Racial Fault Lines in Silicon Valley
blog.devcolor.org
blog.devcolor.org
What I've found is that it depends on so many variables between the people wanting to have the discussion that it's entirely unpredictable how it will turn out - and often unpredictable even if it's the same two parties with discussions separated by time.
I'm a white man married to a black woman. We've known each other over 35 years. We've had discussions on many aspects of the racial divide over the years, of course. I think that I understand her point of view as a black woman much better now than I did in the '80s, or '90s, or '00s, though even today she may say that I just don't get it. (And I think she understands where I'm coming from better, too.)
But the effort has been worth it. It's just very, very difficult sometimes to have such discussions.
As far as the substance of his experience with the interviewer, sadly, I completely believe it and am not even surprised. The author handled himself with dignity at every step. It had to take a lot of courage to tell it straight when the session on interviewing brought it all back up years later. So what everyone went silent? Their discomfort isn't comparable to what I suspect his was.
Telling the truth is always worth it, especially when it's hard. Hopefully sharing his negative experience helped at least one person in that session to reconsider what they probably considered to be long-settled (and probably vague) opinions about their own rightness in this regard.
tl;dr: It's easy to learn to avoid saying what you really feel and think when you're in a work environment and you know there could be repercussions. It's hard to challenge yourself and others to go beneath the surface, but the rewards are great.
The author of the post seems entirely reasonable and I'd love to have a discussion with him about this type of stuff.
The problem, at least for me, is that it's difficult to tell upfront who's reasonable and who is not. What I mean by reasonable is someone who will put forward an honest effort to have a discussion, as opposed to deliberately trying to insult the other party (like the CEO from the article), or deliberately trying look for unintended missteps and immediately paint the opponent as some kind of racist monster (like some POC).
I used to be quite honest about these things; now with more experience I think I am less so.
This seems really sad, and like a step backwards, but I don't really see how to solve it without somehow being able to guarantee the other party will cooperate. Of course, if it is your wife, I'm sure you trust her a lot and she trusts you as well, which facilitates the discussion. However, realistically the vast majority of these discussions will be between people who not only don't trust each other as much, but they might even see each other as foes/adversaries.
In that scenario, I'm not sure it's a good idea to "challenge yourself [...] to go beneath the surface".
The power dynamic is too skewed for you get anything like a real answer to your question. If the question was designed to see how the interviewee handles pressure than that's a shit move to do.
Either way it's a terrible question. Also, it's an unfair one because other white applicants aren't getting this question. By definition, there really isn't a way for a white interviewer to be able to judge how well the interviewee responded to "Why isn't it OK to say nr". It can easily end up feeling like a personal judgement or worse a judgement on a person's entire race of which there is no way they could represent every perspective.
The fact that it was in a job interview just shows the that interviewee either didn't understand the context of the question which is strong evidence that they are probably a bad manager or they didn't care, which is even stronger evidence of a bad manager.
By "they" you mean the CEO, right? Because it scans as though you mean the interviewee.
I've had far fewer such discussions with friends and coworkers, though I've had some. Mostly they have turned out OK, but I've been burned a few times too. And I didn't actively seek the conversations; rather, they always occur when something happens in a shared environment and usually later one of us makes a comment about it that leads to a discussion.
WTF. Offensive or not these questions are plain dumb. He must have been trying to illicit a reaction from Makinde.
Reminds me of the SNL skit where Richard Pryor is being interviewed by Chevy Chase doing word associations.
I think that gives him far too much credit. It's no different than if you asked someone "Why is it offensive if I grope you, hit on you, and imply that sexual favors will advance your career?" It smacks of complete obliviousness to social issues at best, which would make the interviewer extremely unqualified to screen interview candidates for anything other than pure technical qualifications. Which, in this instance, they were obviously conducting an at least partially non-technical interview.
My suspicion is it's an aggressive move, to make sure that the racially insensitive and/or offensive status quo can be maintained with the interviewer betting heavily that their actions would not be called out post-hoc and that any candidate who was offended would walk away quietly. The people creating such a climate can claim an attempt at stimulating diversity, but that their job offers are turned down.
It's unfortunate that we don't know who did this nor does it appear that their company was contacted/informed about the inappropriate behavior of one of their employees.
Well, if he were truely politically assertive, he would answer smoothly and to the interviewers full satisfaction, take the job, wear a microphone and follow up on the interview questions on tape and then sue the everliving shit out of the company.
It's strategically stupid in addition to being an asshole move.
The only people who really suffer are the ones that you actually want; reasonable, smart developers with options will wisely avoid this company like the plague.
The risk that your manager will continue to act this way or that they will have a deep-seeded bias against black people is high. The chance that they are merely good-intentioned but, inarticulate and socially awkward are low.
Even in that best case scenario, those are terrible qualities to have in a manager.
Strange. My sense is that the interviewer was fishing to see if he would be politically assertive enough.
So there is no claim to make. If he was an employee or didn't get an offer he could get the EEOC to strongarm the company into an OK settlement. Otherwise without a federal agency bankrolling the strongarming, there is no way to make something like an emotional distress claim in state court especially with the lack of proof.
He was probably a lot more diplomatic than I would have been.
On a separate note
> /dev/color is a community of black software engineers who help one another reach career goals. To learn more, check out our website and follow our blog & twitter account.
Then why not call it /dev/black? I find it confusing. Does "color" imply black? I have been called a "person of color" before, due to my brown skin and middle eastern features.
That said, the black community can use its own community voice, much like other minorities. I don't think there's any harm in the term "color" here outside of the confusion we've witnessed in this thread.
Perhaps a simile - it's a bit like calling an egalitarian a 'non-white-supremacist'. Yes, the egalitarian is not a white supremicist, so it's superficially accurate, but it's not really a description of who they are.
In America that's pretty stupid, considering the American census counts MENA as "white".
People of Color is a term to describe non-white minorities, popular among left wing, especially left wing minority activists.
Whoever told you this grossly misinformed you; it's just flat wrong. The term is offensive now, but the historical usage was decidedly not pejorative. The NAACP wasn't being ironic or trying to reclaim the term when they named themselves The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
> In 2008 Carla Sims, [the NAACP's] communications director, said "the term 'colored' is not derogatory, [they] chose the word 'colored' because it was the most positive description commonly used [in 1909, when the association was founded]. It's outdated and antiquated but not offensive."
It's tough to tease out antiquated from offensive in the modern day, when the average antiquated attitude towards black people _was_ pejorative per se. But it's just unambiguously incorrect to say that its historical usage was pejorative, much less that this is "widely known".
That's why I said its historical usage is pejorative. This isn't controversial. The word wasn't conceived as a pejorative, but that's utterly irrelevant in this context, so there's no point in even bringing it up.
You could also point to a time in history where the N-word wasn't technically a pejorative. It originally (and etymologically) simply meant "black". Would you also argue against the claim that "it's widely known that the historical usage of the N-word is pejorative"? I sure hope not.
They also have some fund for sending people to college, and that one has an "N" in it.
However, I know several Asian Americans (both East Asian and South Asian) who frequently use the phrase "person of color" with respect to themselves.
For some very incomplete hints at some of the history, see Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color
You can get away with being racist as long as you're not white.
The sob story in this piece is hardly moving - as someone that's been working in Silicon Valley for the past 8 years, it is an extremely open place and have never seen anything approaching this type of behavior. The truth of the matter is that for any given open requisition for a software engineeer, less than 1 black applicant will apply. That is not our problem to solve (directly, at least) and it is most definitely not something for whites to feel guilty about.
The truth is, in everyone's struggle to be "remarkable" they latch on to what they can and in this case it's to be "that guy" that cries racism.
This type of hyperbole is often encouraged with an attitude along the lines of "the ends justify the means." I took a few classes at a community college in Oakland and it was unbearable.
What is preached is not equality, is not kindness unto others, what is preached is black superiority and an attitude of "white people took what's ours."
A shame really, since all it did was bring race to the forefront for me when before this experience I was more or less happily ignorant treating everyone I came across the same way.
In light of the first part of this statement I wonder if maybe you just didn't notice.
That's just insane. What on earth would make someone think those questions are anything relevant to work?
Maybe it's because I'm a "person of color" - even though I'm not "black" - but race is the last thing on my mind when I'm interviewing candidates or trying to push a new release to production. I've been patted down by store managers because they thought I was suspicious. I've been turned away from bars/clubs because I would "cause trouble." None of these things relates to how I comment on code, implement a design, build some architecture etc...
Conversations like this are difficult to have in the workplace, but ultimately necessary in creating an inclusive environment.
Sorry I disagree here. I don't think they are necessary. It's certainly helpful to relate to and have a great relationship with your fellow co-workers, but there are literally hundreds of other aspects of someone's life to get into other than ethnicity, sexuality or religion - the hottest button issues around.
That is taking into consideration that race is such a big part of daily life for black and "dark" people. If nothing else work should be a place where race questions aren't even in the air.
If only that were possible. Sadly, people have blended their work, public and private life so much that it seems to me that everything is about everything now. The concept of different spheres is now dead and buried. I'm not sure that was a wise move, personally.
I also wonder, now that "meritocracy" is a bad word, what can we use to promote the idea that you can earn something through talent? I mean, we are now denied use of the word that literally means "a place where you achieve based on talent", so how do we even have a discussion about this? It seems the idea of a workplace where you get what you earn is no longer possible to discuss, so how it can be implemented is beyond me.
'Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" was first coined in the 1950s. It was used by British politician and sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else... In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group.'
I don't necessarily think of this as a race thing, so much as a culture thing. People with similar physical appearances from different cultures will have very different viewpoints and personalities. That said, there are some racist motherfuckers out there on all sides.
Please make sure to consult with an HR/hiring specialist before conducting interviews to tell what is legal to ask in an interview in your locality - it changes, and many things should not be asked (typically sexual alignment is on that list).
Sexual alignment isn't likely to pass such a test. However outward appearance differences or obvious cultural differences might be.
This is exact reason people do not want to go through, talking about race for many it is like walking on egg shells. Who wants to really do it? Not only people do not want to feel rejected, but also not be dragged into a drama or creating more drama.
Curious about how race impacts someone's life? Spend time with them. It will become very obvious without you having to ask anything and you'll get the benefit of being able to empathize from seeing it first hand.
Or, if you want to really try hard - work against your biological instinct to segment people into buckets based on physical attributes. Get to know who they see themselves as rather than how you see them by finding out what is important to them.
Here is an easy start: Instead of asking "where are you from" a simple and innocuous question which reveals basically nothing about someone - ask "what kind of hobbies are you into?"
you don't have the data and knowledge necessary to make decisions that affect this
What decisions are you making that are based on questions like "why do black people sit together at lunch?"
Look, I get it. Everyone wants to dive deep within someone else experiences ostensibly to be able to relate better or whatever. There is no shortage of these stories to be read in books, online or elsewhere. Where in my opinion it crosses the line is when it's in the work environment.
The only exception I can see for this is if your work revolves around deeply understanding or catering to a specific racial/other demographic that is not your own. That's problematic enough as it is, but in those cases it wouldn't be personal in the same way that these conversations seem to go.
The whole thing is voyeuristic.
That said, even misguided and offensive questions like that are not as meaningless as they seem, given the right context (which, again, obviously wasn't a case in that interview - but could be a case in, say, a study on the subject). For example:
>> What decisions are you making that are based on questions like "why do black people sit together at lunch?"
If the answer involved discrimination or exclusion by other students, which is the most likely explanation based on everything else, then those are issues that need to be addressed. And even if this is outside of your personal area of responsibility, at the very least, you have a moral responsibility to ensure that the people who you elect and/or fund who are responsible for it, pay appropriate attention.
> This is exact reason people do not want to go through, talking about getting a raise for many it is like walking on egg shells. Who wants to really do it? Not only people do not want to feel rejected, but also not be dragged into a drama or creating more drama
If you're underpaid, you probably want to walk on those egg-shells ;). If everyone stayed in their comfort-zone, we'd all suffer from a sub-optimal status quo
I have asked this to my local population here but we don't have the necessary insight into this phenomenon. Is there any parallels to this where it's ok to call each other something but others cannot call you that (so it can help me understand better)? Thanks!
(A black male who occasionally uses the word)
That's not to say of course that all Black people agree that it's acceptable for them to use it. But I believe that's the thinking for those who do.
It's similar, with important differences, to the word "queer," which used to be an insult until the LGBT community (disclosure: of which I'm a part) reclaimed it. The major difference, of course, is that straight people can say queer, while white people can't say... well, you know. And of course the story of oppression of Black people is unparalleled in this country. As oppressed as LGBT people have been, we were never shipped over the seas and enslaved.
and yet i have never heard anyone ever ask how come they shouldn't be saying bitch or hoe to women.
Whats so complex about that?
But I kept reading comments and the ones at the bottom put my doubts to rest.
"what's your GPA"
<reply>
"Why is it not 4.0?"
or
"where'd you graduate from?"
<your school>
"Why not stanford?"
I can't tell if he did it because it was a useful technique to throw people off and test them, or if he was just a supreme dick. Either way the interviewer in the article went too far into illegal mode (interviewer training 101: never mention race, marital status, military service, etc)
I think it's a similar feeling to being a man, and not really understanding all the crazy shit women have to deal with.
the non-charitable explanation is that he's just an asshole and possibly also a racist.
the charitable explanation is that he's just insensitive and authentically wanted to make sure that the candidate would be ok with being the only black worker in his department. he certainly could have expressed himself in a less dickish way though, even if that really was his motive.
Of all the characteristics/dimensions that makes us human - why would he isolate race as a potential trigger and why is it important? Would you be equally ok with similar 'probes' for other start-up out-groups - women, LGBT, $RELIGION, left-leaners, right-leaners, weight, disablity? I mean, he could only be probing to make sure you being an Aspie won't matter to the company, right?
On the flip side, I wouldn't breach the subject of religion or politics in an interview, if the topic is breached, I'm not shy about expressing opinions.
Mileage may vary, void where prohibited, quantities limited, some restrictions may apply. Batteries not included.
The USA legislates most major workplace interactions I can think of. I don't find it too surprising that people want to avoid the costly and painful legal system through whatever means they can think of, regardless of their effectiveness or ethicalness.
By the way, are you taking a shot at people afflicted with Asperger's syndrome by referring to me as an "Aspie"? It seems rather hypocritical of you if that's true.
Perhaps my outrage scale is calibrated differently, but why is it to you 'Aspie' is taking a shot, and 'Nigger' is only 'probing'?
The reason I thought "aspie" was a shot rather than a probe is because you didn't offer me a job afterward ;-)
We have nothing in the story to determine race, background, or such, of the person asking the question other than to imply they should have known better. Well some accomplished people truly don't or worse they are beyond reach. There are some who act out of anger having experienced a bad situation and apply the reaction to all subsequent meetings with similar.
Sadly the word is bandied about in some crowds including highly technical groups and sadly bad members of the group normally slighted with the word.
tl;dr ignorance exists at all levels of society but going after it requires an abundance of proof and sometimes its best to use said occurrences to educate instead of persecute
Technology is now hip and cool so we break the rules is no excuse for being ignorant of how to treat another human being.
It would have been great to see the recruiter's reaction if they had straight up said, "It's because your boss asked me why he can't say nigger." Although I can understand exactly why he didn't say that.
a good guy. An opportunist in his place could most probably have scored a nice settlement for racial discrimination after few months on the job :)
Now you have an interview where the guy asked questions that aren't related to programming and everyone is up in arms. Maybe it's because he did his homework? Maybe he already checked M. Adeagbo work and decided he wanted him in the company?
So now I suppose the interview isn't supposed to be used to check if someone is a good programmer... but it also shouldn't approach any subject that is emotional, because by gosh you wouldn't want to know how someone will react on a sensitive subject.
You guys must have the weirdest social interactions ever. Within an hour of meeting someone I usually "size" them by throwing curved ball designed to see what makes them ticks. That is exactly what I would expect in a well designed interview, especially if you are looking for culture fit.
Frankly, I find that these questions are well designed. Look at how I immediately answered them:
>“Why do all the Black kids sit at the same table at school?”
"Same reason Asians or Whites will do the same thing under the same conditions."
What can we deduce? Not much, except that I'm aware of basic biology/human behavior. Better luck in the next question...
>“Why is it no longer okay to say nr?”
"It is okay, but you need to be of the correct race... and apparently that's not racist. (with a hint of sarcasm)"
Bingo! Now you known that when I talk of sexism and racism, I use the dictionary definition, NOT the new "minorities can't be sexist/racist" version.
And just like that, you know if I'm a good fit. (If it's in SF, probably not...)
>"/dev/color is a community of black software engineers who help one another reach career goals."
This is literally a racist club. ---> A group who discriminates based on race. Now, I have nothing against that... but you can't say a word if white clubs are created.
EDIT: I guess I broke the #ListenAndBelieve rule.
It's hard to imagine and even notice the racism and sexism that happens today if you're not on the receiving end of it, no doubt (not to make any guesses about your race or gender, of course).
Perhaps a relateable situation will be the denial and disbelief about CIA and NSA scandals until more information came out. Not saying believe everything you hear, but don't be so eager to dismiss a story merely because you do not see/know/experience what another part does.
At one company, a married black director, my boss, had hired a black woman as an assistant. A newly hired older white executive was asking around if she was hired because she was his side girlfriend.
At another company an executive went to a bar with one of the younger guys, and advised him to always hit on the "ethnic" women.
There's nothing new to what you're saying, plenty of white people in the U.S. south said there was no civil rights problem back in the 1950s and believed it. Most of those people thought some Jewish rabbi from 2000 years ago came back from the dead. People believe what they want to believe.
huh, seems like your attempt at hyperbole is actually pretty accurate
See another African American dude being racially profiled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uTP1fdFu0c
"All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Watching Star Trek"
http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Know-Learned-Watching/dp/0...
Never.
The interviewer is showing they will use psychological manipulation to get what they want from you as efficiently as possible even if they know it causes you discomfort.
I personally don't think the interviewer was some extreme racist, he was just more or less a just a dick.
I consider racism to be irrelevant because it mostly is. I can barely imagine a new situation in which someone would be able to stage a racist attack. I am probably entirely hedged against those already.
The real problem is always the abuse of government power: "I’ve been interrogated at gunpoint by police because I fit the description".
So, yes, if they choose the time and the place, they can indeed attack you, if they so desire. However, it perfectly well works the other around as well. If you chose the time and the place, it would work too. The only solution that truly works against the problem of lack of respect, is to inflict respect-instilling reprisals.
Therefore, the real problem, are your false beliefs in their fake legitimacy. Hence, in reality, state racism is a problem of religion.
Racism against Muslims pretty much fails, because they are increasingly making that very practice insanely dangerous. The police are very aware of that. They know that there will routinely be reprisals. This is the enormous attraction of Islam. It pretty much solves all the problems of abuse of power, including state racism.