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

What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

cspicenter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 972 posts

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#501

Post by Manuel_D »

etchalon wrote: post #227
purpleblue wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not those with a disadvantage. It's strictly based on skin color. That's the problem. You have no idea if they are disadvantaged or not. There are plenty of middle-class and upper-class Black families these days. Unless you think that all Black people are disadvantaged. To me, it's a "ruinous empathy" form of racism if you think "Oh look at that poor Black person!" without knowing anything about her background.

We have objective evidence, through numerous studies, that just "being black" produces disadvantage during the hiring process, and data which shows the outcomes of that disadvantage in fairly straight-forward terms: https://hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-... https://www.americanprogress.org/article/african-americans-f... The discrimination faced by Black Americans is because of their skin color,…

This would be a good case for anonymizing resumes in the interview process. I'm not sure why that wasn't considered over setting minimum representation requirements. An easy way to eliminate discrimination is to make it impossible to discriminate between protected classes.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#502

Post by torstenvl »

nsxwolf wrote: post #456

I shut my mouth at work and go along with this stuff because I have no choice. I have a family to take care of. I've accepted this. But man, why do they always throw in the line about striving to make the workplace a "diverse and inclusive culture where everyone can bring their full and authentic self"? Everyone knows that's a goddamn lie. I almost want to cry when I read that - it makes me so angry. I haven't been a…

> Everyone knows that's a goddamn lie. I almost want to cry when I read that

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him."

Racism is anti-racist. Objective thinking is biased. Burning down cities is mostly peaceful protest.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#503

Post by listless »

nsxwolf wrote: post #456

I shut my mouth at work and go along with this stuff because I have no choice. I have a family to take care of. I've accepted this. But man, why do they always throw in the line about striving to make the workplace a "diverse and inclusive culture where everyone can bring their full and authentic self"? Everyone knows that's a goddamn lie. I almost want to cry when I read that - it makes me so angry. I haven't been a…

> I almost want to cry when I read that - it makes me so angry.

I understand this feeling. It’s because they do not at all want you to bring your authentic self. By definition, all this culture stuff is teach you who you should be at work. That’s ok. You have to run a company and you need a certain culture to do that (or at least you think you do). Fine. It’s your company. Discriminate against who you have to successfully run your business in the current cultural climate. But when you blatantly lie to my face about it and tell me to bring my authentic self, it infuriates me because I know that’s precisely what you DONT want.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#504

Post by adra »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #198
gnerkus wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this policy work for non-minority candidates who start with a disadvantage?

I would also support a policy that supports at least considering disabled or impoverished candidates.

Both of those classes are actually illegal to ask about(in Canada at least but probably many nations, so unless the candidate volunteers this information (almost certainly not). Who knows how one could know to reverse discriminate themselves.

The more pain (and hence unlikely to see the light of day) would be companies chipping into a educational fund to support impoverished individuals who would need added education to make it into positions where they can support themselves and break the difficult to climb wealth ladder.

He'll, even the location of on-site jobs can be considered discrimination. All our candidates must attend interviews at our offices in NY, SF, London, or Seattle. All others can spend their own bucks to travel here for the hope that we'll hire you .

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#505

Post by zozbot234 »

omegaworks wrote: post #492
zozbot234 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So instead of discussing ways of making D&I work Parent comment didn't say anything like that. Please assume good faith in discussions. They said that D&I efforts are more likely to work if focused on other parts of the education/industry pipeline, which seems at least plausible.

Parent comment literally said "D&I should be rejected outright" and uselessly categorized the pain of driving institutional change as "pointless problems." There is a point to trying to change a system that only sees white people at the end of the hiring pipeline. We can debate where it needs to change, but the change is necessary.

> Parent comment literally said "D&I should be rejected outright"

Nope, they didn't. A direct quote: "If D&I is operating at the wrong end of the pipe, it should be rejected outright because it won't work". Note the "If". If you disagree that D&I wouldn't work under these conditions, or that stuff that doesn't work should be rejected as pointless, you're still welcome to make that argument. But please be careful not to misquote other users' comments.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#506

Post by jimmygrapes »

nyuszika7h wrote: post #446
tomp wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a nice way to excuse your racism. A lot of people use this perverted logic. But at the end of the day, it's still evil racism. Different "worlds" (neighbourhoods, schools, health care) doesn't happen because of skin color, it happens because of wealth/poverty. So if you apply a racist filter on top of the (implicit) wealth filter, you're just being racist against poor Asian & white people.

Quoted post unavailable.

Depends on the system in "systemic". I wouldn't dare argue too much about the U.S. but if you applied the same standards globally?... Well, "whites" aren't looking so oppressive on an individual scale, and on a national scale the "white" countries most oppressive aren't long for being viewed as "white" within a generation or two, regardless of how often "great replacement" conspiracy theories are debunked. See the ever-expanding definition of "white" in order to maintain the illusion.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#507

Post by omegaworks »

pedrosorio wrote: post #457
omegaworks wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The norm in Silicon Valley is treat D&I with an inordinate level of skepticism, if not reject it outright as "anti-meritocratic." What we have here is not explicit racial segregation, but a system operating via capital and clout that has elevated a small group of mostly white men into positions of extreme power and influence over the most vibrant segment of the American economy. This creates huge bind spots and carri…

> What we have here is not explicit racial segregation, but a system operating via capital and clout that has elevated a small group of mostly white men into positions of extreme power and influence over the most vibrant segment of the American economy Microsoft - Satya Nadella Google - Sundar Pichai Twitter - Parag Agrawal None of these men is white or even born in the USA, and somehow they managed to arrive at posi…

All Brahmin, members at the top of a caste system established by British colonizers[1]. A system causing its own set of problems in Silicon Valley[2].

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48619734

2. https://slate.com/technology/2022/07/caste-silicon-valley-th...

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#508

Post by giantg2 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #414
Dig1t wrote: post #382

I work at a different FAANG and it seems like more and more the only news that we get from corporate is related to DEI. Also a lot of hiring details are now hidden from ICs. It used to be that you would be apart of the interview panel as an interviewer and then you would get together with your team afterwards and everyone on the team would vote yes/no and that would pretty much be it. Now it’s made by a manager elsew…

> I do worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older. 1. A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse. 2. There is nothing wrong with your kids being in a majority demographic. It sounds like you're more worried about the world discriminating based off race and other traits. I suspect you agree with all of this but it's a…

"A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse."

There's a manager/HR somewhere saying "hold my beer"...

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#509

Post by hbrn »

BryantD wrote: post #444
hintymad wrote: post #117

Maybe the question is why the leftists are so influential that for-profit companies are willing to comply with their ideology. Isn't the best way to increase the representation of minorities is to increase the funnel? Better schools, better teachers, more rigorous curriculum for all instead of for the elite students, a whole new culture that values curiosity and geekiness in general, and eventually a larger number of…

Oh, that’s easy. Because you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity. It’s winning in the marketplace because it’s better. You’re 100% right about the funnel, but here’s the thing: junior positions are part of the funnel. About ten years ago I realized that I was screwing up massively by interviewing for current skill level instead of p…

> you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity

Diversity, as everything else, has a sweet spot. Too little and too much are equally bad. Of course nobody knows where the sweet spot is, but merely increasing diversity is not a guarantee for improvement. I mean, you can hire someone who hates your gut and doesn't speak your language. This will definitely increase the diversity, but you probably not going to like it.

> will also explain that trying to increase diversity in the workplace is terrible. It’s almost like there’s something else going on there.

I think most of those folks just despise hypocrisy. "Being anti-racist by being racist" makes me cringe.

If you're making a diversity hire to get alternative viewpoints, you're doing it for your own benefit and being honest, I don't think anybody will have problem with that. It's the virtue signaling that makes it despicable.

There's also argument to be made that if you're allowing diversity hires, you might have to allow "cohesion" hires. Justifying one but not the other seems disingenuous.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#510

Post by colinmhayes »

hintymad wrote: post #484
colinmhayes wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my view it’s the right that is making education more arduous, especially for teachers at every step of the process. I haven’t seen anyone on the left try to censor teachers or cut their funding. “Girls who code” was huge at my inner city high school. Funded by the left. Democrat politicians fought constantly to make the schools better while republicans campaigned on vouchers that would mean poor students are stu…

I really wish that education is a bipartisan issue. It's really not about left or right. What I was criticizing is not any specific policy but that the elites, whatever parties they belong to, use morality to block legitimate discussion of tough problems. It just so happens that the left love to put people into racists and fascists group, or so when I am being subject to exposure bias. > vouchers that would mean poor…

A couple thoughts here. First, politics is inherently divisive. Just like facebook figured out that divisiveness drives engagement and so have politicians. The craziest voices end up most amplified as everyone who opposes them loudly shouts about how crazy the other side is. Just like I don't believe there is widespread support for book banning on the right I don't see the support for SF style school boards. If you want to know what dems actaully support just listen to a biden speech on education or better yet read the platform here https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/providin.... You'll notice that the main focus regarding race is funding for bussing programs and other methods of integrating schools, and that the focus is on income more than race. The republicans decided not to publish a platform in 2022 for whatever reason but they gave us this to explain themselves https://ballotpedia.org/The_Republican_Party_Platform,_2020. I will say that recent laws in Florida have been concerning, but obviously the same is true for SF, and I blame presidential posturing more than ideology for the Florida stuff.

I realize it can be difficult to separate the rhetoric from the actual bills and laws being passed, but it is extremely important to do so, and to call out troublesome ones no matter where they come from. I think taking pundits with a grain of salt is about as much as we can do as individuals, but it sure would be nice to figure out a way to better inform people(on both sides) of facts, because more and more I just see people parroting their talking points past each other instead of steelmanning. Because if we forget about the pundits we end up with stuff like common core. Common sense rules that can make everyone better off aren't what pundits are selling, their incentives aren't properly aligned unfortunately.

Post reply on HN