Meta kills diversity programs, claiming DEI has become “too charged”

Meta claims it will find other ways to hire employees from different backgrounds.

See full article...

 

[richten]

Remember, a lot of these initiatives started after people learned about all the sexual harassment and sexual assault by powerful men, and after the world saw a police man kill a man by chocking him to dead.
But I guess that uncomfortable feeling has passed and people are ready to ignore all those things again. This is the banality of evil.

 

[graylshaped]

That's an astounding claim. I had not seen it before, and had to read it. Here are some quotes that caught my eye:

The overall job growth {in 2021} included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color.

Then we have some specific examples:

Amazon, which hired hundreds of thousands of workers to meet demand from Americans stuck at home with stimulus checks, added people of all races and ethnicities across all job categories. Just over half of the 200,000 workers that the company added in 2021 were Black or Hispanic.

Ok, but that doesn't say anything about the number of, say, Asians. I looked at their EEO report (linked from your article), and they went from 179610 white male employees to 219380, and from 127650 white female employees to 153682. So, they added a net 65,802 white employees.

That's pretty strange, because Bloomberg reports that only 20,524 White workers were added across all the companies they looked at.


CVS Health Corp. looked similar to a typical company’s growth in previous years: White people made up the majority of the job growth at the top, with people of color concentrated in low-level, and often lower-paying jobs. The health-care giant added 50,000 workers in 2021. Half were people of color — but most work in less-senior roles, with White people making up most of the new jobs at the executive, manager and professional levels.

Ok, so CVS added about 25,000 workers who were not "people of color", i.e., they were white. 25,000 is also more than 20,524. Just looking at these two companies (which they thought were great example illustrating the supposed trend), we've already identified more than four times as many new white employees than they claim for the total.


It turns out they are also using some very strange math. The raw data is not the racial breakdown of new hires. It's actually a count of the total number of employees and the racial breakdown of those employees. So for example, let's pretend company X has 100,000 employees, of which 1,000 are Black and the rest are White. 99% White workforce. Now, next year, company X has 101,000 employees, of which 1,500 are Black and the rest are White. At first glance, you might think they added 1,000 employees and half of them are Black: 500 Blacks were hired and 500 Whites were hired. 50% Black hires.

But that is not a valid conclusion. There's some amount of turnover every year. People quit, retire, jobs end, new jobs are created, whatever. On average turnover is around 20%. Let's pretend it's only 10% for the sake of argument. That means, out of 100,000 employees, they are replacing 10,000. Plus, they added 1,000 additional jobs. A total of 11,000 people were hired. We'll pretend turnover is the same rate for Black and White employees (which probably isn't true, since there are on average more Black employees in lower paying jobs which tend to have higher turnover, but for the sake of argument), so that means 100 Black employees left (out of 1000). To get up to the new total of 1500 Black employees, they had to hire 600 Blacks.

So, the actual proportion of hires that were Black is 600 / 11,000 = 5.45%. Not 50%. That's off by an order of magnitude. 50% implies there is some huge bias in hiring practices. 5.45%, on the other hand, indicates hiring below the level of representation in the population.

In essence, Bloomberg is reporting a change in net employment but presenting it as if it represents the proportion of hires. That's wrong. You can sort of claim "94% of the net increase in jobs went to people of color" (although if you don't properly explain it, it's still pretty deceptive) but you absolutely cannot say "94% of people hired went to people of color" because that is flat out false.

Amazon is a particularly interesting example here, because they have an outrageously high turnover rate, estimated as high as 70%. Let's look at those Amazon numbers again. According to their EEO report, in 2020 they had 918261 employees, and in 2021 it was 1120602. So they added 202,341 employees. They had a net increase of 65,802 White employees. So, by Bloomberg's analysis, they added 33% White jobs, and 67% people of color. Bloomberg reported Black + Hispanic, that increase is 103,564, so they calculate 103,564 / 202,341 = 51%.

But in fact, at 70% turnover, they also had to replace around 640,000 employees. That means they actually hired a total of around 845,000 people. The actual proportion of Black and Hispanic hires is 103,564 / 845,000 = 12%. Bearing in mind that Blacks make up 14% of the US population, and Hispanics another 19%. Bloomberg suggests they are being significantly favored in hiring, but actually they were being hired at less than half of the expected rate. It's just that the hiring practices prior to 2020 were so bad that this turned out to be an improvement.




I'm not the only one to think this is dodgy. https://www.dailywire.com/news/bloo...-that-only-6-of-new-corporate-hires-are-white

The alt-righters were told there would be no math...

 

[AdrianS]

You and I will be downvoted into oblivion, but you're not wrong.

HR: "I have a white guy and a transitioned black girl. The white guy knows their stuff and can help the business overall, and the other candidate will require several months of training and assistance. But I need to hire the other candidate because I have DEI metrics to hit"

This makes no sense.

Please stop posting your fantasies. This is supposed to be a factual discussion.

 

[AdrianS]

Ok here's a current example. Progressive Insurance, right on their official website.



Clearly documented, illegal racist discrimination in their hiring policy. Right on their website. Forbes has a convenient list of the best DEI companies to work for and I suspect most if not all of those will have similar stuff sprinkled through out their official company policies.

If you're so sure it's illegal, make a complaint.

 

[graylshaped]

...

Here is my post, spelled out for you in big boy letters:
...

Since a picture is worth a thousand words in big boy letters, I thought this one would suit you well. As always, hand-selected and suitable to hang on your refrigerator.

 

[Zim the Vixen]

this thread taught us you can only ignore 1000 accounts, apparently.

 

[paulghodgson]

Are we sure that white men are the target employee, it could as easily be construed as a means to employ the cheapest labour regardless their location

 

[balthazarr]

Nobody has ever, in any form, "discriminated against white people." Finding that you can't compete because minorities, when given a chance, are actually more talented than mediocre white guys, is not discrimination.

Late to this one, so apologies if ninja'd 100 times over already - but this, right here, this is the crux of the "problem" all of these fundamentally scared white men have, and have had.

They're afraid they're just mediocre. Average. Not special. Provide society with nothing of value, nothing to differentiate themselves. And they're afraid that their privileged position in society has been evaporating, such that they have to compete on merit... and lo and behold, they have nothing to contribute.

Except now their "champion" will be in charge again and will make things "great again".

JFC is the world in for a total and utter shitshow... and so many morons are welcoming it with open arms.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Do you check the owner's bio for every company whose product you use?

Generally I’ll have at least some idea about the company in the first place, so to some extent ‘yes’. And if it comes to light that a company I deal with is run by a garbage human, then as much as possible I’ll stop dealing with that company. It’s why I left Twitter after Musk took over. It’s why I’ll never, ever own a Tesla while Musk is involved. And if I used Meta products (I don’t, but hey) then I’d be seeking alternatives right this minute.

 

[jtwrenn]

If you let rich people do something horrible that enriches themselves or their stock owners...they will. It's really not that hard to figure out. The less competition in the market makes that window smaller....ie you got nowhere else to go for the same product so they can go harder down that road.

We have happily handed the internet to oligarchs. Those oligarchs bought elections and the world continues to speed toward the 2nd gilded age. They are just dragons sitting on piles of gold at this point and burning towns to gain more. It's really one of the most disgusting displays of greed in well....about a hundred years.

 

[Lansow]

Ever had the experience of having another white guy thinking you're not going to disagree with anything he says, and just letting the fuck loose in a bar or something?

Absolutely, and it's sickening when it happens. Edit: It wasn't a white guy, as I'm not white. The views expressed were just as abhorrent, though.

That's one problem among many. The same people that complain about hiring minorities are the ones complaining that minorities don't 'work.' Also, they usually act like they earned being white, while interestingly arguing that being white had nothing to do with their station in life.

I'm done listing things -- I'm already getting sad thinking of friends that were normal 25 years ago, and have become the idiots I'm referring to above.

The change can be shocking...

This happened to me recently when a person I considered my best friend went on a rant about liberals, feminists, LGBTQ, etc. Part of his rant was about how he deserved respect in public purely because he's a middle age white man. He also complained about his employment prospects and earning potential being limited because of visible minorities, "diversity hires", women in tech, and all the other right-wing dog whistles you'd expect from someone espousing this garbage.

I was absolutely floored he had the audacity to say that to me; flabbergasted, really. He was attacking me directly. I'm a visible minority and I've worked my ass off to overcome all the societal bias to get where I am today, in the same industry as he works.

What did I do to deserve his wrath? I called him to share some exciting news about my annual review, the pay increase my hard work earned me, and the bonus I was being given in recognition of it. The sort of thing you'd call your best friend for. I was so excited about it.

He'd been talking about how much he wanted this specific Sony television all year, but he wasn't sure how he'd afford it as he only had half the purchase price saved up. I offered to pay the difference as a Christmas gift, and that made him irrationally angry, which was the fuel for his tirade.

While I'm grateful that I got to see his true colours and I'll never have to associate with him again, it still stings a bit that my previously liberal/tolerant friend fell so far down the right-wing bias rabbit hole.

 

[Victor Bitu]

Step1 Everybody replaced with cheap H1B visa indians
Step2 Profit

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Why the fuck DEI was ever the case in the first place?

Because it turned out straight white guys were being hired despite not being as qualified as NOT(straight white guys)

As has been mentioned a thousand fucking times in this thread, DEI sought to remove factors such as gender, age, ethnicity from the hiring considerations. That’s something non-garbage people should be happy about.

And no, it wasn’t a fucking ‘quota’ before you spout that bullshit.

 

[passivesmoking]

DEI tries to fix discrimination by making discrimination mandatory.

And this is why DEI is a "charged" topic. The right-wing have poisoned the well by spreading lies and disinformation about what it actually is until it became one.

Honestly it's quite cunning. Absolutely deplorable, but quite cunning. Turn something you don't like into a political issue, then accuse anyone who embraces it of "being political". I mean if it works well enough to get people to reject masks and vaccinations in the middle of a fucking pandemic then there's no limit to what you can do with that tactic.

 

[passivesmoking]

Step1 Everybody replaced with cheap H1B visa indians
Step2 Profit

But at least it's not the great replacement, amirite?

 

[Faceless Man]

Has America rotten to the core? I read comments and I don't believe my own eyes.

Why the fuck DEI was ever the case in the first place?

People should be hired based on merit alone, not how they look, feel or identify, or you end up with a politically correct shitshow that underperforms and drives your company to death.

To repeat myself, sort of.

You answer your own question there. "Why the fuck DEI was even the case in the first place?" is because people weren't being "hired based on merit alone, not how they look, feel or identify".

To be precise, and this is where I may be repeating myself, DEI was implemented because people were being hired because they were white cis het men, and not based on actual merit.

 

[passivesmoking]

Meta and other large companies, and even Trump & co, doesn't really fit into the category of fascism.

One central theme under fascism is a strong, almost totalitarian, central state. Meta and others wants less regulation, less taxes and less government so they can do what they wan without government interference.

They may have said that, and you believed them? Jesus wept.

Actions speak louder than words. They want less government interference for themselves and only themselves. They want the rest of the peons to get in line, and they want the freedom from the rule of law to make it happen. They want rid of equality legislation because they want to make society more unequal, not less. And it will not be you who benefits from that loss of equality, I can assure you. I mean you can start calling your non-white neighbours n-words again, but as far as I can tell you can already do that in America with little consequence anyway. But you will be poorer and less free in every other measurable respect.

 

[sorten]

Empathy and normal behavior were always going to be performance art for Zuck. And now there's no incentive for the performance.

 

[void&]

When facts are "too politically biased", maybe facts are not the problem.

 

[passivesmoking]

There is also one extremely huge difference: The view on jews and anti-semittisme.
You can't have nazism without extreme anti-semittisme.

Yes you can. Pol-Pot wasn't exactly noted for his views on Jewish people.

Another important difference is that nazism wanted a very strong, totalitarian central government. If you look at Trump & co and many of the large companies in the US, they want less central government, fewer regulations and laws, etc.

They're lying. They want fewer regulations and laws FOR THEM. They don't care about small government, they care about enriching themselves at your expense.

Also the economic policy is quite different from Nazi-Germany.

Allowing oligarchs unprecedented freedom to do as they please without fear of government regulation? Failing to see the difference here...

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Allowing oligarchs unprecedented freedom to do as they please without fear of government regulation? Failing to see the difference here...

At this stage they may as well say they can’t be Nazis because they’re not wearing Hugo Boss…

 

[passivesmoking]

Get out and meet people. Just because you don't like Trump doesn't mean that the majority of people in the country are all of those bad names people spew.

Given the election results, I beg to differ.

It's truly stunning how quick people are to make such disparaging remarks toward fellow citizens.

Can't imagine why...

 

[carrellk]

Look at that fucking shitstain of an excuse for a human being.

Ask Chamberlain and Quisling how bending over and lubing yourself up for the fascists works out.

Spoiler: you get fucked.

Yeah, but maybe Zuck likes it.

 

[carrellk]

Found this pic of him caught unprepared for a photo at home

View attachment 99668

Zuck is really Phil Gordian from The Arrival.

 

[MattEvansC3]

Because it turned out straight white guys were being hired despite not being as qualified as NOT(straight white guys)

As has been mentioned a thousand fucking times in this thread, DEI sought to remove factors such as gender, age, ethnicity from the hiring considerations. That’s something non-garbage people should be happy about.

And no, it wasn’t a fucking ‘quota’ before you spout that bullshit.

DEI also covers social background as that is a significant barrier. So even the majority of white men are covered by DEI.

 

[Eldorito]

It's quite simple. If you think DEI is bad, and promotes unqualified people over qualified ones, you're starting from a base assumption that a white male is always going to be more qualified than anyone else.

DEI actually stops companies hiring unqualified white men over qualified non-white and/or non-men candidates. For a start, white men are much more likely to apply for jobs they're not actually qualified for than people of colour or women.

So, yeah, DEI actually stops the practice of hiring unqualified people over qualified people simply by taking out the implicit human biases of the system.

That's just DEI in hiring, of course. There's also the matter of DEI in education, which is a whole other thing, but basically the same. It doesn't take opportunities away from qualified people, it just offers more opportunities to people who are qualified, but don't traditionally get them.

This is my field of work (recruitment processes and analysis for some pretty big companies) and the impact is fascinating sometimes.

Having shortlists that are 50/50 gender split results in more female hires. The managers are under no obligation to hire more women, all that is happening is any list of candidates that goes to them has 50% females. The best men available for the job are still on that list.

It's an unconscious bias thing, if there's only one woman they get judged alone, even though there might be 5-6 candidates total. Stick in a bunch and it forces (some of) them to compare skills more evenly.

But we also always know the biased ones, the people who won't hire an Asian, keep complaining that women just go on maternity leave so what's the point, etc. Generally it's best to ignore them and let their teams underperform. You can only help them so much.

And that's where Zuck will be coming from. The good managers get diversity anyway, without policy. Removing the policy gets him whatever he sees as the financial opportunities of rimming Trump, which he'll have seen as higher than the cost of some poorly performing teams (considering they seem to be shrinking their workforce regularly, those teams will just get to be first on the chopping block).

 

[callumshell1]

I didn't think I'd be pining for the days of rainbow capitalism so soon. The masks sure were lubed and ready to come off, huh.

It was exactly the same back then. Have we all forgotten how corporations didn't give a rat's ass about DEI until they were essentially forced to? Corporations are not your friends. They exist to create wealth for their shareholders and if inclusion isn't achieving that, and it's now socially acceptable to drop it, they will. No big surprise.

 

[Darkly]

If you know anyone that works for Meta, I think it's time to stop associating with them.

Remember:
If 9 people sit down at a table with 1 Nazi without protest, there are 10 Nazis at the table.

 

[passivesmoking]

To the people who say that DEI shouldn't be necessary? You're right, it shouldn't.

To those saying that DEI isn't a solution? You're right, it's not.

The problem is that discrimination and prejudice is so engrained that people overlook perfectly qualified people for jobs because of some innate characteristic and instead give them to people who might not be as qualified that don't exhibit those characteristics. It's so engrained that many people might not even realise they're doing it.

DEI doesn't fix that. At best it's a band-aid over the real problem - that there's something fundamentally wrong with western society. We don't teach our kids to be kind and open-minded and accepting of those who are not like them, we teach them to drag themselves to the top by scrambling over the bodies of those weaker than themselves.

Schools all claim to have strong anti-bullying rules, but when a bullying problem actually arises, it's either ignored or the effort is expended on sweeping it under the carpet instead of addressing it. Bullying behaviour is rewarded more often than it is punished, and that continues into the workforce. Pop culture continues to treat minorities as tokens, leading to accusations of being "woke" because lazy writers don't give minority characters any real depth beyond being a minority. Politics and celebrity remain dominated by male WASPs with the odd bone thrown the way of others in the name of "diversity"

The real fix is for us to rewire our society to put more value on diversity and to treat people purely on merit and nothing else, but if that's even possible (we are, in the final analysis, barely evolved apes with the same territoriality instincts of our tree-swinging ancestors and just enough intelligence to be aware of it) it will take at least a generation to pull off, probably more, and it will not be fully accomplished until the old guard has died off. In the meantime, things like DEI are pretty much the best we can do for now.

TLDR - DEI would be entirely unnecessary in an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world, and addressing that could take generations if it's even possible at all. In the meantime we need a stopgap.

 

[GCamomescro]

Since color/gender/religion/nationality are generally not relevant to one's job duties, choosing to hire people based on those attributes strikes me as no more logical than declining to hire someone based on those attributes.

If I were a shareholder, I'd want them to focus on hiring the most qualified candidates, even if they're striped aliens from a species with three genders.

You obviously do not understand what subtlevracism is, nor do you understand human psychology. You should stop talking and start paying more attention to how people function.

 

[nixer65]

When do things get bad? ... when you treat people as things.

Bad managers become evil managers when they start treating people as things. My favourite quote from Terry Pratchett’s Carpe Jugulum:

There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example,” said Oats. “And what do they think? Against it, are they?” said Granny Weatherwax.
“It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”
“Nope.”
“Pardon?”
“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.
“It’s a lot more complicated than that . . .”
“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes . . .”
“But they starts with thinking about people as things . . . ”

 

[Komarov]

You know who benfits from this? White, westernized culture. CIS White men, who, despite decades of saying "we only hire the best people" really mean:

"we only hire the best white males, and if a person of colour, different sexuality, nationality, or religion is better, we will hire the next better white guy. If those don't exist, we will hire our buddy from our sorority."

Hiring a male from your sorority is actually a pretty cool move.

 

[Findecanor]

Why not just replace the logo with a swastika and be done with it, Zuck?

Because the swastika is a religious symbol in large parts of the world, and it would upset a lot of people if it was appropriated for far-right wing politics, again.

 

[Komarov]

Also thinking about how to keep in touch with people who only have Facebook. I don’t want to give my relatives my phone number because that can lead to some whacked out shit.

I solved this by not keeping in touch with people who only have Bacefook. If they can't be bothered to install, e.g., Signal, or read mail ... turns out that keeping in touch is a two-way street, and anyone who won't make a reciprocal effort isn't important enough in my life to bother with.

But then, I'm considered weird in some circles. Suits me just fine.