4 ms·

DEI was never really a genuine endeavor, or it would not be rolled back so quickly by major corporations. If DEI was truly and measurably beneficial to the comp

by dpedu 2y ago

DEI was never really a genuine endeavor, or it would not be rolled back so quickly by major corporations. If DEI was truly and measurably beneficial to the company, it would not be rolled back so quickly.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago
Just wait until the next presidential elections in US and see how quickly all of those companies are going to get those pages back again.
- wand3r 2y ago
  Why? The Democrats are on track to not see the inside of the executive office for the next 12 years. If the Trump term is moderately popular and he anoints a successor like Vance, it will be pretty unlikely the Democrats will win for 12 years. Democrats are really unmoored here and they have an insanely weak platform. I also generally think DEI, race based stack ranking and identity politics are widely unpopular. So I don't think you will see these pages come back broadly.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    It would be historically extremely aberrational for this to materialize.
    - artificialLimbs 2y ago
      The current administration's approval rating and actions are already extremely aberrational.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Not really, most administrations have a bump out of the gate when they can make cheap talk and the consequences haven't yet come to fruition.
        artificialLimbs 2y ago
        You gotta literally be a teenager to think this. This is by far the most consequential president of my 45 years of life and we're not even a month in.
        cruffle_duffle 2y ago
        And yet if you stop watching the news nothing has really changed at all. 80% of “most consequential president” is just media nonsense. Stop following the news and suddenly things don’t seem that bad. Because in reality all the media (all media not just the media one disagrees with) does is fuck with your brain and intentionally divide people and piss everyone off.
        artificialLimbs 2y ago
        Has anyone done these kinds of audits ever? Prices are shockingly higher than they have ever been because of the OBVIOUS AND BLATANT CORRUPTION of politicians funneling TRILLIONS of our tax dollars out all sort of various back doors.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Yes, USAID was successfully audited by an independent 3rd party financial auditor literally in November, for example. And that was using actual GAAP accounting auditing methods! So I guess if the “like this” you mean an ideological Cmd+F “audit” done by people with apparently zero financial experience, never mind public sector auditing, then no. Can you share a specific instance of fraud that has been found?
        artificialLimbs 2y ago
        Incredible lack of perspective. It's more than USAID. FBI, CIA, IRS, DOD, EVERYONE is being FULLY audited. This has never happened, ever. If you're not stunned about the corruption being revealed and eliminated by now, I'd suggest you've fully bought the narratives that the USAID media has pumped you. You are a target and a victim. https://doge.gov/ https://doge.gov/
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    This is basically what democratic strategist James Carville has been telling people. I think this is the likely outcome - if Trump does not crash and burn, which is a big if, there will be at least 12 years of a reactionary government which is plenty of time to change the culture. In general most people believe what they’re told to believe, tell them to believe something else and they will.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
ceejayoz 2y ago
Eh, it can be plenty beneficial, but those benefits may not be able to compete with “targeted by the most powerful man on the planet”.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  How much of that benefit was mixing up cause and effect? As in, one might hypothesize that having a visually diverse company is a luxury. But we don’t say that wearing a Rolex causes you to be successful. Second, diversity in e.g. race/gender may be a proxy for some other kind of more functional diversity. In fact, for diversity to matter at all there must be some functional element which can be decoupled from the labels people apply to themselves. The fact that we just assume this latent variable is there without measuring it seemed very unscientific to me.
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    >for diversity to matter at all there must be some functional element >without measuring it seemed very unscientific to me. Well, I think it's accepted that there were "unscientific" elements here. I'm not saying everyone agreed on their value, but they were stated as benefits. For instance, diversity in viewpoints based on varied experiences would theoretically bring about more interesting solutions. I'm not sure how one would objectively measure that purported effect. Likewise, helping a company to understand cultural sensitivities among different customer populations, so they don't blunder in language or otherwise. And, to whatever degree we consider it beneficial for companies to be considered "good corporate citizens" in general, I suppose that would apply here as well—though, again, hard to measure. So, I agree that say, race/gender are proxies for deeper cultural diversity. I don't know that you would define that diversity as "functional", or that you would need to in order for there to be some benefit.
hyperdunc 2y ago
Correct, and companies only ever pretended to care about measures of diversity that didn't hurt their bottom line too much. How about software diversity, where one doesn't have to use either iOS or Android to function in the modern world? Or have to use Chrome OS at school, etc. We have no real freedom there unless we want to face significant difficulties.
krapp 2y ago
Of course the purpose of DEI was not to benefit companies but to encourage equitable and fair treatment of disadvantaged and minority groups within an otherwise systemically white supremacist capitalist framework. Also, of course, companies were never taking it seriously, and everyone knew this. But if companies were left entirely to their own devices they would still be paying in company scrip and shooting unionists in the head. Even forcing them to pretend to have ethics is better for society as a whole than nothing.
- hyperdunc 2y ago
  It's interesting to see comments like this that sound like they were written by someone who recently went through a social justice course at university. Of course, I understand the impetus to piggyback a grievance on phrases like "white supremacist", which used to mean something. But these days their non-ironic use really tells us something about the person using it.
  - krapp 2y ago
    I mean, it should tell you that not everyone here is irony-poisoned and redpilled and only ever using this language in bad faith. Not that it matters, because of course to treat "woke" subjects with any seriousness is thoughtcrime on HN, and good faith only guarantees bad faith in kind. I get that. And I also don't care.
notepad0x90 2y ago
why does it need to be genuine? no one is really expecting corporations to be genuinely decent. regardless of the company's true intent, they were officially declaring a commitment which is then followed up on by action such as policy decisions, and that was done to attract talent and make it easier to do business in general. What changed now is white supremacists took over the US government and the cost of doing business is higher when you support DEI. Of course, everyone knows "DEI" really wasn't the point, "DEI" just means people who look different than those in power right now. Removal of DEI sends a message just as it's inclusion did.
- inetknght 2y ago
  > no one is really expecting corporations to be genuinely decent Speak for yourself. I do expect publicly-owned corporations to be decent, otherwise they do not deserve to be publicly owned. Unfortunately, it seems money gets in the way of that every day.
  - notepad0x90 2y ago
    publicly owned typically means owned by wealthy investors. it is silly to expect people who hoard billions of dollars they can't ever use to be decent people, although I'm sure there are exceptions. But even if I am wrong, the purpose of a business is to make profit at all costs, people tend to compartmentalize their morally conformant selves so that they can give to charity or say nice things when they are not their work-self, and be all about business when they turn on their work mode.
- the_doctah 2y ago
  DEI means illegal hiring quotas.
  - notepad0x90 2y ago
    that's what I'm trying to say, it does not mean that. you're just spreading false white-supremacist propaganda. If you have multiple well qualified applicants (you get to decide what the qualifications are) and time after time you establish a preference based on protected group criteria like race or sex, then under the civil rights acts the EEO can sue you. that has been the case since the 60's, that is not DEI! There is no "DEI" government policy or law. DEI is something citizens developed to ensure everyone is made to feel welcome in different organizations. You can call it b.s. or performative and you would be right, but it isn't what you claim it is.
nperez 2y ago
I think there's still appeal in the underlying (very) basic ideas of trying to create a workplace that's comfortable for everyone. It's being rolled back quickly because that's what influential rich people want, and because DEI has become a politically charged term that pretty much invites conflict and toxicity at this point
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >because DEI has become a politically charged term that pretty much invites conflict and toxicity at this point I agree with this on its face, but it seems an incredibly passive tone. DEI didn't just "become a politically charged term". It was deliberately made so. And the term doesn't just "invite conflict and toxicity". There are toxic people who are using the principles themselves as a point of conflict. Not being pedantic here. Maybe it's what you meant to say. Or maybe not and you don't agree. Either way, I point it out because it reminds me of the media headlines these days. I find that, among media reporting that purports to be "objective", there's a very odd passive tone, as if these unprecedented things are just happening. And, that introduces a pretty hard bias.
  - nperez 2y ago
    I think I'm mostly in agreement with your points. I think a significant part of the downfall of DEI was deliberate bad-faith behavior from those who actually oppose equality, but there are also things to be learned about how DEI programs were run. I've been in mandatory corporate DEI seminars that I had high hopes for, only to find that they felt overly prescriptive and ill-equipped for the complexities of trying to be sensitive to every culture. Having to jump in and explain "Well, some Latinos actually find LatinX to be an offensive term, so you might get the stink-eye if you use it" was a bit uncomfortable for me personally, for example. Getting it all right is hard, and getting a few things wrong can leave a really bad taste.
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      It is hard to get right, and there is definitely work to be done on the approach(es). Ironically, I think the idea itself that it's all so very sensitive is one of the biggest barriers to progress. People are afraid to be open and honest about biases, beliefs, ignorance, curiosities, etc. So, in an effort to ensure that no one is ever offended, companies tend to fall back to these prescriptive simplifications that rest on things like terminology. Of course, that just reinforces the fear and the divide. The irony is that it can also seed resentment to simply lecture people about their vocabulary and other third rails. OTOH, when real interaction is allowed to take place, there is an opportunity for humor and humanity to arise. Mistakes will be made, but progress is more about good faith and extending grace on all sides. So, it's, using x terminology doesn't mean I hate you. I just didn't know. When you assume that good faith, then your guard goes down. And, if I know that you know that, then I'm not going to be so fearful, and my guard drops too. Next thing you know, we're having an actual conversation.
Ardon 2y ago
I mean Costco kept theirs, and in a lot of cases federal grant money is now contingent on removing it, so this seems like a hasty conclusion. That being said I'm sure a lot of companies just threw up a statement, maybe a meaningless committee or whatever with no interest in actually changing anything.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
I think it’s safe to say that corporations are sensitive to political costs which is both a reason to adopt DEI and a reason to abandon DEI. I wish corporations were efficient money making machines, but there is so much agency cost with management having different intensives to stock holders which provides fertile ground for politicking and other such emergent behaviors that needlessly tarnish office life.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
Well, you're saying two distinct things there. A thing can certainly be genuine, but not beneficial, on principle or in execution. But, I think it's more the former for a lot of these companies. I sincerely wonder what the true impact of these "rollbacks" is, beyond removing verbiage from some websites/company literature.

by dpedu 2y ago

cynicalsecurity 2y ago

Just wait until the next presidential elections in US and see how quickly all of those companies are going to get those pages back again.

wand3r 2y ago
Why? The Democrats are on track to not see the inside of the executive office for the next 12 years. If the Trump term is moderately popular and he anoints a successor like Vance, it will be pretty unlikely the Democrats will win for 12 years. Democrats are really unmoored here and they have an insanely weak platform. I also generally think DEI, race based stack ranking and identity politics are widely unpopular. So I don't think you will see these pages come back broadly.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  It would be historically extremely aberrational for this to materialize.
  - artificialLimbs 2y ago
    The current administration's approval rating and actions are already extremely aberrational.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Not really, most administrations have a bump out of the gate when they can make cheap talk and the consequences haven't yet come to fruition.
      - artificialLimbs 2y ago
        You gotta literally be a teenager to think this. This is by far the most consequential president of my 45 years of life and we're not even a month in.
        cruffle_duffle 2y ago
        And yet if you stop watching the news nothing has really changed at all. 80% of “most consequential president” is just media nonsense. Stop following the news and suddenly things don’t seem that bad. Because in reality all the media (all media not just the media one disagrees with) does is fuck with your brain and intentionally divide people and piss everyone off.
        artificialLimbs 2y ago
        Has anyone done these kinds of audits ever? Prices are shockingly higher than they have ever been because of the OBVIOUS AND BLATANT CORRUPTION of politicians funneling TRILLIONS of our tax dollars out all sort of various back doors.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Yes, USAID was successfully audited by an independent 3rd party financial auditor literally in November, for example. And that was using actual GAAP accounting auditing methods! So I guess if the “like this” you mean an ideological Cmd+F “audit” done by people with apparently zero financial experience, never mind public sector auditing, then no. Can you share a specific instance of fraud that has been found?
        artificialLimbs 2y ago
        Incredible lack of perspective. It's more than USAID. FBI, CIA, IRS, DOD, EVERYONE is being FULLY audited. This has never happened, ever. If you're not stunned about the corruption being revealed and eliminated by now, I'd suggest you've fully bought the narratives that the USAID media has pumped you. You are a target and a victim. https://doge.gov/ https://doge.gov/
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  This is basically what democratic strategist James Carville has been telling people. I think this is the likely outcome - if Trump does not crash and burn, which is a big if, there will be at least 12 years of a reactionary government which is plenty of time to change the culture. In general most people believe what they’re told to believe, tell them to believe something else and they will.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

ceejayoz 2y ago

Eh, it can be plenty beneficial, but those benefits may not be able to compete with “targeted by the most powerful man on the planet”.

janalsncm 2y ago
How much of that benefit was mixing up cause and effect? As in, one might hypothesize that having a visually diverse company is a luxury. But we don’t say that wearing a Rolex causes you to be successful. Second, diversity in e.g. race/gender may be a proxy for some other kind of more functional diversity. In fact, for diversity to matter at all there must be some functional element which can be decoupled from the labels people apply to themselves. The fact that we just assume this latent variable is there without measuring it seemed very unscientific to me.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >for diversity to matter at all there must be some functional element >without measuring it seemed very unscientific to me. Well, I think it's accepted that there were "unscientific" elements here. I'm not saying everyone agreed on their value, but they were stated as benefits. For instance, diversity in viewpoints based on varied experiences would theoretically bring about more interesting solutions. I'm not sure how one would objectively measure that purported effect. Likewise, helping a company to understand cultural sensitivities among different customer populations, so they don't blunder in language or otherwise. And, to whatever degree we consider it beneficial for companies to be considered "good corporate citizens" in general, I suppose that would apply here as well—though, again, hard to measure. So, I agree that say, race/gender are proxies for deeper cultural diversity. I don't know that you would define that diversity as "functional", or that you would need to in order for there to be some benefit.

hyperdunc 2y ago

Correct, and companies only ever pretended to care about measures of diversity that didn't hurt their bottom line too much. How about software diversity, where one doesn't have to use either iOS or Android to function in the modern world? Or have to use Chrome OS at school, etc. We have no real freedom there unless we want to face significant difficulties.

krapp 2y ago

Of course the purpose of DEI was not to benefit companies but to encourage equitable and fair treatment of disadvantaged and minority groups within an otherwise systemically white supremacist capitalist framework. Also, of course, companies were never taking it seriously, and everyone knew this. But if companies were left entirely to their own devices they would still be paying in company scrip and shooting unionists in the head. Even forcing them to pretend to have ethics is better for society as a whole than nothing.

hyperdunc 2y ago
It's interesting to see comments like this that sound like they were written by someone who recently went through a social justice course at university. Of course, I understand the impetus to piggyback a grievance on phrases like "white supremacist", which used to mean something. But these days their non-ironic use really tells us something about the person using it.
- krapp 2y ago
  I mean, it should tell you that not everyone here is irony-poisoned and redpilled and only ever using this language in bad faith. Not that it matters, because of course to treat "woke" subjects with any seriousness is thoughtcrime on HN, and good faith only guarantees bad faith in kind. I get that. And I also don't care.

notepad0x90 2y ago

why does it need to be genuine? no one is really expecting corporations to be genuinely decent. regardless of the company's true intent, they were officially declaring a commitment which is then followed up on by action such as policy decisions, and that was done to attract talent and make it easier to do business in general. What changed now is white supremacists took over the US government and the cost of doing business is higher when you support DEI. Of course, everyone knows "DEI" really wasn't the point, "DEI" just means people who look different than those in power right now. Removal of DEI sends a message just as it's inclusion did.

inetknght 2y ago
> no one is really expecting corporations to be genuinely decent Speak for yourself. I do expect publicly-owned corporations to be decent, otherwise they do not deserve to be publicly owned. Unfortunately, it seems money gets in the way of that every day.
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  publicly owned typically means owned by wealthy investors. it is silly to expect people who hoard billions of dollars they can't ever use to be decent people, although I'm sure there are exceptions. But even if I am wrong, the purpose of a business is to make profit at all costs, people tend to compartmentalize their morally conformant selves so that they can give to charity or say nice things when they are not their work-self, and be all about business when they turn on their work mode.
the_doctah 2y ago
DEI means illegal hiring quotas.
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  that's what I'm trying to say, it does not mean that. you're just spreading false white-supremacist propaganda. If you have multiple well qualified applicants (you get to decide what the qualifications are) and time after time you establish a preference based on protected group criteria like race or sex, then under the civil rights acts the EEO can sue you. that has been the case since the 60's, that is not DEI! There is no "DEI" government policy or law. DEI is something citizens developed to ensure everyone is made to feel welcome in different organizations. You can call it b.s. or performative and you would be right, but it isn't what you claim it is.

nperez 2y ago

I think there's still appeal in the underlying (very) basic ideas of trying to create a workplace that's comfortable for everyone. It's being rolled back quickly because that's what influential rich people want, and because DEI has become a politically charged term that pretty much invites conflict and toxicity at this point

unclebucknasty 2y ago
>because DEI has become a politically charged term that pretty much invites conflict and toxicity at this point I agree with this on its face, but it seems an incredibly passive tone. DEI didn't just "become a politically charged term". It was deliberately made so. And the term doesn't just "invite conflict and toxicity". There are toxic people who are using the principles themselves as a point of conflict. Not being pedantic here. Maybe it's what you meant to say. Or maybe not and you don't agree. Either way, I point it out because it reminds me of the media headlines these days. I find that, among media reporting that purports to be "objective", there's a very odd passive tone, as if these unprecedented things are just happening. And, that introduces a pretty hard bias.
- nperez 2y ago
  I think I'm mostly in agreement with your points. I think a significant part of the downfall of DEI was deliberate bad-faith behavior from those who actually oppose equality, but there are also things to be learned about how DEI programs were run. I've been in mandatory corporate DEI seminars that I had high hopes for, only to find that they felt overly prescriptive and ill-equipped for the complexities of trying to be sensitive to every culture. Having to jump in and explain "Well, some Latinos actually find LatinX to be an offensive term, so you might get the stink-eye if you use it" was a bit uncomfortable for me personally, for example. Getting it all right is hard, and getting a few things wrong can leave a really bad taste.
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    It is hard to get right, and there is definitely work to be done on the approach(es). Ironically, I think the idea itself that it's all so very sensitive is one of the biggest barriers to progress. People are afraid to be open and honest about biases, beliefs, ignorance, curiosities, etc. So, in an effort to ensure that no one is ever offended, companies tend to fall back to these prescriptive simplifications that rest on things like terminology. Of course, that just reinforces the fear and the divide. The irony is that it can also seed resentment to simply lecture people about their vocabulary and other third rails. OTOH, when real interaction is allowed to take place, there is an opportunity for humor and humanity to arise. Mistakes will be made, but progress is more about good faith and extending grace on all sides. So, it's, using x terminology doesn't mean I hate you. I just didn't know. When you assume that good faith, then your guard goes down. And, if I know that you know that, then I'm not going to be so fearful, and my guard drops too. Next thing you know, we're having an actual conversation.

Ardon 2y ago

I mean Costco kept theirs, and in a lot of cases federal grant money is now contingent on removing it, so this seems like a hasty conclusion. That being said I'm sure a lot of companies just threw up a statement, maybe a meaningless committee or whatever with no interest in actually changing anything.

cjbgkagh 2y ago

I think it’s safe to say that corporations are sensitive to political costs which is both a reason to adopt DEI and a reason to abandon DEI. I wish corporations were efficient money making machines, but there is so much agency cost with management having different intensives to stock holders which provides fertile ground for politicking and other such emergent behaviors that needlessly tarnish office life.

unclebucknasty 2y ago

Well, you're saying two distinct things there. A thing can certainly be genuine, but not beneficial, on principle or in execution. But, I think it's more the former for a lot of these companies. I sincerely wonder what the true impact of these "rollbacks" is, beyond removing verbiage from some websites/company literature.