Google kills diversity hiring targets • Hacker News Board

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#161

Post by Sperfunctor » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:34 AM UTC

scblock wrote: post #151

likeabatterycar wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? No, because that would obviously be racist. DEI would be favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job. The just thing would be students from HBCUs having a level playing field along with everyone else. It's no different than hiring managers selectively preferring graduate…

You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Using it as a pejorative in the way you are is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist. It doesn't reflect the purpose of the concept at all. In fact your description of "favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal charact…

[dead]

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#162

Post by sepositus » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:34 AM UTC

scblock wrote: post #151

likeabatterycar wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? No, because that would obviously be racist. DEI would be favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job. The just thing would be students from HBCUs having a level playing field along with everyone else. It's no different than hiring managers selectively preferring graduate…

You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Using it as a pejorative in the way you are is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist. It doesn't reflect the purpose of the concept at all. In fact your description of "favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal charact…

> All the things we've seen both in government and in companies suddenly dumping DEI programs is craven

Some companies are under legal pressure to avoid lawsuits because some programs are violating civil rights. I wouldn't call those instances craven.

As for your definition of DEI, I find it fairly out of touch with the reality of the situation. Regardless of how we want to define DEI in the hypothetical perfect world, the reality is a large portion of current DEI programs look absolutely nothing like what you described.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#163

Post by fzeroracer » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:34 AM UTC

likeabatterycar wrote: post #149

strangeloops85 wrote: post #148

Independent of whether these goals are appropriate or not, these actions (and those of so many other companies) are just so predictably craven. These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? At least Costco seems to have a logical reason for what they do and stood by it.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? No, because that would obviously be racist. DEI would be favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job. The just thing would be students from HBCUs having a level playing field along with everyone else. It's no different than hiring managers selectively preferring graduate…

I mean, considering West Point Academy is closing clubs like the National Society of Black Engineers or the Japanese Forum Club due to the anti-DEI order [1] I think that should tell you everything you need to know about what this change signals.

[1] https://time.com/7212911/west-point-disbands-cadet-clubs-aff...

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#164

Post by pacomerh » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:34 AM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #152

strangeloops85 wrote: post #148

Independent of whether these goals are appropriate or not, these actions (and those of so many other companies) are just so predictably craven. These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? At least Costco seems to have a logical reason for what they do and stood by it.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? Why won't they? It's not like black people can't be hired anymore. It's just they have to compete like everyone else without being treated like disabled people.

You have been misinformed of how DEI works. Its goal is basically equal access to resources, addressing systemic inequities, and fostering an inclusive culture where everyone feels valued.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#165

Post by piker » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:35 AM UTC

strangeloops85 wrote: post #148

Independent of whether these goals are appropriate or not, these actions (and those of so many other companies) are just so predictably craven. These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? At least Costco seems to have a logical reason for what they do and stood by it.

How deep in the talent pool does Google usually go? It seems to me many HBCUs end up somewhere in the middle of the rankings. I don’t think Google went out of its way to interview at my middling state school. Should HBCUs get a boost?

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#166

Post by AlotOfReading » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:36 AM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #152

strangeloops85 wrote: post #148

Independent of whether these goals are appropriate or not, these actions (and those of so many other companies) are just so predictably craven. These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? At least Costco seems to have a logical reason for what they do and stood by it.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? Why won't they? It's not like black people can't be hired anymore. It's just they have to compete like everyone else without being treated like disabled people.

Imagine that someone decides recruiting needs a budget cut and shrinks the travel budget a bit. Managers shift to local career fairs instead. No one notices the complete lack of bay area HBCUs and a couple years down the road the pipeline is filled with people from Stanford with internships and internal recommendations competing against people from HBCUs that don't have either of them. One of these populations will look vastly more qualified on paper.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#167

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:36 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #156

scblock wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Using it as a pejorative in the way you are is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist. It doesn't reflect the purpose of the concept at all. In fact your description of "favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal charact…

> ...is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist... You forgot transphobist and whatever the -ist form of Nazi is. National Socialist, possibly. No point going with half-measures on the insults.

[deleted]

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#168

Post by scarab92 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:37 AM UTC

strangeloops85 wrote: post #148

Independent of whether these goals are appropriate or not, these actions (and those of so many other companies) are just so predictably craven. These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? At least Costco seems to have a logical reason for what they do and stood by it.

It surprises me that these programs were ever legal.

It is strictly illegal in Australia to consider factors like gender or race when hiring. Even capturing these details from applicants is problematic in most cases.

The compensation payable if caught can be enormous, in the order of a years salary per applicant. It’s not even necessary to prove that a specific applicant was discriminated against, simply having a process which is likely to discriminate is sufficient.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#169

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:37 AM UTC

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #141

like_any_other wrote: post #13

Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they? Whites were already under-represented at Google (and at 18/23 tech companies) back in 2017 [1]. If they've rolled over for anyone, it was for the Asian lobby, who is over-represented at 23/23 of those tech companies, and now won't be facing DEI pressures to reduce their numbers. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250127210140/https://informati...

DEI programs discriminate significantly against Asians, just like college admissions. If these programs didn’t exist, the proportion of Asian employees would be even higher than it is currently, simply based on merit.

[deleted]

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#170

Post by achow » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 6:38 AM UTC

scblock wrote: post #151

likeabatterycar wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? No, because that would obviously be racist. DEI would be favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job. The just thing would be students from HBCUs having a level playing field along with everyone else. It's no different than hiring managers selectively preferring graduate…

You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Using it as a pejorative in the way you are is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist. It doesn't reflect the purpose of the concept at all. In fact your description of "favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal charact…

I'm all for DEI, however you too seem to misunderstand one critical aspect, the 'E' in DEI. The 'E' (Equity) aspect is very nuanced and if not understood and communicated well would lead to deadlocked discussions

Equity factors in historical and sociopolitical factors that affect opportunities and experiences. This could mean that if we have a candidate who seems to be with lesser qualification then they potentially can be hired over a more qualified candidate.

This is with reasoning that due to past decades (and centuries) of historical situations a candidate was led through a path which landed them with a 'lesser' qualification. So, now if we continue to correct this historical situation then sometime in future the need for Equity would disappear, since that future generation is result of a equitable society - then no more excuses, if you have lesser qualification then it is your doing and not society's.