7 ms·

Founder of Black Girls Code has been ousted as head of the nonprofit

83 points by healsdata 5y ago

draw_down 5y ago
vmception 5y ago
Always a risk. Public charities don't let anyone have more than 20% voting control. Tricky one to navigate.
- ragnot 5y ago
  Is that a law or just a standard that people follow? Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Public Charity regulation by IRS to achieve and maintain tax exempt status. Public Charity is a subset of possible non-profits and possibly 501(c)3 organizations. I'm writing that because colloquially all the terms are used interchangeably, as synonyms, but they are not.
thr0wawayf00 5y ago
> so it's 3 days before Christmas and you wake up to discover the organization YOU created and built from the ground up has been taken away by a rogue board with no notification If this isn't cancel culture run amok, then I don't know what is. Somehow, we've enabled a culture that now assumes one is guilty until proven innocent. The worst part about this is that there is zero transparency around the alleged offenses. We were supposed to be moving towards a more transparent society, this is anything but transparent.
- dopamean 5y ago
  If you read the Glassdoor reviews employees have had the same issues with her leadership for quite a long time now. Calling accountability that came too late "cancel culture" is dismissive of peoples real issues and just plain stupid.
  - thr0wawayf00 5y ago
    To force her out without making a definitive statement does not create good optics. It looks like some power-hungry board members wanted her out. I don't doubt that she has critics from within the org, but to push her out without clearly stating why does not look good at all.
    - dopamean 5y ago
      I don’t disagree that perhaps this wasn’t handled well. I was just taking issue with calling someone being fired for just reasons "cancel culture."
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - cedilla 5y ago
      It's revealing that you accuse an organisation's organ for not following criminal trial standards when making a preliminary decision, but you have no problem to denounce strangers "power hungry" and "rogue" without even having the slightest insight into their decisions or motivations. You just assumed it's cancel culture and ran with it. You lost all your passion for "innocence until guilty" before you even finished typing your post...
    - dpark 5y ago
      How do you propose they should have handled this? From the article, it seems like they quietly removed her during an investigation and she’s the one who made this a big public affair via twitter.
      - 5y ago
- roywiggins 5y ago
  "Bryant's tweets drew an outpouring of support and sympathy from many in the tech community who expressed shock at the news of her removal from the nonprofit's leadership." Doesn't sound like the "culture" is assuming she's guilty. I have no clue what the truth is, but it sounds like she's got a lot of supporters.
  - gentleman11 5y ago
    That’s uncommon. Usually the knives come out for anything even slightly alleged towards somebody
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  The Dixie Chicks show that "cancel culture" isn't a new thing not at all.
  - dbingham 5y ago
    Nor something created by the left and the woke :shrug:
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    I dunno - recent cancelling feels different. Take J K Rowling as an example: https://www.thenational.scot/news/19723926.harry-potter-reunion-jk-rowling-will-not-join-cast-trans-rights-row/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/19723926.harry-potter-reun... Cancelled from her own creation, for having a pretty uncontroversial viewpoint.
- jancsika 5y ago
  > We were supposed to be moving towards a more transparent society, this is anything but transparent. You have to love that the chief way HN addresses this concern trolling is for users to click a button that literally makes the comment more difficult to read. :)
  - gopher_space 5y ago
    I've upvoted for legibility before. HN can get, again literally, harder to read when school is out.
dopamean 5y ago
It seems employees of BGC have had issues with the Ms Bryant for years. Perhaps the board moved quickly without communicating much but I highly doubt She was completely unaware of the accusations against her and that the board might actually do something about it one day.
- yardie 5y ago
  If that is the case then the board should state they removed her. And have a press release ready to go as soon as it's in effect. I've witnessed a few senior management removals in my lifetime. Rarely has it been unannounced. Even rarer has it been the founder.
  - dpark 5y ago
    Why would they do that? There is an ongoing investigation. It sounds like they essentially put her on paid leave during the investigation. Making a giant public statement about removing her before the investigation is concluded seems wildly inappropriate.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Why does the company have an obligation to satisfy a bunch of gossips on HN? I love a good tale of corporate intrigue and betrayal as much as anyone, but I can wait for the podcast.
    - yardie 5y ago
      Because they are a public facing non-profit who relies on donations from some of the same people who might be on HN. So if the narrative is "out of control board ousts founder" the next time they have a donation drive the donors thoughts might be "I don't know, your org seems kinda sketch". You ignore social media at your own peril. That is the reality.
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      I give ten percent of my income to charity and spend a lot of time looking into them. While I personally don't engage with race or gender specific organizations as a matter of principal, looking at that Glassdoor this isn't a organization that deserves my money. Loudly correcting this behavior would go a long way to restoring trust for those who would donate. If given the choice between providing mosquito netting in Africa or allowing someone to show up late and bully her staff, I pick the former every time.
clavicat 5y ago
alexdowad 5y ago
What is the alleged impropriety which she was removed for? The article is missing the most important piece of context.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  If there is cause, the last thing a NP wants to do is drag it out into public. With most NP, someone is usually on the take. Either the people running them or the boards. Ask anyone you know at smaller NPs without significant legal teams.
  - dbingham 5y ago
    > With most NP, someone is usually on the take Citation needed. My experience with non-profits -- and I've been involved in a number of them, including in board roles -- is that they are usually groups of people doing their utmost to achieve a mission with very limited resources. I have not found corruption at them to be particularly rampant.
    - gopher_space 5y ago
      The non-profits that interact with my parents church are filled with retirees from useful professions. Their missions to Africa staffed with ex-Seabees and the sort of teachers who built houses in their summers, for example. If a structure needs to be built the volunteers will arrive with hand-powered tools and years of experience actually using them. Everybody involved is pretty darn competent. I think the closest thing to corruption I've seen has been naive people spending money poorly because they haven't made local contacts themselves.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dpark 5y ago
  It’s generally not appropriate to share details during an active investigation because 1) you don’t want to drag someone’s name through the mud incorrectly, 2) you don’t want to bias anyone involved in the investigation, 3) you don’t want to get sued to death for libel.
suckitdang 5y ago
- gentleman11 5y ago
bell-cot 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

83 points by healsdata 5y ago

draw_down 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

Always a risk. Public charities don't let anyone have more than 20% voting control. Tricky one to navigate.

ragnot 5y ago
Is that a law or just a standard that people follow? Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious.
- vmception 5y ago
  Public Charity regulation by IRS to achieve and maintain tax exempt status. Public Charity is a subset of possible non-profits and possibly 501(c)3 organizations. I'm writing that because colloquially all the terms are used interchangeably, as synonyms, but they are not.

thr0wawayf00 5y ago

> so it's 3 days before Christmas and you wake up to discover the organization YOU created and built from the ground up has been taken away by a rogue board with no notification If this isn't cancel culture run amok, then I don't know what is. Somehow, we've enabled a culture that now assumes one is guilty until proven innocent. The worst part about this is that there is zero transparency around the alleged offenses. We were supposed to be moving towards a more transparent society, this is anything but transparent.

dopamean 5y ago
If you read the Glassdoor reviews employees have had the same issues with her leadership for quite a long time now. Calling accountability that came too late "cancel culture" is dismissive of peoples real issues and just plain stupid.
- thr0wawayf00 5y ago
  To force her out without making a definitive statement does not create good optics. It looks like some power-hungry board members wanted her out. I don't doubt that she has critics from within the org, but to push her out without clearly stating why does not look good at all.
  - dopamean 5y ago
    I don’t disagree that perhaps this wasn’t handled well. I was just taking issue with calling someone being fired for just reasons "cancel culture."
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - cedilla 5y ago
    It's revealing that you accuse an organisation's organ for not following criminal trial standards when making a preliminary decision, but you have no problem to denounce strangers "power hungry" and "rogue" without even having the slightest insight into their decisions or motivations. You just assumed it's cancel culture and ran with it. You lost all your passion for "innocence until guilty" before you even finished typing your post...
  - dpark 5y ago
    How do you propose they should have handled this? From the article, it seems like they quietly removed her during an investigation and she’s the one who made this a big public affair via twitter.
    - 5y ago
roywiggins 5y ago
"Bryant's tweets drew an outpouring of support and sympathy from many in the tech community who expressed shock at the news of her removal from the nonprofit's leadership." Doesn't sound like the "culture" is assuming she's guilty. I have no clue what the truth is, but it sounds like she's got a lot of supporters.
- gentleman11 5y ago
  That’s uncommon. Usually the knives come out for anything even slightly alleged towards somebody
JaimeThompson 5y ago
The Dixie Chicks show that "cancel culture" isn't a new thing not at all.
- dbingham 5y ago
  Nor something created by the left and the woke :shrug:
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  I dunno - recent cancelling feels different. Take J K Rowling as an example: https://www.thenational.scot/news/19723926.harry-potter-reunion-jk-rowling-will-not-join-cast-trans-rights-row/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/19723926.harry-potter-reun... Cancelled from her own creation, for having a pretty uncontroversial viewpoint.
jancsika 5y ago
> We were supposed to be moving towards a more transparent society, this is anything but transparent. You have to love that the chief way HN addresses this concern trolling is for users to click a button that literally makes the comment more difficult to read. :)
- gopher_space 5y ago
  I've upvoted for legibility before. HN can get, again literally, harder to read when school is out.

dopamean 5y ago

It seems employees of BGC have had issues with the Ms Bryant for years. Perhaps the board moved quickly without communicating much but I highly doubt She was completely unaware of the accusations against her and that the board might actually do something about it one day.

yardie 5y ago
If that is the case then the board should state they removed her. And have a press release ready to go as soon as it's in effect. I've witnessed a few senior management removals in my lifetime. Rarely has it been unannounced. Even rarer has it been the founder.
- dpark 5y ago
  Why would they do that? There is an ongoing investigation. It sounds like they essentially put her on paid leave during the investigation. Making a giant public statement about removing her before the investigation is concluded seems wildly inappropriate.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Why does the company have an obligation to satisfy a bunch of gossips on HN? I love a good tale of corporate intrigue and betrayal as much as anyone, but I can wait for the podcast.
  - yardie 5y ago
    Because they are a public facing non-profit who relies on donations from some of the same people who might be on HN. So if the narrative is "out of control board ousts founder" the next time they have a donation drive the donors thoughts might be "I don't know, your org seems kinda sketch". You ignore social media at your own peril. That is the reality.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    I give ten percent of my income to charity and spend a lot of time looking into them. While I personally don't engage with race or gender specific organizations as a matter of principal, looking at that Glassdoor this isn't a organization that deserves my money. Loudly correcting this behavior would go a long way to restoring trust for those who would donate. If given the choice between providing mosquito netting in Africa or allowing someone to show up late and bully her staff, I pick the former every time.

clavicat 5y ago

alexdowad 5y ago

What is the alleged impropriety which she was removed for? The article is missing the most important piece of context.

hindsightbias 5y ago
If there is cause, the last thing a NP wants to do is drag it out into public. With most NP, someone is usually on the take. Either the people running them or the boards. Ask anyone you know at smaller NPs without significant legal teams.
- dbingham 5y ago
  > With most NP, someone is usually on the take Citation needed. My experience with non-profits -- and I've been involved in a number of them, including in board roles -- is that they are usually groups of people doing their utmost to achieve a mission with very limited resources. I have not found corruption at them to be particularly rampant.
  - gopher_space 5y ago
    The non-profits that interact with my parents church are filled with retirees from useful professions. Their missions to Africa staffed with ex-Seabees and the sort of teachers who built houses in their summers, for example. If a structure needs to be built the volunteers will arrive with hand-powered tools and years of experience actually using them. Everybody involved is pretty darn competent. I think the closest thing to corruption I've seen has been naive people spending money poorly because they haven't made local contacts themselves.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dpark 5y ago
It’s generally not appropriate to share details during an active investigation because 1) you don’t want to drag someone’s name through the mud incorrectly, 2) you don’t want to bias anyone involved in the investigation, 3) you don’t want to get sued to death for libel.

suckitdang 5y ago

gentleman11 5y ago

bell-cot 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]