3 ms·

Is hiring discrimination alleged to have happened? IIRC, the only decision that is noted in the blog post is the promotion of Dan (who is not in the cult), and

Is hiring discrimination alleged to have happened? IIRC, the only decision that is noted in the blog post is the promotion of Dan (who is not in the cult), and the mysterious termination (for which we have no context or details, and the author feels it was orchestrated by the aforementioned Dan). While I'm sure there's lots of be concerned about with respect to the cult, I'm not sure it's Google's business to ask about and evaluate religious affiliations when hiring (I'm fairly certain this would be illegal?). There are plenty of ways that you can get a shop of closely related people that are more innocuous than hiring discrimination; for example, suppose the cult members worked together as a freelance group that Google used, and they decided to offer them jobs in order to bootstrap GDC. This exact situation would happen if Google acquires a company from a place with a relatively homogenous ethnic or religious makeup -- it is unfair to immediately assume that this is a result of a discriminatory hiring practice. (It's also possible that there are questionable decisions, but I think it depends a lot on the specifics.)

rendall 4y ago
I'm not really a fan of religions or cults, but part of my dislike is the fervent disapproving and interfering with people's lives. Which is exactly what this fellow seemed to be doing. The cult members seemed to be minding their own business and being generally pretty useful and nice. I wonder if his behavior could even have put Google at risk of a religious discrimination case.
ineedasername 4y ago
>Is hiring discrimination alleged to have happened Yes, the potential nepotism involved with nearly 50% of a 25 person group all belonging to the cult.
- amscanne 4y ago
  I don't think you read my comment. There are lots of ways that you can end up with a concentration of a particular ethnicity/religion/etc. It is unreasonable to immediately assume that it is a result of nepotism, and the specific facts matter quite a lot. People often work with and start companies with people from their community, and as a result they are often a large part of their professional network. It's only nepotism if those people are favored over others.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    I don't doubt that unlikely clustering can innocently occur by chance. But you asked if hiring discrimination is alleged to have occured and it was very clearly alleged when the author uses the word nepotism in their original blog post: >Cronyism and nepotism is not uncommon, especially in my line of my work, but it was unusual on this scale You may say the author has jumped too soon to that conclusion but they nonetheless made that allegation. My comment stands. You should also be aware that accusing someone of not reading a comment or article is both rude and against site guidelines. A more productive way of going about this if you think someone misunderstood or indeed overlooked or skipped part of something is to simply quote the relevant portion. That at least gives them the benefit of the doubt. It also goes a long way towards preventing responses that go on the defensive before even considering the merits of an argument.
    - amscanne 4y ago
      The author implied that it had occurred, but did not actually allege anything specific. That would require describing how the cult members had been hired. The author seemed to have joined a department with a large cluster from this cult, and immediately assumed that nepotism and cronyism were responsible — he needs to be more specific. To clarify one thing in your comment: innocent clustering isn’t likely occurring “by chance” here — that would be a dubious claim; I’m saying it often happens for innocent, legal reasons. There’s no context or facts for this specific case. Regarding the “didn’t read my comment” bit, your comment did ignore the last half of my comment that describes plausible innocent clustering and talks about the need for specific facts. You can’t allege something based on “potential” because every perfectly normal situation could be construed as the potential result of a crime. If I was at a bar last night, and home today — can you allege that I drove home drunk? You would need more specific facts to make any kind of meaningful allegation (e.g. did I drive to the bar? Did I drink? Did I return home on my own with my car? Those would be the minimal facts required for even a suspicion). Perhaps I could have addressed this with less snark (and I apologize for this), but we’re also not talking about missing some fact buried in an article, we’re talking about 2/5 sentences in a comment.

rendall 4y ago

I'm not really a fan of religions or cults, but part of my dislike is the fervent disapproving and interfering with people's lives. Which is exactly what this fellow seemed to be doing. The cult members seemed to be minding their own business and being generally pretty useful and nice. I wonder if his behavior could even have put Google at risk of a religious discrimination case.

ineedasername 4y ago

>Is hiring discrimination alleged to have happened Yes, the potential nepotism involved with nearly 50% of a 25 person group all belonging to the cult.

amscanne 4y ago
I don't think you read my comment. There are lots of ways that you can end up with a concentration of a particular ethnicity/religion/etc. It is unreasonable to immediately assume that it is a result of nepotism, and the specific facts matter quite a lot. People often work with and start companies with people from their community, and as a result they are often a large part of their professional network. It's only nepotism if those people are favored over others.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  I don't doubt that unlikely clustering can innocently occur by chance. But you asked if hiring discrimination is alleged to have occured and it was very clearly alleged when the author uses the word nepotism in their original blog post: >Cronyism and nepotism is not uncommon, especially in my line of my work, but it was unusual on this scale You may say the author has jumped too soon to that conclusion but they nonetheless made that allegation. My comment stands. You should also be aware that accusing someone of not reading a comment or article is both rude and against site guidelines. A more productive way of going about this if you think someone misunderstood or indeed overlooked or skipped part of something is to simply quote the relevant portion. That at least gives them the benefit of the doubt. It also goes a long way towards preventing responses that go on the defensive before even considering the merits of an argument.
  - amscanne 4y ago
    The author implied that it had occurred, but did not actually allege anything specific. That would require describing how the cult members had been hired. The author seemed to have joined a department with a large cluster from this cult, and immediately assumed that nepotism and cronyism were responsible — he needs to be more specific. To clarify one thing in your comment: innocent clustering isn’t likely occurring “by chance” here — that would be a dubious claim; I’m saying it often happens for innocent, legal reasons. There’s no context or facts for this specific case. Regarding the “didn’t read my comment” bit, your comment did ignore the last half of my comment that describes plausible innocent clustering and talks about the need for specific facts. You can’t allege something based on “potential” because every perfectly normal situation could be construed as the potential result of a crime. If I was at a bar last night, and home today — can you allege that I drove home drunk? You would need more specific facts to make any kind of meaningful allegation (e.g. did I drive to the bar? Did I drink? Did I return home on my own with my car? Those would be the minimal facts required for even a suspicion). Perhaps I could have addressed this with less snark (and I apologize for this), but we’re also not talking about missing some fact buried in an article, we’re talking about 2/5 sentences in a comment.