Long live wickerman!
You know, All this smacks of the racism of low expectations.
I think we should be well past the point of assuming that black people (however the hell you define that) are not intelligent and perceptive enough to grasp context and to know when a word…any word…is being used maliciously as a racial slur and when it isn’t.
We should also be past the point of assuming that white people (however the hell that is defined) are equally incapable of exercising judgement and being thoughtful regarding the use of language and are inherently incapable of using such a word in an inoffensive context.
All of that is bullshit to me. Prejudiced, condescending, infantilising, insulting, divisive bullshit. It moves the needle of tolerance and harmony forward not one jot.
And let’s be clear on one thing, there is no such thing as a context free word. It is only context that gives any word meaning (and any associated power)
The point is that the second meeting where he didn’t say it was mentioned as one of the major factors leading to his dismissal. Thus [list=A][li]he used the N-word (descriptively) in a meeting, []people are offended, []he apologizes, three months later in a meeting he doesn’t use the N-word and doesn’t mention anything about it, []people are offended, []they bring up that he used it descriptively three months ago, and [*]he gets fired. [/list] C and D are the weird parts.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
That’s not how I read the memo. It seems to me that it was:
A) He used it in a meeting, people were offended, he apologized
B) He used it in another meeting, people were offended (not sure if he apologized)
C) He didn’t mention either of these incidents in a 3rd meeting, people were offended
D) CEO finally learns about the second incident (B) and fires him.
So, it seems to me that there were at least two times that the word was used in meetings.
Given that the 3-months later meeting was specifically with a Black employees group, and the fact that he didn’t bring up the first incident was somehow noteworthy and negative then, I’m assuming it was somehow pertinent to the subject of that meeting. Possibly something about transformation or company culture or some such.
He wasn’t fired for being a racist - nothing in the articles suggests he was even accused of such. He was fired for being shitty at communicating to a given minority audience, which is a fatal flaw for, yanno, a “top communications executive” at a company that’s apparently trying hard to be transformative and progressive. Dude clearly could not read the fucking room.
<Dibble makes note to renew Netflix account for another year…>
This sort of argument always presupposes that white people are making a big thing out of something that black people don’t care about. But this is not the case. Black people tend to lead the charge in these sorts of things.
Unfortunately, in this case, we can’t parse out of the memo exactly who complained. I can infer that the way Hastings talks about his own evolution on the topic that he was lectured by some black people on the issue, but I can’t prove that.
So, instead, I decided to look for black backlash to his firing. If the issue is as you state, then this should not be difficult to find. If black people think that white people are speaking for them, forcing opinions they don’t agree with, there should be no shortage of black people saying Friedland should not have been fired.
Maybe I’m just not coming up with the right keywords, but I am sure not finding it.
Yep, though the second meeting seems to have been more private.
The second incident, which I only heard about this week, was a few days after the first incident; this time Jonathan said the N-word again to two of our Black employees in HR who were trying to help him deal with the original offense. The second incident confirmed a deep lack of understanding, and convinced me to let Jonathan go now.
He was in a meeting with two black HR people who were trying to help him understand the offense. There he explicitly “said the N-word again,” so there were definitely two incidents of the word’s usage.
MrDibble has said what I was going to say about the final meeting.
I’d say exactly the opposite, no huge thing is made of it by either side because the lazy assumption and acceptance is that it must be wrong in any and all circumstances and* of course* white people can’t be trusted with that word and of course all black people will be offended by any and all usage.
That’s the bit that seems patronising to all concerned.
I really do think people are overthinking this. If I’m the CEO and weighing whether my lack of action on this matter will cause me a non-zero number of quality minority employees (whether discussing recruitment or retention), it’s an easy call.
It seems like there was an intervention of some sorts to get through to this guy, and when it became clear he couldn’t be coached through it, he had to go.
Now, I guess we can talk about whether there’s a similar risk in allowing minorities more latitude in using slurs among themselves- I suppose we’d need a third party complaint to test that. But does that type of behavior actually bother people? Or are we again going to get into the weeds about this mythical white person so offended that he overheard a black man refer to another black man as ‘mah niggah’ that he went to HR over it?
Pro tip: you can have that bill auto-paid so you don’t have to actually renew.
If he already apologized after the first incident, why did HR need to help him understand? Nobody seems to think he was using the word derisively in either instance. Zero tolerance policies mean zero common sense. Which, to be honest, is fine in some cases as long as everyone understands that the policy is ZERO TOLERANCE.
Missed the edit window: If the guy was being insanely obtuse, I can see how getting rid of him was the right call. It’s hard to say if that was definitely the case based on the memo.
I assumed that the HR meeting was kind of a standard coaching session as a result of the incident. His apology covered past behavior, but HR was trying to mitigate risk by ensuring he didn’t do it again. Given that he couldn’t get through that meeting without doing it again, I’d say the concern was warranted.
I prefer *not *having things auto-renew.
IANAL, but I’m guessing they could get away with it based on the disparate impact argument. (Similar to prison guard gender regs treat male and female guards and prisoners differently WRT to things like strip searches.)
I’d also be willing to bet that the policy is more general, and not restricted to the N-word. ‘Don’t use language that you know or have reason to know constitutes a slur based on protected class identity either directly to or in the presence of an individual that you know or have reason to know is the historical recipient of such language. If such language is appropriate to the context of a policy discussion, every effort should be made to minimize the impact of the aforementioned language upon the audience. Failure to do so will result in sanctions up to and including separation from employment.’
From the memo (lifted from Shodan’s post earlier):
So the two uses were as follows:
(1) In the context a meeting discussing sensitive words, i.e. clearly not used abusively toward anyone. He failed to follow the practice of censoring it as “n-word”.
(2) In a discussion with two (black) HR employees a few days later.
It’s seems likely that (2) was a situation where he was expressing disagreement with the HR reps that uncensored reference to the word in context (1) is inappropriate. That conversation could have gone a number of ways, and without hearing that conversation I think it’s really difficult to judge whether he should have been dismissed.
A non zero number of quality minority employees is a ridiculous standard. As a CEO one of the most important jobs is to establish a company culture. If you establish a culture where being offended gives people power, then more people are going to be offended. If you establish that people can get fired for stupid reasons, then more smart people are going to not want to work there. This is especially true for Netflix since they are making movies and TV shows and letting potential employees know they can be fired for using certain words regardless of context is not going to attract creative types.
And if you frame the argument as ‘mere offense’ then of course any response seems to be overly harsh. Systemic issues are tricky that way.
I mean, you all know that (non quid pro quo) workplace harassment manifests 99% of the time as verbal or written, right? And that pretty much every standard is either ‘pervasive’ OR ‘sufficiently severe’ to be a violation? Are we suggesting that use of the N-word doesn’t rise to the level of ‘severe’? If not, what would?
Edited to add: As for non-zero, that’s my discussing the issue as market based. it isn’t all necessarily, or even primarily, personal ideology here. Ask yourself, if you are an aspiring person of color, whether this decision makes you more or less likely to consider Netflix as a possible employer.
HR is ALWAYS going to talk to a person if they’ve done something like this. They are going to give him some education (or some form of ‘Sensitivity Training’) to make sure he never does it again (or rather, covering their own asses if he does do it again - “we tried”).
ISTM that the question is whether using the N-word descriptively is ‘severe’, and especially if not using it is ‘severe’.
I’m not a PoC, and I would be reluctant to work at a company where I could get fired for not mentioning something, and where I couldn’t look at a co-worker for more than five seconds, or where I was walking on racial eggshells 24/7.
Of course, if the salary and benefits package is good enough, we can talk.
Regards,
Shodan