5 ms·

> But, if few Indian managers discriminate against Dalits, how are their non-Indian peers and managers supposed to correct that discrimination if they don't eve

by bko 4y ago

> But, if few Indian managers discriminate against Dalits, how are their non-Indian peers and managers supposed to correct that discrimination if they don't even understand what are castes? Shouldn't the managers and decision makers be aware of the local customs, cultural issues and employment laws in the region they manage? You really think it's appropriate for some white American manager to lecture his Indian subordinates after spending a few hours in training?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> the local customs, cultural issues and employment laws in the region they manage This article concerns caste discrimination in the United States.
- MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  Amusingly caste discrimination is illegal in India too but laws alone rarely change culture it needs a healthy doses of death and destruction.
rsstack 4y ago
That's their job. If they don't like it, they aren't fit to do it. If managers could only come from the exact same background as their subordinates, globalization would be screwed.
MontyCarloHall 4y ago
>You really think it's appropriate for some white American manager to lecture his Indian subordinates after spending a few hours in training? Yes. Ethnic discrimination is absolutely unacceptable in any American workplace, full stop. There is no room for cultural relativism here. To imply otherwise (e.g. “it would be inappropriate for a non-Indian manager to tell off their subordinate for being caste-ist”) is itself extremely racist.
- alex_smart 4y ago
  How exactly would you determine that a manager is acting against an employee under them due to an internal caste bias and not due to lack of performance or insubordination (or whatever other valid grounds there are for acting against an employee)?
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    There's no silver bullet. It's equally hard to determine when a manager is acting against subordinates because of petty grudges, or when a manager is acting against subordinates because they're bad at effectively telling subordinates what they want. I think that's kinda the job you sign up for when you choose to join higher-level management.
    - alex_smart 4y ago
      Caste-based discrimination would be a pretty serious charge against a manager, surely sufficient grounds for termination. We need to have a talk of how we are going to determine when it's happening if we are seriously considering policies to act against it.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    If a manager is acting against an emoloyee, someone should ask very pointed questions why. If caste might be at play, yes, saidanager ahould get a very stern talk from his superiors and HR explaining how this behaviour is unacceptable.
    - alex_smart 4y ago
      >If caste might be at play Again, how is that determined? Do you assume that a caste angle might be at play every time the manager is upper caste and the employee's of lower caste? Do you wait for the manager to be stupid enough to outright utter a casteist slur at the workplace?
      - 4y ago
TimTheTinker 4y ago
> You really think it's appropriate for some white American manager to lecture his Indian subordinates after spending a few hours in training? If he/she sees a clear violation of discrimination laws/policies, then yes! Although "lecture" wouldn't be the best start. Asking questions to the alleged discriminator would be a better way forward. Find out what happened and why, and ask multiple people for their input. Start by assuming innocence and let evidence prove otherwise, not the other way around. The truth about a given situation is not completely inaccessible to people without "lived experience". That's why words are so powerful - when used truthfully and in good faith, they enable to bridge gaps where we lack that personal experience, and make accurate judgments.
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  > when used truthfully and in good faith, [words] enable us to bridge gaps where we lack that personal experience, and make accurate judgments. That's why learning to express ourselves well, and listen well (including empathetically) is so important to a functioning society. As a society, we need a restored faith in the power of words to communicate any truth (including truths people erroneously say are "inaccessible apart from lived experience") and be understood by those who will listen well. The problem isn't that truth is unknowable or incommunicable, the problem is that not enough people are speaking it, and of those who are, many don't speak intelligently and/or intelligibly. And not enough of those who listen do so carefully, thoughtfully, and empathetically.
HWR_14 4y ago
> Shouldn't the managers and decision makers be aware of the local customs, cultural issues and employment laws in the region they manage? Google is a US company. In the US, the "local custom and employment law" is that companies don't accept caste based discrimination. (It's also technically illegal in India). I think not only is it appropriate for a white American manager to lecture Indian subordinates about stopping caste based discrimination, it's an obligation to do so and fire the subordinates if they continue.
otterley 4y ago
Why does it matter what the race of the speaker is?
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  Because race really matters when your worldview is all about creating post-facto equity between races, not equal treatment and opportunity. When you have an a-priori assumption that every difference in outcome is due to oppression of some sort, the argument is over -- you've already allowed that discrimination on any basis is OK, as long as it's against whoever you've labeled the "oppressor" group. As a final coup de grace, you can label anyone who disagrees as an "oppressor" (or at least "fragile") without engaging their argument -- it's all circular reasoning supported by an ad-hominem fallacy.
  - otterley 4y ago
    Respectfully, you didn't really answer my question at all. The question, which I'll phrase slightly differently, is "why can't a person who's not from a particular race or group (i.e., an outsider) observe that people in that group are treating each other poorly, unfairly, or unjustly?" What you said, on the other hand, is a bunch of familiar, well-worn complaints dating back to the 1990s from privileged white people who think they're being oppressed, even though that's not even the subject.

by bko 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> the local customs, cultural issues and employment laws in the region they manage This article concerns caste discrimination in the United States.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago
Amusingly caste discrimination is illegal in India too but laws alone rarely change culture it needs a healthy doses of death and destruction.

rsstack 4y ago

That's their job. If they don't like it, they aren't fit to do it. If managers could only come from the exact same background as their subordinates, globalization would be screwed.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago

>You really think it's appropriate for some white American manager to lecture his Indian subordinates after spending a few hours in training? Yes. Ethnic discrimination is absolutely unacceptable in any American workplace, full stop. There is no room for cultural relativism here. To imply otherwise (e.g. “it would be inappropriate for a non-Indian manager to tell off their subordinate for being caste-ist”) is itself extremely racist.

alex_smart 4y ago
How exactly would you determine that a manager is acting against an employee under them due to an internal caste bias and not due to lack of performance or insubordination (or whatever other valid grounds there are for acting against an employee)?
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  There's no silver bullet. It's equally hard to determine when a manager is acting against subordinates because of petty grudges, or when a manager is acting against subordinates because they're bad at effectively telling subordinates what they want. I think that's kinda the job you sign up for when you choose to join higher-level management.
  - alex_smart 4y ago
    Caste-based discrimination would be a pretty serious charge against a manager, surely sufficient grounds for termination. We need to have a talk of how we are going to determine when it's happening if we are seriously considering policies to act against it.
- hef19898 4y ago
  If a manager is acting against an emoloyee, someone should ask very pointed questions why. If caste might be at play, yes, saidanager ahould get a very stern talk from his superiors and HR explaining how this behaviour is unacceptable.
  - alex_smart 4y ago
    >If caste might be at play Again, how is that determined? Do you assume that a caste angle might be at play every time the manager is upper caste and the employee's of lower caste? Do you wait for the manager to be stupid enough to outright utter a casteist slur at the workplace?
    - 4y ago

TimTheTinker 4y ago

> You really think it's appropriate for some white American manager to lecture his Indian subordinates after spending a few hours in training? If he/she sees a clear violation of discrimination laws/policies, then yes! Although "lecture" wouldn't be the best start. Asking questions to the alleged discriminator would be a better way forward. Find out what happened and why, and ask multiple people for their input. Start by assuming innocence and let evidence prove otherwise, not the other way around. The truth about a given situation is not completely inaccessible to people without "lived experience". That's why words are so powerful - when used truthfully and in good faith, they enable to bridge gaps where we lack that personal experience, and make accurate judgments.

TimTheTinker 4y ago
> when used truthfully and in good faith, [words] enable us to bridge gaps where we lack that personal experience, and make accurate judgments. That's why learning to express ourselves well, and listen well (including empathetically) is so important to a functioning society. As a society, we need a restored faith in the power of words to communicate any truth (including truths people erroneously say are "inaccessible apart from lived experience") and be understood by those who will listen well. The problem isn't that truth is unknowable or incommunicable, the problem is that not enough people are speaking it, and of those who are, many don't speak intelligently and/or intelligibly. And not enough of those who listen do so carefully, thoughtfully, and empathetically.

HWR_14 4y ago

> Shouldn't the managers and decision makers be aware of the local customs, cultural issues and employment laws in the region they manage? Google is a US company. In the US, the "local custom and employment law" is that companies don't accept caste based discrimination. (It's also technically illegal in India). I think not only is it appropriate for a white American manager to lecture Indian subordinates about stopping caste based discrimination, it's an obligation to do so and fire the subordinates if they continue.

otterley 4y ago

Why does it matter what the race of the speaker is?

TimTheTinker 4y ago
Because race really matters when your worldview is all about creating post-facto equity between races, not equal treatment and opportunity. When you have an a-priori assumption that every difference in outcome is due to oppression of some sort, the argument is over -- you've already allowed that discrimination on any basis is OK, as long as it's against whoever you've labeled the "oppressor" group. As a final coup de grace, you can label anyone who disagrees as an "oppressor" (or at least "fragile") without engaging their argument -- it's all circular reasoning supported by an ad-hominem fallacy.
- otterley 4y ago
  Respectfully, you didn't really answer my question at all. The question, which I'll phrase slightly differently, is "why can't a person who's not from a particular race or group (i.e., an outsider) observe that people in that group are treating each other poorly, unfairly, or unjustly?" What you said, on the other hand, is a bunch of familiar, well-worn complaints dating back to the 1990s from privileged white people who think they're being oppressed, even though that's not even the subject.