3 ms·
Reverse Diversity
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- the_real_cher 2y agoWhen I worked at LinkedIn my entire team was Indian, my manager was Indian and the entire chain of command up to Satya Nadella was Indian with the exception of Ryan Rolansky the CEO of LinkedIn who will 100% be replaced by an Indian when he exits. Indian people arent smarter or harder workers than white people or asians...so the obvious conclusion is that this is cronyism. And this is considered 100% diverse! Its frustrating how 'diversity' just means less white people nowadays.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoHow many of those people worked in India? For the part of the workforce that was actually based in India, the labor costs would be dramatically lower. If these were all Indian employees working in the U.S. then yes, you're likely right.
- the_real_cher 2y agoThey all worked here in America. However we had an entire team that worked in tandem with us based out of India and the internal push within LinkedIn was to move more of the workforce to India. Tech as a stable middle class job in America is dying.
- yawpitch 2y ago[flagged]
- josefritzishere 2y ago[flagged]
- nunez 2y agoThis is what DEI efforts were supposed to solve. There is always implicit bias in hiring, and monocultures like the ones that the article described happen very easily, regardless of race or gender. It's a shame that it became such a politically-charged topic.
- the_real_cher 2y agoAnother word for monoculture is cronyism.
- snapplebobapple 2y agoI think you are conflating "supposed" and "claimed to be able". There isn't really any evidence that it ever achieved that or that the stated goals were the actual goals. (one would think that if the stated goals were the actual goals one would make changes when one saw skin color diversify while ideas turned into a monoculture or when the above cronyism happened with a different skin color, which isn't happening among the people strongly for this stuff, they are as for it as ever).
- nunez 2y agoImproving diversity takes a LONG time. I think that DEI bringing to light the lack of racial, gender and ability diversity that is pervasive throughout corporate America is a huge success. That "DEI" and "pronouns" is "banned" in certain states is huge forward progress, even though it doesn't seem that way right now. It got people thinking about this that would not have. That is how generational change starts. For example, Basic civil rights for women and people historically discriminated against took decades to happen. Some states removed interracial marriage laws relatively recently (90s/00s), for example, despite interracial relationships existing since forever! It took years for big OSS projects to rename their "master" trunk branches to "main." Nowadays, "master" branches look outdated and odd, and many big projects have diversity as a line item in their codes of conduct.
- snapplebobapple 2y agoI think quite the contrary. It got us thinking and talking about it in an adversarial way, which leads to strife and further stratification, rather than uniting us in looking past whatever superficial difference there is towards sharing and enacting good ideas together. martin Luther King and the original star trek are far more correct than the current crop of agitators. We will never get to a black woman and an asian man being on the bridge in leadership roles because they are the best people for the job and their skin color is irrelevant when we are starting from them being legislated onto public company boards regardless of their merit. The paths are not connected because it is impossible to respect someone who didn't earn their spot or who you can't tell if they earned their spot and that is now a pall that hangs over some very capable minority people because of this stupidity. Taking a word that has multiple meaning and eradicating all of them because you don't like one meaning is a very marxist thing to do and looks pretty stupid. It's not a brave or intelligent thing we did there.