4 ms·

The loss of dei programs is bad but isn't the big bad. The big bad comes when businesses start being forced to prove that they arent doing dei. Every hire may

The loss of dei programs is bad but isn't the big bad. The big bad comes when businesses start being forced to prove that they arent doing dei. Every hire may soon have to be examined under inverse lenses: to prove that they are not dei. Real evils will then creep back into business culture. Be under no illusions. Those evils still lurk in every back office.

voldacar 2y ago
The loss of DEI programs is good, as it reduces the pressure for these companies to discriminate against white and asian men in hiring.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  That’s not how DEI programs operated at places I’ve worked. They were more about expanding candidate searches to look for high quality people at other places than we’d been looking, reducing alcohol at company events etc
  - chrislongss 2y ago
    This is a minor detail but reducing or removing alcohol all together (my company) from social events for inclusion reasons is excluding people who like consuming alcohol at social events. We somehow pivoted to embracing restrictions in order to accommodate small groups of people, instead of offering alternatives (e.g. vegan options). This will always irritate other groups of people and is not a sustainable way to improve inclusion.
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      Sure and one answer to that was simply to ensure soft beverage availability in addition to alcohol. Which was an initiative borne from a DEI program. We’re debating specifics of DEI-relevant initiatives. What I’m saying is these discussions only happen when there is space for DEI consideration
      - chrislongss 2y ago
        I am not nitpicking and in general am in support of offering more diverse options. However, in my experience I can't remember a single event where soft drinks where not offered in additional to alcohol: pre DEI or during the DEI era. As a vegetarian, I really struggled finding good non-meat options though.
    - tetromino_ 2y ago
      > reducing or removing alcohol all together (my company) from social events for inclusion reasons is excluding people who like consuming alcohol at social events Reducing or removing alcohol at social events is not done for "inclusion reasons" but for straightforward legal liability reasons: a drunk employee often has poor impulse control and may do or say shitty things that they wouldn't if they were sober, and with some probability this results in lawsuits against the company. No drunk people at social events -> fewer lawsuits.
      - wahnfrieden 2y ago
        Off topic
- qwerpy 2y ago
  Agree. As a parent to an Asian boy, I’m thankful that steps are being taken to ensure he isn’t discriminated against for school admissions and job applications.
chrislongss 2y ago
This is a fantastical speculation based on no evidence other than political bias. We do have evidence, though, that candidates had to go through performative hiring practices to prove that they support "diversity".
- sandworm101 2y ago
  A friend once said to me "that road doesnt need a speed limit anymore. It hasnt had a fatal accident for many years. And cars are safer now. Dont burden people with stupid restrictions." Evil is patient.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Hi! This is Germany calling! Indeed, Autobahns don't have a speed restriction and are as safe or safer than the US freeways.
  - chrislongss 2y ago
    Are you advocating for "speed limits"... for advancing people's careers based on race?
- MeetingsBrowser 2y ago
  …
- skywhopper 2y ago
  At Google? Where’s the evidence? Most DEI efforts come down to making sure you give a diverse candidate pool a chance to prove themselves instead of just hiring buddies that look and think and act exactly the same. That’s hardly “performative”.
  - chrislongss 2y ago
    Parent comment doesn't limit this to Google.
programmerpass 2y ago
Well, if businesses had to prove that each hire is related to dei, which was the previous state of affairs, many would argue that is when evil creeps into business culture. So, it goes both ways, supposedly.
- skywhopper 2y ago
  But this never happened.
  - programmerpass 2y ago
    “The survey highlights two interesting facts: 46% of tech employees have noticed an increase in DEI investments in 2020, and 51% companies now report on DEI metrics. However, the report also highlights the need for continued action. 14% of technology companies today do not invest in DEI programs and initiatives.” Source: https://www.spiceworks.com/hr/diversity-inclusion/news/51-of-tech-companies-now-report-on-dei-metrics-built-in-study-reveals/ https://www.spiceworks.com/hr/diversity-inclusion/news/51-of... I’ve found 5-10 more similar sources via a quick google search. While the law did not compel a business to report dei metrics to my knowledge (besides boards of public companies via the SEC), the impact of mass virtual signaling had the practical effect of compelling businesses of embracing dei or face being labeled as racists or immoral, which is a form of coercion by itself. I’d argue it would have been be better if such actions were simply deemed as illegal rather than racists or immoral. So with that said, I would argue the previous state of affairs was significantly worse with dei measures in place. Putting the power back to the law rather than to a group of loosely collected virtual signalers is a better world imo.

voldacar 2y ago

The loss of DEI programs is good, as it reduces the pressure for these companies to discriminate against white and asian men in hiring.

wahnfrieden 2y ago
That’s not how DEI programs operated at places I’ve worked. They were more about expanding candidate searches to look for high quality people at other places than we’d been looking, reducing alcohol at company events etc
- chrislongss 2y ago
  This is a minor detail but reducing or removing alcohol all together (my company) from social events for inclusion reasons is excluding people who like consuming alcohol at social events. We somehow pivoted to embracing restrictions in order to accommodate small groups of people, instead of offering alternatives (e.g. vegan options). This will always irritate other groups of people and is not a sustainable way to improve inclusion.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    Sure and one answer to that was simply to ensure soft beverage availability in addition to alcohol. Which was an initiative borne from a DEI program. We’re debating specifics of DEI-relevant initiatives. What I’m saying is these discussions only happen when there is space for DEI consideration
    - chrislongss 2y ago
      I am not nitpicking and in general am in support of offering more diverse options. However, in my experience I can't remember a single event where soft drinks where not offered in additional to alcohol: pre DEI or during the DEI era. As a vegetarian, I really struggled finding good non-meat options though.
  - tetromino_ 2y ago
    > reducing or removing alcohol all together (my company) from social events for inclusion reasons is excluding people who like consuming alcohol at social events Reducing or removing alcohol at social events is not done for "inclusion reasons" but for straightforward legal liability reasons: a drunk employee often has poor impulse control and may do or say shitty things that they wouldn't if they were sober, and with some probability this results in lawsuits against the company. No drunk people at social events -> fewer lawsuits.
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      Off topic
qwerpy 2y ago
Agree. As a parent to an Asian boy, I’m thankful that steps are being taken to ensure he isn’t discriminated against for school admissions and job applications.

chrislongss 2y ago

This is a fantastical speculation based on no evidence other than political bias. We do have evidence, though, that candidates had to go through performative hiring practices to prove that they support "diversity".

sandworm101 2y ago
A friend once said to me "that road doesnt need a speed limit anymore. It hasnt had a fatal accident for many years. And cars are safer now. Dont burden people with stupid restrictions." Evil is patient.
- cyberax 2y ago
  Hi! This is Germany calling! Indeed, Autobahns don't have a speed restriction and are as safe or safer than the US freeways.
- chrislongss 2y ago
  Are you advocating for "speed limits"... for advancing people's careers based on race?
MeetingsBrowser 2y ago
…
skywhopper 2y ago
At Google? Where’s the evidence? Most DEI efforts come down to making sure you give a diverse candidate pool a chance to prove themselves instead of just hiring buddies that look and think and act exactly the same. That’s hardly “performative”.
- chrislongss 2y ago
  Parent comment doesn't limit this to Google.

programmerpass 2y ago

Well, if businesses had to prove that each hire is related to dei, which was the previous state of affairs, many would argue that is when evil creeps into business culture. So, it goes both ways, supposedly.

skywhopper 2y ago
But this never happened.
- programmerpass 2y ago
  “The survey highlights two interesting facts: 46% of tech employees have noticed an increase in DEI investments in 2020, and 51% companies now report on DEI metrics. However, the report also highlights the need for continued action. 14% of technology companies today do not invest in DEI programs and initiatives.” Source: https://www.spiceworks.com/hr/diversity-inclusion/news/51-of-tech-companies-now-report-on-dei-metrics-built-in-study-reveals/ https://www.spiceworks.com/hr/diversity-inclusion/news/51-of... I’ve found 5-10 more similar sources via a quick google search. While the law did not compel a business to report dei metrics to my knowledge (besides boards of public companies via the SEC), the impact of mass virtual signaling had the practical effect of compelling businesses of embracing dei or face being labeled as racists or immoral, which is a form of coercion by itself. I’d argue it would have been be better if such actions were simply deemed as illegal rather than racists or immoral. So with that said, I would argue the previous state of affairs was significantly worse with dei measures in place. Putting the power back to the law rather than to a group of loosely collected virtual signalers is a better world imo.