12 ms·

If you've never done this sort of thing before: there's a huge market for these "external consultants". Their unstated job (and reputations) are as whitewashing

If you've never done this sort of thing before: there's a huge market for these "external consultants". Their unstated job (and reputations) are as whitewashing firms. You hire them to ensure there is "no evidence" of anything done wrong. The primary purpose is to create a credible defense in lawsuits but PR purposes are also common. Firms that find problems suddenly see their business dry up because most companies don't want this kind of honest evaluation (it just creates a problem and potentially exposes you to liability). Without access to information about the firm doing the work, the report, or the underlying data it is impossible to know if a real investigation was done or not.

roenxi 6y ago
To repeat the grandparent, what else can they do? Many of the "issues" bought up in this article aren't even problematic. It says John Russ left because Armstrong took public stance that he wanted Coinbase to focus on crypto space stuff. Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral. It is desirable that some companies just do what it says on the tin. If Russ had a reason for quitting that was race-related then the NYT didn't uncover it.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  They can do nothing, once someone calls you 'racist' you're racist for good. I don't know the details of the story, but the thing is with baseless accusations of racism is that it's a perfect slander, one can never prove innocence once proclaimed guilty.
  - KirinDave 6y ago
    If a San Francisco denizen says to you, "I stepped in human poop" you don't say, "Pics or it didn't happen." That's becuse it's a common occurrence. It's plausible it happened. The same is true of racism in Silicon Valley and the adjoint areas. Being less racist is actually the unusual condition that requires proof.
    - bra-ket 6y ago
      >Being less racist is actually the unusual condition that requires proof are you for real?
      - zo1 6y ago
        They are real, and they've been multiplying in numbers for decades now because people are too-afraid to call them out in public.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - tptacek 6y ago
        If you want to dispute something another commenter says, do so. The guidelines ask you specifically not to snark like this.
        bra-ket 6y ago
        some comments cross over to the realm of outrageous and ridiculous to an extent they cannot be acknowledged in any reasonable and guidelines-compliant way.
        tptacek 6y ago
        No, the guidelines aren't optional, as 'dang points out relentlessly. If you can't be civil and substantive, don't comment.
        jlokier 6y ago
        In my view the comment you replied to is neither outrageous or ridiculous, and it ought to be possible to disagree with it in a civil manner even if you think it's very wrong.
        arolihas 6y ago
        Thats not true at all. Just because you don’t feel like you can follow the guidelines, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. For example, I think your comment is ridiculous coming from a grown adult I assume, but I am still able to reply in a compliant way.
  - bertomart 6y ago
    What are you trying to say? over 16 people are just lieing! Whatever dude, you're privilege to not have to face the bs. Then why don't you go get the details before you start talking smack
- chris11 6y ago
  > Armstrong took public stance that he wanted Coinbase to focus on crypto space stuff. I don't think that he would have taken that public stance if he didn't feel that the company was being distracted internally by racial justice issues. It being a fair response is highly dependent on those internal conversations. And the NY Times reports that prior to this conversation there was a public meeting where Black employees brought up difficult experiences at Coinbase. Being told that people should leave politics at home or leave the company is a horrible response to complaints about discrimination.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Well, I don't know what is going on in Coinbase. But the NYT has in the past overplayed the race card with no evidence. Now I'm happy to agree that the retention rate of black people at Coinbase raises some questions. But the NYT, having asked those questions, came up with no particular evidence of racism. The major piece of evidence that these issues are substantially due to race is that the NYT felt it warranted a hit piece. That is weak evidence. Being passed over for promotion and feeling unappreciated - which they lead with - isn't evidence. Most of us have been passed over for promotion plenty of times. Most people are unappreciated too.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      On the contrary, they came up with several examples of biased behavior, including an instance where the Black members of a team were required to relocate while a non-Black member wasn't, an instance where a Black team member was subjected to to insults about drug dealing and guns from their manager, recruiting team member claims that Black candidates were less capable, the fact that Coinbase employs Black workers at less than half the average of the industry, and the fact that Black workers were dismissed in meetings, to the point where a pattern of repeated HR complaints occurred.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        Starting with the assumption that they are racist, that is the tip of a nasty iceburg. Starting with the assumption it is a pretty normal company, that is a list mostly of stuff that nobody should care about. If someone can articulate what the HR complaints are about then that might be evidence. But complaints to HR are expected - that is why HR gets hired. They are there to deal with HR complaints. And read resumes. > including an instance where the Black members of a team were required to relocate while a non-Black member wasn't This one is stupid. Am I meant to believe they are revealing their racist ways by hiring black people then asking them to relocate, racistly? This is bog standard sucks-to-work-in-support activity. Miserable working conditions, but nothing to do with skin colour. A similar thing happened to my father back in the day. He certainly wasn't black.
- tptacek 6y ago
  For starters, they can publish the results of the external investigation they paid for, which is something other companies in similar situations have done. Then we can assess the credibility of that report. This seems pretty basic, so it's surprising to see people asking "what else can Coinbase do?".
  - roenxi 6y ago
    That would probably violate privacy. It is unclear to me whether they can do that.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      Whose privacy? Coinbase's?! They wouldn't be the first company to publicly publish an internal report (voluntary or not; such documents routinely go public via the justice system).
      - roenxi 6y ago
        The employee's. If someone makes a complaint to HR it might easily be illegal to investigate then broadcast it to the world accompanied with a "this employee is full of it" style message. Doing that might, for example, damage that employees prospects of finding employment or reveal specific personal details. Certainly appalling form, probably illegal.
        tptacek 6y ago
        You are, due respect, basically just making this up. Companies publish investigator reports of bias and discrimination somewhat regularly. It's possible that Coinbase contractually can't disclose the reports they've already commissioned --- in which case they probably ought not to have tried to refute the article with them --- but they can certainly commission a new one that they can disclose. It's a 600+ employee company; the cost of the report is a rounding error. As it stands, the kernel of Coinbase's defense here is "we paid for a secret report and it says we're great". Reasonable people can find that response unpersuasive.
- adjkant 6y ago
  > Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral The 60 people who left makes it clear this is not agreed upon. HN has already played out this debate on the original post so I'll save going into it here, but it's disingenuous to say that Russ didn't quit because of race-related policy, whether or not you think the policy is race-related. That said, putting out that "apolitical stance" in the direct wake of George Floyd/BLM is unavoidably tied. As others have said, timing is key. If they had the policy from day 1, they might have a leg to stand on. It seems likely in context with this article (and frankly, to many before this) that Coinbase's apolitical stance is not a rejection of all politics but a tacit rejection of George Floyd/BLM. No one should be surprised about a diversity problem in such a company. This "what else can they do?" question stems from a criminal judicial standard of guilt and conviction, but that is not where this discussion exists. To think that Coinbase must be innocent and needs to prove that over many former employees being on the record + clear statistical issues that all align with the narrative the company has set with previous actions shows a central flaw in the tech community's approach to racism and politics. I realize the question does not direct say that they must be innocent, but the implications and assumptions here are important to note, and certainly lean in that direction.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Are there other non-crypto political stances Coinbase has taken? It seems to me that this was just the first time they needed such a policy. I certainly wouldn't have anticipated the possibility of a new political slogan that almost every major company is forced to chant.
    - adjkant 6y ago
      Many companies regularly work within mainstream political action such as LGTBQ+ rights, data privacy, homelessness, local housing or public works, and children's orgs such as Big Brother Big Sister. While these vary in controversiality, relevancy, and apolitical nature, it's not at all uncommon to see companies working in these areas (and others unlisted). Often companies grow into them along with size and profits, so I don't know if Coinbase historically can be taken as sign of consistency either. What Coinbase did was effectively say "well now that BLM has entered mainstream politics and other companies are taking stances, we no longer feel that the mainstream politics of the industry are agreeable to us." The George Floyd spark very much "outed" Coinbase here, because it became an issue you couldn't avoid taking a side on. That's just the state of the world and you're right that they couldn't have anticipated it, but they chose to make a clear stance rather than trying to ride the thin line, and they became less diverse for it. I don't know why anyone would be surprised their prior actions match that recent stance. Again, I'm trying to avoid the philosophical "Should companies be political" debate that's already been hashed, but simply stating how their actions translate in the current landscape.
- Keeeeeeeks 6y ago
  > Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral this is a self-evident conclusion being hawked as a premise, and the rest of the comment doesn't do much to mold this premise into an argument > If Russ had a reason for quitting that was race-related then the NYT didn't uncover it. There's an unfalsifiability in this rhetoric, because someone leaving for race-related reasons in an industry that either: a) has "subtle racists" b) is funded by "subtle racists" c) functionally aids and/or abets "subtle racists" through inaction would be incentivized to not specify these things, as these industries (finance and crypto) optimize for relationships almost as much (if not ==) to the amount they optimize for merit. And that's not even getting into clauses baked into employment termination contracts. So you have a scenario where you can't actually "prove" race was a primary motivator for quitting because: a) if it were a "subtle racist" co-worker, they're probably using euphemism a2) if they're a "not subtle racist" co-worker, it would embarrass the employer for keeping that person on the book swhen the reputational cost exceeds the cost of sourcing and hiring someone who's not a not subtle racist" b) If the person wants to work in tech again, relationships will likely be burned as a direct or indirect result of airing out a company's dirty laundry c) Could be sued for violating non-disparagement clauses (prices out anyone who doesn't have the security to burn the bridge between them and a growth industry) If the point of your comment was to use a number of premises that aren't empirical, and border on dogmatic, then I misunderstood, and apologize for trying to search for rhetoric where it was not intended to be found. If the purpose of the statements above where to be rhetorical or logical, then we're getting into a place where we're asking for evidence that would be difficult for someone with said evidence to do without them, say, being financially and occupationally secure enough to burn the bridges between them and: - Coinbase - Coinbase's Investors - Coinbase's Investors' LPs - Coinbase's Investors' companies - Every other company that either doesn't question whether they are less meritocratic than they believe, or doesn't question whether or not they can replace the problematic superstar employees
- enumjorge 6y ago
  You took one example and ignored the rest. It’s not like NYT wrote this article simply because Russ left. What about the employees who were asked to be present for photo shoots to show workplace diversity but who felt ignored and talked down to during meetings? That sounds problematic. If it were a couple of employees it’s one thing but when most of your black employees leave because of what they feel is racism in the workplace that’s harder to ignore. It doesn’t necessarily prove there was racism, but it’s certainly a red flag.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > What about the employees who were asked to be present for photo shoots to show workplace diversity but who felt ignored and talked down to during meetings? That is extremely vague. Is it a red flag? Yes. Does it imply racism? No. It doesn't even guarantee there is a problem or a systemic trend for that matter. If there are 3 red flags and some actual evidence of racism then that is one thing. But there isn't. Even the number of black people quitting - what is the expected retention rate in that team? Most people quit due to dodgy managers, so people quitting points to a dodgy manager before it points to racism.
    - arolihas 6y ago
      How is it not racist to showcase your black employees for appearances and then turn around and condescend them?
      - roenxi 6y ago
        You've squeezed a bit into the premise of that question. If, why and how persistently someone was ignored are very relevant questions that we have no facts on. And what the subject of the meeting was. We know that Alysa Butler felt unappreciated. I'm hesitant to believe the NYT is even representing her opinions fairly. If you read what they've written about carefully, the article doesn't have her accusing Coinbase of any sort of racism, the NYT is just weaving her experience into a story that they construct elsewhere (normal practice in newspapers). A 'diversity problem' is different from racism. 25 year olds being ignored in meetings is not a new phenomenon either in my experience.
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Which all boils down to that old quote: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Political parties have pet Think Tanks and Consulting Companies and various other organisations that only exist to massage the existing data into the desired narrative. Look for the data points that indicate 'normal' and orbit that. When the inevitable questions about X% of the African-American workforce quit within Y time, just point to the stats that say 'normal'. Find some other outlier statistic to point out that random groupings happen, use this to try and dismiss this scenario as a one-off random event; coincidence. Kids: learn your statistics! You'll be able to cheat your way into at least a couple of promotions throughout your career. (What I actually mean is: learn your statistics so you can spot when you're being cheated).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TwoBit 6y ago
Imagine if the consultants had in fact found discrimination. Would the company ever report that publicly? Maybe there was or wasn't discrimination, but there is zero reason to conclude based on somebody chosen and paid for by the company.
Overtonwindow 6y ago
I think that’s unfair, not all corporations are big bad monoliths trying to crush the little guy. The New York Times article is a hit piece, and main stream media’s continuation of constantly looking to create racial tension.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rendall 6y ago
> If you've never done this sort of thing before: there's a huge market for these "external consultants". Their unstated job (and reputations) are as whitewashing firms. There are consultancies whose reputations depend on reporting only unvarnished truth to their clients. That way the client can reliably handle and eliminate actual discrimination, and defend themselves against false claims. I'm not sure that a whitewashing firm would be as valuable as all that.

roenxi 6y ago

To repeat the grandparent, what else can they do? Many of the "issues" bought up in this article aren't even problematic. It says John Russ left because Armstrong took public stance that he wanted Coinbase to focus on crypto space stuff. Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral. It is desirable that some companies just do what it says on the tin. If Russ had a reason for quitting that was race-related then the NYT didn't uncover it.

bra-ket 6y ago
They can do nothing, once someone calls you 'racist' you're racist for good. I don't know the details of the story, but the thing is with baseless accusations of racism is that it's a perfect slander, one can never prove innocence once proclaimed guilty.
- KirinDave 6y ago
  If a San Francisco denizen says to you, "I stepped in human poop" you don't say, "Pics or it didn't happen." That's becuse it's a common occurrence. It's plausible it happened. The same is true of racism in Silicon Valley and the adjoint areas. Being less racist is actually the unusual condition that requires proof.
  - bra-ket 6y ago
    >Being less racist is actually the unusual condition that requires proof are you for real?
    - zo1 6y ago
      They are real, and they've been multiplying in numbers for decades now because people are too-afraid to call them out in public.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - tptacek 6y ago
      If you want to dispute something another commenter says, do so. The guidelines ask you specifically not to snark like this.
      - bra-ket 6y ago
        some comments cross over to the realm of outrageous and ridiculous to an extent they cannot be acknowledged in any reasonable and guidelines-compliant way.
        tptacek 6y ago
        No, the guidelines aren't optional, as 'dang points out relentlessly. If you can't be civil and substantive, don't comment.
        jlokier 6y ago
        In my view the comment you replied to is neither outrageous or ridiculous, and it ought to be possible to disagree with it in a civil manner even if you think it's very wrong.
        arolihas 6y ago
        Thats not true at all. Just because you don’t feel like you can follow the guidelines, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. For example, I think your comment is ridiculous coming from a grown adult I assume, but I am still able to reply in a compliant way.
- bertomart 6y ago
  What are you trying to say? over 16 people are just lieing! Whatever dude, you're privilege to not have to face the bs. Then why don't you go get the details before you start talking smack
chris11 6y ago
> Armstrong took public stance that he wanted Coinbase to focus on crypto space stuff. I don't think that he would have taken that public stance if he didn't feel that the company was being distracted internally by racial justice issues. It being a fair response is highly dependent on those internal conversations. And the NY Times reports that prior to this conversation there was a public meeting where Black employees brought up difficult experiences at Coinbase. Being told that people should leave politics at home or leave the company is a horrible response to complaints about discrimination.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Well, I don't know what is going on in Coinbase. But the NYT has in the past overplayed the race card with no evidence. Now I'm happy to agree that the retention rate of black people at Coinbase raises some questions. But the NYT, having asked those questions, came up with no particular evidence of racism. The major piece of evidence that these issues are substantially due to race is that the NYT felt it warranted a hit piece. That is weak evidence. Being passed over for promotion and feeling unappreciated - which they lead with - isn't evidence. Most of us have been passed over for promotion plenty of times. Most people are unappreciated too.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    On the contrary, they came up with several examples of biased behavior, including an instance where the Black members of a team were required to relocate while a non-Black member wasn't, an instance where a Black team member was subjected to to insults about drug dealing and guns from their manager, recruiting team member claims that Black candidates were less capable, the fact that Coinbase employs Black workers at less than half the average of the industry, and the fact that Black workers were dismissed in meetings, to the point where a pattern of repeated HR complaints occurred.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Starting with the assumption that they are racist, that is the tip of a nasty iceburg. Starting with the assumption it is a pretty normal company, that is a list mostly of stuff that nobody should care about. If someone can articulate what the HR complaints are about then that might be evidence. But complaints to HR are expected - that is why HR gets hired. They are there to deal with HR complaints. And read resumes. > including an instance where the Black members of a team were required to relocate while a non-Black member wasn't This one is stupid. Am I meant to believe they are revealing their racist ways by hiring black people then asking them to relocate, racistly? This is bog standard sucks-to-work-in-support activity. Miserable working conditions, but nothing to do with skin colour. A similar thing happened to my father back in the day. He certainly wasn't black.
tptacek 6y ago
For starters, they can publish the results of the external investigation they paid for, which is something other companies in similar situations have done. Then we can assess the credibility of that report. This seems pretty basic, so it's surprising to see people asking "what else can Coinbase do?".
- roenxi 6y ago
  That would probably violate privacy. It is unclear to me whether they can do that.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    Whose privacy? Coinbase's?! They wouldn't be the first company to publicly publish an internal report (voluntary or not; such documents routinely go public via the justice system).
    - roenxi 6y ago
      The employee's. If someone makes a complaint to HR it might easily be illegal to investigate then broadcast it to the world accompanied with a "this employee is full of it" style message. Doing that might, for example, damage that employees prospects of finding employment or reveal specific personal details. Certainly appalling form, probably illegal.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        You are, due respect, basically just making this up. Companies publish investigator reports of bias and discrimination somewhat regularly. It's possible that Coinbase contractually can't disclose the reports they've already commissioned --- in which case they probably ought not to have tried to refute the article with them --- but they can certainly commission a new one that they can disclose. It's a 600+ employee company; the cost of the report is a rounding error. As it stands, the kernel of Coinbase's defense here is "we paid for a secret report and it says we're great". Reasonable people can find that response unpersuasive.
adjkant 6y ago
> Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral The 60 people who left makes it clear this is not agreed upon. HN has already played out this debate on the original post so I'll save going into it here, but it's disingenuous to say that Russ didn't quit because of race-related policy, whether or not you think the policy is race-related. That said, putting out that "apolitical stance" in the direct wake of George Floyd/BLM is unavoidably tied. As others have said, timing is key. If they had the policy from day 1, they might have a leg to stand on. It seems likely in context with this article (and frankly, to many before this) that Coinbase's apolitical stance is not a rejection of all politics but a tacit rejection of George Floyd/BLM. No one should be surprised about a diversity problem in such a company. This "what else can they do?" question stems from a criminal judicial standard of guilt and conviction, but that is not where this discussion exists. To think that Coinbase must be innocent and needs to prove that over many former employees being on the record + clear statistical issues that all align with the narrative the company has set with previous actions shows a central flaw in the tech community's approach to racism and politics. I realize the question does not direct say that they must be innocent, but the implications and assumptions here are important to note, and certainly lean in that direction.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Are there other non-crypto political stances Coinbase has taken? It seems to me that this was just the first time they needed such a policy. I certainly wouldn't have anticipated the possibility of a new political slogan that almost every major company is forced to chant.
  - adjkant 6y ago
    Many companies regularly work within mainstream political action such as LGTBQ+ rights, data privacy, homelessness, local housing or public works, and children's orgs such as Big Brother Big Sister. While these vary in controversiality, relevancy, and apolitical nature, it's not at all uncommon to see companies working in these areas (and others unlisted). Often companies grow into them along with size and profits, so I don't know if Coinbase historically can be taken as sign of consistency either. What Coinbase did was effectively say "well now that BLM has entered mainstream politics and other companies are taking stances, we no longer feel that the mainstream politics of the industry are agreeable to us." The George Floyd spark very much "outed" Coinbase here, because it became an issue you couldn't avoid taking a side on. That's just the state of the world and you're right that they couldn't have anticipated it, but they chose to make a clear stance rather than trying to ride the thin line, and they became less diverse for it. I don't know why anyone would be surprised their prior actions match that recent stance. Again, I'm trying to avoid the philosophical "Should companies be political" debate that's already been hashed, but simply stating how their actions translate in the current landscape.
Keeeeeeeks 6y ago
> Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral this is a self-evident conclusion being hawked as a premise, and the rest of the comment doesn't do much to mold this premise into an argument > If Russ had a reason for quitting that was race-related then the NYT didn't uncover it. There's an unfalsifiability in this rhetoric, because someone leaving for race-related reasons in an industry that either: a) has "subtle racists" b) is funded by "subtle racists" c) functionally aids and/or abets "subtle racists" through inaction would be incentivized to not specify these things, as these industries (finance and crypto) optimize for relationships almost as much (if not ==) to the amount they optimize for merit. And that's not even getting into clauses baked into employment termination contracts. So you have a scenario where you can't actually "prove" race was a primary motivator for quitting because: a) if it were a "subtle racist" co-worker, they're probably using euphemism a2) if they're a "not subtle racist" co-worker, it would embarrass the employer for keeping that person on the book swhen the reputational cost exceeds the cost of sourcing and hiring someone who's not a not subtle racist" b) If the person wants to work in tech again, relationships will likely be burned as a direct or indirect result of airing out a company's dirty laundry c) Could be sued for violating non-disparagement clauses (prices out anyone who doesn't have the security to burn the bridge between them and a growth industry) If the point of your comment was to use a number of premises that aren't empirical, and border on dogmatic, then I misunderstood, and apologize for trying to search for rhetoric where it was not intended to be found. If the purpose of the statements above where to be rhetorical or logical, then we're getting into a place where we're asking for evidence that would be difficult for someone with said evidence to do without them, say, being financially and occupationally secure enough to burn the bridges between them and: - Coinbase - Coinbase's Investors - Coinbase's Investors' LPs - Coinbase's Investors' companies - Every other company that either doesn't question whether they are less meritocratic than they believe, or doesn't question whether or not they can replace the problematic superstar employees
enumjorge 6y ago
You took one example and ignored the rest. It’s not like NYT wrote this article simply because Russ left. What about the employees who were asked to be present for photo shoots to show workplace diversity but who felt ignored and talked down to during meetings? That sounds problematic. If it were a couple of employees it’s one thing but when most of your black employees leave because of what they feel is racism in the workplace that’s harder to ignore. It doesn’t necessarily prove there was racism, but it’s certainly a red flag.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > What about the employees who were asked to be present for photo shoots to show workplace diversity but who felt ignored and talked down to during meetings? That is extremely vague. Is it a red flag? Yes. Does it imply racism? No. It doesn't even guarantee there is a problem or a systemic trend for that matter. If there are 3 red flags and some actual evidence of racism then that is one thing. But there isn't. Even the number of black people quitting - what is the expected retention rate in that team? Most people quit due to dodgy managers, so people quitting points to a dodgy manager before it points to racism.
  - arolihas 6y ago
    How is it not racist to showcase your black employees for appearances and then turn around and condescend them?
    - roenxi 6y ago
      You've squeezed a bit into the premise of that question. If, why and how persistently someone was ignored are very relevant questions that we have no facts on. And what the subject of the meeting was. We know that Alysa Butler felt unappreciated. I'm hesitant to believe the NYT is even representing her opinions fairly. If you read what they've written about carefully, the article doesn't have her accusing Coinbase of any sort of racism, the NYT is just weaving her experience into a story that they construct elsewhere (normal practice in newspapers). A 'diversity problem' is different from racism. 25 year olds being ignored in meetings is not a new phenomenon either in my experience.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

Which all boils down to that old quote: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Political parties have pet Think Tanks and Consulting Companies and various other organisations that only exist to massage the existing data into the desired narrative. Look for the data points that indicate 'normal' and orbit that. When the inevitable questions about X% of the African-American workforce quit within Y time, just point to the stats that say 'normal'. Find some other outlier statistic to point out that random groupings happen, use this to try and dismiss this scenario as a one-off random event; coincidence. Kids: learn your statistics! You'll be able to cheat your way into at least a couple of promotions throughout your career. (What I actually mean is: learn your statistics so you can spot when you're being cheated).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TwoBit 6y ago

Imagine if the consultants had in fact found discrimination. Would the company ever report that publicly? Maybe there was or wasn't discrimination, but there is zero reason to conclude based on somebody chosen and paid for by the company.

Overtonwindow 6y ago

I think that’s unfair, not all corporations are big bad monoliths trying to crush the little guy. The New York Times article is a hit piece, and main stream media’s continuation of constantly looking to create racial tension.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rendall 6y ago

> If you've never done this sort of thing before: there's a huge market for these "external consultants". Their unstated job (and reputations) are as whitewashing firms. There are consultancies whose reputations depend on reporting only unvarnished truth to their clients. That way the client can reliably handle and eliminate actual discrimination, and defend themselves against false claims. I'm not sure that a whitewashing firm would be as valuable as all that.