> ...he was making sure that Makinde wouldn't be too politically assertive about race issues. I think that gives him far too much credit. It's no different tha

> ...he was making sure that Makinde wouldn't be too politically assertive about race issues. I think that gives him far too much credit. It's no different than if you asked someone "Why is it offensive if I grope you, hit on you, and imply that sexual favors will advance your career?" It smacks of complete obliviousness to social issues at best, which would make the interviewer extremely unqualified to screen interview candidates for anything other than pure technical qualifications. Which, in this instance, they were obviously conducting an at least partially non-technical interview. My suspicion is it's an aggressive move, to make sure that the racially insensitive and/or offensive status quo can be maintained with the interviewer betting heavily that their actions would not be called out post-hoc and that any candidate who was offended would walk away quietly. The people creating such a climate can claim an attempt at stimulating diversity, but that their job offers are turned down. It's unfortunate that we don't know who did this nor does it appear that their company was contacted/informed about the inappropriate behavior of one of their employees.