‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

Okay - one context is where one department has a large number of black people, and that department is defragged for purely business reasons to a different office across the country. Most people never choose the relocation package, and so a big chunk of black employees end up quitting. That's the event that triggered 8 black employees of the 15 who left as I understand it from the article.

> what are your priors on whether or not a given company engaged in discrimination, and how do these change if you're told 75% of employees of a particular demographic stated there was discrimination?

I completely agree that it's a very bad look. It is probably even more likely than not that given those facts, it is due to racism. I guess the question comes down to, philosophically, how one answers the following question: In the quest to eradicate racism and racists, is it better to be over-zealous and destroy a few non-racists to make sure you get all the actual racists(the chemo approach) - or is it better to be slightly more circumspect and let a few racists slip through the cracks so that far fewer non-racists are punished (the US judicial system ideal)?

But the point is that the corroborations are all on the lesser or non-complaints of the article, not the most egregious ones. To make an extreme example, posting a series of actual facts that culminate in aliens have visited earth doesn't make the latter assertion any more true.

edit: Sorry, I'm the poster from above, I just posted from my phone which has a different account logged in that I originally intended to give hiring advice unlinked to my main account(opsec fail).

Americans think that is

a) bullshit

b) even if it wasn't bullshit, the companies improve with the representation to adequately ship products to markets that they would otherwise ignore

c) both kinds of people are benefits to the companies, as there is a greater priority to address markets than cater to egos of internal employees

I do not give a hoot about skin color. MLK taught me to judge people not by the color of their skin. If I were to tone down my speech, because I focus on the color of the skin of my audience, I would feel bad and awkward: "these people deserve coddling due to their skin color" ranks close to "these people deserve scorn due to their skin color".

Accusing others of racism is a serious faux-pas. It is also delusional to think someone talking down to you, is caused by the color of your skin, and not, maybe, because you deserved a talking down to, or the person is just an asshole, and talks down to everyone.

Saying someone else got a promotion, because their white skin, despite being lower skilled than you, is a horrible thing to say, and a horrible thing to believe. It would be vile distracting paralyzing racism, instead of an opportunity to reflect and grow.

If racial equality activists make you feel that way, judge others on the color of their skin, and paint decision-making of white people that way, then this activism is not doing you any favors. It is not making you stronger. It is making you a victim. It sours inter-racial relationships.

If a manager really says something along the lines of "watch out for her, she is dealing crack in the ghetto, and secretly carries a gun everywhere." then that manager is fired everywhere in the world, and the Black employee is compensated for this evil. No company wants to keep such managers around. No need to invoke tricks like paying off an external investigator. That manager is gone.

Yet, that manager is still around. No complaint was filed. No colleague stepped up. So what really happened? A joke gone wrong? Being above racism led to problems with an employee for who being black and female is the major two traits of their group/social media identity, and now they can't help but relate every interaction, to whites hating their skin color, or the patriarchy keeping them down?

Racism is gross, but this "I am being discriminated against by these elite white tech bros, because they notice my skin every day, promoting their dumb jocks over me, again due to the color of my skin, and nobody is willing to stop that" is even grosser. It is sexist, slanderous, weak, prejudiced, generalizing, blameful, divisive, and racist.

The taboo-ness of the topic is wielded as an effective weapon by activists. They realized early on what the power of calling someone's employer, conference organizers, or hinting at company racism can do to stifle opposing views and criticism, and the economic damage they can inflict on a brand. Even if totally out of line and false, such as accusing white business owners of cultural appropriation by selling Asian food, can get such a business cancelled, because people are afraid to be tarred and feathered by association. Socially ostracized without ever a court to fairly validate if you really furthered (illegal!) racism. Portrayed by international media as some sort of neo-Nazi libertarian hellscape momcorp, without ever a court or independent investigation finding anything of real substance. Acquitted by a judge, yet constantly called a murderous racist, because you killed a black-skinned person at a traffic stop.

So what happens if you loudly overreact to perceived company racism? You start to promote diversity and inclusion programs. You start asking applicants for their skin color or gender. You bring back the focus on skin color, ideally looking for a Disney-style PR diversity representation that's obvious for the outside (black, female, flamboyantly gay). You, of course, hire a black gay female to run these diversity programs, because white straight males are not suited for the job. Start policing language and technical jargon, as to not offend their favorite social scholars. And what happens to me? I look twice at a new colleague. The second time I notice skin color and gender. And I can't help but wonder... did those factors contribute or was this the best candidate for the job? Well done, activists! I still take full blame for that sub-second racist/sexist take (which I abhor), but it didn't have to be that way.

The egregious complaints are corroborated by the other egregious complaints.

Let's use another example in which evidence is hard to find: sexual assault. If one woman accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault, the burden of proof for her story is high. She would need some pretty strong evidence to get Cosby charged let alone convicted. She probably wouldn't even receive coverage in the mainstream media without some other form of evidence. However the entire situation would change if she was one of 60 women coming forward. Suddenly the burden of proof for that first woman is greatly diminished. Each individual's story is corroborated by someone else having a very similar story.