Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

Only half joking. After a certain time, most people get tired and afraid of constant paranoid vigilantism and start searching for protection. Any protection.

And whoever gained positions of power from the previous tumult, will seek immunity from further revolutionary tumult, which is easiest to achieve by suppressing the worst Robespierres and ossifying the new structures.

From an outside perspective, it is striking how much the woke wave is waning compared to 2020. Trump is gone from Twitter, so a constant irritant has been removed, and people are starting to having a bit of a hangover. Plus the new rulers of the nest need a bit of calm for political business as usual.

My question was more tactical than anything. Coding tests and hiring are a good example. Is a general purpose "diversity officer" likely to understand hiring, coding tests and such to improve on this?

An understanding of abstract issues, like bell curves and bias in testing generally is one thing. Getting into the nitty gritty, dealing with objections and finding alternatives is another. Don't you need someone that understands coding tests, coding, technical hiring and such to make a difference? A nondiscriminatory hiring method is objectively better, even if you don't care about diversity.

A person in authority, but removed from the actual task at hand seems like a recipe for box ticking, to me. I believe it could work for blatant, simple misogyny. For deeper issues like hiring process, don't we need subject experts?

Leaving workplace diversity aside, say the issue is application design. An application doesn't work well for people of different cultural or educational backgrounds? Don't we need someone with both an understanding of UIs and an understanding of those needs? I don't see how authority can lead someplace good. People who have never dealt with UIs have terrible ideas about how to improve them.

>I hope that answers your question. It's not an easy thing to describe, and it's easy to dismiss the problems they're trying to fix and not worth solving.

I appreciate you wading in. Most of the other comments have been quite depressing. I think what we need is more presumption of good will, and to try and carry less baggage from previous experience. People can be wrong but not bad people. They can come around. There are multiple routes to getting where we want to go. That's not to say no one is ill willed.

Lastly, I think not seeing a solution often leads to not seeing the problem... even though it's logically backwards. I also think that a deep awareness of problems leads to seeing solutions. I don't think you can use authority alone and force people to find solutions to problems they don't care about, or believe in. The problem they'll actually try to solve is "how do I me this person leave me alone."

The people in the voting booths in the USA can no more be blamed for the USA's warmongering than the Americans who stayed home, abstaining, or people in the next country over. The US military is going to do what the US military is going to do, and to believe anything else is to be either ignorant of history or hopelessly naive.

For instance, I'm trans. I'm not openly out when searching for jobs / at work, because I fear I will be discriminated for it. If I saw a company already had several trans people, and they were seeking trans people out and asking them to apply, I would maybe change my mind.

Should companies treat everyone as individuals, and say "if trans people wanted to work here, they need to apply"? Because that's how you get no trans people applying, and that perpetuates the cycle of "I can't come out, no one else in the world is trans". Sure, it would be better if companies didn't have to advocate for diversity, but until society doesn't have stigmitism, real or imagined, against minorities, then I don't think it's wrong to help them on the basis of their identity.