3 ms·
Out of curiosity, do they favor hiring Indians in general, or Hindu Indians in particular. (To the exclusion of Muslim Indians)
by teachrdan 1y ago
Out of curiosity, do they favor hiring Indians in general, or Hindu Indians in particular. (To the exclusion of Muslim Indians)
- throwmeaway222 1y agothat is definitely part of it
- mystraline 1y agoYep. And caste based discrimination is legal in the USA. Its not a protected EEOC class, as much as that doesn't matter in our legal environment. So yeah, you can discriminate against Dalits, and hire predominantly Brahmins.
- jkaplowitz 1y agoExcept in Seattle, which explicitly bans caste discrimination as of 2023, and in California, which interprets its own state anti-discrimination laws to already include caste discrimination in other broader categories (which was the reason Governor Newsom gave when he vetoed a bill in 2023 to explicitly ban caste discrimination). Quite a lot of tech companies hire in either Seattle, California, or both.
- SilverElfin 1y agoWhat’s the evidence? I remember seeing allegations but all the court cases resulted in nothing, because there was no evidence of such discrimination.
- zdragnar 1y agoIt's been awhile since I've seen it, but there was a very brief and small wave of articles perhaps a few years back claiming a lot of Indians in the US were still facing caste-based discrimination (by skin color, name or something else, I'm not sure) by other Indian managers and execs.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoNewsom vetoed the ban [1]. A pair of professors are having a bad time trying to got CSU’s ban on caste-based discrimination thrown out on the grounds of being religiously discriminatory [2]. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/09/us/california-caste-discrimination-bill-veto https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/09/us/california-caste-discrimin... [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/23-4363/23-4363-2025-03-12.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/23...
- snozolli 1y agoNewsom vetoed the ban [1] From that article: In a statement explaining his veto decision, Newsom said the measure was “unnecessary” because discrimination based on caste is already prohibited in the state. (Just adding context that I would have missed if not for another commenter pointing it out further down)
- crooked-v 1y agoFor whatever it's worth, that's been a consistent trend with other things Newsom has vetoed with statements that he considers the vetoed item to be already covered by other laws, including some purely technical legislative things. I think it's likely that he sees himself as trying to keep California bureaucracy from growing indefinitely, especially with his push for things like CEQA process reduction/simplification.
- polotics 1y agofunny question, I believe we're more precisely talking about Brahmin "upper" caste hiring only from their caste. Muslims don't even come into the picture...
- srameshc 1y agoI don't think so. I feel Indian managers have a tendency to hire anyone else but Indians. If they have to favor Hindu, Brahmin, Muslim is very subjective, depending on that person's background, but I would say very rare. If they really have a prefrence, it will be "the connect", like if they both can connect based on region (ex: Delhi or that region) but very few Indians of current generation would care about caste or religion.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> I feel Indian managers have a tendency to hire anyone else but Indians I'd guess this varies massively depending on whether the hiring manager and the people they're hiring are H1-Bs.
- srameshc 1y agoUnless they have any personal advantage in doing so.
- tmule 1y agoThis is a remarkable claim. Not a single Indian in tech that I know in my personal or professional life - numbering over a hundred - has ever disputed that Indians have strong (sub)ethnic affinities that color their views hiring. In addition, nepotism is a real thing in Indian culture. I’d be laughed out of a room with aforesaid folks if I claimed “Indian managers have a tendency to hire anyone else but Indians”. This is either deliberately misleading to “save face” on behalf of the community (another cultural trait), or you’re utterly oblivious in an outlying way to how things work.
- sjiabq 1y ago[flagged]
- viridian 1y agoHow so? There are 172 million Muslims in India.
- SilverElfin 1y agoI think he means since they aren’t originally “Indian” but are colonizers of India who arrived through invasion.
- oblio 1y agoThat might have been the case 200+ years ago but for sure the majority of Indian Muslims these days are just descendants of converted Hindus and Buddhists, etc.
- anon291 1y agoSo are the brahmins. The indigenous religions of India are basically gone. Only remembered in various folklore.
- SilverElfin 1y agoWhere can I read more about this? That the indigenous are gone?
- anon291 1y ago'Why I am not Hindu', an essay by Kancha Ilaiah is a good starting point. In the west, the narrative is that India = Hinduism..however Hinduism is a term the British made up to describe anything other than Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The Brits classified Jains, Buddhists, and anyone else as Hindu. However, when you get people to tell you various 'beliefs' of Hinduism , it's often very discordant, much more so than protestant/ Catholic / etc. This is because there's hundreds of different sets of practices with various links. Due to migration selection, only some subset are commonly discussed in a western context. But, in reality, the common people of India had a wide range of practice that is not the typical 'Indian' you hear about. For example, many Indians in the west claim that Indians don't eat meat. This is a lie. Many groups have eaten meat since the time of the Indus Valley Civilization and still continue. https://www.waterstones.com/book/why-i-am-not-a-hindu/iiaiah/9788185604183 https://www.waterstones.com/book/why-i-am-not-a-hindu/iiaiah...