Sr Manager at Google Resigns After Dalit Activist Disallowed from Giving Lecture

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31593799

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=caste

In reality, it's probably impossible to understand how big or small a problem caste discrimination really is in context. The folks who don't face any negative experiences mostly aren't going to pipe up.

The only time it ever came up for discussion is in the context of someone's parents in India preferring their own caste folks as brides/grooms for arranged marriages back home(similar to the very high rates of race discrimination in dating in the US) and even that has trended down a lot recently with everyone becoming more progressive. My sense is that there are isolated cases here and there, and that it's not systemic, and that it's also rapidly getting better with time both back home and with 2nd generation immigrants in the US.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/01/tech/cisco-lawsuit-caste-...

If you go head to head with one of these guys in the office, expect to lose. They occupy CEO positions in Google, Microsoft, and 100 other big companies, and their inner circle of top lieutenants too. This is partly due to capabilities and partly due to 2000+ years of being the managerial class, inherited by birth.

That's an interesting comment. "little chance I would have noticed it." . I found this NYT article that pointed out we've long had our own caste system that we don't seem to notice. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/magazine/isabel-wilkerson...

" a caste system with ancient rules and assumptions that made such a horror possible, that held each actor in that scene in its grip. Off camera, two other men in uniform, who looked like the lighter man, were holding down the darker man from the other side of the police car as dusk approached in Minneapolis. Yet another man in uniform, of Asian descent and thus not in the dominant caste, stood near, watching, immobilized, it seemed, at a remove from his own humanity and potential common cause, as the darker man slipped out of consciousness. We soon learned that the man on the ground, George Floyd, had been accused of trying to pass a counterfeit $20 bill, and, like uncountable Black men over the centuries, lost his life over what might have been a mere citation for people in the dominant caste. "

Biases I've noticed:

Chinese have positive bias toward whites

Chinese have strong positive bias toward other chinese

Chinese have slight negative bias toward indian

Chinese have strong negative bias toward blacks

Indians have strong negative bias toward lower caste

Indians have moderate negative bias toward muslims/pakistan

Indians have positive bias toward white

White women have positive bias toward black

White women have negative bias toward white men

White men have strong positive bias toward other white men

White men have positive bias toward asian

White men are neutral toward chinese, hispanic, indian, pakistan...

White men have slight negative bias toward older women

=========

not enough personal data points to tell about muslims, hispanics, black and other groups and subgroups.

you can see this dynamic play out during lunch, in voting, and other various social interactions.

I have no idea who is "right" here; I'm neither Indian nor living in the US. But I will add a general comment: experiencing discrimination is not the same thing as being discriminated.

For example, let's say I – as a man – have a disagreement with a female coworker, and maybe I'm a bit of an asshole about it. She might genuinely feel discriminated, belittled, man-splained, or whatever you want to call it. It might be I'm doing this because she's a woman and that she's right, or I might just be having a bad day, or I might be an asshole to everyone I disagree with, or I might just have accidentally phrased things in a bad way.

This is a big problem; there have been a few cases where this actually happened and people accused me of being racist or sexist, usually online. Sometimes I could have phrased things a little bit better maybe, but I sure didn't do it because of someone's identity. People will say it's due to "subconscious bias", but I find that's what the kids nowadays call "gaslighting". Maybe subconscious bias exists and influences people's behaviour in significant ways (not so sure it does, but that's a different discussion), but all but one of the times it happened I wasn't even aware who I was talking to until they "outed" themselves when accusing me of discrimination.

To be clear: no doubt discrimination happens in various ways for various people, but in many instances it can be really hard to say if a specific incident is an instance of it, of if it's due to other reasons. This is problematic because 1) it makes it very hard to actually do something about (systemic) discrimination because you can't punish/fine people easily, but also 2) people will still genuinely feel discriminated against even if there is no actual (or very little) discrimination happening (or is no longer happening).

To be clear: I'm not "accusing" those people of "making things up" or anything like that, I really believe that almost all people report genuine feelings and experiences. As one of those white male types I have it easy: if someone is an asshole to me I can fairly safely assume that person is an asshole to me on account of just being an asshole, but for some other groups this can be a lot harder, either due to current or historical discrimination.

My point is that experiences aren't everything when it comes to these kind of topics, no matter how honest and genuine. They're also not worthless, and some experiences do describe clear-cut cases, but in general I'm careful.

Surnames and to a much lesser extent skin color/facial features indicate caste quite easily to people who have grown up in India. Often castes / surnames were historically also linked to professions which followed down family.

In fact in early medeival Europe too surnames historically indicated profession (Smith, Wright, Cooper, Ward, Chamberlain, Shoemaker...) but I believe the major labor shortage and dislocations caused by the black death and frequent warfare requiring conscription across all social classes pretty much ended any likelihood of social rigidity coming out of this. It will be interesting to see though how the capital and political power accumulation by the wealthier Americans plays out over the next few centuries.

In India, the way society developed was to restrict warfare largely to be carried out by certain upper castes and for most of the society, it didn't really matter who the ruling king was - at least until late medieval periods when proselytization started with Islamic invasion. So the caste system developed into something deep rooted, pernicious and divisive.

Interestingly in India, while Christianity and Islam don't have castes in theory, in practice it is commonly observed that their adherents too observe such distinctions which tells you how deep rooted the problem is.

Specifically to the community of the activist, the Dalits were actually considered to be "people with no caste" historically and were treated as "untouchables". Very likely they were the people who got the wrong side of the stick during the Aryan invasion ~3000 years ago which forms the basis of much of Hindu culture though there are obvious deep rooted integrations from the pre-existing pre-invasion culture (Shiva, Durga etc..) likely from the people who were integrated into the Aryan society.

You don't really see "untouchability" today especially in urban largely as a result of efforts of freedom movement era social reformers like Gandhi and Ambedkar followed by "vote bank politics" in the nascent democracy. Some communities also stopped using surnames. However i still recall when we were very young, our great grand parents generation still observed some of the discriminatory structures. So it has taken a couple of generations to get rid of untouchability - ie parents who saw discrimination as children but don't practice it raising children who understand it but haven't seen it raising kids who only know of it intellectually). It will probably take a couple more to eliminate caste discrimination but we are half way there

Surnames and to a much lesser extent skin color/facial features indicate caste quite easily to people who have grown up in India. Often castes / surnames were historically also linked to professions which followed down family.

In fact in early medeival Europe too surnames historically indicated profession (Smith, Wright, Cooper, Ward, Chamberlain, Shoemaker...) but I believe the major labor shortage and dislocations caused by the black death and frequent warfare requiring conscription across all social classes pretty much ended any likelihood of social rigidity coming out of this. It will be interesting to see though how the capital and political power accumulation by the wealthier Americans plays out over the next few centuries.

In India, the way society developed was to restrict warfare largely to be carried out by certain upper castes and for most of the society, it didn't really matter who the ruling king was - at least until late medieval periods when proselytization started with Islamic invasion. So the caste system developed into something deep rooted, pernicious and divisive.

Interestingly in India, while Christianity and Islam don't have castes in theory, in practice it is commonly observed that their adherents too observe such distinctions which tells you how deep rooted the problem is.

Specifically to the community of the activist, the Dalits were actually considered to be "people with no caste" historically and were treated as "untouchables". Very likely they were the people who got the wrong side of the stick during the Aryan invasion ~3000 years ago which forms the basis of much of Hindu culture though there are obvious deep rooted integrations from the pre-existing pre-invasion culture (Shiva, Durga etc..) likely from the people who were integrated into the Aryan society.

You don't really see "untouchability" today especially in urban largely as a result of efforts of freedom movement era social reformers like Gandhi and Ambedkar followed by "vote bank politics" in the nascent democracy. Some communities also stopped using surnames. However i still recall when we were very young, our great grand parents generation still observed some of the discriminatory structures. So it has taken a couple of generations to get rid of untouchability - ie parents who saw discrimination as children but don't practice it raising children who understand it but haven't seen it raising kids who only know of it intellectually). It will probably take a couple more to eliminate caste discrimination but we are half way there.

The level of sexism and racism I see on a daily basis in tech is mind-boggling.

I’ve been in trainings (multiple), in fortune 100 companies (multiple), where white men were asked to apologize for the sins of other white people hundreds of years ago.

I’ve been in trainings where pictures of brains were put on screens and little sections were pointed at as the “racist” part of the brain. That’s, exactly what racists did (great scene in django unchained https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2prpdjkDIO8).

Is there racism against Asians absolutely, all people have bias and it’ll have an impact in particular situations.

The reality, is the focus on “women in tech” and “racism” is largely unnecessary and is leading to the caste system mentioned.

If you look at the office as “oppressed” and “oppressors” and do that based on race, you’re the racist. That’s what’s happening everywhere and frankly I know tens of people who have left these companies because of it.

I can't talk to this particular activist's positions, but Dalit Activism is a very relevant and worthy cause - it causes pretty significant discrimination even in the US.

Can’t think of a more important talk to be given to them tbh.

It makes as much sense as a talk on racial discrimination or gender identity discrimination to me, so I'm curious what's perceptively different about it to others.

For those it affects, that is.

> Gupta, the senior manager at Google News who had invited Soundararajan to speak on the matter, thus put in her papers on Wednesday.

I find it very interesting that the group in power is trying very hard to suppress any criticism, basically silencing the disadvantaged minority (within the Indian diaspora).

> Thenmozhi Soundararajan, the founder of Equality Labs, a Dalit civil rights organisation

Hm ok https://www.equalitylabs.org/mission

> Equality Labs is an Ambedkarite South Asian power-building organization

What is this Ambedkarite thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement

> The movement was launched in 1956 by Ambedkar when nearly half a million Dalits – formerly untouchables – joined him and converted to Navayana Buddhism

So it's a Buddhist deal. Is Buddhism anti-hinduism? Um, it isn't exactly pro-hinduism, now is it?

I'm not sure that's the steeliest man, but it's a start.

Two options arise out of it:

Hire someone else not prone to or going through this societal conflict at the moment ($$$), or forbid the topic and risk losin conscientious objectors amongst workers/leadership.

The executive case with a shareholder value tilt would be avoid and reject the conversation, sink the risk, evaluate fallout, and hire replacements as necessary. You've still done your fiduciary duty, but damn those meddlesome cats.

The Stakeholder value executive prioritizing social change would likely engage with the topic, seeing it as an opportunity to raise awareness, get free press, attract talent, etc.

I can only really see a case for suppressing it if it were something you couldn't afford to not have.

Say, by analogy, what if another manager in a different situation, who made the 'cancel' decision on a talk, was concerned that the lecture they were being asked to approve was extremist? Then say, if Americans knew Hindu culture they might agree, just as they understand why they wouldn't invite their own untouchables to speak.

In this activist case, it's absolutely offensive to compare the Hindu untouchables with our untouchables because theirs are born into it where ours are just uneducated or indoctrinated and it would be such a grotesque insult to those people living in India, or anywhere in the world, that no serious person could even compare them out loud, and I'm even taking a considerable personal risk to write the comparison hypothetically.

But what if that's how that manager felt? How would "we" (progressive, though still mostly white, hegemonic We) respond to a speaker representing our own untouchables, and even though the comparison itself is so disgusting?

The steelman case for the protests and for the manager is that they are acting on convictions as strong and (they believe) principled as any of our own, however unjustly in this case. Even though they're wrong, until we understand their own complete revolt that caused them to take such a reckless stance in this case, there is no way to engage with them, or understand the source of the conflict. This isn't mere empathy or a "both sides,"-ism, as I don't think we can empathize with someone we fundamentally know is so wrong. However, I do think one can have compassion for everyone involved, and it is immensely difficult, as it requires imagining something you are truly revolted by, and then imaging what it would be like for someone like a Dalit friend or someone you loved to see you feel that way about them. The tension between the heartbreak at imagining their eyes in that moment and then also the feeling of what can only be described as disgust for people with the most offensive values, is I think, the compassion, where you feel both the revolt at being confronted with the very worst of the worst, and also what it feels like that no matter what you do and how much goodness you bring that you will always be an object of social disgust. This is why compassion is hard, but beautiful, but so very hard! Being able to do that suggests a greatness of soul to me.

The steelman case here isn't about pretending the broken logic of the protesting managers beliefs was somehow true, it's from asking, what if someone you loved or were responsible for felt one way or the other in this conflict about you? There is a basic misundertanding between two parts of a culture, where maybe these Brahmins don't trust the Dalits and the Dalits interpret that as contempt, which is returned by being provocative and giving the other just what they might expect? Bit of a homily, but in this sense, the steelman case shows how a specific kind of compassion might provide some future basis on which to establish both trust and respect, even if it's a very high bar.

https://www.wired.com/story/trapped-in-silicon-valleys-hidde...

I first learned about effective altruism when GiveWell did a tech talk.

Also, in 2008, all the major presidential candidates stopped in Mountain View to give a campaign speech. And then there was the time OK Go gave a concert, due to the YouTube connection I presume.

Those were different times. That was mostly before the anti-tech backlash, when Google could seemingly do no wrong.

Even in the early days there were frequently minor controversies, but things got much more fraught by 2015 or so.

The website says, "The world's most influential thinkers, creators, makers and doers all in one place. Talks at Google. Where great minds meet."

The last 5 talks in my feed: - LGBTQ & Spirituality - Neurdiversity: How to Love, Live, and Work Better - A Discussion On His Book "Jews Don't Count" - A Lookback at Japanese Internment & a Storied Writing Career - No One Understands You and What To Do About It

https://talksat.withgoogle.com/

I don't think I've directly answered your questions, but these talks touch on social issues, tech valuations, Mars and space exploration, physical and athletic performance, health and diet, and I guess anything else that Googlers would be interested in hearing about.

For the more controversial topics, the talks are vetted more carefully, to make sure they align with the political position of the company, and that they don't raise too much opposition from any groups within the company.

The goal of the speaker is to convert as many (preferably influential) people as possible to their viewpoint. The goal of the hosting employee is typically the same, at least for the controversial issues (since those are usually highly politicized). The goal of the host company is to promote themselves as a bastion of certain (good, from their perspective) ideas, and/or as a place for thoughtful discussions.

A pastry chef at a café on the Google Mountain View campus put out some nice little cakes with Tibetan goji berries. The sign said "Free Tibet Goji Berry Cake". This was obviously a sly nod to the Free Tibet campaign, and also true, as the cake was free, this being Google.

Some local Chinese Googlers complained to kitchen management, saying that the idea of freeing Tibet was anti-Chinese. The pastry chef was suspended by the catering company.

The story soon reached the high traffic "misc" mailing list. Many US Googlers objected to the pastry chef being punished for what they considered inoffensive free speech. A fund was started to compensate the cook for lost wages. There was a campaign to reinstate her immediately.

At least one Chinese Googler threatened to quit if the cook was not fired, and was encouraged to go ahead and quit by people who sided with the cook. Some Chinese Googlers shared their interesting opinions about Tibet, e.g. they said the Dalai Lama is a Nazi, he is a secret CIA agent, etc.

This new information was met with skepticism and failed to win anybody over to the Chinese side.

Anyway, eventually the pastry chef was reinstated. I don't think anybody quit. It all blew over.

I have a hard time believing that was accidental :-( It seems essentially impossible to believe that British politicians would be unaware of Indian caste issues, so I would have to assume it was viewed as too dangerous / too low political benefit to address.

People from higher castes, even if they're open-minded on the topic of caste, likely have relatives who aren't -- especially if they're the only member of a large family who has left India. Children have been disowned or even murdered by their relatives for marrying a member of a lower caste; it's really hard to escape that sort of prejudice.

We are already so far away from home, atleast we can look out for each other.

I'm not in tech so I've never lived anywhere with many Indians. I'm guessing these types of issues start to crop up when you have higher chances of meeting many people in your exact social group back in India and end up forming cliques.

The "I don't understand" part is interesting. I learnt one way to contextualize something 'foreign' in a quick way is to apply it to something we're familiar with. For example, in the US, one could easily describe the black-white divide as a more violently enforced caste system. Thus, I presume 'how does it work' is the same way we (American) know the 'caste' of someone applying for a job. Just based on the way someone is named, eg: Hunter, Tanner, Abigail would perhaps be identifiable as 'upper caste' individiuals while names like DeShawn or Laquisha would be identified as 'lower caste'. Then comes linguistic traits and such.

they have whole departments consisting exclusively of Indians and i believe their biggest non-US office is actually in India

a manager may know somebody on their team who can tell your caste or maybe suggest your caste based on the region you were from

this is as far i understood it

And there are other indicators; I've been told upper casts are usually lighter-skinned, and Brahmins are often vegetarian.

Even things like putting a hand on someone's shoulder to feel if they are wearing the thread the upper caste sometimes wear under their clothes.

Apparently for those raised around the system it can be fairly easy to figure out over extended co-working.

So I'd say it was both.

His bosses Sergey and Larry are Jewish. They are smiling from on higher.

What specific proposals do you have to ensure that this happens? Which perfectly neutral, bias-free tests would you employ? How would you ensure that the humans delivering the tests or screening candidates were neutral and perfectly bias-free?

Also, would you be doing all this yourself as the CEO? If so, seems like an inefficient use of your time.

Perhaps you'd employ some staff to ensure this gets carried out at the scale of Google. These folks would be assigned to creating the sense of fairness, merit, and justice you describe at scale, so that everyone felt included in the same way. You could even put them in their own department. Hmm...

Three people out of 50 quit. They were absolutely the most toxic and unproductive people in the office and nearly everyone was happy to see them leave.

There is a high correlation between unproductive employees and activist employees.

A company is like a sports team that is working together towards a singular goal. It is not a family. It is not a microcosm of the world nor the community.

By the same logic SRE is responsible for breaking my software because if the site is always reliable then they’re obsolete.

Ideally all employees would have the time and capacity for that care.

How much of your top 5% are you alienating and losing?

Is it worth it?

If so, I suspect all the companies would've already done it.

I previously worked at Unity Technologies (3d game engine company) and as well as a CRM Consultancy, and I was amazed by how much time people spent arguing their political agenda. It was a major contributing factor of why I left both places. I had this feeling of "Why are these people chatting about things irrelevant to our work, while I am working? They should be working too-- they're paid to work, not chat & check their slack feed for 30-60 minutes a day about politics"

The Civil Rights Act and its consequences have meant that America will forever be politicized along every fault line of human identity. Whether it can withstand this burden and remain a functional civilization remains to be seen.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cisco-lawsuit/california-...

Interestingly I had the same experience going on a vacation to the Balkans. To an outsider, Croat/Serb/Bosnian are all basically the same - your languages are mutually intelligible, your food is all tasty meat cuts and flatbread, you look more or less the same. But apparently within this region, this is a life-or-death distinction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...

I’m not sure that this is as insightful of a post as you envisioned.

https://www.bloomberg.com/letters/2021-03-18/caste-based-dis...

It may be.

But there are enough examples in history to understand that this may not be a trivial matter, either. Could you tell if someone is Jewish or not? Could you tell utus and tutsis apart?

But I've worked with ~100 Indian co-workers and several were very vocal about their caste because they were from the "higher" caste; well-educated, children of politicians and scientists and vegetarian.

I think it matters if it's causing discrimination at my workplace.

"Postmortem" is apparently next on the chopping block because it's triggering to people who know somebody who has died.

Just because it doesn’t affect you personally doesn’t meant it’s not important.

Not to diminish her activism or the meaning of her resignation. I just thought to clarify since many tech journalists either don't understand corporate titles or purposefully try to mislead readers by using them in a specific way.