Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs

> It does require lowering standards and quality, by definition

This assumption works if and only if you assume that the highest quality products are always (and categorically) produced by the folks that DEI initiatives do not target.

To say that it lowers standards _by definition_ is identical to saying that the system that disproportionately advances straight white guys is _by definition_ optimal and creates the best products — the simpler way of rewriting that sentiment is to simply say “straight white guys make the best stuff _by definition_”

As an aside it reminds me of something I saw a while ago — “There are two genders: men and ‘Political’, two races: white and ‘Political’, and two sexual orientations: straight and ‘Political’

It is funny to see people argue this with a straight face.

There are multiple axes upon which something like this can be evaluated. I'm not against us as a society collectively deciding we should enforce rules that may be counter to business logic (e.g., child labor laws to pick something uncontroversial).

When something is more controversial, it's common to look at the business case. It has commonly been argued that 'diversity' is good business even disregarding any desire one may have related to restorative justice.

Put simply, if it's good business and good morals we should do it, if it's bad business and good morals or good business and bad morals, we have to weigh the balance of it (bad business can lead to morally bad outcomes, like layoffs), and if it's bad business and bad morals we ought not do it at all. I was just focusing on the business case under the assumption that the poster believed it to be good morally.

Not to belabour any specific point you're making, but Rome had three classes.

* High-Romans - elected officials, ranked soldiers.

* Romans (Or, Honorary Citizens in rare, exceptional cases).

And...

* Slaves, which were the result of conquest of those diverse lands.

Ancient Rome, especially during the Republic and early Empire, wasn’t ethnically diverse when it came to fairness and equality at all.

Citizenship was originally reserved for freeborn males of Latin descent, and while it expanded over time, it was usually about practicality and control, not inclusivity.

Conquered peoples, like the Greeks and Gauls, were brought into the empire as subjects, not equals. Slavery was a huge part of Roman society, with enslaved people often coming from different ethnic groups, but they had no rights. Even when enslaved people were freed, they still faced heavy discrimination, and the upper classes worked hard to keep Latin culture and traditions dominant over everything else.

It wasn’t until much later, around 212 CE, that Rome started to look more diverse in a way that also brought some measure of equity. That’s when Emperor Caracalla granted citizenship to all free people in the empire, regardless of their ethnicity. However, this wasn’t really about fairness—it was more about making tax collection easier and keeping the empire running. Even after that, inequality stuck around, with most power staying in the hands of the wealthy, Latin-speaking elites. While non-Italian emperors and leaders became more common in the later Empire, this shift was more about necessity as Rome struggled to maintain control, not a true embrace of diversity or equality - and if anything, something that people who are not fond of diversity can point to as a cause of Rome's fall (not that it actually is.)

The Tusla Race Massacre took place in 1921!

I generally loathe DEI programs in the workplace, mostly because they are almost always just about appearances: "let's make sure we have at least 20% minority representation" or whatever.

Early in my career I worked at a company where we only wanted to hire the "best" people. However, after several years many of us began to notice a slow, downward trend in the quality of our products (games) were and how well they were selling.

One theory that we started floating around was that the "best" people we were interviewing for was actually more in line with "people who think like us". We were really good programmers, artists, and designers, so naturally people who thought and worked like us would be good, too, right? And they were. But that thinking also ignored the fact that people outside our bubble could be equally as good (or better), and bring new (and better) ideas that could expand the target audience.

Later, when I worked at a biotech, there was no [explicit] DEI program, but from the very top (CEO) all the way down, we consistently were hiring for "different than us". We actually wanted different experience and different ways of thinking. When we'd follow-up with each other after someone interviewed, we'd ask "what does this candidate bring that currently don't have?" And it made such a huge difference!

When creating drug studies, having a minority race (equally) represented on the team would result in meeting comments like "we also need enough genetic data from the latino population to ensure ...".

Having women on the team meant getting challenged with knowledge like "mothers have a more difficult time participating in medical studies, so what can we do to remove those barriers for them so we can get a broader test population that includes women?"

Having someone on the team with a relative who was anti-vax meant being always hyper aware of that audience and made us think about it.

Could a team of all white men (I use that demographic simply because it's what I belong to) also recognize those same issues and address them? It's possible, but it's likely not going to happen by default. That's not out of malice; I believe everyone wants to do the best they can. But when people are working hard and moving fast, they naturally just fall back to their defaults for quick decision making and those defaults are born of their own personal experiences.

Anyway, don't hire minorities and people different from you to tick some box (whether for legal reasons or not). Don't make the mistake of thinking "I'm awesome, so people like me are the awesome ones."

Awesomeness comes in all shapes and sizes. Hire people who challenge you and your experiences and challenge them and theirs in return! You, your team, the product, and the company will be immeasurably better off for it.