Hacker News Reader

Comment by jquery | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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...

The difference was within the margin of error (only a 3% change), which is very inconclusive. That's fine. Making the world a more inclusive place is hard. There's lots of people (see this thread) who clearly believe that certain races and genders are biologically superior.

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...

That article is not “absolute proof” of anything, it’s just a discussion if blind auditions are the be-all end-all. Your comment is very low quality and unnecessarily hostile. Referring to Black people discussing how to get more minorities interested in orchestras as “DEI goons” is one step removed from a slur.

I intend to slur the DEI goons. My opinion of the DEI bureaucracy is such that there is no way to express it politely. 'Contempt' and 'hate' would be such an understatement as to be dishonest.

So what do you think of all the "DEI" hires in the Trump administration? Or do you think a second-rate alcoholic domestic abusing Fox News host is the best individual on the merits to run the DoD?

Not a fan

The article you linked discusses how problematic the other non-blind parts of the audition are: leaving people out ahead of the blind audition, pre-advancing people, and so on. One of the conclusions was that if the whole process was actually blind, the outcome would be better.

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.

Examples are going to be hard to come by. No company is going to publicly admit that they used to be limiting their hiring pipeline in such a way. Admittedly, this also means that I'm speculating that the number of companies are "vast". Surely many have quietly made the change.

Sample size of one, I worked in the past for a company whose entire staff was white men, 100%. Except for a single role: the receptionist at the front desk. There is no reasonable biological explanation for this extreme distribution.

There are tons of studies that have shown that if your name is sounding like you're from a minority your chances of being invited for an interview are significantly lower. Similar if you include photos.

As a side note, it's quite ironic that engineers often tend to complain about performance metrics and that they are being gamed, not really a good measure of merit..., but the same people turn around and argue that the everything should be a meriocracy.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com