10 ms·

Independent of whether these goals are appropriate or not, these actions (and those of so many other companies) are just so predictably craven. These executive

Independent of whether these goals are appropriate or not, these actions (and those of so many other companies) are just so predictably craven. These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? At least Costco seems to have a logical reason for what they do and stood by it.

likeabatterycar 2y ago
> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? No, because that would obviously be racist. DEI would be favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job. The just thing would be students from HBCUs having a level playing field along with everyone else. It's no different than hiring managers selectively preferring graduates from Stanford or based on their surname's ethnicity, but it's hard to prove those things happen.
- scblock 2y ago
  You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Using it as a pejorative in the way you are is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist. It doesn't reflect the purpose of the concept at all. In fact your description of "favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job" is exactly what the concept hopes to prevent, not enable. DEI is not "reverse racism" as so many want to put it, it is more about considering diversity and recognizing personal and institutional bias, and working to ensure that bias does not negatively affect people, whether that be in hiring, consideration for roles or promotions, and so on. All the things we've seen both in government and in companies suddenly dumping DEI programs is craven, and if you actually look you can see it's already doing damage. There seem to be a lot of assumptions that women or people of color in high positions are "DEI hires" when they likely had to work harder than white men to get where they are. I mean firing a 4-star admiral because she's a woman and then claiming she was a DEI hire is insane, but that's where we are. Automatically assuming a black or trans pilot is a DEI hire is insane, but that's where we are.
  - likeabatterycar 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > ...is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist... You forgot transphobist and whatever the -ist form of Nazi is. National Socialist, possibly. No point going with half-measures on the insults.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    > You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Yes, it has. Look at the college admissions. The test score requirements for black students were way way lower than those for the Asian students in many universities and colleges. That's favoring people by their skin color. Which is illegal since at least 1964.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - icameron 2y ago
      Where can I look at these college test score requirements? I have never heard of such a thing besides minimum SAT score to be considered. Is that adjusted based solely on race at some university? Where?
      - brigandish 2y ago
        Probably in the NBER report[1] on the data that came out of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case[2]. It's an interesting read, as is the other one on legacy applicants. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w29964 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29964 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  DEI is nominally about adjusting the situation so that the end result is equal. For example, paying women equally even if they don't negotiate as aggressively as men. The nominal case doesn't always match the reality, but the reality is that no one has a level playing field to begin with.
  - anon7000 2y ago
    The whole thing is about trying to eliminate sources of bias that we can. For example, blind screening of resumes where names and similar personal info aren’t given is a way to avoid racial bias while focusing on what matters. People have pre-determined opinions about many things, even if it’s subconscious. That’s an example of DEI policies trying to level the playing field to avoid unfair discrimination.
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      That's a great example of a DEI-inspired policy that should be, at least in most cases, pretty non-controversial, and very beneficial to the company itself. I think there are also some other types of policies (whether formal or informal) that were much more controversial. For example: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/lawsuit-claims-google-job-quotas-favored-women-blacks-latinos-over-white-and-asian-men/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/lawsuit-claims-google-...
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        Have you tried deploying it? If you do, you'll find blind screening is extremely controversial. DEI types loathe it and will fight against it. The reason is that de facto unofficial discrimination against white men is widespread and blind screening eliminates it, so the resulting hires are more male and western than before. Mostly this result is kept hidden within the organizations in question, but there are a bunch of reported cases where this happened publicly. Even the famous orchestra study that kicked off the fad for these screenings supports this if you read the data tables carefully. The paper made it sound like blind screenings are better for women and racial minorities, but their data properly interpreted didn't say that.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jszymborski 2y ago
  > No, because that would obviously be racist. And doing obviously racist things is unheard of, particularly in tech. /s
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  I mean, considering West Point Academy is closing clubs like the National Society of Black Engineers or the Japanese Forum Club due to the anti-DEI order [1] I think that should tell you everything you need to know about what this change signals. [1] https://time.com/7212911/west-point-disbands-cadet-clubs-affinity-groups-trump-dei-order/ https://time.com/7212911/west-point-disbands-cadet-clubs-aff...
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    >the Japanese Forum Club, which described itself as a place for promoting “understanding and appreciation of Japanese culture and language”; Don't know why West Point thinks that is required by the anti-DEI order, maybe someone is going through and looking at anything with race or gender in the name and shutting it down? If so, that would be on West Point.
- courseofaction 2y ago
  [flagged]
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  How do you feel about recruiting efforts at all-women's colleges? What if those were stopped?
bufferoverflow 2y ago
> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? Why won't they? It's not like black people can't be hired anymore. It's just they have to compete like everyone else without being treated like disabled people.
- pkulak 2y ago
  That’s not how DEI works at all, and you probably know that, but being “short, quippy and wrong” is just so easy.
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    Your response is shorter than my comment. And is factually wrong. Pot, meet kettle. As far as DEI, that's exactly how it works: https://i.imgur.com/SFf8IL7.png https://i.imgur.com/SFf8IL7.png You see, I show evidence. Unlike you.
    - pkulak 2y ago
      Yes, a random S3 upload that 401s. You nailed it.
    - pertymcpert 2y ago
      I'm by no means right wing or a Trump supporter, but the fact that your comment earlier was flagged is complete bullshit.
    - cmsj 2y ago
      If that's what you consider to be useful evidence in a topic as complex as this one, heaven help whoever is paying you to make smart decisions for them.
      - bufferoverflow 2y ago
        Maybe it's complex for you, it's not complex for me. Any discrimination based on race, sex, age is illegal and immoral. You got brainwashed into thinking it's not.
piker 2y ago
How deep in the talent pool does Google usually go? It seems to me many HBCUs end up somewhere in the middle of the rankings. I don’t think Google went out of its way to interview at my middling state school. Should HBCUs get a boost?
scarab92 2y ago
It surprises me that these programs were ever legal. It is strictly illegal in Australia to consider factors like gender or race when hiring. Even capturing these details from applicants is problematic in most cases. The compensation payable if caught can be enormous, in the order of a years salary per applicant. It’s not even necessary to prove that a specific applicant was discriminated against, simply having a process which is likely to discriminate is sufficient.
- protocolture 2y ago
  I recall we have a specific carve out for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, and I recall seeing specific hiring drives especially around the public service (I also am aware that elements of the federal government had a program specifically targeting autistic people too, which is also a protected characteristic) Theres also 2 forms these DEI programs took. 1. (The FAA Thing) where they specifically manipulated their hiring system to ensure a greater percentage of african americans. 2. (What a lot of the tech companies did) Write tons of new HR documentation, and add checks and balances to ensure that the implicit bias of the hiring manager didn't result in a biased outcome. Theres really nothing wrong with 2 in an Australian context other than the extra overhead. The overhead was carried for a while as it allowed companies to signal alignment with political stances. They are shelving these programs to signal differently. Honestly I cant completely hate the idea of 2 either. I despise the idea of more HR people drawing paychecks, but I recall an incident 20 years ago where our team couldn't hire a woman because the all female HR team unilaterally decided she wasn't technical enough, and bounced her out of the running without telling the hiring manager. (The applicant was conventionally attractive and younger than the HR team)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- baggy_trough 2y ago
  They never were legal, but people looked the other way. Now that will come back to haunt them.
Ferret7446 2y ago
I'm not sure "craven" is the right word, but it's definitely something. > These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. All of these DEI efforts were and are blatantly illegal. They were just never litigated for long enough that everyone was comfortable with doing them openly. The point of the executive orders isn't necessarily the orders themselves, but a clear signal the new administration will litigate these efforts that have always been illegal. So many of these companies are backing away from the efforts and hoping that show of goodwill will ameliorate their potential upcoming legal risk. If they play ball, the new administration might accept the peace offering and not go full legal scorched earth.

likeabatterycar 2y ago

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? No, because that would obviously be racist. DEI would be favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job. The just thing would be students from HBCUs having a level playing field along with everyone else. It's no different than hiring managers selectively preferring graduates from Stanford or based on their surname's ethnicity, but it's hard to prove those things happen.

scblock 2y ago
You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Using it as a pejorative in the way you are is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist. It doesn't reflect the purpose of the concept at all. In fact your description of "favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job" is exactly what the concept hopes to prevent, not enable. DEI is not "reverse racism" as so many want to put it, it is more about considering diversity and recognizing personal and institutional bias, and working to ensure that bias does not negatively affect people, whether that be in hiring, consideration for roles or promotions, and so on. All the things we've seen both in government and in companies suddenly dumping DEI programs is craven, and if you actually look you can see it's already doing damage. There seem to be a lot of assumptions that women or people of color in high positions are "DEI hires" when they likely had to work harder than white men to get where they are. I mean firing a 4-star admiral because she's a woman and then claiming she was a DEI hire is insane, but that's where we are. Automatically assuming a black or trans pilot is a DEI hire is insane, but that's where we are.
- likeabatterycar 2y ago
  [flagged]
- roenxi 2y ago
  > ...is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist... You forgot transphobist and whatever the -ist form of Nazi is. National Socialist, possibly. No point going with half-measures on the insults.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  > You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Yes, it has. Look at the college admissions. The test score requirements for black students were way way lower than those for the Asian students in many universities and colleges. That's favoring people by their skin color. Which is illegal since at least 1964.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - icameron 2y ago
    Where can I look at these college test score requirements? I have never heard of such a thing besides minimum SAT score to be considered. Is that adjusted based solely on race at some university? Where?
    - brigandish 2y ago
      Probably in the NBER report[1] on the data that came out of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case[2]. It's an interesting read, as is the other one on legacy applicants. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w29964 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29964 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...
AlotOfReading 2y ago
DEI is nominally about adjusting the situation so that the end result is equal. For example, paying women equally even if they don't negotiate as aggressively as men. The nominal case doesn't always match the reality, but the reality is that no one has a level playing field to begin with.
- anon7000 2y ago
  The whole thing is about trying to eliminate sources of bias that we can. For example, blind screening of resumes where names and similar personal info aren’t given is a way to avoid racial bias while focusing on what matters. People have pre-determined opinions about many things, even if it’s subconscious. That’s an example of DEI policies trying to level the playing field to avoid unfair discrimination.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    That's a great example of a DEI-inspired policy that should be, at least in most cases, pretty non-controversial, and very beneficial to the company itself. I think there are also some other types of policies (whether formal or informal) that were much more controversial. For example: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/lawsuit-claims-google-job-quotas-favored-women-blacks-latinos-over-white-and-asian-men/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/lawsuit-claims-google-...
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Have you tried deploying it? If you do, you'll find blind screening is extremely controversial. DEI types loathe it and will fight against it. The reason is that de facto unofficial discrimination against white men is widespread and blind screening eliminates it, so the resulting hires are more male and western than before. Mostly this result is kept hidden within the organizations in question, but there are a bunch of reported cases where this happened publicly. Even the famous orchestra study that kicked off the fad for these screenings supports this if you read the data tables carefully. The paper made it sound like blind screenings are better for women and racial minorities, but their data properly interpreted didn't say that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jszymborski 2y ago
> No, because that would obviously be racist. And doing obviously racist things is unheard of, particularly in tech. /s
fzeroracer 2y ago
I mean, considering West Point Academy is closing clubs like the National Society of Black Engineers or the Japanese Forum Club due to the anti-DEI order [1] I think that should tell you everything you need to know about what this change signals. [1] https://time.com/7212911/west-point-disbands-cadet-clubs-affinity-groups-trump-dei-order/ https://time.com/7212911/west-point-disbands-cadet-clubs-aff...
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  >the Japanese Forum Club, which described itself as a place for promoting “understanding and appreciation of Japanese culture and language”; Don't know why West Point thinks that is required by the anti-DEI order, maybe someone is going through and looking at anything with race or gender in the name and shutting it down? If so, that would be on West Point.
courseofaction 2y ago
[flagged]
UncleMeat 2y ago
How do you feel about recruiting efforts at all-women's colleges? What if those were stopped?

bufferoverflow 2y ago

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? Why won't they? It's not like black people can't be hired anymore. It's just they have to compete like everyone else without being treated like disabled people.

pkulak 2y ago
That’s not how DEI works at all, and you probably know that, but being “short, quippy and wrong” is just so easy.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  Your response is shorter than my comment. And is factually wrong. Pot, meet kettle. As far as DEI, that's exactly how it works: https://i.imgur.com/SFf8IL7.png https://i.imgur.com/SFf8IL7.png You see, I show evidence. Unlike you.
  - pkulak 2y ago
    Yes, a random S3 upload that 401s. You nailed it.
  - pertymcpert 2y ago
    I'm by no means right wing or a Trump supporter, but the fact that your comment earlier was flagged is complete bullshit.
  - cmsj 2y ago
    If that's what you consider to be useful evidence in a topic as complex as this one, heaven help whoever is paying you to make smart decisions for them.
    - bufferoverflow 2y ago
      Maybe it's complex for you, it's not complex for me. Any discrimination based on race, sex, age is illegal and immoral. You got brainwashed into thinking it's not.

piker 2y ago

How deep in the talent pool does Google usually go? It seems to me many HBCUs end up somewhere in the middle of the rankings. I don’t think Google went out of its way to interview at my middling state school. Should HBCUs get a boost?

scarab92 2y ago

It surprises me that these programs were ever legal. It is strictly illegal in Australia to consider factors like gender or race when hiring. Even capturing these details from applicants is problematic in most cases. The compensation payable if caught can be enormous, in the order of a years salary per applicant. It’s not even necessary to prove that a specific applicant was discriminated against, simply having a process which is likely to discriminate is sufficient.

protocolture 2y ago
I recall we have a specific carve out for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, and I recall seeing specific hiring drives especially around the public service (I also am aware that elements of the federal government had a program specifically targeting autistic people too, which is also a protected characteristic) Theres also 2 forms these DEI programs took. 1. (The FAA Thing) where they specifically manipulated their hiring system to ensure a greater percentage of african americans. 2. (What a lot of the tech companies did) Write tons of new HR documentation, and add checks and balances to ensure that the implicit bias of the hiring manager didn't result in a biased outcome. Theres really nothing wrong with 2 in an Australian context other than the extra overhead. The overhead was carried for a while as it allowed companies to signal alignment with political stances. They are shelving these programs to signal differently. Honestly I cant completely hate the idea of 2 either. I despise the idea of more HR people drawing paychecks, but I recall an incident 20 years ago where our team couldn't hire a woman because the all female HR team unilaterally decided she wasn't technical enough, and bounced her out of the running without telling the hiring manager. (The applicant was conventionally attractive and younger than the HR team)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
baggy_trough 2y ago
They never were legal, but people looked the other way. Now that will come back to haunt them.

Ferret7446 2y ago

I'm not sure "craven" is the right word, but it's definitely something. > These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. All of these DEI efforts were and are blatantly illegal. They were just never litigated for long enough that everyone was comfortable with doing them openly. The point of the executive orders isn't necessarily the orders themselves, but a clear signal the new administration will litigate these efforts that have always been illegal. So many of these companies are backing away from the efforts and hoping that show of goodwill will ameliorate their potential upcoming legal risk. If they play ball, the new administration might accept the peace offering and not go full legal scorched earth.