15 ms·

I work at a different FAANG and it seems like more and more the only news that we get from corporate is related to DEI. Also a lot of hiring details are now hid

by Dig1t 4y ago

I work at a different FAANG and it seems like more and more the only news that we get from corporate is related to DEI. Also a lot of hiring details are now hidden from ICs. It used to be that you would be apart of the interview panel as an interviewer and then you would get together with your team afterwards and everyone on the team would vote yes/no and that would pretty much be it. Now it’s made by a manager elsewhere and you have no idea why the decision was made. I do worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older. We used to argue for equality, a level playing field, for all. Now we’ve had the rug swapped from underneath us. It’s no longer about equality of opportunity, it’s about equality of outcome. To quote Kamala Harris’ recent remarks “to make sure everyone ends up in the same place”, i.e. “equity”

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
president 4y ago
It reminds me when my childhood friend's parents moved to LA so he could attend an inner-city high school so that his scores from a lower ranking school were more heavily weighted for college admissions. They were wealthy immigrants from the middle east.
nonethewiser 4y ago
> I do worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older. 1. A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse. 2. There is nothing wrong with your kids being in a majority demographic. It sounds like you're more worried about the world discriminating based off race and other traits. I suspect you agree with all of this but it's a little scary how insidious these policies are. Even in your dissent you're seeing things from their perspective.
- PKop 4y ago
  It is always useful and prudent to see things from the perspective of those attacking you. "Know your enemy.." You can argue over definitions and terms as much as you want, but the uniform you wear is often defined by your opposition. In other words, it may not be completely relevant what you or OP think diverse is or isn't. It is very relevant what the power structures and people implementing these policies think it means, no? If someone has a kid that potentially is going to be quota'ed out of jobs or education, why wouldn't they worry about it?
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    I don't mean they shouldn't worry. I mean they shouldn't use language that puts blame on their kid for not being "diverse" (which is also a non-sensical description of 1 person).
    - PKop 4y ago
      I'm sorry but you're just missing the point. You're taking the term literally, but it is very simple in practical terms how this actually plays out: diverse is code word for non straight White male. Slightly more diverse would be straight White female. Obviously OP is simply saying, as a White man, he worries his children through no fault of their own by virtue of birth would be excluded or limited by these cultural trends. Blame on their kid? What sense does this make? He's blaming the system.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse." There's a manager/HR somewhere saying "hold my beer"...
- uup 4y ago
  A single person can be diverse relative to a group, though. Like a black woman would add diversity to a group of white men, for instance. When we talk about diversity in recruiting, usually we mean diversity of the candidate relative to the makeup of the company.
  - massinstall 4y ago
    Optically maybe, if that’s what you’re aiming for. Just assuming that the “group of white men” are “all the same” is not very deep. The truth is that they’re all individuals with individual stories strangers who judge them by their looks know nothing about. It used to be understood as a good thing to not judge people based on their gender or skin color, including the nowadays declared “evil” white men.
    - slt2021 4y ago
      right words, but it is not what's happening in real world in hiring
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      DIE initiatives achieve extremely poor diversity of beliefs. The type of diversity that matters. It is outright hostile to it.
    - ParetoOptimal 4y ago
      > Optically maybe, if that’s what you’re aiming for. Just assuming that the “group of white men” are “all the same” is not very deep. Not just optically. Even slightly different cultures can result in novel ways of thinking or world views that bring something new.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        That's what the parent is saying. The aforementioned black woman may have more in common with the white men on the team than other white men. If you were striving for true diversity, it is quite possible that yet another white man with a different background would provide the greatest diversity, but if you are only optimizing for optical diversity then those considerations go out the window.
- bloak 4y ago
  > 1. A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse. Compare and contrast with people saying "neurodiverse" when they mean "neurodivergent". I think there is general agreement that a single person should be described as "neurodivergent" rather than "neurodiverse". Some people say the wrong word just because the two words are so similar and are happy to be corrected. On the other hand, if we're talking about other kinds of diversity then I don't think there's a similar pair of terms. "The addition of this gender-divergent person increases the gender-diversity of the team"? I don't think so!
  - lupire 4y ago
    "underrepresented" is pretty close to the word you need, but is a slightly miscast type.
  - account42 4y ago
    Well yeah, calling something divergent implies that there is a "normal". For ways of thinking and personalities people are fine with calling others not normal. For races and genders that is currently very not politically correct.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse. According to the plain old-fashioned definition, this is true. According to the modern political definition, “diverse” is approximately a synonym for “non-white”.
omginternets 4y ago
Relatedly: I cannot defend the kind of "diversity" that would rather hire a rich brahmin than an inner-city American kid in need of a leg-up, just to fulfill some backwards skin-color quota. It's obscene, and insulting to all parties involved. I also worry that this nonsense will erode support for the kind of diversity I do defend, or worse, prompt some kind of revanchist backlash against visible minorities in general.
- jrs235 4y ago
  Some of starting to rearrange the letters to be DIE. Companies are going to die as they become paralyzed trying to placate differing views and opinions... or parts of their workforce are going to protest or cause internal strife/trouble...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- paperwasp42 4y ago
  > I also worry that this nonsense will erode support for the kind of diversity I do defend, or worse, prompt some kind of revanchist backlash against visible minorities in general. As a women in tech, I am feeling the backlash. I have seen a huge increase in the amount of skepticism of my abilities that I face from people who haven't worked with me before. And the worst part of it is that there's actually logic behind the bigotry, because it is extremely true that my company continues to hire incompetent people just because they are women. Bigotry itself is very difficult to combat, but when you add in a solid logical grounding for the bigotry, it becomes dang near impossible to eradicate. I worry that companies are causing more harm than good with the change in hiring practices these past couple years. I continue to hear sexist comments from people who never would have said those sorts of things just five years ago.
  - dijonman2 4y ago
    As a hiring manager I have substantial pressure to hire incompetent people to meet quotas. I confronted my recruiter in front of witnesses and was partially shunned. I have been hiring for many years, and I truly pay no attention to gender or ethnicity. Now I am forced to. It’s an insult to those who earned their position. It’s an insult to me as I am less and less likely to get a new job because I won’t fit quotas. There is resentment all around. I feel bad for the minorities who have worked hard to earn their positions, you are right that it undermines their work and trivializes their commitment to their work. It’s gone way too far.
balls187 4y ago
> I do worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older. That comment implies you take for granted that your kids will get into a school, and will have a job.
- nsxwolf 4y ago
  What does that mean? Just about anyone can get into a school, or get a job.
  - balls187 4y ago
    > What does that mean? Worrying that kids may not be able to get into a decent school because they're not diverse enough seems like a a nice problem to have--parents of "diverse" children have much larger worries. > Just about anyone can get into a school, or get a job. Wouldn't that mean that based on the equality of outcomes, it doesn't matter what type of school OP's kids go to, and therefore no reason to worry.
    - prepend 4y ago
      I’m not sure what a “diverse” parent is or how you would know their mind. I expect that all parents, regardless of demographic factors, worry about their kid getting a good job and going to school.
      - colpabar 4y ago
        This seems to be forbidden to say, but for all intents and purposes, “diverse” means “not white”.
        xboxnolifes 4y ago
        And in some cases, not Asian.
        4y ago
PKop 4y ago
>We used to argue for equality, a level playing field, for all Think of how impossibly naive and utopian this is though, and I don't mean to personally attack just to condemn the idea this is possible in any way whatsoever. Is it possible economically? How about resource wise, or geographically can we all possess equal territory? How about military power? How about physical attributes such as height or beauty? How about intelligence? On which axes of consequences can we equalize things; how do we do it? Zero sum conflicts are everywhere that demands for equalization exist. There is only competition over limited resources, power and prestige. There is cooperation amongst allies and friends, but only in so far as feelings are mutual and the efforts of both are in each others interest, which goes with out saying includes in you or your family/tribe/groups interests. Is anyone trying to take money and power out of you or your children's hands a friend or ally, or are they competing with you for their own interests at your expense? The propaganda you believed was intended to take advantage of your good nature. As long as someone brow-beats you with moralism over the downtrodden they can convince you of doing anything to dis-empower you, if you believe the nonsense that "privilege" or power are bad things, which those scheming you certainly don't as they pursue both. It is bad to not have privilege or power. It is good to have them. It is this simple.
- tanseydavid 4y ago
  The idea is equality of opportunity. Of course, it is not possible to implement this in any grand, all-encompassing, perfect manner. But that does not mean that it shouldn't be a goal.
  - programmarchy 4y ago
    A “problem” is the metrics for that goal are unfalsifiable. However that problem becomes a feature if the actual goal is not the stated goal.
  - PKop 4y ago
    Unequal outcomes will produce unequal future opportunities. This fact undermines any of premise from that start. And compelled equalization will commence just the same. So this is a distinction without much of a difference. Certainly rule of law and various good faith attempts to provide opportunity are understandable. But when the outcomes simply are not equal along various group identity lines or this or that interest group achieves less wealth and power than another, no one is going to give up that game and say "OK, fair play, we lost the outcome." No, pursuit of human self interest does not ever stop. So there's no endgame to any of this.
arpstick 4y ago
with a push for "racial equity" combined with an inept middle management and hr who in order to get equal outcome will push people down instead of lifting people up, the only thing i can see from this is a sharp rise in ethno nationalist idiocy across the board. i dont want to be right about it but i am not going to be shocked if i start seeing such bubble up as a reaction to this kind of short sighted strategy.
hintymad 4y ago
I was wondering why the US is so obsessed with diversity alone the line of race and gender instead of social-economical status, education background, career background, and etc? If I'm developing a statistical model, wouldn't it make more sense if my diversity means having in my team people who have statistics background, people who study statistical physics, people who are great at maths, people who are great at building a team, people who are creative, people who communicate and market and sell well, people who are amazing engineers, and people who are experts in the domain for which I develop my model? Why would I be interested in my team member's sex orientation, their gender, or their race? Or on the other hand, why would give up Quoc Le for Gebru if I have only one opening for developing the next generation of NLP model? Just because Quoc is an "over-represented" Asian and Gebru is the vanguard of righteousness and checks all the boxes of diversity? Or why not by my birth origin? Say, India? India is a huge country with diverse languages, cultures, histories, religions, and social structures. I guarantee you that I had such a unique background among the other 10,000 ones in India because I grew up in this particular family in this particular town of this particular state in this particular union territory.
- kodyo 4y ago
  For the purposes of American HR Marxists, Indians are Indians, but Indian women are just a little better for the optics. Smart dudes need to opt out of the game entirely.
- arpstick 4y ago
  it's checkbox compliance all the way up to the top. it's only for show as if people wanted a rigorous solution the problem, the mechanisms in play and each possible solution would have been documented in autistic detail before anyone put it out. this is a kind of issue you would keep junior talent and HR far far away from at all costs. this is software after all, people who care about something specific, care a LOT. this topic is a real issue but it has been tainted by racial political framing. imo, start with women in tech first, then go from there.
- twomoonsbysurf 4y ago
  [dead]
Georgelemental 4y ago
> It’s no longer about equality of opportunity, it’s about equality of outcome. Perfect equality of opportunity can only be achieved if everyone has 0 opportunity and the same outcome. Because if you can work hard to give your children a better life, that means that someone with parents who don't work hard will start worse off, with fewer opportunities. Optimizing solely for equality of opportunity inevitably leads to commie hellhole; instead, optimize for absolute opportunity (both average and minimum).
georgeplusplus 4y ago
Is it the case that the rug was truly pulled out beneath you? Or was the system you thought to be advocating for was not equal as you thought. So many people I know fall into the latter at least you are questioning how we got here.
telltruth 4y ago
There is a silver lining. This DEI thing is now causing massive influx of sub-par employees in big tech. This is not because minority is sub-par but because hiring practices incentivize sacrificing quality over diversity to make your numbers and get your bonuses. Everyone winks at others and they say we don't sacrifice quality but it is not possible when you have limited window for headcount and your VP is sending you constant reminders for making your numbers and everyones bonuses are at stake. In my estimate, big tech already had 60% of employees just costing around and now this DEI will push them to almost 80% employees that are mediocre and unable to compete with the best. This is how startups like Google and Microsoft were born that toppled big techs of the day called Yahoo and IBM. A lot of talent will simply not even get opportunity to be interviewed at big tech. Guess what they are going to do?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  Assuming you’re right and not unfairly discounting people who look or think different due to your prejudices, this just hurts mega-businesses profitability right? What’s the measurable material harm to you exactly? Can you prove it or do you just feel it? Still assuming you’re right, and not prejudiced, why is giving historically disadvantaged people a crutch to lean on so bad? Won’t at least some of them thrive and blossom thereby paving the way for others who look, think, act, or worship like them? Is this not corporate welfare in a time when social welfare has been whittled so far down that there are generation long waiting lists for public housing vouchers? What exactly is so terrible about helping people grow into roles instead of following the semi recent practice of only hiring perfectly qualified candidates?
  - telltruth 4y ago
    Big tech profitability does not get hurt by hiring mediocre people. They are post-talent businesses. They do not depend on tech talent to drive and keep profit margins but rather depend on established monopoly and maintaining barrier-to-entry to continue their profitability. They show their growth by simply showing more ads or hiking subscription prices or through more sales people - not by developing new ground breaking tech. Apple is likely exception here.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
>I do worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older. That’s silly. You should stay focused on ensuring that your kids become well rounded, educated, and cultured people fit for the society of tomorrow and prepared for problems you can’t imagine.
ksec 4y ago
> it seems like more and more the only news that we get from corporate..... "Seems", "like" "more and more", "only"... I sometimes wonder if people are downplaying it so others may not be as offended in a social situation, or are those words really what they meant? We are in late 2022, at this (late) stage of the cycle, Big tech has been throwing DEI, ESG at our face for 5+ years. Both Internally and Externally via PR and Consumer Trade Show / Conference. We have got to a point they are actually "dialling" back a bit already. >It’s no longer about equality of opportunity, it’s about equality of outcome. I do not have data to judge how many people are on the side wants "equality of opportunity". Which is a very sane thing to do. But I can assure you there will be plenty of evidence the media ( Mainstream or not, ) has been arguing for equality of outcome for a very VERY long time. This isn't, and shouldn't be news. Reading the above comment being Top Voted on HN gives me hope, but on the other hand also felt sad the realisation came so late.
bitti 4y ago
I share your concern... Started as a manager in a successful scale-up and as usual our engineering staff is white & male (we are hiring from European Timezone). In order to secure the funding round, the higher management has introduced a diversity targets, which is driven aggressively by HR. Funny enough lots of the European laws forbid asking if the candidate is a member of an "unrepresented" group, so I guess we'll be just eyeballing it??? This won't end good, but one must make a living.
- yourusername 4y ago
  How can you even report to your investors on this diversity? I was under the impression that registering things like sexual/gender/religious identity and "race" are not allowed under GDPR unless you have very good reasons (i would assume securing investment is not one of them).
- rizzaxc 4y ago
  hold up you need DIE to convince investors? how does this make sense; wouldn't they be more concerned about your company's cold, hard numbers?
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Depends on the investors but allegedly it is widely spread. And if you want lucrative government contracts, you have to implement it. I think it is overwhelmingly driven by government. Didn't find enough racism so they needed to create it.
  - knewter 4y ago
    Are you actually unaware of the Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) programs? Many institutional investors - the largest ones - have announced their funding is dependent on ESG scores. I'm fascinated that people on this site can be unaware of this.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
> Now we’ve had the rug swapped from underneath us. Some state authorities and companies like Microsoft are racist. You have to call them that even if there are people behind these programs that just mean well. But you cannot compromise on that accusation. If you do, you will lose that discussion. Simple politics and management 101 and this is just a dirty political game. Yes, Microsoft is a racist company. Exposé 1 is that they hire people by skin color. It cannot be more direct than that. Again, you cannot compromise on that accusation. It is rational and formally correct. Most people are too nice to defend against this management pressure Microsoft tries to put forward. Not that there are many young people that would want to work at MS these days. But again, Microsoft employs racist hiring schemes and the people in support behind this are real racists and this is always how real racial discrimination starts. Microsoft as a company is a fascist authoritarian organisation that collaborates with the state against citizens. You might think that is a bit too much, but you have to start with this if your opponent in a discussion opens with accusations of systemic issues that require racial quotas. Otherwise you will lose. Just repeat it and the situation should again normalize and Microsoft hopefully has to pay the price for their little racist adventure.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  I don't think this will be effective. Kendi explicitly admits that his prescription is racist, it's not some secret. His supporters have just decided that equity is more important than equality and (probably) rightly see that the only path there is racism.
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older That is wildly optimistic. Next they will come for your already taxed wealth and money if you aren’t “diverse” enough. People in the US need to be more aware of similar trajectories in other countries in the past.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  You are optimistic. Even countries that had problems with this exact same issue are currently repeating the error by the letter. Case in point Germany. We now have sex quotas, won't take long for racial quotas be established. Shitty and dumb country, didn't learn a lot. And like any totalitarian movement before there is no reasoning possible and will at some point probably derail.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Very well said
magic_hamster 4y ago
Isn't that the thing though? Being your kids, they already have an advantage. You are their advantage, everything you bring with you, your behavioral habits that will give them a huge head start. I did not come from a family of engineers. For most of their lives, my parents had to struggle to survive as immigrants, living in a fairly rough area, and making ends meet. I was lucky enough to go to university for STEM. I saw the huge difference between myself and students who came from families that had even one parent experienced in any sort of engineering (let alone both parents). Not only did they always have someone to consult, but they knew what they were getting into, they were much better prepared, and for the most part, they were building the toolset from their early teens. It dawned on me that similarly, people coming from very wealthy families are likely to be better prepared to create or at least sustain wealth, in a way that might be completely taken for granted, but is actually the result of years and years of mentoring and picking up on behavioral hints at home. This is the meaning of inequality. It's literally the family you're born into. Your kids will make it either way way because you have already paved much of the path and can show them the way. For schools and jobs to insist on hiring people who are not born into this circle, is a good thing. Another thing to mention is that I am far from being a touchy politically correct person. I don't really care about minutiae such as naming your git brach this way or that. But in inclusion I feel I've seen inequality from both sides of the coin. And I definitely support letting more people into the party.
- x3qt 4y ago
  Commies in USSR wanted to take away children from parents and nurture them in special institutions, but luckily didn't succeeded. Do you want the same for yours or is it better to be able to help your children and share your experience with them?
  - magic_hamster 4y ago
    Well met stranger! I don't understand how your comment is related to anything I said. I never suggested you avoid helping your children. I stated that by being able to help them, you are giving them a significant advantage.
nickm12 4y ago
There are plenty of decent schools and also plenty of decent jobs. However, my anecdotal experience from applying a kid to college last year is that the most selective schools are taking diversity initiatives too far. I know a kid who was a Regeneron scholar who was rejected from many of the most selective schools.

by Dig1t 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

president 4y ago

It reminds me when my childhood friend's parents moved to LA so he could attend an inner-city high school so that his scores from a lower ranking school were more heavily weighted for college admissions. They were wealthy immigrants from the middle east.

nonethewiser 4y ago

> I do worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older. 1. A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse. 2. There is nothing wrong with your kids being in a majority demographic. It sounds like you're more worried about the world discriminating based off race and other traits. I suspect you agree with all of this but it's a little scary how insidious these policies are. Even in your dissent you're seeing things from their perspective.

PKop 4y ago
It is always useful and prudent to see things from the perspective of those attacking you. "Know your enemy.." You can argue over definitions and terms as much as you want, but the uniform you wear is often defined by your opposition. In other words, it may not be completely relevant what you or OP think diverse is or isn't. It is very relevant what the power structures and people implementing these policies think it means, no? If someone has a kid that potentially is going to be quota'ed out of jobs or education, why wouldn't they worry about it?
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  I don't mean they shouldn't worry. I mean they shouldn't use language that puts blame on their kid for not being "diverse" (which is also a non-sensical description of 1 person).
  - PKop 4y ago
    I'm sorry but you're just missing the point. You're taking the term literally, but it is very simple in practical terms how this actually plays out: diverse is code word for non straight White male. Slightly more diverse would be straight White female. Obviously OP is simply saying, as a White man, he worries his children through no fault of their own by virtue of birth would be excluded or limited by these cultural trends. Blame on their kid? What sense does this make? He's blaming the system.
giantg2 4y ago
"A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse." There's a manager/HR somewhere saying "hold my beer"...
uup 4y ago
A single person can be diverse relative to a group, though. Like a black woman would add diversity to a group of white men, for instance. When we talk about diversity in recruiting, usually we mean diversity of the candidate relative to the makeup of the company.
- massinstall 4y ago
  Optically maybe, if that’s what you’re aiming for. Just assuming that the “group of white men” are “all the same” is not very deep. The truth is that they’re all individuals with individual stories strangers who judge them by their looks know nothing about. It used to be understood as a good thing to not judge people based on their gender or skin color, including the nowadays declared “evil” white men.
  - slt2021 4y ago
    right words, but it is not what's happening in real world in hiring
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    DIE initiatives achieve extremely poor diversity of beliefs. The type of diversity that matters. It is outright hostile to it.
  - ParetoOptimal 4y ago
    > Optically maybe, if that’s what you’re aiming for. Just assuming that the “group of white men” are “all the same” is not very deep. Not just optically. Even slightly different cultures can result in novel ways of thinking or world views that bring something new.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      That's what the parent is saying. The aforementioned black woman may have more in common with the white men on the team than other white men. If you were striving for true diversity, it is quite possible that yet another white man with a different background would provide the greatest diversity, but if you are only optimizing for optical diversity then those considerations go out the window.
bloak 4y ago
> 1. A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse. Compare and contrast with people saying "neurodiverse" when they mean "neurodivergent". I think there is general agreement that a single person should be described as "neurodivergent" rather than "neurodiverse". Some people say the wrong word just because the two words are so similar and are happy to be corrected. On the other hand, if we're talking about other kinds of diversity then I don't think there's a similar pair of terms. "The addition of this gender-divergent person increases the gender-diversity of the team"? I don't think so!
- lupire 4y ago
  "underrepresented" is pretty close to the word you need, but is a slightly miscast type.
- account42 4y ago
  Well yeah, calling something divergent implies that there is a "normal". For ways of thinking and personalities people are fine with calling others not normal. For races and genders that is currently very not politically correct.
philwelch 4y ago
> A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse. According to the plain old-fashioned definition, this is true. According to the modern political definition, “diverse” is approximately a synonym for “non-white”.

omginternets 4y ago

Relatedly: I cannot defend the kind of "diversity" that would rather hire a rich brahmin than an inner-city American kid in need of a leg-up, just to fulfill some backwards skin-color quota. It's obscene, and insulting to all parties involved. I also worry that this nonsense will erode support for the kind of diversity I do defend, or worse, prompt some kind of revanchist backlash against visible minorities in general.

jrs235 4y ago
Some of starting to rearrange the letters to be DIE. Companies are going to die as they become paralyzed trying to placate differing views and opinions... or parts of their workforce are going to protest or cause internal strife/trouble...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paperwasp42 4y ago
> I also worry that this nonsense will erode support for the kind of diversity I do defend, or worse, prompt some kind of revanchist backlash against visible minorities in general. As a women in tech, I am feeling the backlash. I have seen a huge increase in the amount of skepticism of my abilities that I face from people who haven't worked with me before. And the worst part of it is that there's actually logic behind the bigotry, because it is extremely true that my company continues to hire incompetent people just because they are women. Bigotry itself is very difficult to combat, but when you add in a solid logical grounding for the bigotry, it becomes dang near impossible to eradicate. I worry that companies are causing more harm than good with the change in hiring practices these past couple years. I continue to hear sexist comments from people who never would have said those sorts of things just five years ago.
- dijonman2 4y ago
  As a hiring manager I have substantial pressure to hire incompetent people to meet quotas. I confronted my recruiter in front of witnesses and was partially shunned. I have been hiring for many years, and I truly pay no attention to gender or ethnicity. Now I am forced to. It’s an insult to those who earned their position. It’s an insult to me as I am less and less likely to get a new job because I won’t fit quotas. There is resentment all around. I feel bad for the minorities who have worked hard to earn their positions, you are right that it undermines their work and trivializes their commitment to their work. It’s gone way too far.

balls187 4y ago

> I do worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older. That comment implies you take for granted that your kids will get into a school, and will have a job.

nsxwolf 4y ago
What does that mean? Just about anyone can get into a school, or get a job.
- balls187 4y ago
  > What does that mean? Worrying that kids may not be able to get into a decent school because they're not diverse enough seems like a a nice problem to have--parents of "diverse" children have much larger worries. > Just about anyone can get into a school, or get a job. Wouldn't that mean that based on the equality of outcomes, it doesn't matter what type of school OP's kids go to, and therefore no reason to worry.
  - prepend 4y ago
    I’m not sure what a “diverse” parent is or how you would know their mind. I expect that all parents, regardless of demographic factors, worry about their kid getting a good job and going to school.
    - colpabar 4y ago
      This seems to be forbidden to say, but for all intents and purposes, “diverse” means “not white”.
      - xboxnolifes 4y ago
        And in some cases, not Asian.
        4y ago

PKop 4y ago

>We used to argue for equality, a level playing field, for all Think of how impossibly naive and utopian this is though, and I don't mean to personally attack just to condemn the idea this is possible in any way whatsoever. Is it possible economically? How about resource wise, or geographically can we all possess equal territory? How about military power? How about physical attributes such as height or beauty? How about intelligence? On which axes of consequences can we equalize things; how do we do it? Zero sum conflicts are everywhere that demands for equalization exist. There is only competition over limited resources, power and prestige. There is cooperation amongst allies and friends, but only in so far as feelings are mutual and the efforts of both are in each others interest, which goes with out saying includes in you or your family/tribe/groups interests. Is anyone trying to take money and power out of you or your children's hands a friend or ally, or are they competing with you for their own interests at your expense? The propaganda you believed was intended to take advantage of your good nature. As long as someone brow-beats you with moralism over the downtrodden they can convince you of doing anything to dis-empower you, if you believe the nonsense that "privilege" or power are bad things, which those scheming you certainly don't as they pursue both. It is bad to not have privilege or power. It is good to have them. It is this simple.

tanseydavid 4y ago
The idea is equality of opportunity. Of course, it is not possible to implement this in any grand, all-encompassing, perfect manner. But that does not mean that it shouldn't be a goal.
- programmarchy 4y ago
  A “problem” is the metrics for that goal are unfalsifiable. However that problem becomes a feature if the actual goal is not the stated goal.
- PKop 4y ago
  Unequal outcomes will produce unequal future opportunities. This fact undermines any of premise from that start. And compelled equalization will commence just the same. So this is a distinction without much of a difference. Certainly rule of law and various good faith attempts to provide opportunity are understandable. But when the outcomes simply are not equal along various group identity lines or this or that interest group achieves less wealth and power than another, no one is going to give up that game and say "OK, fair play, we lost the outcome." No, pursuit of human self interest does not ever stop. So there's no endgame to any of this.

arpstick 4y ago

with a push for "racial equity" combined with an inept middle management and hr who in order to get equal outcome will push people down instead of lifting people up, the only thing i can see from this is a sharp rise in ethno nationalist idiocy across the board. i dont want to be right about it but i am not going to be shocked if i start seeing such bubble up as a reaction to this kind of short sighted strategy.

hintymad 4y ago

I was wondering why the US is so obsessed with diversity alone the line of race and gender instead of social-economical status, education background, career background, and etc? If I'm developing a statistical model, wouldn't it make more sense if my diversity means having in my team people who have statistics background, people who study statistical physics, people who are great at maths, people who are great at building a team, people who are creative, people who communicate and market and sell well, people who are amazing engineers, and people who are experts in the domain for which I develop my model? Why would I be interested in my team member's sex orientation, their gender, or their race? Or on the other hand, why would give up Quoc Le for Gebru if I have only one opening for developing the next generation of NLP model? Just because Quoc is an "over-represented" Asian and Gebru is the vanguard of righteousness and checks all the boxes of diversity? Or why not by my birth origin? Say, India? India is a huge country with diverse languages, cultures, histories, religions, and social structures. I guarantee you that I had such a unique background among the other 10,000 ones in India because I grew up in this particular family in this particular town of this particular state in this particular union territory.

kodyo 4y ago
For the purposes of American HR Marxists, Indians are Indians, but Indian women are just a little better for the optics. Smart dudes need to opt out of the game entirely.
arpstick 4y ago
it's checkbox compliance all the way up to the top. it's only for show as if people wanted a rigorous solution the problem, the mechanisms in play and each possible solution would have been documented in autistic detail before anyone put it out. this is a kind of issue you would keep junior talent and HR far far away from at all costs. this is software after all, people who care about something specific, care a LOT. this topic is a real issue but it has been tainted by racial political framing. imo, start with women in tech first, then go from there.
twomoonsbysurf 4y ago
[dead]

Georgelemental 4y ago

> It’s no longer about equality of opportunity, it’s about equality of outcome. Perfect equality of opportunity can only be achieved if everyone has 0 opportunity and the same outcome. Because if you can work hard to give your children a better life, that means that someone with parents who don't work hard will start worse off, with fewer opportunities. Optimizing solely for equality of opportunity inevitably leads to commie hellhole; instead, optimize for absolute opportunity (both average and minimum).

georgeplusplus 4y ago

Is it the case that the rug was truly pulled out beneath you? Or was the system you thought to be advocating for was not equal as you thought. So many people I know fall into the latter at least you are questioning how we got here.

telltruth 4y ago

There is a silver lining. This DEI thing is now causing massive influx of sub-par employees in big tech. This is not because minority is sub-par but because hiring practices incentivize sacrificing quality over diversity to make your numbers and get your bonuses. Everyone winks at others and they say we don't sacrifice quality but it is not possible when you have limited window for headcount and your VP is sending you constant reminders for making your numbers and everyones bonuses are at stake. In my estimate, big tech already had 60% of employees just costing around and now this DEI will push them to almost 80% employees that are mediocre and unable to compete with the best. This is how startups like Google and Microsoft were born that toppled big techs of the day called Yahoo and IBM. A lot of talent will simply not even get opportunity to be interviewed at big tech. Guess what they are going to do?

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
Assuming you’re right and not unfairly discounting people who look or think different due to your prejudices, this just hurts mega-businesses profitability right? What’s the measurable material harm to you exactly? Can you prove it or do you just feel it? Still assuming you’re right, and not prejudiced, why is giving historically disadvantaged people a crutch to lean on so bad? Won’t at least some of them thrive and blossom thereby paving the way for others who look, think, act, or worship like them? Is this not corporate welfare in a time when social welfare has been whittled so far down that there are generation long waiting lists for public housing vouchers? What exactly is so terrible about helping people grow into roles instead of following the semi recent practice of only hiring perfectly qualified candidates?
- telltruth 4y ago
  Big tech profitability does not get hurt by hiring mediocre people. They are post-talent businesses. They do not depend on tech talent to drive and keep profit margins but rather depend on established monopoly and maintaining barrier-to-entry to continue their profitability. They show their growth by simply showing more ads or hiking subscription prices or through more sales people - not by developing new ground breaking tech. Apple is likely exception here.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago

>I do worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older. That’s silly. You should stay focused on ensuring that your kids become well rounded, educated, and cultured people fit for the society of tomorrow and prepared for problems you can’t imagine.

ksec 4y ago

> it seems like more and more the only news that we get from corporate..... "Seems", "like" "more and more", "only"... I sometimes wonder if people are downplaying it so others may not be as offended in a social situation, or are those words really what they meant? We are in late 2022, at this (late) stage of the cycle, Big tech has been throwing DEI, ESG at our face for 5+ years. Both Internally and Externally via PR and Consumer Trade Show / Conference. We have got to a point they are actually "dialling" back a bit already. >It’s no longer about equality of opportunity, it’s about equality of outcome. I do not have data to judge how many people are on the side wants "equality of opportunity". Which is a very sane thing to do. But I can assure you there will be plenty of evidence the media ( Mainstream or not, ) has been arguing for equality of outcome for a very VERY long time. This isn't, and shouldn't be news. Reading the above comment being Top Voted on HN gives me hope, but on the other hand also felt sad the realisation came so late.

bitti 4y ago

I share your concern... Started as a manager in a successful scale-up and as usual our engineering staff is white & male (we are hiring from European Timezone). In order to secure the funding round, the higher management has introduced a diversity targets, which is driven aggressively by HR. Funny enough lots of the European laws forbid asking if the candidate is a member of an "unrepresented" group, so I guess we'll be just eyeballing it??? This won't end good, but one must make a living.

yourusername 4y ago
How can you even report to your investors on this diversity? I was under the impression that registering things like sexual/gender/religious identity and "race" are not allowed under GDPR unless you have very good reasons (i would assume securing investment is not one of them).
rizzaxc 4y ago
hold up you need DIE to convince investors? how does this make sense; wouldn't they be more concerned about your company's cold, hard numbers?
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Depends on the investors but allegedly it is widely spread. And if you want lucrative government contracts, you have to implement it. I think it is overwhelmingly driven by government. Didn't find enough racism so they needed to create it.
- knewter 4y ago
  Are you actually unaware of the Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) programs? Many institutional investors - the largest ones - have announced their funding is dependent on ESG scores. I'm fascinated that people on this site can be unaware of this.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

> Now we’ve had the rug swapped from underneath us. Some state authorities and companies like Microsoft are racist. You have to call them that even if there are people behind these programs that just mean well. But you cannot compromise on that accusation. If you do, you will lose that discussion. Simple politics and management 101 and this is just a dirty political game. Yes, Microsoft is a racist company. Exposé 1 is that they hire people by skin color. It cannot be more direct than that. Again, you cannot compromise on that accusation. It is rational and formally correct. Most people are too nice to defend against this management pressure Microsoft tries to put forward. Not that there are many young people that would want to work at MS these days. But again, Microsoft employs racist hiring schemes and the people in support behind this are real racists and this is always how real racial discrimination starts. Microsoft as a company is a fascist authoritarian organisation that collaborates with the state against citizens. You might think that is a bit too much, but you have to start with this if your opponent in a discussion opens with accusations of systemic issues that require racial quotas. Otherwise you will lose. Just repeat it and the situation should again normalize and Microsoft hopefully has to pay the price for their little racist adventure.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
colinmhayes 4y ago
I don't think this will be effective. Kendi explicitly admits that his prescription is racist, it's not some secret. His supporters have just decided that equity is more important than equality and (probably) rightly see that the only path there is racism.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

> worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older That is wildly optimistic. Next they will come for your already taxed wealth and money if you aren’t “diverse” enough. People in the US need to be more aware of similar trajectories in other countries in the past.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
You are optimistic. Even countries that had problems with this exact same issue are currently repeating the error by the letter. Case in point Germany. We now have sex quotas, won't take long for racial quotas be established. Shitty and dumb country, didn't learn a lot. And like any totalitarian movement before there is no reasoning possible and will at some point probably derail.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Very well said

magic_hamster 4y ago

Isn't that the thing though? Being your kids, they already have an advantage. You are their advantage, everything you bring with you, your behavioral habits that will give them a huge head start. I did not come from a family of engineers. For most of their lives, my parents had to struggle to survive as immigrants, living in a fairly rough area, and making ends meet. I was lucky enough to go to university for STEM. I saw the huge difference between myself and students who came from families that had even one parent experienced in any sort of engineering (let alone both parents). Not only did they always have someone to consult, but they knew what they were getting into, they were much better prepared, and for the most part, they were building the toolset from their early teens. It dawned on me that similarly, people coming from very wealthy families are likely to be better prepared to create or at least sustain wealth, in a way that might be completely taken for granted, but is actually the result of years and years of mentoring and picking up on behavioral hints at home. This is the meaning of inequality. It's literally the family you're born into. Your kids will make it either way way because you have already paved much of the path and can show them the way. For schools and jobs to insist on hiring people who are not born into this circle, is a good thing. Another thing to mention is that I am far from being a touchy politically correct person. I don't really care about minutiae such as naming your git brach this way or that. But in inclusion I feel I've seen inequality from both sides of the coin. And I definitely support letting more people into the party.

x3qt 4y ago
Commies in USSR wanted to take away children from parents and nurture them in special institutions, but luckily didn't succeeded. Do you want the same for yours or is it better to be able to help your children and share your experience with them?
- magic_hamster 4y ago
  Well met stranger! I don't understand how your comment is related to anything I said. I never suggested you avoid helping your children. I stated that by being able to help them, you are giving them a significant advantage.

nickm12 4y ago

There are plenty of decent schools and also plenty of decent jobs. However, my anecdotal experience from applying a kid to college last year is that the most selective schools are taking diversity initiatives too far. I know a kid who was a Regeneron scholar who was rejected from many of the most selective schools.