3 ms·

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 mali

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.
sreevisakh 6y ago
> She did not express anything malicious and she corrected herself If you were an Indian, this would immediately raise a red flag. The intent of bringing up caste in a professional setting is clear - to discriminate. There is no other practical use for it. And the system is a hideous one with the potential to seriously damage professional environment. Signs of its practice like this should be considered threatening.
SamBam 6y ago
I think the difference is that you're seeing it as akin to someone saying "I was trying to work out what religion they were." Yes, it's illegal to discriminate based on religion, but in many parts of the country it's a big curiosity about other people (is he presbyterian?) and so many people may not be able to help privately trying to suss it out. The difference is that cast is a rigid hierarchy, based on society-accepted discrimination, and there is no reason to try and figure it out other than to decide where they are in the pecking order.

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.

sreevisakh 6y ago

> She did not express anything malicious and she corrected herself If you were an Indian, this would immediately raise a red flag. The intent of bringing up caste in a professional setting is clear - to discriminate. There is no other practical use for it. And the system is a hideous one with the potential to seriously damage professional environment. Signs of its practice like this should be considered threatening.

SamBam 6y ago

I think the difference is that you're seeing it as akin to someone saying "I was trying to work out what religion they were." Yes, it's illegal to discriminate based on religion, but in many parts of the country it's a big curiosity about other people (is he presbyterian?) and so many people may not be able to help privately trying to suss it out. The difference is that cast is a rigid hierarchy, based on society-accepted discrimination, and there is no reason to try and figure it out other than to decide where they are in the pecking order.