I have a caveat to add to the author's assertion that discussing race becomes easier with practice. That's not always true in the short run, but I agree that it is in the long run, assuming good faith on both sides.
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.
> "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".
While in general, there are sometimes people who feel put upon and don't feel like answering questions and/or having that difficult discussion of race, a job interview isn't the place to have it.
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.
"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 agree, and I certainly wasn't trying to promote the idea of striking up such conversations with someone you barely know just for the sake of personal development.
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.
I would like to think that this is good advice, but I can't truly believe it because in many situations where the power dynamic is unequal, the rewards are greater for one person and the risks mostly go the other way. This decision of how open to be depends on how much risk you can tolerate for your survival (here, survival in a job, or a career or field, but sometimes actual survival.) It isn't necessarily about lying but about how open you are willing to be in a situation.
The CEO was very offensive and way out of line by asking such racially-tinged questions in a technical interview but I think people in the US go way overboard when it comes to the N word. It's essentially treated like the V word in Harry Potter which it's ridiculous and childish. People can't even refer to it in order to discuss it. College professors can even lose their jobs for talking about it in a classroom. I mean, Obama got some bad rap for talking about it on some interview. It's insane. And it's all cosmetics since the actual roots and possible solutions to the racial divide are rarely ever talked about or dealt with.
My sense is that he was making sure that Makinde wouldn't be too politically assertive about race issues. Borderline illegal most likely, apart from being exceedingly and odiously offensive.
> ...he was making sure that Makinde wouldn't be too politically assertive about race issues.
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.
> ...he was making sure that Makinde wouldn't be too politically assertive about race issues.
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.
Well, not illegal as he wasn't an employee AND he got an offer from the company
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.
It sounds like a power play. Interview is already a unbalanced power situation. Using race to try to put someone in their place is fucked up on so many levels.
I imagine it was the interviewer trying to be upfront and casual about it, but coming across as very awkward instead especially given that they were his opening questions in a professional setting!
Yeah, I had to read that a few times to see if I missed something ... not that I can think of anything that would have made it a less shocking that someone would walk into a room to interview someone and ask questions like that.
I have stepped away from development for the time being but as a black man in the industry, when I read that, I already knew what my answers would have been.
He was probably a lot more diplomatic than I would have been.
That was a really ridiculous question to ask. I'm brown
and if someone asked me about middle eastern politics during an interview or worse made some low quality comment, I would promotly get up and leave. I don't have the patience for that in a professional setting.
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.
"Color" implies black, but it is also used to imply other colors sometimes. It can imply middle eastern, east asian, southeast asian, hispanic, and several other groups. However, aside from implying black, other implications are context-sensitive and as a result different authors sometimes mean very different things when they write "person of color".
It has been a long time since it exclusively referred to African Americans (I believe the term predates the us itself). For instance, the racial integrity act of 1924 specifically defines native Americans as colored; similarly, the Jim Crowe laws of the south specifically segregate whites/Caucasians from colored/non-Caucasian, though enforcement certainly centered around African Americans.
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.
'Person of Color' is a different way of saying 'non-white', to group together people who suffer in similar ways from not looking like the majority in Anglo-dominated countries. The thing is that 'non-white' describes that group by something that they are not, where as 'People of Color' describes them as something that they are.
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.
color is any ethnicity that's not "white". In the U.S. it's mostly used to refer to black people, but Asians, Hispanics, etc are also considered "colored"
> It's widely known that the historical usage is pejorative.
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".
First the term was neutral. Then the word became a widely used pejorative. Nowadays the word is hardly used at all. Why did people stop using "colored"? Because it had turned into a pejorative. When did that happen? Decades ago.
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.
The United Negro College Fund and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as prominent black civil rights groups are grandfathered in. Also its usually left NAACP and not expanded partially because of that word.
In some contexts “color” has referred to mainly African-descended people. In other contexts “color” gets applied more broadly to anyone with non-European ancestry. Don’t overthink the /dev/color/ name.
The question was “why not call it /dev/black?”; the wikipedia article linked clarifies that “color” has in some contexts in US culture historically referred to African-descended people. I edited my comment to add your link as well though.
It's kind of weird to say "Don't link to that offensive term, link to this offensive term instead". Just strikes me as oddly politically correct but not really at the same time.
POC is (at least for now) the correct (unoffensive) term. Of course don't use POC if individuals object to it, but it's nowadays the default descriptor and the safest choice.
"Color" means nonwhite. "People of color" means blacks, Hispanics, Middle Easterners, Asians, the entire aggregate of discriminated-against nonEuropeans. Not to be confused with "colored people" which is a deprecated term for blacks only, now considered archaic and racist.
I see "person of color" as a term of alliance against a white supremacist culture. There are many particular difference but the idea is that there are also some commonalities that make alliance and shared analysis valuable.
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.
"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."
In light of the first part of this statement I wonder if maybe you just didn't notice.
Shockingly, his first question had nothing to do with technology. “Why do all the Black kids sit at the same table at school?” he asked. I was taken aback but tried to explain the social dynamics that might be at play. He followed with, “Why is it no longer okay to say nr?”
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 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.
A bit off-topic: The word "meritocracy" carried negative connotations even at its birth. From Wikipedia:
'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.'
Maybe not necessary, but I could see how they might be helpful amongst colleagues more so than in a work relationship with a power imbalance (boss, interviewer, etc).
I don't know that I entirely agree... and while an interview is a bad time to make this, getting to know someone often includes getting to know their political views or sexual alignment. You don't always have enough insight into another culture to even understand, and sometimes it can be helpful.
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 don't try to find out someone's "sexual alignment" in a job interview. That way leads to lawsuits.
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).
Try the 5yo test... is this question something a 5yo might ask/say? If so, be patient, answer and move on. Sometimes the lack of knowledge and curiosity get the better of people.
Sexual alignment isn't likely to pass such a test. However outward appearance differences or obvious cultural differences might be.
>>>Ask If It’s Okay. You might have follow-up questions or a thought to add. Don’t assume I’m ready to, or want to, have a deep conversation about the issue right then and there. If I’m not ready, be okay with that. What seems like a simple question for you, might have a deep, complicated response in my mind <<<
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?"
If you don't ask, then you don't learn. If you don't learn, then you don't have the data and knowledge necessary to make decisions that affect this. And you're making those decisions every time you walk to the ballot box, at the very least.
There are more ways to learn than asking. Like I said elsewhere, spend time with the person, get to know them. Make a new friend and experience their life. Chances are, those experiences dwarf anything else that they might care about.
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.
To clarify, I'm not defending the question that were asked on that interview. That's not learning, that's trolling (or else an astounding depth of ignorance). My remark was in regard to the general concept that, yes, we should be actively seeking to learn about other people's experiences, and you really can't do that without asking questions (and no, spending time with them is not a substitute, since you can't spend it from their POV - although it is also a valuable learning tool).
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.
Especially so when it is simple to look up what has been written about these kinds of questions. There is literally a book (quite well known) titled "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria".
But, other people aren't there as your personal learning opportunity. Instead a little time to develop a friendship or working relationship will bear its fruit for everyone.
> 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
If you try it will get easier quickly. What is a fearful burden to many becomes a place of ease for you, and a whole new population of people is suddenly available to speak to, like learning a new language.
(I am not black or american) I am going to come across as clueless here but why is that 'nr' is offsensive for black people.. and yet every movie with black people has them screaming this word all the time. And the rap music is filled with them. If they find it offsensive, why do they keep using it.
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!
The fact is, the meaning of words can entirely flip over time, and meaning is informed by the context in which the word is spoken. The evolution of "nigga" is such that within the right context its meaning is neutral or positive. It is essentially a reclaimation a word that was used to denigrate. The problem is that there are still people who would use the "nigger" version as an insult. These are two similar sounding words with two entirely different meanings. Which one is intended is largely determined by context. The usual assumption is that anyone who is not black (or someone where a close friendship is already established) is intending it in the negative way. But there are plenty of blacks who don't like any version of the word at all.
(I'm white and American.) My understanding is that Black people have taken a word that was used against them and "reclaimed" it. What used to be a white person's word is now a Black person's word. That's very powerful.
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.
American and Black. It is a bad part of american black 'culture'. It is illogical, and it is ignorant. Its not really anything more than that. Rap has done a disservice in that regards... on the other hand the only word that is probably more common than nr in rap is bitch and hoe... its bitch and hoe this, bitch and hoe that...
and yet i have never heard anyone ever ask how come they shouldn't be saying bitch or hoe to women.
I lack the cultural insight but from far across the seas here it seems that using the n-word is borderline illegal unlike bitch/hoe. Didn't kramer get crucified for using that word? Do you think he would have gotten the same reaction if he had used the words you mentioned? (His entire career went kaput after all).
Bitch/hoe are terms that the politically powerful majority use to keep a minority in check. The people who use bitch/hoe are already on the skirts of society. The people who used nigger casually included powerful people of all stripes, right up to senators (and probably a few presidents). Bitch/hoe was never seen as something that a 'respectable person' would legitimately say.
If your mom calls you "honey", it's fine, if some guy you don't know calls you "honey", perhaps it's not fine. So, there are other examples of names that have different meanings depending on who is speaking to you.
I am non-white and American, so I'm not wondering what the GP comment is, but this example isn't very helpful at all. It's hardly rare for strangers to call people "honey" in everyday interactions, and I've been called that by men as well. Those men generally happen to be gay, but that says more about our attitudes towards masculinity and the way men can express themselves than anything inherently wrong with them saying that. The only reason I can imagine that would bother someone is that they're uncomfortable with homosexuality or old-fashioned about masculinity. (If this seems wrong to you, consider whether you'd find it weird if a female waitress or something called you "honey" and what exactly the difference would be if she was "some guy").
Funny you should mention that. Our US office receptionist (who is in her 60s) uses this word all the time to strangers. "Oh let me help you with that honey". Initially I found it condescending (for no reason), but now I am used to it.
you can totally google this question, you know. that's a lot of history (200 years) for someone to sum up for you when the information is already out there, although I understand your curiosity and lack of local knowledge.
my initial thought was the usual thing, that it has a totally different meaning when used by black people than when used by white people, but then i realized, because the way you put it, "...every movie with black people has them screaming it", that i really haven't heard it used by actual black people in the flesh all that often. i would guess no more than how often i've heard white people using it, again, in the flesh.
For a few minutes after I was done reading Mr. Adeagbo's piece I wondered if maybe the story of his interview was made up or exaggerated. It's hard to believe someone would do something that mean-spirited (or perhaps just deeply insensitive). I thought to myself that, surely, people in tech don't actually say or do these kinds of things.
But I kept reading comments and the ones at the bottom put my doubts to rest.
I once worked at a large tech company... one of those ruthless fast paced ones. An interviewer liked to ask dumb things like
"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)
Actually, that feeling you had of not believing it because it seemed so improbable is a fairly common reaction (in my experience as a PoC). It was an "aha!" moment for me to realize that not everyone has had those experiences, and if you hadn't, the scenarios just seem so foreign.
I think it's a similar feeling to being a man, and not really understanding all the crazy shit women have to deal with.
Trying to imagine a case where this CEO is just inappropriate rather than mean spirited. The only idea that comes to mind is that the CEO was trying to guard against racial division. He wanted to avoid a situation where race mattered at all in his company, and was probing to see if this person was easily triggered along those lines. While twisted, it makes some sense since a job offer was actually forthcoming.
I don't find it hard to imagine, as there are plenty of privileged white people in the U.S. who barely ever come into contact with black people in a social context. So they just say the first thing that comes into their minds. They feel entitled to start that conversation and treat black people as instant free learning opportunities available any time in any context. It isn't always mean-spirited. It's just vastly ignorant. People can progress beyond it but I think that takes time, listening, education, and learning some personal humility which not everyone has motivation or necessity to develop.
that was the only explanation I could come up with also.
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.
> He wanted to avoid a situation where race mattered at all in his company, and was probing to see if this person was easily triggered along those lines
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?
Well, as a fat man, I've been in interviews where the discussion was turned towards the "great" group activities like rock climbing, etc. With topics ever more invasive about "health" and the like. And me walking around with a cane at the time.
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.
Possibly because race is one of the protected classes by anti-discrimination law, which makes the characteristic a legal hazard. Perhaps you've heard of stories where people are hesitant to hire women, because sex and pregnancy are both protected. In fact, most of the groups you mentioned are covered by anti-discrimination law, so they would naturally fit this model.
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.
The way you worded your comment sounds like you were justifying the CEOs behaviour. As for 'Aspie', I wasn't calling you that, but giving an example of a slur (most of HN would be more familiar with) that a hypothetical CEO might drop in an interview.
Perhaps my outrage scale is calibrated differently, but why is it to you 'Aspie' is taking a shot, and 'Nigger' is only 'probing'?
Didn't mean to justify the CEO's behavior, rather try to understand it in the sense of giving someone the benefit of the doubt. What's the best light you could think of other than him just being a straight out racist. I did say I thought it was inappropriate and "twisted".
The reason I thought "aspie" was a shot rather than a probe is because you didn't offer me a job afterward ;-)
Nah, there is little reason to out an offender if there are no witnesses. Then it becomes another he said/he said type mess and nothing gets fixed.
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
It's a hard decision to make, whether to tell people your perspective from a marginalized position. They feel bad and don't know what to do with that knowledge, or how to integrate it with their own different experiences. I love the bullet points of advice Makinde gives here for people hearing unfamiliar experiences from their coworkers or friends, to figure out how they can be okay with that discomfort.
"When the recruiter called as congratulated me on getting an offer, I immediately declined, citing “severe cultural differences.”"
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.
I see a myriad of threads about interviews on HN. They all say that you can't really code in an interview. You don't have your favorite tools nor any real projet or familiarity with a codebase. These threads will say that the interview should, at most, be there to help you see if there's a culture fit.
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.
I see people lying all the time in life, about everything, then I read stories like this and they seem cringe and unreal with no reason to believe they are true. But there is this pressure to believe them because its about sexism or racism and we should take this story as true because skepticism is bad, I find it really difficult to resolve these feelings of distrust, human beings are just overall untrust worthy.
Of course you have no reason to believe anyone's story. Don't forget that the same thing was said about police brutality for decades until we started seeing more and more footage as evidence.
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.
Your point is actually one hundred percent valid... I wouldn't be surprised if he was lying... but in this case he really isn't claiming that unusual a situation. Its not like he claimed dude came out in a grand dragon kkk robe and asked him to do a jig while eating watermelon... seems plenty of younger white people especially with all the hip hop radio songs saying it are truly perplexed why they aren't supposed to say terms they hear on the radio 50 times a day... Its only suprising that the interviewer delved into this the first time of meeting in a business setting...
I don't find it hard to believe. In most of the cases where someone said something inappropriate, it was at a mostly young startup that had some success and then hired some older, white, male executives.
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.
I'm south Asian too and not only is this comment completely unproductive for a discussion on racism but it completes shut downs the discussion by calling the OP a whiner.
Also the OP has worked at 3 of the top tech organizations in the US. I think the only person who needs to get their "shit together" is the original interviewer and perhaps you for shutting down this discussion (which is desperately needed).
It is not about a group of people. He was asking him because of his skin color, not some group of people. And when the interviewer continued to ask YOU questions about your ethnicity is disparaging terms and would not talk tech then what? You may not identify with your ethnicity or skin color but the CEO certainly did. You would have taken the job with someone who only saw you that way? Where is your self respect?
>> If words and sentences about race push your buttons then you're one of those whiny people who I wouldn't want to hire.
Taken alone without context, I'd agree with this statement but where does one draw the line?
Many organizations are homogenous enough where whining over race(gender/class/religion/sexuality)-related comments is a rare event. Have you ever worked in a diverse organization where whining over the aforementioned was normal (and hence annoying from your viewpoint)?
The OP is not about whining over racism. It's about how-to talk about race when two people are considering a mutually-desired conversation. Your commentary is whining over a hypothetical "whine" that never took place in the OP's world (unless you count being publicly invited to speak on hiring experiences). I repeat: Have you ever worked in a diverse organization where whining over the aforementioned was normal (and hence annoying from your viewpoint)?
Practically speaking, let's not overlook the legality of "words and sentences about race" when hiring in the U.S. Take your liberty but don't break the law [0] --if only for the health and well-being of your organization if not self.
What possible purpose could it serve to ask that question in a job interview?
I always believe that job interviews are two ways; the applicant interviews the company as much as the company interviews the applicant.
Also, he didn't whine. He rationally explained as well as he could in a few minutes and moved on. Ultimately, the company liked him but, he wisely didn't go with a company that would have such terrible interviewers and allow such terrible questions in the interview.
> Obviously Makinde's experience with the CEO is outrageous and abhorrent but race-related issues go very much beyond his personal negative experiences.
His personal experiences are what make the post concrete and therefore substantive. No one doubts that "race-related issues go very much beyond", but when you take a thread like this immediately into that "very much beyond", all you do is turn it into an ideological food fight.
Part of the art of thoughtful discussion is sticking to areas that one can actually say something substantive about. It's not impossible to make a more general comment on a post like this without pulling the discussion into pre-existing opinion and pre-existing emotion. But it's hard, and your comments aren't those of someone who's trying. Indeed, buzzwords like "identity politics and oppression olympics" are a sign that you're here for an ideological flamewar. That's not what this site is for.
What would a thoughtful discussion about this particular story look like?
What you're advocating for here in terms of policing the type of discussion and the types of people that can contribute to the discussion here (based on your assumptions about their personal experiences) is incredibly Orwellian. Obviously this is a private forum and you can do whatever you want but, seriously what you're saying is a bit absurd.
Also FWIW (not much to me, but probably a lot to you) I have personally experienced racism many times in my life.
I'm not sure, but FWIW here's what I think. A thoughtful discussion would involve suspending pre-existing political positions (or at least trying to), carefully avoiding weaponized rhetoric that mostly just stirs up pre-existing emotions for and against, and then reacting to something specific rather than something generic in the article or the comments.
For example, you could respond with some of your own experiences and how they have been similar or different. Your comment suggests that that would be interesting--especially if you would do so in a way that is respectful of others (e.g. others you disagree with) rather than judging them, because that tends to evoke more respectful and substantive responses.
(Btw I replied to this before you added the second paragraph. I don't think I'm being Orwellian, but I guess no Orwellian would.)
Based on the fact that you don't want to talk about it, I'm guessing this is not an issue that you have to deal with personally.
"The incessant focus on identity politics and oppression olympics is extremely cancerous"
Yes, instead of dealing with race-related issues, which you admit exist, let's just tell the people who suffer that their POV is cancerous and they should shut up. That should fix things. -_-
> Yes, instead of dealing with race-related issues, which you admit exist, let's just tell the people who suffer that their POV is cancerous and they should shut up.
I think he has a point and you aren't giving him a fair go.
I've been hurt by a few women in my life. If I focused on those events in my life I would probably be a huge misogynist. Instead I was lucky to be given the good advice to let it go. I'm a little more guarded now is all.
Of course the opposite approach is usually taken by the PC crowd. They dwell on the issues. And it causes a lot of damage.
Now where I disagree with the parent is I think the article was quite good and balanced and not your typical PC article.
I don't think that's what he's trying to say. He's probably referring to the fact that unless you're black/poc/whatever you're not allowed to have an opinion; it's the blacks/pocs/whatevers that are making him shut up, not the other way around.
> For example, you don't have to have been poor to contribute solve poverty.
You DO need a level of understanding and context, though. You don't have to be poor to contribute to solving poverty, but you do need to have experience with poor neighborhoods to know what the pertinent issues are and to get a more wholesome understanding of the predictament of the affected. I wouldn't expect anyone who's never stepped into a neighborhood with Section 8 housing to know the whole story enough to come up with any substantive solutions, and the same applies for racial issues, as well. If you don't know the stories of people who experience them and fail to properly evaluate their worldview, any opinions you have on the matter are based on faulty reasoning and can't truly be taken seriously.
And yet everyone must live in a society subject to policies that are enacted as response to racism or supposed racism.
To suggest that people should be absolutely silent and not contribute to the discourse that leads to policies that affect their lives is morally abhorrent. Ask them to weight their opinions, sure but telling them to shut up is absurd.
I'm happy to have an honest and open discussion about it but that's not what most people want.
Once you start talking about systemic racism vs the rise of single-motherhood and destruction of the family and glorification of violence within the black communities you're called a racist and the discussion stops there.
There's no room for legitimate discussion and therefore nothing improves and nothing gets better, and in fact things get worse.
> Once you start talking about systemic racism vs the rise of single-motherhood and destruction of the family and glorification of violence within the black communities you're called a racist and the discussion stops there.
How is this at all relevant to the topic at hand? Why does every black individual have to account for the cultural and socioeconomic complexities of being born into a low income black neighborhood? Nobody needs a lecture on the struggles of the black community when they're talking about their own experiences and interactions in silicon valley. I don't think you're racist, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that the term "racist" is sometimes abused to the effect of shutting down discussion, but it's not surprising that someone might think you're racist if your response to racially charged interview questions is to bring up black single mothers and the glorification of violence in rap music.
None of these societal things I bring up have anything to do with the actual account of the author's fantastically awful and absurd experience with that CEO.
He clearly intended this to invoke a much wider discussion about race and system racism at the end of his essay. That's what I'm responding to.
you got some points... but honestly discussion at this point is not going to 'improve' anything. Racism of all kinds has been around from the dawn of man and will be around till the dusk of man. The USA has actually outside of the legal/police/corrections system reached as good a point as can reasonably be expected and is among the least racist countries in the world.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. I sincerely doubt that most minorities (myself included) think that we've "reached as good a point as can reasonably expected". I don't think I've ever really heard much arguments to give evidence that the US is "among the least racist countries in the world"
Discounting the value of any discussion about race because you believe we've reached good enough is not a conducive mentality to have towards just about anything, much less society. Things have improved over time because people weren't content with "good enough".
At this point it is appropriate to exercise skepticism towards claims of random acts of racial sadism that just happen to comport with popular "social justice" narratives.
lol. Black people are literally getting gunned down in the streets by our government without prosecution, but you think a couple of outlandish questions in an interview are implausible. Adorable.
Unlike a policeman who shot someone, I would expect actual negative consequences would accrue to a CEO who routinely behaved like that in technical interviews, and that they would expect such negative consequences to accrue.
Sounds to me like a good test of character. It would be interesting if this self described 'black software engineer' would tell us who the founder/CEO was and the name of the company. Why do all the Black kids sit at the same table at school? Why do all the Asian kids sit at the front of the class? Why is it ok for rap singers to say nigger but not anyone else? I really want to know.
A test of character? As in, "Are you the kind of person who can be tenacious enough to work under a manipulative bigot?" I'm trying hard to see your point of view, despite the baiting.
Actually, I agree with you as far as it being a good test of character... on both ends though... i have been on and seen these kinds of interviews where the applicant is deliberately put in uncomfortable positions to see how they are going to react... In general i have found the that it works, it is a simple and incredibly efficient way to find out who can handle themselves, at the same time it clearly exposes the mentality of the interviewer.
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 am non-American mixed-race. I personally consider racism to be -- in and of itself -- a non-issue. It does not kill you, and everything that does not kill you, ultimately makes you stronger.
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.
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.