Trying to imagine a case where this CEO is just inappropriate rather than mean spirited. The only idea that comes to mind is that the CEO was trying to guard against racial division. He wanted to avoid a situation where race mattered at all in his company, and was probing to see if this person was easily triggered along those lines. While twisted, it makes some sense since a job offer was actually forthcoming.
I don't find it hard to imagine, as there are plenty of privileged white people in the U.S. who barely ever come into contact with black people in a social context. So they just say the first thing that comes into their minds. They feel entitled to start that conversation and treat black people as instant free learning opportunities available any time in any context. It isn't always mean-spirited. It's just vastly ignorant. People can progress beyond it but I think that takes time, listening, education, and learning some personal humility which not everyone has motivation or necessity to develop.
that was the only explanation I could come up with also.
the non-charitable explanation is that he's just an asshole and possibly also a racist.
the charitable explanation is that he's just insensitive and authentically wanted to make sure that the candidate would be ok with being the only black worker in his department. he certainly could have expressed himself in a less dickish way though, even if that really was his motive.
> He wanted to avoid a situation where race mattered at all in his company, and was probing to see if this person was easily triggered along those lines
Of all the characteristics/dimensions that makes us human - why would he isolate race as a potential trigger and why is it important? Would you be equally ok with similar 'probes' for other start-up out-groups - women, LGBT, $RELIGION, left-leaners, right-leaners, weight, disablity? I mean, he could only be probing to make sure you being an Aspie won't matter to the company, right?
Well, as a fat man, I've been in interviews where the discussion was turned towards the "great" group activities like rock climbing, etc. With topics ever more invasive about "health" and the like. And me walking around with a cane at the time.
On the flip side, I wouldn't breach the subject of religion or politics in an interview, if the topic is breached, I'm not shy about expressing opinions.
Mileage may vary, void where prohibited, quantities limited, some restrictions may apply. Batteries not included.
Possibly because race is one of the protected classes by anti-discrimination law, which makes the characteristic a legal hazard. Perhaps you've heard of stories where people are hesitant to hire women, because sex and pregnancy are both protected. In fact, most of the groups you mentioned are covered by anti-discrimination law, so they would naturally fit this model.
The USA legislates most major workplace interactions I can think of. I don't find it too surprising that people want to avoid the costly and painful legal system through whatever means they can think of, regardless of their effectiveness or ethicalness.
By the way, are you taking a shot at people afflicted with Asperger's syndrome by referring to me as an "Aspie"? It seems rather hypocritical of you if that's true.
The way you worded your comment sounds like you were justifying the CEOs behaviour. As for 'Aspie', I wasn't calling you that, but giving an example of a slur (most of HN would be more familiar with) that a hypothetical CEO might drop in an interview.
Perhaps my outrage scale is calibrated differently, but why is it to you 'Aspie' is taking a shot, and 'Nigger' is only 'probing'?
Didn't mean to justify the CEO's behavior, rather try to understand it in the sense of giving someone the benefit of the doubt. What's the best light you could think of other than him just being a straight out racist. I did say I thought it was inappropriate and "twisted".
The reason I thought "aspie" was a shot rather than a probe is because you didn't offer me a job afterward ;-)
