Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 98 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

#21

Post by PakG1 »

People for some reason have an inability to separate the goals of DEI/EDI from the practice. It's possible that the goals are important and correct, but the implementation sucks. I am of this belief for many DEI programs I've seen. But I'm still pro-DEI. It just gets implemented often too simplistically and naively, enabling the creation of more controversy and also likely many poor outcomes in organizations. As for what percentage of DEI programs result in such poor outcomes, I dare not guess, I have too little data.

However, the comments that Zuckerberg is making makes me think he really thinks that the goals of DEI are themselves intrinsically bad. He seems to be leaning into the stereotypical type of thinking that causes the issues that DEI is trying to address in the first place.

I'm disappointed. I would have hoped that he'd be capable of diving into more nuance.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

#23

Post by forgingahead »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #9
forgingahead wrote: post #7

An MSN repost of a Fox Business article, that lifted a specific sentence from a NYTimes article, where the source was "people familiar with the meeting". This is likely as accurate as the game of broken telephone that kids play.

More than once it has happened where some NYT article will discuss some private meeting at the White House and attribute it to someone like, "According to a credible source at that meeting, blah blah". Later it is confirmed that that well placed source was the President, or the secretary of state, etc. Credible news organizations don't just repeat whatever some random guy claims to have heard.

The NYTimes has a history of fabricating and outright lying to serve their own corporate or affiliated agendas. See for eg:

https://www.amazon.com/Gray-Lady-Winked-Misreporting-Fabrica...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

#24

Post by forgingahead »

byearthithatius wrote: post #13
forgingahead wrote: post #7

An MSN repost of a Fox Business article, that lifted a specific sentence from a NYTimes article, where the source was "people familiar with the meeting". This is likely as accurate as the game of broken telephone that kids play.

So it is two articles that both ultimately source from NYT? They are not commonly flat out incorrect, and when they are tend to correct the record. So I would say your statement is hyperbole and wrong. NYT sources are likely quite a bit more trustworthy than eight year olds whispering to each other for fun.

The NYTimes has a history of fabricating and outright lying to serve their own corporate or affiliated agendas. See for eg:

https://www.amazon.com/Gray-Lady-Winked-Misreporting-Fabrica...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

#25

Post by johnneville »

PakG1 wrote: post #21

People for some reason have an inability to separate the goals of DEI/EDI from the practice. It's possible that the goals are important and correct, but the implementation sucks. I am of this belief for many DEI programs I've seen. But I'm still pro-DEI. It just gets implemented often too simplistically and naively, enabling the creation of more controversy and also likely many poor outcomes in organizations. As for…

furthermore, he is blaming the company's decision on his COO and not on himself as CEO. more than almost any other founder, he maintained control over his company and for better or worse it is clear that he alone bears the responsibility for what the company does as a result of that control. blaming one of his most trusted, respected, and successful deputies for what he now describes as a failure does not reflect well on him as a leader in my esteem.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

#26

Post by Ozzie_osman »

Manuel_D wrote: post #14

To be clear, Meta's "Diverse Slate Approach" was explicitly discriminatory with regards to protected class. It prohibited hiring managers from proceeding with an offer until at least one of the on-site interviews contained an "underrepresented group", meaning women and URM males. In practice this meant that white and Asian men had to wait a long time to get an offer even after they passed the interview rounds. But wo…

> NNNNNNNNNNNNDNNNNNNNNNNND

If the pattern resembles this for a group that represents over 50% of the broader population (women and some subset of males), I'd argue that it's highly possible there are other, possibly discriminatory, factors at play.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

#27

Post by Manuel_D »

PakG1 wrote: post #21

People for some reason have an inability to separate the goals of DEI/EDI from the practice. It's possible that the goals are important and correct, but the implementation sucks. I am of this belief for many DEI programs I've seen. But I'm still pro-DEI. It just gets implemented often too simplistically and naively, enabling the creation of more controversy and also likely many poor outcomes in organizations. As for…

The goals of most DEI programs can't be achieved without discrimination on the basis of protected class. If software developers are 18% women how can a company achieve 40% women software developers without discrimination? And that was a DEI goal a previous employer used. In fact they had the same goal for electrical engineer too despite being 10% women.

Ambiguous goals like "make people feel welcome" doesn't require discrimination. But those are not the DEI goals people object to. 3 out of the 4 companies I've worked at implemented DEI goals in the form of numeric thresholds, and used discrimination to achieve them. Only one carried out DEI in the innocuous manner.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

#28

Post by Manuel_D »

Ozzie_osman wrote: post #26
Manuel_D wrote: post #14

To be clear, Meta's "Diverse Slate Approach" was explicitly discriminatory with regards to protected class. It prohibited hiring managers from proceeding with an offer until at least one of the on-site interviews contained an "underrepresented group", meaning women and URM males. In practice this meant that white and Asian men had to wait a long time to get an offer even after they passed the interview rounds. But wo…

> NNNNNNNNNNNNDNNNNNNNNNNND If the pattern resembles this for a group that represents over 50% of the broader population (women and some subset of males), I'd argue that it's highly possible there are other, possibly discriminatory, factors at play.

So we should expect 50% men in elementary schools? How about lumberjacks? Should those be 50% women too?

A non discriminatory hiring process should reflect the demographics of the workers in the given field (other factors like geography matter too). Why would we expect, say, pediatricians (80% female) to have 50% men?

Achieving a 50/50 split between men and women in a field that's 80% one gender requires hiring one gender at 4x the rate of the other. This line of thinking is what leads companies to set up discriminatory hiring practices in pursuit of DEI goals.

The even government office of non discrimination compliance agrees: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/AAFAQs

> The purpose of affirmative action is to ensure equal employment opportunities for applicants and employees. It is based on the premise that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce generally will reflect the demographics of the qualified available workforce in the relevant job market.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

#29

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

Manuel_D wrote: post #14

To be clear, Meta's "Diverse Slate Approach" was explicitly discriminatory with regards to protected class. It prohibited hiring managers from proceeding with an offer until at least one of the on-site interviews contained an "underrepresented group", meaning women and URM males. In practice this meant that white and Asian men had to wait a long time to get an offer even after they passed the interview rounds. But wo…

Had to look up URM

https://diversity.ucsf.edu/programs-resources/urm-definition

Re: Mark Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg for Meta 'inclusivity' push: report

#30

Post by galleywest200 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #28
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NNNNNNNNNNNNDNNNNNNNNNNND If the pattern resembles this for a group that represents over 50% of the broader population (women and some subset of males), I'd argue that it's highly possible there are other, possibly discriminatory, factors at play.

So we should expect 50% men in elementary schools? How about lumberjacks? Should those be 50% women too? A non discriminatory hiring process should reflect the demographics of the workers in the given field (other factors like geography matter too). Why would we expect, say, pediatricians (80% female) to have 50% men? Achieving a 50/50 split between men and women in a field that's 80% one gender requires hiring one g…

One question we should ask ourselves is why a field would be dominated by men and not evenly split, or mostly women, etc. Does one feel as if they would face an uphill battle trying to get hired in a field that is 80% their other?
Post reply on HN