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

Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#921

Post by slavik81 »

Nemo_bis wrote: post #842
mike_hearn wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's unfortunately not true, it's actually the opposite. The EU is bringing in legally mandatory gender quotas for corporate boards right now, and some European countries have had such rules already at the national level. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume... The US does in fact ban discrimination like that, but the rules weren't enforced (or rather they were enforced in one direction only…

Parent post was talking about employment. Members of the board of directors are not employees. Management is also typically not covered by most employee protections in EU countries.

The GP is still generally correct. In Canada, there are now some job postings that are only open to candidates of the appropriate race, gender or sexual orientation. These job postings would be illegal in the United States, but are allowed in Canada as long as the discrimination is intended to correct for historical injustice.

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#922

Post by Manuel_D »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #252
ericmcer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Costco ever have a diversity issue? I don't think people are worried about getting more representation among grocery store cashiers.

The diversity isn't for you the customer, it's for the employees and the kind of corporate environment Costco wants to build. Edit to add: A better corporate environment, of course, does tend to lead to a better customer experience, but the "visibility of diversity" should not be the goal but rather "genuinely fostering an inclusive environment where people are respected and feel willing to put in their best work," a…

That's interesting. Every company I worked at that instituted DEI policies claimed that achieving a workforce representative of the customer base helped the customer.

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#923

Post by visarga »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #617
Viliam1234 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lack of educational resources Could you please explain this part? I am not sure how you meant it. Is the main problem that the resources are not in the language of your tribe? Or is that a lack of educational resources regardless of language (e.g. simply not enough textbooks to give to each child)? What kind of educational resources do you wish you had?

in the US, schools in poor counties have less resources and less high quality teachers, and the children have much less of an education-focused environment in which they can flourish because of the parent's lack of resources raise the economic level of the community, and education rises with it

You make this to be a financial problem, but I think actually it is a cultural problem. Maybe lack of row models or not valuing education sufficiently. Having too much money can be a hinderance to educational motivation too.

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#924

Post by undersuit »

bubblethink wrote: post #766
ColdTakes wrote: post #5

That title image looks like it is from the set of a sitcom starring Mark Zuckerberg. DEI initiatives have always been a dog and pony show, not a thing executives have ever truly cared about and they are now in a political environment where they can show what they believe in. People will learn the hard way these companies have never cared about you.

The weirdest one I saw was when Uber Eats would highlight black owned businesses and ask you to order from them. Uber isn't going to lower its cut for these black businesses or donate to some charity for black people if you order. It just wants you to funnel money to them through a black business. Bizarre.

https://merchants.ubereats.com/us/en/black-owned-restaurants...

Not bizarre, capitalism. Uber Eats should expand their offerings else someone else will take that market segment.

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#925

Post by rainsford »

mike_hearn wrote: post #555
fourside wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> may disadvantage my business by making my own products (build from their components) worse One of the biggest wins for the anti-DEI crowd was convincing people that embracing DEI implicitly meant getting something of lesser quality or value. Here, you assume that focusing on businesses owned by people of color necessitates lowering your standards of your suppliers below acceptable levels.

It does require lowering standards and quality, by definition, because in the absence of DEI pressure campaigns they'd have been selecting suppliers based on standards and quality by default. Any other criteria inherently trades off against that. And you seem to know that's true because your claim slides smoothly from "getting something of lesser quality" to "lowering standards below acceptable levels" which aren't t…

There's no reason to believe pure meritocracy is somehow the default state and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Humans are naturally biased in how we make choices and "this person looks and sounds like me" is probably one of the most common and deep rooted subconscious (or sometimes conscious) preferences. This isn't just a workplace hiring problem either. Humans are objectively bad at making purely objective decisions, even when they think they're doing so.

This isn't to say DEI programs as implemented today are the best solution to this problem, or even an effective one. I personally think more broad anti-bias training and programs could be a good alternative since race and gender are hardly the only biases that lead to bad decision making (e.g. hiring someone just because they went to the same school as you is also bad). But it seems silly to pretend bias doesn't exist or that it doesn't take active effort to counter, although I understand the appeal of doing so especially for uncomfortable topics like race.

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#926

Post by nibbles »

loeg wrote: post #540
dang wrote: post #463

Earlier 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.

[dead]

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#927

Post by [deleted] »

Aunche wrote: post #769
iforgot22 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this because truly doing race-based hiring has been illegal for a long time? I've noticed they'll target certain demographics for interviews and other opportunities, but identity can't be a factor in the interview itself. It's a fine line.

They will target certain demographics in ways that their lawyers can argue are legal such as giving more interviews to Grace Hopper attendees or schools with favorable demographics [1]. This is a great way to poach minorities from different companies without moving bringing any minorities to tech in any significant capacity. This is probably why men are increasingly going to Grace Hopper [2]. [1] https://blog.duoling…

[deleted]

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#928

Post by eweise »

MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #705
eweise wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You might put "they/them" next to your name if you prefer not to be referred to by a gendered pronoun.

Not putting pronouns next to my name, doesn't mean I don't want to be referred by a gendered pronoun. I'm pretty sure people can guess correctly my gender.

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#929

Post by iforgot22 »

jdminhbg wrote: post #548
MattyMc wrote: post #279

> The Supreme Court of the United States has recently made decisions signaling a shift in how courts will approach DEI. Does anyone know what decisions he's referring to?

SFFA v Harvard ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... ) outlawed affirmative action in public institutions, but I think most legal observers assume that if someone brings a case against the same thing in private institutions to the Supreme Court, they'll outlaw it there too.

Also, 2020 California Proposition 16 failed. It would have overturned a 1996 proposition that similarly banned affirmative action in the state.

Re: Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

#930

Post by iforgot22 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #140
hypeatei wrote: post #44

Seems fine as it always appeared as virtue signaling to me. This is one less talking point that conservatives will use when literally anything happens.

I am open to discussing the efficacy of DEI vs its harms. BUT The right wing media machine will never run out of silly things to tell its consumers to be angry about.

I honestly think race/gender-based hiring or school admission is a legitimate thing to be angry about. Democrats have been clear about their stance on this for decades, and they can always change it if they want. It's not like the Hillary Clinton email "scandal."
Post reply on HN