[untitled]
2 comments
Setting aside for the moment that we've shifted from talking about whether the behavior is morally OK, to whether it is legal, would you still not be sure if the tweets might pose a legal problem if she had said:
Things I need more in my life: feminism, comedy, truth, and less Black people [..] I also care deeply about equity in hiring. Therefore, I choose to prioritize folks in our white communities
Because whites are underrepresented at Dropbox in all categories except leadership (where they are 58%, exactly their current share of US population): https://blog.dropbox.com/topics/company/our-2021-diversity-r... (scroll to the very bottom for the chart: https://aem.dropbox.com/cms/content/dam/dropbox/blog/company...)
Things I need more in my life: feminism, comedy, truth, and less Black people [..] I also care deeply about equity in hiring. Therefore, I choose to prioritize folks in our white communities
Because whites are underrepresented at Dropbox in all categories except leadership (where they are 58%, exactly their current share of US population): https://blog.dropbox.com/topics/company/our-2021-diversity-r... (scroll to the very bottom for the chart: https://aem.dropbox.com/cms/content/dam/dropbox/blog/company...)
No. This is the hiring manager. They are not just one person. She represents the company Dropbox, and they will be judged for her actions as their ambassador.
>I have trouble believing that the intent of the post on HN isn't to just stir up controversy and spark a argument between incels and sjws.
Given the comment history of OP, I would be inclined to agree.
Given the comment history of OP, I would be inclined to agree.
Yes, I'm a bit of a troll, but honestly, when it's done in a healthy way, it improves the system by providing measured resistance.
She's a racist and she represents the company as their hiring manager. They read her tweets and approve of them, and are thus liable for her actions.
These are not her personal opinions - she states that they form the basis of her choices re who gets hired.
She's a racist and she represents the company as their hiring manager. They read her tweets and approve of them, and are thus liable for her actions.
These are not her personal opinions - she states that they form the basis of her choices re who gets hired.
What types of lawyers would take this kind of a civil case, or compel the government to act on it? How would you move forward?
Lawyers who want to get rich and earn a fat payday. The bill of rights states that her actions are outright illegal. It's an easy win for anyone who doesn't fear the Twitterati.
It's one employee who's prioritizing minorities. I'm not an HR or legal expert, I don't know where that employee's statements fall with regards to equal opportunity laws. They might be fine, they might pose a legal problem.
I have trouble believing that the intent of the post on HN isn't to just stir up controversy and spark a argument between incels and sjws.