8 ms·

Head of Design at Dropbox descriminates in her hiring based on skin color

subjectsigma 4y ago
This is an issue I take a lot of personal offense with. I have met more than a few people who unironically think saying things like "White people are so stupid" or "I hate white people" is fine, but saying something like "Black people like fried chicken" is a harmful and racist stereotype which is unacceptable. Their reasoning is that it is impossible to be racist to the majority. That doesn't even make sense, but I've found it is impossible to convince this kind of person otherwise. Instead, I tell them their comments are personally offensive to me and they are hurting my feelings. I've yet to hear a single one apologize. So I've made it a personal goal to purge these racists from my social circles, and to steer clear of people with this attitude.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nativespecies 4y ago
  Being racist against white people isn't a "thing" because they're the predominant group. You mean prejudice.
  - nativespecies 4y ago
    Don't know why I'm being downvoted...Look at yourself more critically, folks. You can not be racist against a majority group. Full stop. Experiencing situational prejudice is something white people can and do encounter - but racism is systematic, its codified. It has generational impact. If a Black barista spits in your latte "because you're white" - that's prejudice. If you can't get a loan because of your skin color, that's racism. It's sad I have to point this out to a bunch of "smart" people.
  - subjectsigma 4y ago
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/ TL;DR: there are different kinds of racism, you are talking about systemic racism.
oliwarner 4y ago
It isn't discrimination to actively search out minority hires and to encourage and help them apply to an open interview process. This is called positive action. The actual selection process cannot discriminate. There's obviously a lot of Twitter comments to take in and out of context, but just because you put some [rightly] questionable comments next to positive action doesn't mean discriminatory hiring processes.
- bin_bash 4y ago
  > It is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. > For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law. https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    But that's demonstrably not the case here. Their job adverts make no mention of that stuff (other than to point out that they're equal opportunity). This is a hiring manager offering to help people apply. You can be as pro-whateveryoulike as you want to be at that stage.
    - bin_bash 4y ago
      That tweet is a job advertisement. It's an advertisement for a job.
    - yessirwhatever 4y ago
      It is very much the case. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. The fact that she blocked access to her social media tells me that she has lots to hide.
22SAS 4y ago
I am just glad that in the HFT world we are not jumping on to this woke bandwagon like the tech folk.
MrMember 4y ago
>More white dudes interviewing white dudes. Yayyyyyy. I'm not sure I get the implication of this tweet. Are white men not supposed to be able to get jobs, or be in a position to hire people?
nokya 4y ago
Haven't read all the comments yet but I guess it will be 95% missing the difference between personal/private life discrimination (which is a right, anyone is entitled to decide whoever she/he wants to hang out with), and discrimination at the workplace (which should be actively fought against, and using quotas seems to be the only way for the moment). I think that Dropbox is right to do so, as soon as it identifies that a given ethnicity is overrepresented and does not reflect its target audience.
jp0d 4y ago
I understand the importance of diversity, inclusivity and equal-opportunities etc.. But this looks quite bad on her part. Some of her comments are in fact racist. BTW, I'm a brown guy!
- high_derivative 4y ago
  >I understand the importance of diversity, inclusivity and equal-opportunities etc. 'Hail to the king / our glorious leader / the church / - with that out of the way, ...'
  - beisner 4y ago
    Those things aren’t necessary when good-faith communication can be assumed. This is an Internet forum, so good-faith communication cannot be assumed.
  - overkalix 4y ago
    RIGBY...
  - atoav 4y ago
    All polemic aside — isn't there a value in making a nuanced statement? Let's for example take people who can be in principle against weapons deliveries into conflicted regions, but realize in some cases delivering weapons is the better option. They are non-dogmatic on this opinion, because to them the outcome counts more how the gesture makes them look. Similarily you have people who realize diversity, inclusivity and equal opportunity are good goals, but there is certain actors whose way of trying (or pretending?) to get there just are not good and sometimes downright destructive of the very goals that they claimed should be reached. But as much as things like diversity and inclusivity might seem like a fashion, for some people they are part of a world that they rather live in. So they are not just mere symbolic tokes or boxes to be ticked that make you look good to your peers, but part of an urge to leave this world in an better condition than we entered it in — and how we treat each other is a part of that, but by far not the only one.
Ekaros 4y ago
So why don't these people quit their jobs and open up those positions for minorities?
- 0des 4y ago
  That's what Alex ohanian did at Reddit. Stepped down on the condition it be a minority candidate taking his place. This is after he replaced two Asian fall-people though, Ellen pao and yishan Wong. Arguably fed Ellen to the wolves.
  - kramerger 4y ago
    Why arguably? He did X, community thought she did X, started hate campaigns against her (remember r/Pyongyang?), got her fired. Then months later we found out she had noting do with X.
adds68 4y ago
https://nitter.net/libsoftiktok/status/1524080238333898752#m https://nitter.net/libsoftiktok/status/1524080238333898752#m In case people don’t use/hate the twitter client.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Is attacking libs from the left a good long term political strategy for the right? In electoral politics I believe some Republican research suggested they could get a higher vote differential by discouraging people from voting for Obama by portraying him as too corporate and centrist than by attacking him for being too communist or whatever. Which makes sense when voting is not fully representative and can be gamed with single issues. But it feels like a strategic error in the wider court of public opinion. Yes there might be a small hardcore that truly think renewables are bad for the planet or libs are bad for equality, but surely those ideas of equality and environmentalism, which are already out there and winning are only going to be made stronger?
- subjectsigma 4y ago
  It's a TikTok outrage account. They're not exactly playing 10D political chess, nor are they associated in any official way with the Republican party.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    It's sort of irrelevant if they're official. Look at all the pitchforks, then sort them by who's holding them. At this point in America's politics, it's time to stop pretending that the attacks aren't official
    - subjectsigma 4y ago
      The posted account, @libsoftiktok, is not officially endorsed by the Republican party. I don't really know what you mean.
      - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
        It's weird that you responded to "being official isn't relevant" by talking more about officialness
        4y ago
spupe 4y ago
At which point in time did we normalize saying "I hate/don't want to be near white people"? It's blatantly racist.
- nativespecies 4y ago
  Seems like wayyyy too many people on this thread are confusing "racism" and "prejudice." https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
  - b59831 4y ago
    You can't just redefine words and assume everyone is going to accept you new definition. Especially when it is this self serving.
    - nativespecies 4y ago
      Do a little research before attempting to flame someone. I'm not redefining anything.
    - usrn 4y ago
      Trotsky's definition is the original one. The idea of "racism" comes from Marx's idea of class struggle and we should stop using the word.
  - wyager 4y ago
    More like people in this thread haven't bought into the totally fictional ontology that progressives made up in the last few years.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Why are not these people kicked out from the platforms? Why aren't corporates rightfully censoring them?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Borrible 4y ago
Racism is for everyone. 'divide et impera' The moment a universal idea is replaced by particularism, she is dead. In-group/out-group It's just a question of who gets the roles of ruler, ruled and scapegoat.
usui 4y ago
The Dropbox employee, @jazzy33ca, has set post visibility to followers only. > Therefore, I choose to prioritize folks in our BIPOC and URM communities. Americans have an obsession with race (more broadly, identity) that I think borders on unhealthy. As far as I can understand, at the most general level, the reason for the obsession is to address historical or current hardship due to factors outside one's control. This obsession is everywhere: in school admissions (high school and college especially), in social conversations, in framing unjust law enforcement practices, in employment, and so on. What makes me uncomfortable is just how much appearance plays into assumptions about an individual, because even when it comes with good intentions, it just seems so... shallow. Why aren't there more questions related to the aspects of one's life to determine what kind of hardship/discrimination one has endured? Why must it solely focus which appearance/race/recognized group you don? Where are the questions to describe in detail unjust financial hardship, personal discrimination, or unfairly limited opportunities? Why claim a person adds diversity before you even know how adding such person (without making superficial assumptions) will add to diversity, equity, or inclusivity? For example, does this black candidate have major setbacks as a result of ancestral slavery that we should take into consideration for equity purposes, or is this black candidate a well-educated wealthy recent immigrant who grew up in a nation's upper class who currently doesn't feel discriminated against? There's no way to find out without the candidate voluntarily offering this information. Institutions love to use outward appearance as a proxy for what it purports to improve. And even if they didn't, given how badly managed and flooded recruitment currently is, I can't imagine that there is enough capacity for recruiters/computers to sufficiently handle the answers to such personal ambiguous questions. In 2009, Chicago Public Schools in its high school Selective Enrollment plan moved toward awarding more points to people who live in low-income neighborhoods. While this is nowhere near perfect and is susceptible to gaming, surely this must be a better system than the one that asks for your race in a drop-down select or a list of tickboxes? Lastly, without getting into too much detail, I know how easy it is to take advantage of these systems. Since no one can verify your cultural identity, and no one verifies your family/individual income, it's extremely trivial to put yourself at the front of a digital priority queue by claiming that you are such-and-such identity, and if necessary, with such-and-such socioeconomic hardship. You can also be mixed-race. I'm fine with the game that Americans love, but can't we do something so that it isn't so easy to game, or base it off better and more varied heuristics?
xupybd 4y ago
A white person saying they need less white people in their life is odd. My friend group is approximately 50/50 white non white. I didn't do that on purpose. I fell in love with an Asian woman and married her. The friends I picked up just happened to be a spread of ethnicities. One thing that I've learned is that it's much easier to get along with people from different cultures when you treat them as an individual and their ethnicity as just one of the parts that make them who they are. It's silly to treat that as the defining feature of a person. I think people conflate things worth observing and fixing at the population level and things the shape your interpersonal interactions. Yes it's good to work on equal outcomes for people of all races but of that becomes a dominant driver in behavior things get weird.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- astroid 4y ago
  This is probably going to open a can of worms I don't really care to deal with, but to be fair Friedl is an obviously Jewish name. Jewish people very often do not consider themselves White -- so from her perspective, she is almost certainly not included in the 'less White people' statement.
- yessirwhatever 4y ago
  Exactly. What actually makes it more difficult for "BIPOC" and other acronym people is the trivialization they get subjected to by acronymizing their identity and grouping it in a "catchy" word by mainly white people who want to grab the lowest hanging fruit to make sure everyone knows that they're "not those other bad white people".
- tonfreed 4y ago
  I've found people like this tend to think of others as Pokemon to collect and not to have real relationships with. They're desperate to brag to their friends about the rare ethnicities on their friends list
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  What if you're not wanting less white people in your life because they are white, but because white people in general are more likely to be Republicans? Race is a protected class but currently it's not illegal to discriminate against political opinions and 'race' is a proxy for those. > DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates. If it's a good enough excuse for Texas republicans to prevent minorities voting, then surely it's a good enough excuse to want to exclude white people from your life? https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-court...

This is an issue I take a lot of personal offense with. I have met more than a few people who unironically think saying things like "White people are so stupid" or "I hate white people" is fine, but saying something like "Black people like fried chicken" is a harmful and racist stereotype which is unacceptable. Their reasoning is that it is impossible to be racist to the majority. That doesn't even make sense, but I've found it is impossible to convince this kind of person otherwise. Instead, I tell them their comments are personally offensive to me and they are hurting my feelings. I've yet to hear a single one apologize. So I've made it a personal goal to purge these racists from my social circles, and to steer clear of people with this attitude.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nativespecies 4y ago
Being racist against white people isn't a "thing" because they're the predominant group. You mean prejudice.
- nativespecies 4y ago
  Don't know why I'm being downvoted...Look at yourself more critically, folks. You can not be racist against a majority group. Full stop. Experiencing situational prejudice is something white people can and do encounter - but racism is systematic, its codified. It has generational impact. If a Black barista spits in your latte "because you're white" - that's prejudice. If you can't get a loan because of your skin color, that's racism. It's sad I have to point this out to a bunch of "smart" people.
- subjectsigma 4y ago
  https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/ TL;DR: there are different kinds of racism, you are talking about systemic racism.

oliwarner 4y ago

It isn't discrimination to actively search out minority hires and to encourage and help them apply to an open interview process. This is called positive action. The actual selection process cannot discriminate. There's obviously a lot of Twitter comments to take in and out of context, but just because you put some [rightly] questionable comments next to positive action doesn't mean discriminatory hiring processes.

bin_bash 4y ago
> It is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. > For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law. https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices
- oliwarner 4y ago
  But that's demonstrably not the case here. Their job adverts make no mention of that stuff (other than to point out that they're equal opportunity). This is a hiring manager offering to help people apply. You can be as pro-whateveryoulike as you want to be at that stage.
  - bin_bash 4y ago
    That tweet is a job advertisement. It's an advertisement for a job.
  - yessirwhatever 4y ago
    It is very much the case. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. The fact that she blocked access to her social media tells me that she has lots to hide.

22SAS 4y ago

I am just glad that in the HFT world we are not jumping on to this woke bandwagon like the tech folk.

MrMember 4y ago

>More white dudes interviewing white dudes. Yayyyyyy. I'm not sure I get the implication of this tweet. Are white men not supposed to be able to get jobs, or be in a position to hire people?

nokya 4y ago

Haven't read all the comments yet but I guess it will be 95% missing the difference between personal/private life discrimination (which is a right, anyone is entitled to decide whoever she/he wants to hang out with), and discrimination at the workplace (which should be actively fought against, and using quotas seems to be the only way for the moment). I think that Dropbox is right to do so, as soon as it identifies that a given ethnicity is overrepresented and does not reflect its target audience.

jp0d 4y ago

I understand the importance of diversity, inclusivity and equal-opportunities etc.. But this looks quite bad on her part. Some of her comments are in fact racist. BTW, I'm a brown guy!

high_derivative 4y ago
>I understand the importance of diversity, inclusivity and equal-opportunities etc. 'Hail to the king / our glorious leader / the church / - with that out of the way, ...'
- beisner 4y ago
  Those things aren’t necessary when good-faith communication can be assumed. This is an Internet forum, so good-faith communication cannot be assumed.
- overkalix 4y ago
  RIGBY...
- atoav 4y ago
  All polemic aside — isn't there a value in making a nuanced statement? Let's for example take people who can be in principle against weapons deliveries into conflicted regions, but realize in some cases delivering weapons is the better option. They are non-dogmatic on this opinion, because to them the outcome counts more how the gesture makes them look. Similarily you have people who realize diversity, inclusivity and equal opportunity are good goals, but there is certain actors whose way of trying (or pretending?) to get there just are not good and sometimes downright destructive of the very goals that they claimed should be reached. But as much as things like diversity and inclusivity might seem like a fashion, for some people they are part of a world that they rather live in. So they are not just mere symbolic tokes or boxes to be ticked that make you look good to your peers, but part of an urge to leave this world in an better condition than we entered it in — and how we treat each other is a part of that, but by far not the only one.

Ekaros 4y ago

So why don't these people quit their jobs and open up those positions for minorities?

0des 4y ago
That's what Alex ohanian did at Reddit. Stepped down on the condition it be a minority candidate taking his place. This is after he replaced two Asian fall-people though, Ellen pao and yishan Wong. Arguably fed Ellen to the wolves.
- kramerger 4y ago
  Why arguably? He did X, community thought she did X, started hate campaigns against her (remember r/Pyongyang?), got her fired. Then months later we found out she had noting do with X.

adds68 4y ago

https://nitter.net/libsoftiktok/status/1524080238333898752#m https://nitter.net/libsoftiktok/status/1524080238333898752#m In case people don’t use/hate the twitter client.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Is attacking libs from the left a good long term political strategy for the right? In electoral politics I believe some Republican research suggested they could get a higher vote differential by discouraging people from voting for Obama by portraying him as too corporate and centrist than by attacking him for being too communist or whatever. Which makes sense when voting is not fully representative and can be gamed with single issues. But it feels like a strategic error in the wider court of public opinion. Yes there might be a small hardcore that truly think renewables are bad for the planet or libs are bad for equality, but surely those ideas of equality and environmentalism, which are already out there and winning are only going to be made stronger?

subjectsigma 4y ago
It's a TikTok outrage account. They're not exactly playing 10D political chess, nor are they associated in any official way with the Republican party.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  It's sort of irrelevant if they're official. Look at all the pitchforks, then sort them by who's holding them. At this point in America's politics, it's time to stop pretending that the attacks aren't official
  - subjectsigma 4y ago
    The posted account, @libsoftiktok, is not officially endorsed by the Republican party. I don't really know what you mean.
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      It's weird that you responded to "being official isn't relevant" by talking more about officialness
      - 4y ago

spupe 4y ago

At which point in time did we normalize saying "I hate/don't want to be near white people"? It's blatantly racist.

nativespecies 4y ago
Seems like wayyyy too many people on this thread are confusing "racism" and "prejudice." https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
- b59831 4y ago
  You can't just redefine words and assume everyone is going to accept you new definition. Especially when it is this self serving.
  - nativespecies 4y ago
    Do a little research before attempting to flame someone. I'm not redefining anything.
  - usrn 4y ago
    Trotsky's definition is the original one. The idea of "racism" comes from Marx's idea of class struggle and we should stop using the word.
- wyager 4y ago
  More like people in this thread haven't bought into the totally fictional ontology that progressives made up in the last few years.
Ekaros 4y ago
Why are not these people kicked out from the platforms? Why aren't corporates rightfully censoring them?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Borrible 4y ago

Racism is for everyone. 'divide et impera' The moment a universal idea is replaced by particularism, she is dead. In-group/out-group It's just a question of who gets the roles of ruler, ruled and scapegoat.

usui 4y ago

The Dropbox employee, @jazzy33ca, has set post visibility to followers only. > Therefore, I choose to prioritize folks in our BIPOC and URM communities. Americans have an obsession with race (more broadly, identity) that I think borders on unhealthy. As far as I can understand, at the most general level, the reason for the obsession is to address historical or current hardship due to factors outside one's control. This obsession is everywhere: in school admissions (high school and college especially), in social conversations, in framing unjust law enforcement practices, in employment, and so on. What makes me uncomfortable is just how much appearance plays into assumptions about an individual, because even when it comes with good intentions, it just seems so... shallow. Why aren't there more questions related to the aspects of one's life to determine what kind of hardship/discrimination one has endured? Why must it solely focus which appearance/race/recognized group you don? Where are the questions to describe in detail unjust financial hardship, personal discrimination, or unfairly limited opportunities? Why claim a person adds diversity before you even know how adding such person (without making superficial assumptions) will add to diversity, equity, or inclusivity? For example, does this black candidate have major setbacks as a result of ancestral slavery that we should take into consideration for equity purposes, or is this black candidate a well-educated wealthy recent immigrant who grew up in a nation's upper class who currently doesn't feel discriminated against? There's no way to find out without the candidate voluntarily offering this information. Institutions love to use outward appearance as a proxy for what it purports to improve. And even if they didn't, given how badly managed and flooded recruitment currently is, I can't imagine that there is enough capacity for recruiters/computers to sufficiently handle the answers to such personal ambiguous questions. In 2009, Chicago Public Schools in its high school Selective Enrollment plan moved toward awarding more points to people who live in low-income neighborhoods. While this is nowhere near perfect and is susceptible to gaming, surely this must be a better system than the one that asks for your race in a drop-down select or a list of tickboxes? Lastly, without getting into too much detail, I know how easy it is to take advantage of these systems. Since no one can verify your cultural identity, and no one verifies your family/individual income, it's extremely trivial to put yourself at the front of a digital priority queue by claiming that you are such-and-such identity, and if necessary, with such-and-such socioeconomic hardship. You can also be mixed-race. I'm fine with the game that Americans love, but can't we do something so that it isn't so easy to game, or base it off better and more varied heuristics?

xupybd 4y ago

A white person saying they need less white people in their life is odd. My friend group is approximately 50/50 white non white. I didn't do that on purpose. I fell in love with an Asian woman and married her. The friends I picked up just happened to be a spread of ethnicities. One thing that I've learned is that it's much easier to get along with people from different cultures when you treat them as an individual and their ethnicity as just one of the parts that make them who they are. It's silly to treat that as the defining feature of a person. I think people conflate things worth observing and fixing at the population level and things the shape your interpersonal interactions. Yes it's good to work on equal outcomes for people of all races but of that becomes a dominant driver in behavior things get weird.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
astroid 4y ago
This is probably going to open a can of worms I don't really care to deal with, but to be fair Friedl is an obviously Jewish name. Jewish people very often do not consider themselves White -- so from her perspective, she is almost certainly not included in the 'less White people' statement.
yessirwhatever 4y ago
Exactly. What actually makes it more difficult for "BIPOC" and other acronym people is the trivialization they get subjected to by acronymizing their identity and grouping it in a "catchy" word by mainly white people who want to grab the lowest hanging fruit to make sure everyone knows that they're "not those other bad white people".
tonfreed 4y ago
I've found people like this tend to think of others as Pokemon to collect and not to have real relationships with. They're desperate to brag to their friends about the rare ethnicities on their friends list
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
What if you're not wanting less white people in your life because they are white, but because white people in general are more likely to be Republicans? Race is a protected class but currently it's not illegal to discriminate against political opinions and 'race' is a proxy for those. > DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates. If it's a good enough excuse for Texas republicans to prevent minorities voting, then surely it's a good enough excuse to want to exclude white people from your life? https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-court...