Ok. Jews are hiring only Jews… that’s still problematic, right? You don’t have to be racist or antisemitic to see this as an unhealthy hiring practice.

Nepotism and in-group hiring is problematic regardless of if it's English Gentlemen or any other group. It's not always bad (it can be very beneficial for historically marginalized groups of people, for example). But it is problematic.

That said, "Indian" is too big of a group. How much does this involve cross-caste versus intra-caste hiring?

I'm not defending Nepotism. I'm saying there is an obvious explanation of the effect the article is talking about (and several bad explanations that rely on cultural tropes)

Oh sure. I got what you were saying. I was adding on to it by kind of pointing out the historic, world-defining nepotism of white ethnic groups. And also saying that not all nepotistic-like behaviour is bad.

And also pointing out that people looking at Indian hiring trends from the outside need to be aware that Indian (/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Diaspora/look-alike Sri Lankan) people do not see themselves as a monolith. They are not only as diverse as European peoples, but tack on caste on top of it.

If an Indian is only hiring Indians, but is hiring Indians from all castes, this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies.

> "If an Indian is only hiring Indians, but is hiring Indians from all castes, this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies."

Does that make this behavior okay? Let's run a thought experiment:

If a White man is only hiring White men, but is hiring White men from all ethnic groups (English, French, German, Italian, Polish, etc.), this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies.

It doesn't make it "okay", but it can make it "better" than some other thing.

And no, I'm not talking about ethnic group hiring here (primarily), I'm talking about caste-based hiring. Which would make the following a better parallel:

If a White man is only hiring White people, but is hiring from all economic and educational groups (from white trash with a third-grade education to blue-bloods with post-doctoral certifications), this is better than a Yalie hiring only other Yalies. All else held equal.

Better how? If someone who only holds 3rd grade education on paper but self taught to become a master in some field then in truth he is not holding only a 3rd grade education. But if he learned nothing beyond 3rd grade then I really hope he isn't being hired for complex skilled work that he cannot perform

Back in the day corporations used to train people to be competent at doing the job they were hired to do.

Computer disciplines are different than most others in not requiring a degree to prove competency. I'm in biology, and good luck getting any decent job without a B.S., regardless of how competent you are. For Bio jobs a third-grade education is only a third-grade education, regardless of your self-taught skills.

White trash is a derogatory racial and class-related slur used in American English to refer to poor white people, especially in the rural southern United States.

Do you have a word I can use that will get across the idea of a marginalized and looked-down-up white group in the US without using a slur?

How did English gentlemen enter the discussion though?

Why is Indian too big a group to discuss in this context?

"English gentleman" is, within the last 400 years, the most world-shaking in-group. And it preferentially hired and promoted within the in-group into the present era.

Dalits and scheduled castes and tribes (forgive me if I'm getting this wrong) make up about 40% of Indians, but are historically about as marginalized as Native Americans and Blacks are in the US. And this marginalization continues with hiring practices in the US.

It’s not that insignificant. It’s still a minority group that is getting to the top without specific diversity mandates. Hiring an Indian “because diversity” was never a thing. There wasn’t ever a huge social push to “get more Indians into leadership”. I guess one of those Indians even became PM of Britain, the empire that colonized them. Pretty interesting stuff.

Good job Indians, not sure how y’all did it.

It’s simple. Get an education and work your ass off.

It’s not a secret. My parents made clear from a young age that excuses would never be accepted, there was a narrow track of acceptable behavior and life pursuits, we would be judged on outcomes, and just because the white kids could do something doesn’t mean we could.

You’ve got it backwards. It should be socially acceptable to question any trend in society to understand it better. The comments below seem fine to me. You should be able to question Indians and Jews and Blacks and Whites, tall people, women, attractive people, highly educated people and so on.

I think you’re right that people wouldn’t make the same comments about Jews and to me that’s an indication that Jews are more protected than they should be. Let’s all ask questions and let the truth come out. Better that than pretending that people don’t have in-group motives and waiting to see what happens when we’re not looking.

The moral of WW2 wasn’t “don’t persecute Jews”, it was “don’t be afraid to question those who are resisting being questioned”.

Questioning is useful. Stereotypes also can be useful. But that doesn't preclude recognizing and calling out bias and correlation/causation issues. My views are:

1) Size of population, education and language are better explainers of the effect than any of these stereotypes or anecdata people bring up

2) These anecdata are generally biased negatively. Note the lack of positive (though equally bullshit) explainers like "they're just smarter and work harder than white people". This negative tilt is socially acceptable for Indians, but has become socially not acceptable for Jews. I don't particularly care either way as long as people call out the bias when they see it.

Implicit in all of this is how we as humans ascribe characteristics to our own groups vs. other groups, e.g. my asshole white boss is just an asshole, but my asshole Indian boss is an asshole because she's Indian.

Or as an Indian, my white co-workers is entitled and lazy because he's white etc. etc.

I cannot upvote you because I don't agree with multiple parts and/or details of your post, but based on what I observed so far I can agree with this:

> Indians are good at office politics because they are yes-men and therefore succeed.

Compared to other nationalities (in my case in random order italian/german/swiss/polish/american/french/hungarian/turkish/greek), I noticed indians, as managers, being a lot more willing to initially accept anything while others would have probably shouted an initial "NO WAY!". I do worry about this for the company I'm working for (we now have many indian managers).

I cannot say the same for indians as developers (the ones that worked/are working for us had/have strong positions about their code/logic and were/are still able to accept valid changes/proposals/improvements), I liked it and I still like it.