from Hacker News

Do we need dei in tech?

by acidpanda on 1/3/24, 4:52 AM with 21 comments

Looking for civil discourse only. Paul Graham tweeted the other day about Brian Armstrong being "ahead of his time" in response to Google and Meta slashing DEI-related jobs, and today said "Prediction: Wokeness will recede significantly in 2024.. I think wokeness actually peaked in 2020 or 2021 and has been slowly contracting since then..."

As a Black American, and a founder, I find it concerning that people are still thinking DEI, affirmative action, and "wokeness" are politically correct agendas (especially since we are now in a U.S. Election year). I believe that DEI is necessary to facilitate diversity in perspective in helping build great technology. "Wokeness" is becoming a derogatory term to promote willful ignorance (the opposite of "woke" is "sleep.") What do y'all think?

  • by Nextgrid on 1/3/24, 8:03 AM

    DEI and "wokeness" was popular back when most of tech was unprofitable advertising-funded ("growth & engagement") garbage which which is extremely risk-averse and vulnerable to public opinion, thus copious amounts of virtue signalling were needed and DEI filled that niche. These companies were more akin to playgrounds than actual for-profit enterprises.

    That era is over - the majority of unprofitable companies have been purged, what remains makes actual money and is much less exposed to public opinion. Therefore, not only is there much less need to virtue-signal, but said virtue signalling and people behind it is now a major expense deemed unnecessary in what is now a for-profit company whose primary objective is to make profit (and not be a playground). Thus, "DEI" people get the boot.

    Is this to say some of the concepts behind DEI are bad or unnecessary? No, but you don'y need "DEI" for that, you just need a competent HR department. It should be HR's job to deal with cases of racism, discrimination or noxious unprofessional conduct.

  • by k310 on 1/3/24, 6:46 AM

    “Woke”is a codeword. Try not to use it, or others.

    Bottom line, one cannot build a company consisting of a monoculture, and a healthy company respects all its employees.

    Monocultures, especially in leadership groups have similar life experiences, reflected in unresponsive products, and unresponsiveness to employees who don't.

  • by hindsightbias on 1/3/24, 6:27 AM

    Perhaps wait a bit until we see the response to meritocratic Asian representation at Ivies and FAANGs. WASPs should be careful for what they wish for.

    Will never fail to amaze me the folks who don’t grok they are part of the fuzzy algorithm.

  • by tuatoru on 1/3/24, 6:15 AM

    DEI policies force employers to look at all potential employees as members of ethnicity- and gender-based categories. Some people object to the racism and sexism inherent in this forced ontology and don't see how it fits with meritocracy. Me, for one.

    On a meta level, attempting to control what and how people think (not just what they do) is totalitarian, and I want no part of such a society. Too much of actually-implemented DEI stuff comes across as attempting to control what we think, not just what we do.

    Another result of DEI as implemented is that DEI is just another set of power levers that is used to maintain and reinforce existing power structures. People from the Ivies are making up the DEI jargon and rituals, and gatekeeping (continued) employment using facility with these as one of their tools of control.

  • by eurekin on 1/5/24, 1:31 PM

    I think, if you're competent that's all that matters

  • by haltist on 1/3/24, 5:19 AM

    If you are correct then DEI companies will be more profitable than those without because that's how capitalism works. Whatever makes the most money is the market winner. If being woke is more profitable then most companies will be woke.

  • by monsecchris on 1/3/24, 6:29 AM

    If DEI created better outcomes we would see basketball teams ditching a few black players for weaker individual players of other skin colours.