7 ms·

Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

60 points by mohi-kalantari 10mo ago

RankingMember 10mo ago
https://archive.vn/DNBQa https://archive.vn/DNBQa
afavour 10mo ago
No matter how you might view the topic I hope we can all agree that this is vacuous nonsense: > “We are not doing a traditional report this year as we’ve evolved beyond that to formats that are more dynamic and accessible — stories, videos, and insights that show inclusion in action,” Oh, you wanted hard numbers? What about a TikTok video instead? Just be honest about this stuff. It’s insulting to the intelligences of all involved to pretend that you just coincidentally happen to be making these shifts.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- jhickok 10mo ago
  Agreed-- I despise being continuously antagonized by corporate-speak.
- amatecha 10mo ago
  The corporate slant on forcing staff back into the office is approached the same way. No numbers/data, all "vibes" -> "we want to bring the sense of connection and collaboration" blah blah .. vacuous indeed, totally omitting any shred of concrete substantiation.
RankingMember 10mo ago
I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to a glorified reality show egomaniac. Allying to price-fix is one thing, but surely they can ally to resist culture war nonsense from making its way into their employee handbooks?
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- alt227 10mo ago
  > a glorified reality show egomaniac He is also.... the president of the United States?
  - westmeal 10mo ago
    So what?
    - rtkwe 10mo ago
      There's a hell of a lot of power vested in the executive branch especially in the DOJ to really mess with companies and the real protection against it's misuse was the agreement that the President didn't directly instruct and control who the DOJ actually indicted. It used to be a notable event when a president even appeared to hint that he was encouraging investigations (not even indictments) into specific companies now we've got a president explicitly demanding the DOJ indict specific people and find any reason to do so, see Comey and Letitia James's recent indictments.
      - shadowgovt 10mo ago
        And, of course, since businesses are fundamentally in competition, that puts them in an interesting position: even if it's a net negative for the entire industry to capitulate to the bullying tactics of the executive branch, you can get a leg up on your competition by having one fewer giant complicated court case to worry about (even if the case is guaranteed to lose, it still costs money to defend it).
        rtkwe 10mo ago
        Yes, there's a lot of pressure to stay on his good side, even if the charges are bogus and eventually beaten or just ends in a pay-off like many cases the process is still damaging/costly and there's large incentives to pre-comply. Look at Apple's little gift plaque for an example of that, not really a bribe unless more laws are broken but a nice little ego stroke none the less.
t1234s 10mo ago
The only thing large corporations like M$ care about is their share price (and they should). ESG/DEI was just a fad
whynotminot 10mo ago
While there’s a lot of this era that’s deeply unfortunate, this kind of question on my yearly review would be incredibly vexing to me: > What impact did your actions have in contributing to a more diverse and inclusive Microsoft? What does this even mean? How do I show I did this? If I don’t interpret the meaning of this question correctly, do I fail the test and end up some HR watchlist? If I don’t succeed at whatever this is going for, will I not promote?
- alt227 10mo ago
  I feel like the general answer is going to be 'None', and that Microsft is not really going to care about that very much.
  - netruk44 10mo ago
    I used to work at Microsoft and I can tell you this was absolutely not true during my time there. As an engineer, you needed to have an answer to that question or else you could not be promoted (at least in some parts of the org chart). It was a box that your skip levels needed to see checked in order to approve promotions. My lead told me as much in exactly those words.
    - alt227 10mo ago
      What about now during the current administration and after DEI has just been killed?
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
  - metajack 10mo ago
    When I was at LinkedIn we definitely cared about this. It probably wouldn't be enough to knock you down a peg during your review if you had none during a particular half/quarter, but if you never did anything in this bucket it would be a red flag during promotion consideration. We wanted leader to be empathetic and respectful.
delichon 10mo ago
Due to current admin policies, failing to do this would limit Microsoft's ability to drink from the federal trough. Whatever value they put in diversity is less than they put in large contracts.
- shadowgovt 10mo ago
  And it is interesting to see how different organizations are reacting to this administration depending upon what percentage of their bottom line is directly tied to government or military contracting. Python Software Foundation telling the NSF they had too many strings attached to their money is another interesting spotlight on the current situation.
- hypeatei 10mo ago
  At the risk of sounding like an LLM, you're absolutely right! It would be stupid not to kowtow to the current admin given how much business Microsoft does with the US government. The pendulum will swing back, guarantee it.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
    > The pendulum will swing back, guarantee it. Unless they find a way to cut the line making it a unconstrained projectile.
- mrspuratic 10mo ago
  Total US Fed. Gov. contracts for 2024 was (according to gao.gov) $755B. That's a lot of drinking, never mind any anticipated AI spending boost next year.
Hasz 10mo ago
DEI used to make them money, and now it loses them money. It is not surprising they would jettison it.
- onewheeltom 10mo ago
  Treating your employees with respect may not be profitable in the short term, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.
  - KevinMS 10mo ago
    DEI has nothing to do with treating your employees with respect.
coldtea 10mo ago
Let's call it "token representation not based on merit" and it doesn't sound that back walking them back
- stvltvs 10mo ago
  That assumes the status quo ante was a meritocracy. It wasn't, hence the need for actions that promote merit based hiring and workplace inclusion for historically oppressed groups. The efficacy of current DEI efforts is debatable, but the need should be obvious.
  - coldtea 10mo ago
    >That assumes the status quo ante was a meritocracy. No, it just assumes it was more of a meritocracy than actively hiring based on irrelevant guiding principles like counter-balancing historical wrongs. A blind process would both be neutral to the ideology that caused the wrongs (racism and such bias) and based on far more meritocracy.
    - stvltvs 10mo ago
      Sounds like we kind of agree but you wouldn't include blind hiring under the label of DEI. Also, I wouldn't agree that historically hiring was more meritocratic before DEI programs.
coredog64 10mo ago
Aside from the alleged "culture war" aspect, looking at the 2024 report you can see that the category "Asian" is at 36%. Roughly 5% of the US population can tick the "Asian" box on the census. There are a lot of people on both sides of the US political aisle asking why this is the case. Making it harder to tease that data out might limit blowback from low-effort attempts to smear the company.
ausbah 10mo ago
yeah they dropped their “what actions did you take to further diversify and inclusion” question in biannual reviews last month no one really liked those sorts of questions, always had to game it or make BS up. but on a personal level definitely furthers my desire to mot want to come out at work as a trans person
terminalshort 10mo ago
DEI is a blatant violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and any company that engages in it or any form of racial discrimination by any other sickening PR sanitized name like "affirmative action" should be aggressively prosecuted. > It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - > (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or > (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
  This makes no sense to me. Surely DEI reinforces those 2 clauses? Without DEI, it's just white men that will be hired and generally, it'll be friends of friends with no regard to their competency. DEI is an attempt to level the playing field as otherwise, racist/sexist employers will continue to be racist and sexist.
  - terminalshort 10mo ago
    [flagged]
ChrisArchitect 10mo ago
Game File post: https://www.gamefile.news/p/microsoft-skips-diversity-inclusion-report-2025 https://www.gamefile.news/p/microsoft-skips-diversity-inclus...
stevenfoster 10mo ago
Panem et Circenses.
Rebuff5007 10mo ago
Hot take: i'm not sure this is actually bad for actual diversity and inclusion. From my experience (not at msft), companies continue to have many internal goals related to equal pay, gender balance, etc. Whats changing is how this is communicated externally, and I can see why this would have to change based on the political climate.
some_random 10mo ago
I don't know how to break it to you all, but many of these "diversity efforts" are now categorized as illegal discrimination.
antibull 10mo ago
[dead]
random9749832 10mo ago
Can't see anything lost here. I'm in the awkward camp of neither being in the privileged group but I also don't check off any DEI boxes so I never benefited from it. I'm sure a lot of other people can relate. It could have been nice if DEI at least made some sense and wasn't just code for black/women but I think people who run these programs might not be the smartest and have the understanding of discrimination of an infantile. Maybe in the future we can have something that actually promotes equality properly and not what Karen from HR thinks it means.

60 points by mohi-kalantari 10mo ago

https://archive.vn/DNBQa https://archive.vn/DNBQa

No matter how you might view the topic I hope we can all agree that this is vacuous nonsense: > “We are not doing a traditional report this year as we’ve evolved beyond that to formats that are more dynamic and accessible — stories, videos, and insights that show inclusion in action,” Oh, you wanted hard numbers? What about a TikTok video instead? Just be honest about this stuff. It’s insulting to the intelligences of all involved to pretend that you just coincidentally happen to be making these shifts.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
jhickok 10mo ago
Agreed-- I despise being continuously antagonized by corporate-speak.
amatecha 10mo ago
The corporate slant on forcing staff back into the office is approached the same way. No numbers/data, all "vibes" -> "we want to bring the sense of connection and collaboration" blah blah .. vacuous indeed, totally omitting any shred of concrete substantiation.

RankingMember 10mo ago

I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to a glorified reality show egomaniac. Allying to price-fix is one thing, but surely they can ally to resist culture war nonsense from making its way into their employee handbooks?

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
alt227 10mo ago
> a glorified reality show egomaniac He is also.... the president of the United States?
- westmeal 10mo ago
  So what?
  - rtkwe 10mo ago
    There's a hell of a lot of power vested in the executive branch especially in the DOJ to really mess with companies and the real protection against it's misuse was the agreement that the President didn't directly instruct and control who the DOJ actually indicted. It used to be a notable event when a president even appeared to hint that he was encouraging investigations (not even indictments) into specific companies now we've got a president explicitly demanding the DOJ indict specific people and find any reason to do so, see Comey and Letitia James's recent indictments.
    - shadowgovt 10mo ago
      And, of course, since businesses are fundamentally in competition, that puts them in an interesting position: even if it's a net negative for the entire industry to capitulate to the bullying tactics of the executive branch, you can get a leg up on your competition by having one fewer giant complicated court case to worry about (even if the case is guaranteed to lose, it still costs money to defend it).
      - rtkwe 10mo ago
        Yes, there's a lot of pressure to stay on his good side, even if the charges are bogus and eventually beaten or just ends in a pay-off like many cases the process is still damaging/costly and there's large incentives to pre-comply. Look at Apple's little gift plaque for an example of that, not really a bribe unless more laws are broken but a nice little ego stroke none the less.

t1234s 10mo ago

The only thing large corporations like M$ care about is their share price (and they should). ESG/DEI was just a fad

whynotminot 10mo ago

While there’s a lot of this era that’s deeply unfortunate, this kind of question on my yearly review would be incredibly vexing to me: > What impact did your actions have in contributing to a more diverse and inclusive Microsoft? What does this even mean? How do I show I did this? If I don’t interpret the meaning of this question correctly, do I fail the test and end up some HR watchlist? If I don’t succeed at whatever this is going for, will I not promote?

alt227 10mo ago
I feel like the general answer is going to be 'None', and that Microsft is not really going to care about that very much.
- netruk44 10mo ago
  I used to work at Microsoft and I can tell you this was absolutely not true during my time there. As an engineer, you needed to have an answer to that question or else you could not be promoted (at least in some parts of the org chart). It was a box that your skip levels needed to see checked in order to approve promotions. My lead told me as much in exactly those words.
  - alt227 10mo ago
    What about now during the current administration and after DEI has just been killed?
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
- metajack 10mo ago
  When I was at LinkedIn we definitely cared about this. It probably wouldn't be enough to knock you down a peg during your review if you had none during a particular half/quarter, but if you never did anything in this bucket it would be a red flag during promotion consideration. We wanted leader to be empathetic and respectful.

delichon 10mo ago

Due to current admin policies, failing to do this would limit Microsoft's ability to drink from the federal trough. Whatever value they put in diversity is less than they put in large contracts.

shadowgovt 10mo ago
And it is interesting to see how different organizations are reacting to this administration depending upon what percentage of their bottom line is directly tied to government or military contracting. Python Software Foundation telling the NSF they had too many strings attached to their money is another interesting spotlight on the current situation.
hypeatei 10mo ago
At the risk of sounding like an LLM, you're absolutely right! It would be stupid not to kowtow to the current admin given how much business Microsoft does with the US government. The pendulum will swing back, guarantee it.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
  > The pendulum will swing back, guarantee it. Unless they find a way to cut the line making it a unconstrained projectile.
mrspuratic 10mo ago
Total US Fed. Gov. contracts for 2024 was (according to gao.gov) $755B. That's a lot of drinking, never mind any anticipated AI spending boost next year.

Hasz 10mo ago

DEI used to make them money, and now it loses them money. It is not surprising they would jettison it.

onewheeltom 10mo ago
Treating your employees with respect may not be profitable in the short term, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.
- KevinMS 10mo ago
  DEI has nothing to do with treating your employees with respect.

coldtea 10mo ago

Let's call it "token representation not based on merit" and it doesn't sound that back walking them back

stvltvs 10mo ago
That assumes the status quo ante was a meritocracy. It wasn't, hence the need for actions that promote merit based hiring and workplace inclusion for historically oppressed groups. The efficacy of current DEI efforts is debatable, but the need should be obvious.
- coldtea 10mo ago
  >That assumes the status quo ante was a meritocracy. No, it just assumes it was more of a meritocracy than actively hiring based on irrelevant guiding principles like counter-balancing historical wrongs. A blind process would both be neutral to the ideology that caused the wrongs (racism and such bias) and based on far more meritocracy.
  - stvltvs 10mo ago
    Sounds like we kind of agree but you wouldn't include blind hiring under the label of DEI. Also, I wouldn't agree that historically hiring was more meritocratic before DEI programs.

coredog64 10mo ago

Aside from the alleged "culture war" aspect, looking at the 2024 report you can see that the category "Asian" is at 36%. Roughly 5% of the US population can tick the "Asian" box on the census. There are a lot of people on both sides of the US political aisle asking why this is the case. Making it harder to tease that data out might limit blowback from low-effort attempts to smear the company.

ausbah 10mo ago

yeah they dropped their “what actions did you take to further diversify and inclusion” question in biannual reviews last month no one really liked those sorts of questions, always had to game it or make BS up. but on a personal level definitely furthers my desire to mot want to come out at work as a trans person

terminalshort 10mo ago

DEI is a blatant violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and any company that engages in it or any form of racial discrimination by any other sickening PR sanitized name like "affirmative action" should be aggressively prosecuted. > It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - > (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or > (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
This makes no sense to me. Surely DEI reinforces those 2 clauses? Without DEI, it's just white men that will be hired and generally, it'll be friends of friends with no regard to their competency. DEI is an attempt to level the playing field as otherwise, racist/sexist employers will continue to be racist and sexist.
- terminalshort 10mo ago
  [flagged]

ChrisArchitect 10mo ago

Game File post: https://www.gamefile.news/p/microsoft-skips-diversity-inclusion-report-2025 https://www.gamefile.news/p/microsoft-skips-diversity-inclus...

stevenfoster 10mo ago

Panem et Circenses.

Rebuff5007 10mo ago

Hot take: i'm not sure this is actually bad for actual diversity and inclusion. From my experience (not at msft), companies continue to have many internal goals related to equal pay, gender balance, etc. Whats changing is how this is communicated externally, and I can see why this would have to change based on the political climate.

some_random 10mo ago

I don't know how to break it to you all, but many of these "diversity efforts" are now categorized as illegal discrimination.

antibull 10mo ago

[dead]

random9749832 10mo ago

Can't see anything lost here. I'm in the awkward camp of neither being in the privileged group but I also don't check off any DEI boxes so I never benefited from it. I'm sure a lot of other people can relate. It could have been nice if DEI at least made some sense and wasn't just code for black/women but I think people who run these programs might not be the smartest and have the understanding of discrimination of an infantile. Maybe in the future we can have something that actually promotes equality properly and not what Karen from HR thinks it means.