Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a mid-level manager in a prominent tech company, my VP (not current) explicitly asked me if there were any women or minorities for whom we could accelerate promotion. Not that were ready, but may be ready soon and we'll take the benefit of the doubt. I know that lots of women, minorities, and LGBTQ employees benefitted from that, but white male employees learned there wasn't budget for them. Execs given a goal wil…
Confirming Google did this.
Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
801–810 of 1001 posts
Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
#802Every time you try to right a wrong like this (DEI), it just makes things worse for everyone involved. Just find the best person for the job, no matter their skin color, sex, age, etc.
It's not that simple. Without DEI you end up with products created by white men for white men. DEI means you end up employing some people who potentially aren't as technically qualified, but bring a different viewpoint to the team. Until I spent a long time living with Blacks (as a white) I never knew all the things they go through growing up, I never knew how their communities and families were organized, I never kn…
Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
#803I wrote about my experience working as a software developer and being black in the industry and I was lucky to have it published on BBC [1]. What immediately followed, every large company reached out to have me work as a consultant for their diversity program. I found it fascinating that they had a team of DEI experts in place already. Like what makes one an expert? In addition to my job, I spent nights developing pr…
Yes. What too few people realized was that the rollout of DEI was driven by what was trending at the time, designed to win political points with the groups that were politically ascendant. These programs were never a victory for the principles or the people, they were marketing. So it should come as no shock whatsoever that now that another political group is politically ascendant the marketing that is valuable has c…
Of course it was, and so is this latest effort from Meta. I'm sure if there was some anti-Brazilian group in power in Washington or something, you'd see Meta shutting down their offices in Rio.
Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
#804Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did you get there? Did you have to make a conscious choice, for minority candidates, to prefer them to majority candidates?
I think it's always conscious one way or the other. With or without DEI. It could be close to blind if communication were only done through writing and the candidate names were not known.
Isn't the central point of DEI that whites prefer whites due to an unconscious bias?
Then, on one hand you have a very conscious decision to hire a minority just because he or she is a minority. On the other hand, you have an unconscious bias that might or might not be there but you can't really measure it by definition because it's unconscious. It's not the same.
Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
#805Is not it a confession that DEI ideas were always political and Meta never truly believed in it?
Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
#806Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. What too few people realized was that the rollout of DEI was driven by what was trending at the time, designed to win political points with the groups that were politically ascendant. These programs were never a victory for the principles or the people, they were marketing. So it should come as no shock whatsoever that now that another political group is politically ascendant the marketing that is valuable has c…
> Change that occurs through fear of your power can only last as long as your power. Lasting change is only possible by actually changing hearts and minds. I'm trying to put in flat terms, but fundamentally power matters. This is the base of democracy: give people the power to change things, there needs to be a fear that these people will exercise their power. Changing hearts and minds is beautiful, but one reason is…
All people have some degree of racist tendencies - regardless of gender, sex, color, etc. And criminal tendencies. And other tendencies.
And what actual consequences will be applied that impact one group or another tend to go in cycles/pendulum back and forth (and hence impact what percent of the population is going to do x, and how many will see real consequences for those actions).
That is because when one group overdoes it (or is perceived to), enough people get tired of that group/outraged, and then things shift. And these patterns tend to be on coarse criteria like gender/sex/color/race/language, etc. because the most brazen users of any sort of shitty force/violence/shaming/whatever are exactly the type of people who are the shittiest. And every group of people have a percent that is shitty.
For instance, for many years now shame has been a major consequence, along with legal action.
So eventually, we end up with a group/leader essentially immune to shame and legal action, who is now going to use do all sorts of shameless and illegal things. Really, a large group of people like that. And who don’t mind violence (or the threat of it) as a potential consequence.
Eventually, being a shameless crook will fall out of fashion (or will have finally hurt/pissed off enough people), and another counter group will rise to take it’s place.
Often, when it gets particularly ugly/strong in one direction or another, there is also a corresponding backlash against the particularly strong users of the prior ‘fashion’ of power.
Sometimes beheadings, or ostracizing, or legal harassment, or whatever.
Weinstein getting what he got (as deserved as it was), was one swing. We’ll see who gets this next counter reaction.
Why do you think the dems and tech companies are going out of their way to be as friendly to the incoming admin as they are? They know the score, and are trying to avoid getting whacked.
Or, to quote an old western - ‘Deserve has nothing to do with it’.
Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
#807Earlier quoted context omitted.
At big tech company I used to work for ($3T) they did this in 2017, and my manager did not give a single offer to a man in years even when everyone said hire, and the next 14 of 14 offers were to women, several minorities, despite many having barely any “hire” votes.
Must be Microsoft, I don’t think Apple and Nvidia went hard on this
Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
#808I wrote about my experience working as a software developer and being black in the industry and I was lucky to have it published on BBC [1]. What immediately followed, every large company reached out to have me work as a consultant for their diversity program. I found it fascinating that they had a team of DEI experts in place already. Like what makes one an expert? In addition to my job, I spent nights developing pr…
Yes. What too few people realized was that the rollout of DEI was driven by what was trending at the time, designed to win political points with the groups that were politically ascendant. These programs were never a victory for the principles or the people, they were marketing. So it should come as no shock whatsoever that now that another political group is politically ascendant the marketing that is valuable has c…
Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
#809Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What about this do you perceive to be flamebait or a generic tangent? I’m directly and sincerely commenting on the article. Plenty of other comments are expressing either support or criticism of the policy change.
Generic tangents always make threads less interesting, because they take attention away from the specifics of what's new in an article and direct it instead to one of the large pre-existing topics that people tend to fixate on. I sometimes compare this to a spacecraft flying too close to a black hole and getting sucked in: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
It was flamebait in two ways: (1) Generic tangents on inflammatory topics are already flamebait; and (2) the comment makes a huge assumption (that the previous situation was "racism / sexism") and treats that as fact without substantiating it. Large unsubstantiated claims about inflammatory topics are also flamebait.
Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
#810Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with most of your points. Though with respect lasting change, where is your impression coming from that the gains are in the last 10 to 15 years? Or even that is a widespread belief? According to reporting at the guardian [1], FBs DEI program increased black and brown employees from 8% to 12%. Seems abysmal. My perspective, US society is still fighting for gains that _started_ 160 years ago. Still painstaking…
America is a country where the majority even of “white” people belong to ethnic groups that never had anything to do with African American slavery (German, Italian, Irish, etc.) And the non-black non-white people (Asians, Hispanics) didn’t either. So nobody will do anything that costs themselves anything. The best you can hope for is color blindness and a very slow homogenization and equilibrium. There was a gambit t…
Definitely agree nobody will vote for anything that costs them anything.
But my kids are mixed race partial African heritage and I do think it behooves us as Americans to think about rectifying that terrible wrong on my wife's side of the family. There are dozens of examples of horribly wrong headed ways to do that (Brazil had some really creative and disastrous ideas), but we should at least acknowledge the lingering effects that still impacts people today that are descendants of slaves.
Maybe I'm just sensitive because it feels like Florida, where I currently live, is trying to wipe away that history. Why inhibit discussion about it?