[gp90]

> It's extremely racist

I'm not sure if the motive behind such behavior is racism. Instead, I think it's more likely the power play. That is, they would pick the population that is the easiest to command and to push them up the corporate ladder.

[giancarlostoro]

[flagged]

[cess11]

[flagged]

[tomhow]

Please don't comment in this cross-examination style on HN. The guidelines ask us not to do this. Please observe the guidelines if you want to participate here, especially these ones:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Eschew flamebait.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[johnsmith1840]

That's a made up deffinition only recently invented. Racism is hating another group of people based on physical or cultural background.

The US is the most powerful country does that mean if I go to india I can't experience racism because technically India is "weaker" ?

Isn't this example literally a group of stronger indians being racist to weaker individuals (job applicants)?

This also implies they are not hiring black, asian, or hispanic people either but because they're a minority that's ok?

Such a bad take.

[lazide]

Also, having lived in Asia before - Americans are totally amateur racists compared to Asians (well, east, southeast, and south anyway. Never lived in Central Asia).

Those aunties and uncles can discriminate you down to damn near the block you came from, even if it was on the other side of the planet, and tell everyone exactly why you’re a bad idea for reasons even you didn’t know about.

Signed, your good little gwailou.

[DontchaKnowit]

I never understood this redefinition of the word... Racism means prejudice based on race. Period. Thats all it means. Redefining the word like you suggested is moving the political goalposts

[baxtr]

So are you saying that if you were to put white people into a country that is systemically ruled by non-whites, they can’t be racist there?

[oblio]

What about these cases happening outside of the US?

[techbro92]

At certain companies and it’s org structures yeah

[dexwiz]

I made the mistake once of insinuating the reason no else was complaining about current conditions was that everyone else was on a visa. That was pretty much the end of my job there. Which only made me more confident in my opinion in the end.

[pclmulqdq]

[flagged]

[gp90]

How do we draw the line between whatever -ism and Bayesian inferences? You are seasoned manager for years, you found that your fellow countrymen are much more likely to follow your leadership style than any other group of different cultural background. Let's say it's a fact that you identified through years of trial and error. Based on this fact, you decide to hire only certain groups. How is this racism? How is this different from a university has a college list. Any graduate who does not graduate from the list will not have an interview with your company -- It's super narrow minded and it can considered discrimination, but is that some kind of -ism?

[pclmulqdq]

If you're a seasoned manager, you have learned to work across cultural differences. Being a lazy manager who doesn't want to understand how to work with others is shortsighted on its own and is not an excuse for being a racist.

[crazygringo]

> you found that your fellow countrymen are much more likely to follow your leadership style than any other group of different cultural background

Two points.

First: a good, seasoned manager adapts their leadership style to their employees. So the premise is a bit backwards.

But second, let's suppose we use something more valid like "ability to follow instructions". And suppose there are real differences in groups. You still don't stereotype on groups, because lower-performing groups still have high-performing members. So you have your interview examine the actual skill you need on an individual basis. You don't make assumptions based on group membership.

Now, for practical reasons candidates need to be reduced to a reasonable number to interview. That should be done according to personal accomplishments and experience, not groups.

The college you went to is tricky. Only hiring from a select group is not very defensible mainly because it's a bad signal. It reflects mostly your high school test scores and grades, which was years ago. On the other hand, some colleges teach in certain departments better or worse, your grades might matter and depend on the college, etc. So you need to calibrate for a bunch of achievement-based signals where the college name can matter, rather than whitelist only certain colleges.

[sib]

Because, in general, there is more variance within groups than across groups, so you are generalizing that an individual person within a group is more talented / capable / whatever than an individual person from outside that group. Ergo, you are treating that second person "unfairly" due to his / her group membership or lack thereof.

[decimalenough]

Yup. You see this when any org hires a top exec externally: they bring their trusted lieutenants/golf buddies and push out the old brass, and then this repeats down the chain when these hires do the same.

Unsurprisingly, an Indian exec's trusted lieutenants and golf buddies will also be Indian, likely from the same university, caste, etc. They will not be hiring random people just because they happen to be Indian; if anything, there's been plenty of lawsuits over Indians of the "wrong" caste, language group etc getting pushed out.

[relaxing]

[flagged]