Hacker News Reader

Comment by ravenstine | Hacker News Reader

Is it really intolerance of DEI, or the fact that those jobs are basically horseshit?

It's one thing to incorporate aspects of DEI into company culture and to have policy around it, but do you really need a role dedicated to DEI? I really doubt it. I've worked at a few companies with these DEI officers, and the value they bring to a company is extremely dubious, if existent at all. My last company let theirs go, despite the administration being highly leftist at the time, and it was painfully obvious why. It's insulting to everyone that a DEI officer makes more than a burger flipper considering their cushy duties.

DEI-based roles were destined to fail.

View on HN

My partner chaired a D&I board for a while. The amount of work she had to put in was astonishing.

She organised events, had to find speakers, find venues for said events, wrote internal SM posts, etc.

And this was all unpaid, effectively. There was no policy, no obligation to participate, no forced anything. It was just about creating space that can either accommodate discussions or promote awareness, or workshops to help some people be inspired, feel supported or encouraged. There were culture cafés, mentoring programs, etc.

Said company seems to have had a reduction in DEI efforts/positions, but that seems aligned with a general cost reduction, not because DEI was a failure.

(I do an exceptionally poor job of summarising what she did, but then again, I wasn’t directly involved in it).

And yet, for all of that work - is the company in any better of a position? By what measures did the company culture improve? How many people attended those events? How many of those people felt they were worthwhile?

Just because something is a lot of work does not mean it is worth that investment. I can dig a giant hole in my backyard, but I'm probably not going to get much out of it aside from dirt and stone for all my efforts.

DEI in practical terms is basically HR, compliance and auditing so the company doesn't get sued for using slave labour or something.

And, for the companies that drop their DEI groups, that information is going to be marked as exhibit #1 in any relevant lawsuit.

The instant it becomes obvious that the company only hires young straight white males when there are applicants that don't fit those categories and are equally or better qualified were not hired, they'll spend far more than a couple of DEI employee's annual salaries either paying the victims or paying the lawyers.

This would be the "motte" in the "motte and bailey" bad faith argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com