Google advised mental health care when workers complained about racism, sexism
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
This is unironically good advise. On Wikipedia, "assume good faith" is even a rule. This is because many of the talk-page conversations derail due to nothing other than editors assuming bad faith about each others contributions.
However, pleading ignorance on rascism or sexism does not hold water. You may think racism or sexism is normal, but if I allow you to claim ignorance, then I implicitly tolerate that behaviour. Tolerating such behaviours can destroy a community, and past experience has taught me to call them out as soon as I see them if you want the community to benefit long term.
The funny part: for my friend, who also had a strong accent, it was odd (and not very nice) if someone didn't ever ask about where's he from -- because he was obviously an immigrant.
Just telling this story because something that can possibly be interpreted as 'racism' is 'basic niceness/politeness' for someone else. If we're celebrating diversity then let's embrace it properly.
Thank you for your wisdom. I have been saying something along these lines for a long time, but never so eloquently.
Why is there a rule all of a sudden? Why did I not get the memo? Why was it okay for others to ask me but not me someone else? Is there a special exception for this person? Is this a national culture thing? Can I fix this? I didn't mean to offend but I did!
That's what would go on in my head. I don't think that's unreasonable. If you want people to conform to your social or cultural norms, you need to explain them first.
And as is mentioned in the comments, assume good faith first. Educate instead of judge. Live and let live. Was there harm done by the question?
Let's take a step back and look what this article would have us believe ... namely that in 2021, when race and talk of race is an incredibly sensitive topic (and has been for a couple of decades now but there is certainly extra sensitivity now than before), a tech company in Silicon Valley, based in one of the most progressives areas in the world, would be staffed with people who go around commenting on people's skin color? I need a little bit more journalism to understand the context because at face-value this doesn't pass the 'smell test'.
>They seem to systemically do that to people who make complaints about sexism or racism.
How do you know that? Why would you trust that NBC News is accurately and objectively laying out the case here? What is it in their general reporting, especially on highly contentious and sensitive issues, that tells you they will provide you with the facts and context so you can reach a balanced conclusion?
> seem to
> Or this article is just cherry picking examples to make it seem that way.
I think I was pretty clear that this is the picture the article paints, but maybe isn't how it actually is.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Unfortunately I am guilty of violating it, too. But I like the rule a lot and try to apply it more often in real life as well.
It also derails exactly when people post in bad faith. This rule is self-defeating as long as nothing covers this gap.
> Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
My interpretation is more: HN considers polite racists to be a moderation problem, not a hook for angry shouting at each other.
One problem of the internet as a whole (and I am guilty of it too) is that people feel like they HAVE to engage, even if it's futile.
Indeed. That is a good question. Wouldn't it be nice to know what the context around this kind of statement was instead of trying to guess what it was? Wouldn't that be an example of good journalism to provide this information in a balanced objective way, instead of leaving it out there so that people either assume the worst or dismiss the claim as clearly hyperbolic? After all, there are gradations to these kinds of things - how are we, the readers, supposed to know where on the spectrum this lies (or if this is even true at all)? Are we supposed to use our own biases and lack of knowledge of the situation to guide us to a conclusion?
OK. Let's try that by taking a step back and examining the situation as laid out. Race, in 2021, is a very sensitive topic, and has been for years. Silicon Valley is one of the most progressive areas in the world and regional tech companies as a matter of policy, as well as their employees from a personal perspective (because they live in the present culture and in the progressive area), are highly sensitive to issues around race. Given those facts, are you sure the article is presenting you with enough context to actually make a balanced and objective judgment as to the veracity of the claims? In other words, I don't trust the reporting of NBC News here. I don't think you can read this article and understand the context of these claims and therefore you can't make any sort of judgment and assign fault or blame on any party.
So, when is pointing out a new coworker’s skin color actually okay?
Let's start with the fact that this article is presenting one side of the story. We don't know if this person is truthful. We don't know if this person is hyperbolic, or if they left out some key details or played certain facts and suppressed others, or just misconstrued the comment. We just don't know what the situation actually is. So the first question back to you is, why are you engaging in this creative writing exercise? It's abundantly clear that you don't know happened there because at best, you have a one sentence summary of the situation (actually a half of sentence, literally: "when a colleague told them that their skin was much darker than she expected"). But let's set that aside.
The framing of your question is also absolutely ridiculous. Are you really trying to claim that you have traversed the near-infinite space of potential interactions and deemed them all 'NOT OK'? All of them? What if this comment was in context of a sun-tan because you, your new coworker and other people were talking about about their sun-tans and your new coworker pointed out they tan really quickly (or not at all)? Is that too silly? What if your new coworker was the one who brought up their skin tone and you politely agreed with them? Too contrived? Don't like this creative writing exercise? How is that different from what you're doing ... except you're not only taking the absolute worst and most ugly interpretation of a half-a-sentence reference from this article, but also categorically stating that there is no context under which it would be 'OK' for two co-workers to reference skin color. Insanity.
Because I'm responding to the very top comment about assuming good intent and the people already agreeing with it. I'm not arguing that what happened in the article is verified true.
> Are you really trying to claim that you have traversed the near-infinite space of potential interactions and deemed them all 'NOT OK'? All of them?
I made no claims. I asked the question.
> What if this comment was in context of a sun-tan because you, your new coworker and other people were talking about about their sun-tans and your new coworker pointed out they tan really quickly (or not at all)? Is that too silly? What if your new coworker was the one who brought up their skin tone and you politely agreed with them? Too contrived? Don't like this creative writing exercise? How is that different from what you're doing ... except you're not only taking the absolute worst and most ugly interpretation of a half-a-sentence reference from this article, but also categorically stating that there is no context under which it would be 'OK' for two co-workers to reference skin color. Insanity.
Then you're just assuming good faith on behalf of the offending party in the article based on certain "what ifs" that you conjured, which isn't so different from my engaging in conversation with HN re: the boundaries of workplace racism based on the "what if" that the article is, in fact, true.
And this is the frustrating part about this terrible article. There is simply not enough information to make a value judgment. The principle of "assuming good intent" may be a great general principle but of course, it will not and should not apply in every situation. Should it apply in this situation? I don't know. We're left having to speculate because the journalist in question didn't even bother to do basic due diligence.
>I made no claims. I asked the question.
OK I answered.
>Then you're just assuming good faith on behalf of the offending party
Like you, I made no claims either way. I wish journalists would be more responsible.
Still, doesn’t the responsibility of understanding the sensitivities of an unfamiliar culture fall onto the foreigner who’s coming in?
Also, while said companies go to extreme length to tell their employees how to handle any hint of racism, sexism, etc, they do not actually define what any of these terms mean in practice, meaning even the "indigenous" are walking on eggshells. There's also a difficult continual doublethink required to simultaneously celebrate diversity while avoiding any hint of appropriation, all while pretending to ignore everything about the actual people you're working with.
But a lot of it will be down to the company, I think.
One big part of moving to my country (the Netherlands) is to partake and graduate in an integration course and exam - you need to have an adequate grasp of both the language and the culture to be able to get a Dutch citizenship: https://www.nt2.nl/en/dossier/kennis_nederlandse_maatschappi...
Now this is an insanely stupid, and odd thing to say, but I think it's fair to say it comes from a place of ignorance, and not malice. At least one might assume that if the incident only happens once.
I'm a nice person but that any comment is potentially a landmine to me professionally, I'd just rather not expose myself like that. I can't count on anyone assuming good intent with me because everyone is so fired up on their crusader trains.
I'll give a personal example: when I was a Buddhist renunciate--this was right at the beginning of cancel culture--someone I thought to be a close friend posted a negative experience she had with a man. It didn't stop there: she proceeded to blast all men for not immediately talking to every man they knew about their inherent violence. I commented that from the perspective of peace, her exhortation would result in more anger, more rage in the world, not less.
My last name on Facebook at that time was my own creation, for the sake of my privacy. Immediately after my call for calm, I was doxxed and Facebook locked me out of my account until I could prove my last name.
In hindsight, she did me a great favor as I never returned to Facebook, which I now see as poison to the human mind.
The exact reason I don't have a Twitter
Life is about calculated risk, and in my estimation, the rewards of friendship outweigh the risks of alienation, especially if you open up incrementally and judiciously.
How is this not sexism?
We don't have enough information on the actual exchange, or the context from this article.
"a colleague told them that their skin was much darker than she expected."
That might be benign, or hostile, or just candid and clumsy. It's hard to tell.
It's also not clear whether Google was asked to put forward a defence to the accusations made in the article.
"Google said in a statement that the company is committed to supporting employees who raise concerns about workplace treatment."
Again, the article doesn't provide enough context for us to know. Was the statement in response to a request to answer the allegations in the article, or was it a generic statement made without the context of these specific allegations?
If there is context that makes this clearly malicious then the article should provide it. It's not reasonable to assume that context exists though. While it is reasonable to acknowledge it might exist - there's no evidence of it. Perhaps a teapot is in space orbiting the sun by itself.
Assuming good intent at first doesn't mean you're infinitely gullible or a doormat for people to walk on. It just means not being a landmine that is going to try to get people in trouble.
Unfortunately in big groups you will have both of those types and HR is not good at managing finer-grained inter-personal issues. Without all of the context it's hard to judge group dynamics.
It's painfully obvious you haven't been exposed to Bay Area/West Coast start-up culture (I envy your lack of exposure).
I've seen people getting reported to HR for the following things:
- Using a photo of a Sherpa (an actual photo, not a character or drawing) in a presentation to describe the concept of guiding people and systems to their desired outcome and state. They were reported for using racist caricatures of marginalized minorities
- Discussing shooting sports in a thread about hobbies. They were reported for making people feel unsafe
- Someone posted a screen shot of a Tweet in support of BLM, but the screen shot was from Blacktivist, a Twitter account that was part of a Russian propaganda campaign. Someone replied to the screen shot that maybe it should be taken down since it was literally created and pushed from a propaganda account. They were reported for being insensitive to PoC employees
These are just a few out of the dozens upon dozens. I'm sure many others here on HN could provide examples.
That’s probably because you can afford to.
Imagine you’re someone who had to file a grave complaint but the person got off the hook because “it was a one time thing, it’s his first offense”.
It’s important to document all microagression if you really want something to happen out of these complaints.
The accuser maybe felt the perp would likely be a repeating offender and is not open to feedback, so the effort to pile up complaints got initiated. This is how it’s done. I’d be happy to work with this person.
The concept of microagressions is backwards and pernicious. People are imperfect communicators. Getting offended at cryptic, imagined, or unintended slights is something that children and crazy people do. Adults, especially in the workplace, should be able to understand people have different ways of expressing themselves and that's not bad and you don't need to get HR involved.
One example comes to mind - I had a coworker who frequently wrote "..." After messages on our instant messenger. Once I asked him a question and he just replied "..." And then 20 minutes later told me the answer. I read this as kind of a sarcastic thing, like an exasperated sigh that he'd have to explain something so obvious. I thought this guy was a real jerk.
One day after he sent me a "..." I asked him what it meant. I said "What does '...' signify?" And the guy answered that it meant "More to follow" and I realized that he wasn't being a jerk, he was just trying to signal to me that he couldn't complete the answer at the moment, but would send more to follow.
The point of my little story is that it just doesn't make sense to assume hostile motives. Lots of times people just communicate differently. Trying to document all the times you can interpret someone as being negative is just a bad idea in addition to being unfair and unproductive. It's also way more likely to make people genuinely aggressive and hostile towards you.
"a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority"
That is consistent with the definition I had in mind when I wrote my comment. I do think trying to document unintended offenses is a bad idea. The recipient of the microagression should instead learn not to dwell on minor slights, ignore them, and/or assume good intent instead. It seems very toxic to live as if the people you talk to are secretly hurting you. Better to think of them as nice people with different methods of communication until they prove otherwise.
You keep saying “imaginary”, but microagression is about what has been said, not relevant to dwell on what the person might have wanted to mean.
You keep coming back to this perceived paranoia: “as if people are secretly trying to hurt you”. This is not what this is about. This is people that got hurt, and no matter what others are trying, secretly or not, that hurt is better be documented.
It doesn’t mean that someone ought to be punished right away for each comment deemed offensive by anyone. It’s just that these occurrences might be relevant later on and if they’re not documented, it’s gone.
Documenting all offenses is a good idea for people who are at risk of finding themselves needing that later. And if you don’t think this happens frequently enough, you haven’t been paying attention.
Microaggressions do exactly what you say: force people to feel as if they're walking on eggshells. And telling them "Oh, just shake it off" gets exactly the same response as if I told you to just shake off the accusations of microaggressions.
The downward spiral already exists: people do exhibit a range of racist, sexist, etc. behavior on a spectrum every day, from outright asshole behavior to small, incidental assumptions about people that make them feel unwanted and singled out. It afflicts some people more than others. So you can take this as a thought experiment to see why it's a problem for them, and if "just ignore it" doesn't work for you, then maybe we can find a better answer.
Your entire argument is based on this pretence that is demonstrably false.
Getting reported to HR by these neurotic professional victims is not something you can "just shake off", you literally can't "just ignore it".
It's asymmetrical warfare, and the externalities are all on you, the microagressor.
All of this reminds me of the 90s when Evangelicals wanted schools to ban students from talking about, wearing clothing with, or playing anything related to Pokemon, because it was an affront and a "microagression" to their religion.
Here we are, just a few decades later and leftists and SJWs are now the ones playing the victims, being "microagressed".
And I can assure you that this is not the case. They've always been perceived and caused hurt. The difference is that we now have a name for it and decided that people deserve better.
> since they are primarily a matter of interpretation
They are not.
I mean look at how far this thing has escalated. Does that seem like healthy group behavior to you?
"Wow, what a tan"
> "Yeah I just came back from 3 months in Egypt"
"Yeah! I was a momentarily surprised because your skin colour was darker than I expected since I'd seen your photo on your CV"
Maybe I'm giving the colleague too much credit.
I learned the hard way once that even a (seemingly) innocent comment about a friend's tan could be perceived very adversely, due to the fact that their culture had "being tanned" == "being dark(er)" connotations which were quite negative. It's a particular point of view, not one globally shared, that being tanned (or general malleability of skin tone) is a discussion point/something of casual interest.
These day I find it's best to simply mind my own business about others' appearances unless they're very close friends or family.
Also, I don't want to say that anytime I asked this question I offended someone, it's more like 3% of the time I had this feeling that I wish I didn't ask.
After the industrialization, having a tan was a proxy for wealth. It showed that the person could afford being outside rather than working hard inside a factory all day.
Wealth and status gained from wealth is something which people inherently find interesting, and especially when there are changes. From a behavioral perspective, anytime people comment about someone tan I see it as a comment about status, similar to what happen if someone buys an expensive jewelry or car.
Wow.
Have a skim of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_c... to see some examples of this.
Well, that sucks for me as I am darker than most where I live :D but to be honest, I have very rarely felt discriminated... when I do, I actually pitty the person who is doing it, because they are clearly being an ignorant douchebag and while that may momentarily give them some kind of good feeling for displaying their supposed superiority, I can only imagine how sad they are later when they realize they have nothing to actually show for why they might be better than anyone else, on the contrary, they are just showing how stupid they are from thinking that the color of their skin (or hair, or eye color or whatever) actually makes them better somehow.
I know because I'm guilty too... why can't we see someone of a different race/color/style and just NOT start thinking they are bad for being different?!!? Given how widespread this is , I think we should stop trying to pretend we don't do it and that we can treat people equally... clearly, we can't. We need to come to terms with this and find a solution that actually works. No idea what that may be, but waiting for people to behave properly will absolutely never work, not when this behaviour is so bloody widespread in every single culture, even children as old as 2 or 3yo displaying preferences for whites.
You don't broker peace and build bridges and that sort of thing this way. This tends to put out the fire with gasoline and that may be why Google is doing this shitty thing of putting people on leave and saying "We will move you when you come back." Because they may be trying to help the employee start over after burning bridges on their current team.
I wish I had something more constructive to say about this. This is my third attempt to say something here and I'm very concerned about coming across as dismissive of very real issues and that's absolutely not my intent.
Quite the contrary. I hope to plant the idea that there may be a path forward but this is not it. You will need to look elsewhere for real solutions.
I know that a lot of FAANG employees hang here, including people who work at Google. I know that sometimes people here actually respect my opinion on some topics.
If you want to make real progress here, you will really need to look at things like the Rooney Rule for inspiration and clues as to how to actually make progress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule
You will be breaking ground if you find real solutions. Real solutions will most likely not involve things like hiring quotas.
When did big tech undergo a societal change? I can’t imagine that the D&D nerds I hung out with in school would respond in similarly inhumane and obviously immoral ways. Google is no place for nerds anymore, „preps“ took over?
The more that are present, the more opportunities arise for that previously latent trait to become visible. It's not everybody -- far from it -- but it's more than we thought or hoped.
I suspect that your D&D group was mostly white and male, like mine. And if there were women in it, you might try asking them now about the things that they tolerated but didn't like: misogynist jokes, subjected to comments about their appearance, maybe even being assumed that they'd clean up.
I don't intend that as an accusation. It's an admission: I'm certain that this went on in my group, and I'm pretty sure I was part of it. Not that it was intolerable; they would have left if it was that bad. But it's part of my overall suggestion that it's probably not as rosy as we remember it being.
I point that out because I think the change was less about Google shifting from nerds to preps, but that the nerds are finding more opportunities to act like the preps. Not all of them, and not all the time, but enough to be a small but constant trickle.
First, you are much more empathetic (especially towards ostracized people or those shunned for nerd interests) because you know what suffering feels like, and can relate to people who are suffering. Your alarm bells will ring when there are signs of irrational decisions driven by group think. Hackers are very aware of the meaning behind principles like „don’t shoot the messenger“.
Second, your interests have shown you both utopian (Star Trek) and dystopian (1984, Blade Runner) outcomes of society, and you have discussed these possibilities in online forums or with your nerd circle (of all creatures) for nights. These patterns studied in depth are difficult to ignore and not speak up about when your company makes decisions that lead either way.
I‘d hang out and nerd around about the latest fringe obsessions with the slightly overweight guy who behaves a bit clumsily around women due to insecurity (not because he is outright sexist), but is generally reflected and tries not to do harm at any time. I’ve got a strong aversion against the borderline bullying and cocky „tech bro“ who just wants money and the privilege to control anyone he wants (including girls), never daydreamed about tech utopias, and doesn’t consider the implications of his actions (on a personal or on a societal level) in the slightest. This is likely an unconscious pattern learned in the hard way when growing up. I can’t explain some things I’m seeing in tech by anything but that those who did not live through the nerd experience bullied their way into taking over control.
I’m still working in academia and am wondering how I can find the still-nerdy circles when I have to move to industry.
Anyway, The Social Network is a pretty bad example because everyone in there already started from a privileged position, e.g. rich parents; Zuck's parents were a psychiatrist and a dentist, both at least 150K / year jobs. Harvard costs $50K a year for tuition, plus nearly $20K / year for housing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-...
The abusers are treated real cozy.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26374822
Title: 'Google’s approach to Black schools explains why there's few Black engs in Tech'
The policy, and maybe even mechanism for downvote and flag to be adjusted so that a number alone does not trample arguments.
Maybe "downvote/flag" comments, which if voted, will add downvote/flag count for parent arguments? I don't know.
Neutral or even positive or curious tone does not, ipso facto, make a comment not a negative contribution to discussion. Community moderation is not exclusively, or even primarily, intended for tone policing.
> The policy, and maybe even mechanism for downvote and flag to be adjusted so that a number alone does not trample arguments.
That's, like, literally the entire purpose of having downvoting.
> Maybe "downvote/flag" comments, which if voted, will add downvote/flag count for parent arguments?
Downvoting exists to reduce the signal/noise ratio. Making metadiscussion mandatory for downvoting is directly contrary to the purpose and makes it easier for the kind of comments downvoting exists to address to have the effect of sidetracking threads that downvoting exists to mitigate. It would defeat the purpose of the feature.
Central Americans have a wide range of color, from very white to black on account of the European and slavery influence. My own skin is of course influenced by those factors.
I’ve been (at work) told I don’t look like I’m from where I say I’m from. To be insulted when there was no obvious intent to insult would show an extreme lack of maturity.
This is the equivalent of calling the cops on your neighbor because they don’t act and talk like you.
But it has a long history.
> Further, as they/them implies plural,
From American Heritage Dictionary 4th Ed. (En-En)
> Usage Note: The use of the third-person plural pronoun they to refer to a singular noun or pronoun is attested as early as 1300, and many admired writers have used they, them, themselves, and their to refer to singular nouns such as one, a person, an individual, and each. W.M. Thackeray, for example, wrote in Vanity Fair in 1848, “A person can't help their birth,” and more recent writers such as George Bernard Shaw and Anne Morrow Lindbergh have also used this construction, in sentences such as “To do a person in means to kill them,” and “When you love someone you do not love them all the time.” The practice is widespread and can be found in such mainstream publications as the Christian Science Monitor, Discover, and the Washington Post. The usage is so common in speech that it generally passes unnoticed.
From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 11
> They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns
> and every one to rest themselves betake — Shakespeare
> I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly — Jane Austen
> it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy — W. H. Auden
> The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons
> 'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech — Shakespeare
> a person can't help their birth — W. M. Thackeray
> no man goes to battle to be killed. — But they do get killed — G. B. Shaw
> The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.
So again, I am not opposed to folks choosing pronouns. I am just saying that it is different, difficult, and will take some time for people to adapt.
Neither "they" or "them" are exclusively plural.
What is a "diversity recruiter"? Does Google have segregation among recruiters??!?
It reeks of this sort of thing... https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/kkk-rob...
right, Some people are more important than others
edit: referring to capitalization, if that is unclear
They should file a racial discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Then Google would be legally forced to conduct a serious investigation.
Also, Google would be unable to retaliate against the employee in any way, such as denying a promotion, etc.
> Cruz claims they were subsequently rejected from every role they applied for, and felt forced to quit.
If true, that would constitute "constructive dismissal".
Unfortunately, companies are protected against a fair amount of legal repercussions due to arbitration agreements (which, in California, you can no longer force people to sign in employment contracts).
Arbitration agreements do not protect employers against EEOC complaints. So, EEOC is perhaps the best way for this person to proceed.