Honestly, even you saying this is BS.
"I want my replacement to be a black person" -> black person is hired -> "were they hired because of their race?"
You: How dare you even imply they were hired based on their race!
If anyone is bullshitting anyone here, it's you bullshitting yourself. The sheer mental gymnastics you're working through here to be outraged at the above must take a terrible toll.
This is to say nothing of the candidate. I'm no judge of Board of Director candidates, and largely feel it's entirely based on connections and not what you the person is capable of, but his resume and presence in the industry has obviously been stellar. I wish him well in dealing with the utter cesspit that is 2020 Reddit.com.
If we, as a society say we need to make a conscious effort to have more decision makers from a variety of backgrounds so that this human tendency to hire friends and people we know can actually result in a broader group of people being able to access opportunity.
I still say allowing people to be passive aggressive and "ask the question" about whether someone is qualified because there was a effort to be inclusive is a way to undermine the credibility of the candidate and this effort doesn't seem to ever be directed at white people. You ever hear someone question another executive for hiring a college frat brother? or someone that worked at the same investment bank? Hiring preferences exist.
But in-group bias has literally nothing to do with the conversation we're having here.
This is important because the argument that someone picked with their race in mind to achieve this goal is used to create the subtext that the person would not otherwise have been qualified and is used to undermine their legitimacy and the legitimacy of the goal to eliminate in group bias.
This is a real problem because it distorts the discussion from the real argument. In reality if we want a true meritocracy, as most proponents of anti affirmative action / opponents diversity goals claim then we should want the widest funnel of candidates possible. What we actually have is a small funnel of people that, while not intentionally racist, classist or discriminatory, results in exclusion of many people. We’re all worse of for it.
Then when will they include conservatives in the board? They are after all half the population, but there doesn't seem to be any in all of Reddit's board or company.
Let’s go ahead and ignore the systematic and historical oppression of minorities and black people in particular, if anything conservatives have dominated business culture and are over represented in leadership positions of companies.
Reddit, if anything is an outlier, not some propped up example of oppression of conservative voices.
But I take your point. And I agree people should hire from across the political spectrum.
Except they do. In fact, you're saying it right now.
I understand it's a terrible position to be put in.
For most people it will be "I'm on the board of reddit." "Oh, cool."
For people who think it was because of skin color, they may think less of him or of reddit, but presumably he made that choice going in and is okay with the costs and benefits. I have a rare (and not at all serious) medical condition. If reddit said they were selecting board members only with this condition I would happily apply and take the position even if everyone would say I only got it because of my condition and even if that were true. The cost is people would think I benefited from luck or circumstance and the reward is being able to meaningfully influence a major website and money. Hardly seems like a terrible trade to me.
It's just the reddit board. If it's so awesome, can you name the other people who are on it, as of today?
Guaranteed that 95% of the people reading this did not know that this august institution also includes, and would not have known were it not for this comment:
Sam Altman (famous, not surprising) Robert Sauerberg (probably less famous than Seibel before being named to this) Porter Gale (ditto)
I'm sure these are good people, doing important work. But there's 4 of them in all, Seibel's just one, and the net effect may be less consequential than people here imagine.
That’s about hirings based (also) on skin color rather than merit alone.
So yes, it is about Michael because he has to deal with this crap of people "just asking the question".