2] Let's talk about what it's like to be a black person in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD8mWq0Hdcw
[3] Let's talk about being armed and black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_IX8yX_JU
[4] How cops are trained to shoot you in your home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuzQrbio2Qw
Other resources include James Baldwin's books and documentaries. His 'The Fire Next Time' is just 120 pages [5].
'The Price of the Ticket' and 'I Am Not Your Negro' are good documentaries [6][7].
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Next-Time-James-Baldwin/dp/06797...
[6] https://www.amazon.com/James-Baldwin-Price-Ticket/dp/B01M25W...
[7] https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Not-Your-Negro/dp/B01MR52U7T
[8] Also the 1965 Baldwin and Buckley debate on the theme "Has the American dream been achieved at the expense of the American negro?" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxLUbKebYvc
English subtitle download: https://amara.org/en/videos/dGI1henIPVYS/en/1338731/
Flagged thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26383977
Another: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26383160
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26374822
So many insensitive comments.
Google already had sexual harassment issues stemming from some top leaders in the past. They didn't get punished.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-...
Also, these threads often cause comments that have no clue about the reality of black people. For those who are ok with videos, here are some good but enjoyable ones. You may use 'NewPipe' from fdroid or the youtube-dl command line utility to download them:
[1] How to pretend systemic racism does not exist? (with eng subtitles) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ciwjHVHYg
[2] Let's talk about what it's like to be a black person in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD8mWq0Hdcw
[3] Let's talk about being armed and black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_IX8yX_JU
[4] How cops are trained to shoot you in your home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuzQrbio2Qw
Other resources include James Baldwin's books and documentaries. His 'The Fire Next Time' is just 120 pages [5].
'The Price of the Ticket' and 'I Am Not Your Negro' are good documentaries [6][7].
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Next-Time-James-Baldwin/dp/06797...
[6] https://www.amazon.com/James-Baldwin-Price-Ticket/dp/B01M25W...
[7] https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Not-Your-Negro/dp/B01MR52U7T
[8] Also the 1965 Baldwin and Buckley debate on the theme "Has the American dream been achieved at the expense of the American negro?" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxLUbKebYvc
English subtitle download: https://amara.org/en/videos/dGI1henIPVYS/en/1338731/
"2019 after being told by a colleague that their skin was much darker than the co-worker expected."
This is not fucking racism, and maybe one should seek help if a question like this really affects you.
This is not fucking racism, and maybe one should seek help if a question like this really affects you.
Please don't take HN threads into flamewar regardless of how strongly you feel about something. It's not what this site is for, and it evokes considerably worse from others.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There is an important aspect of how we interact with each other in the work place and this is indicative of a poisonous anti-human agenda to control those interactions.
Unfortunately I didn't really start it off too well and apology for being somewhat inflammatory.
Unfortunately I didn't really start it off too well and apology for being somewhat inflammatory.
I agree with the first half of your first sentence. But 'poisonous anti-human agenda' — I mean I'm no corporatist but that already starts to sound a bit like internet projection to me. We don't really know as much as it feels like we know about these situations when very-partial stories make it online. We're all filling in a lot of details from imagination, based on our own past experiences, without realizing we're doing that (which is what I mean by projection). In my experience, more thoughtful online conversation starts with slowing that mental process down and unpacking it a bit. I've described this in terms of 'reflexive' vs. 'reflective' in the past - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Anyhow, you needn't agree—these are just some thoughts that came up when I realized I had a bifurcated response to your first sentence.
As for the second sentence: appreciated!
As for the second sentence: appreciated!
I can't even imagine what this comment means/how it's used. There is really not enough context here. "expected?" Like the first time they met them?
It seems like Google HR's initial response of "assume good intent"[0] seems reasonable, absent additional details:
> Cruz, who is Mexican American and prefers to be identified by the pronouns they/them, reported the incident to human resources in 2019 where personnel told them they should “assume good intent,” Cruz recalled in an interview. Unsatisfied, Cruz asked human resources to look deeper into the incident, and an HR official said an investigation into the matter had been closed, Cruz said.
I feel like the journalist failed to actually convince us that this was something newsworthy.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-advised-mental...
It seems like Google HR's initial response of "assume good intent"[0] seems reasonable, absent additional details:
> Cruz, who is Mexican American and prefers to be identified by the pronouns they/them, reported the incident to human resources in 2019 where personnel told them they should “assume good intent,” Cruz recalled in an interview. Unsatisfied, Cruz asked human resources to look deeper into the incident, and an HR official said an investigation into the matter had been closed, Cruz said.
I feel like the journalist failed to actually convince us that this was something newsworthy.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-advised-mental...
right, especially as "after being told by a colleague that their skin was much darker than the co-worker expected." is a description of what happened, not an actual record of what was said. There are lots of ways that can be said, some of which could be extremely racist.
I was once called racist because I was surprised that someone I had only talked to via irc was black. I come from Scotland, there was maybe 10 black people in my town of 30,000 people. In the IT security scene most people are white. A few years later, I met a woman at one of the meetups she laughed about how everyone was surprised she was female because she aware everyone just assumes you're a guy.
Honestly, I think some people just want to be a victim in some way. Gives them an excuse as to why things aren't going there way.
Honestly, I think some people just want to be a victim in some way. Gives them an excuse as to why things aren't going there way.
I don't think that being surprised by the physical appearance of somebody that you only interacted with online says anything about you but I assume that if you were called racist it means that you remarked on it? If so that's at the very least a bit gauche. That the type of stuff I'd keep to myself to avoid making people uncomfortable.
Keep in mind that the 10 black people in a city of 30k are probably tired of having interactions and remarks centering on their skin color, even if they're not negative.
Keep in mind that the 10 black people in a city of 30k are probably tired of having interactions and remarks centering on their skin color, even if they're not negative.
> but I assume that if you were called racist it means that you remarked on it
Well, it was via a telephone call and they made a point of bring it up. So I was "Oh, you're black." literally just shocked. I commented on the conference because I was at a conference and he was meant to be there but couldn't be so we chatted on the phone.
Well, it was via a telephone call and they made a point of bring it up. So I was "Oh, you're black." literally just shocked. I commented on the conference because I was at a conference and he was meant to be there but couldn't be so we chatted on the phone.
Ironic here that you just want to be the victim, isn't it?
Honestly, I didn't think him thinking I was racist because of his frame of mind made me the victim of anything. If anything it makes him the victim. I've been called many things in my life and normally I don't care because I don't specifically care about what that person thinks.
That you were surprised just shows that there's something wrong with the system (education, social or whatever) that so few black people end up in well paying tech jobs. Being surprised to encounter one isn't racist as long as you're not negatively surprised.
It's the same as being surprised that the CEO of a large company is a woman. That in itself is not sexist but shows that something's wrong with society.
It's the same as being surprised that the CEO of a large company is a woman. That in itself is not sexist but shows that something's wrong with society.
Or that black people are uncommon in the region that they were in and therefore not encountered often.
Having "10 black people in my town of 30,000 people" is not a failure of any system.
Having "10 black people in my town of 30,000 people" is not a failure of any system.
Yea, Scotland is something like 98% white. I literally never met a black person until I was 17. We had lots of Asians and Indians but not black people.
I grew up around Bristol, but didn't meet a black person until 6th-form college.
She was a classmate and we hung out a bit. I bothered her with sooo many questions. I think today it would probably be unacceptable, but this was the 80's so a different age. And I was so curious about what being black was like (and no internet to satisfy that curiosity without asking an actual black person).
She was a classmate and we hung out a bit. I bothered her with sooo many questions. I think today it would probably be unacceptable, but this was the 80's so a different age. And I was so curious about what being black was like (and no internet to satisfy that curiosity without asking an actual black person).
[deleted]
He just said he’s from a town of 30k people with 10 blacks. How exactly is assuming someone you talk to is from the 99.9% majority not normal?
Of course this is the perfect example of our society today, where if you try and see racism sexism everywhere, you’ll see it. Even if it’s not actually there
Of course this is the perfect example of our society today, where if you try and see racism sexism everywhere, you’ll see it. Even if it’s not actually there
[deleted]
The key is in "expected". Why did someone expect another person to be of a certain color? Note that the person in question is named Benjamin Cruz, and has a skin tone more or less consistent with their name [1], and not especially dark.
So the question is why the expectation of "being white" was there. A reasonable interpretation (with limited knowledge, of course) is that they expected Cruz to be white because they expect mostly white people to be hired at their level. That is clearly racism, as you're attributing intelligence to race.
Of course there are other interpretations, but I wouldn't say that 'you should seek help if you see racism' is helpful at all.
1: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-advised-mental...
So the question is why the expectation of "being white" was there. A reasonable interpretation (with limited knowledge, of course) is that they expected Cruz to be white because they expect mostly white people to be hired at their level. That is clearly racism, as you're attributing intelligence to race.
Of course there are other interpretations, but I wouldn't say that 'you should seek help if you see racism' is helpful at all.
1: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-advised-mental...
That expectation was there because of a photograph of the employee. The expectation was violated because the employee spent some time in Egypt and acquired a tan in the process. Nothing to do with racism.
Was that (relevant) info in an article?
It was mentioned in another thread.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26384305
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26384305
It looks like speculation
I've heard "Wow, you speak English better than I expected!", "You have no accent at all!" and similar said to Indian and Asian colleagues, some of these colleagues were born in the US and for all intents and purposes shared the same American childhood as you and me. Is it racist? I don't know. It does imply a ready and closely-held stereotype, though.
There are probably situations where it's an innocuous remark, but surely you can see that depending on the tone and what is implied, it might be extremely offensive, not very different from saying something like "oh, you're a woman, that's certainly surprising because women are awful at math and coding!"
considering the non-African's that have darker skin color probably not. Such as Malaysian, Philipino, Mexican, etc.
jpxw(2)
How in the hell is that not racism?
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Doing that is just as bad as starting it in the first place.
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Because there is no bigotry in that statement, only an awkward observation of a superficial trait?
"You are much more smart because your skin is lighter than I expected," now that would be racism.
Or "I will be happier to work with you because you are lighter than expected."
Or "You must have gotten that job because you are lighter than expected."
"You are much more smart because your skin is lighter than I expected," now that would be racism.
Or "I will be happier to work with you because you are lighter than expected."
Or "You must have gotten that job because you are lighter than expected."
The question is, why make the comment at all? There’s literally no reason to make that comment out loud.
If you’re making the comment, it’s because you’ve internalized a few stereotypes around skin color, and made an assumption based solely on those stereotypes. Stop yourself at the point where you’re making the assumption.
If you’re making the comment, it’s because you’ve internalized a few stereotypes around skin color, and made an assumption based solely on those stereotypes. Stop yourself at the point where you’re making the assumption.
How do you imagine a generic person in your mind? Purple? Multicolored?
Probably each person has some mind-image that’s more common than others (probably guided by early childhood experiences, or mirror image of you), or even if you’re on average unbiased there’s still going to be some image you have in mind for each particular person, which is a perfectly legitimate reason to be surprised upon finally meeting that person.
Honestly the only reason this is controversial is because of “skin color” and the current political climate.
“Oh, I’m surprised, I imagine you having red hair.”
“How come you imagined me having red hair?”
“Don’t know, just because.”
Probably each person has some mind-image that’s more common than others (probably guided by early childhood experiences, or mirror image of you), or even if you’re on average unbiased there’s still going to be some image you have in mind for each particular person, which is a perfectly legitimate reason to be surprised upon finally meeting that person.
Honestly the only reason this is controversial is because of “skin color” and the current political climate.
“Oh, I’m surprised, I imagine you having red hair.”
“How come you imagined me having red hair?”
“Don’t know, just because.”
> Honestly the only reason this is controversial is because of “skin color” and the current political climate.
Inherent in assuming a skin color is the implied association between, for example, intelligence and skin color.
"I'm surprised you're black," is not so far off from the acknowledged insult, "You're really $X for a woman."
WRT your example, anger issues are stereotypically associated with red hair, so there could be an implied "you have anger issues" that goes with that. "Oh, no reason," is also a very common deflection when being called out for poor assumptions or implied insults.
Inherent in assuming a skin color is the implied association between, for example, intelligence and skin color.
"I'm surprised you're black," is not so far off from the acknowledged insult, "You're really $X for a woman."
WRT your example, anger issues are stereotypically associated with red hair, so there could be an implied "you have anger issues" that goes with that. "Oh, no reason," is also a very common deflection when being called out for poor assumptions or implied insults.
Some people (you, apparently) have these associations, others (e.g. me) don’t. It’s quite prejudiced to assume that everyone has them.
It's more likely that folks who claim to not have these associations simply haven't identified their unconscious biases yet.
There is always a reason associations between mental traits and physical features exist, even if you're not consciously aware of it.
EDIT: And to go a different direction, if someone truely doesn't make such associations... Now that they know some people do recognize those associations, just be polite and don't make such comments about people's appearance - be it skin color, hair color, height, weight, etc.
There is always a reason associations between mental traits and physical features exist, even if you're not consciously aware of it.
EDIT: And to go a different direction, if someone truely doesn't make such associations... Now that they know some people do recognize those associations, just be polite and don't make such comments about people's appearance - be it skin color, hair color, height, weight, etc.
I’d prefer if other people were polite and didn’t accuse others of racism over innocent remarks.
There is a long history of white people assuming white people are more intelligent.
When you meet a software developer, saying they're unexpectedly dark strongly implies you didn't think someone of that ethnicity was capable of being a software developer.
It doesn't need to be spelled out -- the implication is very clear, and if an employee claims to be ignorant of this, they should at least be sent on the race awareness training.
When you meet a software developer, saying they're unexpectedly dark strongly implies you didn't think someone of that ethnicity was capable of being a software developer.
It doesn't need to be spelled out -- the implication is very clear, and if an employee claims to be ignorant of this, they should at least be sent on the race awareness training.
"strongly implies", "the implication is very clear"
"Assume the worst" = This is precisely the kind of mind reading that leads to a paranoid, unhappy, eternally vigilant society.
"Assume the worst" = This is precisely the kind of mind reading that leads to a paranoid, unhappy, eternally vigilant society.
The first time I meet a remote colleague I'm often surprised by their height, and a very common statement is "Wow I never realised you were this tall!"
I don't see the difference between that and realising someone is a different ethnicity than you expected.
Racism is (by definition) prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism. Being surprised because someone looks different than you imagined is nothing like that.
I don't see the difference between that and realising someone is a different ethnicity than you expected.
Racism is (by definition) prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism. Being surprised because someone looks different than you imagined is nothing like that.
> I'm often surprised by their height
Because they're of an unusual height, I assume. You had an expectation that they were of average height.
You can look at the pictures of the person that received that comment. They don't have an unusual skin color, and the ethnicity matches their name (say, they don't have a Russian sounding name with really dark, almost black skin). It shouldn't be unexpected to see their skin color.
Another option is that the expectation didn't come from averages nor names, and it came from prejudice about how software engineers look like. So yes, it definitely can be interpreted as a racist remark.
Because they're of an unusual height, I assume. You had an expectation that they were of average height.
You can look at the pictures of the person that received that comment. They don't have an unusual skin color, and the ethnicity matches their name (say, they don't have a Russian sounding name with really dark, almost black skin). It shouldn't be unexpected to see their skin color.
Another option is that the expectation didn't come from averages nor names, and it came from prejudice about how software engineers look like. So yes, it definitely can be interpreted as a racist remark.
Perhaps they had a bad camera.
My color of skin definitely depends on the camera I sit in front of. The best cameras are as good as a mirror, but lower quality cameras built in laptops are awful. Looking at greenish or greyish myself is a bit nauseating.
My color of skin definitely depends on the camera I sit in front of. The best cameras are as good as a mirror, but lower quality cameras built in laptops are awful. Looking at greenish or greyish myself is a bit nauseating.
Clearly you're implying they should be playing basketball and have no business being in whatever career they're in
You're leaping to an incredibly negative assumption of the speaker's intent, and then onto a form of punishment for that person. I think the "assume good intent" approach is more appropriate in these kinds of situations where it's incredibly ambiguous.
> saying they're unexpectedly dark strongly implies you didn't think someone of that ethnicity was capable of being a software developer.
Everything is blue if you wear blue tinted glasses
I live in a city where I expect everyone to be expectedly dark, and anyone that come near to my white shade is very unexpectedly light
If I go to the pale end of the country, any darker skin would be unexpected, no matter the job title and no matter the IQ level
No unexpecting person should be liable for your projected meaning on surprising turn of events
Everything is blue if you wear blue tinted glasses
I live in a city where I expect everyone to be expectedly dark, and anyone that come near to my white shade is very unexpectedly light
If I go to the pale end of the country, any darker skin would be unexpected, no matter the job title and no matter the IQ level
No unexpecting person should be liable for your projected meaning on surprising turn of events
Remarking on the colour of some ones skin is like saying you have very blond hair. Are we in denial of skin tone or something and that it's different from various regions of earth, come on.
[deleted]
booleangate(1)
It's not a remark, it's an expectation. Imagine if you had blond hair and someone said "Oh, I did not expect an engineer to be blond". It's like they are saying "the stereotypes say you shouldn't be smart". At best, it's rude.
> Imagine if you had blond hair and someone said "Oh, I did not expect an engineer to be blond"
That's because you explicitly added the "an engineer" part to make the insinuation clear.
That's because you explicitly added the "an engineer" part to make the insinuation clear.
Is any discussion about skin color racist? If I see a picture of someone and then see them in real-life where they look different, I'd comment if it was about the color of their hair. Is it not ok to comment if it's about the color of their skin instead?
As long as it has nothing to do with work performance or other character traits, I don't see racism here. Otherwise you'd need to ban any discussion about appearances at the work place.
As long as it has nothing to do with work performance or other character traits, I don't see racism here. Otherwise you'd need to ban any discussion about appearances at the work place.
Just avoid comments about peoples personal appearance all together. Maybe somebody doesn't want to be told they're short or dark or whatever. I was introduced to a guy via email and spoke to him on IRC for nearly a year before he came to the office, when he arrived he was wearing a dress and carrying a handbag - I decided to not comment on his appearance. Try it...
But then you're essentially defining racism as "anything that gets you in trouble."
It's perfectly reasonable to adjust coming anywhere close to discussing race as a strategy to avoid getting fired, but it's insane to redefine racism based on that.
We're doing that, and it results in a constantly expanding definition of racism, to where there are now "microaggressions."
Keep in mind, if you're white, you don't care: as you suggested, you just avoid talking about certain topics and carry on.
If you're a minority group, all these white people are, against their own apparent interests, agreeing that there's pervasive racism everywhere. The minority person has to live believing that all this is true.
We ought to have empathy and get this right so we don't contribute to a pervasive falsehood that makes people's lives seem worse than they really are. What's no big deal for us can be a ton of stress for others.
It's perfectly reasonable to adjust coming anywhere close to discussing race as a strategy to avoid getting fired, but it's insane to redefine racism based on that.
We're doing that, and it results in a constantly expanding definition of racism, to where there are now "microaggressions."
Keep in mind, if you're white, you don't care: as you suggested, you just avoid talking about certain topics and carry on.
If you're a minority group, all these white people are, against their own apparent interests, agreeing that there's pervasive racism everywhere. The minority person has to live believing that all this is true.
We ought to have empathy and get this right so we don't contribute to a pervasive falsehood that makes people's lives seem worse than they really are. What's no big deal for us can be a ton of stress for others.
Context matters - and we don't know the context of the conversation.
If the commenter was being flippant or dismissive or generally uncaring in their conversation it could be taken as racist by someone sensitive to such things.
If the comment was delivered with zero malicious intent and was merely a throwaway observation then it's not racist and only someone looking for offense would take it that way.
Like I said, without background knowledge and context it's impossible to determine if it was a racist remark or not.
If the commenter was being flippant or dismissive or generally uncaring in their conversation it could be taken as racist by someone sensitive to such things.
If the comment was delivered with zero malicious intent and was merely a throwaway observation then it's not racist and only someone looking for offense would take it that way.
Like I said, without background knowledge and context it's impossible to determine if it was a racist remark or not.
Playing the devil's advocate. If someone tells you 'tomorrow you'll meet your new colleague Lars from Sweden' consciously or not you'll form expectation about his skin color.
I had something like that some years ago. My sister has a friend called Christine, and my sister had mentioned her several times before I first met her.
Turned out that while Christine was born and raised here in Norway, she had two Thai parents.
There's not a large Thai population here, and Christine is not a name I associated with Thais, so I was quite surprised by it. Not in a positive or negative way, just plain old surprised.
Turned out that while Christine was born and raised here in Norway, she had two Thai parents.
There's not a large Thai population here, and Christine is not a name I associated with Thais, so I was quite surprised by it. Not in a positive or negative way, just plain old surprised.
I actually have one as well. At some point I was chatting a lot with a customer agent from one of our partner. To me their name sounded Russian so I assumed they were of Russian origin. Turns out they are from a Sub-saharan African country. Like you I was very surprised when I learnt it.
Given that name it IS statistically much more likely that he's white, so would there be anything malicious about that expectation?
True, but there's a difference between having an expectation and clumsily articulating it in a welcome meeting. On the balance of probability a new software developer is likely to be male and so you might be surprised that new dev with unisex name is female, but saying "oh, we weren't expecting a woman" when they walk in is obviously going to raise some very significant questions about your attitude
[deleted]
We make all kinds of assumptions every moment of every day. We don’t go yelling it out when those assumptions are wrong, because there’s no need to.
Where in that sentence is it implied that one race ( or skin color ) is superior to the other ?
Maybe that's my autism talking, idk, but I fail to see how one can find racism in that sentence.
Maybe that's my autism talking, idk, but I fail to see how one can find racism in that sentence.
It is not explicitly implied in the sentence, which can make it harder to parse for those of us on the spectrum, but no doubt hearing this kind of comment has an othering effect for most people. The fact that you’re not as “expected” can imply you’re not part of the right group.
Racism is the structural discrimination and exclusion of certain groups of people, and this is one of the ways in which it perpetuates. If every person who isn’t white is made to feel unwelcome (even if unintentionally), is that not de facto discrimination?
A lot of this stuff goes over my head, but it is there and it’s up to us to learn to recognise it when it has a detrimental effect on our friends and coworkers.
Racism is the structural discrimination and exclusion of certain groups of people, and this is one of the ways in which it perpetuates. If every person who isn’t white is made to feel unwelcome (even if unintentionally), is that not de facto discrimination?
A lot of this stuff goes over my head, but it is there and it’s up to us to learn to recognise it when it has a detrimental effect on our friends and coworkers.
By the whole surrounding system that treated differently and badly people according to their skin color for ages? People who say a skin color comment is just like a hair color one are delusional. Obviously there are different levels of racism, but a comment like this is already racist because it's expliciting expectations based on people's origins.
What is racist about expecting a correlation between origin and ethnicity? Would it be racism to expect Mr Wang from Shanghai or Hanako from Kyoto to be ethnically Asian?
I've been called super white and super pale. Is that racism?
darkwater(8)
No, because the new dogmatic definition of racism and sexism excludes the possibility of white people and men as a gender ever being discriminated against at.
Also known as “There’s no such thing as reverse racism!”, which as a premise to fight racism (different treatment based on skin-colour) starts off by dividing people into different skin-colours, so that they can be treated differently (and the equivalent mental exercise for sexism/gender).
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s being done seriously and gaining momentum.
Also known as “There’s no such thing as reverse racism!”, which as a premise to fight racism (different treatment based on skin-colour) starts off by dividing people into different skin-colours, so that they can be treated differently (and the equivalent mental exercise for sexism/gender).
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s being done seriously and gaining momentum.
Would the statement "your hair is much lighter than I expected" be racist? How about "your eye color is much lighter than expected"? Why is skin color different than any other superficial characteristic?
I'm extremely puzzled as to how you see that as racist, and even more puzzled at how you seem puzzled yourself.
It might be racism if one enjoys putting the gravest label imaginable on a situation. But if that is the worst the person experienced it is something that anyone should be prepared do deal with without invoking all sorts of institutions. I have experienced things like that occasionally because I am gay. The lightest shades of homophobia can be dealt with by just ignoring them. Just being ignored makes a decent person already think something along the lines of 'ow... maybe I should not have said that ...' and they will most likely just stop. The problem with the modern forms of equality thinking seems to be that we need to work very hard to eradicate even infinitesimal levels of racism or homophobia. This then deteriorates into a rather scary thought police that is much worse than the problem it allegedly attempted to solve. I am saying 'allegedly' because these people probably just enjoy bossing everybody around and found this issue as a means to do that rather than actually caring about he issue. The bigger problem is that when people in minorities start believing such things it makes them weaker and not stronger.
That's like someone being offended when someone gets called pasty or pale as hell.
This might be somewhat of a tangent, but I'm extremely pale. I don't tan, I burn, no matter how hard I try, and I stay milky white (or turn lobster red) no matter how long I stay in the sun.
I used to get teased for this constantly as a teenager. Every time the weather was nice, and especially if I was returning home from a holiday in a sunny destination, I knew I'd get the same idiotic comments about my failure to get a tan. I hated it, and I resented people who said this to me. Not because I'm insecure about the colour of my skin (really, I don't give a fuck about tanning) - just that it was so boring. The same stupid, boring, tedious jokes again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Give me a break.
This doesn't make me a victim of racism, and I can't think of any other disadvantages to my skin colour except perhaps an increased suncream budget. But I do find it offensive. You're not funny, and I've heard it a million times before.
Rant over.
(Edit: to be clear, I don't find it offensive if someone simply described me as "white" or "pale" - only when they make unoriginal jokes about it.)
I used to get teased for this constantly as a teenager. Every time the weather was nice, and especially if I was returning home from a holiday in a sunny destination, I knew I'd get the same idiotic comments about my failure to get a tan. I hated it, and I resented people who said this to me. Not because I'm insecure about the colour of my skin (really, I don't give a fuck about tanning) - just that it was so boring. The same stupid, boring, tedious jokes again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Give me a break.
This doesn't make me a victim of racism, and I can't think of any other disadvantages to my skin colour except perhaps an increased suncream budget. But I do find it offensive. You're not funny, and I've heard it a million times before.
Rant over.
(Edit: to be clear, I don't find it offensive if someone simply described me as "white" or "pale" - only when they make unoriginal jokes about it.)
Ditto, I have that fine pale, eastern european, 12 hours in front of a screen colour going. Honestly, the lobster jokes were quite funny for me as sometimes I would wear a matching red t-shirt without noticing just how lobster looking I was. I've had plenty of sun strokes too when I was younger and playing football in peak lunch heat. That's my level of pasty. My wife tans in minutes so I am jealous but so what.
I had plenty of eastern european cheap labour jokes from friends, I just played along depending on their skin colour or race. No one was upset and we all laughed at our unique differences.
I had plenty of eastern european cheap labour jokes from friends, I just played along depending on their skin colour or race. No one was upset and we all laughed at our unique differences.
Your right it is.
Any mention of skin tone is verboten!
We must not mention it no matter the context!
Any mention of skin tone is verboten!
We must not mention it no matter the context!
I mean, yes, judge people on the quality of their code, not the colour of their skin. It's opinions like these that make me think that clearly public shame isn't enough to get it into people's heads.
Where was the judgement?
If I recall correctly (from the other HN discussion) the person in question had vacationed some where tropical and the comment was about how much she had/hadn’t tanned.
I believe the person making the complaint actually raised the topic originally.
If I recall correctly (from the other HN discussion) the person in question had vacationed some where tropical and the comment was about how much she had/hadn’t tanned.
I believe the person making the complaint actually raised the topic originally.
Because the parent commenter is ignorant, ignorance should be met with calmness and education instead of backlash.
In what way is it ignorant, should I be offended because some one remarks on my pasty white skin or the slight red tinge to my hair.
Please inform me because I didn't get the memo.
Please inform me because I didn't get the memo.
I dunno, having a bit of ginger myself has made me the target of jokes and ridicule. Being a bit of a nerd means my skin is far often pastier than others, and people comment on it. I have been called translucent and have asked if I have half a soul because my beard is ginger and my hair is brown. People say ignorant idiotic crap all the time. It's ignorance, judging people based on their appearance, and it's been happening to anyone not white for centuries.
Sure, but making everyone scared to have any sort of discourse with people for fear of offending each other will do nothing to improve racial integration.
I'm of Irish decent and it has had it's fair share of stigmatism throughout history yet most of us pretty pasty white.
I'm of Irish decent and it has had it's fair share of stigmatism throughout history yet most of us pretty pasty white.
I don't know about you, but I don't really wanna discourse with people who are so superficial as to ridicule my appearance. If you offend me, why the hell should I engage in civil discourse?
It's a pretty weird comment though, it's hard to judge without knowing more context. Whether this is actually racism or not it's hard for me to imagine a context where such a remark would be appropriate at work. In general I think it's good advice to avoid commenting on your coworker's physical appearance unless you have a very good reason to do so.
IMO it's also a bit rude for you to say that "one should seek help" when you don't really have a good understanding of the situation at hand.
IMO it's also a bit rude for you to say that "one should seek help" when you don't really have a good understanding of the situation at hand.
What I'm reading from the description of this situation (this BBC article is scant on details, previous posts had more information) is that the suggestion for medical leave came only after a prolonged, repeated escalation/appeal of a relatively minor complaint.
Let's assume that the complaint was accurate, it wasn't a misunderstanding, and that there was an incident in 2019 where a colleague intentionally verbally insulted Benjamin Cruz for some reason. That's bad, but it's not a major issue, that's a single incident, Cruz did not claim that it was a pattern in their work environment, or that they had to continuously work with a colleague that kept insulting them, or something like that - their claims of abuse stop at that single incident. HR looked into the complaint and, one way or another, came to a decision which Cruz did not like. So far, it's a "meh" situation, not nice, but something that's still within bounds of an acceptable work environment no matter which side is right. Okay, a minor bad thing happened, people talked about it, hopefully people will try to be better. If it repeats, then you would have a reason for escalation or further complaints.
However, if a year has passed after a single insult and a HR decision you don't agree with, and you can't let it go and keep escalating that issue because it still affects you so much that it hurts your work and causes serious personal anxiety, then that's a problematic overreaction. Letting go seems like a reasonable option, seeking mental help seems like a reasonable option, and quitting seems another reasonable option, and IMHO that's it, you should pick one of these - which was exactly what (according to Cruz) was suggested by the HR.
In your opinion what should a perfect HR have suggested for Cruz to do in this situation, assuming that they have determined that some punishment to the other employee (which - in my guess - is what Cruz might have requested by asking HR to reconsider that investigation) is simply not justified?
If you expect that you'll never ever have a minor personal conflict or one-off remark at your workplace, that's an unreasonable expectation. If you expect that in every dispute with a coworker the HR must take your side and you refuse to accept a judgement that's reviewed more than once, that's an unreasonable expectation. If you expect that employer will ensure that any assholes get fired after their first asshole utterance, that's an unreasonable expectation. If you can't work because these unreasonable expectations aren't met, then that's on you, not the employer; deal with it or leave.
Let's assume that the complaint was accurate, it wasn't a misunderstanding, and that there was an incident in 2019 where a colleague intentionally verbally insulted Benjamin Cruz for some reason. That's bad, but it's not a major issue, that's a single incident, Cruz did not claim that it was a pattern in their work environment, or that they had to continuously work with a colleague that kept insulting them, or something like that - their claims of abuse stop at that single incident. HR looked into the complaint and, one way or another, came to a decision which Cruz did not like. So far, it's a "meh" situation, not nice, but something that's still within bounds of an acceptable work environment no matter which side is right. Okay, a minor bad thing happened, people talked about it, hopefully people will try to be better. If it repeats, then you would have a reason for escalation or further complaints.
However, if a year has passed after a single insult and a HR decision you don't agree with, and you can't let it go and keep escalating that issue because it still affects you so much that it hurts your work and causes serious personal anxiety, then that's a problematic overreaction. Letting go seems like a reasonable option, seeking mental help seems like a reasonable option, and quitting seems another reasonable option, and IMHO that's it, you should pick one of these - which was exactly what (according to Cruz) was suggested by the HR.
In your opinion what should a perfect HR have suggested for Cruz to do in this situation, assuming that they have determined that some punishment to the other employee (which - in my guess - is what Cruz might have requested by asking HR to reconsider that investigation) is simply not justified?
If you expect that you'll never ever have a minor personal conflict or one-off remark at your workplace, that's an unreasonable expectation. If you expect that in every dispute with a coworker the HR must take your side and you refuse to accept a judgement that's reviewed more than once, that's an unreasonable expectation. If you expect that employer will ensure that any assholes get fired after their first asshole utterance, that's an unreasonable expectation. If you can't work because these unreasonable expectations aren't met, then that's on you, not the employer; deal with it or leave.
Obviously these HR guys have no moral compass. Their company literally delegated that task to these individuals who they then sacked. Ironic. I need to figure this one out...
rendall(1)
gridder(4)
Timnit Gebru was fired from Google after threatening to quit unless Google reveled the identities of the reviewers of her paper that was not received well while accusing them of sex/race based discrimination.
You can find some of the experiences of her from previous colleagues. You'll find the toxicity that she used in her time there and how she is picking the race/sex card on every situation. This is likely a continuation of that.
Not that the allegations can't be true, but people like this are really diluting the message and making it hard to tell the legitimate from exaggerated hit pieces.