I don't know what to think of that but I believe you and find that behavior unacceptable. I think the way to improve inclusivity in the workplace is by casting a wider net so that you get applications from people you otherwise wouldn't (not to the exclusion of other applicants), not to change the hiring decision. Like how Roosevelt said he wanted a "square deal" meaning the deck is not stacked while leaving it to the individual to play their hand.

What makes his story unbelievable is that it happened in corporate America in the 1980s (that you have a different experience in 2020s Sweden is not really a counterexample to what makes his story hard to believe) combined with the fact that he is a famously unreliable narrator. He has previously offered conflicting narratives about similar scenarios, changing the story to be about race only in his later years.

Sure, that's why I can't say for sure if it actually happened or not.

People are not readily able to believe my experiences either (though, the political narrative is opening up to the potential for sympathy? I'm not sure).

These policies come in waves. The 90s in the UK was very "PC" as we'd say. I don't necessarily believe that all diversity initiatives happened in the 2010's and onwards.

That said, you're totally right nobody can truly know except him and who he spoke to. A sibling commenter mentioned that it could be a mealy mouthed middle manager trying to ascribe blame to $women for his own decisions; which I totally buy, even for my own scenarios to be honest with you.

> That said, you're totally right nobody can truly know except him and who he spoke to.

Let me be clear about this, I would definitely assume it did not happen without really strong evidence of the contrary. Based on my assessment of his character and the details of his story.

Assuming anything else is giving him way too much credit, and the effect of giving benefit of the doubt here is likely allowing a known racist to spread a false narrative that is based on lies and engineered to sow discontent.

I disagree with the premise that these were acceptable decisions.

The Elastic situation wasn't "two equally skilled applicants". I'd already been offered and had accepted the position. Rescinding an accepted offer because another candidate better fits demographic targets is materially different from choosing between two candidates at the offer stage.

On the broader point: I understand the goal of achieving equitable outcomes. The question is whether the ends justify the means. Explicitly excluding individuals from opportunities based on immutable characteristics, whether in the 1960s or today, remains discrimination, regardless of which direction it flows.

If we're serious about equity, we need solutions that don't require accepting discrimination as a necessary tool. Lowering barriers to entry, addressing bias in evaluation, expanding candidate pools, mentorship programmes: these grow the pie rather than just redistributing the slices.

The moment you tell someone "you're qualified, but you're the wrong demographic," you've created exactly the kind of experience that radicalises people. I've experienced it. It's corrosive, regardless of how noble the underlying intent.

It’s not a premise, it’s just my opinion.

Sure, elastic handled that poorly, rescinding an offer like that is very unprofessional, but that’s an indictment of their HR department and has nothing to do with the gender of the other candidate.

I understand where you’re coming from, what you’re asking for is a gradual transition to equity. But until that transition is done, you’re also asking the groups that were systematically discriminated against to endure the effects of that discrimination for longer. And those soft approaches you listed take a looooong time to work, and only while the pie is getting larger.

At one of my previous companies they took those soft approaches. The result was that entry level positions were very equitable, but the higher the seniority the higher the percentage of white men. At the rate that the company was hiring and promoting, it would take 150 years to achieve equity at all levels.

To be clear, that means asking women to wait 150 years before they have a fair shot at leadership positions.

But that was all before 2020. After layoffs hit and the growth stopped the equity transition also stopped because the white dudes at the top weren’t willing to step down so women could take their place.

You say being discriminated against is corrosive, but what about the corrosion that already happened because of all the discrimination that happened up until now? Are you going to do something about it? Or are you just gonna tell the people corroded to deal with it?

I appreciate the acknowledgement about Elastic’s handling.

On the timeline argument: I’m sceptical of extrapolating current rates to 150-year predictions. Organisations change through leadership turnover, market pressure, and cultural shifts that don’t follow linear projections. But I take your point that gradualism has costs for those waiting.

Here’s where we differ: I don’t accept that we must choose between “discrimination now” and “discrimination for 150 years.” That’s a false binary. The solutions I mentioned aren’t just soft approaches; they’re structural changes that can accelerate equity without requiring us to accept discrimination as policy.

Your point about white men at the top not stepping down cuts both ways. If the existing leadership won’t make space voluntarily, and you implement demographic quotas, you’ve just created a system where different qualified people are blocked. People like me, who didn’t benefit from the original discrimination but are now paying for it.

I grew up in generational poverty. As far back as records go, my family has never held money or power. The people you’re describing as beneficiaries of historical privilege might share my demographic category, but we share nothing else. Class gets erased in these conversations, and that erasure makes the solutions less effective, not more.

What about the corrosion that’s already happened? I think about it constantly. But I don’t believe the answer is to corrode more people in the opposite direction and call it justice. That’s how you get radicalisation and backlash, not equity.

I don’t even disagree with you about class, but to deal with that we need to deal with capitalism itself, which I’ve given up on at this point.

So if this is the system we’re stuck with, and it’s an unfair system, then let’s at least make sure it’s equitably unfair.

The goal is not to make sure the most qualified person gets the job. I actually think evaluating others fairly is impossible so that’s an impossible goal.

Sorry if you feel that you got the short end of the stick. I got it too. Someone has to.

Sounds like giving up.

You’re arguing we should take turns being discriminated against because fixing the system is too hard. I’d rather actually try to reduce the total amount of discrimination instead of just spinning the wheel to see whose turn it is to lose.

“Someone has to get the short end” isn’t wisdom: it’s defeatism, and toxic at that.

The issue is not “discrimination is happening”. The issue is that systematic discrimination has biased outcomes and under represented certain demographics, and that needs to be addressed.

Discrimination against individuals is not a problem.

“Discrimination against individuals is not a problem” is quite possibly the most dystopian sentence I’ve read on HN.

I’m one of those individuals. So are the women and minorities you claim to be helping. We’re not statistical abstractions to be shuffled around in service of demographic targets.

If your solution to systematic discrimination requires you to declare that discriminating against individuals doesn’t matter, you’ve lost the plot entirely.

I can say the same thing at you. If your solution to large demographics experiencing systematic discrimination over decades leading to worse outcomes is to tell them that from now on it’ll be different but that all the disadvantages they experienced will not be dealt with then you’re either insane, or trying to disguise your bias.

You literally just said discrimination against individuals isn't a problem. I'm objecting to that specifically.

I've proposed structural solutions throughout this thread. You've proposed accepting discrimination and deciding whose turn it is to experience it.

These are not morally equivalent positions.

No you haven’t. You’ve offered platitudes. “I think about it all the time” ok, what are you actually going to do about it?

The grow the pie approaches you mentioned only works while the pie is growing, and we’ve had layoffs for the past 2 years. What is your solution now that the pie isn’t getting bigger?

It sure sounds like your solution is telling people to wait 150 years and hope the problem solves itself.

When growth stops, you focus on evaluation bias and institutional barriers. Blind resume screening, structured interviews with standardised criteria, expanding recruiting beyond homogeneous networks, addressing sponsorship patterns in promotions. None of these require growth.

None require discriminating against anyone.

But here's the thing: I'm not the one who needs to justify my position. You're asking me, someone who's been explicitly discriminated against multiple times, to solve systemic inequality for you, whilst simultaneously defending discrimination against individuals as acceptable policy.

I've spent two decades becoming exceptionally good at what I do. I ensure fairness in my own decisions. I can't fix capitalism or rewrite history, and it's absurd to demand I present a complete solution to systemic inequality before I'm allowed to object to being told I'm the wrong demographic for jobs I've earned.

Your position is that discrimination is fine as long as it's against the right people. Mine is that discrimination is wrong. One of us is being a hypocrite here, and it's not me.

No hypocrisy on my end, so it must be you.

You want the injustices to remain unaddressed, and the people affected to wait longer until they are because you never got to benefit from discrimination and now it’s your turn.

I don’t expect you to solve everything, I expect you not to get in the way of the solution.

You’ve argued that:

- Discrimination against individuals doesn’t matter

- I should accept being discriminated against

- Objecting to this makes me the problem

- This is somehow not hypocrisy

I grew up in generational poverty, worked myself to the bone for two decades, ensure fairness in my own decisions, and proposed structural alternatives. Apparently none of that matters because I look like people in power.

There’s no productive conversation left to have here.

You’ve been through all that and yet here you are, successful.

You never had to worry about being the first female manager someone has had. You never had to worry about being judged unfairly because of your accent. You never had to deal with your colleagues saying mildly racist things to your face and expecting you to be ok with it.

And nobody is taking your success away! All I’m saying is that you’re gonna have to wait a bit longer because it’s not your turn anymore.

But apparently that’s not enough, so you’re throwing a fit about it.

And again, your “structural solutions” are platitudes. They don’t work.