Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4975)	2/5/2001 3:32:50 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Since you ask- I think you acknowledge that all people at the table come there with certain assumptions some of which are bound to be based on race. You acknowledge that some black employees are bound to feel they are not being promoted because they are black (this is going to be true, and I think it relieves tension to bring it to the surface) and that many (most, maybe all) white employees hold some negative assumptions about black people, that may interfere with communication. You might even discuss these assumptions and analyze how society reinforces them- and how it does so insidiously in many cases. You probably need to discuss whether the races bring different expectations to the table about what a good communicator is, and what an articulate person is. Different classes of people seem to have different ideas about communication, and different races of people are often in different classes. Some people may be very articulate in their own communities but be unable to cross over, because they don't realize they need to. If this issue is not explored they will never understand why they may need to. I would argue that white politicians are often not very articulate, or very good communicators, with black citizens and vice versa. Much criticism is made of Sharpton by whites, and I have said frequently that I do not care for Jackson- his speech patterns annoy me, but I am not black- and by observation I note that he seems to be considered very articulate by his own community. He is not communicating to me, but he is communicating to others.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4975)	2/5/2001 6:13:36 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Someone from the outside noticed that our spokespeople are disproportionately white. We are sensitive to the implications of that so we form this committee to address the problem. The committee, typically, is a very diverse group in terms of race, gender, age, position in the organization, etc. The group is trying to analyze the problem. I'm part of this committee. Part of the problem is that some people assume that having people from one race, or ethnic group or religon or whatever disprotionately represented means that some one is being discriminated against unfairly. This is not necessarily true, but saying it is not true is not always an acceptable answer politically. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (4975)	2/6/2001 6:04:40 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You gave a good description of a real human problem, and I think it is not racist to have perceived what is there to be perceived. I worked once for an organization that spent an enormous amount of money -- enormous -- trying to recruit qualified black applicants for mid and top level positions. The competition for these individuals was intense, and the top of the organization continued maddeningly to be uncomfortably white. Blacks who were successfully recruited tended to leave quickly-- understandably. Many offers came their way. At every conference black employees would express rage at this situation, calling the organization racist. Everybody who expressed rage was asked for suggestions, put on committees, hired on contract-- anything to remedy the situation. Money was thrown at every suggestion. Underqualified/underexperienced blacks rose into positions for which they weren't prepared, and sometimes performed badly, and were nonetheless retained, to the detriment of the program. Criticism of poor performance was liable to result in accusations that the one criticizing it was racist. This had the inevitable result. I had a black graduate of NYU who had been in an affirmative action program tell me, during an interview, that he had a degree in "Pubic Administration." He repeated it. I asked him to write it down. He spelled it as I just did. Rather stunned, I asked him to tell me what he had studied to get his degree. He said, "Overseas." I asked him for the title of some book on the subject he'd found interesting. He could think of no book at all he'd ever read on the subject in which he majored. This individual had been interviewed by several people before he got to me. A lot of money had been spent on him by the time he reached my desk, and... I let him go to his assignment. Which resulted in humiliation for him. His assignment was in Africa, and the educated Africans with whom he worked were appalled at his level of competence and not afraid of saying so. I don't think the well-meaning recruiters did him a favor, and wonder if what they did to him -- for him -- could fairly be called racist. I reject any implication of racism in the fact that in the wake of this and similar experiences, I found myself worrying if, when filling an important post, I noted that the degree that had been obtained by the applicant might suggest a lesser level of competence that I had once assumed such a degree implied. I can say truthfully that I never acted on those worries. I took degrees at face value.