by kepler1 on 2/5/25, 8:24 PM with 267 comments
by kepler1 on 2/5/25, 8:24 PM
by like_any_other on 2/5/25, 8:50 PM
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250127210140/https://informati...
by strangeloops85 on 2/6/25, 6:06 AM
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.
by xnx on 2/5/25, 9:09 PM
by thaumasiotes on 2/5/25, 9:29 PM
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.
by Quarrelsome on 2/5/25, 9:18 PM
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.
by p0w3n3d on 2/6/25, 7:01 AM
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on 2/6/25, 8:00 PM
https://www.ebglaw.com/insights/publications/dei-and-affirma...
by silexia on 2/5/25, 9:03 PM
by nyarlathotep_ on 2/5/25, 10:40 PM
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.
by jncfhnb on 2/5/25, 9:27 PM
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.
by user3939382 on 2/5/25, 9:23 PM
by aristofun on 2/7/25, 2:07 AM
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”?
by paxys on 2/5/25, 9:30 PM
by katehenshaw on 2/11/25, 1:23 PM
by kepler1 on 2/5/25, 8:35 PM
"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... "
by impish9208 on 2/5/25, 11:06 PM
by ilrwbwrkhv on 2/6/25, 6:39 AM
by kombine on 2/5/25, 9:13 PM
by srid on 2/6/25, 4:17 PM
From their "Mission First" post on Apr 18, 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://www.piratewires.com/p/mission-accomplished
And this was happening elsewhere too, for e.g.,
Microsoft: https://archive.is/p5Ewk
and
Meta: https://www.axios.com/2025/01/10/meta-dei-programs-employees... & https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42700134 ... even as early as 2022: 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...
by moi2388 on 2/6/25, 6:54 AM
Whereas in practice it’s just plain racism and discrimination.
I’m sure in theory it’s all very nice. Just like communism.
by kepler1 on 2/5/25, 8:24 PM
by nipponese on 2/6/25, 7:31 AM
- Parental Leave & Caregiving Support: Providing paid maternity and paternity leave, flexible work arrangements, and childcare support
by coliveira on 2/5/25, 9:16 PM
by thinkingemote on 2/6/25, 1:53 PM
by TriangleEdge on 2/6/25, 5:21 AM
by aurareturn on 2/5/25, 8:53 PM
by legitster on 2/5/25, 8:43 PM
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.
by roomey on 2/6/25, 6:54 AM
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.
by rvz on 2/5/25, 9:23 PM
Either you pass the threshold or you don't. No excuses.
by sandworm101 on 2/5/25, 9:09 PM