[unclebucknasty]

>There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me.

Imagine moving to say, Switzerland, to work for a massive corporation. 90% of the employees are Swiss. The other 10% come from a smattering of other countries from around the world. To help those employees acclimate to a new culture and find support, the company sponsors country-based ERGs.

Of course, there is no Swiss ERG, as it's the "default", because the entire company is essentially a Swiss ERG. But, the company encourages its Swiss employees to join the others as a show of support and cultural exchange.

If you had attended one of those groups, you might have found yourself feeling extraordinarily welcome, and even learned a few things about your fellow employees.

>A few of these people were totally inept technically at their job and I saw them convert into better jobs. It must have been nice.

If "totally inept" people are being promoted with any frequency, then that's a problem for any company. I think we have all seen this occasionally but, in my experience, it has very little to do with race (or other identity) and more to do with the Peter Principle and the fact that hiring and HR management is notoriously hard to get right.

I'm not suggesting anything about the earnestness of your observations, but you should be aware that assuming every non-white person you see at a company is the beneficiary of preferential treatment is a bit of a canard. And the idea that a disproportionate number of those are inept is yet another.

As such, whimsical people might draw rather nasty conclusions from your statements, that are other than what you intended.

[mitthrowaway2]

If Swiss and white were the same thing, that would make a lot of sense. On the other hand if you were a Ukrainian refugee or something, learning Swiss-German as a second language and struggling to integrate into the company's Swiss culture, then it might feel extra-alienating if the company suggests you could join the Asian or Indian employee support groups to help you bridge the culture gap.

OTOH, for the same reason, skin-color-based groups don't really make sense to begin with.

[unclebucknasty]

>If Swiss and white were the same thing, that would make a lot of sense

We all have multiple identities. We relate to those identities and others relate to us by those identities—at times, unfortunately. So, you can substitute any identity here, and it still makes sense.

>it might feel extra-alienating if the company suggests you could join the Asian or Indian employee support groups

Not necessarily. There's certainly some overlap in experience, as they are all working to integrate into the same culture.

What you may be missing here is that it's not strictly about which specific group, but also about the fact that the group is not the majority / "culture-defining group".

>OTOH, for the same reason, skin-color-based groups don't really make sense to begin with.

Oh, if only they didn't, my friend. What a world this would be. It's worth noting that it's generally not those "skin-colors" who made these groups necessary. Part of it is just the complicated tribalism of humans. And, yes, another part of it is that some people have taken advantage of that tribalism.

[rqtwteye]

ERG groups provide mentorship and support. The assumption that all white people, males or in this case Swiss don’t need support or get it automatically is plain wrong.

[unclebucknasty]

>ERG groups provide mentorship and support.

Yes, and Google offers a wide range of mentorship/support programs, from those for community college students to upskilling to new hires to tailored programs and more.

>The assumption that all white people, males or in this case Swiss don’t need support

I don't think anyone assumes that. I certainly don't. I'm sure Google provides other means of support to its employees, and ERGs represent just one approach, which address specific needs for specific employees.

What you have to understand is that people are tribal and that can have effects on "outgroups" in any given context. If we're out at lunch and all but one of us is in the same frat, we may unintentionally exclude that person. It's not necessarily intentional or malicious. That's obviously a simplification, but you can extrapolate.

So, ERGs aren't meant to be punitive or exclusionary. In fact, according to OP, Google encouraged all employees to join whichever groups interested them.

[rqtwteye]

But again, why call out specific groups by gender or race and not call out others? Do people really think that a white guy from some poor area has more privilege and needs less support than some person from {insert oppressed group here} whose family is highly educated?

[unclebucknasty]

>But again, why call out specific groups by gender or race and not call out others?

History. There is an undeniable legacy of gender and race-based discrimination. This discrimination was absolutely laser-focused on gender and race, so is it fairer to simply ignore this and call it a wash?

For instance, some estimates of the value of free labor provided by slaves in the U.S. are upwards of $100 trillion, with an amplification effect (including an inverse one), compounding over generations.

>Do people really think that a white guy from some poor area has more privilege...

No. There are programs for people in rural areas, poorer areas, etc. To the extent that these are inadequate, they should also be addressed.

But, it's not just about economics. It's also about culture, socialization, etc.

[BurningFrog]

Straight white men, or even just white people, is in no way the "default" at Google, and very far from the 90% in your allegory.

[unclebucknasty]

>Straight white men, or even just white people, is in no way the "default" at Google, and very far from the 90% in your allegory.

It's not supposed to map statistically on to Google. It's an analogy, intended to remove the problematic political context.

That said, Asian+White does make up 90%+ of Google's workforce, split roughly in half. Interestingly, there's an Asian ERG.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Of course, there is no Swiss ERG, as it's the "default"

Switzerland is a country of three dominant languages. When I worked for a Swiss bank, they had internal groups for, essentially, domestic expats.

[unclebucknasty]

Not surprising. There are different ways to view identity, and none of us are any one thing. Your observation underscores my point that providing support along the lines of identity can be completely benign sans a political context.

That said, feel free to substitute a more homogenous country if that helps to clarify my point.

[JumpCrisscross]

The point is offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people. (I’m not white, for what it’s worth.)

[unclebucknasty]

>offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people.

I understand, but I'm trying to provide a point of view that might make it less unsettling. Otherwise, we're just kind of saying that people find it unsettling, so it must be wrong (BTW, we also can't overlook that there are people who want to make it more unsettling, for reasons).

Anyway, it really comes down to backing up a little to consider why race became a factor. Else, if we simply start the clock at the inception of these groups, then I suppose it should be unsettling.

Interestingly, there are other immutable characteristics that do not trigger that unsettledness. If nothing else, this gives us reason to question why this particular characteristic became so charged.

[JumpCrisscross]

> there are other immutable characteristics that do not trigger that unsettledness

Like what?

> this gives us reason to question why this particular characteristic became so charged

Because it's been a tool of social division. As a result, we've been attuned to it culturally from both sides (separation and integration).

[unclebucknasty]

>Like what?

The Disability Alliance Network (DA)?

I'm assuming that's a good example, because I've yet to see an outcry around disabled people getting unfair advantages.

But, it's really down to any group that has not been socially or politically charged. So, I'd also say things like women's groups, given their historic underrepresentation in tech. However, that's also become charged recently.

So, what we have is this thing of defining what's OK by how people react to it or, maybe more accurately, how people are encouraged to react. That seems potentially unhealthy and infinitely abusable.

>Because it's been a tool of social division.

Exactly. But, it's not just division in the sense of splitting people in half. There's also a historic inequity that corresponds with one side.

Some make the argument that you can't heal division by "dividing further". But, I think it's a little unfair to simply not acknowledge those who have been negatively impacted. The other part is that the existence of a group doesn't have to be divisive in itself. In fact, seeking to understand and support them can be quite the opposite.

[jlawson]

Google is like 45% white, 45% Asian.

Asians have an ERG.

If Whites want to make an ERG, why can't they? What is special about Whites that they must be prevented from doing the thing that literally all others have done?

[unclebucknasty]

>Asians have an ERG.

Google doesn't exist in a vacuum, but in a broader culture (e.g. America). If you're coming from an Asian country, you might still feel alienated or simply want to connect with people who intrinsically understand your culture.

That said, the Asian makeup of Google has increased significantly over the years. I wonder how that has impacted the participation rate in its ERG versus when it was originally established.

>* What is special about Whites that they must be prevented from doing the thing that literally all others have done?*

The dominant culture is essentially the "default" and is somewhat "self-reinforcing", so generally has no need of an identity-based support group. Thus, when the dominant culture does establish an identity-based group, it tends to take on a different meaning.

[jlawson]

> The dominant culture is essentially the "default" and is somewhat "self-reinforcing", so generally has no need of an identity-based support group. Thus, when the dominant culture does establish an identity-based group, it tends to take on a different meaning.

You're being so indirect we're forced to guess at what you mean. Can you please say clearly why you think White must be actually prevented from doing this, when all other groups have already done so?

Not why you think they don't need one - why do you think they must be prevented, even if some of them want to start one?