[monochr]

> Munira had falsified her educational record on her resume to Amazon and all her former employers - claiming to have both a Bachelors and Masters in Computer Science from Stanford when in fact she had earned no degrees at all. There is more detail on this issue and Munira’s pattern of ethical lapses and misleading and deceptive practices later in this letter.

Why is this person still employed, let alone have any responsibility?

[dalek_cannes]

Ongoing internal investigation? Or -- and forgive me, I don't know a universally inoffensive way to broach this subject -- because her being a gender/ethnic minority in her line of work makes Amazon reluctant to terminate her?

[GVIrish]

> Ongoing internal investigation? Or -- and forgive me, I don't know a universally inoffensive way to broach this subject -- because her being a gender/ethnic minority in her line of work makes Amazon reluctant to terminate her?

It's possible, but thus far there is no evidence to suggest that is the case(unless I missed something). Suggesting that, 'maybe they didn't fire her because she's a minority' is exactly the kind of unfounded bias that underrepresented groups have to deal with all the time. If Munira were a white male no one would be saying, "Well maybe he didn't get fired because he's a white male, in a white male-dominated environment."

Jumping to the accusation that this is about race is exactly the kind of thing that makes it difficult for underrepresented groups in tech.

[vnnn]

Munira is exUSSR (Tajikistan).

She put herself in a position where someone higher up in management knew that her Stanford degrees were fake, but nobody else knew. So that someone totally owned her - they could use her as the "dark hand" for literally anything (putting inconvenient people on PIP, fudging inconvenient metrics to advertisers / business partners / executives / etc).

That is probably why she was not fired. If this is actually true, it suggest extreme disfunction in management as well.

[raincom]

Not Tajikistan, but of Bangladesh origin. Bangladesh (Once East Pakistan) is the eastern neighbor of India.

[antimagic]

Employers being reluctant to fire an employee because the employee is a member of a minority is pretty much a myth - particularly in jurisdictions such as the US where employees generally do not have much by way of job security. At best it will just make the employer double-check to make sure they have dotted the Is and crossed the Ts before pulling the trigger.

Also, forgive me, I don't know a universally inoffensive way to broach the subject, but people expressing a fear that minorities are receiving unjust benefits are often racist?

See what I did there?

[petervandijck]

It's not a myth. Legal and HR will explain to you how easily the company can get sued in those cases. It can be VERY hard to let go an employee who is member of a minority (I speak of experience).

[cowsandmilk]

not if you have been properly documenting things for everyone you fire. Amazon fires enough people that they should have procedures in place that make this trivial.

[petervandijck]

For people not familiar with the way things work in the USA, "properly documenting" here means that you need at least a few months of written warnings, an "improvement plan" that then "failed" and such before you can fire someone who just isn't working out at all.

In other words, it's very hard to fire them.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Who the hell documents anything well? I thought we were all programmers here.

Documentation of anything is the most difficult task, the most disliked task, and the most avoided. That's gotta be true no matter what anyone's job is, programmer or not.

[g8gggu89]

Managers?

[deedubaya]

> I thought we were all programmers here.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. I feel the number of top stories on HN are steadily moving away from programming, and that it is more about Entrepreneurship/VC/Business Management these days.

[wmeredith]

Do you have any sources to back up the claim that it's a myth? I'm genuinely curious because my personal experience in the industry for 10 years says otherwise. But that's just anecdotal, and I've never come across a study on it.

[wook36]

Amazon has a termination policy in the offer letter, this is just BS.

[fifthesteight]

> People expressing a fear that minorities are receiving unjust benefits are often racist?

This type of thinking in our industry needs to STOP. There is far too much evidence that women are treated like absolute shit pretty much across the board (don't bother pointing out your handful of CEOs and other execs, if you can't face this fact then you're part of the problem).

If it happens to women, it happens to others.

You sound like you've got some pretty sweet white, male privilege. If you aren't a member of that majority, well they've certainly got you on their side.

[antimagic]

And you sound like you can't read - I was arguing the opposite ;) Or rather, I was putting out there the idea that people that whinge about minorities receiving advantages are racist. But as I was aping the intellectually dishonest argumentative technique of the GP, I didn't actually make that claim, I merely suggested that this was a possibility.

For the record, I'm female, and member of a discriminated against minority, that has previously been fired for membership to said minority. And no, I don't think management in that case paused for even a microsecond worrying about potential backlash from firing a member of a minority (they stated quite clearly in the termination letter that this was actually the reason they were firing me - nice). If they were at all concerned about that, they certainly hid it well...

[fifthesteight]

Surprise surprise hackernews downvotes comments disparaging the rampant misogyny and prejudice in our industry.

[lil_cain]

You're getting downvoted because you've misunderstood the original comment. Antimagic seemed to be pointing out that claiming that Munira was still in employment because she was a member of a protected class was quite probably racist. You replied saying that kind of thing needs to stop, because it's mean to women.

The only sane conclusion from this is you've misread antimagic's original comment.

[a3n]

"Member of a protected class" is probably a more accurate term (if applicable). (IANAL) And if she's a member of a protected class in the US or her state, then yes, any company has to consider the consequences of being involved in a protected class employment suit.

[danielweber]

You can fire for no reason.

You cannot fire for wrong reasons.

Although companies need to worry when firing members of a protected class, and we can debate whether that level of worry is underblown or overblown, lying about your educational record is a smoking gun that would make it trivial to dismiss the employee on the spot if the company wanted to do so.

[yuhong]

One of the reasons I don't like anti discrimination laws. However, I am for allowing the EEOC, anti-trust or similar to order particular sets of companies to stop discrimination for a period of time if necessary, as I mentioned before.

[sremani]

I think your biases are getting best of you, I have seen sufficient number of people of similar ethnic background laid-off and fired. I do not think that is the basis of her employment's continuance. Its very likely that she is willing to do the dark and dirty work, some higher-ups do not want to do.

There is level fascination to mis-direct the causes, let me assure you if people of ethnic backgrounds are so protected - we would not be scratching and clawing at the lower rungs of corporate ladder.

[a3n]

With respect, I don't think you're reading my comment closely enough. I'm not saying that being a member of a protected class protects someone from being fired. I'm saying that a company is likely going to be more careful, and there is an added burden, to be able to demonstrate that that person was not fired in connection with being in that class.

[gregd]

Being a member of a protected class only means you can't be fired for it. However, she can be fired for lying about her credentials.

[tw04]

There's no class in the US that's protected from lying on their resume.

[teraflop]

It should be noted that everybody is a member of a protected class by virtue of their race, gender, etc. It's not something that only applies to minorities, and I wish people would stop perpetuating that misundrstanding.

[danielweber]

A company as large as Amazon has an HR policy that allows for dismissal upon proof of fraud on the job application. Unless the company was worried about how many other people they'd get asked about why they hadn't canned.

(NB: I'm still uncomfortable with how we're discussing her employment as if we were a gossip site, but this is a general policy.)

[dontworryboutit]

as a desi female, we are not included in eeo, tbh. tell me the last time you looked at any one of us and thought, "man, s/he could use a break." never, that never happens. honestly, to me, this circumstance in the letter to the board is the opposite. some idiot desi set-claims herself as a stanford grad and nobody bats an eye. again, no way to prove this to you, but I am desi. i can promise you, everywhere i work, without fail, if there's some random question that involves a degree, they always run to me. i'm always saying "wait, i went to law school, though, i don't get how the urethra works." yeah, no, my take: they just didn't care to check. she probably has dirt on someone or who knows. all we know is they're all a bunch of sleaze regardless of race or gender, iffffff all of this is true and wasn't doctored.

[peakdarkpattern]

Oh, come on.

[TeMPOraL]

I agree. If well played, she could probably unleash a social justice hell on Amazon, and with current media climate it wouldn't even matter if it was fabricated or not.

[deskamess]

After the final analysis, and internal reports, and court cases come by, one person will be found responsible and a few (likely one) who 'did not know everything but perhaps could have stopped things' will be identified. They will both be gone... one of them will be Munira... not sure who the other one will be.

She is still employed for sacrificial purposes. Not saying she is innocent or guilty... just saying that she needs to know, regardless of what happens, the target is on her. She comes across, based purely on the article, as a deceptive/cover-my-butt person who tried to fleece one of their top customers. Easy PR shot for Amazon.

[genwin]

Degrees are only HR filters. Businesses often care more about profit than principles, so many of them don't care about lies that don't lower profits.

[WhitneyLand]

Lots of people lose jobs over falsifying credentials. The higher up the ladder you go the worse it gets for example Yahoo CEO's computer science lie. It's a good idea to even make sure your resume is month accurate to avoid misunderstandings. Degrees shouldn't be required for most jobs but people shouldn't make stuff up.

[genwin]

Devil's advocate: She may be as high as she is because of those false credentials, and Amazon might keep her because she's profitable. Falsifying credentials may have a greater average benefit/cost than actually getting the degree.

IMO it isn't more unethical than what big businesses typically do, like take advantage of unfair tax loopholes. Someone else pointed out that requiring a degree is illegal; if so, I'd say it's ethical for people to lie about their credentials when businesses engage in unlawful behavior by screening for them.

[anonymous1651]

Actually she got promoted to director recently...

[vnnn]

Like I was writing above, she put herself in a position where someone higher up in management knew that her Stanford degrees were fake, but nobody else knew. So that someone totally owned her - they could use her as the "dark hand" for literally anything (putting inconvenient people on PIP, fudging inconvenient metrics to advertisers / business partners / executives / etc).

Now that this is public, things will change for her, for sure ...