Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google cancelled a talk on caste bias

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Google cancelled a talk on caste bias

#311

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

NoGravitas wrote: post #142
seneca wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Except my special bugbear is special and should be exempt from basic social norms. Everyone should have to agree with me". The issue is that any and everything can be claimed to be racist, and therefore transferred to your special pre-political exemption.

Apart from the morality of the situation, the fact is that racial discrimination in the workplace is illegal in the US (and rightly so, in my opinion). Whether caste discrimination is a form of racial discrimination is the subject of current litigation in California. Given that there are legal requirements the company needs to stay in compliance with, this is squarely outside of "politics at work".

This is likely the only reasonable counter to my opinion so far. That said, is caste of a racial nature? To my understanding it really more of a social construct more tied to ethnicity.

Re: Google cancelled a talk on caste bias

#312

Post by thelit »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #5

A good read for some additional context on caste discrimination in the American tech industry: https://www.wired.com/story/trapped-in-silicon-valleys-hidde...

As a Dalit myself, I wrote a Dalit 101 for non Indian audience.

https://thelit.substack.com/p/dalit-101

Re: Google cancelled a talk on caste bias

#313

Post by chrismorgan »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #268
sitkack wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just caste discrimination, but also sexism. I have worked at least three companies where if there were Indian women, the vast majority were in QA.

Is QA lower tier work in most places? Isn't that bass-ackwards?

As commonly implemented, it’s certainly a less-skilled job with a lot of banal repetition, tedious procedure, and not much scope for or need of original thought.

As one familiar with the Indian education system (which is heavily rote-based and does not generally encourage understanding-based learning, especially before the tertiary level) and the mentality it produces in comparison with the western mind, I would say (and please don’t misunderstand me; I’m making a dispassionate assessment of why it might be so, not whether it should or should not be so) that this is actually a pretty good match, and it would not surprise me—nay, I would expect—to find Indians and especially Indian women fitting in better into that style of QA department than into other fields such as development; and when you have a large fraction of people who think in such-and-such a way, it will tend to be self-reinforcing and -perpetuating. (This is also a significant factor in why these sorts of effects in how you think as a whole have a habit of lingering for a generation or two after transplantation into another country.)

Re: Google cancelled a talk on caste bias

#314

Post by hef19898 »

mountainriver wrote: post #283
sitkack wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just caste discrimination, but also sexism. I have worked at least three companies where if there were Indian women, the vast majority were in QA.

Yeah I worked at vmw and they have a huge caste/sexism problem. Funny how liberal Americans stand by and let it happen

Because for us Westerners this form of discrimination is, well, invisible. It is based on subtle things we don't see. It stays within a group, that to us, seems completely homogenous. Plus, how many Westerners actually are aware the Indian caste system exists at all?

men discriminating and harrassing women? Sexism, check.

White discriminating people of color? Racism, check.

One Indian being a dick to another Indian? A personal thing between those two people. Only that ot is not, it is so much more, we Westerners just don't see it. And since we don't see it we have a pretty solid chance of intervening on the wrong side, if we intervene at all.

Re: Google cancelled a talk on caste bias

#316

Post by naravara »

car_analogy wrote: post #85
naravara wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe, Google, instead of just giving up you should be asking why a speaker on Dalit rights and inclusion is causing "division and rancor" in your community? Or is that also a difficult conversation you'd rather not have? The same reason speakers on Palestinian rights often can. While they may be on the right side of the issue, it's also very easy for closed discussion spaces to rapidly devolve into pretty viciousl…

Do you demand this strict moderation and sensitivity also when it's white people that are being accused of discrimination?

I didn't used to, but after seeing how noxious communities get when you normalize the kinds of reflexive confrontationalism and assumptions of bad faith you find online I changed my tune. I haven't seen a single place improve once people start treating and talking about structural discrimination as some sort of original sin that individuals need to repent and seek absolution for. It's generally much more useful to focus on individual behaviors people are engaging in and pointing out the ways in which they are helpful or unhelpful at creating an inclusive community.

Re: Google cancelled a talk on caste bias

#319

Post by bena »

delecti wrote: post #276
jonnycomputer wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is QA lower tier work in most places? Isn't that bass-ackwards?

It is definitely viewed as lower tier, which is unfortunate because it's incredibly valuable.

Something can be both. Incredibly low-skilled and easy yet valuable.

Re: Google cancelled a talk on caste bias

#320

Post by psyc »

criddell wrote: post #195
car_analogy wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication is that it's not limited. If they discriminate against Dalits, they probably discriminate against others too.

> The implication is that it's not limited. Right, but what are the implications of it being limited or not? Is there a tolerable level of discrimination?

That has nothing to do with it. There's no tolerable level, but more is still worse than less, and GP's point means more people with a direct vested interest in calling for change.
Post reply on HN