Hello Christine,
Earlier I had expressed my concerns regarding HR investigation and about our one on one conversations that we have had so far as follows:
I am getting advice from people I have spoken outside work and an attorney friend of a friend that it's best to have these conversations as transparent as possible while still keeping it confidential. I expressed this concern yesterday also. This is a matter of such gravity and relevance that I am not at all comfortable being on one on one with you, I would rather talk to a panel of HR advisors. I would also like to have few people at my end also who can be in listening mode only. If not this way at least I need a paper trail, you send me questions and I will provide answers or clarifications or whatever needed through email. You will agree that this will lend more credence to this investigation process. Was it Ronald Reagan who said - "Trust in God, but lock your Car".
You said earlier that there will be some sort of "climate survey". How does this work? If I have to guess this right, this is about sending questionnaire to people in the group I work with. It's almost 3 weeks and I have not seen nor heard anything about this survey. On the other hand most people of Indian origin that were part of the group are no more here, two are on an extended leave because of personal matters, so I am not sure how much the survey will gauge the situation of the past and present, spanning my tenure here.
You replied:
Our meeting today will be to review the results of my investigation of your claim for prejudice at the workplace. I have booked a room for you at 1111 Fannin (Waco room) to contact me on my office phone. This is a private meeting, not disciplinary in content, therefore you are not permitted to have additional individuals attend the meeting. Kindly confirm if you wish to continue with our plans to speak one on one with me today at 1pm (2pm EST)
I replied:
Can I have a copy of results before the start of the meeting sent as an email. Also I did not see any response from you about "climate survey". Yes we are on based on your clarification. Thank you.
You replied:
I do not intend to share the results with you in writing. I will review them verbally with you today. I will respond to your questions about climate survey during that meeting.
So, with above concerns alive we still went ahead and had our one on one meeting last Friday (8/22) to discuss the result of HR findings. I made notes captured from our conversation. I sense a lack of objectivity in your findings and following are my concerns about the same.
In summary you said: “We have done the investigation and the result of the finding is that there is no prejudice”
I disagreed but kept quiet and was eager to know how you arrived at such conclusion. So I pointedly started asking about various incidents that was listed in my letter addressed to HR.
1. Greg asking - “Why are some Indians Black and some White” on the first informal socializing event between us.
You said: We investigated and found no prejudice
I asked: How do you know? Did you get a chance to speak to Sadath Mohammed?
You said: I cannot say that. Cannot say whether we have or we have not spoken to him.
That’s a non-starter. That’s going nowhere. If you have not spoken then there is no incident. He was the only witness to this incident. There is absolutely no transparency here. If you have spoken and he denied about the incident I can still understand his dilemma – he being contractor is more interested in extending his contract and such interests rather than being embroiled in all this. If you have spoken and he did agree about the incident then I would appreciate his courage to speak the truth.
2. Greg sending an unsolicited and the only web link he ever sent to me unrelated to work during my tenure of 2 years – about the plight of some Hindu widows in India.
You said: Greg did not know your religious background when he sent the link
I said: But that was not appropriate to send
You said: Everyone has certain level of tolerance. I have discussed this with Greg and he is willing to discuss with you to better the working relationship.
You say as if it’s normal to you. If he had sent several links over variety of topics during my tenure then it would be close to normal, not normal but close. But that was not the case at all. He never sent me any links about ills of American/Western society, like,
a) Racial segregation of churches in America
b) History of Slavery in America or Civil rights movement
c) The confinement of original Americans in zoos called “reservations”
d) Teenage pregnancies, extreme infidelity, wife-swapping and such.
OK. So you get my point. Also, I am not convinced that Greg does not know about my religious background, in fact just the opposite, that’s exactly why he sent the link. He has lied to you. He not only sent the link to me, but to two other Hindus as far as I know. You can check the Lotus Notes ST server history for that particular day.
I have been thinking and you too would think the same if you were to step into my shoes, had the situation been reversed. It smacks of Eurocentrism. Many westerners do it either consciously or subconsciously. Please read about in detail anywhere but here’s a snippet to begin to gain some basic understanding.
“Eurocentrism is a variant of Ethnocentrism. In general, ethnocentrism puts the own ethnic, national, religious or linguistic identity as the norm to judge other countries and cultures, or even subgroups in the own society. Since the other cultures or groups can never fully conform to the standards or criteria defined by another group to apply to itself, it tends to imply a biased judgement about “good” and “bad”. The own cultural context is automatically perceived as positive, as good, and as the proper yardstick for everybody else, and any deviation from this yardstick will be interpreted as a weakness, as something “uncivilized”, or as morally inferior.Eurocentrism is a mental attitude to perceive non-Europeans (or today, non-Westerners) as less relevant, less modern, less civilized, and less than equal”
About your statement – “Everyone has certain level of tolerance” – It’s full of double standards and again smacks of Eurocentrism. The issue at hand is NOT about my level of tolerance but HIS level of INTOLERANCE. His right to swing his fist stops where my nose begins. But being a “manager” he thought he had the rights to do it and still get away with it. I am very tolerant person, but will not tolerate intolerance. Did you know this fundamental tenet of religious pluralism?
----------Tolerance should never tolerate Intolerance--------------
Your personal suggestion about his willingness to discuss with me seems like a deflection of issue at hand and again smacks of superiority complex. Let’s consider this. He’s the perpetrator of the crime and I am the victim, if he expressed his desire why did he not carry it through to fruition. Now I believe it’s too late to have the discussion. Discussion is like a patch, cleansing his mind with all sincerity is the true way to fix the problem. On two incidents anyway he has not showed any inclination to indulge in dialog and educate himself. There’s not much hope on that front.
3. Greg addressing me as “plad” on multiple occasions.
You said: You should have told Greg that you are not comfortable, don’t like it
That’s beside the point. Please don’t try to justify his behavior. He does not have the right to coin a new name and distort my identity. I have already stated in my letter that he knew better, with the “Sunny” example, and I had no reason to educate him again especially in the thick of important discussions going on about projects. It’s as simple as that. Will he ever do that for a Christian name? So, why the discrimination? Connect this with other issues related to calling names stated in my letter and his prejudice will become clear.
We did not get a chance to talk about “climate survey”. How was this accomplished? Apart from concerns that I already expressed before there are larger issues of relevance here. I am the only Indian Hindu employee reporting to him, another one is on medical leave. Other Hindu/Indian people in the work group are either contractors or do not directly report to him or both. They do not have direct stakes in career with the firm as much as I do and neither has Greg as much controlling influence on them as much as he has on me when it comes to performance management and such. On the other hand contractors are at the mercy of his good will to get their contracts extended. All this is relevant.
Earlier I had expressed my concerns regarding HR investigation and about our one on one conversations that we have had so far as follows:
I am getting advice from people I have spoken outside work and an attorney friend of a friend that it's best to have these conversations as transparent as possible while still keeping it confidential. I expressed this concern yesterday also. This is a matter of such gravity and relevance that I am not at all comfortable being on one on one with you, I would rather talk to a panel of HR advisors. I would also like to have few people at my end also who can be in listening mode only. If not this way at least I need a paper trail, you send me questions and I will provide answers or clarifications or whatever needed through email. You will agree that this will lend more credence to this investigation process. Was it Ronald Reagan who said - "Trust in God, but lock your Car".
You said earlier that there will be some sort of "climate survey". How does this work? If I have to guess this right, this is about sending questionnaire to people in the group I work with. It's almost 3 weeks and I have not seen nor heard anything about this survey. On the other hand most people of Indian origin that were part of the group are no more here, two are on an extended leave because of personal matters, so I am not sure how much the survey will gauge the situation of the past and present, spanning my tenure here.
You replied:
Our meeting today will be to review the results of my investigation of your claim for prejudice at the workplace. I have booked a room for you at 1111 Fannin (Waco room) to contact me on my office phone. This is a private meeting, not disciplinary in content, therefore you are not permitted to have additional individuals attend the meeting. Kindly confirm if you wish to continue with our plans to speak one on one with me today at 1pm (2pm EST)
I replied:
Can I have a copy of results before the start of the meeting sent as an email. Also I did not see any response from you about "climate survey". Yes we are on based on your clarification. Thank you.
You replied:
I do not intend to share the results with you in writing. I will review them verbally with you today. I will respond to your questions about climate survey during that meeting.
So, with above concerns alive we still went ahead and had our one on one meeting last Friday (8/22) to discuss the result of HR findings. I made notes captured from our conversation. I sense a lack of objectivity in your findings and following are my concerns about the same.
In summary you said: “We have done the investigation and the result of the finding is that there is no prejudice”
I disagreed but kept quiet and was eager to know how you arrived at such conclusion. So I pointedly started asking about various incidents that was listed in my letter addressed to HR.
1. Greg asking - “Why are some Indians Black and some White” on the first informal socializing event between us.
You said: We investigated and found no prejudice
I asked: How do you know? Did you get a chance to speak to Sadath Mohammed?
You said: I cannot say that. Cannot say whether we have or we have not spoken to him.
That’s a non-starter. That’s going nowhere. If you have not spoken then there is no incident. He was the only witness to this incident. There is absolutely no transparency here. If you have spoken and he denied about the incident I can still understand his dilemma – he being contractor is more interested in extending his contract and such interests rather than being embroiled in all this. If you have spoken and he did agree about the incident then I would appreciate his courage to speak the truth.
2. Greg sending an unsolicited and the only web link he ever sent to me unrelated to work during my tenure of 2 years – about the plight of some Hindu widows in India.
You said: Greg did not know your religious background when he sent the link
I said: But that was not appropriate to send
You said: Everyone has certain level of tolerance. I have discussed this with Greg and he is willing to discuss with you to better the working relationship.
You say as if it’s normal to you. If he had sent several links over variety of topics during my tenure then it would be close to normal, not normal but close. But that was not the case at all. He never sent me any links about ills of American/Western society, like,
a) Racial segregation of churches in America
b) History of Slavery in America or Civil rights movement
c) The confinement of original Americans in zoos called “reservations”
d) Teenage pregnancies, extreme infidelity, wife-swapping and such.
OK. So you get my point. Also, I am not convinced that Greg does not know about my religious background, in fact just the opposite, that’s exactly why he sent the link. He has lied to you. He not only sent the link to me, but to two other Hindus as far as I know. You can check the Lotus Notes ST server history for that particular day.
I have been thinking and you too would think the same if you were to step into my shoes, had the situation been reversed. It smacks of Eurocentrism. Many westerners do it either consciously or subconsciously. Please read about in detail anywhere but here’s a snippet to begin to gain some basic understanding.
“Eurocentrism is a variant of Ethnocentrism. In general, ethnocentrism puts the own ethnic, national, religious or linguistic identity as the norm to judge other countries and cultures, or even subgroups in the own society. Since the other cultures or groups can never fully conform to the standards or criteria defined by another group to apply to itself, it tends to imply a biased judgement about “good” and “bad”. The own cultural context is automatically perceived as positive, as good, and as the proper yardstick for everybody else, and any deviation from this yardstick will be interpreted as a weakness, as something “uncivilized”, or as morally inferior.Eurocentrism is a mental attitude to perceive non-Europeans (or today, non-Westerners) as less relevant, less modern, less civilized, and less than equal”
About your statement – “Everyone has certain level of tolerance” – It’s full of double standards and again smacks of Eurocentrism. The issue at hand is NOT about my level of tolerance but HIS level of INTOLERANCE. His right to swing his fist stops where my nose begins. But being a “manager” he thought he had the rights to do it and still get away with it. I am very tolerant person, but will not tolerate intolerance. Did you know this fundamental tenet of religious pluralism?
----------Tolerance should never tolerate Intolerance--------------
Your personal suggestion about his willingness to discuss with me seems like a deflection of issue at hand and again smacks of superiority complex. Let’s consider this. He’s the perpetrator of the crime and I am the victim, if he expressed his desire why did he not carry it through to fruition. Now I believe it’s too late to have the discussion. Discussion is like a patch, cleansing his mind with all sincerity is the true way to fix the problem. On two incidents anyway he has not showed any inclination to indulge in dialog and educate himself. There’s not much hope on that front.
3. Greg addressing me as “plad” on multiple occasions.
You said: You should have told Greg that you are not comfortable, don’t like it
That’s beside the point. Please don’t try to justify his behavior. He does not have the right to coin a new name and distort my identity. I have already stated in my letter that he knew better, with the “Sunny” example, and I had no reason to educate him again especially in the thick of important discussions going on about projects. It’s as simple as that. Will he ever do that for a Christian name? So, why the discrimination? Connect this with other issues related to calling names stated in my letter and his prejudice will become clear.
We did not get a chance to talk about “climate survey”. How was this accomplished? Apart from concerns that I already expressed before there are larger issues of relevance here. I am the only Indian Hindu employee reporting to him, another one is on medical leave. Other Hindu/Indian people in the work group are either contractors or do not directly report to him or both. They do not have direct stakes in career with the firm as much as I do and neither has Greg as much controlling influence on them as much as he has on me when it comes to performance management and such. On the other hand contractors are at the mercy of his good will to get their contracts extended. All this is relevant.
Eurocentrism and resultants of it are at odds with diversity related values of the firm where irrespective of race, gender, religion etc., everyone is expected to be treated equal and fairly. People of Indian origin account for about 50% of Houston location. 90% of them follow in various degree a way of life called Sanathan Dharma, also called Hinduism.
Considering all of the above I want to resubmit my complaint about Gregory R Dillard. This time around please consider above concerns of mine in terms of transparency. Have a panel of diversity experts with at least one Indian Hindu in the panel.
The investigation shouldn’t be all hogwash. I hope my worst fears are not going to come true either. If you protect the culprit and he goes scot-free then it will set a bad precedence for all those who can hope that they can receive justice under similar circumstances. And no one would ever come forward like the way I have done expecting nothing would happen anyway or worse fearing reprisal.
At the very least I expect to be mobilized out of this work group and provided an opportunity to continue my services at the firm with no baggage of the past to affect my future. Greg should be disciplined appropriately. Let the “white” man and the “brown” man treated equitably in a manner that rest of the employees can see that it’s been handled in a way that reflects the core values of the firm. Truly I have rendered a service to the firm by exposing these incidents, how will you otherwise identify rotten apples that will cause irreparable damage to the firm from inside?
His midyear comments that are distorted, exaggerated and obfuscated are a direct result of his prejudice. A lie told often enough becomes truth. Or a bunch of lies can get same job done. So it’s moot to talk about mid-year review comments and my rebuttal to the same until this whole matter is justly dealt with. In turn his “warning” is a result of those comments. As I stated earlier in good conscience I have not signed the warning note and reject it in entirety. I will never tolerate injustice. Ever since I made complaint to HR the group dynamics have subtly changed. Please note that my performance is doomed to suffer as long as I report to him in this group either in reality or affected by his prejudice.
Thank you
.
