
Netflix Fires PR Chief After Use of N-Word in Meeting - anatoly
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jonathan-friedland-exits-netflix-1122675
======
redthrowaway
So let's be clear about what happened, here.

During a meeting about offensive words in comedy, Friedland said the word
"nigger". We don't know the context, but we do know that people who were in
the room with him were uncomfortable with his using it.

Later, he met with two black employees to talk about his use of the word
during the meeting about offensive words. During this meeting, he used the
word again.

Now, I can appreciate the incandescent radioactivity of that word. I can, I
think, begin to imagine what a black person might feel upon hearing a white
person say it.

But at some point we have to be able to talk about words as words. If you're
having a discussion about offensive language, the demand that one word be
euphemized is infantile. So, too, if you're having a discussion about some
people's reaction to the use of that word. We have to be able to recognize
that the discussion of a word as a word, and the use of that word as an
epithet, are completely separate phenomena.

By way of illustration, if a sociologist were to conduct a study about the use
of racial epithets among various groups of people, would you expect them to
publish a paper that analyzed the use of "the N-word", or would you expect
them to analyze the use of the word "nigger"? If the former, why? Of what
stuff is built this wall of timid prevarication?

------
Jedd
There's a few things about this (specifically and in general) that are
frustrating.

Writing 'the n-word' is similar to saying 'the f word' or 'the c bomb' \-
everyone knows what we're referring to, and I suspect many simply mentally
substitute the actual word as they read.

There's some Le Guin style 'power of true names' thing going on with the
myriad words that are somewhere on the sensitive-to-offensive spectrum for
whoever you may be talking to or near.

It's especially tricky for non-USA persons, as a lot of US pop-culture is
exported, and it comes bundled with a surfeit of political, social, and
historical cruft we are expected to track.

In AU it famously caught out one of our comedians in 1979 during an award
show, when he used the word 'boy' with Muhammad Ali [1] -- spectacularly
neither the host, nor pretty much anyone watching in the ballroom or at home,
had any idea it meant something other than someone younger than you, let alone
something derogatory.

The wonderful comedian Reginald D Hunter has a strong opinion on the matter --
basically that as long as we all keep skirting around certain words they'll
maintain their regrettably powerful effect over people -- but he has the
benefit of being in a demographic (black _and_ a comedian) that, by social
convention, can casually drop the word. Anyway, I love the idea, but I have no
idea how we can get there from here.

[1] Search: bert newton muhammad ali

~~~
rayiner
Let me respectfully submit that you’re missing the point. The N word continues
to have power in the US because black Americans continue to be second class
citizens in their own country. They live shorter lives, are more likely to be
unemployed, make a third less income, are much more likely to be imprisoned,
etc. Across the country they continue to live in the same neighborhoods their
parents or grandparents were segregated into. Compare slurs addressed to
Italian and Irish Americans which, though impolite, probably won’t get you
black listed, because Irish and Italians reached economic and social parity
with the rest of the country.

Using the N-word is bad if you’re not black not because the word has any
power, but because it is a litmus test for whether you acknowledge the reality
of racial disparity in the US or instead choose to deny it. It can be hard for
foreigners to understand, sure, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate. There’s
lots of testy subjects in societies all over the world.

~~~
earenndil
I disagree. I 100% agree with and accept that racism is a huge problem, and
that black people are definitely at a huge disadvantage in a number of areas.
HOWEVER. I think that white people using it is fine as long as it's not
serious, targeted harrasment. It's not a litmus test because it finds in me a
false positive.

~~~
tptacek
It's not up to you. There is something resembling a consensus among black
people and the very large number of people who agree with you about the
problem of racism in America that using the word --- even to sing along to a
hip-hop song --- signals that you don't care about the word, and are willing
to use it casually. _You are free to disagree with that consensus_. But
knowing about it, and using the word anyways, makes a statement. You can't
pretend not to know, and people won't care if you try. And there is no amount
of message board reasoning you can apply that will reliably scramble the
signal you send when you use the word.

You might get lucky --- hell, you'll probably usually be lucky --- and no
consequence will befall you for saying the n-word. But eventually your luck
will run out.

That's what happened here!

Notice that Netflix makes it pretty clear that this chucklefuck had an
opportunity to climb out of the hole he dug for himself. There was a black
Netflix employee group. He apparently even addressed it, after the incident.
_And didn 't mention what he'd said_. He's not a recent arrival to this
country; he's a well-to-do middle-aged white executive. What would it have
cost him to mollify their concern? How much sympathy can you muster for him?

Also, it's not like this is unique to black people and the N-word. LGBT people
have similar words and we have reached similar detentes about them.

~~~
b6
> It's not up to you.

It's as much up to me as anybody else. I won't be discounted because you think
I don't have the right skin color to have a valid opinion.

> There is something resembling a consensus among black people

I doubt you have any reliable way of knowing whether your claim is true, but
it wouldn't matter if it was. I simply don't respect your, or anyone else's,
racist notions about what skin colors entitle the wearer to say certain words,
any more than I would respect racist notions about who gets to use which
drinking fountain.

I have no desire to say that word, but if I want to use it, I will, as is my
right as a human, and if someone wants to persecute me because they think my
skin color does not authorize me to that word, that is their own racist, neo
tribalist, re-segregationist thing, and nothing I've done wrong.

~~~
tptacek
It feels like maybe you stopped reading 1-2 sentences in.

------
abnry
Obviously the guy should have been fired if the intent was to offend or
demean. Personally, I would never in any circumstances use the word. But do we
or don't we want black culture to shape all of american culture? The word
shows up in movies, TV shows, and music that white people consume and enjoy.
When a word is offensive enough that it is derogatory when a white person uses
it no matter the context, but okay for a black person, that is a cultural form
of separate but equal. Either make the word something everybody can say or
nobody can say. I vote the latter but if black people truly want to reclaim
the word as a positive, then I am okay with that as long as anybody can use
the word (at least with positive intent).

EDIT: Black people took a word that meant something horrible and made it into
such a good thing among themselves that even white people want in on the
goodness of the word. How is that not a huge cultural achievement that they
should be proud of and allow the broader culture to take up? Doesn't it show
the strength of their community to make something awful into something good?

~~~
jaas
I think this is the best answer to your question:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO15S3WC9pg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO15S3WC9pg)

~~~
abnry
Thank you for sharing. I accept the first half of his argument, which is why I
don't use certain words. However, Coates gives himself the freedom to use
certain words he would not himself use in situ. The news article posted
appears that there is a word that white people cannot utter in any context,
even in describing why they don't use it.

~~~
threatofrain
I think his context is as a speaker on stage speaking in a meta way. Did he
successfully predict audience reaction?

------
22junethrowaway
Reed Hasting’s letter is coming from a point of view I find very strange.

>The first incident was several months ago in a PR meeting about sensitive
words. Several people afterwards told him how inappropriate and hurtful his
use of the N-word was, and Jonathan apologised to those that had been in the
meeting. We hoped this was an awful anomaly never to be repeated.

Guy slipped up, apologized, and was warned. Makes sense to me.

> Three months later he spoke to a meeting of our Black Employees @ Netflix
> group and did not bring it up, which was understood by many in the meeting
> to mean he didn’t care and didn’t accept accountability for his words.

Why was he expected to bring up unintentional mistakes made months ago? At
what point can someone be allowed to let bygones be bygones?

> For non-Black people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no
> context in which it is appropriate or constructive (even when singing a song
> or reading a script). There is not a way to neutralize the emotion and
> history behind the word in any context. The use of the phrase “N-word” was
> created as a euphemism, and the norm, with the intention of providing an
> acceptable replacement and moving people away from using the specific word.
> When a person violates this norm, it creates resentment, intense
> frustration, and great offense for many.

Perhaps I’m not coming from the same cultural background as Reed (or his PR
advisers) I don’t really understand how the mere utterance of a word, without
the intention to offend or even to use it as anything other than a descriptor
for the word itself, can be this offensive. For my part, I’m trans, and I
don’t feel “resentment, intense frustration, and great offense” when I hear
people speaking slurs referentially, as long as they’re trying to refer to the
words themselves as opposed to using them as labels for a person or group.

I would find it very helpful if someone can explain this to me.

~~~
evook
> I don’t really understand how the mere utterance of a word, without the
> intention to offend or even to use it as anything other than a descriptor
> for the word itself, can be this offensive.

You call that concept facism.

------
earenndil
> For non-Black people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no
> context in which it is appropriate or constructive (even when singing a song
> or reading a script)

Alright, I'll ask it: why? Or, perhaps a better question: how can you justify
saying that there are situations in which it is constructive for a black
person to say it but not for a white person? Is this not simply its own form
of racism? As a word, I understand that it has cultural charge, but why should
people's right to speak a word be derived simply from who they _happened_ to
be born to, an event completely outside of their control?

~~~
dwaltrip
There's no "rights" at play here. It's just moral and social norms.

Black people took ownership of the word. White people using it is
disrespectful to that fact, as well as to the complex, terrible history and
large impacts that history is still having even today.

~~~
earenndil
Once again, I ask: why, because someone happens to be born black, do they get
'ownership' of the word? What does it even _mean_ for an ethnic group to have
ownership of a word? A single word doesn't have enough meaning to express a
complete idea.

~~~
dwaltrip
You don't have to agree that they have ownership. There are some people who
disagree. It's an emergent phenomenon. There is no committee that decides
this. But you would be fighting a difficult uphill battle, one that doesn't
seem to have much upside (from my perspective).

The word's complex meaning is found in its enormously rich historical and
cultural contexts.

------
lwhalen
I think Johnathan Friedland is really wishing right now that his comments were
evaluated within the context of the content of his character, and not the
context of the color of his skin.

------
Rebelgecko
>For non-Black people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no
context in which it is appropriate or constructive (even when singing a song
or reading a script).

That kind of rings hollow while Netflix continues to offer movies in which
non-Black people use this word-that-shall-not-be-named.

~~~
b6
Also, we should not have some racial criterion for whether somebody gets to
utter a word.

~~~
dwaltrip
People don't make up rules for this. There's no committee that arbitrarily
decides. It's an emergent social norm.

------
tejohnso
"Three months later he spoke to a meeting of our Black Employees @ Netflix
group..."

Wait, what? Black employees have a "group"?

How many different race, culture, sexuality, and gender identity groups are
there at Netflix? Is this internal corporate tribalism an American tech
company thing?

~~~
eesmith
Every large company I've visited in Europe seems to have an ex-pat group,
based around the cultural identity of "foreigner".

I don't see why a (say) large French company would blink at (say) Swedish
employees having an employee group of people interested in Swedish culture,
who have a Swedish-style coffee break once a month, and organize events around
midsummer and other holidays.

Do you think a Swedish employee group at Crédit Agricole is a problem?

You make "internal corporate tribalism" sound like a bad thing. Is a
photography club also internal corporate tribalism?

~~~
tejohnso
> "Do you think a Swedish employee group at Crédit Agricole is a problem?"

For the employees, I would think it strange that they group themselves as such
within the company since their common interest in Swedish culture has nothing
to do with Crédit Agricole. If they want to organize events around midsummer I
would expect them to conduct all of that organizing outside of the business.

I don't think it's a _problem_ for them, but I guess I just find it somewhat
inappropriate.

For the company, yes, I think it's closer to being a _problem_. I would think
there's a near 100% chance that there would be some kind of HR related issue
that comes about because of the existence of this group. Doesn't matter how
innocent it is. Someone, at some point, is going to have an issue, and there's
just no good reason for the company to allow it. Employees can gather for
their special coffee meetups and plan holiday events outside of the business.

~~~
eesmith
Could you explain more what "nothing to do with Crédit Agricole" means?

I assume a company is interested in the physical and mental health of its
employees. Every large company I have visited has internal employee groups for
all matter of topics; sports, movies, gardening, art, jogging, and more.

An expat organization can help people get over the culture shock of working in
a French company.

Surely "there's a near 100% chance that there would be some kind of HR related
issue that comes about because of the existence of" any of these groups, yes?

Yet we see that most companies have such groups.

Could it be that there are benefits which outweigh the possible negatives?
Because that's my impression of why companies allow these groups to use
company resources.

~~~
tejohnso
> Every large company I have visited has internal employee groups for all
> matter of topics; sports, movies, gardening, art, jogging, and more.

> Yet we see that most companies have such groups.

There's a significant culture difference between us then. My experience is the
opposite. I've _never_ seen that. Not saying it doesn't exist, but it's
strange to me. I don't doubt that a group can be useful or interesting. In
fact I've joined expat groups through meetup.com when I was traveling abroad
for months at a time and completely understand the benefits. It's just the
idea of having it associated with the corporation I find odd.

Next up: Employees for Palestinian Freedom. At Netflix!

~~~
eesmith
It's very hard to find public facing information about internal organizations,
but here are some examples:

[https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jcalev/2009/09/30/a-great-b...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jcalev/2009/09/30/a-great-
book-for-a-greater-cause/) shows there is/was a Microsoft Photography Club.
They produced the book at [http://www.blurb.com/b/833258-photographers-
microsoft-2009](http://www.blurb.com/b/833258-photographers-microsoft-2009) .

But that's in the US, so what about Sweden?
[https://www.fsy.se/azfotoklubb/digitala.asp](https://www.fsy.se/azfotoklubb/digitala.asp)
(via Google Translate) shows that AstraZeneca's photo club has a room at
AstraZeneca for their equipment.

Or the Accenture in the Philippines; quoting from
[https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-
Accenture-...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Accenture-
RVW16320775.htm) "They have several clubs for hobbies like Photography Club,
Move for dancers, Accenture Pool Band for musicians, Gamers for people who
love sports, Run for runners, Working Moms for women/mothers and many other
more. Each club have fun activities that saves us breathers from work. You'll
get to connect with the others that has the same interest as you."

Or Accenture in Ireland - [https://www.accenture.com/ie-en/Careers/team-
culture-club-so...](https://www.accenture.com/ie-en/Careers/team-culture-club-
society) . "Joining one of Accenture’s many clubs and societies is a great way
to relax whilst expanding your network within Accenture.

One of the Accenture clubs in Ireland "aims to promote the use of the Irish
language and members engage with fellow Irish speakers within Accenture." \- a
club based on national/cultural identity, yes?

The companies involved with the Ariane rocket have a yearly shared sports
event, with teams from the different companies. Eg,
[http://www.arianecross2015.com/](http://www.arianecross2015.com/) ,
[http://arianecross2016.com/](http://arianecross2016.com/) , and
[http://arianecross2017.com/](http://arianecross2017.com/) . The last two show
that it was organized with the involvement of the companies, and not all done
on personal time.

I can well believe that we may have difference experiences.

------
ironjunkie
American political correctness on full display.

Edit because I realize that I'm going to be super downvoted: I understand the
history and the reasoning behind it, and I would agree with the termination as
it is "American" common sense. But coming from another country it is still
strange to me that there are a couple of well defined words that are
COMPLETELY forbidden, and that saying any of those words will immediately
terminate any job, relation, everything that you worked for.

~~~
ceejayoz
It may seem strange to someone from another country... but there aren't that
many countries that fought a massive, traumatic, bloody war over the issue of
slavery. Add in Jim Crow, which only ended about 50 years ago, and you'll find
things are a little more fraught than they might be in countries that
peacefully abolished slavery (or didn't heavily practice it in the first
place).

~~~
scarface74
The idea of “White spaces” is still prevalent just not legal. I go to plenty
of places where people look at my family like we don’t belong.

I was driving around my own neighborhood looking at a house they were building
behind ours (no one owned it and they didn’t even have the drywall up) and
someone was looking at me like I was scoping the unfinished house out and kept
looking until I drove in my garage.

Another time I was outside dressed in slacks and a polo after coming home from
work talking to the (White) yard guy who was covered in grass and one of the
neighbors just walked up and started talking to him asking about how long as
he lived in the neighborhood completely ignoring me.

This happened in the South in the 80s...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0)

~~~
abnry
That really stinks. I am curious, do you see as cultural restrictions on the
N-word as a way to make a sort of verbal "black space?" Do you think it is
appropriate to counter white spaces by making black spaces or do you think it
is better to tear down all race-based spaces?

~~~
scarface74
I never thought of language being a verbal “space” but it makes sense.

But it’s not only in Black culture. There was a Supreme Court case about an
Asian band wanted a trademark on “The Slants”
([https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-racially-
offens...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-racially-offensive-
trademarks-are-now-legally-protected)). I think it’s domething that many
minority cultures do.

Black people don’t need to go out of our way to create spaces - as soon as too
many of us move into a neighborhood it will be done for us. (Is gentrification
still a thing after the real estate crash in 2008?)

------
b6
This is extraordinarily stupid. I fear people in the US are living under some
form of mass psychosis about this topic.

I grew up in the south. It's been probably 30 years since I heard anyone use
the dreaded word in the traditional derogatory and demeaning way. But, like
every other American, I've heard it used thousands upon thousands of times in
the new way, and I know exactly what it means: _" man", or sometimes just
"person"._ That's all it means. I wish that word had died long ago. But it's
still here, for better or worse, and everyone knows it means man/person.

Did the people who supposedly took great offense at the use of this word take
great offense at its usage by other people throughout daily life, including
being used in probably thousands of programs on Netflix itself?

------
Teeer
> For non-Black people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no
> context in which it is appropriate or constructive (even when singing a song
> or reading a script)

That last part is pretty silly...

------
guiambros
> _" Leaders have to be beyond reproach in the example we set and
> unfortunately I fell short of that standard "_

vs.

> _" Thanks. Rise high, fall fast. All on a couple of words...."_ [Later
> deleted]

Something tells me that even after being fired, he _still_ doesn't get it.

For someone who leads a team specialized in communicating with the public,
seems incredibly tone deaf.

~~~
randyrand
which makes sense. Because it's incredibly stupid.

His use was descriptive, and descriptive use of the word is not how it was
used in the past. Sure, maybe some people get offended - let them be. American
society has a victimhood complex and we should stop playing into it - it only
encourages it.

We're not in preschool anymore. If someone descriptively saying a word offends
you so much, you need to grow up.

------
nailer
> I was insensitive in speaking to my team about words that offend in comedy.

If you're offended about words that offend you may not want to work in an
industry where they're discussed.

~~~
ceejayoz
Somehow, I doubt Netflix's head of PR is sitting in the writers room for a
Chris Rock special.

~~~
twtw
He said the word in a meeting regarding the use of "sensitive words" in
comedy.

~~~
ceejayoz
If you're the head of _public relations_ at a multi-billion dollar company,
and you don't know to say "n-word" instead of the actual word, that seems like
grounds for firing with cause.

That's like being an accountant who can't add.

~~~
nailer
> That's like being an accountant who can't add.

No, because he didn't use it in a press release. He used it in a meeting with
(presumably) professional adults who should be able to understand intent.

~~~
ceejayoz
He's the head of a department responsible for _dealing_ with these sorts of
fuck-ups. A PR professional should easily know "I probably shouldn't ever say
n----r".

------
austincheney
> It recounts an incident that occurred "several months ago" when Friedland
> used the N-word during a meeting with Netflix public relations staff during
> a discussion about "sensitive words." Several people told him they were
> offended by his use of the full word, according to Hastings's memo.

[http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/22/news/companies/netflix-
spoke...](http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/22/news/companies/netflix-spokesperson-
n-word/index.html)

Sensitive, like the recent internal protests at Google, Amazon, and Microsoft
over political matters.

* Amazon - [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/amazon-workers-t...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/amazon-workers-tell-bezos-to-stop-selling-facial-recognition-to-police/)

* Microsoft - [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/technology/tech-companies...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/technology/tech-companies-immigration-border.html)

* Google - [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html)

Due to this degree of social sensitivity I will never relocate to the west
coast for employment.

~~~
sundaeofshock
Just to be clear, you want to work in an environment where you can say racist
things with impunity. Is that really how you want to present yourself on HN?

~~~
tntn
it seems somewhat expected that someone might say a "sensitive word" in a
meeting intended to discuss "sensitive words." Firing the guy for saying a
word they were talking about seems strange - must that meeting be full of
ambiguous euphemisms? How do you discuss a thing without being allowed to say
it?

~~~
ceejayoz
> it seems somewhat expected that someone might say a "sensitive word" in a
> meeting intended to discuss "sensitive words."

No more than "we're discussing a murder" means you have to commit one.

> How do you discuss a thing without being allowed to say it?

"Let's not say the n-word." See how easy that was?

------
mkempe
How can someone rise to such a position _and at the same time_ be so stupid as
to talk like that?

~~~
ironjunkie
Two sides here:

\- He is stupid to not know the social untold rules, such as never say the
"n-word".

\- Those untold rules are also so stupid to start with. How is it ok to say
the "n-word" but not the original form. They are the same thing.

~~~
randyrand
The way rectify #2 is to stop following #1. He was doing his part.

------
RickJWagner
Inexcusable. No person-- black, white, otherwise-- should use that word.

~~~
atom-morgan
Why?

