13 ms·

Google kills diversity hiring targets

159 points by kepler1 2y ago

user3939382 2y ago
Most of these megacorporations have no beliefs or values except their own profits and growth. Everything else is political expediency. This is just based on a lifetime of observing their behavior.
kepler1 2y ago
James Damore must be rolling in his grave
- Ozarkian 2y ago
  He reached some kind of settlement with Google. I have no idea how much Google paid, but my suspicion is that James had the last laugh.
  - aurareturn 2y ago
    I remember reading his memo and agreed with many things he said. I think the public overreacted. He was right that DEI ignore the hard questions and discriminates another group. I'm no Trump lover. However, I do think DEI was the wrong approach. Many here work in tech. I'm sure some or many of us here have silently experienced unfair DEI hiring and promotion practices at least once. I've seen some truly incompetent people get hired and promoted purely to meet a certain DEI goal. It reminds me of Affirmative Action but for the work place. This is coming from someone who absolutely hates the tech bro culture and hates that there aren't enough women in tech. No male tech worker likes environments where there are 10 guys to 1 girl and the insane gender imbalance in tech heavy cities that make dating impossible for a large portion of the population. If I could, I would wave a magic wand and turn the tech industry into 10 women for every 1 man. Believe me.
    - 42772827 2y ago
      Damore’s letter was extremely balanced and had all the appropriate caveats about being applied to individuals. But what we’re seeing as the countervailing force to “woke” and “DEI” is unfortunately not like this. It’s as reactionary as the most egregious DEI programs.
      - ithkuil 2y ago
        We live on times of the great pendulum swings. It's hard to have nuanced conversations.
      - Ferret7446 2y ago
        Do not blame the pendulum for swinging back. Blame the person who pushed the pendulum in the first place.
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  grave?
  - kepler1 2y ago
    it's a joke
kepler1 2y ago
https://archive.is/6O8L5 https://archive.is/6O8L5
- cheeze 2y ago
  Shows > You have been blocked. Only me?
  - dekhn 2y ago
    I see it too (but I'm a subscriber and read the article online). There isn't much to see- Google/Alphabet (Pichai) has decided to align itself with the current government and eliminating these programs is a clear signal.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    Not just you, archive today has a beef with cloudflare. I wasn’t even using cloudflare intentionally but iirc Firefox has a dns privacy setting that I had to disable. Since May 2018[35][36] Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 DNS service would not resolve archive.today's web addresses, making it inaccessible to users of the Cloudflare DNS service. Both organizations claimed the other was responsible for the issue. Cloudflare staff stated that the problem was on archive.today's DNS infrastructure, as its authoritative nameservers return invalid records when Cloudflare's network systems made requests to archive.today. archive.today countered that the issue was due to Cloudflare requests not being compliant with DNS standards, as Cloudflare does not send EDNS Client Subnet information in its DNS requests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
    Works where archive.is is blocked: https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/tech-companies/google-kills-diversity-hiring-targets/ar-AA1ytY6x https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/tech-companies/google-k... No Javascript, text-only: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1ytY6x https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1ytY6x
unification_fan 2y ago
[flagged]
- janice1999 2y ago
  Sounds more like opportunistic cost cutting and virtue signalling to the current dominant political force.
kepler1 2y ago
This is pretty much the first half of the article (until the archive.is link starts working): "Google is eliminating its goal of hiring more employees from historically underrepresented groups and reviewing some diversity, equity and inclusion programs, joining other tech giants rethinking their approach to DEI. In an email to employees Wednesday, Google said it would no longer set hiring targets to improve representation in its workforce. In 2020, amid calls for racial justice following the police killing of George Floyd, Google set a target of increasing by 30% the proportion of “leadership representation of underrepresented groups” by 2025. Parent company Alphabet’s GOOGL -7.69%decrease; red down pointing triangle annual report released Wednesday omitted a sentence stating the company was “committed to making diversity, equity, and inclusion part of everything we do and to growing a workforce that is representative of the users we serve.” The sentence was in its reports from 2021 through 2024. Google also said it was reviewing recent court decisions and executive orders by President Trump aimed at curbing DEI in the government and federal contractors. The company is “evaluating changes to our programs required to comply,” the email said... “We’ll continue to invest in states across the U.S.—and in many countries globally—but in the future we will no longer have aspirational goals,” the email said... "
- krunck 2y ago
  "but in the future we will no longer have aspirational goals" Except making more money with US government and military contracts.
legitster 2y ago
The complete rollover on this is kind of disheartening. Were a lot of these programs a performative kabuki theatre that wasted time and money? Yes. Were companies ever going to fill their ranks with black, lesbian programmers? No. On the other hand, now having worked my way up in the tech world, the idea that the C-suite decision makers are there through some sort of meritocracy is also equally laughable. These are exclusive circles, and your breeding (family, school, frat) already determines your access more than success ever will. I don't think there is anything wrong with the ideal of giving more types of people a chance. But it was an issue of execution, not intent.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  [flagged]
- bc9o 2y ago
  Read Judge Amit Mehta's ruling on their behavior gaming ad auctions to hit Revenue targets. Then think about non reaction of the Advertising Industry. Achieving Monopoly and Domination requires kabuki performances. There is no other route. These are mentally bankrupt one dimensional people. Other than survival and accumulation of status and wealth there is nothing much going on in their head.
- stego-tech 2y ago
  Never listen to their words, only pay attention to their actions. You hit it dead-on that a lot of these DEI initiatives were performance theater to appease some external force (as is most of business, when you really think about it). The existing leadership had zero intent to actually allow under-represented minorities into their ranks other than as a token or trophy figure who would kiss the ring and not rock the boat. The real success (or failure) of DEI will be the next crop of leaders, not the current ones. The managers and leaders of tomorrow (who are the ICs and team leads of today) are acutely aware of how much of a Straight White Boy’s Club these leadership ranks are, and the vibe I get is increasing disgust at the proclamation of “merit” as justification for their tenure while (often minority) high performers are routinely exited out in favor of yet another H1B overseas. I’m hoping this is just the last gasps of relevance from the status quo in the face of generational upheaval. Guess we’ll all find out together.
bitwize 2y ago
[flagged]
like_any_other 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 [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.
silexia 2y ago
Diversity hiring targets is a pretty new phrase to describe an ugly old practice: racism.
- rvz 2y ago
  Exactly. It always has been. A rebranded newspeak to cover for what it really is.
- DFHippie 2y ago
  There are advantages to diversity by itself. These have been well documented. So setting aside any concern about excluded groups, it was a good business decision to aim for a diverse workforce. But taking those concerns up again, almost no one perceives their own biases as biases. It's like you don't perceive your own accent, people of different racial backgrounds look similar, you can't smell your own breath, etc. So being a biased person feels just like being an unbiased person, but it makes you make biased decisions. A person against whom you harbor a prejudice applies for a job. Your bias causes you to discount their better qualities and double count their worse qualities. So you hire someone else. This hurts both you and the person you didn't hire. A policy that works against well-known biases, if implemented correctly, achieves three ends: it reduces the harm to the person biased against, it reduces the harm to the company whose hiring policies are distorted by bias, and it helps the company by producing a more diverse workforce, which is an end in itself regardless of whether you care about harms to others. If implemented correctly, diversity hiring targets can produce the effect of hiring without prejudice despite the prejudice of those hiring. If you are crossing a river and the wind blows you off course, you don't head to your goal but to the side. The net result is that you reach your goal. The diversity targets are just tacking against the wind.
  - lofenfew 2y ago
    >There are advantages to diversity by itself. These have been well documented. So setting aside any concern about excluded groups, it was a good business decision to aim for a diverse workforce. They wanted to have a diverse workforce, and came up with an excuse for it post-hoc. The best defense I've seen of this is that diverse opinions are good for business. Of course, hiring racially diverse people while being antagonistic towards those with different ways of thinking does little to increase diversity of thought. >But taking those concerns up again, almost no one perceives their own biases as biases. Says the pot to the kettle. The way to prevent bias is to come up with objective factors to evaluate people based on, not intentionally injecting bias of your own. >If you are crossing a river and the wind blows you off course, you don't head to your goal but to the side. The net result is that you reach your goal. The diversity targets are just tacking against the wind. We have a word for this: racism.
aurareturn 2y ago
If you zoom out far enough, all these companies are making business decisions - not emotional ones. They have to kiss Trump's ring and bend the knee for Elon in order to not get destroyed. When they had DEI, it was created for business reason too - to be seen as socially just so you should buy their products. Now Google thinks it's better for business if they fall in line with what Trump wants.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  > When they had DEI, it was created for business reason too - to be seen as socially just so you should buy their products. You don't think that was "to not get destroyed" too? Such as when New York city was sued (and lost, having to pay out $1.8 billion) because too many minorities failed its test for teachers: https://www.thecollegefix.com/nyc-will-pay-out-1-8-billion-to-minorities-who-failed-racist-teacher-test/ https://www.thecollegefix.com/nyc-will-pay-out-1-8-billion-t...
- nerdjon 2y ago
  I think it is more than just Trump. We do have to remember that some companies are currently being sued by shareholders for attempting to keep DEI around. Or at least was threatened to be. I don’t know if these lawsuits would win or not but given the current political climate I sure wouldn’t bet against it. From a purely business prospective on that alone, I can see why they would do it. And do it so quickly. This is the latest symptom of a very powerful opposition that just gained almost unlimited power. Or at least unchecked power. To be clear here Trump is also a symptom, this didn’t come out of nowhere with him. Be mad and hold these companies accountable but we also can’t afford to be distracted by the symptoms when those in power are going to make it so much worse.
- kombine 2y ago
  Unironically, the comments such as yours are downvoted. I had an idealised view about our industry, but it has now shattered during the course of the last year.
  - aurareturn 2y ago
oulipo 2y ago
[flagged]
jfkrrorj 2y ago
[flagged]
- Oarch 2y ago
  Google has a campus under construction in Hyderabad that can accommodate 30K contractors.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- profunctor 2y ago
  Ireland did not eliminate its native population.
  - jfkrrorj 2y ago
    UK did!
    - conorgdaly 2y ago
      Ireland is under control of the Irish and has been since independence. The Irish are the native population and the majority group there.
sandworm101 2y ago
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.
- 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.
xnx 2y ago
Would be great to be more resources put in at the very start of the pipeline (e.g. early childhood education). It's very hard to "solve" "diversity" at the time of hiring when candidates have already had decades of disadvantage.
- nlawalker 2y ago
  I like this. DEI efforts and investments should be at least as much about planting the right seeds as it is about tailoring the current “harvest”.
- nxm 2y ago
  I couldn't agree more - I'm not sure why there is no focus on addressing gaps sooner.
- paxys 2y ago
  Well we are shutting down the Department of Education...
  - goalieca 2y ago
    Since education is a state level responsibility, why not handle it there? We don’t have a federal education ministry in Canada for instance.
    - nerdjon 2y ago
      But if the name of the game is efficient spending why are we replicating much of the same work in 50 states instead of just once federally? That would make far more sense if this was only about money.
      - bediger4000 2y ago
        Libertarians and conservatives don't want to acknowledge efficiencies of scale in certain areas because it's not about efficient spending.
      - 2y ago
kombine 2y ago
It's not that these diversity policies were effective at addressing the underlying issue, they looked ridiculous to someone from the outside. What is hilarious and scary at the same time, is how these global corporations, the supposed progressive forces, are reversing them in quick succession one after another one 2 weeks into Trump's presidency.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jfkrrorj 2y ago
[flagged]
coliveira 2y ago
That's the grand bargain to escape the monopoly lawsuit. Now we'll have another monopoly protected by Trump.
Quarrelsome 2y ago
When I came over to the states to go to a tech conference at a NASDAQ listed billion dollar corp that bought us, the only black people I met were either working at the hotels (90% of that staff) or living in the nearby inner city. I don't pretend to understand the USA, and maybe that conference wasn't representative, but to me it was quite shocking that the disparity was so clearly visible. So I think its a bit of a shame they're losing this, because from my perspective there was still a clear gap in terms of education outcomes which feed corporate and I would have liked to think these policies were helping to address that.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  You will be told that any systemic initiatives to address that are racist against whites who deserve more of a share of whatever is being done for others. Likewise any policies or initiatives along class line divisions are taking resources away from others who deserve a share of what may be given for disenfranchised/impoverished classes
- paxys 2y ago
  What you say is true, but these corporate diversity efforts are mostly used for PR and aren't actually making a difference to any race or community. The simple truth is that tech companies are going to hire any qualified engineer they can find, regardless of whether they are in a minority group or not and whether there is a DEI department at the company or not. So the question that should be asked is – why are black people (5-6% of CS graduates vs 15% of population), women (16-18% of CS graduates vs 50.5% of population), latinos (7% of CS graduates vs 20% of US population) etc. not pursuing STEM education and graduating with engineering degrees at the same rate as white and asian men? And what can we do to fix that? Diversity hiring at the corporate level is not the solution to the problem, education and training is.
  - teractiveodular 2y ago
    You're assuming there is no genetic component whatsoever to human skills and interests, and the only reason women are not studying computer science/car repair/welding is sexism.
rvz 2y ago
About time and no more easy rides or passes for anyone. Everyone equally gets the brutal Leetcode hards treatment. Either you pass the threshold or you don't. No excuses.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Where have DEI initiatives lowered standards of hiring at Google? I think you’re making that up! Be specific, don't deflect and shift into general discourse topics. I am not talking about distractions at work, I'm asking about your specific claim that hiring standards were lowered.
  - rvz 2y ago
    > Where have DEI initiatives lowered standards of hiring at Google? Other than DeepMind, almost everywhere at Google. For Google to be wasting time on useless initiatives instead of remaining competitive against other companies would have made the difference between survival in this AI race ever since their CEO (Sundar) panicked. It is no wonder many ex-Googlers have lost confidence and left for their competitors who are solely focused on destroying Google after they lost the lead and created an opening. > I think you’re making that up! Really. How exactly is DEI going to save Google in the very deep trouble that they are already in? Losing lots of *key* talent, potential anti-trust breakup, frontier AI companies like OpenAI going after them. I don't think you are paying close attention. Will more DEI initiatives and hires save Google and stop their own CEO from panicking? > Be specific, don't deflect and shift into general discourse topics. I am not talking about distractions at work, I'm asking about your specific claim that hiring standards were lowered. You deflected and did not pay attention. My reply was very specific even after answering your strawman question. My question is very simple: How is DEI hiring going to save Google right now given all the trouble that they are in?
  - greenchair 2y ago
    how bout the CEO?
- Ancalagon 2y ago
  Yeah! Leetcode hards for everyone! Including the PMs, EMs, Directors, and C-suite hires!
jncfhnb 2y ago
I worked on some DEI programs. The problem was mixed. Most companies (at least the ones with DEI programs) thought they had big DEI issues because minorities had worse outcomes. But if you looked hard, that wasn’t usually the case. It was merely that minorities were more represented at lower levels and lower levels had higher attrition and what not. On the whole, it tended to look like hiring, retention, and even promotions looked surprisingly equitable. That is, while it would take a long time, it did seem as if things would stop being crusty old white men at the top exclusively. However there are some noteworthy qualifiers. First, the biggest thing these programs did successfully was just diversifying the entry points so that you could even begin to start conversations with people from other backgrounds. That’s huge and effective. Second, and this one is more anecdata, but I never really felt the hiring pool of diverse candidates was randomly sampled at all. For all the groaning about meritocracy and white candidates getting shat on, I tended to find in my personal hiring that diverse candidates were often MUCH stronger candidates. I rarely saw unmotivated, underqualified minorities and women make it to an interview stage whereas there’s a ton of white and Asian guys that did. Getting these candidates was harder. Which is to say, without putting any intrinsic value on racial or cultural backgrounds, I do think DEI programs somehow greatly streamlined a meritocratic highlighting of talented folks from diverse backgrounds. Which is ironic because that’s often the opposite claim. That is, given you are a minority applying to an advanced position, odds are you’re really strong.
- hondo77 2y ago
  > ...the biggest thing these programs did successfully was just diversifying the entry points so that you could even begin to start conversations with people from other backgrounds. This. This was my experience with DEIA programs in the government. It was always about diverse recruitment, not hiring. People believe what they want to, though.
- relaxing 2y ago
  > I do think DEI programs somehow greatly streamlined a meritocratic highlighting of talented folks from diverse backgrounds. This has been my experience as well. It’s sad that it feels like the contrarian opinion. Thanks for taking the time to write a sane accounting.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
I was recruited through Google's diversity program twice. The first time, what that meant was that they invited their diversity candidates to a small pre-interview preparation session which, oddly enough, didn't bother to touch on what they were looking for in interviews. I took the interviews and was informed that I'd failed them. The second time, I paid for coaching from interviewing.io, and I learned what they were looking for in interviews. This was not cheap. (There are some surprises! For example, they don't care whether you can answer their questions. If you can't, you're supposed to ask them how. This is not a normal testing style.) I took their interviews, and my recruiter informed me that I had passed, wished me congratulations, and told me to expect a job offer by the end of the current hiring cycle (which was about six weeks away). In the meantime, I'd have a set of "team fit" interviews. Then, they never contacted me again, except to say that they'd realized that on second thought my interview scores were too low for them to hire me. Not a single thing was scheduled until the hiring cycle ended and they let me know that while my scores were good enough to have passed their interviews, they weren't good enough to be hired after passing the interviews. There was no obvious "diversity" angle to that one, but when I complained to a family friend working at Google, they looked up the recruiter and were surprised to see that she was specialized in diversity hiring.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
paxys 2y ago
All the talk about "diversity" in tech companies always reminds me of this Silicon Valley scene - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dek5HtNdIHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dek5HtNdIHY. Still the perfect representation of the entire effort.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nyarlathotep_ 2y ago
Probably primarily a business and cost-cutting measure (certain there's loads of DEI-related staff; NOT DEI hires, roles that exist to foster DEI policies). I've a prediction somewhat related to this. We'll see, in the coming year(s), a large portion of positions at the FAANG(s) being moved overseas as cost-cutting measures. Paired with the impression that LLMs reduce the need for programmers, we (domestically) will see a substantial reduction in the number of developer (and related roles) in the States. From what I've heard/seen wrt roles at these companies there's a substantial imbalance in locations for hiring (huge increases in India, Mexico, Brazil, and others) and less and less in the States.
impish9208 2y ago
Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-kills-diversity-hiring-targets-04433d7c?st=jb6yom https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-kills-diversity-hiring-targe...
TriangleEdge 2y ago
Isn't "communism = bad" part of the American culture? Why are all of these private companies immediately kissing the govts ass?
- mvdtnz 2y ago
  What on earth does communism have to do with it?
  - TriangleEdge 2y ago
    I could be wrong, but on earth, communists tend to control their companies with an iron grip.
strangeloops85 2y ago
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.
- 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
ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
"we will no longer have aspirational goals" - google in a nutshell
- marricks 2y ago
  Perhaps aspirational in using AI to help the military :) https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/business/google-ai-weapons-surveillance/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/business/google-ai-weapons-su...
- mobiuscog 2y ago
  I bet they still expect their employees to write 'aspirational goals' each review, just as every tech company seems to do now.
moi2388 2y ago
Every pro DEI argument is “no true Scotsman”. Whereas in practice it’s just plain racism and discrimination. I’m sure in theory it’s all very nice. Just like communism.
- Eextra953 2y ago
  Ya and every anti-DEI argument really boils down to it's not fair that a better candidate who isn't white got hired over me.
  - moi2388 2y ago
    No. It boils down to “it’s not fair that a worse candidate got hired just because (s)he wasn’t white or Asian”
roomey 2y ago
Take a breath and take this from first principles... People tend to be tribal. People, when interviewing and select, will tend to hire people that look like them. A white guy from a white school from a white neighbourhood is far more likely to hire another white guy because that's what the've spent their whole lives surrounded by. This is justified a million ways, but what it boils down to is favouring someone who is a certain race. And when tech is already full of white guys, it just means more white guys will be hired in tech... Cause maths. All DEI was doing in the tech world was saying, "try interview at least one woman/ black person etc". Also maybe some training on how to avoid the pitfall in an interview of just hiring someone the same as you. But look around you in the office. How many women are there? How many black people? How many... Black women?!?! Yea, I thought so. If you are talking about "merit based" then that is "DEI". If you are talking about "people who look and act like me", then you are racist. Anyway, excluding people leads to worse outcomes. Unfortunately, it makes life harder for people on the way.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  > All DEI was doing in the tech world was saying, "try interview at least one woman/ black person etc". Also maybe some training on how to avoid the pitfall in an interview of just hiring someone the same as you. A lot of people are strongly in favour of this, of course, including me. But are you sure that's all that it was doing?
  - roomey 2y ago
    Kind of yes. This was what it was attempting to do. Now I must say, in practice. In over 12 years of working in two large multinationals as a "tech interviewer" (That is, once someone went through the management interview and HR interview), I never interviewed a black person or a woman. Anicdotal? Yes. But 12 years is a loooooong time. Anyway, just literally look around an office, or look at a leadership tree, and you can see for yourself. This isn't hard to demonstrate.
- p0w3n3d 2y ago
  Idea sounds great but the realisation sounds like "I will make peace! Let the bloodshed begin"
p0w3n3d 2y ago
DEI is fun and games until I am the person that won't be hired because I am not the niche to be de-discriminated. I remember coming to a Google stand on a conference, where they gave me form asking besides my email address, what is my ethnic background (strange word they used in my language, which I associated with gender etc, whatever would make me a minority) and would I mind share. I chose not to share and they even didn't drop me a line...
- Eextra953 2y ago
  Ya maybe cause you refused to fill out a form that everyone else could fill out just fine. They probably thought you couldn't follow instructions and thought if they can't do this why would we proceed? You ever consider that?
  - Hatchback7599 2y ago
    [dead]
  - dazilcher 2y ago
    Unless you know more about that incident than the op, it sounds like they didn't refuse to fill anything but instead chose to skip and optional section.
    - p0w3n3d 2y ago
      Exactly
- relaxing 2y ago
  Or maybe Google rejects the vast majority of applicants, so there’s no way to know.
  - p0w3n3d 2y ago
    They virtually didn't ask of anything else: mail, and discriminatory information
rib3ye 2y ago
One lesser known DEI policies that I think aligns with current conservative thinking: - Parental Leave & Caregiving Support: Providing paid maternity and paternity leave, flexible work arrangements, and childcare support
- relaxing 2y ago
  You would think family support aligns with conservative values, but no. The conservative value they’re most interested in the freedom to be homeless and starve on the streets if you can’t stay employed.
thinkingemote 2y ago
Is Microsoft next? Will they dig out and shampoo the old GitHub meritocracy rug?
srid 2y ago
This was brewing from last year. From their "Mission First" post on Apr 18, 2024 https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/building-ai-future-april-2024/ https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/buil... > “ultimately we are a workplace and our policies and expectations are clear: this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics.” Paul Graham had predicted it back in 2020: https://x.com/paulg/status/1781329523155357914 https://x.com/paulg/status/1781329523155357914 https://www.piratewires.com/p/mission-accomplished https://www.piratewires.com/p/mission-accomplished And this was happening elsewhere too, for e.g., Microsoft: https://archive.is/p5Ewk https://archive.is/p5Ewk and Meta: https://www.axios.com/2025/01/10/meta-dei-programs-employees-trump https://www.axios.com/2025/01/10/meta-dei-programs-employees... & https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42700134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42700134 ... even as early as 2022: https://world.hey.com/dhh/meta-goes-no-politics-at-work-and-nobody-cares-d6409209 https://world.hey.com/dhh/meta-goes-no-politics-at-work-and-... For larger context, see https://www.wsj.com/business/c-suite/chief-diversity-officer-cdo-business-corporations-e110a82f https://www.wsj.com/business/c-suite/chief-diversity-officer...
- somedude895 2y ago
  This certainly has been brewing under the surface for quite some time now, not just in business, but in most of society. What's changed is that now the dominoes have started to fall, people are finally comfortable expressing it in clear terms.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
Commenters may be missing that Google, Amazon, etc., as US government contractors, are required to follow the legal requirements for all such contractors. Previously contractors were required to follow rules based on a policy set by a Johnson administration EO in the 1960's. That policy has been replaced by a new EO. Online commenters might prefer to focus on recent changes as representative of corporate culture, management ideology, etc. instead of business judgment (as in the "business judgment rule" followed by the US courts), e.g., meeting the necessary legal requirements to secure/retain government contracts. https://www.ebglaw.com/insights/publications/dei-and-affirmative-action-programs-blitzed-while-executive-order-11246-is-revoked https://www.ebglaw.com/insights/publications/dei-and-affirma...
aristofun 2y ago
Isn’t it obvious that any artificial forced attempt to “balance” a very complex system from within by a primitive set of rules is gonna sooner or later fail and eventually cause even more imbalance and chaos? The only way is to “naturally” help create conditions that hopefully will slowly yield. Sure there aarea many vague lines there, but at least we should be rational enough to choose the right attitude, right general approach. What could be more racist and stupid then these “hiring targets”?
katehenshaw 2y ago
Looking for help with your relationship to catch a cheating spouse? Advice and support for you when you need it. Plus, all you need to know about the logistics of divorce, gathering information about infidelity and separation when you have kids. Hire tomcyberghost@gmail.com private investigator for such services. Call/Whatsapp +1(404)941-6785.
cindybrey 2y ago
[flagged]

159 points by kepler1 2y ago

Most of these megacorporations have no beliefs or values except their own profits and growth. Everything else is political expediency. This is just based on a lifetime of observing their behavior.

kepler1 2y ago

James Damore must be rolling in his grave

Ozarkian 2y ago
He reached some kind of settlement with Google. I have no idea how much Google paid, but my suspicion is that James had the last laugh.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  I remember reading his memo and agreed with many things he said. I think the public overreacted. He was right that DEI ignore the hard questions and discriminates another group. I'm no Trump lover. However, I do think DEI was the wrong approach. Many here work in tech. I'm sure some or many of us here have silently experienced unfair DEI hiring and promotion practices at least once. I've seen some truly incompetent people get hired and promoted purely to meet a certain DEI goal. It reminds me of Affirmative Action but for the work place. This is coming from someone who absolutely hates the tech bro culture and hates that there aren't enough women in tech. No male tech worker likes environments where there are 10 guys to 1 girl and the insane gender imbalance in tech heavy cities that make dating impossible for a large portion of the population. If I could, I would wave a magic wand and turn the tech industry into 10 women for every 1 man. Believe me.
  - 42772827 2y ago
    Damore’s letter was extremely balanced and had all the appropriate caveats about being applied to individuals. But what we’re seeing as the countervailing force to “woke” and “DEI” is unfortunately not like this. It’s as reactionary as the most egregious DEI programs.
    - ithkuil 2y ago
      We live on times of the great pendulum swings. It's hard to have nuanced conversations.
    - Ferret7446 2y ago
      Do not blame the pendulum for swinging back. Blame the person who pushed the pendulum in the first place.
jjtheblunt 2y ago
grave?
- kepler1 2y ago
  it's a joke

kepler1 2y ago

https://archive.is/6O8L5 https://archive.is/6O8L5

cheeze 2y ago
Shows > You have been blocked. Only me?
- dekhn 2y ago
  I see it too (but I'm a subscriber and read the article online). There isn't much to see- Google/Alphabet (Pichai) has decided to align itself with the current government and eliminating these programs is a clear signal.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  Not just you, archive today has a beef with cloudflare. I wasn’t even using cloudflare intentionally but iirc Firefox has a dns privacy setting that I had to disable. Since May 2018[35][36] Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 DNS service would not resolve archive.today's web addresses, making it inaccessible to users of the Cloudflare DNS service. Both organizations claimed the other was responsible for the issue. Cloudflare staff stated that the problem was on archive.today's DNS infrastructure, as its authoritative nameservers return invalid records when Cloudflare's network systems made requests to archive.today. archive.today countered that the issue was due to Cloudflare requests not being compliant with DNS standards, as Cloudflare does not send EDNS Client Subnet information in its DNS requests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
  Works where archive.is is blocked: https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/tech-companies/google-kills-diversity-hiring-targets/ar-AA1ytY6x https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/tech-companies/google-k... No Javascript, text-only: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1ytY6x https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1ytY6x

unification_fan 2y ago

[flagged]

janice1999 2y ago
Sounds more like opportunistic cost cutting and virtue signalling to the current dominant political force.

kepler1 2y ago

This is pretty much the first half of the article (until the archive.is link starts working): "Google is eliminating its goal of hiring more employees from historically underrepresented groups and reviewing some diversity, equity and inclusion programs, joining other tech giants rethinking their approach to DEI. In an email to employees Wednesday, Google said it would no longer set hiring targets to improve representation in its workforce. In 2020, amid calls for racial justice following the police killing of George Floyd, Google set a target of increasing by 30% the proportion of “leadership representation of underrepresented groups” by 2025. Parent company Alphabet’s GOOGL -7.69%decrease; red down pointing triangle annual report released Wednesday omitted a sentence stating the company was “committed to making diversity, equity, and inclusion part of everything we do and to growing a workforce that is representative of the users we serve.” The sentence was in its reports from 2021 through 2024. Google also said it was reviewing recent court decisions and executive orders by President Trump aimed at curbing DEI in the government and federal contractors. The company is “evaluating changes to our programs required to comply,” the email said... “We’ll continue to invest in states across the U.S.—and in many countries globally—but in the future we will no longer have aspirational goals,” the email said... "

krunck 2y ago
"but in the future we will no longer have aspirational goals" Except making more money with US government and military contracts.

legitster 2y ago

The complete rollover on this is kind of disheartening. Were a lot of these programs a performative kabuki theatre that wasted time and money? Yes. Were companies ever going to fill their ranks with black, lesbian programmers? No. On the other hand, now having worked my way up in the tech world, the idea that the C-suite decision makers are there through some sort of meritocracy is also equally laughable. These are exclusive circles, and your breeding (family, school, frat) already determines your access more than success ever will. I don't think there is anything wrong with the ideal of giving more types of people a chance. But it was an issue of execution, not intent.

zmgsabst 2y ago
[flagged]
bc9o 2y ago
Read Judge Amit Mehta's ruling on their behavior gaming ad auctions to hit Revenue targets. Then think about non reaction of the Advertising Industry. Achieving Monopoly and Domination requires kabuki performances. There is no other route. These are mentally bankrupt one dimensional people. Other than survival and accumulation of status and wealth there is nothing much going on in their head.
stego-tech 2y ago
Never listen to their words, only pay attention to their actions. You hit it dead-on that a lot of these DEI initiatives were performance theater to appease some external force (as is most of business, when you really think about it). The existing leadership had zero intent to actually allow under-represented minorities into their ranks other than as a token or trophy figure who would kiss the ring and not rock the boat. The real success (or failure) of DEI will be the next crop of leaders, not the current ones. The managers and leaders of tomorrow (who are the ICs and team leads of today) are acutely aware of how much of a Straight White Boy’s Club these leadership ranks are, and the vibe I get is increasing disgust at the proclamation of “merit” as justification for their tenure while (often minority) high performers are routinely exited out in favor of yet another H1B overseas. I’m hoping this is just the last gasps of relevance from the status quo in the face of generational upheaval. Guess we’ll all find out together.

bitwize 2y ago

[flagged]

like_any_other 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 [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.

silexia 2y ago

Diversity hiring targets is a pretty new phrase to describe an ugly old practice: racism.

rvz 2y ago
Exactly. It always has been. A rebranded newspeak to cover for what it really is.
DFHippie 2y ago
There are advantages to diversity by itself. These have been well documented. So setting aside any concern about excluded groups, it was a good business decision to aim for a diverse workforce. But taking those concerns up again, almost no one perceives their own biases as biases. It's like you don't perceive your own accent, people of different racial backgrounds look similar, you can't smell your own breath, etc. So being a biased person feels just like being an unbiased person, but it makes you make biased decisions. A person against whom you harbor a prejudice applies for a job. Your bias causes you to discount their better qualities and double count their worse qualities. So you hire someone else. This hurts both you and the person you didn't hire. A policy that works against well-known biases, if implemented correctly, achieves three ends: it reduces the harm to the person biased against, it reduces the harm to the company whose hiring policies are distorted by bias, and it helps the company by producing a more diverse workforce, which is an end in itself regardless of whether you care about harms to others. If implemented correctly, diversity hiring targets can produce the effect of hiring without prejudice despite the prejudice of those hiring. If you are crossing a river and the wind blows you off course, you don't head to your goal but to the side. The net result is that you reach your goal. The diversity targets are just tacking against the wind.
- lofenfew 2y ago
  >There are advantages to diversity by itself. These have been well documented. So setting aside any concern about excluded groups, it was a good business decision to aim for a diverse workforce. They wanted to have a diverse workforce, and came up with an excuse for it post-hoc. The best defense I've seen of this is that diverse opinions are good for business. Of course, hiring racially diverse people while being antagonistic towards those with different ways of thinking does little to increase diversity of thought. >But taking those concerns up again, almost no one perceives their own biases as biases. Says the pot to the kettle. The way to prevent bias is to come up with objective factors to evaluate people based on, not intentionally injecting bias of your own. >If you are crossing a river and the wind blows you off course, you don't head to your goal but to the side. The net result is that you reach your goal. The diversity targets are just tacking against the wind. We have a word for this: racism.

aurareturn 2y ago

If you zoom out far enough, all these companies are making business decisions - not emotional ones. They have to kiss Trump's ring and bend the knee for Elon in order to not get destroyed. When they had DEI, it was created for business reason too - to be seen as socially just so you should buy their products. Now Google thinks it's better for business if they fall in line with what Trump wants.

like_any_other 2y ago
> When they had DEI, it was created for business reason too - to be seen as socially just so you should buy their products. You don't think that was "to not get destroyed" too? Such as when New York city was sued (and lost, having to pay out $1.8 billion) because too many minorities failed its test for teachers: https://www.thecollegefix.com/nyc-will-pay-out-1-8-billion-to-minorities-who-failed-racist-teacher-test/ https://www.thecollegefix.com/nyc-will-pay-out-1-8-billion-t...
nerdjon 2y ago
I think it is more than just Trump. We do have to remember that some companies are currently being sued by shareholders for attempting to keep DEI around. Or at least was threatened to be. I don’t know if these lawsuits would win or not but given the current political climate I sure wouldn’t bet against it. From a purely business prospective on that alone, I can see why they would do it. And do it so quickly. This is the latest symptom of a very powerful opposition that just gained almost unlimited power. Or at least unchecked power. To be clear here Trump is also a symptom, this didn’t come out of nowhere with him. Be mad and hold these companies accountable but we also can’t afford to be distracted by the symptoms when those in power are going to make it so much worse.
kombine 2y ago
Unironically, the comments such as yours are downvoted. I had an idealised view about our industry, but it has now shattered during the course of the last year.
- aurareturn 2y ago

oulipo 2y ago

[flagged]

jfkrrorj 2y ago

[flagged]

Oarch 2y ago
Google has a campus under construction in Hyderabad that can accommodate 30K contractors.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
profunctor 2y ago
Ireland did not eliminate its native population.
- jfkrrorj 2y ago
  UK did!
  - conorgdaly 2y ago
    Ireland is under control of the Irish and has been since independence. The Irish are the native population and the majority group there.

sandworm101 2y ago

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.

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.

xnx 2y ago

Would be great to be more resources put in at the very start of the pipeline (e.g. early childhood education). It's very hard to "solve" "diversity" at the time of hiring when candidates have already had decades of disadvantage.

nlawalker 2y ago
I like this. DEI efforts and investments should be at least as much about planting the right seeds as it is about tailoring the current “harvest”.
nxm 2y ago
I couldn't agree more - I'm not sure why there is no focus on addressing gaps sooner.
paxys 2y ago
Well we are shutting down the Department of Education...
- goalieca 2y ago
  Since education is a state level responsibility, why not handle it there? We don’t have a federal education ministry in Canada for instance.
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    But if the name of the game is efficient spending why are we replicating much of the same work in 50 states instead of just once federally? That would make far more sense if this was only about money.
    - bediger4000 2y ago
      Libertarians and conservatives don't want to acknowledge efficiencies of scale in certain areas because it's not about efficient spending.
    - 2y ago

kombine 2y ago

It's not that these diversity policies were effective at addressing the underlying issue, they looked ridiculous to someone from the outside. What is hilarious and scary at the same time, is how these global corporations, the supposed progressive forces, are reversing them in quick succession one after another one 2 weeks into Trump's presidency.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jfkrrorj 2y ago

[flagged]

coliveira 2y ago

That's the grand bargain to escape the monopoly lawsuit. Now we'll have another monopoly protected by Trump.

Quarrelsome 2y ago

When I came over to the states to go to a tech conference at a NASDAQ listed billion dollar corp that bought us, the only black people I met were either working at the hotels (90% of that staff) or living in the nearby inner city. I don't pretend to understand the USA, and maybe that conference wasn't representative, but to me it was quite shocking that the disparity was so clearly visible. So I think its a bit of a shame they're losing this, because from my perspective there was still a clear gap in terms of education outcomes which feed corporate and I would have liked to think these policies were helping to address that.

wahnfrieden 2y ago
You will be told that any systemic initiatives to address that are racist against whites who deserve more of a share of whatever is being done for others. Likewise any policies or initiatives along class line divisions are taking resources away from others who deserve a share of what may be given for disenfranchised/impoverished classes
paxys 2y ago
What you say is true, but these corporate diversity efforts are mostly used for PR and aren't actually making a difference to any race or community. The simple truth is that tech companies are going to hire any qualified engineer they can find, regardless of whether they are in a minority group or not and whether there is a DEI department at the company or not. So the question that should be asked is – why are black people (5-6% of CS graduates vs 15% of population), women (16-18% of CS graduates vs 50.5% of population), latinos (7% of CS graduates vs 20% of US population) etc. not pursuing STEM education and graduating with engineering degrees at the same rate as white and asian men? And what can we do to fix that? Diversity hiring at the corporate level is not the solution to the problem, education and training is.
- teractiveodular 2y ago
  You're assuming there is no genetic component whatsoever to human skills and interests, and the only reason women are not studying computer science/car repair/welding is sexism.

rvz 2y ago

About time and no more easy rides or passes for anyone. Everyone equally gets the brutal Leetcode hards treatment. Either you pass the threshold or you don't. No excuses.

wahnfrieden 2y ago
Where have DEI initiatives lowered standards of hiring at Google? I think you’re making that up! Be specific, don't deflect and shift into general discourse topics. I am not talking about distractions at work, I'm asking about your specific claim that hiring standards were lowered.
- rvz 2y ago
  > Where have DEI initiatives lowered standards of hiring at Google? Other than DeepMind, almost everywhere at Google. For Google to be wasting time on useless initiatives instead of remaining competitive against other companies would have made the difference between survival in this AI race ever since their CEO (Sundar) panicked. It is no wonder many ex-Googlers have lost confidence and left for their competitors who are solely focused on destroying Google after they lost the lead and created an opening. > I think you’re making that up! Really. How exactly is DEI going to save Google in the very deep trouble that they are already in? Losing lots of *key* talent, potential anti-trust breakup, frontier AI companies like OpenAI going after them. I don't think you are paying close attention. Will more DEI initiatives and hires save Google and stop their own CEO from panicking? > Be specific, don't deflect and shift into general discourse topics. I am not talking about distractions at work, I'm asking about your specific claim that hiring standards were lowered. You deflected and did not pay attention. My reply was very specific even after answering your strawman question. My question is very simple: How is DEI hiring going to save Google right now given all the trouble that they are in?
- greenchair 2y ago
  how bout the CEO?
Ancalagon 2y ago
Yeah! Leetcode hards for everyone! Including the PMs, EMs, Directors, and C-suite hires!

jncfhnb 2y ago

I worked on some DEI programs. The problem was mixed. Most companies (at least the ones with DEI programs) thought they had big DEI issues because minorities had worse outcomes. But if you looked hard, that wasn’t usually the case. It was merely that minorities were more represented at lower levels and lower levels had higher attrition and what not. On the whole, it tended to look like hiring, retention, and even promotions looked surprisingly equitable. That is, while it would take a long time, it did seem as if things would stop being crusty old white men at the top exclusively. However there are some noteworthy qualifiers. First, the biggest thing these programs did successfully was just diversifying the entry points so that you could even begin to start conversations with people from other backgrounds. That’s huge and effective. Second, and this one is more anecdata, but I never really felt the hiring pool of diverse candidates was randomly sampled at all. For all the groaning about meritocracy and white candidates getting shat on, I tended to find in my personal hiring that diverse candidates were often MUCH stronger candidates. I rarely saw unmotivated, underqualified minorities and women make it to an interview stage whereas there’s a ton of white and Asian guys that did. Getting these candidates was harder. Which is to say, without putting any intrinsic value on racial or cultural backgrounds, I do think DEI programs somehow greatly streamlined a meritocratic highlighting of talented folks from diverse backgrounds. Which is ironic because that’s often the opposite claim. That is, given you are a minority applying to an advanced position, odds are you’re really strong.

hondo77 2y ago
> ...the biggest thing these programs did successfully was just diversifying the entry points so that you could even begin to start conversations with people from other backgrounds. This. This was my experience with DEIA programs in the government. It was always about diverse recruitment, not hiring. People believe what they want to, though.
relaxing 2y ago
> I do think DEI programs somehow greatly streamlined a meritocratic highlighting of talented folks from diverse backgrounds. This has been my experience as well. It’s sad that it feels like the contrarian opinion. Thanks for taking the time to write a sane accounting.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

I was recruited through Google's diversity program twice. The first time, what that meant was that they invited their diversity candidates to a small pre-interview preparation session which, oddly enough, didn't bother to touch on what they were looking for in interviews. I took the interviews and was informed that I'd failed them. The second time, I paid for coaching from interviewing.io, and I learned what they were looking for in interviews. This was not cheap. (There are some surprises! For example, they don't care whether you can answer their questions. If you can't, you're supposed to ask them how. This is not a normal testing style.) I took their interviews, and my recruiter informed me that I had passed, wished me congratulations, and told me to expect a job offer by the end of the current hiring cycle (which was about six weeks away). In the meantime, I'd have a set of "team fit" interviews. Then, they never contacted me again, except to say that they'd realized that on second thought my interview scores were too low for them to hire me. Not a single thing was scheduled until the hiring cycle ended and they let me know that while my scores were good enough to have passed their interviews, they weren't good enough to be hired after passing the interviews. There was no obvious "diversity" angle to that one, but when I complained to a family friend working at Google, they looked up the recruiter and were surprised to see that she was specialized in diversity hiring.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

paxys 2y ago

All the talk about "diversity" in tech companies always reminds me of this Silicon Valley scene - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dek5HtNdIHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dek5HtNdIHY. Still the perfect representation of the entire effort.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nyarlathotep_ 2y ago

Probably primarily a business and cost-cutting measure (certain there's loads of DEI-related staff; NOT DEI hires, roles that exist to foster DEI policies). I've a prediction somewhat related to this. We'll see, in the coming year(s), a large portion of positions at the FAANG(s) being moved overseas as cost-cutting measures. Paired with the impression that LLMs reduce the need for programmers, we (domestically) will see a substantial reduction in the number of developer (and related roles) in the States. From what I've heard/seen wrt roles at these companies there's a substantial imbalance in locations for hiring (huge increases in India, Mexico, Brazil, and others) and less and less in the States.

impish9208 2y ago

Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-kills-diversity-hiring-targets-04433d7c?st=jb6yom https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-kills-diversity-hiring-targe...

TriangleEdge 2y ago

Isn't "communism = bad" part of the American culture? Why are all of these private companies immediately kissing the govts ass?

mvdtnz 2y ago
What on earth does communism have to do with it?
- TriangleEdge 2y ago
  I could be wrong, but on earth, communists tend to control their companies with an iron grip.

strangeloops85 2y ago

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.

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

ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago

"we will no longer have aspirational goals" - google in a nutshell

marricks 2y ago
Perhaps aspirational in using AI to help the military :) https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/business/google-ai-weapons-surveillance/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/business/google-ai-weapons-su...
mobiuscog 2y ago
I bet they still expect their employees to write 'aspirational goals' each review, just as every tech company seems to do now.

moi2388 2y ago

Every pro DEI argument is “no true Scotsman”. Whereas in practice it’s just plain racism and discrimination. I’m sure in theory it’s all very nice. Just like communism.

Eextra953 2y ago
Ya and every anti-DEI argument really boils down to it's not fair that a better candidate who isn't white got hired over me.
- moi2388 2y ago
  No. It boils down to “it’s not fair that a worse candidate got hired just because (s)he wasn’t white or Asian”

roomey 2y ago

Take a breath and take this from first principles... People tend to be tribal. People, when interviewing and select, will tend to hire people that look like them. A white guy from a white school from a white neighbourhood is far more likely to hire another white guy because that's what the've spent their whole lives surrounded by. This is justified a million ways, but what it boils down to is favouring someone who is a certain race. And when tech is already full of white guys, it just means more white guys will be hired in tech... Cause maths. All DEI was doing in the tech world was saying, "try interview at least one woman/ black person etc". Also maybe some training on how to avoid the pitfall in an interview of just hiring someone the same as you. But look around you in the office. How many women are there? How many black people? How many... Black women?!?! Yea, I thought so. If you are talking about "merit based" then that is "DEI". If you are talking about "people who look and act like me", then you are racist. Anyway, excluding people leads to worse outcomes. Unfortunately, it makes life harder for people on the way.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
> All DEI was doing in the tech world was saying, "try interview at least one woman/ black person etc". Also maybe some training on how to avoid the pitfall in an interview of just hiring someone the same as you. A lot of people are strongly in favour of this, of course, including me. But are you sure that's all that it was doing?
- roomey 2y ago
  Kind of yes. This was what it was attempting to do. Now I must say, in practice. In over 12 years of working in two large multinationals as a "tech interviewer" (That is, once someone went through the management interview and HR interview), I never interviewed a black person or a woman. Anicdotal? Yes. But 12 years is a loooooong time. Anyway, just literally look around an office, or look at a leadership tree, and you can see for yourself. This isn't hard to demonstrate.
p0w3n3d 2y ago
Idea sounds great but the realisation sounds like "I will make peace! Let the bloodshed begin"

p0w3n3d 2y ago

DEI is fun and games until I am the person that won't be hired because I am not the niche to be de-discriminated. I remember coming to a Google stand on a conference, where they gave me form asking besides my email address, what is my ethnic background (strange word they used in my language, which I associated with gender etc, whatever would make me a minority) and would I mind share. I chose not to share and they even didn't drop me a line...

Eextra953 2y ago
Ya maybe cause you refused to fill out a form that everyone else could fill out just fine. They probably thought you couldn't follow instructions and thought if they can't do this why would we proceed? You ever consider that?
- Hatchback7599 2y ago
  [dead]
- dazilcher 2y ago
  Unless you know more about that incident than the op, it sounds like they didn't refuse to fill anything but instead chose to skip and optional section.
  - p0w3n3d 2y ago
    Exactly
relaxing 2y ago
Or maybe Google rejects the vast majority of applicants, so there’s no way to know.
- p0w3n3d 2y ago
  They virtually didn't ask of anything else: mail, and discriminatory information

rib3ye 2y ago

One lesser known DEI policies that I think aligns with current conservative thinking: - Parental Leave & Caregiving Support: Providing paid maternity and paternity leave, flexible work arrangements, and childcare support

relaxing 2y ago
You would think family support aligns with conservative values, but no. The conservative value they’re most interested in the freedom to be homeless and starve on the streets if you can’t stay employed.

thinkingemote 2y ago

Is Microsoft next? Will they dig out and shampoo the old GitHub meritocracy rug?

srid 2y ago

This was brewing from last year. From their "Mission First" post on Apr 18, 2024 https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/building-ai-future-april-2024/ https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/buil... > “ultimately we are a workplace and our policies and expectations are clear: this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics.” Paul Graham had predicted it back in 2020: https://x.com/paulg/status/1781329523155357914 https://x.com/paulg/status/1781329523155357914 https://www.piratewires.com/p/mission-accomplished https://www.piratewires.com/p/mission-accomplished And this was happening elsewhere too, for e.g., Microsoft: https://archive.is/p5Ewk https://archive.is/p5Ewk and Meta: https://www.axios.com/2025/01/10/meta-dei-programs-employees-trump https://www.axios.com/2025/01/10/meta-dei-programs-employees... & https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42700134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42700134 ... even as early as 2022: https://world.hey.com/dhh/meta-goes-no-politics-at-work-and-nobody-cares-d6409209 https://world.hey.com/dhh/meta-goes-no-politics-at-work-and-... For larger context, see https://www.wsj.com/business/c-suite/chief-diversity-officer-cdo-business-corporations-e110a82f https://www.wsj.com/business/c-suite/chief-diversity-officer...

somedude895 2y ago
This certainly has been brewing under the surface for quite some time now, not just in business, but in most of society. What's changed is that now the dominoes have started to fall, people are finally comfortable expressing it in clear terms.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

Commenters may be missing that Google, Amazon, etc., as US government contractors, are required to follow the legal requirements for all such contractors. Previously contractors were required to follow rules based on a policy set by a Johnson administration EO in the 1960's. That policy has been replaced by a new EO. Online commenters might prefer to focus on recent changes as representative of corporate culture, management ideology, etc. instead of business judgment (as in the "business judgment rule" followed by the US courts), e.g., meeting the necessary legal requirements to secure/retain government contracts. https://www.ebglaw.com/insights/publications/dei-and-affirmative-action-programs-blitzed-while-executive-order-11246-is-revoked https://www.ebglaw.com/insights/publications/dei-and-affirma...

aristofun 2y ago

Isn’t it obvious that any artificial forced attempt to “balance” a very complex system from within by a primitive set of rules is gonna sooner or later fail and eventually cause even more imbalance and chaos? The only way is to “naturally” help create conditions that hopefully will slowly yield. Sure there aarea many vague lines there, but at least we should be rational enough to choose the right attitude, right general approach. What could be more racist and stupid then these “hiring targets”?

katehenshaw 2y ago

Looking for help with your relationship to catch a cheating spouse? Advice and support for you when you need it. Plus, all you need to know about the logistics of divorce, gathering information about infidelity and separation when you have kids. Hire tomcyberghost@gmail.com private investigator for such services. Call/Whatsapp +1(404)941-6785.

cindybrey 2y ago

[flagged]