Comment by jquery
2 months ago
I think it’s helpful to distinguish between botched DEI efforts and the broader intent behind DEI. Just because certain organizations implement it clumsily or rely on simplistic quota-filling doesn’t mean the entire idea is inherently flawed—any more than a poorly executed “merit-based” system would mean all attempts at measuring merit are invalid. If anything’s really losing credibility right now, it’s the myth of a pure American meritocracy.
At its best, DEI is about recognizing that systemic barriers exist and trying to widen the funnel so more people get a fair shot. That doesn’t have to conflict with a desire for genuinely skilled employees. Of course, there are ham-fisted applications out there (as with any policy), but that doesn’t negate the underlying principles, which aren’t just about numbers—they’re about improving access and opportunity for everyone.
Can you provide an example of what you would consider a good implementation of DEI efforts, as opposed to a "botched" one?
For me, the best DEI successes are the ones that reduce bias without relying on clumsy quotas. Blind auditions in orchestras led to a big jump in women getting hired. Intel’s push to fund scholarships and partner with HBCUs broadened their pipeline in a real way. And groups like Code2040 connect Black and Latino engineers with mentors and jobs, targeting root causes instead of surface-level fixes.
Yes, famously the Australian Government tried that and undid it as pesky white men were being hired at a greater rate because of them[1].
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...
1 reply →
Hilarious that you mentioned the blind auditions in orchestras because now the DEI goons want to get rid of them! They say it hasn't got enough minorities in. Absolute proof that these people care only about race and don't give a damn about fairness. Source https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=8997844...
5 replies →
I think the vast number of small and medium sized companies who quietly opened their hiring funnel up to a wider audience, would be considered good implementations. Not all companies reached for quotas and other hamfisted efforts that detractors constantly point to.
DO you have examples of companies whose funnels were not open to "wider audience" prior to DEI? Lets say this century.
Tech has been meritocratic for decades with few exceptions.
2 replies →
DEI was the reason GitHub was forced to remove its meritocracy rug. Do you remember that? People questions whether it was a meritocracy based on disparate impact[1].
It has almost never been about widening the size of the funnel, and almost always about putting the thumb on the scales for chosen people.
[1] https://www.creators.com/read/susan-estrich/03/14/whats-wron...
> If anything’s really losing credibility right now, it’s the myth of a pure American meritocracy.
It only became a myth when we were forced to consider factors beyond merit in hiring.