71–80 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
George Floyd's "incident" was in 2020. DEI efforts long predate that date. 2011: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13583 2019: https://time.com/5696943/diversity-business/ > A 2019 survey of 234 companies in the S&P 500 found that 63% of the diversity professionals had been appointed or promoted to their roles during the past three years. In March 2018, the job site Indeed reported that postings for dive…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It only seems bizarre if you didn't consider DEI programs to be largely symbolic corporate puffery in the first place. For all of the hate they received from some political spheres they were largely just PR initiatives right from the start, especially in larger companies.
[flagged]
Beyond the ones who were just making stuff up for political points, there were also people who didn't get a job they wanted and blamed minorities instead of themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It only seems bizarre if you didn't consider DEI programs to be largely symbolic corporate puffery in the first place. For all of the hate they received from some political spheres they were largely just PR initiatives right from the start, especially in larger companies.
I'm curious, what gives you that kind of deep insight?
For an extreme example, imagine a car company with zero women employees. I could imagine that their designs might look increasingly awesome to people who grew up playing with black, angular, high-powered cars (like me -- that's what I'd want!). And while there are plenty of women who'd like that, too, there are lots of women (and plenty of men!) who'd want something smaller, more brightly colored, and with better gas mileage. It they didn't have those varying opinions, or weren't even aware that people had other opinions, they'd be severely limiting their potential market and leaving huge amounts of money on the table.
(My wife's a big F1 fan and wants to own a McLaren some day. I know that many, many women love fast cars, too, and that many, many men do not. That was meant to be illustrative, not a perfect analogy.)
I am utterly convinced that getting input from lots of people with various backgrounds makes a company much better and more profitable. Even if I didn't care about the societal ideals behind DEI programs, I'd still happily endorse them as a competitive edge.
I'm a PoC, and stuff like this reads extremely bizarre to me. On the one hand, you're acknowledging rolling back DEI initiatives in part because of the "political landscape," and that you were already committed to diversity on your teams. That's all well and good, but then, why the initiative in the first place? It seems to me you're doing at least 1 thing here, and acknowledging that such DEI program was performativ…
It only seems bizarre if you didn't consider DEI programs to be largely symbolic corporate puffery in the first place. For all of the hate they received from some political spheres they were largely just PR initiatives right from the start, especially in larger companies.
Right-wingers are ready to believe companies are lying about some things but not about DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion).
Meta have some of the most double speak I’ve seen. They’ll say one set of virtuous sounding goals while completely undermining it in the same breath. This is just them running with their tails between their legs before the new admin takes over.
> This is just them running with their tails between their legs before the new admin takes over.
They're not running away from this, they're running towards the new admin, mouths wide open to receive. This admin promises to be amazing for dead-eyed big tech fuckery and they want in. And it's a win-win for them as they can also save the expensive DEI and fact-checking cost center departments while they're at it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
You have a completely distorted view of the history of these programs which LONG predate 2020. Unfortunately so do a lot of people.
For me, the photo of Wells Fargo managers kneeling in front of their huge money safes will always be the icon of that time. You cannot really get more performative than that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-16/banks-sna...
Meta have some of the most double speak I’ve seen. They’ll say one set of virtuous sounding goals while completely undermining it in the same breath. This is just them running with their tails between their legs before the new admin takes over.
I think this is the norm for any topic that is politicized. You could have ChatGPT or some other LLM write the memo and it wouldn't be much better or worse.
I'm a PoC, and stuff like this reads extremely bizarre to me. On the one hand, you're acknowledging rolling back DEI initiatives in part because of the "political landscape," and that you were already committed to diversity on your teams. That's all well and good, but then, why the initiative in the first place? It seems to me you're doing at least 1 thing here, and acknowledging that such DEI program was performativ…
I'm not saying that's the case (well, I do think it is) but if it is true, then trying to extract meaningful conclusions about the performance of DEI programs from it is a fool's errand.