> While many in San Francisco have begun to use the term "post racist" as a matter-fact-statement to describe the relatively inclusive work environment, the difference between the mostly affluent white community on the peninsula and the impoverished Oakland across the bay is impossible to miss.
What? Who says that? The only time I've heard the phrase "post racist" is either The Colbert Report, or people being sarcastic in reference to something really racist. It's because of places like Oakland that no one I know in San Francisco believes on any level we live in a "post racial America".
That little sentence is really offensive to me and hopefully others who are aware of the severe and drastic gender and racial inequalities in the tech industry.
Until I see ~10% of tech workforces being African American, I'm not even going to begin to think about "post racial" anything.
People think they are "post-racial" if they do not regularly use slurs and/or do not self-identify as racist and/or have friends or coworkers who are not white. Of course, when it comes down to it, very few people self-identify as racist, making this definition not particularly useful.
BUT it is a heck of a lot easier to paper over more subtle forms of racism by identifying racism as only the most outlandish kind, and the rest as someone being too sensitive or what have you.
A good rule of thumb is that everyone is at least a little bit racist. It's less of a problem if you're willing to admit it and work at it, but by suggesting that we are post-racial (we have a black president, therefore racism is over), white people let themselves off the hook from having to think much about race most of the time.
I think things are more complicated than statistics can properly capture.
Its possible to start a software business with very little resources. And there are people of all races that have done so. Do the users know what race of people are developing their software? Do they care?
That does not mean that some groups are not more wary of doing things due to past racism and the possibility of encountering it more when they go outside their comfort zone. Many, many people in all groups do what is expected over many other values.
I also think there are just as many people who will go out of their way to help and do business with someone different as will hold it against them. Frankly, for many skills, if you're a coding demon, they will hire you. I doubt you will find anyone in any group with significant talent that isn't turning away work.
There are other factors as well. Many people in some communities don't like it when people try to improve themselves. Hopefully that is on the wain.
And then there is the effect of violence in places like Oakland. Its hard to stay out at all hours coding if you have to worry about who'll you encounter on the way home.
What are we doing to make sure this never happens again in the future? Well, even before this incident, we hired a VP of HR who has implemented a sensitivity training program for all employees.
Stupid question: It's already illegal to discriminate and harass on the basis of race. Why do you need a training program to make it less risky to fire people over it?
I think it's less risky because it sends a clear signal to employees that if they're fired for being racist assholes, they don't have any real grounds for to sue for unlawful termination.
Even groundless unlawful termination lawsuits are a pain in the ass to deal with. It's better to discourage them than to litigate them.
The hiring clearly took place before the incident; whether the training took place before the incident is ambiguous. If it did, it was clearly ineffective. If not, then we have no evidence one way or the other as to its effectiveness.
There's no policy you can implement that will prevent all bad behavior. At least not until your employer goes all Minority Report on you (there's a double meaning for you).
This isn't racism. This is bullying, using, amongst many other things, marginally racist remarks as a weapon. That kind of stuff is as much racism as tasteless jokes about wife-beating constitute actual domestic violence.
This is clearly a very disfunctional and unhealthy work environment, but with the aggressively paranoid reaction to it is equally unhealthy and most of all, fails to address the actual problem. After firing the "racists", this is likely to remain a toxic environment who's next "victim" could very well be a white heterosexual male who for some other reason forms an easy target.
Sorry, no. This about as cut and dried as you get short of slurs (and there were slurs in the original piece, just not directed at the author).
Actually, I'm not really sure if much beyond the most extreme forms of racism actually count, according to your definition. If racist language is not in itself a signifier of racism, then what the heck is?
And at a minimum it ought to be a firing offense. Social censure is ostensibly better, but in an environment where someone defends their remarks with "whoa whoa whoa this isn't racism--- it's jokes!", censure has obviously failed.
The day when white people are a persecuted minority is the day I'll line up right there with you. But we're not even close to that point, no matter how much white dudes like to think their rights (read: privilege) are under siege.
While I don't agree with your "this isn't real racism" premise, I agree that the dysfunctions probably run deeper than that.
I'm reminded of Bob Sutton's great book "The No Asshole Rule". The actions outlined in the blog post are undeniably asshole behaviors, and shouldn't be tolerated in any civilized workplace, with our without the racial implications.
The Kixeye CEO may have not intended to let things go this far, but from his remarks ( part 1: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/jgntgj, part 2: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/jh72ja ) he shows a stunning lack of empathy. One big red flag for me was how he doesn't say how he is planning to make amends with the black contractor and the black community. So it's pretty clear to me that Will Harbin is part of the problem here, and likely is an asshole himself. The company's investors and leaders should take this as a wake-up call and either demote or fire him. They won't reach their potential with 'asshole leadership' in place.
I cant help but feel that this qu33riousity guys is coocoo. While I think that what he was subjected to is unacceptable, his rhetoric reminds me of conspiracy nutcases that said that US government played a role in the WTC tragedy:
"And it’s not a matter of generalizing white people, rather it’s being real about the culture San Francisco creates. Other people of color, including some black people are in on it too, but the thing to remember is that there have always been people of color down with white supremacy. Matters of colonization run deep throughout the years and beneath our flesh, behind our eyes."
It's sad but true that some members of a minority always find that it's in their personal best interest to be the "good" exemplar of a minority in the opinion of the majority. Think about women who enforce the patriarchy as so that they can be metaphorically patted on the head by men (Phyllis Schafly, Ann Coulter). It's extremely common.
Do you mean the Feminist meaning of patriarchy?(from wikipedia) ""The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection."[27] In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women."
Patriarchy Feminist theory basically mean women are victims, man have power over woman and are conspiring (conscious or unconscious) oppressors. It is a very toxic and sexist theory, it ignores mens issues and it's also an Apex fallacy. Just because the majority of people at the top are male it does not mean they represent the majority of man. Did you know that in USA women hold the majority of the vote?
However I agree that people should not be forced in to gender roles and maybe that is what you meant when you wrote Patriarchy.
>metaphorically patted on the head by men
The majority of men (including traditionalists) don't treat women like dogs. Traditionalist men even believe in sacrificing their lives to save womens lives. A lot of modern men also believe in that sacrifice.
> Traditionalist men even believe in sacrificing their lives to save womens lives. A lot of modern men also believe in that sacrifice.
No, they really don't. Or rather they may say they do, but when it comes it, then they don't. See the recent study of ship evacuations for proof, it's women and children last.
I don't feel that he is was trying to convey a literal conspiracy. It seems to me like he is saying that he does not like the racial culture of that area and that some African-Americans contribute to the culture in such a way that helps keep the negative dynamic going.
I don't know what you're trying to say. Is it not true that the whole reason black people are even in the US is because of colonization? The aftereffects of enslaving a race of people on such a large scale will naturally reverberate throughout history. One of the justifications for slavery in the first place included dehumanization.
And remember, the civil rights era began only 50 years ago. By contrast, Jim Crow -- institutionalized, legally-sanctioned racism -- was the law of the land for 100 years prior. No matter how far we've come, that can and still does leave an impression. A case in point would be Lee Atwater's Southern Strategy; a major party's electoral strategy more or less explicitly hinged on exploiting racism. Or lookup sundown towns.
So what's the problem? It seems perfectly logical and uncontroversial to suggest that the US citizenry, including black people, would still have widespread problems with race, subtle or overt. But on account of the (usually) social rejection of overt racism, people tend to think racism is over. It's pretty straightforward.
I'm one of the people who posted on the previous thread that didn't agree with the tone/method of the original blog post. Not that it matters in the slightest what I think. However, I'm glad it turned out this way.
I did not like it either. I thought it was laid with racist overtones and stereotypes. I also thought that it is peculiar that someone would choose to introduce themselves as a "poor black queer" instead of bringing forth their personality or skills or ideas.
Newsflash: if you are interesting or do cool stuff I don't give a fuck about your skin tone or sexual preference.
I don't give a fuck about your skin tone or sexual preference
Just a friendly heads-up, the phrase "sexual preference" is like fingernails on a chalkboard to a lot of people, as the word "preference" implies choice which isn't in line with our best understanding of how sexual orientation works.
I'm not offended, but I'm guessing you don't want to accidentally offend people. After all, you don't give a fuck.
I consider myself fairly progressive about these kinds of things, and this is the first I've heard about "sexual preference" being problematic. Is it really used to justify the belief that what gender(s) you're attracted to is a choice? What term should we use instead?
I believe that "sexual orientation" is favored. The parallel I like to use is being right-handed or left-handed. It's not that lefties "prefer" to use their left hand for tasks requiring dexterity, they are oriented that way.
>if you are interesting or do cool stuff I don't give a fuck about your skin tone
And I'm guessing you're white and straight and thus have not spent the amount of timing thinking about others as I and other people have. We're not worried about you. We're worried about people like these employees who DO give "a fuck" about skin tone or sexual preference.
It's funny that you condemn him for probably jokingly and self-deprecatingly calling himself a "poor black queer", yet that's what he was reduced to when you're treated as such day in and day out.
To me it sounded like someone with a rooted "versus" mentality that defines themselves using their externality and sexual preference because, well, its just easier.
You are not wrong about me, but I have plenty of gay friends in the workplace, and being talented they don't define themselves through their orientation.
It's a hell of a lot easier not to have a "versus" mentality when you are in a privileged position.
Conversely, when everyone around you can instantly see that you are different, and when you're reminded daily that you are different by mainstream culture, you'd probably have a different attitude. You're visibly, repeatedly, and viscerally reminded that you are Different.
I don't know what that's like, but it's something this particular fellow has to live with every moment of his life. That's going to have an impact on your attitude, and I'm willing to cut the guy more than a little slack.
"Can't we all get along" is a luxury cis, straight, white males have, in no small part because a lot of mainstream American culture is created by and for that set of categories.
This was a very disturbing incident, and I can only hope that it was an isolated incident and not indicative of a larger trend in the startup industry. The demographics are skewed enough as it is when it comes to this industry.
I don't feel that this is a recurring issue in the startup industry. However based on my past work experience, this is definitely not an isolated incident for the video game industry. The only difference between different companies is how they handle it when it arises.
I do remember when working at one of the big three video game publishers:
1) HR and managers would repeatedly educate both new workers and existing employees on both racial discrimination and sexual harassment on a semi-quarterly basis.
2) HR would give anonymous surveys regarding workplace environment every quarter.
Regarding the last item, at my last stint at a gaming company; a co-worker reported a case of racial discrimination and it was handled promptly and professionally. There was no time for anyone to blog about the subject. I'm going to agree with other people, HR wasn't doing their job effectively.
How often and how likely are you, yourself, likely to be a target of racist language? And how keyed into the more subtle forms of racism are you? I mean these as serious questions, not rhetorically.
The thing is, you have to be really careful about selection bias and confirmation bias, here. This example happened to be one of the most egregious examples, the easiest to spot. A lot of the more subtle cues will fly right over your head, especially since a lot of behavior with racist over- or undertones is not something white people are exposed to or experience. (I include myself in this statement.)
Granted, I am assuming you are white, chiefly based on the demographics of HN and the tech community in general.
> How often and how likely are you, yourself, likely to be a target of racist language?
I'm not white, but I'm still extremely not likely to be a target of racist language. In most tech offices, they try to do a good job to avoid unnecessary lawsuits that can cost in the millions. I also feel that tech offices tend to have more educated people on a whole, which massively helps.
> And how keyed into the more subtle forms of racism are you?
I'm aware. "subtle cues" do not "fly right over" my head
> I'm aware. "subtle cues" do not "fly right over" my head
Fair enough. On the basis of the previous threads on this topic, it seems to me, at least, that most HNers who bothered to comment didn't or don't get it.
I wonder how much of that is due to the racist, sexist, and anti-gay speech that's endemic to online gaming? Do people take that as setting the tone for the industry?
Actually, when I think about it, it seems to me that I see less such speech in online games than I did even just a couple of years ago. Maybe I'm just playing different games from that crowd now.
> Do people take that as setting the tone for the industry?
It's just the same juvenile idiots both online and in the office. Videogame companies tend to attract both the most talented engineers as well as a lot of juvenile idiots. A good HR dept helps mitigate these problems. A video game company without one is either really small or really inexperienced and new.
If the practice was as widespread as it seemed to be, and management was aware of it but did not stop it, then the resulting lawsuits could destroy the company.
Company management has an affirmative requirement to stop workplace harassment under California law. Race and sexual preference are both protected categories under California law. I was amazed at the stupidity of the management (assuming the post was factual).
Here's hoping that all those who were involved were given due process and handled fairly with the matter being thoroughly investigated by management, rather than being thoughtlessly fired to appease the masses or to be cannon fodder in the lawsuit brought on against kixeye.
This is completely regardless of the case at hand, mind. I expect companies to act responsibly towards all employees.
It is quite clear that this was not an inclusive working environment. Some of the comments on their own are not overtly racist, but it is certainly walking thin line.
I've had a situation that was sort of similar where a co-worker made a comment on my clothing being too uhm, urban. Jeans, oversized hoodie (hood up), and shit kicker boots. I was sick, and it was freezing out walked into a meeting and it was announced that Eminem just walked into the meeting. My reply was (paraphrased) that "Is that the only white rapper you know, I don't look anything like Eminem". I guess I was looking for something like Sage Francis or Necro, but I digress. I felt singled out for the way that I dress. Now I guess that anyone can debate here if what I said or the initial comment was racist, but I would say that it wasn't, just ignorant and stupid. That said, if that comment was slanted ever so slightly to the fact that I have some Jewish heritage, it would trigger a soft spot and would have REALLY irked me. Had some issues with that early in life.
So considering the more over-the-top racist comments, and initial reaction of management when confronted, this whole situation is really awful and should not happen. Instead of debating if this is really racism, we should probably just try to limit and control it's effect on our lives. It exists, it's all around us and you don't have to look very far, even in tech companies.
> I've had a situation that was sort of similar where a co-worker made a comment on my clothing being too uhm, urban.
That's not the same thing at all. The guy in question was accused of dressing too "thuggish" when he was wearing skinny jeans and wingtips. In other words, because he was black, regardless of what he was wearing.
A joke was made about how you were dressed because you had a hoodie with the hood up and are apparently white... like Eminem[1][2][3][4].
Uhm, those comments were not connected in the story, it was wingtips provoking the RUN DMC comment. Baggy jeans and thuggish were connected in the story, which does make some modicum of sense. If anything I would say that the skinny/wingtip == RUN DMC comment was more worrisome because it is completely out there.
Lots of rappers wear hoodies. My point wasn't that anything there was racist, just that you do get comments for dressing differently, not fitting in. Those alone don't make this racist, the other comments do.
So is it that baggy jeans are less professional looking, or a racially motivated attack on urban lifestyle and dress. It doesn't matter really, the rest of the comments provide enough of a backdrop for us to make our own conclusions, which is all this is.
I felt singled out for the way that I dress. Now I guess that anyone can debate here if what I said or the initial comment was racist, but I would say that it wasn't, just ignorant and stupid.
Personally, I would say that you are the one who is being ignorant and stupid by dressing like a clown, and then getting all huffy when someone gently pokes fun at you. Also, there's nothing racist about not liking someone's clothing. Clothing is not a race.
In conclusion, douches like you are the reason we have dress codes. Good job.
What a horrible thing to say. You're being insulting to someone who is trying to contribute and you're totally missing the point. We try to be better than that here.
While his wording is a bit blunt, specific attires can cause disrespect and discomfort among staff. When a workplace doesn't enforce a dress code, I assume it expects its employees to be self governing.
I am not convinced that baggies and a hoodie convey responsibility and professionalism, as befitting someone who has been given a free reign to dress as they see fit.
This is a common response in dysfunctional workplaces.
A problem comes up, identify some scapegoats, fire them, put out a PR statement.
Whether or not this is meaningful won't be obvious for some time. But at most dysfunctional workplaces the problems go deeper than the scapegoats fired, and problems persist. With an overlay of, "You got my friend fired!"
Everyone is trying his best to be PC, but the real takeaway is that you have to be careful not to hire some ultra-sensitive pantywaist thug who publicly cries "racist" at every shitty joke, giving your company weeks of terrible PR to clean up.
“Hey he’s dressed like Run DMC, does he know how to rap?”
Oh, the poor darling. Let's ruin a bunch of people's livelihoods over this apparently wicked comment.
> Everyone is trying his best to be PC, but the real takeaway is that you have to be careful not to hire some ultra-sensitive pantywaist thug who publicly cries "racist" at every shitty joke, giving your company weeks of terrible PR to clean up.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't trolling but just being obtuse.
This wasn't a one-off misunderstanding. It was a series of unambiguous incidents, all in a single month.
This has nothing to do with political correctness. I'm sure the casual conversations among me and my coworkers would be extremely offensive to some people. When you know someone well enough to know their boundaries, you can step beyond the norms of decency without risking offense. This is so self-evident that even the most socially awkward programmers know it instinctively. Can you misread someone and offend them gravely as a result? Yes, we've all done that. But if you're the least bit considerate, it's a one-time incident and ends there.
Did you not read the original blog post? It evoked in me a very strong sense of empathy for the victim. In case it's not clear to you who the victim is in this case, recommend you find that post and read it.
Imagine having these things said to you, having it reinforced by others at your workplace. Imagine how dehumanizing it is. The indignity. Imagine having to face it again, day after day. And you've been dealing with it your entire life. Just take five minutes and think about the real impact this sort of thing has on someone.
He sounds angry and a bit OTT to me.
Inferring that someone is a racist (as you're doing) is extremely serious. Your remark comes across as a bit creepy actually
First, no one inferred that he was racist, they said what he had said sounded racist. Second, why do you think it's "extremely serious" to consider something someone said racist? I consider racism itself extremely serious, but there's no consequence for expressing racism in a quasi-anonymous comment environment. There's not even any consequence for being called a racist. I am utterly confused as to how saying that racist statements sound racist could be "extremely serious", in that we should refrain from doing so. What consequences do you expect to follow?
Actually being a racist? Bad. Pointing out that something sounded racist? An opportunity for the person who said that to apologize and reframe or withdraw, perhaps leading to a less racist environment.
You're missing the point. It's unavoidable that if you say "you sound racist" that that attributes a trait to the person rather than their behavior, and is not much different than saying "you are a racist." The rule of thumb is address the behavior rather than the person, which is why the corrective response is supposed to be something like "wow, what you said sounded racist" It's a subtle but important difference. Then you are inviting the person to ask themself internally "did I mean what I said?" or "do I want to sound racist to other people?" instead of going on the defensive because they as a person are being labelled a cultural undesirable. If you make a statement about the person themself there's no avenue forward for discussion or correction, you just made an enemy. But if you make it about the speech, even if they get defensive about it you can clarify that you are addressing the behavior.
There are consequences here because there is username, user identities are often shared across sites, and there is a karma system here. They may be mild, but obviously karma is consequential or it wouldn't exist as a concept on the site. Your score is your aggregate reputation among other users. People fear saying things that will lower their karma.
There aren't any biological tests for racism that I know of.
What got the guys fired were remarks they made that 'sounded racist'.
If I said to you that you 'sound German', it's likely that I'm inferring that I think you're a German.
If I say to you that you 'sound racist', it's likely that I'm inferring that I think you're a racist.
As a Latino minority, promptly go fuck yourself. You and the PC crowd are the scourge against "getting shit done". Go back to /r/shitredditsays you twat.
If you're offended by things like this you are either:
how is it necessary to make racist comments in order to "get shit done"? will your production systems all crash if you don't make a minimum of 5 jokes about nappy hair and malt liquor a day? have you encountered a nasty bug in rails that can only be fixed by exposing it to clips of Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's?
It's not a matter of it being necessary or unnecessary. It's a matter of letting small things slide or taking them in strides. Haven't you ever seen a movie where men jostle each other and call each other things too crass to type in here? Do they whine and run to the boss about how "mean they were"?
Of course not, because clearly in this case it's just a case of men being men and flinging the usual shit at each other. I'm surprised I have to spell this out.
The idea is that BY LAW, you should not have to be subjected to that kind of environment in the workplace. If you don't like it, then get the law changed.
I was once accused of being prejudiced by a british asian after we fell out over some business. Prior to that this person had boasted to me about how despite their family having lived in Trinidad for generations there was 'not one drop of mixed blood' in their family
@barking.
So what? Honestly, so what? Are you trying to say that even by the standards of other prejudiced people you come across as prejudiced? Or perhaps you're implying that one act of prejudice by someone from a "minority" means that it's open season on all minorities?
Maybe people are more likely to perceive the behaviour of others towards them as racist, if they are racist themselves?
That perhaps the accuser should be looked at as critically as the accused.
This place is ridiculous. They're calling him racist, a troll, coward, little boy? These people are being upvoted for this? It's pathetic and embarrassing to be lumped in with this crowd.
You're being downvoted for speaking the truth. They're not downvoting you because you called someone racist or sheltered, at least you know that. It can't be because you told him to go fuck himself since being civil obviously isn't something they care about either.
What? Who says that? The only time I've heard the phrase "post racist" is either The Colbert Report, or people being sarcastic in reference to something really racist. It's because of places like Oakland that no one I know in San Francisco believes on any level we live in a "post racial America".
That little sentence is really offensive to me and hopefully others who are aware of the severe and drastic gender and racial inequalities in the tech industry.
Until I see ~10% of tech workforces being African American, I'm not even going to begin to think about "post racial" anything.