6 ms·

Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they? Whites were already under-represented at Google (and at 18/23 tech companies) back in 2017 [1]. If they'

Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they? Whites were already under-represented at Google (and at 18/23 tech companies) back in 2017 [1]. If they've rolled over for anyone, it was for the Asian lobby, who is over-represented at 23/23 of those tech companies, and now won't be facing DEI pressures to reduce their numbers. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250127210140/https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/diversity-in-tech/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250127210140/https://informati...

benatkin 2y ago
[flagged]
- like_any_other 2y ago
  That was a little bit of a joke - but necessary to correct the by now reflexively wrong ideas of cui bono.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- janice1999 2y ago
  It's not. It's distraction culture war politics - turning a class issue into a race issue. The real cause isn't a corporate love of racial diversity, it's a cross company initiative to decrease wages and disempower workers by heavily using H1Bs that just happen to come from India.
almostdeadguy 2y ago
[flagged]
- like_any_other 2y ago
  > sources which are occasionally dead links Dead links owned by the very companies being reported on. If a company lets their diversity report 404, why do you hold this against statisticians that gathered the data when it was live? > from different years You work with the data you have. Because the data isn't perfect, we should disregard it entirely and rely on your prejudice instead? > without enough detail to actually assess the impact of any DEI program The data is about the state of the companies, not the impacts of individual DEI programs. > isn't it wonderful that Meta has achieved greater black representation through content moderators in Kenya Given that this data shows Facebook employees as only 3% black, perhaps it does not count content moderators.
  - almostdeadguy 2y ago
    > Dead links owned by the very companies being reported on. If a company lets their diversity report 404, why do you hold this against statisticians that gathered the data when it was live? Why should I trust data I can't verify? > You work with the data you have. Because the data isn't perfect, we should disregard it entirely and rely on your prejudice instead? Junk in, junk out. > The data is about the state of the companies, not the impacts of individual DEI programs. So when you said "Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they", what did you mean? > Given that this data shows Facebook employees as only 3% black, perhaps it does not count content moderators. Who actually knows, which is precisely the point.
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      > Why should I trust data I can't verify? Have you tried? Does archive.org have those urls? Are there other reports on those companies' diversity? Have you checked their mandatory government EEO-1 diversity reports [1]? It rather seems that you're nitpicking, looking for an excuse to ignore what by all accounts looks like someone's honest work. Do you have, for these companies, reports suggesting wildly different demographics, that is making you so skeptical? [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/legal-requirements https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/legal-requirem...
      - almostdeadguy 2y ago
        Who is actually making the claims here about these companies "achieving diversity"? Me? Do you want me to do your homework? It's quite easy to post specious data to support your specious claims on the internet. Quite easy to generate a desired reaction that way.
        like_any_other 2y ago
        You're claiming the data is specious, but you have offered zero evidence to that end, only very shaky speculation. You say some of the links 404 - of the ones that do not, were their numbers significantly different from the table in the article?
thaumasiotes 2y ago
> Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they? Whites were already under-represented at Google (and at 18/23 tech companies) back in 2017 For most diversity purposes, Asians and Indians both count as white, if not "even more white". Government programs, other than schools, are the main exception.
- leoqa 2y ago
  I think the real metric should be childhood household income. That transcends race or gender and universally inhibits the child in almost every measurable way.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    On the contrary, targeting childhood household income will see representation of the groups you're trying to help drop to nearly zero. Impoverished white children outscore wealthy black children by a significant margin on standardized tests, and there are a lot more poor white children than poor black children. There used to be programs like that, and they mostly helped the children of Chinese and Vietnamese refugees from communism. Low childhood household income doesn't really have much effect - "low income" in a US context is quite rich in a world context.
    - sheepdestroyer 2y ago
      "childhood household income. That transcends race or gender" vs "targeting childhood household income will see representation of the groups you're trying to help drop to nearly zero" Did you misunderstand the point? It seems right that if you want to help poor people, you should target poor people, how could that be counterproductive?
      - teractiveodular 2y ago
        But what if the poor people have the wrong skin color?
skywhopper 2y ago
Diversity targets are usually built around under-represented groups, not necessarily specific races.
- teractiveodular 2y ago
  The referenced Google diversity reports spell out the percentages of "Asian+, Black+, Latinx+, Native American+ and White+" (their terms). https://about.google/belonging/diversity-annual-report/2023/ https://about.google/belonging/diversity-annual-report/2023/
  - scarab92 2y ago
    In many countries it is illegal to even record such information about employees.
Gothmog69 2y ago
sounds like we need a working definition of diversity? Usually it just means way less white people.
- jaredklewis 2y ago
  At Harvard (and I assume other places, but those other places were not subjected to the level of discovery that Harvard was in SFFA v Harvard), diversity meant less Asians. Representation of whites was about what you would expect given their test scores and grades.
- eastbound 2y ago
  In France it’s forbidden to filter by race. Guess how they filter by criteria? Well the population under 25 is incredibly diverse so they don’t care about filtering, they just donate to everyone under 25. Can’t believe we gave up our land like this, they’re not even nice or thankful.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
DEI programs discriminate significantly against Asians, just like college admissions. If these programs didn’t exist, the proportion of Asian employees would be even higher than it is currently, simply based on merit.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rajnathani 2y ago
Well, the top US engineering colleges which they're hiring from also has an under-representation of whites and this is due to the Asian disapora being higher from also international students' representation (thus, analyzing diversity metrics is less so relative to the US population and more so for the global population).

benatkin 2y ago

[flagged]

like_any_other 2y ago
That was a little bit of a joke - but necessary to correct the by now reflexively wrong ideas of cui bono.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
janice1999 2y ago
It's not. It's distraction culture war politics - turning a class issue into a race issue. The real cause isn't a corporate love of racial diversity, it's a cross company initiative to decrease wages and disempower workers by heavily using H1Bs that just happen to come from India.

almostdeadguy 2y ago

[flagged]

like_any_other 2y ago
> sources which are occasionally dead links Dead links owned by the very companies being reported on. If a company lets their diversity report 404, why do you hold this against statisticians that gathered the data when it was live? > from different years You work with the data you have. Because the data isn't perfect, we should disregard it entirely and rely on your prejudice instead? > without enough detail to actually assess the impact of any DEI program The data is about the state of the companies, not the impacts of individual DEI programs. > isn't it wonderful that Meta has achieved greater black representation through content moderators in Kenya Given that this data shows Facebook employees as only 3% black, perhaps it does not count content moderators.
- almostdeadguy 2y ago
  > Dead links owned by the very companies being reported on. If a company lets their diversity report 404, why do you hold this against statisticians that gathered the data when it was live? Why should I trust data I can't verify? > You work with the data you have. Because the data isn't perfect, we should disregard it entirely and rely on your prejudice instead? Junk in, junk out. > The data is about the state of the companies, not the impacts of individual DEI programs. So when you said "Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they", what did you mean? > Given that this data shows Facebook employees as only 3% black, perhaps it does not count content moderators. Who actually knows, which is precisely the point.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    > Why should I trust data I can't verify? Have you tried? Does archive.org have those urls? Are there other reports on those companies' diversity? Have you checked their mandatory government EEO-1 diversity reports [1]? It rather seems that you're nitpicking, looking for an excuse to ignore what by all accounts looks like someone's honest work. Do you have, for these companies, reports suggesting wildly different demographics, that is making you so skeptical? [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/legal-requirements https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/legal-requirem...
    - almostdeadguy 2y ago
      Who is actually making the claims here about these companies "achieving diversity"? Me? Do you want me to do your homework? It's quite easy to post specious data to support your specious claims on the internet. Quite easy to generate a desired reaction that way.
      - like_any_other 2y ago
        You're claiming the data is specious, but you have offered zero evidence to that end, only very shaky speculation. You say some of the links 404 - of the ones that do not, were their numbers significantly different from the table in the article?

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they? Whites were already under-represented at Google (and at 18/23 tech companies) back in 2017 For most diversity purposes, Asians and Indians both count as white, if not "even more white". Government programs, other than schools, are the main exception.

leoqa 2y ago
I think the real metric should be childhood household income. That transcends race or gender and universally inhibits the child in almost every measurable way.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  On the contrary, targeting childhood household income will see representation of the groups you're trying to help drop to nearly zero. Impoverished white children outscore wealthy black children by a significant margin on standardized tests, and there are a lot more poor white children than poor black children. There used to be programs like that, and they mostly helped the children of Chinese and Vietnamese refugees from communism. Low childhood household income doesn't really have much effect - "low income" in a US context is quite rich in a world context.
  - sheepdestroyer 2y ago
    "childhood household income. That transcends race or gender" vs "targeting childhood household income will see representation of the groups you're trying to help drop to nearly zero" Did you misunderstand the point? It seems right that if you want to help poor people, you should target poor people, how could that be counterproductive?
    - teractiveodular 2y ago
      But what if the poor people have the wrong skin color?

skywhopper 2y ago

Diversity targets are usually built around under-represented groups, not necessarily specific races.

teractiveodular 2y ago
The referenced Google diversity reports spell out the percentages of "Asian+, Black+, Latinx+, Native American+ and White+" (their terms). https://about.google/belonging/diversity-annual-report/2023/ https://about.google/belonging/diversity-annual-report/2023/
- scarab92 2y ago
  In many countries it is illegal to even record such information about employees.

Gothmog69 2y ago

sounds like we need a working definition of diversity? Usually it just means way less white people.

jaredklewis 2y ago
At Harvard (and I assume other places, but those other places were not subjected to the level of discovery that Harvard was in SFFA v Harvard), diversity meant less Asians. Representation of whites was about what you would expect given their test scores and grades.
eastbound 2y ago
In France it’s forbidden to filter by race. Guess how they filter by criteria? Well the population under 25 is incredibly diverse so they don’t care about filtering, they just donate to everyone under 25. Can’t believe we gave up our land like this, they’re not even nice or thankful.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

DEI programs discriminate significantly against Asians, just like college admissions. If these programs didn’t exist, the proportion of Asian employees would be even higher than it is currently, simply based on merit.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rajnathani 2y ago

Well, the top US engineering colleges which they're hiring from also has an under-representation of whites and this is due to the Asian disapora being higher from also international students' representation (thus, analyzing diversity metrics is less so relative to the US population and more so for the global population).