This is likely an example why it may not always be a great idea to discuss politics at work. I know a lot of us have strong personal opinions on a lot of subjects, but making sure everyone on my team aligns with my beliefs is likely not conducive to teamwork. Quite the opposite.
If I was not an IC now, I would definitely be trying to cut discussions like that in a bud.
No. Everything is politics. You just happen to be too close and emotionally invested to see it as such. It is fine to hold strong opinions and consider some items 'obvious' or even 'inalienable', but pretending those are all not just a temporary set of values we agreed on as a society is silly.
edit: Even saying 'I am apolitical' is a political statement.
Everything may have a political lens with which it can be viewed, but that doesn't make literally everything "political" in the typical usage of the word. Are all workplace conflicts political? Is all unethical workplace behavior political? Is failure to follow IT security guidelines in the workplace political? It's possible to confidently answer "yes" to all of these questions with the right logical contortions, but at that point we'll have reached reductio ad absurdum.
When you manage a group of people that have to work together while trying to maximize workplace outcomes within existing legal framework, organizations have a professional motivation to cover topics like workplace fairness, bias, respectful behavior, etc.
We are actually in agreement. What we don't seem to agree on is that easiest way for a corporations to avoid this particular pitfall is by not being anywhere near it. Especially in 2022.
> What we don't seem to agree on is that easiest way for a corporations to avoid this particular pitfall is by not being anywhere near it.
I think we disagree in that I don't believe many of these issues can be avoided. If you're seeing caste-based discrimination in your workplace (for instance, just to use an issue that isn't legally mandated to address), any attempt to avoid it is a tacit endorsement of the practice. There are no sidelines upon which to stand.
Except racism (and "caste-based discrimination" is also racism) shouldn't be considered "politics", everybody should be able to agree that it doesn't have a place in a modern company.
According to people like Robin DiAngelo, white people are inherently racist, as she wrote in her book White Fragility.
It’s difficult to say that we can all agree to not be racist when some ideologues from whom’s political ideas companies base DEI initiatives on claim that racism is an immutable characteristic that many of us are born with.
These people often use Trotsky's definition of racism which means they can't be racist towards White people. We should all stop using the word because it means something different to extremists. "Racial bigotry" makes much more sense.
Having public messaging about negative social behavior often results in more of the negative behavior. Studies suggest lots of media about school shootings results in more school shootings. Similarly, messaging about getting help to reduce self-harm results in more self-harm. DARE resulted in no reductions in drug use.
If the people creating these programs/talks don't understand this, they don't deserve the platform. And if they do understand it, they are evil and intentionally trying to make race/bigotry tensions worse. In cases such as this where the relevant psychology of the issue is essential to the career, I tend to assume the worst of anyone doing it.
So the problem shouldn't be discussed? So for security vulnerabilities, disclosing them allows them to be exploited. So 0-days and their corresponding patches shouldn't be discussed or released?
Why is it an exception and why is it not politics? Can you define politics and tell me why "cast-based discrimination" does not overlap with that definition?
I'd posit that 99.999% of people agree racism is bad. It's mostly when the definition gets muddied and expanded that people start disagreeing and it becomes political and touchy.
I don't think it's a matter of definition. Unless you mean "it's not racism when I say it. When I say it it's just a fact".
Whether they use the N word, or saying "being on time" is "whiteness", racism is always defined as "not what I'm doing".
Actually the only real definition of racism I would say is "mentioning race in any way, except the way I do it".
For your 99.999%, I would say that WAY more than one in a hundred thousand would overtly say that their group (race, religion, skin color, gender) is "better" than another. Especially as you leave western countries.
Though in some countries their racism doesn't even place themselves at the top.
27% of Americans say that homeopathy is an effective treatement. I've never met anyone who would admit to this. I know someone who believes in crystals and fortune tellers though.
I don't know how many people are pro-racism, but it's not three orders of magnitude less than people who believe in the power of nothing.
I think the problem is - and that is likely what OP was referring to - that if everything is racism then nothing is racism. And if being on time is racist, I guess everything already is racist.
It is an odd frame of mind.
>>> For your 99.999%, I would say that WAY more than one in a hundred thousand would overtly say that their group (race, religion, skin color, gender) is "better" than another. Especially as you leave western countries.
Is it possible you are conflating racism with xenophobia ( which has slightly expanded to include foreigners )?
No, I'm not conflating. Especially when referring to those (like I mentioned) who don't place themselves at the top. That's the opposite of xenophobia, if anything.
I'm saying one in a hundred thousand is too few. The US has more than 3000 people who judge even by phrenology, I'm sure.
Apart from the morality of the situation, the fact is that racial discrimination in the workplace is illegal in the US (and rightly so, in my opinion). Whether caste discrimination is a form of racial discrimination is the subject of current litigation in California. Given that there are legal requirements the company needs to stay in compliance with, this is squarely outside of "politics at work".
This is likely the only reasonable counter to my opinion so far. That said, is caste of a racial nature? To my understanding it really more of a social construct more tied to ethnicity.
To be clear, race is also socially constructed; they're different cultures' ways of stratifying social categories. That said, all that matters for the law in this case is what the courts say.
It's okay to just admit you don't know something. Here's the American Anthropological Association's public outreach site on the subject, so you can catch up on the relevant science.
This may be where the disconnect is. The definition I provided was from a biology domain and not from humanities domain ( not that there no attempts to do the same in biology ). This is not discredit anthropology as it is a fascinating study. I just do not think it is relevant here.
I do happen to think that, where there are clear physical differences ( gasp ) between white and black people, it may be a good idea not to try to cover it with yet another social construct. Unless, naturally there is a disagreement that there are real physical differences ( for example, if we wanted to move from skin pigment, there are documented issues that affect black people more than whites ). Are those issues racist?
That said, it is somewhat interesting that the main quote on the website provided does not come from a renowned representative of the group, but relatively unknown historian ("[Racism] is not about how you look, it is about how people assign meaning to how you look"). Quite frankly, that is not racism. That is otherism and it goes back to the previous comment about how the waters and definitions are muddied further to pigeonhole something for one reason or another.
To be blunt, there is a good reason for a society ( and its members ) to not be focused on race, but pretending race does not exist is a disservice to that society as it is hiding the reality from its members.
Maybe I am approaching it the wrong way. Maybe I should try Socratic method here.
All of your concerns and questions are addressed in the website, which I recommend that you explore more in depth. The site is not purely from a cultural anthropology point of view, but physical anthropology, as well. As such, it addresses genetics and health issues.
I am mildly amused that you decided to skip over the questions and refer me back to the website, which I already indicated am not perceiving as an authority on the matter.
Still, as a show of good faith, I did just that. Needless to say, I was not impressed, but I would be more than happy to discuss my contentions.
Separately, I also allowed myself to dig deeper under ESI-0307843 that funded this project and one of the first things that came up was an evaluation of the website.
You will note that under 'expectations not fulfilled' some complaints do stand out(1):
-"There are no clear definitions of terms or comparisons of biological race v. social race, ethnicity, etc"
-"I expected to find more scientific studies about races, at least as a complement."
-"Maybe some more information about the concept of ethnicity and 'clear' definitions"
-"I expected a professional explanation given to a public audience as happens with so many effective professionals associated with museums, freshman teaching or public programs in the social sciences and humanities."
-"Everything was about self-reflection and self-confirmation about American
conceptions and categorization. I expected a step beyond that."
-"I expected to find a mention of R. Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence
(Washington Summit Publishers, 2006) for an important exposition."
I think that discussing caste-based discrimination is great for a western company to do. Especially one with a lot of Indian workers. Most western workers/managers have little understanding of this topic, and will probably miss it if a coworker is being discriminated against because of their caste. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
If I was not an IC now, I would definitely be trying to cut discussions like that in a bud.