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

601–610 of 972 posts

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#601

Post by yucky »

topaz0 wrote: post #383
yucky wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They mention an increase of from 3% to 5% of membership of senior black leaders. So now instead of those 3% being seen as having earned their position, all 5% will be seen as having been given an unfair advantage. So now it's not only unfair to the people excluded based on skin color but it's unfair to those who benefitted strictly because of the perception they now have to deal with as having not really earned thei…

> all 5% will be seen as having been given an unfair advantage. Only by the kinds of people who tend to assume the worst about Black people.

It has nothing to with the people who were given an unfair advantage based on skin color, it is the fact that skin color is used to give a preference that invalidates accomplishments.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#602

Post by etchalon »

topaz0 wrote: post #383
yucky wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They mention an increase of from 3% to 5% of membership of senior black leaders. So now instead of those 3% being seen as having earned their position, all 5% will be seen as having been given an unfair advantage. So now it's not only unfair to the people excluded based on skin color but it's unfair to those who benefitted strictly because of the perception they now have to deal with as having not really earned thei…

> all 5% will be seen as having been given an unfair advantage. Only by the kinds of people who tend to assume the worst about Black people.

No post body was provided.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#603

Post by hbrn »

BryantD wrote: post #559
hbrn wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sure, you could obviously have a poorly functioning diverse workplace. Likewise, you could obviously have a poorly functioning lily-white all-male workplace. The idea that diversity advocates are solely focused on diversity for its own sake is incorrect. There are two factors that typically play into it: one is practical (see my comment) and the other is moral (the belief that it’s inherently better if someone raised…

I did not imply you're a hypocrite. I only tried to explain the cancel culture / diversity paradox. Both cancel culture and DEI are incredibly hypocritical "holier than thou" contests.

> belief that it’s inherently better if someone raised in a non-majority culture has an equal chance to succeed

I think it's safe to say that equality of opportunity ship has long sailed. Far left is all about equality of outcome now.

But let's focus on equality of opportunity. It's an incredibly complex problem to solve. Take affirmative action for example: based on dose and implementation it could either help, or it could backfire. But any criticism of it will get you labelled as bigot or racist. "We're helping disenfranchised minorities here, how dare you criticize us?"

Once you believe you have the moral high ground, criticism is no longer acceptable.

I'm not labelling the other guy as virtue signaler because he seems capable of self-doubt and rational thought.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#604

Post by woojoo666 »

tylerhou wrote: post #283
Manuel_D wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are Asians doing so well? "Asians" are 60% of the world population and encompass a huge variety of cultures, as I'm sure many will point out. That said, it's viable to consider trends and averages, especially when scoped-down to Asian Americans specifically, despite the potential for generalization. Two main reasons that are given: Higher overall academic investment and achievement [1]. As per the study, Asians…

Please don’t reduce Asian-Americans to the myth of the model minority. The truth is more nuanced. The income gap between poor and rich Asians in the US is the highest out of any ethnic group. One reason for this is that recent Asian immigration has selected for largely been wealthy and/or well educated populations. So what you call “Asian culture” will have a natural bias towards the preferences of people who value m…

> Also, stereotyping “Asian culture” as a culture which values education implies (in a racist way) that “other cultures” (hint hint) don’t value education.

No it doesn't. It implies that asian culture values education more than other cultures. Which has been shown in some studies. For example, this one from 2013 [1] showed that, when asked if a college degree was necessary for success, 70% of hispanics said yes, as well as 61% of asians, 55% of blacks, and 47% of whites. A more recent study from 2020 [2] asked if college led to more job opportunities, and 89% of asians said yes, as well as 86% of whites, 74% of latinos, and 69% of blacks.

[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/11/white-...

[2]: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/25/views-higher-...

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#605

Post by int_19h »

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.

In colloquial English, racism has the same meaning today that it did for decades before - a belief that humans' behavior depends on their race, and prejudice and/or discrimination stemming from such a belief.

The whole "prejudice + power" thing is a late social studies invention. Which is fine - different fields of study often have their own terminology, including using words in ways that do not directly match their regular meaning. What's not fine is people from those fields of study lecturing everyone else on how we're supposedly using it wrong. It's like biologists going around randomly yelling at people that tomatoes aren't vegetables whenever the subject comes up... except biologists don't do that.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#606

Post by abigail95 »

milesskorpen wrote: post #22

"I was pretty sure my corporate vice president would be more likely to promote people who had hired more of them and thus made his contribution to the annual D&I report look good." Statements like this carry a lot of weight in this essay: He's "pretty sure" and "assumes" an awful lot. He also seems fairly ineffective at navigating bureaucracy. Taken to extremes, lots of corporate policies can seem a bit overbearing.…

We know how to reduce bias in hiring. Using a blind audition.

A much smaller amount of information about the applicants origin leaks through. Implicit bias is attacked via limiting the information that it can act on.

It seems categorizing people by race and gender at the individual level is a recipe for disaster and gives racists the power to do exactly what they want, pick and choose which types of people get to benefit.

If you give a regular person information about a persons race and gender, the damage they can do is limited to whatever implicit bias (if any) they have.

If you give these tools to a racist or sexist, you've given them the keys to the kingdom.

The conclusion is, why is Microsoft making it a requirement to know about race and gender at every single hiring step? Surely this just needs to be an aggeregate statistic right?

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#607

Post by joemazerino »

drewbug01 wrote: post #527
torstenvl wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Quoted post unavailable.

Over 1B dollars in damage.

https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots-cost-property-damage

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#608

Post by 31337Logic »

balls187 wrote: post #455
nsxwolf wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that mean? Just about anyone can get into a school, or get a job.

> What does that mean? Worrying that kids may not be able to get into a decent school because they're not diverse enough seems like a a nice problem to have--parents of "diverse" children have much larger worries. > Just about anyone can get into a school, or get a job. Wouldn't that mean that based on the equality of outcomes, it doesn't matter what type of school OP's kids go to, and therefore no reason to worry.

> Worrying that kids may not be able to get into a decent school because they're not diverse enough seems like a a nice problem to have--parents of "diverse" children have much larger worries.

It only seems that way to you if you can't empathize with others. The OP makes a valid point. Any group that is caught in the crosshairs of discrimination will naturally be worried for their kids. It's not a "nice problem to have", as you put it, regardless of the group being targetted.

> Wouldn't that mean that based on the equality of outcomes, it doesn't matter what type of school OP's kids go to, and therefore no reason to worry.

Equality of outcomes? It's just a fact that some people excel at work/school (for various reasons) or that some people receive different pay (again, for various reasons). The point is that we shouldn't discriminate against things like sex, gender, and skin colour. That means I don't consider gender when I hire... but I also don't consider it when I fire, either.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#609

Post by topaz0 »

colordrops wrote: post #571
topaz0 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society defines racial categories according to made-up rules. The basis of these rules is not biological. All good so far. But, then we have to live with these categories, and they get applied to how we organize society, sometimes explicitly, sometimes less explicitly. And we may wish for these rules to change, or for the ways that they shape the experiences of individuals to change. But then the people who benefit f…

These rules and categories are ill-defined and even don't exist in some cases. You are not wrong stating ruling class has promoted racial ideas to weaken and control the populace at large. That doesn't mean they exist. The real power structure is held by particular networks and families, not races, as there is no such thing as race. The idea that you can draw lines around a group based on physical characteristic is w…

They do exist... the fact that they are not biological does not mean they do not exist. They have a social-historical reality. They exist in the minds of people making decisions, overtly or not. Trying to become conscious of that and counter it, and (of course imperfectly) correct for some past wrongs due to it, is what this is about.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#610

Post by 31337Logic »

colpabar wrote: post #544
prepend wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what a “diverse” parent is or how you would know their mind. I expect that all parents, regardless of demographic factors, worry about their kid getting a good job and going to school.

This seems to be forbidden to say, but for all intents and purposes, “diverse” means “not white”.

Except it doesn't seem to mean that (at least not anymore). Hence the exasperated comments you are reading on this very thread.

All people (including whites and heterosexual males) can be the targets of negative discrimination. No one wants to see themselves or their kids be intentionally disadvantaged based solely on the colour of their skin or their sexuality. Any attempt to create ANY exception to this rule is disingenuous and does nothing but further damage the very thing you claim to be trying to resolve.

Post reply on HN