I am not comfortable with promoting the framing of the article to an automatically established fact. The only solid fact here is people leaving and the inferred reason is racial discrimination. I am not saying this inference is likely to be wrong or not, but that it is nonetheless an inference and not a fact. The article also doesn't let the reader know how those numbers compare to the baseline attrition of the company, i.e. what percentage of the other demographic groups have left in the same time period, which tends to be pretty high in the startup scene. Racial discrimination at workplace being pretty seriously illegal in the US these employees would have a strong recourse against it and NYT can not possibly provide a superior standard of factuality for those accusations.
It is a fact claim that has yet to be disputed on the record by anyone who is in position to dispute it. All media outlets have their biases, but the most prominent ones tend not to make up easily refuted lies. In the claim you are referencing, they say three quarters of the black employees left over a six month period. If that's a lie, Coinbase can simply say so. But they probably won't because it is probably true.
The reasons why are more up to interpretation. Probably no way to get a firm answer on this since many of these people have signed NDAs or otherwise won't talk on the record. But I don't think it's reasonable to claim, without evidence, that the NYT is lying about the proportion of black employees that left over the given time period.
Fact space is infinite, which ones we choose to surface and which ones we leave behind is called framing. Technical name for making the audience believe that relevant facts are not relevant and saliencing irrelevant ones as relevant is called bullshitting (For further reading see the essay “On Bullshit” by Harry Frankfurt) and bullshits are much harder to weed out than factual inaccuracies in themselves.
NYT, like any major publication, is not leveling outright falsehoods, but they are finessing around bullshitting. We don’t know, because we depend on them or likes of them to make sense of the events and surface the most relevant information in the first place. Like I said, I personally find it concerning that there is no mention of the baseline attrition rate in a high churn SF labor market, that there is no mention of the lack of serious legal action despite serious discrimination allegations, that there is no distinguishing between discrimination, feelings of discrimination and the types of discrimination; we don’t know if propensity for political activism is confounding the reason for those employee’s departures. Coinbase is explicitly discriminating against political activisim that they don’t deem relevant to their mission, rightly or wrongly not only it is not illegal, it is their right to exercise if they believe it would serve their company or customers better. It feels like NYT wants to penalize this act of “rebellion” by clumping all of these together, emphasize the racial angle and produce an aura of wrongdoing by that adjacency. There might as well be wrongdoing, but in that case courts are the machinery equipped to extract the relevant facts and bring justice to it. Not for-profit publications with very complex power relations and a core competency of shaping narratives. To give an obvious example, NYT the prominent media outlet once also played a role in manufacturing the public consent for Iraq invasion by surfacing such “questions”, “suspicions” while burying relevant facts. It would be naive to buy their narrative wholesale (or any single outlets narrative for that matter).
This explanation's believability has an inverse relationship with the number of claims. I could buy the idea that a couple people perceived "normal annoying work crap" as discrimination, but would that happen 15 times? 75% of the Black employees left the company in a 6 month window. You don't see anything like that at any other company.
This is a really dishonest article. It tries to lead one to believe things (e.g. that 15 Black people left Coinbase because they were belittled in meetings) without stating it outright or making a case for it. Just insinuation spun up from a few concrete situations that themselves are mostly vague or not obviously discrimination (the gun and drugs thing being the obvious exception).
This is the level of dishonesty that I've come to expect from the NYT. Any fact that does not fit their narrative basically doesn't exist.
Better treatment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25233702
however, i am not sure that is relevant given the immediate example of a team member who was allowed to work remote. also, i am not sure it is relevant given the fact that there are many other underpinnings for the story’s thesis.
To clarify, I assume the generous severance you're referring to is not the generous severance Coinbase offered employees as part of their no-politics-at-work approach, because the timelines don't match.
> The article implies that a number of the Black people who left did so because the compliance division was relocated and they didn't want to relocate with it. It doesn't say how many people's decisions were influenced by annoying work crap that they interpreted as discrimination.
And mentions the one white person was allowed to stay remote. Pretty dishonest to leave that detail out, no?
> This is a really dishonest article. It tries to lead one to believe things (e.g. that 15 Black people left Coinbase because they were belittled in meetings) without stating it outright or making a case for it. Just insinuation spun up from a few concrete situations that themselves are mostly vague or not obviously discrimination (the gun and drugs thing being the obvious exception).
After reading it it seems a lot left because of constant issues of discrimination - being told to be in meetings in front of cameras to pretend to be diverse, but being ignored in meetings of consequence. Being told to relocate, but applied unequally. Having meetings about BLM and a month later the boss says "leave it at the door." The guns and drugs comment, the black inferiority comment, those are absolutely damning.
This is how racism/discrimination thrive - by playing in the margins, doing things that aren't provable (they never have an email that says "we're discriminating against you!" so therefore it didn't happen or other arguments of that type), giving bad performance reviews after complaints are made, etc. Much like saying "oh it was a joke!"
And finally the icing on the cake:
> Ms. Sawyerr said she had talked with four other Black employees about bringing a discrimination lawsuit against Coinbase, but the others backed out after being offered hefty severance payments in exchange for confidentiality agreements.
These are multiple people's experience with this company - and there are clearly others who were paid not to say anything.
The article clearly does what it set out to do - show the experiences of people who lived in what they believed to be a toxic work culture. I'm inclined to believe them.
And then you are extrapolating two uncorroborated anecdotes of inappropriate comments as evidence of widespread discrimination.
And, of course, the article has many more complaints than this one!
Unless I am missing something seems pretty clear the employee switched from WFH in Philadelphia to commuting to NYC to work at that office.
* The PHL employee has been given their choice of office to work from.
* The Black employees were required to relocate, not just show up at a particular office on a schedule.
Were the Black employees offered the opportunity to work out of the NYC office?
* There was an existing compliance department.
* It had several remote team members.
* The company opened a compliance office in PDX.
* The company required Black team members to relocate to PDX or apply for new jobs.
* The company allowed a non-Black team member to remain in PHL and work out of the NYC office.
* Multiple sources claimed that the PHL employee was allowed to continue working remotely.
* The stated reason for demanding the relocation of the Black team members was to have the whole compliance team working from one place, a goal that obviously wasn't served by having someone else working out of PHL and NYC.
Maybe the sources in this article are lying (of course, you can rebut any claim that way), but apart from that, I'm not sure how this complaint is easily knocked down.
Your wording speculates on how the communication around remote was delivered in an unfavorable light. We know the decision was made to end WFH/remote, and one employee managed to get permission to work from the NYC office. A more realistic (still speculative) scenario imo:
-Company announces end of wfh/remote for a team. Folks are asked to relocate to PDX. -Employee asks for permission to work from NYC. Request is approved.
If an employee was sexually harassing female employees, should the company do something or should it not babysit employees?
Glad you agree.
Sexual harassment is not a crime, it's a workplace tort (and always a tort by the employer, regardless of who the active harasser is.) It's true that some acts which would also potentially make the employer liable for sexual harassment are also crimes, but it's also worth noting that, even where an act creating potential harassment liability is also a crime, that (1) the burden of proof in a criminal case is higher than for a civil tort, so there is no guarantee, even with the same evidence and the same jury that a criminal conviction would be rendered when there would be harassment liability, (2) the police and public prosecutor have no obligation to take action even if there is a crime, whereas the company does have an enforceable legal obligation to take effective action to prevent harassment, (3) even if the police take action and the prosecutor files charge, and a conviction eventually results, criminal process takes time during which the accused may be free, and, in the absence of effective action by the employer, continue harassing and increasing the employers harassment liability.
So the company should just call the Police and wash their hands or be responsible and have an appropriate sexual harassment policy, train their employees on how to identify and deal with sexual harassment, have a clear procedure on how to file and deal with complaints.
Maybe you will call such things "babysitting", I say its being responsible.
"should the company do something or should it not babysit employees?"
The company is doing something by not babysitting the employees. Not baby sitting the employees is the only correct option here.
>So the company should just call the Police and wash their hands
Yes they should call the police, and it's not "washing their hands". Sexual harassment is a criminal offence. Your employer shouldn't be "handling" that like they shouldn't be "handling" rape.
>have an appropriate sexual harassment policy, train their employees on how to identify and deal with sexual harassment, have a clear procedure on how to file and deal with complaints.
The policy is the law. Adults shouldn't have their employer telling them that sexual harassment is a no no.
>Maybe you will call such things "babysitting", I say its being responsible.
The responsible thing is to involve the authorities when one of your employees is committing a crime. Simple as that.
No its not. If you ever work in big companies you will know that.
> Adults shouldn't have their employer telling them that sexual harassment is a no no.
Yes they do,
Assuming you are a male, you might be unknowingly harrasing female employees just by having a boys will be boys attitude. So an employer has to give you training and explain you why its wrong.
Some people use throwaway accounts to harass other employees on social media, if your employer gave you the training you would have learnt that is wrong.
> The policy is the law.
Exactly, now you get it, the company may get into legal trouble if they dont have an official policy or they make it super difficult to report complaints.
> The responsible thing is to involve the authorities when one of your employees is committing a crime. Simple as that.
No its not simple as that, just telling the victim to go to authorities is just washing your hands, a responsible company also makes sure that victims can file a complaint with the management. Not all victims want to file a police complaint, that does not mean they the abuser should get away with harassment. The company should still investigate and fire the abuser and then file a complaint with the victim's permission.
These are some of the aspects which you will understand if you been through some training.
Where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?
No, the company should investigate and have evidence, one way or the other, beyond just the complaint before any kind of final action, though there are some interim precautionary mitigations that are might be appropriate, often.
> Where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a maxim of criminal law; a company treating potential harassers as if the company were either the state enforcing criminal law or, worse, as if it could act only following the state enforcing criminal law will eventually find itself in quite deep civil liability for harassment.
No, the company isn't equipped for this and this is the role of the police and judicial system.
> “Innocent until proven guilty” is a maxim of criminal law; a company treating potential harassers as if the company were either the state enforcing criminal law or, worse, as if it could act only following the state enforcing criminal law will eventually find itself in quite deep civil liability for harassment.
That's why the company isn't enforcing anything and delegating the task to the competent authorities. In this case the police.
Many people have been victim of wrongful firing and huge damages to their personal life due to rash decisions being taken by companies based on a single complaint from someone.
It's literally not; sexual harassment is a civil, not criminal, offense. The police have no concern with it at all, except that some sexual harassment is also a crime (e.g., rape, solicitation of prostitution, etc.)
But employers have legal liability for sexual harassment, which only gets more severe as it continues and they fail to act, whether or not there is a crime involved.
They cannot delegate this responsibility to the police.
That's why I included the judicial system.
> But employers have legal liability for sexual harassment, which only gets more severe as it continues and they fail to act, whether or not there is a crime involved.
It happening is required to be based on a suite or investigation. Again, a company isn't equipped to proceed with such an investigation on it's own.
This is the logical fallacy "appeal to the majority". Just because most companies do something doesn't necessarily mean it's moral, required, logically correct, etc.
>Assuming you are a male, you might be unknowingly harrasing female employees just by having a boys will be boys attitude.
"Boys will be boys" is not the legal definition of sexual harassment, so no.
>So an employer has to give you training and explain you why its wrong.
They do that to cover their ass from "hostile work environment" legal suits. This is not baby sitting.
>Some people use throwaway accounts to harass other employees on social media, if your employer gave you the training you would have learnt that is wrong.
There's nothing a company can do in that instance, no one would even know if it is company related. If the harassment veers off into criminal territory, then police should be called.
>Exactly, now you get it, the company may get into legal trouble if they dont have an official policy or they make it super difficult to report complaints.
Apparently you still don't get it. Companies shouldn't babysit employees if they're committing such crimes. Employers shouldn't be babysitting employees when it comes to crimes such as sexual harassment, rape, etc. These should be directed to the police. QED.
>No its not simple as that, just telling the victim to go to authorities is just washing your hands
It's by definition not "washing their hands" because these crimes are not something the company should be babysitting employees over.
>a responsible company also makes sure that victims can file a complaint with the management.
No responsible company would make or direct a victim to "file an internal complaint" if they are victims of a crime. That is by definition irresponsible.
>Not all victims want to file a police complaint, that does not mean they the abuser should get away with harassment.
That's on them. If you're being victimized, reporting the crime should be the only legal recourse. Companies are not in the business of handling justice, period.
>The company should still investigate and fire the abuser and then file a complaint with the victim's permission.
The last thing we need are companies replacing the role that police, laws, the judicial system, etc. provide.
If an employee is being victimized, the employer should 100% work with authorities to ensure justice is met.
>These are some of the aspects which you will understand if you been through some training.
I understand companies not wanting workspaces to be unfriendly, but "unfriendly" isn't illegal. Period.
Apparently you still don't get it.
I do. Stop projecting about "not getting it".
I fully explained the position, and why your original example falls through.
QED.
It's IMAX-level projection.
>Some people dont want to deal with police complaint.
And if they don't want to, it's not the companies place to babysit and play judge and jury.
>If you dont understand that you will never get it.
If you don't understand that it's not the company's place to play the judicial branch (and may be illegal for them to), then you'll never get it.
It is by definition the wrong thing to do.
QED.
It's absolutely the companies enforceable legal obligation to effectively prevent (including terminating ongoing) sexual harassment even if there is no crime, crime report, or criminal law enforcement action.
Sexual harassment overlaps with a variety of crimes, but it doesn't require a crime, and the employer is civilly liable for it no matter if the individual causing the problem has committed or been investigated for a crime or not.
yes it, why do you support people who abuse, why should they still be kept in the company if the evidence is credible?
So does it mean now you understood why some people dont want file a police complaint?
I don't, and neither should the company, which is why they should call the police.
>why should they still be kept in the company if the evidence is credible?
Company is free to fire criminals if they want, no issues there. Many don't hire criminals to begin with, since your criminal history is public.
>So does it mean now you understood why some people dont want file a police complaint?
This is non-sense. If you're the victim of a crime, report the crime to the police.
Sexual harassment generally is not a crime (though it overlaps with some crimes), and even if there is a crime involved the police and public prosecutor are under no obligation to do anything about it.
The employer, however, is under an enforceable legal obligation to do something about harassment.
They are not yet criminals though.
> If you're the victim of a crime, report the crime to the police.
and you still dont get it.
Thankfully even if the world doesn't act that way, the majority (for now) aren't evil enough to also blatantly proclaim that this is also fine.
What about:
> people's rights to have consensual interactions and relationships with each other are more important than their right to be treated "fairly" whatever that actually means.
The important point here is that we don't have a good working definition of "fair" that is universally agreed upon. The only ethical way to live in a society of people who fundamentally disagree is by optimising for consent.
While you are focused on how your political view is the “right one”, @thegrimmest is more focused on how people should coexist when they all hold strong-but-different ideas of what is fair, and which of those will ultimately go down in history as ”moral progress” is yet unknown.
I punched a man in the face yesterday. To determine if I'm a violent person it's important to know whether I punched a man who was pushing his child on a swing set, or whether I punched a man who was crawling through a window in my home.
"When Coinbase announced it would be opening an office in Portland, Ore., several Black employees in the compliance department who worked remotely were told to move there or reapply for new jobs, four former employees said."
"All of the Black workers in the compliance division ended up among the group of 15 who left."
Without concrete evidence of discrimination in the article, my mind jumps to this being the pivotal cause of the stats, one team getting asked to relocate and that team being disproportionate in its demographics.
I know from co-workers that the company once had a strong stance against remote work and made limited exceptions. I can see that being a source of a lot of discontent. Asking folks to move to a new city is a big ask too; I could see the company having handled that poorly.
On the upside CB shifted to remote-first which should be great for being able to have a more diverse workforce. And contrary to some of the comments here, I take that as strong evidence of the ability for our leadership team to acknowledge mistakes and course correct.
Let's not ignore that this exception is being positioned as being based on skin color (racist motives), not job role, tenure, exceeding expectations, caregiving responsibilities, or any other plausible reason for an exception. That's a laughable, yet dangerous take. Incredibly inflammatory and accusatory.
Either Coinbase is an incredibly racist and black-unfriendly company, or some people would like you to believe that, and these accusations can all be unravelled to crying wolf, accusing others of downright illegal acts, without even filing a formal complaint to help others not suffer the same fate.
And at a certain point the motive for these decisions doesn't even matter. If an overwhelming majority of Black employees feel they are being discriminated against at work, that is a huge failing for a company whether there is active discrimination happening or not.
More likely: There is a activist political trend now, that has picked up a lot of steam. In that political view, society is racist, and whites at best profit from this, at worst contribute to this. Anything bad happening to a person of color is then used to accuse the racist system, or even individuals, of a heinous act, to force their hands to adopt your view, or deplatform them and their criticism as an obstacle to growth of your movement, for personal gain, as revenge for inequality, or as a coping mechanism.
Far easier to argue/reason/imagine that, than that Coinbase makes WFH exceptions due to skin color, or that black employee are correctly assessing skills and experience of co-workers and correctly identifying racism on skin color, when passed over for a promotion. And if you don't believe that racism is really a driver at Coinbase, the correct course seems to be to attack these allegations for what its actually doing, not to support it by falling victim to this poor-argument overload and resigning because it is too hard, or too sensitive, or too taboo, to call out this damaging and horrific behavior.
Maybe it doesn't work like that in high school debate clubs, but it works like that in the law. Look up concepts like circumstantial evidence and disparate impact.
We can infer someone is guilty of a crime from a collection of evidence suggesting they are guilty even without direct evidence.
We can also punish someone for discrimination simply for exhibiting a pattern of discrimination regardless of intent to discriminate.
Don't do trial by (social) media. Especially when your accusations are incredibly heavy and damaging. Don't play judge when you are not capable of objectively looking at all the presented evidence.
Coinbase presented their side of the story: nothing went to court. No investigation found anything of substance. If the circumstantial evidence was so strong to hold up in court, why didn't it?
For the law, intent is of utmost importance. For (social) media, just "circumstantial evidence" of exhibiting patterns of discrimination is enough to act. It is not enough to act, if you are a decent person.
>Ms. Sawyerr said she had talked with four other Black employees about bringing a discrimination lawsuit against Coinbase, but the others backed out after being offered hefty severance payments in exchange for confidentiality agreements.
It never went to court because almost everyone involved was incentivized for it to not end up in court. Going to court is often a difficult, expensive, and likely damaging path to pursue for victims of a variety of crimes. The lack of a court case has nothing to do with the amount of evidence or the truthfulness of the accusations here.
>For the law, intent is of utmost importance. For (social) media, just "circumstantial evidence" of exhibiting patterns of discrimination is enough to act. It is not enough to act, if you are a decent person.
Once again, you are factually wrong with this comment. People can be thrown in jail based purely on an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence and companies can be punished for discriminatory behavior even if there is documented proof that there was no intent to discriminate.
Of course she said that. Big bad company silenced her co-suiters with money, after their spy devision learned that she was bringing suit. Now she has no recourse to go court herself, she absolutely needed those four other employees.
> The lack of a court case has nothing to do with the amount of evidence or the truthfulness of the accusations here.
It allows me to disqualify it as hearsay, and it allows you to think they offered severance payments, with the purpose to keep legit actual racism out of the courts.
Intent is of utmost importance for the law. Every lawyer and judge will agree to that. Punishment is increased for bad willful intent.
> In contrast, a disparate-impact claim does not require proof of an intention to discriminate. Instead, showing that a facially neutral employment practice has a disproportionately adverse impact on a protected group states a prima facie case of unlawful disparate-impact discrimination.
What do you know, intent isn't needed for a valid case of discrimination.
[1] - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gp_so...
No. That's totalitarian and evil. If someone is not intending to discriminate, then they are not guilty of anything and should not be "punished". It's not even slightly reasonable to expect every possible way of slicing a group of people to be reflective of the average gender/race data of the overall population because people are different: that's the entire argument for diversity to begin with.
That's the basic position that is alienating so many hundreds of millions of people and convincing them this kind of activism is toxic. It's why Trump won the first time and did much better than predicted the second. It's why this thread is full of people that think the NYT is being manipulative and deceptive. You may not punish people simply for not having enough black/women employees if they haven't actually done anything to discrimate: end of story.
They stated that discrimination, even if done without intent, is still discrimination. Please respond to that statement.
The whole notion is ridiculous. The fact that California takes this stuff so seriously just makes it look like it's throwing away its tech lead, as viewed from afar.
[1] - https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196...
And you reveal your true motivation when you say something like "America is indeed structurally racist: against whites". No one with any semblance of objectivity would agree with that.
It is scary, right? "We can also punish" hides behind the "we", unclear if they mean "We, the people, the court system" or "We, the racial justice movement, public opinion". Then what is this "punishment"? A bad article in the NYT? Calling up your network and suppliers with a 100 people (with too much time and too much anger) to cancel you for being racist? Jail time or a fine for illegal activity?
They are power hungry, totalitarian, and evil. Other comments talk of "subconscious racism" or "white privilege". This comment demands responsibility for outcomes they perceive as unjust, where it is very unjust to demand demographic parity, when it is not possible to attain that, without severely dropping in quality (there are not enough Black people in tech to fill those positions with talent). So they demand you pay/invest to increase Black people in tech. But if too vocal or direct about it, they accuse you of "stating in general that Black people are less capable" as if reasoning from racist motives. So don't look to closely at the reason for not being able to hire as much Black people as society, activist, or the board wants you to.
This activism is a very strong and dangerous and toxic meme. It leads to Qanon levels of delusion, accusing criticism of racism, so it can't be attacked. Where Qanons see the deepstate and pedophiles when looking at government or big business, these activists see a racist society and neo-Nazi's when looking at government or big business. You can't change their minds. They've been in Whatsapp groups for years, pointing out targets for collective actions, and finding counters to often used criticism. It's why no activist would use the word "Identity Politics" even though that's the animal's name (evil Neo-Nazis use that term to attack our efforts!).
So that's why you hear: reverse racism is impossible! Racism has to do with power, and whites have all the power! When nearly every white person can recount cases of being discriminated against, and how terrible it made them feel. Accused of cultural appropriation for liking rap music. Challenged by Black men for having a Black girlfriend. Chosen as victim of robbery, because perceived weak and rich. Accused of getting your promotion, not due to hard work, but because your white old boys network favored your dumb white ass over a Black deserving queen.
If this NYT article was about over-representation of not white Libertarian crypto bros, but of over-representation of Jewish people in positions of power, you'd hear a different tune. Even suggesting that clear fact labels you as anti-Semitic. Apparently white people don't have enough shared culture, shared activism, to make racist anti-male anti-white anti-autist hit pieces like this controversial, even though we supposedly run the world, actively suppress entire races and genders, and create non-inclusive companies out of principle.
There's a data mismatch between the CB blog post and the article. CB cites that only 2-3 formal complaints were filed iirc.
11 employee complaints matches pretty closely with the PDX group.
--
FWIW I'm not dismissing the complaints. I've worked and studied in places where I've felt like an outsider; I've seen people make inappropriate comments about race+stereotypes in past work environments; I've also seen people make fishing claims of racial discrimination.
I wasn't on those teams in 2019, so the truth is I simply don't know.
From what I see today and the lack of concrete evidence in the article, I do have some doubts about the overall impression the article tries to give. I have the sense that certain information might have been omitted that might paint a clearer picture. I could totally be wrong as well.
>The 15 people worked at Coinbase, the most valuable U.S. cryptocurrency start-up, where they represented roughly three-quarters of the Black employees at the 600-person company.
"[R]oughly three-quarters" implies there were likely either 19 or 21 employees Black employees at the company since 20 would be exactly three-quarters. I was just using 75% and 20 employees because that is the best estimate we got. The article also stated clearly that 8 Black employees were part of the PDX group.
The Coinbase rebuttal was worded very specifically.
>only three of these people filed complaints during their time at Coinbase.
The New York Times wasn't being as narrow with their counting and they said:
>11 of them informed the human resources department or their managers about what they said was racist or discriminatory treatment
There is obvious middle ground between these two quotes. 11 people complained to their manager or HR at some point including potentially after they left the company however only 3 filed official complaints while working there. Keep in mind that simply complaining about something to a coworker isn't the same thing as "filing" a complaint.
If this middle ground scenario transpired as I described, doesn't the NYT's recounting sound much closer to the truth than CB's? Also ask yourself who has a bigger incentive to stretch the truth here. Is it the newspaper that could instead report on literally anything else or the company that is being accused of discrimination?
It really depends on the HR department, too. In most, reporting something as seemingly straightforward as an overt sexual assault will raise the question "how do you want to proceed." But they might not lay out what your actual options are -- or worse, they might just offer an ear and won't offer to act unless you demand it. Sometimes, they'll make it quite clear that a complaint will be a huge pain in the ass for everybody involved, especially the person reporting. HR should understand that there can be direct and indirect blow-back; that reporting misbehavior (especially of management, or worse, HR) can have both real and perceived consequences for the person reporting. HR departments cannot, generally, be trusted to police themselves if you can't go to them or above them, the only other option is the labor relations board. So much of the time, marginalized employees will either suck it up and endure the abuse, or quietly leave to keep their reputation intact.
So if anything, I see the discrepancy of 3 official reports and 11 complaints as a weak signal about how seriously HR takes complaints about racism at the company.
This is a tall assumption. People are more complicated than that, and so are their identities. What if you are a pro-life, strongly Catholic black person? I can definitely see the pro-diversity campaigners balking at the "pro-life" component of your identity.
Really? "Most other tech firms" do this?
That doesn't sound like "most companies" in the tech industry actively seeking and hiring minorities. Perhaps they do and articles like these are deceptive?
Apple does "For the past five years, we’ve continued to hire more women and underrepresented minorities every year." https://www.apple.com/diversity/
Facebook does "We’re committed to building a workforce that’s as diverse as the communities we serve" https://www.facebook.com/careers/facebook-life/diversity
I would look up others but I think those three make the point. Companies are actively hiring underrepresented minorities. Yes some people think more effort should be put in but to say it isn't happening is being ignorant of reality.
I was questioning the assertion that it was most companies. Three companies, no statistics showing actual improvement, that doesn't make the point. Thanks for the links. It looks like Google is having trouble achieving this goal, since the article you linked shows the same percentage of minorities year to year. Apple says they have made progress, which is good. The facebook link doesn't have any numbers. Apple says "53% of new hires in the U.S. are from historically underrepresented groups in tech" but it doesn't give a timeframe or provide statistics that show how much of their workforce is minority or how much improvement they have made. I'm not sure that public relations boilerplate actually translates to a commitment to a diverse workforce.
Also I think you mean Trevor Noah and not Noah Trevor.
(One good source: White & Laird).
Lol, that’s understating it a bit. The president elect said “you ain’t black” to black people who even consider Trump. An old white man confidently telling black people their identity is jeopardized if they even consider not voting for him.
White & Laird's book is super interesting. Check it out.
Learning the true context is most important. This could be done by corroborating allegations for example.
N = 15 while p ≈ 20. It has been a while since I have taken a stats class, but that sample seems plenty large enough to me.
>Learning the true context is most important. This could be done by corroborating allegations for example.
Corroborating is exactly what journalists do. From the article:
>five people with knowledge of the situation said.
>But according to 23 current and former Coinbase employees, five of whom spoke on the record, as well as internal documents and recordings of conversations
>according to a recording of the session shared with The New York Times
>In a company email he sent later, which was also shared with The Times
>wrote in a Slack message that was viewed by The Times.
>three people briefed on the situation said
>according to a recording of the event
>according to a copy of the message seen by The Times
>according to a copy reviewed by The Times.
>two people with knowledge of the situation said
The NYT talked to dozens of people, watched/listened to multiple recordings, and viewed numerous emails and Slack messages. This story is corroborated.
> One Black employee said her manager suggested in front of colleagues that she was dealing drugs and carrying a gun, trading on racist stereotypes. Another said a co-worker at a recruiting meeting broadly described Black employees as less capable. Still another said managers spoke down to her and her Black colleagues, adding that they were passed over for promotions in favor of less experienced white employees. The accumulation of incidents, they said, led to the wave of departures.
These have no corroboration, even though they allegedly happened in front of multiple coworkers.
edit: Sorry, I'm the poster from above, I just posted from my phone which has a different account logged in that I originally intended to give hiring advice unlinked to my main account(opsec fail).
Let's use another example in which evidence is hard to find: sexual assault. If one woman accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault, the burden of proof for her story is high. She would need some pretty strong evidence to get Cosby charged let alone convicted. She probably wouldn't even receive coverage in the mainstream media without some other form of evidence. However the entire situation would change if she was one of 60 women coming forward. Suddenly the burden of proof for that first woman is greatly diminished. Each individual's story is corroborated by someone else having a very similar story.
Our culture is full of anecdotes and stories that serve as a warning why this is a very bad idea.
Isn't there like 400 million guns in private hands in the US? If so, the assumption that pretty much anyone you meet in the street might have concealed gun on them is not absurd per se.
But speaking about it aloud seems strange, yes.
"passed over for promotions"
This is the oldest workplace complaint ever and happens in racially homogeneous countries all the time. Favoritism in the workplace is probably as old as the pyramids.
Yes that's what was asked; which ones?
> especially when n=15(if this was a statistical study on insulin response to artificial sweeteners, people would be saying the sample size is too small to draw conclusions)
And those people would be wrong. It's incorrect to dismiss a study based on sample size without a discussion of significance and effect size in the context of the data.
Moreover I reject the premise that you should be assessing this story quantitatively rather than qualitatively. But if you insist: what are your priors on whether or not a given company engaged in discrimination, and how do these change if you're told 75% of employees of a particular demographic stated there was discrimination?
> what are your priors on whether or not a given company engaged in discrimination, and how do these change if you're told 75% of employees of a particular demographic stated there was discrimination?
I completely agree that it's a very bad look. It is probably even more likely than not that given those facts, it is due to racism. I guess the question comes down to, philosophically, how one answers the following question: In the quest to eradicate racism and racists, is it better to be over-zealous and destroy a few non-racists to make sure you get all the actual racists(the chemo approach) - or is it better to be slightly more circumspect and let a few racists slip through the cracks so that far fewer non-racists are punished (the US judicial system ideal)?
Innocent of what exactly? At a certain point whether the leadership of Coinbase is racist or not doesn't matter. What matters is their actions. The article says "roughly three-quarters of the Black employees" left the company over a 6 month span due to feelings of being discriminated against. That isn't an accusation. It is a fact. It also isn't something that will just happen accidentally. That alone is a problem that demands urgent attention regardless of what is in the hearts of Coinbase's leadership team.