Founder of Black Girls Code has been ousted as head of the nonprofit | Hacker News Reader

Founder of Black Girls Code has been ousted as head of the nonprofit

businessinsider.com

83 pointshealsdata47 comments

It seems employees of BGC have had issues with the Ms Bryant for years. Perhaps the board moved quickly without communicating much but I highly doubt She was completely unaware of the accusations against her and that the board might actually do something about it one day.

The Glassdoor link fills in some of the details the article leaves out.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Black-Girls-CODE-Reviews-E...

Not to defend the CEO but nearly every one of the negative reviews bashing the CEO has the following characteristics at the top of the review:

* Does not recommend * Approves of CEO * Poor business outlook

I find it difficult to believe that dozens and dozens of people bashing the CEO on glassdoor all just happened to misunderstand and click "Approves of CEO". This looks like an automated and/or coordinated attack.

I think this is poor UI on Glassdoor's fault. "CEO Approval" on the page is not a statement, it is a yes/no question, with the empty circle designating No. (That's how I read it, anyway) It's especially confusing because the options just above and below it (Recommend, Business Outlook) use red X's to express disagreement, while this question does not, leaving the reader unsure if the commenter skipped this question or actively answered No.

I see 10 reviews not dozens and dozens and the ones I think you're referring to all have neutral status for the question "approves of ceo."

Wow, you weren't kidding. That may take the cake as some of the worst reviews I've seen on GlassDoor.

As of 10:15a, the page returns an error, so I assume that Glassdoor is auditing the reviews because I can still view reviews for other companies.

Even the positive reviews there are rather damning...

If that is the case then the board should state they removed her. And have a press release ready to go as soon as it's in effect. I've witnessed a few senior management removals in my lifetime. Rarely has it been unannounced. Even rarer has it been the founder.

Why does the company have an obligation to satisfy a bunch of gossips on HN? I love a good tale of corporate intrigue and betrayal as much as anyone, but I can wait for the podcast.

I give ten percent of my income to charity and spend a lot of time looking into them. While I personally don't engage with race or gender specific organizations as a matter of principal, looking at that Glassdoor this isn't a organization that deserves my money. Loudly correcting this behavior would go a long way to restoring trust for those who would donate. If given the choice between providing mosquito netting in Africa or allowing someone to show up late and bully her staff, I pick the former every time.

Because they are a public facing non-profit who relies on donations from some of the same people who might be on HN. So if the narrative is "out of control board ousts founder" the next time they have a donation drive the donors thoughts might be "I don't know, your org seems kinda sketch".

You ignore social media at your own peril. That is the reality.

Why would they do that? There is an ongoing investigation. It sounds like they essentially put her on paid leave during the investigation. Making a giant public statement about removing her before the investigation is concluded seems wildly inappropriate.

Read the article. They didn't remove her. They brought in an interim CEO while they investigate the allegations.

It's normal for a board to keep it quiet until you have the facts. You want the opportunity to make a good decision and, if the allegations are false, not slander the CEO.

What is the alleged impropriety which she was removed for? The article is missing the most important piece of context.

It’s generally not appropriate to share details during an active investigation because 1) you don’t want to drag someone’s name through the mud incorrectly, 2) you don’t want to bias anyone involved in the investigation, 3) you don’t want to get sued to death for libel.

If the investigation is still active, then why did they already remove her?

Because the alleged behavior is problematic enough to justify an investigation.

Someone allegedly abusing their power is generally removed from that position temporarily during the investigation. To do otherwise is generally just shitty, but also opening oneself up to liability. You cannot leave an alleged abuser in a place to continue their abuse. There are criminal penalties for that depending on the alleged abuse.

If she were just suspended, I'd agree, but the article makes it sound like she was already permanently removed.

> “Black Girls Code's board said that Bryant *remains on the company's staff* while "serious allegations of workplace impropriety are being investigated."”

It sounds like the removal from the leadership position was permanent, even if she'll still be allowed another role in the company.

It doesn’t say that at all.

The board might have run its own internal investigation that is already conclusive enough. They may have more strict limits than what the law dictates as offensive or even criminal.

Understood. I was hoping that someone here in the HN comments might have the low-down.

My fault. I misunderstood your search for gossip as another example of the strange outrage from other commenters here. “They didn’t publicly drag her name through the mud! Those duplicitous assholes!”

Interest in what actually happened is totally reasonable.

Forbes has more info https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2021/12/22/black-gir...

If there is cause, the last thing a NP wants to do is drag it out into public.

With most NP, someone is usually on the take. Either the people running them or the boards. Ask anyone you know at smaller NPs without significant legal teams.

> With most NP, someone is usually on the take

Citation needed.

My experience with non-profits -- and I've been involved in a number of them, including in board roles -- is that they are usually groups of people doing their utmost to achieve a mission with very limited resources. I have not found corruption at them to be particularly rampant.

The non-profits that interact with my parents church are filled with retirees from useful professions. Their missions to Africa staffed with ex-Seabees and the sort of teachers who built houses in their summers, for example. If a structure needs to be built the volunteers will arrive with hand-powered tools and years of experience actually using them. Everybody involved is pretty darn competent.

I think the closest thing to corruption I've seen has been naive people spending money poorly because they haven't made local contacts themselves.

Always a risk. Public charities don't let anyone have more than 20% voting control. Tricky one to navigate.

Is that a law or just a standard that people follow? Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious.

Public Charity regulation by IRS to achieve and maintain tax exempt status. Public Charity is a subset of possible non-profits and possibly 501(c)3 organizations. I'm writing that because colloquially all the terms are used interchangeably, as synonyms, but they are not.

> so it's 3 days before Christmas and you wake up to discover the organization YOU created and built from the ground up has been taken away by a rogue board with no notification

If this isn't cancel culture run amok, then I don't know what is. Somehow, we've enabled a culture that now assumes one is guilty until proven innocent. The worst part about this is that there is zero transparency around the alleged offenses. We were supposed to be moving towards a more transparent society, this is anything but transparent.

If you read the Glassdoor reviews employees have had the same issues with her leadership for quite a long time now. Calling accountability that came too late "cancel culture" is dismissive of peoples real issues and just plain stupid.

To force her out without making a definitive statement does not create good optics. It looks like some power-hungry board members wanted her out.

I don't doubt that she has critics from within the org, but to push her out without clearly stating why does not look good at all.

It's revealing that you accuse an organisation's organ for not following criminal trial standards when making a preliminary decision, but you have no problem to denounce strangers "power hungry" and "rogue" without even having the slightest insight into their decisions or motivations.

You just assumed it's cancel culture and ran with it. You lost all your passion for "innocence until guilty" before you even finished typing your post...

I don’t disagree that perhaps this wasn’t handled well. I was just taking issue with calling someone being fired for just reasons "cancel culture."

How do you propose they should have handled this? From the article, it seems like they quietly removed her during an investigation and she’s the one who made this a big public affair via twitter.

Indeed.

"X having built an outstanding organization is moing on to persue new challenges. We wish X the very best and look forward to what they do next"

I mean we all know this means they've been fired/ousted, but normally benefits both sides to leave it at this.

Now I'm looking forward to the juicy gossip opens pop-corn

Why would they say that when

> In an emailed statement to Insider, Black Girls Code's board said that Bryant remains on the company's staff while "serious allegations of workplace impropriety are being investigated."

i.e. they haven't removed her entirely yet?

"Bryant's tweets drew an outpouring of support and sympathy from many in the tech community who expressed shock at the news of her removal from the nonprofit's leadership."

Doesn't sound like the "culture" is assuming she's guilty. I have no clue what the truth is, but it sounds like she's got a lot of supporters.

That’s uncommon. Usually the knives come out for anything even slightly alleged towards somebody

The Dixie Chicks show that "cancel culture" isn't a new thing not at all.

I dunno - recent cancelling feels different. Take J K Rowling as an example:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19723926.harry-potter-reun...

Cancelled from her own creation, for having a pretty uncontroversial viewpoint.

Nor something created by the left and the woke :shrug:

> We were supposed to be moving towards a more transparent society, this is anything but transparent.

You have to love that the chief way HN addresses this concern trolling is for users to click a button that literally makes the comment more difficult to read. :)

I've upvoted for legibility before. HN can get, again literally, harder to read when school is out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com