Tell HN: DEI initiatives undermine the self esteem of PoC within a company

I was talking to a black woman friend about DEI recently. As a white man, I can't really share any of our discussions. But we both agree'd the whole thing does more damage than benefit to an org, especially the people, etc. My friend also added the slant of her escape from generational poverty, and the decisions she made in her life that her siblings, didn't. I wish she could come into companies and have an honest conversation about it.

This is a challenging subject, but there’s a lot of valid criticism of DEI efforts of many large companies.

For one, these programs tend to be led by teams that are, ironically, not very diverse. They tend to focus too much on box checking while ignoring broad swaths of underrepresented populations. “Asia” is a big complex region of the world with those from this region often very underrepresented in the US and subjected to discrimination. However many DEI programs fail to recognize those from this region as underrepresented and the whole lumping everyone under the generic label of “Asian” is itself painting with a very broad brush that’s insensitive to all the nuanced cultures in this region.

They also tend to push messaging that is not broadly accepted, even by the communities they claim to be helping. For example DEI had a big push on saying the word “Latino” was offensive and insisted people must say “Latinx.” Many Lantinos in companies were outraged and pointed out that in fact this concept of “Latinx” can in fact be extremely offensive to those it’s attempting to describe. For one, it’s suggesting that a gendered language is somehow inferior and must be corrected.

As the OP indicates, putting people up in a pedestal when someone that checks a desired box is hired also diminishes that person. It sends the message that they’re hired and celebrated in part to check the box vs the skills they bring to the team.

The above is all complicated that people are terrified to discuss these matters because of their sensitive nature. Rather that creating an inclusive environment to discuss these issues DEI programs more frequently establish a culture of indoctrination into the thinking of a few (such as the Latinx example above).

In short, DEI programs have a lot of self-reflection to do and need to be more aware that many of the efforts so far have caused more harm than good.

> "Why should I feel proud of my accomplishments, when the accomplishments were spoon-fed to me by the company because of my skin color? If I were a white man with the same experience, I might not even be here?"

I'm not a PoC but I am disabled. I have uncorrectable low vision. My perspective is different. If they want to hire me and promote me because I'm blind that's fine by me. I'm just happy that for once, something I have no control over, is maybe giving me a boost instead of being a drag.

But maybe it's because I'm skeptical of meritocracy. Not in an absolute sense. I have a strong suspicion that if I weren't delivering value, I'd be gone by now despite being a diversity hire. But simultaneously, I don't believe people are promoted one over another strictly due to performance, even when DEI isn't a consideration.

There's plenty of research indicating that humans and especially organizations suck at evaluating job performance. And I've seen many cases directly where someone is filling a leadership role to everyone's satisfaction yet someone else gets promoted to the permanent position even though they are clearly inadequate for the job. Promotions already appear chaotic, political and quasi-random. Essentially, what does it matter if DEI is just one more wonky variable in quantum mechanical promotion engine.

On the other hand, if you only emphasize equal access of opportunity you will never reach equal outcomes. White men have centuries of cultural expectations, family wealth, and other advantages, and minorities have none of those advantages, and may be only a few decades (if that) removed from illiterate, impoverished inequality.

Give those groups equal opportunity and it's unsurprising when an inequality of outcomes is perpetuated, observe that inequality of outcomes long enough and you start to foment the idea that maybe those people aren't actually intrinsically equal.

Our office has a similar problem as a woman-owned business... The WBENC seal is valuable for winning bids in the government and aerospace industries, where regulatory measures encourage taking contracts with us over those that are still in the "old boys' club." Are we actually providing more value than our competition? Are we as innovative and sharp as we think we are? Or is much of the work we build together only selected because it satisfies some regulatory checkbox?

I don't know, but I'd rather suffer that social strife and doubt for a few decades in my generation, wondering about my own accomplishments and worthiness, than kick the can down the road and leave the inequality unaddressed. I believe that temporarily creating equal outcomes, while temporarily problematic, will be a much faster route towards long-term equality than doing nothing.

Are they parading them around, or are they just good at their job?

Minority hires stick out because they look different. A fresh white hire being exceptional is just a kid being exceptional

Is a black hire being exceptional and standing out only getting the attention because he’s a minority?

Let me me a wild assumption, you are used to being the only black guy dev at your company.

Now that the company is making an effort to hire people, not just and endless stream of white people, you might feel a little threatened.

You’re no longer the special unicorn.

On the other hand companies could humanize the process more, less bureaucracy.