Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambamb | Hacker News Reader

It amazes me that someone as intelligent as this guy can say something asinine as “as a white man I know I can negotiate without backlash.” Not only is there no evidence to support this, he seems completely oblivious to the fact that he is not a representative white man at all. He has written widely used books on JavaScript! Don’t you think THAT might be the reason he can negotiate without backlash rather than his race and sex which he has in common with probably half of all applicants? Please don’t paint all of us just average, struggling white men as undeserving and privileged just because you have been extremely fortunate and successful.

View on HN

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I think the author is right and you are contributing to the systemic issue by trying to deflect their mention of privilege. If you are a white male, you have privilege. I don't think OP would ever say that's the only factor to their success, but recognizing privilege and where you have taken advantage of it in life is healthy progress towards equality.

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-13393-007 is a study that indicates that women tend to not negotiate as much for fear of reprisal. Not having to face that inequality as a man who is expected to be 'assertive' and to 'tell it straight' is the definition of privilege.

Anecdotal but at my previous employer, women and some racial minorities were given a higher score during interviews because of their gender or race (this was explicit) and white men were de-prioritized. It was actually a disadvantage to be white.

Nothing anecdotal about that. This type of thing is pervasive in all major organizations in the US (and many other Western countries). It is textbook-definition systemic racism, in that it is systematized. There is literally a system in place to discriminate against white men (and often asian men too). And they justify this because of bold, sweeping, unsupported assumptions made about "white privilege" like the one made by the author of this article.

> Nothing anecdotal about that. This type of thing is pervasive in all major organizations in the US (and many other Western countries).

I think it is entirely anecdotal unless you can point to a treasure trove of evidence. For what it's worth, I think there is actually a lot of merit to what you're saying, despite it being unconventional. But to talk about it as though it's just a given without concrete data seems like a poor approach for a meaningful conversation.

This is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as anything except a temporary, remedial, and aspirational policy (McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail, Steelworkers v. Weber, Johnson v. Santa Clara).

We can probably expect the current SCOTUS to either introduce stricter tests or strengthen the current test. My own prediction is that, absent any sort of legislative action [1], SCOTUS will strengthen of the second prong of the Weber test ("not unnecessarily trammeled") to include the entire recruitment/hiring process. And probably also reaffirmations/broadening in scope of the "no quotas" rule.

From what I can tell, this is also a fairly recent phenomenon in tech. This guy's career goes back to 2000, back when tech jobs didn't have the appeal (or paychecks) they do today and diversity wasn't front-and-center. So even if you and GP are 100% correct about today [2], that doesn't really say anything about the world 20 years ago.

[1] which appears to be unlikely at the moment, but I'd be more confident saying so if Nov 7 fell within the edit window for this comment ;-)

[2] I'm intentionally stating this is a hypothetical and reserving my own opinion on it, because I think arguments are especially constructive when we can identify ways in which conclusions might fail even when accepting premises from which the conclusion is claimed to follow. Otherwise, especially on issues like this one, we end up with an intractable duel between contradictory axioms and no one benefits/learns anything.

Why the downvotes?

The parent post claimed without any evidence that white males systemically take advantage of white privilege. This post gave a counterexample while being open about the fact that it's anecdotal

Only true if you assume there are no advantages to being white.

Please do not derail yet another discussion by posting a flaming comment. Not everything has to be related to sex, gender, equality and so on.

I wholeheartedly agree that they are critical issues, but that being said, there is a time and place and those are important issues but really..

This is not it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com