3 ms·

Only if you had read the article where it is addressed in detail. Your colored language notwithstanding ("uncharitable paraphrasing"), the statement is actually

by iamshs 6y ago

Only if you had read the article where it is addressed in detail. Your colored language notwithstanding ("uncharitable paraphrasing"), the statement is actually an accurate summary by a well respected researcher on Dalit issues, of what HAF is doing here. https://thewire.in/caste/cisco-case-caste-discrimination-silicon-valley-ambedkar-organisations https://thewire.in/caste/cisco-case-caste-discrimination-sil... Here is another good article which says the same and the dubious role HAF is playing in order to advance Hindu Upper Caste's systemic oppression. Please note, HAF is run by all Hindu Upper Caste people, and they are invested in this case so as to not set a precedent.

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
But I did read the article! On the surface, it seems that the HAF is inserting itself to argue a side point. The core issue is about whether caste is a protected category, and whether discrimination actually occurred at Cisco. HAF isn't really talking about that at all! Instead, they're just trying to make sure that court documents don't describe the caste system as "part of Hinduism". On the face of it, that doesn't seem so bad. Now, I do see that some people view this as a diversionary tactic by the HAF, and that it should not to be taken at face value: > According to Anil Wagde of the Ambedkar International Center, HAF’s intervention is an attempt to obfuscate the matter and confuse the court. It seems you also do not take HAF's objections at face value? But on the surface, their demands are -- a little distracting, but basically orthogonal. It feels like the solution to this is to say, "fine, we'll change the language used here (i.e., the description of Hinduism), and then get on with dealing with the core issue (i.e., the discrimination)".

3 ms·

Only if you had read the article where it is addressed in detail. Your colored language notwithstanding ("uncharitable paraphrasing"), the statement is actually

by iamshs 6y ago

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
But I did read the article! On the surface, it seems that the HAF is inserting itself to argue a side point. The core issue is about whether caste is a protected category, and whether discrimination actually occurred at Cisco. HAF isn't really talking about that at all! Instead, they're just trying to make sure that court documents don't describe the caste system as "part of Hinduism". On the face of it, that doesn't seem so bad. Now, I do see that some people view this as a diversionary tactic by the HAF, and that it should not to be taken at face value: > According to Anil Wagde of the Ambedkar International Center, HAF’s intervention is an attempt to obfuscate the matter and confuse the court. It seems you also do not take HAF's objections at face value? But on the surface, their demands are -- a little distracting, but basically orthogonal. It feels like the solution to this is to say, "fine, we'll change the language used here (i.e., the description of Hinduism), and then get on with dealing with the core issue (i.e., the discrimination)".