I think I've witnessed racism in another department

Maybe I wasn't clear that I also have a lack of respect for J's technical and leadership skills. Since his leadership deficit appears obvious to me, I'm left scratching my head as to why he was promoted over two more competent people. Assuming that the person who made that decision could see what I see, it seems like very poor judgment to make that decision. If they could not see what I see, the question is why couldn't they. I'm not someone who goes about picking on people's shortcomings so believe me when I say that his are very difficult to conceal. So I'm suggesting that racial bias was a factor in what that person and J both were able to perceive about themselves and A, M and D.

Yes; let me clarify:
if thay had treated J with full respect & courtesy,
and J had abused them anyway, then racial motivation woud be clearer.
If thay provoked him with their "obvious" disdain,
then it is much more difficult to attribute his negative conduct to racism, as distinct from retribution or ego-defense.

As Isaac Newton woud say:
"for every action, there is an equal and oppostie re-action."





We lack sufficient factual information to know that. Nepotism?
Did he secretly pay the decision maker?
or is the decision maker an especially good friend of his?



It seems to me that critical information is absent,
such that it is impossible to draw an inference.

Yes, but the initial action was not the lack of respect for his leadership and technical skills. The initial action was re-hiring him over the objections of the team and then promoting him over them. In such a situation, no reasonable person would expect that person to be able to lead the other two. I have no reason to believe THAT decision was based on racism, though racism may have been a factor. Perhaps it was simply ignorance or favoritism. However the subsequent behavior toward M and D contrasted with that toward A speaks to something else, IMO.

There are, of course, other factors as well. I'm quite sure egos and basic workplace disagreements are involved but that doesn't negate the existence of racism and may actually be a symptom of it. If someone, for instance, sees himself as inherently superior to someone else he will be very resistant to questioning or criticism coming from that person. When someone of his own race says the same thing, he might be much more receptive and even show appreciation for it. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about here.

Since people know they are not supposed to make decisions at work based on race, you are unlikely to find any easily provable cases of racism, and I'm not suggesting that this is one. It will always be couched in something else. That something else often espouses racial stereotypes like implications of laziness or untrustworthiness, both of which I picked up on in this case and which go against my own observations having worked with these people.

Given the mutual sentiments involved, it seems unlikely that J will consider them to be worthy of his trust.

U said that J replaced M.
Even if M had been J's identical twin brother,
J 'd have to tacitly wonder if M woud try to get his job back again, at J's expense.


If u wish to prove racism to management in these circumstances,
I don 't think u 'll find it easy.





David

I don't wish to prove racism and the fact that it won't be easy is obvious. I just think someone with power should have a look.

Forget the racism charge and even HR.

Go to the source and ask J why seemingly competent people who work well with others are being let go.

Say you are trying to see what kind of "team" he/she is trying to form.

It may come down to him/her simply wanting the same personality types on his / her team.

J might well perceive that as threatening behavior,
resulting in enmity on-the-job against FreeDuck.