Silicon Valley operates on an ethos of relentless forward motion. Its foundational myth holds that talent transcends background, that merit alone governs upward mobility, and that a brilliant software engineer can rise from complete obscurity to reshape global commerce. Behind this promise of egalitarian innovation lies a paradox.
Some of the individuals engineering humanity's technological future remain tightly bound to a socio-cultural hierarchy inherited from the homeland and past.
As a Bangladeshi professional having a few years of experience within California’s technology ecosystem, that dynamic evokes a mix of curiosity and perplexity for me. The thing that baffled me in Northern California is probably not the existence of historical cultural memory, but the persistence of social stratification among highly educated, affluent professionals.
Advanced degrees, international migration, global exposure and massive corporate success have failed to erase the significance of lineage. This contradiction has evolved into a matter of corporate and legal contention. Over recent years, formal complaints, investigative reports, and regulatory lawsuits have exposed instances of caste-based prejudice inside American technology firms.
Engineers from historically oppressed Dalit backgrounds—groups subject to centuries of systemic exclusion and social marginalisation in India as well as in other parts of South Asia including Bangladesh—report indicating familiar biases within modern corporate campuses.
The mechanism of this stratification is often subtle. Workplace interactions routinely feature inquiries regarding an employee’s surname, ancestral village, dietary habits, or family background. To an American manager, such questions sound like benign conversational pleasantries. To someone fluent in the subtext of South Asian social structures, they function as tools of quiet classification.
This information asymmetry complicates enforcement. Subtle forms of exclusion—omission from high-priority projects, lukewarm performance assessments, or missed internal referrals—can easily be masked behind standard corporate terminology. For foreign workers on employer-sponsored visas, challenging these institutional dynamics carries severe professional and administrative risks.
The issue reached broader public consciousness in 2020 when California civil rights regulators sued Cisco Systems,alleging that two upper-caste managers had discriminated against a Dalit colleague. While the company contested the charges, the litigation forced corporate leadership across the region to confront a category of bias long absent from standard workplace policies.
Subsequent reporting and civil rights documentation revealed hundreds of similar grievances across major tech firms. High-profile accounts detailed successful engineers—individuals owning valuable real estate and earning lucrative compensation packages—who nevertheless hid their ancestral identity out of fear that exposure would derail their careers.
Such realities present an indictment of the tech sector's meritocratic claims. Material prosperity and executive status have not guaranteed freedom from ancestral prejudice. The vulnerability of Silicon Valley stems partly from its reliance on informal networks. Discretionary hiring practices, peer referrals, and personal rapport drive career progression.
While these arrangements promote agility, they also allow inherited biases to replicate without leaving an explicit paper trail.
The debate has entered the legislative arena too. In 2023, Seattle became the first American city to explicitly add caste to its anti-discrimination ordinances. Subsequent statewide legislation in California sparked intense debate over legal framing. Critics argued that specific caste statutes risk stigmatising South Asian employees, while proponents maintained that existing civil rights laws lack the specific vocabulary required to identify and address the practice.
The policy remedy requires neither collective accusations nor ideological grandstanding. Corporate governance must simply align with fundamental principles of fairness. Technology firms should explicitly incorporate caste into anti-harassment frameworks, establish informed reporting channels, and train managers to recognize subtle indicators of exclusion.
Investigations must rely on objective evidence rather than assumptions rooted in surnames, religious affiliations, or regional origins.
Above all, the technology sector must abandon the self-serving assumption that technological sophistication naturally yields social enlightenment. Engineering capability does not automatically refine personal character, nor does financial windfall dismantle inherited dogma. An enterprise can construct cutting-edge artificial intelligence infrastructure while internalising archaic views on human value.
An industry devoted to optimizing human efficiency should recognize the economic and moral friction caused by arbitrary social ranking. The broader South Asian diaspora must similarly evaluate the purpose of international mobility if historical limitations are merely imported to new environments.
The task is not to compose further grand declarations regarding corporate diversity, but to perform the basic work of making its meritocracy genuine for the Silicon Valley.
—
Mahbubul Haque is a director at a Dhaka-based IT firm