
Racial Fault Lines in Silicon Valley - bdr
https://blog.devcolor.org/racial-fault-lines-in-silicon-valley-390cd0e4a6dc
======
sverige
I have a caveat to add to the author's assertion that discussing race becomes
easier with practice. That's not always true in the short run, but I agree
that it is in the long run, assuming good faith on both sides.

What I've found is that it depends on so many variables between the people
wanting to have the discussion that it's entirely unpredictable how it will
turn out - and often unpredictable even if it's the same two parties with
discussions separated by time.

I'm a white man married to a black woman. We've known each other over 35
years. We've had discussions on many aspects of the racial divide over the
years, of course. I think that I understand her point of view as a black woman
much better now than I did in the '80s, or '90s, or '00s, though even today
she may say that I just don't get it. (And I think she understands where I'm
coming from better, too.)

But the effort has been worth it. It's just very, very difficult sometimes to
have such discussions.

As far as the substance of his experience with the interviewer, sadly, I
completely believe it and am not even surprised. The author handled himself
with dignity at every step. It had to take a lot of courage to tell it
straight when the session on interviewing brought it all back up years later.
So what everyone went silent? Their discomfort isn't comparable to what I
suspect his was.

Telling the truth is always worth it, especially when it's hard. Hopefully
sharing his negative experience helped at least one person in that session to
reconsider what they probably considered to be long-settled (and probably
vague) opinions about their own rightness in this regard.

tl;dr: It's easy to learn to avoid saying what you really feel and think when
you're in a work environment and you know there could be repercussions. It's
hard to challenge yourself and others to go beneath the surface, but the
rewards are great.

~~~
fsaneq2
> "It's hard to challenge yourself and others to go beneath the surface, but
> the rewards are great."

The author of the post seems entirely reasonable and I'd love to have a
discussion with him about this type of stuff.

The problem, at least for me, is that it's difficult to tell upfront who's
reasonable and who is not. What I mean by reasonable is someone who will put
forward an honest effort to have a discussion, as opposed to deliberately
trying to insult the other party (like the CEO from the article), or
deliberately trying look for unintended missteps and immediately paint the
opponent as some kind of racist monster (like some POC).

I used to be quite honest about these things; now with more experience I think
I am less so.

This seems really sad, and like a step backwards, but I don't really see how
to solve it without somehow being able to guarantee the other party will
cooperate. Of course, if it is your wife, I'm sure you trust her a lot and she
trusts you as well, which facilitates the discussion. However, realistically
the vast majority of these discussions will be between people who not only
don't trust each other as much, but they might even see each other as
foes/adversaries.

In that scenario, I'm not sure it's a good idea to "challenge yourself [...]
to go beneath the surface".

~~~
slackstation
While in general, there are sometimes people who feel put upon and don't feel
like answering questions and/or having that difficult discussion of race, a
job interview isn't the place to have it.

The power dynamic is too skewed for you get anything like a real answer to
your question. If the question was designed to see how the interviewee handles
pressure than that's a shit move to do.

Either way it's a terrible question. Also, it's an unfair one because other
white applicants aren't getting this question. By definition, there really
isn't a way for a white interviewer to be able to judge how well the
interviewee responded to "Why isn't it OK to say n __ __r ". It can easily end
up feeling like a personal judgement or worse a judgement on a person's entire
race of which there is no way they could represent every perspective.

The fact that it was in a job interview just shows the that interviewee either
didn't understand the context of the question which is strong evidence that
they are probably a bad manager or they didn't care, which is even stronger
evidence of a bad manager.

~~~
aptwebapps
"The fact that it was in a job interview just shows the that interviewee
either didn't understand the context of the question which is strong evidence
that they are probably a bad manager or they didn't care, which is even
stronger evidence of a bad manager."

By "they" you mean the CEO, right? Because it scans as though you mean the
interviewee.

------
buckbova
> “Why do all the Black kids sit at the same table at school?” ... “Why is it
> no longer okay to say n __ __r? "

WTF. Offensive or not these questions are plain dumb. He must have been trying
to illicit a reaction from Makinde.

Reminds me of the SNL skit where Richard Pryor is being interviewed by Chevy
Chase doing word associations.

[https://vimeo.com/117983862](https://vimeo.com/117983862)

~~~
not_that_noob
My sense is that he was making sure that Makinde wouldn't be too politically
assertive about race issues. Borderline illegal most likely, apart from being
exceedingly and odiously offensive.

~~~
tetrep
> ...he was making sure that Makinde wouldn't be too politically assertive
> about race issues.

I think that gives him far too much credit. It's no different than if you
asked someone "Why is it offensive if I grope you, hit on you, and imply that
sexual favors will advance your career?" It smacks of complete obliviousness
to social issues at best, which would make the interviewer extremely
unqualified to screen interview candidates for anything other than pure
technical qualifications. Which, in this instance, they were obviously
conducting an at least partially non-technical interview.

My suspicion is it's an aggressive move, to make sure that the racially
insensitive and/or offensive status quo can be maintained with the interviewer
betting heavily that their actions would not be called out post-hoc and that
any candidate who was offended would walk away quietly. The people creating
such a climate can claim an attempt at stimulating diversity, but that their
job offers are turned down.

It's unfortunate that we don't know who did this nor does it appear that their
company was contacted/informed about the inappropriate behavior of one of
their employees.

------
vowelless
That was a really ridiculous question to ask. I'm brown and if someone asked
me about middle eastern politics during an interview or worse made some low
quality comment, I would promotly get up and leave. I don't have the patience
for that in a professional setting.

On a separate note

> /dev/color is a community of black software engineers who help one another
> reach career goals. To learn more, check out our website and follow our blog
> & twitter account.

Then why not call it /dev/black? I find it confusing. Does "color" imply
black? I have been called a "person of color" before, due to my brown skin and
middle eastern features.

~~~
killa_kyle
color is any ethnicity that's not "white". In the U.S. it's mostly used to
refer to black people, but Asians, Hispanics, etc are also considered
"colored"

~~~
bluedino
I have never heard of an Asian referred to as a person of color

~~~
chao-
I have never heard an Asian referred to as "colored" in a derogatory manner.

However, I know several Asian Americans (both East Asian and South Asian) who
frequently use the phrase "person of color" with respect to themselves.

------
AndrewKemendo
_Shockingly, his first question had nothing to do with technology. “Why do all
the Black kids sit at the same table at school?” he asked. I was taken aback
but tried to explain the social dynamics that might be at play. He followed
with, “Why is it no longer okay to say n_ __ _r?”_

That's just insane. What on earth would make someone think those questions are
anything relevant to work?

Maybe it's because I'm a "person of color" \- even though I'm not "black" \-
but race is the last thing on my mind when I'm interviewing candidates or
trying to push a new release to production. I've been patted down by store
managers because they thought I was suspicious. I've been turned away from
bars/clubs because I would "cause trouble." None of these things relates to
how I comment on code, implement a design, build some architecture etc...

 _Conversations like this are difficult to have in the workplace, but
ultimately necessary in creating an inclusive environment._

Sorry I disagree here. I don't think they are necessary. It's certainly
helpful to relate to and have a great relationship with your fellow co-
workers, but there are literally hundreds of other aspects of someone's life
to get into other than ethnicity, sexuality or religion - the hottest button
issues around.

That is taking into consideration that race is such a big part of daily life
for black and "dark" people. If nothing else work should be a place where race
questions aren't even in the air.

~~~
T2_t2
> If nothing else work should be a place where race questions aren't even in
> the air.

If only that were possible. Sadly, people have blended their work, public and
private life so much that it seems to me that everything is about everything
now. The concept of different spheres is now dead and buried. I'm not sure
that was a wise move, personally.

I also wonder, now that "meritocracy" is a bad word, what can we use to
promote the idea that you can earn something through talent? I mean, we are
now denied use of the word that literally means "a place where you achieve
based on talent", so how do we even have a discussion about this? It seems the
idea of a workplace where you get what you earn is no longer possible to
discuss, so how it can be implemented is beyond me.

~~~
my_first_acct
A bit off-topic: The word "meritocracy" carried negative connotations even at
its birth. From Wikipedia:

'Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" was
first coined in the 1950s. It was used by British politician and sociologist
Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay The Rise of the Meritocracy, which
pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring
intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else... In this book the term had
distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of
the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes
of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group.'

------
sremani
>>>Ask If It’s Okay. You might have follow-up questions or a thought to add.
Don’t assume I’m ready to, or want to, have a deep conversation about the
issue right then and there. If I’m not ready, be okay with that. What seems
like a simple question for you, might have a deep, complicated response in my
mind <<<

This is exact reason people do not want to go through, talking about race for
many it is like walking on egg shells. Who wants to really do it? Not only
people do not want to feel rejected, but also not be dragged into a drama or
creating more drama.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Just don't ask.

Curious about how race impacts someone's life? Spend time with them. It will
become very obvious without you having to ask anything and you'll get the
benefit of being able to empathize from seeing it first hand.

Or, if you want to really try hard - work against your biological instinct to
segment people into buckets based on physical attributes. Get to know _who
they see themselves as_ rather than how you see them by finding out what is
important to them.

Here is an easy start: Instead of asking "where are you from" a simple and
innocuous question which reveals basically nothing about someone - ask "what
kind of hobbies are you into?"

~~~
int_19h
If you don't ask, then you don't learn. If you don't learn, then you don't
have the data and knowledge necessary to make decisions that affect this. And
you're making those decisions every time you walk to the ballot box, at the
very least.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
There are more ways to learn than asking. Like I said elsewhere, spend time
with the person, get to know them. Make a new friend and experience their
life. Chances are, those experiences dwarf anything else that they might care
about.

 _you don 't have the data and knowledge necessary to make decisions that
affect this_

What decisions are you making that are based on questions like "why do black
people sit together at lunch?"

Look, I get it. Everyone wants to dive deep within someone else experiences
ostensibly to be able to relate better or whatever. There is no shortage of
these stories to be read in books, online or elsewhere. Where in my opinion it
crosses the line is when it's in the work environment.

The only exception I can see for this is if your work revolves around deeply
understanding or catering to a specific racial/other demographic that is not
your own. That's problematic enough as it is, but in those cases it wouldn't
be personal in the same way that these conversations seem to go.

The whole thing is voyeuristic.

~~~
lizzard
Especially so when it is simple to look up what has been written about these
kinds of questions. There is literally a book (quite well known) titled "Why
Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria".

~~~
int_19h
I think that, if someone had to actually write a book like that (and it sells,
so people do want to know), that kinda reinforces my point... ~

------
educar
(I am not black or american) I am going to come across as clueless here but
why is that 'nr' is offsensive for black people.. and yet every movie with
black people has them screaming this word all the time. And the rap music is
filled with them. If they find it offsensive, why do they keep using it.

I have asked this to my local population here but we don't have the necessary
insight into this phenomenon. Is there any parallels to this where it's ok to
call each other something but others cannot call you that (so it can help me
understand better)? Thanks!

~~~
PostOnce
If your mom calls you "honey", it's fine, if some guy you don't know calls you
"honey", perhaps it's not fine. So, there are other examples of names that
have different meanings depending on who is speaking to you.

~~~
wutbrodo
I am non-white and American, so I'm not wondering what the GP comment is, but
this example isn't very helpful at all. It's hardly rare for strangers to call
people "honey" in everyday interactions, and I've been called that by men as
well. Those men generally happen to be gay, but that says more about our
attitudes towards masculinity and the way men can express themselves than
anything inherently wrong with them saying that. The only reason I can imagine
that would bother someone is that they're uncomfortable with homosexuality or
old-fashioned about masculinity. (If this seems wrong to you, consider whether
you'd find it weird if a female waitress or something called you "honey" and
what exactly the difference would be if she was "some guy").

------
abvdasker
For a few minutes after I was done reading Mr. Adeagbo's piece I wondered if
maybe the story of his interview was made up or exaggerated. It's hard to
believe someone would do something that mean-spirited (or perhaps just deeply
insensitive). I thought to myself that, surely, people in tech don't actually
say or do these kinds of things.

But I kept reading comments and the ones at the bottom put my doubts to rest.

~~~
chillacy
I once worked at a large tech company... one of those ruthless fast paced
ones. An interviewer liked to ask dumb things like

"what's your GPA"

<reply>

"Why is it not 4.0?"

or

"where'd you graduate from?"

<your school>

"Why not stanford?"

I can't tell if he did it because it was a useful technique to throw people
off and test them, or if he was just a supreme dick. Either way the
interviewer in the article went too far into illegal mode (interviewer
training 101: never mention race, marital status, military service, etc)

------
tux1968
Trying to imagine a case where this CEO is just inappropriate rather than mean
spirited. The only idea that comes to mind is that the CEO was trying to guard
against racial division. He wanted to avoid a situation where race mattered at
all in his company, and was probing to see if this person was easily triggered
along those lines. While twisted, it makes some sense since a job offer was
actually forthcoming.

~~~
sangnoir
> He wanted to avoid a situation where race mattered at all in his company,
> and was probing to see if this person was easily triggered along those lines

Of all the characteristics/dimensions that makes us human - why would he
isolate race as a potential trigger and why is it important? Would you be
equally ok with similar 'probes' for other start-up out-groups - women, LGBT,
$RELIGION, left-leaners, right-leaners, weight, disablity? I mean, he could
only be probing to make sure you being an Aspie won't matter to the company,
_right?_

~~~
tux1968
What makes you think I'm okay with it?

By the way, are you taking a shot at people afflicted with Asperger's syndrome
by referring to me as an "Aspie"? It seems rather hypocritical of you if
that's true.

~~~
sangnoir
The way you worded your comment sounds like you were justifying the CEOs
behaviour. As for 'Aspie', I wasn't calling you that, but giving an example of
a slur (most of HN would be more familiar with) that a hypothetical CEO might
drop in an interview.

Perhaps my outrage scale is calibrated differently, but why is it to you
'Aspie' is taking a shot, and 'Nigger' is only 'probing'?

~~~
tux1968
Didn't mean to justify the CEO's behavior, rather try to understand it in the
sense of giving someone the benefit of the doubt. What's the best light you
could think of other than him just being a straight out racist. I did say I
thought it was inappropriate and "twisted".

The reason I thought "aspie" was a shot rather than a probe is because you
didn't offer me a job afterward ;-)

------
petegrif
Feels to me like you handled it extremely well on both occasions. Thanks
(really) for sharing.

------
sbilstein
I wish it would be safe for those to out their offenders...I really wonder
which CEO would think to ask such a ridiculous and offensive question.

~~~
Shivetya
Nah, there is little reason to out an offender if there are no witnesses. Then
it becomes another he said/he said type mess and nothing gets fixed.

We have nothing in the story to determine race, background, or such, of the
person asking the question other than to imply they should have known better.
Well some accomplished people truly don't or worse they are beyond reach.
There are some who act out of anger having experienced a bad situation and
apply the reaction to all subsequent meetings with similar.

Sadly the word is bandied about in some crowds including highly technical
groups and sadly bad members of the group normally slighted with the word.

tl;dr ignorance exists at all levels of society but going after it requires an
abundance of proof and sometimes its best to use said occurrences to educate
instead of persecute

------
JustSomeNobody
Anyone giving interviews should completely understand that there are questions
that you're not allowed to ask.

Technology is now hip and cool so we break the rules is no excuse for being
ignorant of how to treat another human being.

------
lizzard
It's a hard decision to make, whether to tell people your perspective from a
marginalized position. They feel bad and don't know what to do with that
knowledge, or how to integrate it with their own different experiences. I love
the bullet points of advice Makinde gives here for people hearing unfamiliar
experiences from their coworkers or friends, to figure out how they can be
okay with that discomfort.

------
st3v3r
"When the recruiter called as congratulated me on getting an offer, I
immediately declined, citing “severe cultural differences.”"

It would have been great to see the recruiter's reaction if they had straight
up said, "It's because your boss asked me why he can't say nigger." Although I
can understand exactly why he didn't say that.

~~~
trhway
>I immediately declined, citing “severe cultural differences.”"

a good guy. An opportunist in his place could most probably have scored a nice
settlement for racial discrimination after few months on the job :)

~~~
st3v3r
I fail to see how he'd be an opportunist considering there's a very real
chance of it happening.

------
mathattack
Courageous post!

------
Frozenlock
I see a myriad of threads about interviews on HN. They all say that you can't
really code in an interview. You don't have your favorite tools nor any real
projet or familiarity with a codebase. These threads will say that the
interview should, at most, be there to help you see if there's a culture fit.

Now you have an interview where the guy asked questions that aren't related to
programming and everyone is up in arms. Maybe it's because he did his
homework? Maybe he already checked M. Adeagbo work and decided he wanted him
in the company?

So now I suppose the interview isn't supposed to be used to check if someone
is a good programmer... but it also shouldn't approach any subject that is
emotional, because by gosh you wouldn't want to know how someone will react on
a sensitive subject.

You guys must have the weirdest social interactions ever. Within an hour of
meeting someone I usually "size" them by throwing curved ball designed to see
what makes them ticks. That is exactly what I would expect in a well designed
interview, especially if you are looking for culture fit.

Frankly, I find that these questions are well designed. Look at how I
immediately answered them:

>“Why do all the Black kids sit at the same table at school?”

"Same reason Asians or Whites will do the same thing under the same
conditions."

What can we deduce? Not much, except that I'm aware of basic biology/human
behavior. Better luck in the next question...

>“Why is it no longer okay to say n __ __r?”

"It is okay, but you need to be of the correct race... and apparently that's
not racist. (with a hint of sarcasm)"

Bingo! Now you known that when I talk of sexism and racism, I use the
dictionary definition, NOT the new "minorities can't be sexist/racist"
version.

And just like that, you know if I'm a good fit. (If it's in SF, probably
not...)

>"/dev/color is a community of black software engineers who help one another
reach career goals."

This is literally a racist club. ---> A group who discriminates based on race.
Now, I have nothing against that... but you can't say a word if white clubs
are created.

------
ps4fanboy
I see people lying all the time in life, about everything, then I read stories
like this and they seem cringe and unreal with no reason to believe they are
true. But there is this pressure to believe them because its about sexism or
racism and we should take this story as true because skepticism is bad, I find
it really difficult to resolve these feelings of distrust, human beings are
just overall untrust worthy.

EDIT: I guess I broke the #ListenAndBelieve rule.

~~~
pastProlog
I don't find it hard to believe. In most of the cases where someone said
something inappropriate, it was at a mostly young startup that had some
success and then hired some older, white, male executives.

At one company, a married black director, my boss, had hired a black woman as
an assistant. A newly hired older white executive was asking around if she was
hired because she was his side girlfriend.

At another company an executive went to a bar with one of the younger guys,
and advised him to always hit on the "ethnic" women.

There's nothing new to what you're saying, plenty of white people in the U.S.
south said there was no civil rights problem back in the 1950s and believed
it. Most of those people thought some Jewish rabbi from 2000 years ago came
back from the dead. People believe what they want to believe.

~~~
ps4fanboy
White men dont have a monopoly on racism.

~~~
nostrebored
>the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or
service

huh, seems like your attempt at hyperbole is actually pretty accurate

------
fiatmoney
At this point it is appropriate to exercise skepticism towards claims of
random acts of racial sadism that just happen to comport with popular "social
justice" narratives.

[http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/reports](http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/reports)

~~~
natrius
lol. Black people are literally getting gunned down in the streets by our
government without prosecution, but you think a couple of outlandish questions
in an interview are implausible. Adorable.

~~~
fiatmoney
Unlike a policeman who shot someone, I would expect actual negative
consequences would accrue to a CEO who routinely behaved like that in
technical interviews, and that _they_ would expect such negative consequences
to accrue.

~~~
natrius
Interviews with black software engineers are not routine. Even if they were,
folks like you would believe that people were making up their stories.

------
Reese1379
Sounds to me like a good test of character. It would be interesting if this
self described 'black software engineer' would tell us who the founder/CEO was
and the name of the company. Why _do_ all the Black kids sit at the same table
at school? Why do all the Asian kids sit at the front of the class? Why is it
ok for rap singers to say nigger but not anyone else? I really want to know.

See another African American dude being racially profiled:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uTP1fdFu0c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uTP1fdFu0c)

~~~
roninb
A test of character? As in, "Are you the kind of person who can be tenacious
enough to work under a manipulative bigot?" I'm trying hard to see your point
of view, despite the baiting.

~~~
Reese1379
It's not baiting, in the wonderful world of work, you can expect to be on the
receiving end of such comments. I speak from a position of experience.

"All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Watching Star Trek"

[http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Know-Learned-
Watching/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Know-Learned-
Watching/dp/0517883864)

~~~
IOT_Apprentice
So the CEO fostered such a culture from literally the start of his interview.
It was a warning, that the CEO was racist and not a place to work at.

------
pessimizer
Looks like somebody is finally trying to replace the BDPA, thank god.

------
known
The scientific way to train white people to stop being racist
[http://qz.com/656159/the-scientific-way-to-train-white-
peopl...](http://qz.com/656159/the-scientific-way-to-train-white-people-to-
stop-being-racist/)

------
gizi
I am non-American mixed-race. I personally consider racism to be -- in and of
itself -- a non-issue. It does not kill you, and everything that does not kill
you, ultimately makes you stronger.

I consider racism to be irrelevant because it mostly is. I can barely imagine
a new situation in which someone would be able to stage a racist attack. I am
probably entirely hedged against those already.

The real problem is always the abuse of government power: "I’ve been
interrogated at gunpoint by police because I fit the description".

So, yes, if they choose the time and the place, they can indeed attack you, if
they so desire. However, it perfectly well works the other around as well. If
you chose the time and the place, it would work too. The only solution that
truly works against the problem of lack of respect, is to inflict respect-
instilling reprisals.

Therefore, the real problem, are your false beliefs in their fake legitimacy.
Hence, in reality, state racism is a problem of religion.

Racism against Muslims pretty much fails, because they are increasingly making
that very practice insanely dangerous. The police are very aware of that. They
know that there will routinely be reprisals. This is the enormous attraction
of Islam. It pretty much solves all the problems of abuse of power, including
state racism.

