Hacker News Reader

"DEI programs are meant to correct for generations of injustice and to push for equity)"

I guess that what went wrong with them. Rather than generate systems to treat _evereyone_ equally the systems attempted very hard to 1. categorize people into predefined groups 2. after people are grouped, then treat each group individually.

What I mean that rather than have a quota for recruitment, recruitment systems should have been converted totally blind to age, gender and visible phenotype differences. THIS would have leveled the playing field.

The DEI systems that were implemented were just policy theater, that were ineffective and alienating.

In US corps outside US (I worked for a subsidiary in Finland) the DEI stuff they implemented was just insane and non-helpfull almost in every aspect. "You can no longer use git repositories with the term master.." - that was hilarious. It's obvious nobody was serious about DEI. Management just hired bunch of consultants who sold them checklists so managament could check the box in their own checklist. An opportunity to actually help minorities was lost sadly.

The only good thing that came from the rigmarole were unisex toilets which are just common sense.

> What I mean that rather than have a quota for recruitment, recruitment systems should have been converted totally blind to age, gender and visible phenotype differences. THIS would have leveled the playing field.

Interviewing for orchestras behind a screen, so the judges can't see the age/gender/race. That's a good way to go about equality.

<< White people aren't being punished. That's not the correct framing. That's a self-centered misinterpretation of what's going on.

I think you are correct, but it still misses the mark on framing. White people are indeed not punished, but they are being hindered by DEI mandates. At one point, it gets a little annoying, because we see no real benefit from it. If anything, demands seemed to escalate.

I will tell you my own personal 'fuck it' moment. Company meeting with chief diversity guy. Peak DEI moment. A suggestion is made after presentation that maybe 'we' should have 'black safe spaces', where only black people meet. It took everything in my power to remain silent at that time, because if I have ever heard of a racist policy, that was it and the company is lucky I did not pursue legal path. Someone else did cautiously raised it though and that concerned was dismissed with wordplay.

I am just one guy, but DEI breeds heavy, misunderstood and very much unseen resentment discussed in small local groups only, because you cannot even discuss it openly in company channels. If anything, people bond over 'fuck it' moment.

<< But it's plain to me how much I benefit from being white even though my ancestors didn't own slaves and were, in fact, opposed to slavery.

shrug Does it mean we should exacerbate those issues by instituting restitution? Seems counterproductive.

> White people aren't being punished.

When the required score to hire a member of group A is 95, and the required score to hire a member of group B is 90, then clearly group A is being punished.

When more resources are spent recruiting members of group A than group B, then clearly group B is being punished.

When time is never spent praising members of group A just for being members of group A, but time is spent praising members of group B just for being members of group B, then group A is being punished.

What do you do when both A and B score a 95 and there is only one job?

That's what DEI solves for. Not "higher a lesser candidate," but "when both candidates are equal, use diversity of the company when making the final decision"

I don't wish to throw any fuel onto the fire, but people appear to have very different experiences of DEI.

affirmative action as implemented requires percentage targets (based on statistical models of the overall population) based on race/gender/etc.

If you don’t get enough candidates, or the candidates you do get don’t happen to exactly align quality wise on whatever other criteria you are using, of the right race, gender, etc. what do you think actually happens?

NOTE: I have been told multiple times by HR reps and recruiters that what happens is not what you assert. I have also been told multiple times by HR reps and recruiters that I should say what you are asserting if anyone asks.

Yes, we had a word for that: racism.

The word "justice" being the keyword (now, for some people) for DEI indicates it is precisely about punishment. At least to those who frame it in terms of "justice". I see that word and I know it is a buzzword for angry people. In the 90s when I was first persuaded as to the necessities of policies that instantiate reverse racial discrimination (i.e. affirmative action) talk was more about equality and unity, and increasing efficiency of the system. Blacks were (still are) not utilized to their full potential, so aa offered a common good inthe form of a more productive, better functioning society. I don't encounter those arguments as much niw as arguments about "justice" or the impossible to define "equity" (not the same as the phrase "equality of outcome" which was a very concrete and useful construct for thinking about racism). Historical context is everything.

>You're framing DEI as a punishment for slavery, which it's not. White people aren't being punished. That's not the correct framing. That's a self-centered misinterpretation of what's going on.

You can't just dismiss the framing to dismiss the injustice it points to. Slavery wasn't meant to be a punishment either, doesn't mean we can omit the injustice it entails.

Skip explicit racial discrimination and help those who are most in need. It's that simple. Yes this group will have a specific racial makeup but it makes a world of difference to discriminate based on need rather than taking a racist approach.

This idea that white-passing people benefit from BIPOCs being discriminated against is not convincing. We are all harmed when we are amongst racist assholes refusing to coexist with others based on skin color.

> This idea that white-passing people benefit from BIPOCs being discriminated against is not convincing

Did you sleepwalk through literally every American history class you had growing up?

It boggles the mind that you can write "discrimination against people doesn't help the people who aren't discriminated against."

That is the point of discrimination: to benefit those who aren't discriminated against. That's why it was created, that's why it persists, and that's why people who benefit from the discrimination oppose its cessation. Look elsewhere in this discussion: the people who historically benefit from that oppression are saying its abatement is oppression directed back at themselves.

The beneficiaries of discrimination are usually split among class lines. So you have economically poor white folks who are indeed harmed by racial discrimination—though not nearly as harmed as the discriminated groups them selves—and rich white folks who are the only ones making money off of it.

The harm is often second factor such as the abundance of cheap (or free) labor yields less bargaining power and you end up working for less than you otherwise would have (but also the psychological harm of living in an unfair society). But next to the harm caused to those who are indeed discriminated against, the harm is rather minute.

His point was that racism harms all. Calm down: benefit of the doubt goes a long way on hot topics like this.

My issue is the metrics constantly parroted to show inequality wouldn't (shouldn't) stand muster to an Econ 101 student.

- Household income disparities between groups, without controlling for household makeup. There are vast differences between racial groups in regard to one vs. two parent households (+/-30% between white/black). It should not be controversial, that two income earners, create larger household incomes (or reduce need for expensive childcare).

- Income disparities, without controlling for age or time in workforce. White populations in US average about 14yrs older than non-white. It should not be controversial, that people tend to make more money the longer they have been in the workforce (via raises, promotions, etc).

- 74 cents on the dollar between sexes. Hopefully this one doesn't need an explanation in 2025.

- Achievement gaps. High achievers throw these numbers off (vs. US average), hence, the killing of many advanced placement programs. The other one I see where I live, is more ironic than bad data--people bemoan the growth of the achievement gap yet don't see the connection to the consistent yearly refuge resettlements of thousands of ESL Somalis in the same schools.

Many of these missteps are so blatant, I can't take anyone using them seriously and throw the baby out with the bathwater.