5 ms·

It is problem of those casteist employees of Cisco , Cisco , it's management and it's rules. They are simply not proper. There are many casteists too in many co

It is problem of those casteist employees of Cisco , Cisco , it's management and it's rules. They are simply not proper. There are many casteists too in many companies who must be terminated from Employment if casteist behavior is found. Note that not all upper-caste People are casteist and harmful. I also see many Rich People whose ancestors were Dalits, who no longer need any financial grant/food/shelter from the Government claiming it from Government. It only harms very poor Dalits in need. This Casteism at companies is bad and Casteism is crime. Also, the title of this post is Peculiar. Title must not be "90% of Techies are upper caste" as upper caste is not synonymous with casteist. Also,there are many poor,hard working non-casteist people who by birth(not changeable) were upper-caste people who worked hard to get into good job in US,so they deserve that job.

screye 6y ago
> I also see many Rich People whose ancestors were Dalits, who no longer need any financial grant/food/shelter from the Government claiming it from Government. It only harms very poor Dalits in need. This is something I have been thinking quite a lot about. The Govt. really struggles to cap affirmative action to only those who need it. I knew people who were from lower castes, used reservation to get in and had Macbooks, iPhones and spent summers abroad touring. How hard is it to disqualify them due to financial means ? There are too many poor Dalits who would rather use those seats.
- kyteland 6y ago
  It's a common line of thinking that a system is broken if there's a single instance of failure when the right measure is if it does more good than harm. I've heard that excuse in the US with regards to giving to the poor, "they might waste it on booze and drugs." Well sure, but they might also use it to keep from starving. In this case, are there some people that "don't deserve it"? Certainly, but there's probably many more that do who are making use of the program. Adding overhead and bureaucracy to try to weed out the undeserving may very well make it so fewer people who need the assistance get it. It's human nature to overweight small negative outcomes while underweighting the larger good. You need to objectively study the problem to fully understand where the tipping point is which rarely happens because these types of things quickly become political. I don't personally know enough about this particular topic to speak to it, but the general answer to the question > How hard is it to disqualify them due to financial means? Is it's harder than you think without undermining the original goals of the of the program.
  - higerordermap 6y ago
    But it is broken if there are too many instances of failure. It is not like there are no better ways to do it, like adding an economic constraint, or not giving reservation if parents have gotten reservation for job. That would benefit everyone except affluent lower caste families.

screye 6y ago

> I also see many Rich People whose ancestors were Dalits, who no longer need any financial grant/food/shelter from the Government claiming it from Government. It only harms very poor Dalits in need. This is something I have been thinking quite a lot about. The Govt. really struggles to cap affirmative action to only those who need it. I knew people who were from lower castes, used reservation to get in and had Macbooks, iPhones and spent summers abroad touring. How hard is it to disqualify them due to financial means ? There are too many poor Dalits who would rather use those seats.

kyteland 6y ago
It's a common line of thinking that a system is broken if there's a single instance of failure when the right measure is if it does more good than harm. I've heard that excuse in the US with regards to giving to the poor, "they might waste it on booze and drugs." Well sure, but they might also use it to keep from starving. In this case, are there some people that "don't deserve it"? Certainly, but there's probably many more that do who are making use of the program. Adding overhead and bureaucracy to try to weed out the undeserving may very well make it so fewer people who need the assistance get it. It's human nature to overweight small negative outcomes while underweighting the larger good. You need to objectively study the problem to fully understand where the tipping point is which rarely happens because these types of things quickly become political. I don't personally know enough about this particular topic to speak to it, but the general answer to the question > How hard is it to disqualify them due to financial means? Is it's harder than you think without undermining the original goals of the of the program.
- higerordermap 6y ago
  But it is broken if there are too many instances of failure. It is not like there are no better ways to do it, like adding an economic constraint, or not giving reservation if parents have gotten reservation for job. That would benefit everyone except affluent lower caste families.