9 ms·

After an interview I attended at a fintech company, my Indian team lead straight out said she was trying to figure out the interviewee's cast. I was not familia

After an interview I attended at a fintech company, my Indian team lead straight out said she was trying to figure out the interviewee's cast. I was not familiar with the concept -- so my expression was mostly blank -- but she immediately followed up with "oh, I shouldn't have said that". I took no action, but wasn't sure what to do. After I learned more about it, I started to wonder where I was in this hierarchy. If you ever overhear something like this, what would you do?

erklik 6y ago
In an interview, it seems to me as highly unethical and likely discrimination. Although, not sure if there are legal ramifications to this sort of thing though.
- gruez 6y ago
  caste isn't a protected class so they might be fine legally.
  - erklik 6y ago
    Yeah. I wasn't sure there was any legal recourse. Nonetheless, it does seem highly unethical to make a decision in an interview based on caste. Although, the OP's case, the person did quickly realize her mistake, but bias might still be present.
    - andi999 6y ago
      In then OP's case most likely the person realized that she shouldnt have said it directly/to him as her mistake and needs to hide her discrimination better.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    If you listen to the linked podcast you'll learn that it in fact may qualify as a protected class, and that there is currently a pending lawsuit that may rule on this.
  - plaster 6y ago
    Note that in many states, caste and other ancestry discrimination is unambiguously protected. There have been any number of suits claiming the Civil Rights Act prohibits caste-based discrimination; I don't think there are any high-level rulings about whether it does, but the basic argument doesn't seem implausible.
  - kleton 6y ago
    Desi caste really is ethnicity which is a protected class- it is thousands of endogamous communities that have been that way for a long time. They might not look as distinct from each other as say Tutsis and Hutus, but I don't think you could formulate a definition of ethnicity that excludes South Asian castes.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    > caste isn't a protected class Perhaps not explicitly, but I could easily see courts ruling that it is. To me, it seems covered by the ethnicity portion, although I get they are not the exact same concept.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > caste isn't a protected class so they might be fine legally Caste itself isn't explicitly protected (axes of discrimination that weren't widely recognized as actual things people cared about in the US when the law was written don't tend to be) but there are arguments that caste discrimination runs afoul of existing US protection regarding color, ethnicity, national origin, and religion, among others, and some of these are currently being actively litigated in federal court, IIRC by both private plaintiffs and state fair-employment authorities. So “might be fine”, but very much might not. And HR is usually about avoiding risk of exposure, not steering the company into “might be fine” waters.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
topkai22 6y ago
Immediately remind the person that doing that goes against our company goals and culture.
- viraptor 6y ago
  I've witnessed that and it works. You don't have to argue or make a big issue in some way. Just state that X is an equal person deserving same respect as all of you. Nobody's likely to call you out or complain about that statement.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    I think it's a little early to say "it works." It causes them to display less outward prejudice when discussing the hiring process with others.
    - viraptor 6y ago
      In my case it was a manager who was slightly derogatory about the Indian division in the company. "That annoying uncle who tends to say the wrong thing" type. He stopped the comments afterwards and I do count that as "it works": others witnessed it was not ok, and new hires won't see this behaviour normalised in the future. Even if his internal view hasn't changed, it was progress and was worth the uncomfortable moment.
    - topkai22 6y ago
      Even if it doesn’t entirely “work” for that one person it is still important to address the culture issue immediately and publicly, because it sets norms for everyone else in the room. Even if you are the only other one in the room. Perhaps especially if you are the only other one in the room.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        Absolutely, but I don't think it diminishes the necessity of the HR report.
- 6y ago
slashink 6y ago
I have zero tolerance for trying to evaluate candidates on things other than performance against what the interview is benchmarking against. Hearing something like that would have had me instantly report it to HR. It makes me angry now even reading it. Why would this have any impact on the work the candidate would be able to perform?
- xxpor 6y ago
  I think someone who's not Indian could easially interpret that statement as completely neutral. Like if I said oh, $candidate is also from New Jersey, that's cool.
plaster 6y ago
This is an extremely fraught topic, and I will give a very fraught answer: I think you did the right thing in this situation. She did not express anything malicious and she corrected herself (at least partially). It sounds like your colleague was doing something anyone would do (assessing someone by the social strictures they are familiar with) and did something wrong (devoted effort to it in a hiring context, said something aloud.) Yes, everyone does this sort of thing -- in American society overall we don't have good names for the subtle side of our class system, so we can't express the puzzle as clearly as some other societies, but we do see the world (consciously or unconsciously) along these lines. When I hear people say inappropriate things -- usually less fraught ones like marital status -- I point out that they cannot say such things. It serves as a reminder of proper procedure. I do not escalate the situation if they seem to be acting without malice and, like the person in your story, seem to desire to do better. (Full disclosure, I am a white-presenting man.)
- viraptor 6y ago
  > and she corrected herself I believe she did the exact opposite. (You could argue she meant "shouldn't have done that" - I guess you'd have to be there to know) Acknowledged that she wanted to do this, so it was conscious, not just a bad habit. And acknowledged that she shouldn't talk about it - not that she shouldn't have done it.
- core-questions 6y ago
  > She did not express anything malicious Well, imagine that you, a white-presenting man (what does _that_ mean) were on a phone interview with someone you couldn't see, and afterwards, you said something like, "I was trying to determine if they were Black." I'm not going to make judgement on whether that's a fair statement or not - what I am curious about is whether you think that you'd get the same kind of defense - would there be someone saying that you weren't malicious?
  - plaster 6y ago
    > Well, imagine that you, a white-presenting man (what does _that_ mean) If you met most of my family members, you would not think they were white, but if you met me personally, you probably would. Only once in a long while does someone seem to read me as 'not white' (and unless I'm speaking my heritage language they usually guess wrong about what flavor.) > were on a phone interview with someone you couldn't see, and afterwards, you said something like, "I was trying to determine if they were Black." If I'm on the phone with someone, I am sure I am trying to figure that out. Folks who claim otherwise are most likely incorrect about what they are doing. I would certainly know better than to say that aloud, since I grew up in a society where I know how it would be perceived, and have intuition around it. I don't have to think much to realize the implications.
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
I had an interim manager who did this subtly. It wasn't hard for us to catch on after some time, we brought it up to HR and he was disciplined as far as I know, and soon left the company, not sure on what terms. It's absolutely not okay to discriminate candidates by something like caste, or social status. It's like if your lead said she was trying to determine if they were an inferior race.
- hartator 6y ago
  > It's like if your lead said she was trying to determine if they were an inferior race. Yes, it is.
- andreilys 6y ago
  It's absolutely not okay to discriminate candidates by something like caste, or social status Caste no, social status? Absolutely, happens all the time. It’s very easy to proxy social status based on interests, hobbies, mannerisms, etc. Those that don’t pass the sniff test, are deemed “bad culture fits”.
  - glitcher 6y ago
    So are you just saying it's already common, or that you are in support of social status profiling?
    - drieddust 6y ago
      Most companies look for "cultural fits"? Isn't that a form of caste discrimination? People from similar social background have similar taste hence fits well culturally.Isn't that obvious? If racial discrimination doesn't exist why Blacks are economically poor across in west?
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        I mean there are two effects: 1. Ongoing discrimination 2. Different starting points + law of large numbers. If you start one racial group off in a country with property and let them acquire wealth for a few hundred years, then free another racial group from slavery with absolutely nothing - even after a long while those wealth differences will persist.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
I have Indian heritage, and I’m clueless about this. Are there dog whistles I’m missing?
- talmr 6y ago
  I'm Indian and I've heard things like "koncha jaticha" said casually in a professional setting... Meaning which caste are you? I was born in India and moved here when I was in school. It was shocking to me as well when I heard stuff like this.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    Ah, I don’t speak much Hindi. Are there terms in English I should look out for? Ones that are meant to be subtle.
    - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
      "Where are you from?" "Where did your parents live?" "Where were you born?" "What do your parents do?" I'm not Indian, but have heard these used in a derogatory setting. It's hard to disentangle from casual conversation, but if these questions arise suddenly and unprompted (like the first thing you're asked) it's a flag. Another is being asked a question in a specific dialect to see how you respond.
    - crossroadsguy 6y ago
      I think that term previous person used is Marathi (I am not a Marathi speaker though). > Are there terms in English I should look out for? Not really. But you have more of contexts and where the questioning is going whether it's in a professional or personal setting - the line of inquiry. If the person is taking a very shallow interest (or a misplaced interest) in knowing where your roots are, who your ancestors were and possibly specifically asking names of your parents or grand parents (maybe profession as well) then you might want to treat it as at least suspicious on these lines.
      - 6y ago
rhexs 6y ago
The same thing you should do if your team leader says they don’t want to hire any other subgroup because of discriminatory reasons. Just to be clear, this is exactly equivalent to and just as bad as racism in every way.
Natsu 6y ago
How do you know if someone is fishing for someone's caste or the markers thereof? Sadly, I wouldn't necessarily even know if a colleague was doing this unless they were really direct about it.
- erklik 6y ago
  There's quite a few examples of this in the article but it seems mainly things like neighborhood, names, "background", and other things of that nature.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    Those seem relatively obvious, but I would never have figured out things like white threads or the thing with kitchens.
klyrs 6y ago
I've witnessed coworkers asking "awkward questions" before. I take notes and report it to HR. YMMV, not all HR departments are created equally. If your employer doesn't take it seriously, you can send an anonymous note to the candidate, which could support a lawsuit or complaint to the labor board. They might change their tune
- RhysU 6y ago
  > If your employer doesn't take it seriously, you can send an anonymous note to the candidate, which could support a lawsuit or complaint to the labor board. Unless your concern rises to whistle-blower levels with external agencies, that sounds like a quick way to be fired.
samatman 6y ago
There's a couple ways to read this one, and no context for deciding between them. Indians have a deeply engrained culture of noticing caste. This is true whether they are ok with discriminating on that basis, or staunchly against it, caste permeates the culture. So either she was only interested in hiring Brahmins, and realized that she shouldn't have tipped her hand... or she was curious about it, and then realized that was a shitty thing to say during an interview, and decided not to make it worse by explaining that of course it wouldn't make a difference in her judgement. She's right, though; she shouldn't have said that.
- foogazi 6y ago
  I think when it gets to saying these things out loud it might be too late The fact that it would be top of mind at all Could be curiosity or it could be a status play. Are there castes she would/would not hire from, would it be a problem to getting work done? Edit: I’ve worked with indians my whole career and only recently learned via HN that caste system “carried over” to the US
  - samatman 6y ago
    It may be because of my habit of blurting out whatever stupid thought I'm having, but believing that someone might blurt out whatever stupid thought they're having comes easy to me.
  - andreareina 6y ago
    I have all sorts of thoughts that I don't act on, or actively work to counteract. Should I be judged on these thoughts that, to a first approximation, I cannot control[1] yet I don't let affect what I do? I'm flawed, but I used to be more so. A big part of that improvement is thanks to the people that judged my actions and not every aberrant thought that entered my head. [1] responsibility is there of course, and I work to reduce their future frequency. But that change takes time, and until then the best remedy to unwanted ingrained patterns is to not act on them.
- unsignedchar 6y ago
  #notallindians
vats 6y ago
Sometimes, people (at least in northern parts of India) tend to use the word as a synonym for "last name" in common parlance. It can be used without an intention to discriminate (though the consequences depend on the context, since you can figure out the community from a last name in most cases). Was the interviewee of Indian origin? Unless you are of Indian origin, it's not applicable to you. If the interviewee was of Indian origin, and she didn't already know the interviewee's last name, I would probably give her the benefit of doubt, and ask to clarify what she meant.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  As a non indian, that sounds like an incredibly weak form of plausible deniability covering one's ass.
  - sundarurfriend 6y ago
    That's reasonable if you've only ever come across castes in this context. When I think of American buses, I think of Rosa Parks and racism, because that's the only context I have - but that doesn't make that the only relevant characteristic of them. We here in India hear the "caste as abhorrent discrimination" side from a very early age (and that's certainly important), but it's taken me years of experience to learn that in practice it's more than that. People think of caste as a form of extended family, or as shared culture, or of understanding someone's roots. That person might have said that just as someone might say "I can't figure out if their accent is from New York or New Jersey": that might be an intent to discriminate, but might also well be idle curiosity about the person.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      To be honest, no, that just sounds like you're doubling down on preserving harmful social structures because it benefits your in group. White supremacist groups in the US also focus on the positives and shared culture of white America. Hating blacks isn't the core belief, it's just a side effect of wanting everyone to know that whites are the best. I don't mean to say it's hateful to say you want social castes out on the table for identifying who you share connections with, but that obviously comes with the fact that you identify those who don't share that connection. It's a justification for extending social problems.
AdieuToLogic 6y ago
> After an interview I attended at a fintech company, my Indian team lead straight out said she was trying to figure out the interviewee's cast. Discrimination has many forms. Some are codified in law (age, race, religion, sex, etc.) and some are informally observed. When in doubt, I prefer to address perceived discrimination directly with the person thought to be engaging in such nonconfrontationally and in the presence of at least one other coworker. If you choose to do same, document the encounter when it happens along with whom was present and be prepared to escalate to management.
gautamdivgi 6y ago
fwiw - she shouldn't have said that or even thought that way. But I'm not sure why she was "trying to figure out his caste". The last name is a dead giveaway most of the times. Quite a few Indian last names and their castes are documented in wikipedia.
- higerordermap 6y ago
  In South India people don't always use surnames. Rather it is in format <Given name> <Father's Name> or wise versa.
  - sundarurfriend 6y ago
    Yep. At least in my state (Tamilnadu), this is because people gave up caste names voluntarily as part of the anti-caste-discrimination movement, and became mononymous. Then, those of us who had to interact with people and entities that strictly assume a two-name structure started using Father's name as last name, simply because a lot of registration forms (and some people too) cannot cope with the idea that someone doesn't have a lastname. It's not universal though, or even a majority - a lot of people still are mononymous, and many are confused when Facebook and the ilk ask for "Last name" (and sometimes fill in hilarious things).
    - higerordermap 6y ago
      Well I am from Karnataka where that's not as pervasive. But I can't tell which is father's name and which is given name, because some also use the <Father name> <Given name> pattern. And then some people have multiple names. Is actor Vijay's first name Joseph, Vijay or Joseph Vijay? Just asking.. :)
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      and sometimes fill in hilarious things Many odd dutch surnames date back to dutchies, who had previously been using patronymics, having fun with the first census, taken under Napoleon in 1811.
stealthbot 6y ago
yeah...this never happened. this isnt the language people who talk like this use
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
> I started to wonder where I was in this hierarchy . I guess you're not Indian, so as I understand it that actually makes you casteless - untouchable, by strict adherence to the rules but here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACaste%2FArchive_1#Foreigners_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACaste%2FArchive_1#Forei... there is the quote: "if memory serves, Westerners (particularly English) are held to be Brahmin, "
- byteofprash 6y ago
  No. You are confusing race to caste, they don't intermix. There are brahmins in all shades of colours, and dalits in all shades of colours too.
- fellellor 6y ago
  WTF is even that page? You might as well have quoted 4chan. It’s so hilarious, I’m not even offended. To be honest.. I can see it working as a scam of some sort. As long as the “white man” has money you might as well be of the highest caste right? Here we’re trying to eliminate caste, but some geniuses want to give a caste to all sorts. You might as well give gold a caste...
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    well, the page is on the wikipedia domain, it is a talk page regarding edits to the page (discussion among different Indians I presume.) again as I understand it strictly speaking a foreigner should be casteless, and hence untouchable. But that discussion implies that the actual behavior towards foreigners does not match that, which would seem reasonable to me. Indians will need to interact with foreigners, if they are without caste that would be a problem, so how to fit the foreign into the social system.
    - fellellor 6y ago
      In other words, the quote is completely bogus. Caste system, on the surface, seems like hereditary fixing of labor roles. If applied universally, it should be easy to accept a member of a strong foreign army, or any army as a Kshatriya. So it makes no sense for every Englishman to assume a high caste, irrespective of profession. But then, many “castes” are also, basically regional/ethnicities. In short, the rules which apply caste, are not uniform in any way and I would rather ridicule such an exercise than aid it. A foreigner doesn’t need to have a caste, even if they wish to convert to Hinduism, when our argument is that we need to abolish caste in India in the first place.
known 6y ago
You could have dialed 911
gamblor956 6y ago
Report the individual to HR.

erklik 6y ago

In an interview, it seems to me as highly unethical and likely discrimination. Although, not sure if there are legal ramifications to this sort of thing though.

gruez 6y ago
caste isn't a protected class so they might be fine legally.
- erklik 6y ago
  Yeah. I wasn't sure there was any legal recourse. Nonetheless, it does seem highly unethical to make a decision in an interview based on caste. Although, the OP's case, the person did quickly realize her mistake, but bias might still be present.
  - andi999 6y ago
    In then OP's case most likely the person realized that she shouldnt have said it directly/to him as her mistake and needs to hide her discrimination better.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  If you listen to the linked podcast you'll learn that it in fact may qualify as a protected class, and that there is currently a pending lawsuit that may rule on this.
- plaster 6y ago
  Note that in many states, caste and other ancestry discrimination is unambiguously protected. There have been any number of suits claiming the Civil Rights Act prohibits caste-based discrimination; I don't think there are any high-level rulings about whether it does, but the basic argument doesn't seem implausible.
- kleton 6y ago
  Desi caste really is ethnicity which is a protected class- it is thousands of endogamous communities that have been that way for a long time. They might not look as distinct from each other as say Tutsis and Hutus, but I don't think you could formulate a definition of ethnicity that excludes South Asian castes.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > caste isn't a protected class Perhaps not explicitly, but I could easily see courts ruling that it is. To me, it seems covered by the ethnicity portion, although I get they are not the exact same concept.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > caste isn't a protected class so they might be fine legally Caste itself isn't explicitly protected (axes of discrimination that weren't widely recognized as actual things people cared about in the US when the law was written don't tend to be) but there are arguments that caste discrimination runs afoul of existing US protection regarding color, ethnicity, national origin, and religion, among others, and some of these are currently being actively litigated in federal court, IIRC by both private plaintiffs and state fair-employment authorities. So “might be fine”, but very much might not. And HR is usually about avoiding risk of exposure, not steering the company into “might be fine” waters.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

topkai22 6y ago

Immediately remind the person that doing that goes against our company goals and culture.

viraptor 6y ago
I've witnessed that and it works. You don't have to argue or make a big issue in some way. Just state that X is an equal person deserving same respect as all of you. Nobody's likely to call you out or complain about that statement.
- MiroF 6y ago
  I think it's a little early to say "it works." It causes them to display less outward prejudice when discussing the hiring process with others.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    In my case it was a manager who was slightly derogatory about the Indian division in the company. "That annoying uncle who tends to say the wrong thing" type. He stopped the comments afterwards and I do count that as "it works": others witnessed it was not ok, and new hires won't see this behaviour normalised in the future. Even if his internal view hasn't changed, it was progress and was worth the uncomfortable moment.
  - topkai22 6y ago
    Even if it doesn’t entirely “work” for that one person it is still important to address the culture issue immediately and publicly, because it sets norms for everyone else in the room. Even if you are the only other one in the room. Perhaps especially if you are the only other one in the room.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      Absolutely, but I don't think it diminishes the necessity of the HR report.
6y ago

slashink 6y ago

I have zero tolerance for trying to evaluate candidates on things other than performance against what the interview is benchmarking against. Hearing something like that would have had me instantly report it to HR. It makes me angry now even reading it. Why would this have any impact on the work the candidate would be able to perform?

xxpor 6y ago
I think someone who's not Indian could easially interpret that statement as completely neutral. Like if I said oh, $candidate is also from New Jersey, that's cool.

plaster 6y ago

This is an extremely fraught topic, and I will give a very fraught answer: I think you did the right thing in this situation. She did not express anything malicious and she corrected herself (at least partially). It sounds like your colleague was doing something anyone would do (assessing someone by the social strictures they are familiar with) and did something wrong (devoted effort to it in a hiring context, said something aloud.) Yes, everyone does this sort of thing -- in American society overall we don't have good names for the subtle side of our class system, so we can't express the puzzle as clearly as some other societies, but we do see the world (consciously or unconsciously) along these lines. When I hear people say inappropriate things -- usually less fraught ones like marital status -- I point out that they cannot say such things. It serves as a reminder of proper procedure. I do not escalate the situation if they seem to be acting without malice and, like the person in your story, seem to desire to do better. (Full disclosure, I am a white-presenting man.)

viraptor 6y ago
> and she corrected herself I believe she did the exact opposite. (You could argue she meant "shouldn't have done that" - I guess you'd have to be there to know) Acknowledged that she wanted to do this, so it was conscious, not just a bad habit. And acknowledged that she shouldn't talk about it - not that she shouldn't have done it.
core-questions 6y ago
> She did not express anything malicious Well, imagine that you, a white-presenting man (what does _that_ mean) were on a phone interview with someone you couldn't see, and afterwards, you said something like, "I was trying to determine if they were Black." I'm not going to make judgement on whether that's a fair statement or not - what I am curious about is whether you think that you'd get the same kind of defense - would there be someone saying that you weren't malicious?
- plaster 6y ago
  > Well, imagine that you, a white-presenting man (what does _that_ mean) If you met most of my family members, you would not think they were white, but if you met me personally, you probably would. Only once in a long while does someone seem to read me as 'not white' (and unless I'm speaking my heritage language they usually guess wrong about what flavor.) > were on a phone interview with someone you couldn't see, and afterwards, you said something like, "I was trying to determine if they were Black." If I'm on the phone with someone, I am sure I am trying to figure that out. Folks who claim otherwise are most likely incorrect about what they are doing. I would certainly know better than to say that aloud, since I grew up in a society where I know how it would be perceived, and have intuition around it. I don't have to think much to realize the implications.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago

I had an interim manager who did this subtly. It wasn't hard for us to catch on after some time, we brought it up to HR and he was disciplined as far as I know, and soon left the company, not sure on what terms. It's absolutely not okay to discriminate candidates by something like caste, or social status. It's like if your lead said she was trying to determine if they were an inferior race.

hartator 6y ago
> It's like if your lead said she was trying to determine if they were an inferior race. Yes, it is.
andreilys 6y ago
It's absolutely not okay to discriminate candidates by something like caste, or social status Caste no, social status? Absolutely, happens all the time. It’s very easy to proxy social status based on interests, hobbies, mannerisms, etc. Those that don’t pass the sniff test, are deemed “bad culture fits”.
- glitcher 6y ago
  So are you just saying it's already common, or that you are in support of social status profiling?
  - drieddust 6y ago
    Most companies look for "cultural fits"? Isn't that a form of caste discrimination? People from similar social background have similar taste hence fits well culturally.Isn't that obvious? If racial discrimination doesn't exist why Blacks are economically poor across in west?
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      I mean there are two effects: 1. Ongoing discrimination 2. Different starting points + law of large numbers. If you start one racial group off in a country with property and let them acquire wealth for a few hundred years, then free another racial group from slavery with absolutely nothing - even after a long while those wealth differences will persist.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

I have Indian heritage, and I’m clueless about this. Are there dog whistles I’m missing?

talmr 6y ago
I'm Indian and I've heard things like "koncha jaticha" said casually in a professional setting... Meaning which caste are you? I was born in India and moved here when I was in school. It was shocking to me as well when I heard stuff like this.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  Ah, I don’t speak much Hindi. Are there terms in English I should look out for? Ones that are meant to be subtle.
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    "Where are you from?" "Where did your parents live?" "Where were you born?" "What do your parents do?" I'm not Indian, but have heard these used in a derogatory setting. It's hard to disentangle from casual conversation, but if these questions arise suddenly and unprompted (like the first thing you're asked) it's a flag. Another is being asked a question in a specific dialect to see how you respond.
  - crossroadsguy 6y ago
    I think that term previous person used is Marathi (I am not a Marathi speaker though). > Are there terms in English I should look out for? Not really. But you have more of contexts and where the questioning is going whether it's in a professional or personal setting - the line of inquiry. If the person is taking a very shallow interest (or a misplaced interest) in knowing where your roots are, who your ancestors were and possibly specifically asking names of your parents or grand parents (maybe profession as well) then you might want to treat it as at least suspicious on these lines.
    - 6y ago

rhexs 6y ago

The same thing you should do if your team leader says they don’t want to hire any other subgroup because of discriminatory reasons. Just to be clear, this is exactly equivalent to and just as bad as racism in every way.

Natsu 6y ago

How do you know if someone is fishing for someone's caste or the markers thereof? Sadly, I wouldn't necessarily even know if a colleague was doing this unless they were really direct about it.

erklik 6y ago
There's quite a few examples of this in the article but it seems mainly things like neighborhood, names, "background", and other things of that nature.
- Natsu 6y ago
  Those seem relatively obvious, but I would never have figured out things like white threads or the thing with kitchens.

klyrs 6y ago

I've witnessed coworkers asking "awkward questions" before. I take notes and report it to HR. YMMV, not all HR departments are created equally. If your employer doesn't take it seriously, you can send an anonymous note to the candidate, which could support a lawsuit or complaint to the labor board. They might change their tune

RhysU 6y ago
> If your employer doesn't take it seriously, you can send an anonymous note to the candidate, which could support a lawsuit or complaint to the labor board. Unless your concern rises to whistle-blower levels with external agencies, that sounds like a quick way to be fired.

samatman 6y ago

There's a couple ways to read this one, and no context for deciding between them. Indians have a deeply engrained culture of noticing caste. This is true whether they are ok with discriminating on that basis, or staunchly against it, caste permeates the culture. So either she was only interested in hiring Brahmins, and realized that she shouldn't have tipped her hand... or she was curious about it, and then realized that was a shitty thing to say during an interview, and decided not to make it worse by explaining that of course it wouldn't make a difference in her judgement. She's right, though; she shouldn't have said that.

foogazi 6y ago
I think when it gets to saying these things out loud it might be too late The fact that it would be top of mind at all Could be curiosity or it could be a status play. Are there castes she would/would not hire from, would it be a problem to getting work done? Edit: I’ve worked with indians my whole career and only recently learned via HN that caste system “carried over” to the US
- samatman 6y ago
  It may be because of my habit of blurting out whatever stupid thought I'm having, but believing that someone might blurt out whatever stupid thought they're having comes easy to me.
- andreareina 6y ago
  I have all sorts of thoughts that I don't act on, or actively work to counteract. Should I be judged on these thoughts that, to a first approximation, I cannot control[1] yet I don't let affect what I do? I'm flawed, but I used to be more so. A big part of that improvement is thanks to the people that judged my actions and not every aberrant thought that entered my head. [1] responsibility is there of course, and I work to reduce their future frequency. But that change takes time, and until then the best remedy to unwanted ingrained patterns is to not act on them.
unsignedchar 6y ago
#notallindians

vats 6y ago

Sometimes, people (at least in northern parts of India) tend to use the word as a synonym for "last name" in common parlance. It can be used without an intention to discriminate (though the consequences depend on the context, since you can figure out the community from a last name in most cases). Was the interviewee of Indian origin? Unless you are of Indian origin, it's not applicable to you. If the interviewee was of Indian origin, and she didn't already know the interviewee's last name, I would probably give her the benefit of doubt, and ask to clarify what she meant.

klmadfejno 6y ago
As a non indian, that sounds like an incredibly weak form of plausible deniability covering one's ass.
- sundarurfriend 6y ago
  That's reasonable if you've only ever come across castes in this context. When I think of American buses, I think of Rosa Parks and racism, because that's the only context I have - but that doesn't make that the only relevant characteristic of them. We here in India hear the "caste as abhorrent discrimination" side from a very early age (and that's certainly important), but it's taken me years of experience to learn that in practice it's more than that. People think of caste as a form of extended family, or as shared culture, or of understanding someone's roots. That person might have said that just as someone might say "I can't figure out if their accent is from New York or New Jersey": that might be an intent to discriminate, but might also well be idle curiosity about the person.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    To be honest, no, that just sounds like you're doubling down on preserving harmful social structures because it benefits your in group. White supremacist groups in the US also focus on the positives and shared culture of white America. Hating blacks isn't the core belief, it's just a side effect of wanting everyone to know that whites are the best. I don't mean to say it's hateful to say you want social castes out on the table for identifying who you share connections with, but that obviously comes with the fact that you identify those who don't share that connection. It's a justification for extending social problems.

AdieuToLogic 6y ago

> After an interview I attended at a fintech company, my Indian team lead straight out said she was trying to figure out the interviewee's cast. Discrimination has many forms. Some are codified in law (age, race, religion, sex, etc.) and some are informally observed. When in doubt, I prefer to address perceived discrimination directly with the person thought to be engaging in such nonconfrontationally and in the presence of at least one other coworker. If you choose to do same, document the encounter when it happens along with whom was present and be prepared to escalate to management.

gautamdivgi 6y ago

fwiw - she shouldn't have said that or even thought that way. But I'm not sure why she was "trying to figure out his caste". The last name is a dead giveaway most of the times. Quite a few Indian last names and their castes are documented in wikipedia.

higerordermap 6y ago
In South India people don't always use surnames. Rather it is in format <Given name> <Father's Name> or wise versa.
- sundarurfriend 6y ago
  Yep. At least in my state (Tamilnadu), this is because people gave up caste names voluntarily as part of the anti-caste-discrimination movement, and became mononymous. Then, those of us who had to interact with people and entities that strictly assume a two-name structure started using Father's name as last name, simply because a lot of registration forms (and some people too) cannot cope with the idea that someone doesn't have a lastname. It's not universal though, or even a majority - a lot of people still are mononymous, and many are confused when Facebook and the ilk ask for "Last name" (and sometimes fill in hilarious things).
  - higerordermap 6y ago
    Well I am from Karnataka where that's not as pervasive. But I can't tell which is father's name and which is given name, because some also use the <Father name> <Given name> pattern. And then some people have multiple names. Is actor Vijay's first name Joseph, Vijay or Joseph Vijay? Just asking.. :)
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    and sometimes fill in hilarious things Many odd dutch surnames date back to dutchies, who had previously been using patronymics, having fun with the first census, taken under Napoleon in 1811.

stealthbot 6y ago

yeah...this never happened. this isnt the language people who talk like this use

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

> I started to wonder where I was in this hierarchy . I guess you're not Indian, so as I understand it that actually makes you casteless - untouchable, by strict adherence to the rules but here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACaste%2FArchive_1#Foreigners_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACaste%2FArchive_1#Forei... there is the quote: "if memory serves, Westerners (particularly English) are held to be Brahmin, "

byteofprash 6y ago
No. You are confusing race to caste, they don't intermix. There are brahmins in all shades of colours, and dalits in all shades of colours too.
fellellor 6y ago
WTF is even that page? You might as well have quoted 4chan. It’s so hilarious, I’m not even offended. To be honest.. I can see it working as a scam of some sort. As long as the “white man” has money you might as well be of the highest caste right? Here we’re trying to eliminate caste, but some geniuses want to give a caste to all sorts. You might as well give gold a caste...
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  well, the page is on the wikipedia domain, it is a talk page regarding edits to the page (discussion among different Indians I presume.) again as I understand it strictly speaking a foreigner should be casteless, and hence untouchable. But that discussion implies that the actual behavior towards foreigners does not match that, which would seem reasonable to me. Indians will need to interact with foreigners, if they are without caste that would be a problem, so how to fit the foreign into the social system.
  - fellellor 6y ago
    In other words, the quote is completely bogus. Caste system, on the surface, seems like hereditary fixing of labor roles. If applied universally, it should be easy to accept a member of a strong foreign army, or any army as a Kshatriya. So it makes no sense for every Englishman to assume a high caste, irrespective of profession. But then, many “castes” are also, basically regional/ethnicities. In short, the rules which apply caste, are not uniform in any way and I would rather ridicule such an exercise than aid it. A foreigner doesn’t need to have a caste, even if they wish to convert to Hinduism, when our argument is that we need to abolish caste in India in the first place.

known 6y ago

You could have dialed 911

gamblor956 6y ago

Report the individual to HR.