11 ms·

Google advised mental health care when workers complained about racism, sexism

60 points by offby37years 6y ago

refraincomment 6y ago
But is it the right advice or not?
ALittleLight 6y ago
The opening example this article gives is preposterous. Who would make an HR complaint over one ill-considered remark? Who would want to work with a person who would? I agree with Google here that you should assume good intent coming from other people until they prove that wrong, and I don't think that standard was applied here.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  Is it preposterous? We don't have enough information on the actual exchange, or the context from this article. "a colleague told them that their skin was much darker than she expected." That might be benign, or hostile, or just candid and clumsy. It's hard to tell. It's also not clear whether Google was asked to put forward a defence to the accusations made in the article. "Google said in a statement that the company is committed to supporting employees who raise concerns about workplace treatment." Again, the article doesn't provide enough context for us to know. Was the statement in response to a request to answer the allegations in the article, or was it a generic statement made without the context of these specific allegations?
  - psychiatrist24 6y ago
    Yes it is.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    Of course it might be any of those things. Any comment, even one that sounds completely innocuous, may have subtle malicious connotations that people without context cannot infer. As the Google HR person suggested though, we should assume good motives where we don't have evidence to the contrary. You can't effectively work with other people if you're always assuming what they say is a veiled insult. If there is context that makes this clearly malicious then the article should provide it. It's not reasonable to assume that context exists though. While it is reasonable to acknowledge it might exist - there's no evidence of it. Perhaps a teapot is in space orbiting the sun by itself.
- soneca 6y ago
  By your standards a lot of very toxic people would get a pass by saying toxic stuff and they later saying _”I was just joking”_, thus ever denying their bad intent. And that kind of toxic-then-deny people are very, very common in workplaces.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    No, I don't think so. I think it's perfectly appropriate to say stuff like "Hey, comments about my skin color are kind of uncomfortable for me. I'd prefer we not discuss it." If the person keeps talking about your skin color you can say - "Hey, remember we talked before about how I feel this is inappropriate?" And if they can't stop bringing it up it seems like you've ruled out good intent, or based on how they react when you bring it up you might rule out good intent. Assuming good intent at first doesn't mean you're infinitely gullible or a doormat for people to walk on. It just means not being a landmine that is going to try to get people in trouble.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tryonenow 6y ago
    Offense is taken, not given. Counterpoint: we are devolving into a hyper-sensitive society (or rather a small but vocal minority is imposing such a culture onto the rest of us) and bending over backwards to pretend we're all identical is going to lead to an resurgence of racism as people lose faith in our institutions, becoming aware that we are effectively being gaslit. >And that kind of toxic-then-deny people are very, very common in workplaces. Or perhaps you are looking for issues where they do not exist.
  - zimbatm 6y ago
    It's just as toxic as people seeing *ism everywhere. They create an atmosphere of suspicion that is not conducive to free thinking. Unfortunately in big groups you will have both of those types and HR is not good at managing finer-grained inter-personal issues. Without all of the context it's hard to judge group dynamics.
- villasv 6y ago
  > I agree with Google here that you should assume good intent That’s probably because you can afford to. Imagine you’re someone who had to file a grave complaint but the person got off the hook because “it was a one time thing, it’s his first offense”. It’s important to document all microagression if you really want something to happen out of these complaints. The accuser maybe felt the perp would likely be a repeating offender and is not open to feedback, so the effort to pile up complaints got initiated. This is how it’s done. I’d be happy to work with this person.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    No, it's not important to document all "microagressions". It sounds like it would be a nightmare to work with any person who thought or acted like that. The concept of microagressions is backwards and pernicious. People are imperfect communicators. Getting offended at cryptic, imagined, or unintended slights is something that children and crazy people do. Adults, especially in the workplace, should be able to understand people have different ways of expressing themselves and that's not bad and you don't need to get HR involved. One example comes to mind - I had a coworker who frequently wrote "..." After messages on our instant messenger. Once I asked him a question and he just replied "..." And then 20 minutes later told me the answer. I read this as kind of a sarcastic thing, like an exasperated sigh that he'd have to explain something so obvious. I thought this guy was a real jerk. One day after he sent me a "..." I asked him what it meant. I said "What does '...' signify?" And the guy answered that it meant "More to follow" and I realized that he wasn't being a jerk, he was just trying to signal to me that he couldn't complete the answer at the moment, but would send more to follow. The point of my little story is that it just doesn't make sense to assume hostile motives. Lots of times people just communicate differently. Trying to document all the times you can interpret someone as being negative is just a bad idea in addition to being unfair and unproductive. It's also way more likely to make people genuinely aggressive and hostile towards you.
    - villasv 6y ago
      You definition of microagression isn’t usual or useful. That’s why the rest of the argument made sense, but missed the point.
- emptysongglass 6y ago
  At this point I just don't discuss my personal life with anyone I work with or if I do it's to respond with an, "I'm doing great, thanks, and how are you?" No after-work drinks or else I'll have one for the sake of appearing affable. I'm a nice person but that any comment is potentially a landmine to me professionally, I'd just rather not expose myself like that. I can't count on anyone assuming good intent with me because everyone is so fired up on their crusader trains. I'll give a personal example: when I was a Buddhist renunciate--this was right at the beginning of cancel culture--someone I thought to be a close friend posted a negative experience she had with a man. It didn't stop there: she proceeded to blast all men for not immediately talking to every man they knew about their inherent violence. I commented that from the perspective of peace, her exhortation would result in more anger, more rage in the world, not less. My last name on Facebook at that time was my own creation, for the sake of my privacy. Immediately after my call for calm, I was doxxed and Facebook locked me out of my account until I could prove my last name. In hindsight, she did me a great favor as I never returned to Facebook, which I now see as poison to the human mind.
  - matsemann 6y ago
    > At this point I just don't discuss my personal life with anyone I work with (...) I'm a nice person but that any comment is potentially a landmine to me professionally, I'd just rather not expose myself like that If potentially anything you say will blow up on you, you should consider if it's you that are in the wrong in how you conduct yourself and what's coming out of your mouth when you're not self censoring, or if everyone else is wrong. Edit: Never had such a down voted comment before. What are you all saying about your weekend to co-workers that makes people so offended?
    - Hnrobert42 6y ago
      I upvoted you, but I think people who are downvoting you see your comment as a kind of victim-blaming. Namely that GP was the victim of a doxxing, and you are blaming them.
      - matsemann 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaygulf 6y ago
  >Who would make an HR complaint over one ill-considered remark? It's painfully obvious you haven't been exposed to Bay Area/West Coast start-up culture (I envy your lack of exposure). I've seen people getting reported to HR for the following things: - Using a photo of a Sherpa (an actual photo, not a character or drawing) in a presentation to describe the concept of guiding people and systems to their desired outcome and state. They were reported for using racist caricatures of marginalized minorities - Discussing shooting sports in a thread about hobbies. They were reported for making people feel unsafe - Someone posted a screen shot of a Tweet in support of BLM, but the screen shot was from Blacktivist, a Twitter account that was part of a Russian propaganda campaign. Someone replied to the screen shot that maybe it should be taken down since it was literally created and pushed from a propaganda account. They were reported for being insensitive to PoC employees These are just a few out of the dozens upon dozens. I'm sure many others here on HN could provide examples.
woofster 6y ago
Where tf is racism is in "your skin is dark"? Benjamin is a pussy ass nigga
beaker52 6y ago
I suppose it's important to know the context that this colleague suggested their skin colour was darker than she expected. "Wow, what a tan" > "Yeah I just came back from 3 months in Egypt" "Yeah! I was a momentarily surprised because your skin colour was darker than I expected since I'd seen your photo on your CV" Maybe I'm giving the colleague too much credit.
- cfcf14 6y ago
  Preface: I think this is probably giving the colleague too much credit, but with that thought in mind... I learned the hard way once that even a (seemingly) innocent comment about a friend's tan could be perceived very adversely, due to the fact that their culture had "being tanned" == "being dark(er)" connotations which were quite negative. It's a particular point of view, not one globally shared, that being tanned (or general malleability of skin tone) is a discussion point/something of casual interest. These day I find it's best to simply mind my own business about others' appearances unless they're very close friends or family.
  - psychiatrist24 6y ago
    Why are you supposed to learn about their culture, and not they about your culture?
  - nomdep 6y ago
    If they think darker==bad, they are the racist that should be reported
  - serial_dev 6y ago
    I moved to Germany and learned that the "Where are you from" question is not a good icebreaker. As an immigrant working in an industry with lots of other immigrants, I thought it's okay to ask, but once you ask a German person of foreign descent this question they might perceive it as if I said they are not really German (sometimes context can make it even worse).
    - psychiatrist24 6y ago
psychiatrist24 6y ago
"prefers to be identified by the pronouns they/them" yup, mental health care is advised. What a ridiculous article. Pure propaganda (trying to milk the recent "incident" with the AI ethics researcher of color who was rightfully fired).
kofejnik 6y ago
> They also contacted human resources to report retaliation after protesting sexual harassment issues and to advocate for raises for Black people to match white employees’ pay. right, Some people are more important than others edit: referring to capitalization, if that is unclear
- shark_laser 6y ago
  Yep. If we can't assume good intent as the article suggests, then what are we to assume about that?
aminozuur 6y ago
Google told him to “assume good intent”. This is unironically good advise. On Wikipedia, "assume good faith" is even a rule. This is because many of the talk-page conversations derail due to nothing other than editors assuming bad faith about each others contributions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
- villasv 6y ago
  It’s good advice for the general public, but it’s a bad policy for HR and a bad response to complaints.
  - ramblerman 6y ago
    In this case the complaint was about someone who had said " that their skin was much darker than she expected". Now this is an insanely stupid, and odd thing to say, but I think it's fair to say it comes from a place of ignorance, and not malice. At least one might assume that if the incident only happens once.
    - villasv 6y ago
      The provided example doesn’t change the fact that it’s bad policy. HR should tell people to assume nothing.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- ketzu 6y ago
  The same is written in the HN guidelines, and whenever it is ignored, discussion derails. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Unfortunately I am guilty of violating it, too. But I like the rule a lot and try to apply it more often in real life as well.
xiphias2 6y ago
,,Go woke, get broke'' Although there's no sign in a weakening balance sheet in Alphabet, it seems that they realized in 2020 that catering to the loudest voices is not a profitable long term steategy.
- ardit33 6y ago
  They are a large company. 120k employees. If 1% of them have major personality issues you are bound to have at least 1.2k semi-insane/irrational/irresponsible people and dumb things will happen. Dumb things like this, or Even worse happen in all major companies, but google is a favorite target of the media due to their money/revenue of the company and that media sees tech as a competitor. At this point I am starting to feel bad about google. They kinda came in/treated this cultural phenomenon with naïveté. Can’t be ‘open to ideas’ when there is a large group inside the company that gets offended about everything
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    I don't feel bad for Google at all. The top level management commited serious sexual crimes and got away with them, and the low level working men had to go through the trainings and meetings that were overwhelming and often illegally limiting the rights of people.
JesseMReeves 6y ago
Typical „the messenger is the problem“ response. When did big tech undergo a societal change? I can’t imagine that the D&D nerds I hung out with in school would respond in similarly inhumane and obviously immoral ways. Google is no place for nerds anymore, „preps“ took over?
- ardit33 6y ago
  Yup, post 2012, bunch of people saw ‘ the social network’ and decided tech is cool and makes money. Before that, most engineers were in the nerdy side. As the pool has increased, the talent has diluted as well
  - JesseMReeves 6y ago
    I see.. I do remember literally thinking „that guy can‘t have grown up as a nerd“ when a documentary described one guy who introduced many of the exploitative and clearly dystopian „hooking“ patterns in social media. I’m still working in academia and am wondering how I can find the still-nerdy circles when I have to move to industry.
    - jonfromsf 6y ago
      Do you happen to remember what documentary/ what person was this?
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    I think the change set in before 2012 as well; it probably took off during the tech boom around the 2000's when the world got connected to the internet. Anyway, The Social Network is a pretty bad example because everyone in there already started from a privileged position, e.g. rich parents; Zuck's parents were a psychiatrist and a dentist, both at least 150K / year jobs. Harvard costs $50K a year for tuition, plus nearly $20K / year for housing.
- jfengel 6y ago
  I think tech has never been as open and welcoming as it has liked to believe. There was a lot of high-minded talk about the way technology removes barriers and makes differences invisible, but much of that came at a time when tech was almost exclusively the domain of white men. We didn't see racism, sexism, etc. because there weren't many black people, women, etc. to be subjected to it. The more that are present, the more opportunities arise for that previously latent trait to become visible. It's not everybody -- far from it -- but it's more than we thought or hoped. I suspect that your D&D group was mostly white and male, like mine. And if there were women in it, you might try asking them now about the things that they tolerated but didn't like: misogynist jokes, subjected to comments about their appearance, maybe even being assumed that they'd clean up. I don't intend that as an accusation. It's an admission: I'm certain that this went on in my group, and I'm pretty sure I was part of it. Not that it was intolerable; they would have left if it was that bad. But it's part of my overall suggestion that it's probably not as rosy as we remember it being. I point that out because I think the change was less about Google shifting from nerds to preps, but that the nerds are finding more opportunities to act like the preps. Not all of them, and not all the time, but enough to be a small but constant trickle.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Hnrobert42 6y ago
I want to be open-minded, but it would be really difficult for me to adjust to calling someone they/them. Further, as they/them implies plural, I find it even more confusing. I’m not saying I wouldn’t do it if asked, but it would be difficult.
- shark_laser 6y ago
  Not only is it a plural, it implies an us and them. But I'm starting to realise that driving everyone apart is exactly what they want.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    It's been used as singular for as long as modern English has existed.
    - shark_laser 6y ago
      With regards to they, that is correct. Thank you for pointing that out. I do feel slightly daft, tho them is always a plural, and I stand by my thoughts on it feeling divisive.
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        "The plumber is coming at 2pm, can you open the door for them when they get here?" Neither "they" or "them" are exclusively plural.
- DanBC 6y ago
  Advice to people learning English as a foreign language is that this use is fine, but you might want to avoid it in writing because some people mistakenly think it's an error. But it has a long history. > Further, as they/them implies plural, From American Heritage Dictionary 4th Ed. (En-En) > Usage Note: The use of the third-person plural pronoun they to refer to a singular noun or pronoun is attested as early as 1300, and many admired writers have used they, them, themselves, and their to refer to singular nouns such as one, a person, an individual, and each. W.M. Thackeray, for example, wrote in Vanity Fair in 1848, “A person can't help their birth,” and more recent writers such as George Bernard Shaw and Anne Morrow Lindbergh have also used this construction, in sentences such as “To do a person in means to kill them,” and “When you love someone you do not love them all the time.” The practice is widespread and can be found in such mainstream publications as the Christian Science Monitor, Discover, and the Washington Post. The usage is so common in speech that it generally passes unnoticed. From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 11 > They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns > and every one to rest themselves betake — Shakespeare > I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly — Jane Austen > it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy — W. H. Auden > The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons > 'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech — Shakespeare > a person can't help their birth — W. M. Thackeray > no man goes to battle to be killed. — But they do get killed — G. B. Shaw > The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.
kruxigt 6y ago
Awesome to se that Google (as expected) got deeper and deeper into a black hole of wokeness troubles. Maybe this can save the company long term.
29athrowaway 6y ago
> a colleague told them their "skin was much darker" than expected They should file a racial discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Then Google would be legally forced to conduct a serious investigation. Also, Google would be unable to retaliate against the employee in any way, such as denying a promotion, etc. > Cruz claims they were subsequently rejected from every role they applied for, and felt forced to quit. If true, that would constitute "constructive dismissal". Unfortunately, companies are protected against a fair amount of legal repercussions due to arbitration agreements (which, in California, you can no longer force people to sign in employment contracts). Arbitration agreements do not protect employers against EEOC complaints. So, EEOC is perhaps the best way for this person to proceed.
izacus 6y ago
Can someone from Apple, Microsoft, startups, etc. chime in on how they handle these cases? What's the right way to respond to these complaints and keep the workplace friendly to minorities?
- zo1 6y ago
  What about keeping the workplace safe and friendly from people that make these kinds of "grievance" complaints?
brabel 6y ago
This must be satire... someone remarked about the guy being darker than she thought. I am not sure why that's supposed to be a negative remark someone should be offended by?! I had people tell me something like that when I come back from a sunny vacation, and I actually take that as a compliment, bronze skin looks to me healthier than never-seen-sun-in-my-life skin :D (BTW I am darker than the person in question, and I get very dark after being exposed to a lot of sun)... They then make sure you know the guy prefers pronouns they/them, and dutifully follows on with awkward English sentences like "Cruz went on medical leave, and hoped to take the company up on its offer for a new position, they said. But Cruz was turned down from every role they applied for, so they were forced to quit." Wow.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  Colourism is a thing. Depending on one's culture it can be a form of racism or classism, or both. Have a skim of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_c... to see some examples of this.
  - brabel 6y ago
    According to this, every single part of the world sees whiter skin color as being "better" than darker skin color. This is true since antiquity, and even in completely different places like Japan and Africa. Well, that sucks for me as I am darker than most where I live :D but to be honest, I have very rarely felt discriminated... when I do, I actually pitty the person who is doing it, because they are clearly being an ignorant douchebag and while that may momentarily give them some kind of good feeling for displaying their supposed superiority, I can only imagine how sad they are later when they realize they have nothing to actually show for why they might be better than anyone else, on the contrary, they are just showing how stupid they are from thinking that the color of their skin (or hair, or eye color or whatever) actually makes them better somehow. I know because I'm guilty too... why can't we see someone of a different race/color/style and just NOT start thinking they are bad for being different?!!? Given how widespread this is , I think we should stop trying to pretend we don't do it and that we can treat people equally... clearly, we can't. We need to come to terms with this and find a solution that actually works. No idea what that may be, but waiting for people to behave properly will absolutely never work, not when this behaviour is so bloody widespread in every single culture, even children as old as 2 or 3yo displaying preferences for whites.
chovybizzass 6y ago
ultimate backfire.
throw552231 6y ago
Related: news from 2018 concerning some top Google brass. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-some-strange-ideas-about-his-female-employees-according-to-a-new-book/ https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-... The abusers are treated real cozy.
Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
Seems sensible. Given Google's culture and extremely niche employee cross-section (overwhelmingly progressive), I would be surprised if it was filled with Jack the Ripper and Hitler too...I might just suggest the person with the claim first take care of any issues they have. It reeks of this sort of thing... https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/kkk-robe-oberlin-was-probably-just-student-wearing-blanket/317746/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/kkk-rob...
lumberingjack 6y ago
The example given is quite silly this is the definition of "snow flake"
DoreenMichele 6y ago
HR is probably not how this is going to actually be resolved. Racism, sexism and other social issues tend to be very thorny problems to solve. You don't broker peace and build bridges and that sort of thing this way. This tends to put out the fire with gasoline and that may be why Google is doing this shitty thing of putting people on leave and saying "We will move you when you come back." Because they may be trying to help the employee start over after burning bridges on their current team. I wish I had something more constructive to say about this. This is my third attempt to say something here and I'm very concerned about coming across as dismissive of very real issues and that's absolutely not my intent. Quite the contrary. I hope to plant the idea that there may be a path forward but this is not it. You will need to look elsewhere for real solutions. I know that a lot of FAANG employees hang here, including people who work at Google. I know that sometimes people here actually respect my opinion on some topics. If you want to make real progress here, you will really need to look at things like the Rooney Rule for inspiration and clues as to how to actually make progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule You will be breaking ground if you find real solutions. Real solutions will most likely not involve things like hiring quotas.
throw99912 6y ago
Relevant HN thread from yesterday that got buried as soon as it came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26374822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26374822 Title: 'Google’s approach to Black schools explains why there's few Black engs in Tech'
perryizgr8 6y ago
> April Curley was a diversity recruiter at Google. What is a "diversity recruiter"? Does Google have segregation among recruiters??!?
bryan0 6y ago
One can debate the merits of the claims in the article, but “flagging” this article is a bit disturbing. Yes I know it’s HN policy that users can flag any article for any reason, but perhaps this policy should be modified since it stifles nuanced discussion.
- valand 6y ago
  Lately HN has been like this. Some posts/comments are flagged and downvoted for slightly controversial opinions, despite the neutral or even positive or curious tone. (What HN guideline suggest to do) The policy, and maybe even mechanism for downvote and flag to be adjusted so that a number alone does not trample arguments. Maybe "downvote/flag" comments, which if voted, will add downvote/flag count for parent arguments? I don't know.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Some posts/comments are flagged and downvoted for slightly controversial opinions, despite the neutral or even positive or curious tone. Neutral or even positive or curious tone does not, ipso facto, make a comment not a negative contribution to discussion. Community moderation is not exclusively, or even primarily, intended for tone policing. > The policy, and maybe even mechanism for downvote and flag to be adjusted so that a number alone does not trample arguments. That's, like, literally the entire purpose of having downvoting. > Maybe "downvote/flag" comments, which if voted, will add downvote/flag count for parent arguments? Downvoting exists to reduce the signal/noise ratio. Making metadiscussion mandatory for downvoting is directly contrary to the purpose and makes it easier for the kind of comments downvoting exists to address to have the effect of sidetracking threads that downvoting exists to mitigate. It would defeat the purpose of the feature.
david38 6y ago
Wow, I can’t imagine going to HR to demand an investigation over a comment about my skin color. Central Americans have a wide range of color, from very white to black on account of the European and slavery influence. My own skin is of course influenced by those factors. I’ve been (at work) told I don’t look like I’m from where I say I’m from. To be insulted when there was no obvious intent to insult would show an extreme lack of maturity. This is the equivalent of calling the cops on your neighbor because they don’t act and talk like you.

60 points by offby37years 6y ago

But is it the right advice or not?

The opening example this article gives is preposterous. Who would make an HR complaint over one ill-considered remark? Who would want to work with a person who would? I agree with Google here that you should assume good intent coming from other people until they prove that wrong, and I don't think that standard was applied here.

wombatmobile 6y ago
Is it preposterous? We don't have enough information on the actual exchange, or the context from this article. "a colleague told them that their skin was much darker than she expected." That might be benign, or hostile, or just candid and clumsy. It's hard to tell. It's also not clear whether Google was asked to put forward a defence to the accusations made in the article. "Google said in a statement that the company is committed to supporting employees who raise concerns about workplace treatment." Again, the article doesn't provide enough context for us to know. Was the statement in response to a request to answer the allegations in the article, or was it a generic statement made without the context of these specific allegations?
- psychiatrist24 6y ago
  Yes it is.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Of course it might be any of those things. Any comment, even one that sounds completely innocuous, may have subtle malicious connotations that people without context cannot infer. As the Google HR person suggested though, we should assume good motives where we don't have evidence to the contrary. You can't effectively work with other people if you're always assuming what they say is a veiled insult. If there is context that makes this clearly malicious then the article should provide it. It's not reasonable to assume that context exists though. While it is reasonable to acknowledge it might exist - there's no evidence of it. Perhaps a teapot is in space orbiting the sun by itself.
soneca 6y ago
By your standards a lot of very toxic people would get a pass by saying toxic stuff and they later saying _”I was just joking”_, thus ever denying their bad intent. And that kind of toxic-then-deny people are very, very common in workplaces.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  No, I don't think so. I think it's perfectly appropriate to say stuff like "Hey, comments about my skin color are kind of uncomfortable for me. I'd prefer we not discuss it." If the person keeps talking about your skin color you can say - "Hey, remember we talked before about how I feel this is inappropriate?" And if they can't stop bringing it up it seems like you've ruled out good intent, or based on how they react when you bring it up you might rule out good intent. Assuming good intent at first doesn't mean you're infinitely gullible or a doormat for people to walk on. It just means not being a landmine that is going to try to get people in trouble.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tryonenow 6y ago
  Offense is taken, not given. Counterpoint: we are devolving into a hyper-sensitive society (or rather a small but vocal minority is imposing such a culture onto the rest of us) and bending over backwards to pretend we're all identical is going to lead to an resurgence of racism as people lose faith in our institutions, becoming aware that we are effectively being gaslit. >And that kind of toxic-then-deny people are very, very common in workplaces. Or perhaps you are looking for issues where they do not exist.
- zimbatm 6y ago
  It's just as toxic as people seeing *ism everywhere. They create an atmosphere of suspicion that is not conducive to free thinking. Unfortunately in big groups you will have both of those types and HR is not good at managing finer-grained inter-personal issues. Without all of the context it's hard to judge group dynamics.
villasv 6y ago
> I agree with Google here that you should assume good intent That’s probably because you can afford to. Imagine you’re someone who had to file a grave complaint but the person got off the hook because “it was a one time thing, it’s his first offense”. It’s important to document all microagression if you really want something to happen out of these complaints. The accuser maybe felt the perp would likely be a repeating offender and is not open to feedback, so the effort to pile up complaints got initiated. This is how it’s done. I’d be happy to work with this person.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  No, it's not important to document all "microagressions". It sounds like it would be a nightmare to work with any person who thought or acted like that. The concept of microagressions is backwards and pernicious. People are imperfect communicators. Getting offended at cryptic, imagined, or unintended slights is something that children and crazy people do. Adults, especially in the workplace, should be able to understand people have different ways of expressing themselves and that's not bad and you don't need to get HR involved. One example comes to mind - I had a coworker who frequently wrote "..." After messages on our instant messenger. Once I asked him a question and he just replied "..." And then 20 minutes later told me the answer. I read this as kind of a sarcastic thing, like an exasperated sigh that he'd have to explain something so obvious. I thought this guy was a real jerk. One day after he sent me a "..." I asked him what it meant. I said "What does '...' signify?" And the guy answered that it meant "More to follow" and I realized that he wasn't being a jerk, he was just trying to signal to me that he couldn't complete the answer at the moment, but would send more to follow. The point of my little story is that it just doesn't make sense to assume hostile motives. Lots of times people just communicate differently. Trying to document all the times you can interpret someone as being negative is just a bad idea in addition to being unfair and unproductive. It's also way more likely to make people genuinely aggressive and hostile towards you.
  - villasv 6y ago
    You definition of microagression isn’t usual or useful. That’s why the rest of the argument made sense, but missed the point.
emptysongglass 6y ago
At this point I just don't discuss my personal life with anyone I work with or if I do it's to respond with an, "I'm doing great, thanks, and how are you?" No after-work drinks or else I'll have one for the sake of appearing affable. I'm a nice person but that any comment is potentially a landmine to me professionally, I'd just rather not expose myself like that. I can't count on anyone assuming good intent with me because everyone is so fired up on their crusader trains. I'll give a personal example: when I was a Buddhist renunciate--this was right at the beginning of cancel culture--someone I thought to be a close friend posted a negative experience she had with a man. It didn't stop there: she proceeded to blast all men for not immediately talking to every man they knew about their inherent violence. I commented that from the perspective of peace, her exhortation would result in more anger, more rage in the world, not less. My last name on Facebook at that time was my own creation, for the sake of my privacy. Immediately after my call for calm, I was doxxed and Facebook locked me out of my account until I could prove my last name. In hindsight, she did me a great favor as I never returned to Facebook, which I now see as poison to the human mind.
- matsemann 6y ago
  > At this point I just don't discuss my personal life with anyone I work with (...) I'm a nice person but that any comment is potentially a landmine to me professionally, I'd just rather not expose myself like that If potentially anything you say will blow up on you, you should consider if it's you that are in the wrong in how you conduct yourself and what's coming out of your mouth when you're not self censoring, or if everyone else is wrong. Edit: Never had such a down voted comment before. What are you all saying about your weekend to co-workers that makes people so offended?
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    I upvoted you, but I think people who are downvoting you see your comment as a kind of victim-blaming. Namely that GP was the victim of a doxxing, and you are blaming them.
    - matsemann 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwawaygulf 6y ago
>Who would make an HR complaint over one ill-considered remark? It's painfully obvious you haven't been exposed to Bay Area/West Coast start-up culture (I envy your lack of exposure). I've seen people getting reported to HR for the following things: - Using a photo of a Sherpa (an actual photo, not a character or drawing) in a presentation to describe the concept of guiding people and systems to their desired outcome and state. They were reported for using racist caricatures of marginalized minorities - Discussing shooting sports in a thread about hobbies. They were reported for making people feel unsafe - Someone posted a screen shot of a Tweet in support of BLM, but the screen shot was from Blacktivist, a Twitter account that was part of a Russian propaganda campaign. Someone replied to the screen shot that maybe it should be taken down since it was literally created and pushed from a propaganda account. They were reported for being insensitive to PoC employees These are just a few out of the dozens upon dozens. I'm sure many others here on HN could provide examples.

woofster 6y ago

Where tf is racism is in "your skin is dark"? Benjamin is a pussy ass nigga

beaker52 6y ago

I suppose it's important to know the context that this colleague suggested their skin colour was darker than she expected. "Wow, what a tan" > "Yeah I just came back from 3 months in Egypt" "Yeah! I was a momentarily surprised because your skin colour was darker than I expected since I'd seen your photo on your CV" Maybe I'm giving the colleague too much credit.

cfcf14 6y ago
Preface: I think this is probably giving the colleague too much credit, but with that thought in mind... I learned the hard way once that even a (seemingly) innocent comment about a friend's tan could be perceived very adversely, due to the fact that their culture had "being tanned" == "being dark(er)" connotations which were quite negative. It's a particular point of view, not one globally shared, that being tanned (or general malleability of skin tone) is a discussion point/something of casual interest. These day I find it's best to simply mind my own business about others' appearances unless they're very close friends or family.
- psychiatrist24 6y ago
  Why are you supposed to learn about their culture, and not they about your culture?
- nomdep 6y ago
  If they think darker==bad, they are the racist that should be reported
- serial_dev 6y ago
  I moved to Germany and learned that the "Where are you from" question is not a good icebreaker. As an immigrant working in an industry with lots of other immigrants, I thought it's okay to ask, but once you ask a German person of foreign descent this question they might perceive it as if I said they are not really German (sometimes context can make it even worse).
  - psychiatrist24 6y ago

psychiatrist24 6y ago

"prefers to be identified by the pronouns they/them" yup, mental health care is advised. What a ridiculous article. Pure propaganda (trying to milk the recent "incident" with the AI ethics researcher of color who was rightfully fired).

kofejnik 6y ago

> They also contacted human resources to report retaliation after protesting sexual harassment issues and to advocate for raises for Black people to match white employees’ pay. right, Some people are more important than others edit: referring to capitalization, if that is unclear

shark_laser 6y ago
Yep. If we can't assume good intent as the article suggests, then what are we to assume about that?

aminozuur 6y ago

Google told him to “assume good intent”. This is unironically good advise. On Wikipedia, "assume good faith" is even a rule. This is because many of the talk-page conversations derail due to nothing other than editors assuming bad faith about each others contributions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

villasv 6y ago
It’s good advice for the general public, but it’s a bad policy for HR and a bad response to complaints.
- ramblerman 6y ago
  In this case the complaint was about someone who had said " that their skin was much darker than she expected". Now this is an insanely stupid, and odd thing to say, but I think it's fair to say it comes from a place of ignorance, and not malice. At least one might assume that if the incident only happens once.
  - villasv 6y ago
    The provided example doesn’t change the fact that it’s bad policy. HR should tell people to assume nothing.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
ketzu 6y ago
The same is written in the HN guidelines, and whenever it is ignored, discussion derails. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Unfortunately I am guilty of violating it, too. But I like the rule a lot and try to apply it more often in real life as well.

xiphias2 6y ago

,,Go woke, get broke'' Although there's no sign in a weakening balance sheet in Alphabet, it seems that they realized in 2020 that catering to the loudest voices is not a profitable long term steategy.

ardit33 6y ago
They are a large company. 120k employees. If 1% of them have major personality issues you are bound to have at least 1.2k semi-insane/irrational/irresponsible people and dumb things will happen. Dumb things like this, or Even worse happen in all major companies, but google is a favorite target of the media due to their money/revenue of the company and that media sees tech as a competitor. At this point I am starting to feel bad about google. They kinda came in/treated this cultural phenomenon with naïveté. Can’t be ‘open to ideas’ when there is a large group inside the company that gets offended about everything
- xiphias2 6y ago
  I don't feel bad for Google at all. The top level management commited serious sexual crimes and got away with them, and the low level working men had to go through the trainings and meetings that were overwhelming and often illegally limiting the rights of people.

JesseMReeves 6y ago

Typical „the messenger is the problem“ response. When did big tech undergo a societal change? I can’t imagine that the D&D nerds I hung out with in school would respond in similarly inhumane and obviously immoral ways. Google is no place for nerds anymore, „preps“ took over?

ardit33 6y ago
Yup, post 2012, bunch of people saw ‘ the social network’ and decided tech is cool and makes money. Before that, most engineers were in the nerdy side. As the pool has increased, the talent has diluted as well
- JesseMReeves 6y ago
  I see.. I do remember literally thinking „that guy can‘t have grown up as a nerd“ when a documentary described one guy who introduced many of the exploitative and clearly dystopian „hooking“ patterns in social media. I’m still working in academia and am wondering how I can find the still-nerdy circles when I have to move to industry.
  - jonfromsf 6y ago
    Do you happen to remember what documentary/ what person was this?
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  I think the change set in before 2012 as well; it probably took off during the tech boom around the 2000's when the world got connected to the internet. Anyway, The Social Network is a pretty bad example because everyone in there already started from a privileged position, e.g. rich parents; Zuck's parents were a psychiatrist and a dentist, both at least 150K / year jobs. Harvard costs $50K a year for tuition, plus nearly $20K / year for housing.
jfengel 6y ago
I think tech has never been as open and welcoming as it has liked to believe. There was a lot of high-minded talk about the way technology removes barriers and makes differences invisible, but much of that came at a time when tech was almost exclusively the domain of white men. We didn't see racism, sexism, etc. because there weren't many black people, women, etc. to be subjected to it. The more that are present, the more opportunities arise for that previously latent trait to become visible. It's not everybody -- far from it -- but it's more than we thought or hoped. I suspect that your D&D group was mostly white and male, like mine. And if there were women in it, you might try asking them now about the things that they tolerated but didn't like: misogynist jokes, subjected to comments about their appearance, maybe even being assumed that they'd clean up. I don't intend that as an accusation. It's an admission: I'm certain that this went on in my group, and I'm pretty sure I was part of it. Not that it was intolerable; they would have left if it was that bad. But it's part of my overall suggestion that it's probably not as rosy as we remember it being. I point that out because I think the change was less about Google shifting from nerds to preps, but that the nerds are finding more opportunities to act like the preps. Not all of them, and not all the time, but enough to be a small but constant trickle.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Hnrobert42 6y ago

I want to be open-minded, but it would be really difficult for me to adjust to calling someone they/them. Further, as they/them implies plural, I find it even more confusing. I’m not saying I wouldn’t do it if asked, but it would be difficult.

shark_laser 6y ago
Not only is it a plural, it implies an us and them. But I'm starting to realise that driving everyone apart is exactly what they want.
- DanBC 6y ago
  It's been used as singular for as long as modern English has existed.
  - shark_laser 6y ago
    With regards to they, that is correct. Thank you for pointing that out. I do feel slightly daft, tho them is always a plural, and I stand by my thoughts on it feeling divisive.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      "The plumber is coming at 2pm, can you open the door for them when they get here?" Neither "they" or "them" are exclusively plural.
DanBC 6y ago
Advice to people learning English as a foreign language is that this use is fine, but you might want to avoid it in writing because some people mistakenly think it's an error. But it has a long history. > Further, as they/them implies plural, From American Heritage Dictionary 4th Ed. (En-En) > Usage Note: The use of the third-person plural pronoun they to refer to a singular noun or pronoun is attested as early as 1300, and many admired writers have used they, them, themselves, and their to refer to singular nouns such as one, a person, an individual, and each. W.M. Thackeray, for example, wrote in Vanity Fair in 1848, “A person can't help their birth,” and more recent writers such as George Bernard Shaw and Anne Morrow Lindbergh have also used this construction, in sentences such as “To do a person in means to kill them,” and “When you love someone you do not love them all the time.” The practice is widespread and can be found in such mainstream publications as the Christian Science Monitor, Discover, and the Washington Post. The usage is so common in speech that it generally passes unnoticed. From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 11 > They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns > and every one to rest themselves betake — Shakespeare > I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly — Jane Austen > it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy — W. H. Auden > The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons > 'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech — Shakespeare > a person can't help their birth — W. M. Thackeray > no man goes to battle to be killed. — But they do get killed — G. B. Shaw > The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.

kruxigt 6y ago

Awesome to se that Google (as expected) got deeper and deeper into a black hole of wokeness troubles. Maybe this can save the company long term.

29athrowaway 6y ago

> a colleague told them their "skin was much darker" than expected They should file a racial discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Then Google would be legally forced to conduct a serious investigation. Also, Google would be unable to retaliate against the employee in any way, such as denying a promotion, etc. > Cruz claims they were subsequently rejected from every role they applied for, and felt forced to quit. If true, that would constitute "constructive dismissal". Unfortunately, companies are protected against a fair amount of legal repercussions due to arbitration agreements (which, in California, you can no longer force people to sign in employment contracts). Arbitration agreements do not protect employers against EEOC complaints. So, EEOC is perhaps the best way for this person to proceed.

izacus 6y ago

Can someone from Apple, Microsoft, startups, etc. chime in on how they handle these cases? What's the right way to respond to these complaints and keep the workplace friendly to minorities?

zo1 6y ago
What about keeping the workplace safe and friendly from people that make these kinds of "grievance" complaints?

brabel 6y ago

This must be satire... someone remarked about the guy being darker than she thought. I am not sure why that's supposed to be a negative remark someone should be offended by?! I had people tell me something like that when I come back from a sunny vacation, and I actually take that as a compliment, bronze skin looks to me healthier than never-seen-sun-in-my-life skin :D (BTW I am darker than the person in question, and I get very dark after being exposed to a lot of sun)... They then make sure you know the guy prefers pronouns they/them, and dutifully follows on with awkward English sentences like "Cruz went on medical leave, and hoped to take the company up on its offer for a new position, they said. But Cruz was turned down from every role they applied for, so they were forced to quit." Wow.

M2Ys4U 6y ago
Colourism is a thing. Depending on one's culture it can be a form of racism or classism, or both. Have a skim of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_c... to see some examples of this.
- brabel 6y ago
  According to this, every single part of the world sees whiter skin color as being "better" than darker skin color. This is true since antiquity, and even in completely different places like Japan and Africa. Well, that sucks for me as I am darker than most where I live :D but to be honest, I have very rarely felt discriminated... when I do, I actually pitty the person who is doing it, because they are clearly being an ignorant douchebag and while that may momentarily give them some kind of good feeling for displaying their supposed superiority, I can only imagine how sad they are later when they realize they have nothing to actually show for why they might be better than anyone else, on the contrary, they are just showing how stupid they are from thinking that the color of their skin (or hair, or eye color or whatever) actually makes them better somehow. I know because I'm guilty too... why can't we see someone of a different race/color/style and just NOT start thinking they are bad for being different?!!? Given how widespread this is , I think we should stop trying to pretend we don't do it and that we can treat people equally... clearly, we can't. We need to come to terms with this and find a solution that actually works. No idea what that may be, but waiting for people to behave properly will absolutely never work, not when this behaviour is so bloody widespread in every single culture, even children as old as 2 or 3yo displaying preferences for whites.

chovybizzass 6y ago

ultimate backfire.

throw552231 6y ago

Related: news from 2018 concerning some top Google brass. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-some-strange-ideas-about-his-female-employees-according-to-a-new-book/ https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-... The abusers are treated real cozy.

Wolfenstein98k 6y ago

Seems sensible. Given Google's culture and extremely niche employee cross-section (overwhelmingly progressive), I would be surprised if it was filled with Jack the Ripper and Hitler too...I might just suggest the person with the claim first take care of any issues they have. It reeks of this sort of thing... https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/kkk-robe-oberlin-was-probably-just-student-wearing-blanket/317746/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/kkk-rob...

lumberingjack 6y ago

The example given is quite silly this is the definition of "snow flake"

DoreenMichele 6y ago

HR is probably not how this is going to actually be resolved. Racism, sexism and other social issues tend to be very thorny problems to solve. You don't broker peace and build bridges and that sort of thing this way. This tends to put out the fire with gasoline and that may be why Google is doing this shitty thing of putting people on leave and saying "We will move you when you come back." Because they may be trying to help the employee start over after burning bridges on their current team. I wish I had something more constructive to say about this. This is my third attempt to say something here and I'm very concerned about coming across as dismissive of very real issues and that's absolutely not my intent. Quite the contrary. I hope to plant the idea that there may be a path forward but this is not it. You will need to look elsewhere for real solutions. I know that a lot of FAANG employees hang here, including people who work at Google. I know that sometimes people here actually respect my opinion on some topics. If you want to make real progress here, you will really need to look at things like the Rooney Rule for inspiration and clues as to how to actually make progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule You will be breaking ground if you find real solutions. Real solutions will most likely not involve things like hiring quotas.

throw99912 6y ago

Relevant HN thread from yesterday that got buried as soon as it came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26374822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26374822 Title: 'Google’s approach to Black schools explains why there's few Black engs in Tech'

perryizgr8 6y ago

> April Curley was a diversity recruiter at Google. What is a "diversity recruiter"? Does Google have segregation among recruiters??!?

bryan0 6y ago

One can debate the merits of the claims in the article, but “flagging” this article is a bit disturbing. Yes I know it’s HN policy that users can flag any article for any reason, but perhaps this policy should be modified since it stifles nuanced discussion.

valand 6y ago
Lately HN has been like this. Some posts/comments are flagged and downvoted for slightly controversial opinions, despite the neutral or even positive or curious tone. (What HN guideline suggest to do) The policy, and maybe even mechanism for downvote and flag to be adjusted so that a number alone does not trample arguments. Maybe "downvote/flag" comments, which if voted, will add downvote/flag count for parent arguments? I don't know.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Some posts/comments are flagged and downvoted for slightly controversial opinions, despite the neutral or even positive or curious tone. Neutral or even positive or curious tone does not, ipso facto, make a comment not a negative contribution to discussion. Community moderation is not exclusively, or even primarily, intended for tone policing. > The policy, and maybe even mechanism for downvote and flag to be adjusted so that a number alone does not trample arguments. That's, like, literally the entire purpose of having downvoting. > Maybe "downvote/flag" comments, which if voted, will add downvote/flag count for parent arguments? Downvoting exists to reduce the signal/noise ratio. Making metadiscussion mandatory for downvoting is directly contrary to the purpose and makes it easier for the kind of comments downvoting exists to address to have the effect of sidetracking threads that downvoting exists to mitigate. It would defeat the purpose of the feature.

david38 6y ago

Wow, I can’t imagine going to HR to demand an investigation over a comment about my skin color. Central Americans have a wide range of color, from very white to black on account of the European and slavery influence. My own skin is of course influenced by those factors. I’ve been (at work) told I don’t look like I’m from where I say I’m from. To be insulted when there was no obvious intent to insult would show an extreme lack of maturity. This is the equivalent of calling the cops on your neighbor because they don’t act and talk like you.