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

Is Y Combinator Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

blog.mattlanger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Is Y Combinator Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

#21

Post by untog »

Tobani wrote: post #16
untog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which are held to completely different legal standards So it's OK to discriminate when investing because it's inside a legal loophole?

So you're saying Investors should be forced to invest money into something because the person pitching them is in a protected class? Clarification: Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, etc is bad. But employers need to be able to hire based on the ability to do one's job. If a large part of one's job is to communicate... things start to get murky.

Forced? Of course not, don't be hyperbolic. No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire.

I was simply pointing out that the OP's reason for being able to disregard the Civil Rights Act is because it's in a legal loophole, not because there are substantial differences that mean it shouldn't be applied.

Re: Is Y Combinator Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

#22

Post by jacquesm »

dylandrop wrote: post #14
mrt0mat0 wrote: post #2

I'm against discrimination and all, but isn't the decision to invest freely based on anything they want? I like the cut of his jib, or those shoes are cool, you're in? This isn't a job, it's an investment of money in a company. I could be way off base though. Opinions?

The people he would be hiring are working essentially at subsidiary companies, at least for their tenure at YC. They receive their payment from YC, and work under the direction of YC, so as far as they're concerned, they are YC employees, and they deserve equal treatment. You can't discriminate on ethnicity or country of origin when hiring.

YC does not pay a salary but does an investment for which they are rewarded with stock. So they're not YC employees.

Re: Is Y Combinator Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

#23

Post by mrt0mat0 »

dylandrop wrote: post #14
mrt0mat0 wrote: post #2

I'm against discrimination and all, but isn't the decision to invest freely based on anything they want? I like the cut of his jib, or those shoes are cool, you're in? This isn't a job, it's an investment of money in a company. I could be way off base though. Opinions?

The people he would be hiring are working essentially at subsidiary companies, at least for their tenure at YC. They receive their payment from YC, and work under the direction of YC, so as far as they're concerned, they are YC employees, and they deserve equal treatment. You can't discriminate on ethnicity or country of origin when hiring.

if you invest in only american stock, you're descriminating... what if i forced you to buy foreign stock to balance it out? isn't that the same concept? you OWN that company.

Re: Is Y Combinator Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

#25

Post by DavidWanjiru »

What's the difference between YC deciding who to invest in, and an individual deciding who to marry? I'm thinking YC is free to use whatever criteria they deem fit in deciding who to invest in in much the same way that individuals are free to use whatever criteria they deem fit in deciding who to marry.

Re: Is Y Combinator Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

#26

Post by untog »

I think most of the posts here are addressing this too literally. No, Y Combinator is not violating Title VII because it doesn't apply to investors.

But there's a larger argument here that is moral, not legal. There is a reason why Title VII exists. Are those reasons equally applicable to investor situations, and if so, is Y Combinator acting against the spirit of Title VII?

Re: Is Y Combinator Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

#27

Post by untog »

DavidWanjiru wrote: post #25

What's the difference between YC deciding who to invest in, and an individual deciding who to marry? I'm thinking YC is free to use whatever criteria they deem fit in deciding who to invest in in much the same way that individuals are free to use whatever criteria they deem fit in deciding who to marry.

What's the difference between a company deciding who to hire, and an individual deciding who to marry? I'm thinking a company is free to use whatever criteria they deem fit except wait, that's the entire point of Title VII and the post you're talking about.

Re: Is Y Combinator Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

#28

Post by Tobani »

untog wrote: post #21
Tobani wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying Investors should be forced to invest money into something because the person pitching them is in a protected class? Clarification: Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, etc is bad. But employers need to be able to hire based on the ability to do one's job. If a large part of one's job is to communicate... things start to get murky.

Forced? Of course not, don't be hyperbolic. No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire. I was simply pointing out that the OP's reason for being able to disregard the Civil Rights Act is because it's in a legal loophole, not because there are substantial differences that mean it shouldn't be applied.

I think there is a difference though. Any individual could discriminate in buying stocks because they don't like the head of the organization for whatever reason regardless of the moral implication. I don't think anybody would say this would be a violation of the civil rights law.

YC is slightly different because the relationship is closer, sure, but it is still an investor/investee relationship. I think its still a case like the former. I'm not sure I'd agree entirely that its a loophole.

Re: Is Y Combinator Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

#29

Post by nsmartt »

untog wrote: post #21
Tobani wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying Investors should be forced to invest money into something because the person pitching them is in a protected class? Clarification: Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, etc is bad. But employers need to be able to hire based on the ability to do one's job. If a large part of one's job is to communicate... things start to get murky.

Forced? Of course not, don't be hyperbolic. No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire. I was simply pointing out that the OP's reason for being able to disregard the Civil Rights Act is because it's in a legal loophole, not because there are substantial differences that mean it shouldn't be applied.

> No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire.

Investors are in the business of gauging likelihood of success.

As an extreme example, consider the following scenario: You are an investor during WWII. The Japanese are discriminated against by the general public, and you're considering investing in a company with Japanese founders. You're aware that the company will face significant difficulties because of their race in this climate.

It's not unreasonable to forgo investing. The company's chances of success are significantly lower than they would be if the founders were white (in the climate of WWII).

Were you required by law not to discriminate, you would be forced to invest in a company you didn't expect to succeed.

Of course, you could argue that this isn't discrimination because the actual reason is based on likelihood of success rather than prejudice, which is the case for YC. PG argues that strong accents, which are difficult to decipher, are indicative of sub-par communication skills, and are therefore relevant to the success of the company.

Post reply on HN