‘If 300 companies made Linkedin change, imagine 3,000 due to racial quotas’, says educator

The position of dozens of companies that signed a manifesto last month to contest LinkedIn’s decision to take down a job advertisement aimed at blacks and indigenous people, can serve as an example for the debate on the revision of the Quota Law this year, according to José Vicente , dean of the Zumbi dos Palmares University.

After the disclosure of the case by the Sheetthe social network retreated and changed its global policy after being questioned by several entities and companies in defense of affirmative action.

“If we demonstrated to the entire corporate environment how they play a relevant role, it would be possible to have a transformative perspective. If 300 companies are making LinkedIn change, imagine if we had 3,000 saying: ‘look, this agenda is in our interest and needs undergo a transformation'”, he says.

For José Vicente, private companies have a social role that, in addition to generating employment and paying taxes, requires a position in the face of racial inequality.

In efforts to combat racism in the corporate environment, the dean of Zumbi dos Palmares celebrates the first results of a partnership signed with Procon last year to receive complaints and address the problem in consumer relations.

The work has already resulted in a letter of principles signed by retail entities that may be joined by companies, which must complete training stages to receive a seal of a safe place against racism.

“We are finishing with one of the big networks that should be the first to come out with this attitude. I think that, from there, others should follow the example”, he says.

Recently, a partnership between Universidade Zumbi dos Palmares and Procon launched Procon Racial. Does this help show the impact that racism within a commercial establishment can have on other spheres of a victim’s life? An aggression like “your hair is bad” is enough to produce terrible internal damage in people. Imagine the Assaí scene. A 57-year-old man was stripped naked in a public place under the guise that he was stealing [caso aconteceu em agosto de 2021, em Limeira (SP)]. Imagine the impact it had on him, his wife, grandson, son and all his friends? It will never erase from his life. The harm, the shame.

For certain people, it can mean suicide. And we didn’t treat and study it throughout the process. This psychological perspective, of the pathologies that racism can impact on victims’ lives, has another important dimension. These victims are moderately uninformed people. They do not know that damage of this nature is guaranteed by law as the responsibility of the author and that they can be compensated. You can go to court.

Did you identify that this information is lacking for people? They need to have information about the right that welcomes them so that they can exercise it. The action of racial injury requires the representation of the victim. She has to agree to proceed, whereas racism is automatic. But the person does not have this information accurately. Sometimes, she fails to exercise a right because she doesn’t know or because she can’t do it. And the other dimension is ignorance.

Many of the people who commit the racial act did not even know that this racist attitude will produce damage that will produce accountability on this scale.

Taking it to the institutional dimension and recalling the João Alberto case, in which Carrefour had to sign a term that cost the company R$ 115 million, it served as an example for other companies, fearing this type of cost, to try to prevent cases of the type? Not yet, because it hasn’t been swallowed properly.

It is logical that it drew attention, but it did not have the impetus to produce an attitude and a positioning of the company in relation to it. So much so that after Carrefour there were more cases in malls, supermarkets, in Assaí itself, in many others.

So, the company was not able to position itself in the way it could and should to take a leap in quality in the matter. Perhaps because of the understanding that it was a serious, reprehensible case, but something that is not routine.

What has already resulted in Procon Racial? It resulted in the Charter of Principles. A number of companies were willing to sit down at the table and write a letter of principles. It sounds simple, but it is very difficult for you to put this sector on the table and invite or summon them to take a position that will be definitive and mandatory.

Is it always the same companies that identify with the theme or is this expanding? In this case, it was the IDV (Institute for the Development of Retail), which brings together large retailers, Apas (São Paulo Association of Supermarkets) and Fecomércio, of commercial companies. You even work with institutions. The hard part is getting to the company itself.

But the interesting thing is that these three institutions sat down at the table, submitted it to the associates and gave their approval to continue forward. And from that it was possible to build the letter of principles, which is now internalized as a corporate value of theirs. With that, they would be willing to position themselves, publicize and demand from all around them a look and an attitude converging with those fundamentals.

We are now finishing with one of the big networks that should be the first to come out with this attitude.

I think that, from there, others should follow suit. It would be the first time in history, from the point of view of consumer relations, that we would have this group of large companies positioning themselves in a crystal clear way on this issue and more, calling and even determining that their ecosystem joins these values.

What about this recent case of LinkedIn, which changed policy after trying to take down affirmative action job postings? What a leap was made with this one story? In the Afonso Arinos law of 1951, companies were prohibited from restricting the presence of black people. But at that time, job ads said they didn’t accept black people or had a preference for white people. The communication clearly stated that the space of the corporate environment did not accept blacks.

We walked here. But when we make the big move to value diversity and start to put “I accept black people”, then the company says: “look, let’s take it down because this is a manifestation of racism”. The contradiction presented itself.

LinkedIn justified this by saying that it was a global measure that was supported by a manual of conduct that valued universal rights. What LinkedIn lacked, and what it later recognized, is that this universality is not complete.

In other words, it is impossible to treat perspectives that have historical or current political specificities in a linear way. In the case of Brazil, we have a historical trajectory of terrible racial inequality and discrimination that limits equal competition in the corporate environment. So if you want to do justice or be right, you have to encourage affirmative action.

When he understood this, he decided to change the world norm with relativization for each environment in which he operates. It was nice that they understood that, they went back and not only public opinion, but above all corporate public opinion took a stand.

Is there a change there? In this case of LinkedIn, the companies have come forward individually to contest it. It wasn’t just in the name of associations. why is this so relevant? This is the fruit of this very long historical transformation. A window of opportunity has opened for this question.

We will only change some characteristics of our country when those who hold power, especially economic power, take a stand in favor of these values. For this to happen, these environments need to be convinced that there is an obligation beyond generating employment and paying taxes.

That’s little. Gotta do more. It has to say something about the inequalities that limit people and define people’s life and death. If you don’t have an attitude about it, you are an accomplice to this death. It was cool because, first of all, there were companies that individually positioned themselves. And there were companies that grouped themselves into position. And opinion makers, and the Federal Public Ministry, Labor, OAB.

Perhaps, the new fact is that we have the strength of public opinion that is very focused and committed to this agenda.

How does this speak to the debate on the revision of the Law of Quotas, which is the big issue this year? What is the role of companies in this issue? We have a window of opportunity. For all those who want a country with less racial inequality, the situation demands that they take a stand.

There is no change without positioning. Companies can and should position themselves. I don’t know how many will do, but I can say that without them, maybe, we’ll lose some of the impact. But with them, victory would be consecrating, because, more than quotas, it would represent a change in the country’s attitude and posture based on companies, which are, after all, a group of people.

There must be around 200 companies that are more comfortable and that act, do, talk. But our country has millions of companies. If we demonstrated to the entire corporate environment how they play a relevant role and how easy it is to make change, it would be possible to have a transformative perspective.

If 300 companies are making LinkedIn change, imagine if we had 3,000 saying, “Look, this agenda is in our best interest and needs to be transformed.”