11–20 of 667 posts
Where they do have something to lose: Taiwan v China politics - they side with China so they don't lose, going completely against any principled stand.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/07/apple-ask...
It’s all lip service. Nepotism is rampant at FAANG
There are of course things that aren't explicitly prohibited by workplace policies but are no doubt unacceptable - e.g. discriminating against left-handed employees. But it's still useful to have explicit policies against caste discrimination to make clear that it's unacceptable.
On the other hand, as an Indian in a top tech company we're more likely to experience racism than casteism (though both are relatively rare), and this policy is likely to increase racism and result in Indians (and other South Asians) getting singled-out and scrutinized for casteism.
Edit: as if to prove my point about racism, in this very thread there is already a comment talking about Indian nepotism.
From what I hear from my Indian friends, this behaviour is quite ingrained. Like other racism, it will be challenging to prove.
Racism has technically been banned in the United States wholesale since the Civil Rights act, yet we struggle with the effects still today.
This is a step in a right direction, but it should be seen as only as the beginning.
From what I hear from my Indian friends, this behaviour is quite ingrained. Like other racism, it will be challenging to prove.
I work predominately with Indian coworkers. You are exactly correct in my view. Racism has technically been banned in the United States wholesale since the Civil Rights act, yet we struggle with the effects still today. This is a step in a right direction, but it should be seen as only as the beginning.
I have mixed feelings on this. There are of course things that aren't explicitly prohibited by workplace policies but are no doubt unacceptable - e.g. discriminating against left-handed employees. But it's still useful to have explicit policies against caste discrimination to make clear that it's unacceptable. On the other hand, as an Indian in a top tech company we're more likely to experience racism than casteism (…
I have seen zero evidence for this. The relative or absolute frequency claims.
> this policy is likely to increase racism and result in Indians (and other South Asians) getting singled-out and scrutinized for casteism
Strongly disagree. I have Indian heritage. I have no problem with such policy, and am increasingly convinced—in part by comments like this—that it needs the force of statute. (It’s almost certainly already law.)
Also, non-Indians can discriminate based on caste, albeit indirectly, if their information flows through biased channels. The same way someone not racist can further racism if a bigot runs on of their teams.
I have mixed feelings on this. There are of course things that aren't explicitly prohibited by workplace policies but are no doubt unacceptable - e.g. discriminating against left-handed employees. But it's still useful to have explicit policies against caste discrimination to make clear that it's unacceptable. On the other hand, as an Indian in a top tech company we're more likely to experience racism than casteism (…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
Correct. But it is evidence someone doesn’t want to talk about this.
That might mean anything from complicity to ignorance to not wanting more workplace drama. In every case, it gives merit to Googlers claiming caste discrimination needs an independent investigation. (Versus relying on the company’s processes.)