LinkedIn, White Supremacy, and the Raging War for Change.
Two months ago I wrote an article that sought to outline problematic instances of what appeared to be the censorship of outspoken Black professionals and their allies on LinkedIn as the country began to come to terms with its racial history through growing conversations around slavery, race, equity, justice and white supremacy. As a networking site that fosters conversations regarding workplace affairs, naturally discourse centering discrimination, racism, harassment, bias and the likes (that have been witnessed in the halls and offices of corporations all around the world; from the least to the greatest) rose significantly across the platform. Concurrently, so did support for the movement towards racial and social justice for Black Americans.
The article, which was mentioned recently in a column by The New York Times, focused on three areas of concern: the removal and perceived suppression of content around issues affecting the Black community, the widespread abuse against Black professionals and their allies by White men and women on the site that went noticeably unchecked, and the promotion of conservative, i.e. safe Black voices while seemingly stifling revolutionary, uncompromising ones. My asks on behalf of the Black community were simple: provide us with answers on why certain profiles and content were being removed, give us clear reasons as to why the harassment of and abuse towards LinkedIn’s Black and Brown customers were happening and unresolved on such a grand scale, and additions to their Black Voices to Follow and Amplify list that would allow for a diverse range of thought within the Black community to be accessed, along with an explanation of how the individuals are chosen.
In response to the piece, LinkedIn’s CEO, Ryan Roslansky reached out to set up a call regarding the concerns I voiced on behalf of the Black community and the concerns of our allies in pursuing social justice through education, awareness, and dialogue on the platform. As with any matter that threatens to harm a business in any meaningful way, the acknowledgement was swift — two days later Ryan, myself and LinkedIn’s VP of Product Trust, Tanya Staples, conjoined for a phone call that slightly turned into a brainstorming and mini consulting session. I opened by congratulating Ryan on his appointment to CEO, expressed the value I’ve found in the organization and my earnest hopes for a path forward that would see LinkedIn as the place not only for professional networking, but for a new level of community bonding and psychological refuge from the stresses and strains of a pandemic, an economic crisis and a racial justice movement. He was incredibly gracious, seemed eager to learn and listen, and asked quite a few questions, to which most all I answered. There was only one question I did not provide an answer for but offered instead to have a follow-up meeting to discuss the topic at hand (it was at this point I had felt I was giving away a vast amount of valuable advice and did not want to be taken advantage of — whether intentional on their part or not — but rather paid for my expertise and knowledge).
I am rendered speechless when attempting to come up with the appropriate words to describe the follow-up that occurred afterwards, but needless to say — given the title of this article — I believe that while LinkedIn may have every intention of creating an anti-racist organization — there are powerful factors, whether it be people, corporations, or LinkedIn itself, that are wholly resistant to this idea. This follow-up will not only examine LinkedIn’s response to the concerns delineated two months ago, but will discuss my reason for the aforementioned statement while highlighting my personal belief of the following:
- the continued wrongful and unethical suppression and removal of content surrounding the challenges faced by Black people in relation to the workplace,
- several characteristics and actions of the company and its leadership that I regard as falling under the umbrella of White Supremacy,
- and my treatment by the organization that I can only describe as offensive and anti-black, and which convinces me real change is nowhere near.
Part One: Black Activists Continue to Feel Like Their Voices are Being Suppressed: Are We Witnessing Fraudulent and Illusory Change?
As noted, it’s been months since I bought to LinkedIn’s attention multiple instances of what appeared to be the suppression of content by certain Black content creators and their allies. In that time, LinkedIn made several statements attempting to address these concerns. Four days after my conversation with Ryan, a blog post was published entitled: Our Commitment to Safe Conversations. Here is an excerpt from that post :
“Making our policies even stronger and clearer”
“We’re strengthening our Professional Community Policies to make it even clearer that hateful, harassing, inflammatory or racist content has absolutely no place on our platform.”
Inflammatory denotes anything that tends to incite anger or passionate arousal. By inserting this particular word into their community policies to describe unacceptable speech, it signaled to me a calculated way to remove certain anti-racist content and commentary under the guise of strengthening the platform. This may or may not be the case, but here is why I see it that way:
It is 2020 and we are just now, after 400 years, attempting to reconcile in some way with the history of slavery in the United States. Because of this White people en masse unfortunately do not have the tools to talk and think critically about race relations, a phenomena some have dubbed as “White Fragility.” This has led to a large subset of the White population vehemently resisting and even condemning these conversations with great intensity.
Subsequently there has been major blow back around conversations and actions encompassing racial equity and justice; with everything from White men blaming a potential Trump presidency in 2021 on the protests in Kenosha, to Naomi Osaka facing blowback in Japan for her stance on Black Lives Matter, to LinkedIn employees making racist comments during a town hall on racial equity, to the counter movement of Blue Lives Matter. You also see this resistance all across social media sites.
Additionally — truth around racism in America has also triggered outrage
I led with the preceding to say that outlining policy around “inflammatory speech” allows LinkedIn to remove content that upsets racists and perpetrators of anti-blackness. For example, here are a few instances of content and profiles that were (in my opinion) unjustly removed as a result of this:
White Allies
- Chandra Hardy, an outspoken advocate against racism and sexism had her profile completely removed from the site while being abused and harassed to a grave extent.
- Joe Cardillo, a Content Marketing Manager, noticed disappearing comments and a slowing of post activity when he posts on topics circumambient Black Lives Matter and White Supremacy.
- Tara Furiani, Creator and Host of Not the HR Lady, had her profile permanently banned with no reason given and no notice after being a member for over 10 years. The timing was incredibly suspicious, as it happened two days after she criticized LinkedIn for its biased reactions to the complaints of Black people. Her profile has since been reinstated after outcries from the LinkedIn community.
- Joshua Cooper, a CPA with PwC had a post removed that called for the support of Black coworkers after the recent tragic outcome of Breonna Taylor’s case.
Black Activists
- Theresa Robinson, Author, Coach, and Founder of Master Trainer TMR & Associates, had a post about racism removed without explanation from LinkedIn.
- DeAnnah Stinson Reese, a Corporate Equity Educator and Strategist, had a post removed that called on organizations to assess whether their actions are in alignment with their commitment to DEI.
- Future Cain, a Director of Social and Emotional Learning, had a post shadow-banned that depicted the contrast in treatment between Black and White citizens in America by the police.
- I had several posts taken down (a screenshot of one is below) without any initial notification as to why.
This list is far from exhaustive, and represents only a small fraction of individuals who — with regards to racial justice content — have seen either a quizzical decline in engagement or views, comments and posts removed, and profile deletion.
Conversely, the profiles of people who have made racist, vile and violent comments have been allowed to stay up (please note with the exception of Stephen S. who I could not find, all of the profiles at the time of the writing and publishing of this article are active):
In the same blog post I referenced above that resulted from my conversation with Ryan lies the following clause:
“Closing the loop when you report content that violates our policies”
“When you report content or behavior that violates our policies, we take action, which can include removing content or restricting an account. In the coming weeks we’ll be increasing transparency in this process. We’ll close the loop with members who report inappropriate content, letting them know the action we’ve taken on their report. And, for members who violate our policies, we’ll inform them about which policy they violated and why their content was removed.”
On September 21st of this year, a connection of mine sent me the following message:
Hello Aaisha,
I hope you’re well. I wanted to check in about a post you made maybe 8 hours ago about companies sending their House Negros to “deal with the Blacks.”
I read it this morning, and upon trying to submit a comment I was notified that “the post cannot be found”. I was wondering if you deleted it yourself or if this is LinkedIn suppression again?
I had seen it with over 50 reactions and 12 comments… It seemed odd others had seen it and engaged and then it was gone. But, I wanted to check in with you about it.
All my best,
[name redacted for privacy]
For all the times my posts were removed — I have NEVER received an initial notification as to why (which is supposed to happen), and to this day have no idea why two of them were taken down. They were taken off the site without so much as an email. To make matters worse, the post would be visible to me, but not to my connections. I found this out, as you can see above, when I began receiving several such messages from my connections about not being able to see my posts anymore. This has happened to several of the Black activists I know who actively use the platform. However, our White allies are afforded the courtesy of a notification at the bottom of their post:
Nicole Leverich, a spokeswoman for LinkedIn was quoted in the New York Times as having said some members of the community weren’t phased into the notification process for flagged posts by the end of September. Are we to assume it was a coincidence that White men were getting notifications but not those of the Black women who are staunch advocates of racial justice? This excuse does not sit well with me.
Here also is an excerpt from LinkedIn’s Professional Community Policies:
“Depending on the severity of the violation and a member’s behavior or account history, we may limit the visibility of certain content, remove content from our platform, or even restrict a member’s account in the event of severe or repeated offenses. If you believe action taken on your content or your account was in error, you can submit a request to appeal your case.”
How are Black activists supposed to appeal action taken on our content if we are not even notified to begin with that it was removed? Somebody please make it make sense…
Leverich also says LinkedIn does not suppress content: “We are not censoring content and have not made any changes to our algorithm to reduce the distribution of content about these important topics.”
Let’s look at the definition of suppression according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary.
Definition of suppression:
- an act or instance of suppressing: the state of being suppressed
The above definition does not tell us much — so I had to click on the word “suppression” and the following definitions appeared:
Definitions of suppress:
- to put down by authority or force: subdue
- to keep from public knowledge: such as to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of
- to inhibit the growth or development of
Definition of subdue:
- to reduce the intensity or degree of.
By strategically (again, in my opinion) removing content around vocal critics of racism, white supremacy and corporate injustice, and without notifying them that their content is gone in order that they may appeal the decision, you are in no uncertain terms:
- keeping our content from public knowledge
- reducing the degree of which our content is engaged, shared and interacted with
- inhibiting the growth and development of not only racial equity in the workplace, but the learning, empathy, understanding and cultural awareness that comes when people of all backgrounds seek to further understand racial inequity and those looking to be allies.
Mervyn Kennedy-Macfoy, a Learning and Development Specialist and staunch feminist, made a LinkedIn post on Monday, 9/27 that noted the differential treatment of Black women and White men with regards to notifications on their profile. The next day, on Tuesday, 9/28, I had a red notification on two posts that have been removed. Unfortunately it was a little too late and the damage had been done — as these posts were removed weeks ago.
This prima facie deceitful, devious and racist behavior is not only intolerable but repugnant.
Part Two: Does LinkedIn Have a White Supremacist Problem? Assessing the Signs.
I would like to first clarify the definition of White Supremacy before continuing on by using scholar Frances Lee Ansley’s description:
“By ‘white supremacy’ I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.”
I also find fitting this simple definition given by Merriam Webster: “the social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races.”
The earliest I was able to find a record of diversity reports provided by LinkedIn to the public was from 2014. Here are the racial demographics for workforce makeup from then until last year.
The representation of Black leadership has not moved at all in the last six years; and, the percentage increase of Black representation at the company nudged by an embarrassingly 1.5% in the last six years as well. The most gains (although still dismal) in leadership by non-white individuals when looking at 2014 vs 2019 have been Asian professionals (4.3%) and the most gains in non-white employees overall of the firm have also been within the Asian community (2.3%).
I want you also to note the language from each of the diversity reports:
2014: “Over the past few years, we’ve experienced tremendous growth and have become a truly global company, but in terms of overall diversity, we have some work to do…”
2015: “Our latest numbers show encouraging results, and we are pleased with our progress…Our numbers also show where we still have room for much more progress, so we need to be relentless in our efforts…
2016: To accomplish it, we believe it’s critical to build diverse teams that are a reflection of our members. However, that isn’t enough. We are committed to creating a work environment where employees not only feel included, they also feel like they belong…We will continue to strive to do better…
2017: “We still have a long way to go, and while we’re starting to see progress in key areas, we won’t stop transforming and investing in the programs, training, and people we need to ensure that we have a diverse and inclusive representation of views, backgrounds, and experiences…”
2019: “We’re proud of the global progress we’ve made in gender balance in leadership, and at the same time, we’re acutely aware of the work that still needs to be done, particularly in technical roles and within our U.S. Black and Latino populations…”
I believe Rosanna Durruthy, LinkedIn’s VP, Global Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging, sums up part of the problem in the excerpt from LinkedIn’s 2018 diversity report: “As an industry that prides itself on solving complex problems and innovating rapidly, we believe we can and should be able to close gaps in representation faster than we’re seeing now, but it’s going to take determination, commitment and the willingness to apply the same innovative skills we readily apply in the course of executing our business strategies.” Emphasis mine.
LinkedIn and companies like it are not short of strategies. Nor are they short of the agility and innovation it takes to solve complex problems. But somehow there is always “work to be done.” Black people are tired of talking, waiting, and hoping for change as we continue to be harassed, bullied, demeaned, scorned, gaslit and disrespected.
What I believe has been demonstrated by its leadership over time is the lack of willingness to create real change; and leadership must look deep down within itself and ask why. Whether on their bed before they turn in for the night, with a group of close friends they trust, or in therapy, the fundamental question here needs to be: “Am I exhibiting such anti-blackness to the point where my stated public intentions and daily actions are not in alignment?” “Am I perpetuating systems of oppressions and why?” Am I unwilling to see Black people thriving across all levels of my organization and why if so?”
There are lots of White Supremacist organizations out there. LinkedIn is not special in that regard. What makes companies like LinkedIn, Google, Amazon and other companies I seek to hold accountable exceptional is their outward proclamations of inclusivity and commitment to equity and anti-racism, but when given opportunities to make meaningful, systemic change they seem to not be so inclined to take action.
If you read the NYT article then you are aware that I posted the following on LinkedIn:
My content was shadow-banned (without any notification) and I called on LinkedIn to reinstate my post. A representative reached out offering to explain why it was removed.
During my conversation with the support member whose name is Deanna, I was told that since my post was directed at another member of LinkedIn, an employee of theirs (Ousman Jobe), it was considered harassment and abuse.
I stated that was unequivocally false (because it was), I was speaking to a phenomenon that affects Black professionals in Corporate America, and that nowhere in my writing did I mention or direct the statement to an individual. I then asked Deanna who at LinkedIn told her that and came up with the bogus idea that this was directed at anyone, nonetheless an employee. I never received an answer to that question and quite frankly, I’d still like to know. After our conversation, I was notified again publicly that my post will not be reinstated because it violated LinkedIn’s Professional Community Policies.
Here we have LinkedIn not only lying publicly about the policy I supposedly violated, but it shows something equally disturbing: a sense of guilt.
Ousman, who is Black, made a video declaring LinkedIn a place that values freedom of expression while enforcing policies around professional communication and their policies that apply equally to everyone. Quite a few people, myself included, were rightfully disturbed by this video because it was not the experience of many Black and Brown folks on the platform. Thus, I made the following comment:
I was not the only one to make comments on the disconnect between what was said and what was actually taking place:
My post was made a week after this incident and had absolutely nothing to do the video that transpired. Evidently, someone at LinkedIn took it personally and decided to assert a lie about its origins to have it removed.
How can an organization with 3% Black representation even begin to correctly assess context and meaning around Black language and Black experiences?
How can White people appropriately determine what is or isn’t delivered as educational and conducive to constructive discourse on issues around the Black community, which LinkedIn asserted about my post?
The robust dialogue beginning to swell in response to my content tells otherwise:
Part Three: How My Relationship with LinkedIn as a Black Anti-Racism Advocate Convinced Me Real Change is Nowhere in Sight.
On Friday, August 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Eastern I had a 30-minute conversation with Ryan Roslansky and Tanya Staples. I want to dive further into that conversation here. After reading my article about potential content suppression, Ryan reached out for a conversation. His response to my article was as follows:
“Aaisha, thank you for sharing. Let me first address your personal experience: how you were treated is absolutely unacceptable and I am very sorry. We are reviewing and taking action on the examples you shared. We are committed to building LinkedIn as an anti-racist platform and we know we have more work to do. I want to take you up on your offer to speak directly. I’ll message you directly to find a time to do that.”
I was very hopeful about LinkedIn’s promptitude to engage in conversation and throughout the phone call that transpired two days later, posed several suggestions along with advice about what LinkedIn could and should not be doing. The response was overwhelmingly positive — so much so, that Ryan, based on an idea I had, asked would I be willing to potentially work with them on it. I of course, wanting to see LinkedIn develop into what I knew it had the great potential to be, enthusiastically agreed. I honestly felt change nearing. The conversation went so well that his Editor in Chief, Dan Roth, reached out to me the same day to set up time to speak to me about the ideas I had around strengthening LinkedIn.
Here’s where it gets incredibly disturbing. I had already proven I could bring value to LinkedIn in several ways during the conversation. I was also highly sympathetic to their challenges and to Ryan being recently appointed CEO, although he had been with the company for several years already. While I graciously engaged in idea sharing at one point I did mention that I was happy to provide other ideas and solutions in a separate meeting, hence Dan reaching out. My personal reason for that was I, as Black woman, and as a human being, was not going to sit on the phone and labor for free; especially when over the last few months attention has been brought (due to the Black Lives Matter movement) to myriad ways in which Corporate America and the world consistently fails Black women. When I received Dan’s message it surprisingly mentioned nothing of compensation for my time, and thus I sent him (with Ryan on CC) the following message:
Hi Dan,
It’s a great pleasure to make your acquaintance; and, thank you for your note (please send [name redacted] a “hi!” right back). I would love to connect and share my expertise with you and your team — however; not as a person of color whose contributions seem to not merit compensation, but either a consultant or employee! Additionally, in the same spirit of accountability that fueled the article — which I hoped has proved valuable in helping to move LinkedIn towards a more just, equitable and inclusive platform — I must point out a few things that can be improved upon with regards to LinkedIn’s approach to a second conversation in an attempt to aid in (making use your words) ridding LinkedIn from various forms of toxicity while sharing (hopefully) helpful feedback.
“How we lead the fight against racism requires honesty, ownership and fearlessness.” — Ryan Roslansky.
August 13th, 2020 was Black Women’s Equal Pay Day, the point at which the earnings of Black women caught up to what men earned during the previous year. Black women in the U.S. who work full time, year-round are paid just 62 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men when controlling for all imaginable factors including education. This incredible gap is a tangible consequence of not only sexism, racism and white supremacy in the United States, but a demonstration of how the country systematically devalues women of color and their labor. Your email unfortunately is an example of this as well, as it made no mention of compensation for my time and expertise.
In striving to create an anti-racist culture and organization, one must be cognizant of actions that seek (unconsciously or not) to benefit without recompense (monetarily or otherwise) from the labor of historically and present-day oppressed people groups. The responsibility lies on white and white-passing people and leaders such as yourself and Ryan to end the systems of racial oppression. It is incumbent upon said individuals and leadership not to wait for marginalized members of the community to do this work. Work such as:
- offering to compensate Black talent for the skills and talent they bring to the table.
Ryan recently wrote a letter in response to your virtual town hall that I am certain you are aware of but I’d still like to highlight a portion below:
“We have an incredible opportunity and obligation to channel our passion, energy and talent to address some of the very real barriers and systems that have enabled racism to prevail. By raising voices…and tackling the systems of economic injustice, we can and will make meaningful change. For any of this to happen, we have to start with our culture and commit to working through hard things together. We have to anchor on our values, including having open, honest and constructive conversations and respecting that relationships matter.”
Economic injustice happens when majority-white organizations assume that their ERG’s should shoulder the brunt of racial justice work. It happens when White men, whose individual and collective wealth in this country far outpaces that of every other demographic do not willingly look for ways to ensure their white female counterparts and non-white male and female counterparts are paid equally for equal work. It happens in subtle ways like in a follow-up email where I am offered a conversation to further extract ideas that would not only enhance the company’s brand image but their bottom line without first establishing a contract of remuneration.
I have written this believing both you and Ryan are open and willing to do the work it takes to move towards an equitable, just and racism-free organization and society; and are sincere in your willingness.
You mentioned your team is responsible for creating and curating high-quality news and views and cultivating great voices. I’ve taken a look at your org chart and there doesn’t seem to be a dedicated role for the latter. Perhaps one can be carved out — it would also pair incredibly well with spearheading the roundtable idea I mentioned to Ryan during our call, among other things.
I can also send you my consultation rates.
Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Aaisha
On Monday, Aug 24, 2020, Dan replied with the following message:
(Ryan to bcc)
Aaisha,
Thank you for the response. Let me see what, if anything, might be possible and I’ll get back to you!
Best,
Dan
It is now October, over a month later, and I have yet to hear from Dan or anyone from LinkedIn for that matter with regards to the above. Yet Dan somehow managed to email me the same evening I spoke with Ryan when the assumption probably was that I was going to continue the conversation for free.
For transparency, I would like to share the follow up email and document I sent Ryan after our phone call.
Not that long afterwards, LinkedIn posed the following question to its community:
“What are the best ways to normalize having conversations about race and anti-racism in the workplace? #ConversationsForChange”
It became clear to me that LinkedIn would rather crowdsource anti-racism strategies instead of paying a Black woman, me, for her expertise; the minute I mentioned remuneration, I was ghosted.
The following clause is found in LinkedIn’s User Agreement:
3.1. Your License to LinkedIn
By submitting suggestions or other feedback regarding our Services to LinkedIn, you agree that LinkedIn can use and share (but does not have to) such feedback for any purpose without compensation to you.
According to Microsoft’s FY20 earning call, LinkedIn’s revenue increased in Q3 by 21%; and, according to its Q4 FY20 earnings report, saw a revenue increase by 10% in Q4. Additionally, partial growth by LinkedIn offset the decline in another area of Microsoft. LinkedIn is NOT hurting for money in any sense of the word, even with events of COVID-19.
To go from the following statements to neglecting to get back to me when I kindly brought up the failure to value the work of Black women left me not only disappointed but slightly bruised:
“I love that…I will absolutely follow back up with you. I’d love to see and get your feedback on some ideas and see if its something you’d want to be involved in given it was your idea and given how well-spoken and thoughtful you are on this stuff.” — Ryan R.
“What I loved is your perspective of LinkedIn needing to have a higher bar. I think you have really great perspective that we could learn from.” — Tanya S.
It may be naivety on my part or rather a deep understanding of the extent to which White Supremacy has its grip on America, but I do not fault Ryan. My assumption is that he is beholden to individuals and corporations who do not want to see the company engage in official business relationships with such vocal and staunch advocates of anti-racism in Corporate America; after all — these companies are paying LinkedIn to find talent, not to have a Black woman call out their racist practices and demand change…