Google is eliminating its diversity hiring targets, joining other companies in scaling back DEI efforts

[midian182]

What just happened? Google is following in the footsteps of Meta and Amazon by eliminating its goal of hiring from historically underrepresented groups while also reviewing its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The company has reportedly informed employees of the change, while parent firm Alphabet has removed a phrase about commitment to DEI from its annual report.

"In 2020, we set aspirational hiring goals and focused on growing our offices outside California and New York to improve representation," Fiona Cicconi, Alphabet's chief people officer, said in an email to staff (via Reuters). "...but in the future we will no longer have aspirational goals."

Another indication of the change came in Alphabet's annual report. The sentence stating that Alphabet is "committed to making diversity, equity, and inclusion part of everything we do and to growing a workforce that is representative of the users we serve" was removed. It had appeared in reports from 2021 to 2024.

Also read: Google abandons 'do no harm' AI stance, opens door to military weapons

Google had been one of the loudest proponents of diversity hiring in the tech industry. CEO Sundar Pichai said in 2020 that the company aimed to have 30% of its leaders from underrepresented groups by 2025. At the time, around 96% of Google's US leaders were white or Asian, and 73% globally were men.

Google is also evaluating whether to continue releasing its diversity report that it has published since 2014. The Wall Street Journal reports that the move is part of a wider review of DEI-related grants, training, and initiatives, including those that "raise risk, or that aren't as impactful as we'd hope," read the email.

Google's 2024 diversity report said 5.7% of its US employees were Black and 7.5% were Latino. That represents increases of 2% and 1.6%, respectively, compared to four years earlier.

Google added that it is reviewing court decisions and executive orders by Donald Trump aimed at curbing DEI in the government and among federal contractors, as Google falls into the latter category.

Google will continue to support internal employee groups such as Trans at Google, Black Googler Network and the Disability Alliance, which the company has said inform decisions around products and policies. The report said it will also continue to open offices in cities with diverse workforces.

Last month, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the company was ending its DEI programs, including those focused on hiring, training and picking suppliers from underrepresented communities. Amazon, meanwhile, has said it is winding down outdated programs and materials related to representation and inclusion.

Several tech companies have been quick to toe the line with the Trump administration's stance toward DEI programs. The threat of legal consequences for not doing so is probably expediting the policy changes.

In other Google news this week, the company removed a key passage from its AI principles that previously committed to avoiding the use of AI in potentially harmful applications, including weapons.

Permalink to story:

Google is eliminating its diversity hiring targets, joining other companies in scaling back DEI efforts

 

[yRaz]

DEI has probably gotten to the point of making the HR department more expensive than any damages the company might have inncured without them while also lower productivity.

 

[MiqWalsh]

In other words, from now on they'll be hiring white, American men ONLY. Jeezus; what a state of affairs.....just because a fat, elderly misogynist tells 'em to.

 

[Liranan]

In other words, from now on they'll be hiring white, American men ONLY. Jeezus; what a state of affairs.....just because a fat, elderly misogynist tells 'em to.

DEI hire.

 

[Mister_K]

In other words, from now on they'll be hiring white, American men ONLY. Jeezus; what a state of affairs.....just because a fat, elderly misogynist tells 'em to.

or you know, people that are just good regardless of their gender preferences or ethnic backgrounds. Checking boxes and hiring because you need to meet a quota is part of the reason Trump has been elected. People are sick and tired of over-processed bureaucracy.

 

[Loadedaxe]

In other words, from now on they'll be hiring white, American men ONLY. Jeezus; what a state of affairs.....just because a fat, elderly misogynist tells 'em to.

I’ve re-read this article twice and still don’t see that part. If being a white American man is the only qualification that fits, then so be it.

This world has completely lost its mind over DEI. What started as a movement for fairness and true inclusion has spiraled into chaos. It feels like we’re stuck in a checklist culture, overcorrecting at every turn and missing the point entirely.

Some jobs require the best minds and the most knowledgeable individuals, period. If a trans man has those skills and presents himself like a professional, great, give him the job because he’s qualified!

If you want a good paying, rewarding job, work for it, whether your straight, gay, trans, white, black, brown, yellow....etc.

 

[yRaz]

DEI hire.

or you know, people that are just good regardless of their gender preferences or ethnic backgrounds. Checking boxes and hiring because you need to meet a quota is part of the reason Trump has been elected. People are sick and tired of over-processed bureaucracy.

I’ve re-read this article twice and still don’t see that part. If being a white American man is the only qualification that fits, then so be it.

This world has completely lost its mind over DEI. What started as a movement for fairness and true inclusion has spiraled into chaos. It feels like we’re stuck in a checklist culture, overcorrecting at every turn and missing the point entirely.

Some jobs require the best minds and the most knowledgeable individuals, period. If a trans man has those skills and presents himself like a professional, great, give him the job because he’s qualified!

If you want a good paying, rewarding job, work for it, whether your straight, gay, trans, white, black, brown, yellow....etc.

It's bait, that's literally that posters first post.

 

[Ashford]

Nobody will ever convince me that any part of a hiring decision should be based on someone's race. Ever.

 

[NumberNine]

Irrelevant. Stop crying about politics and let's see Google produce something of actual value.

 

[kira setsu]

In other words, from now on they'll be hiring white, American men ONLY. Jeezus; what a state of affairs.....just because a fat, elderly misogynist tells 'em to.

you almost got it right, America has always been racist, Trump is just the perfect scapegoat for white men to do what they've always done, abuse their power.

 

[Str8Shot]

In other words, from now on they'll be hiring white, American men ONLY. Jeezus; what a state of affairs.....just because a fat, elderly misogynist tells 'em to.

Bro, they’ll be hiring H1B Indian imports, NOT Americans…It’s a BS ruse and a con on the people, once again.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Bro, they’ll be hiring H1B Indian imports, NOT Americans…It’s a BS ruse and a con on the people, once again.

These workers (legal work visa holders) fill critical gaps where there aren’t enough qualified local candidates, especially in specialized fields. Blaming legal work visa immigrants distracts from the real issue.

I do acknowledge your clickbait tactics, these comments typically come from ... well you know.

Your entire remark is not only racist but also full of nonsense.

 

[Ashford]

A tip for everyone.

Let me set this up... you enter a room and see a group of people. You go talk to them about politics... and in your opening statement you reference the other side with names, or using bombastic, attention seeking language like "nazi", "left wing lunatic", "hitler" etc...

While you have effectively virtue signaled, you've also told me you dont respect other opinions and any conversation with you will likely devolve into more of the same name calling. It's like you see the other side as less than human.

Who do you think wants to be talked down to when there is zero chance you understand all the factors that went into someone's decision? You've already written them of.. your points... even if right dont matter anymore... because you showed up to debate in bad faith.

So you are effectively talking to people who already agree with you... and that just seems like wasting breath to me.

This is why political discourse has devolved, and I don't know about you... but I'm not going to engage with the loud minority anymore.

 

[lonetac]

I’ve re-read this article twice and still don’t see that part. If being a white American man is the only qualification that fits, then so be it.

This world has completely lost its mind over DEI. What started as a movement for fairness and true inclusion has spiraled into chaos. It feels like we’re stuck in a checklist culture, overcorrecting at every turn and missing the point entirely.

Some jobs require the best minds and the most knowledgeable individuals, period. If a trans man has those skills and presents himself like a professional, great, give him the job because he’s qualified!

If you want a good paying, rewarding job, work for it, whether your straight, gay, trans, white, black, brown, yellow....etc.

Thats just how one side (successfully) perverted the meaning of DEI just like woke.

I think everyone who is against DEI should start referring to DEI as "Diversity, Equality, Inclusion" instead of DEI.

Please let us know what part of "Diversity, Equaility and Inclusion" you oppose?

DEI is simple things like ramps and sidewalks, subtitles and captions, family restrooms, changing tables in mens rooms, breast feeding stations, floating paid holidays, pay equity and transparency, parental leave, coming back to jobs after child birth, harrassment, accomodating disabilities, flexible work conditions and things like that.

It has nothing to do with hiring people who are not qualified or forcing hires of specific race/diversity. If you believe that, you are part of the problem and have been duped yet again.

 

[gdavid65]

"please don't break us up... please don't break us up... please don't break us up"

not that is even really a possibility anymore, but I guess you have to protect all bases.

 

[Ohnooze]

In other words, from now on they'll be hiring white, American men ONLY. Jeezus; what a state of affairs.....just because a fat, elderly misogynist tells 'em to.

Are you even in the workforce because this statement is just ridiculous.

 

[yRaz]

Thats just how one side (successfully) perverted the meaning of DEI just like woke.

I think everyone who is against DEI should start referring to DEI as "Diversity, Equality, Inclusion" instead of DEI.

Please let us know what part of "Diversity, Equaility and Inclusion" you oppose?

DEI is simple things like ramps and sidewalks, subtitles and captions, family restrooms, changing tables in mens rooms, breast feeding stations, floating paid holidays, pay equity and transparency, parental leave, coming back to jobs after child birth, harrassment, accomodating disabilities, flexible work conditions and things like that.

It has nothing to do with hiring people who are not qualified or forcing hires of specific race/diversity. If you believe that, you are part of the problem and have been duped yet again.

DEI has nothing to do with the ADA(Americans with disabilities act). In construction, we call ramps for wheel chairs ADA ramps. If it is less than 4 feet long, it's called an ADA pad. We also have ADA railings. I could go on.

The problem with DEI is the idea that hireing someone because they are different is better than hiring someone based on skills alone. We gave this idea a good go for a few years and found that hiring someone because they are different doesn't necessarily mean they are better. I have no problem with hiring someone who is highly skilled just happens to be different.

 

[Ohnooze]

you almost got it right, America has always been racist, Trump is just the perfect scapegoat for white men to do what they've always done, abuse their power.

Oh grow up.

If you really believe white men voted for Trump so they can be racist and abuse people you need professional counseling. Talk about a twisted view of reality.

 

[sadtimes2025]

Google, what a sell out .. you are now part of the problem. So so disappointing.

 

[human7]

Thats just how one side (successfully) perverted the meaning of DEI just like woke.

I think everyone who is against DEI should start referring to DEI as "Diversity, Equality, Inclusion" instead of DEI.

Please let us know what part of "Diversity, Equaility and Inclusion" you oppose?

DEI is simple things like ramps and sidewalks, subtitles and captions, family restrooms, changing tables in mens rooms, breast feeding stations, floating paid holidays, pay equity and transparency, parental leave, coming back to jobs after child birth, harrassment, accomodating disabilities, flexible work conditions and things like that.

It has nothing to do with hiring people who are not qualified or forcing hires of specific race/diversity. If you believe that, you are part of the problem and have been duped yet again.

I came here to say this, too. So many are quick to blame DEI, but they usually won't spell it out.

 

[sreams]

I think everyone who is against DEI should start referring to DEI as "Diversity, Equality, Inclusion" instead of DEI.

And I think everyone should refer to warrantless wiretapping as "Patriotism", because it was called "The Patriot Act".

What something is labelled is meaningless. What it is actually made up of is everything.

 

[lonetac]

DEI has nothing to do with the ADA(Americans with disabilities act). In construction, we call ramps for wheel chairs ADA ramps. If it is less than 4 feet long, it's called an ADA pad. We also have ADA railings. I could go on.

Diversity, Equality and Inclusion. I didnt say it had anything to do with the act. I said it has to do with wheelchair ramps and accessibility.

Reading for the win.

What part of promoting Equality, Diversity and Inclusion are you against? Lets be specific. Is it the Diversity part? Equality part? Or inclusion part? Give examples.

 

[lonetac]

And I think everyone should refer to warrantless wiretapping as "Patriotism", because it was called "The Patriot Act".

What something is labelled is meaningless. What it is actually made up of is everything.

I listed what its actually made up of.

Your perverted interrpreted and changed meaning isnt what it is.

What part of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion are you against? Please explain. Im not looking for your fox news take or trumps equally perverted meaning.

Im asking you what part of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion are you against? Enlighten us, I am sure it will be eye opening.

 

[poshflamingos]

The problem with DEI is the idea that hireing someone because they are different is better than hiring someone based on skills alone.

It's not about being "better", it's about being fair. If you have a society where 50% of the people are women, 10% of people are black, 10% of people are gay and 1% of people are trans, just on the basis of statistics you would expect those same percentages to be there in high-paying jobs, politics and positions of power. Yet, when you look at high paying jobs and positions of power in the US, it's nowhere near these figures, it's disproportionately white men.

You can't create a society where it's harder for women and minorities to obtain those skills, and then say "hiring should be based on skills alone". That's just a more roundabout way of saying you want positions of power to be only white men. In order for "hiring based on skills only" to work, you need a society where every person has equal opportunity, which is far from the current reality. In that sense, DEI is just a temporary band-aid that attempts to fix some of this imbalance, because creating an equal, just society takes a long time. That's why DEI exists, to help correct that injustice in society, not because hiring someone different is "better".

This reminds me of those discussions about american dating and who should pay for dates. There are some US women who don't want to say "men should pay" because that has bad connotations, and try to appear more reasonable by saying "the person who asks the other should pay". But then they also say "I never ask for dates, it's the man's job to ask", meaning they're just saying "men should pay" with extra steps. That's what you're doing, you don't want to say "I want white men to have all the power in society", so you say "hiring should be based on skills alone" while in a society where women and minorities are treated unfairly and not given the same opportunities to obtain those skills, which is just "I want white men to have all the power in society" with extra steps.

 

[yRaz]

It's not about being "better", it's about being fair. If you have a society where 50% of the people are women, 10% of people are black, 10% of people are gay and 1% of people are trans, just on the basis of statistics you would expect those same percentages to be there in high-paying jobs, politics and positions of power. Yet, when you look at high paying jobs and positions of power in the US, it's nowhere near these figures, it's disproportionately white men.

You can't create a society where it's harder for women and minorities to obtain those skills, and then say "hiring should be based on skills alone". That's just a more roundabout way of saying you want positions of power to be only white men. In order for "hiring based on skills only" to work, you need a society where every person has equal opportunity, which is far from the current reality. In that sense, DEI is just a temporary band-aid that attempts to fix some of this imbalance, because creating an equal, just society takes a long time. That's why DEI exists, to help correct that injustice in society, not because hiring someone different is "better".

This reminds me of those discussions about american dating and who should pay for dates. There are some US women who don't want to say "men should pay" because that has bad connotations, and try to appear more reasonable by saying "the person who asks the other should pay". But then they also say "I never ask for dates, it's the man's job to ask", meaning they're just saying "men should pay" with extra steps. That's what you're doing, you don't want to say "I want white men to have all the power in society", so you say "hiring should be based on skills alone" while in a society where women and minorities are treated unfairly and not given the same opportunities to obtain those skills, which is just "I want white men to have all the power in society" with extra steps.

The first error is thinking that it is an injustice. The number one issue we have with getting apprentices is to pass a drug tests. Considering that alcohol use is dropping and marajuana use is going up among young people, that's our first and foremost issue in getting people to qualify. Many people start out as a first year apprentice because of how badly we need people, but 10-15 years ago you had to go through a pre-apprentice program.

In order to stay in your apprenticeship, you have to complete so many hours of work, complete that work to certain standards, pass a test once a year and get certified for certain things so you can move up to a second, or third year apprentice.

Corelation does not mean causation, but do you want to drive over a bridge that was build incorrectly because the person didn't know how to do it?

Giving people jobs because it "feels good" doesn't work when peoples lives depend on it. If you aren't willing to work hard to build the skills to pass through an apprenticeship, that is on the individual. Whether someone is a minority or a women had nothing to do with whether or not they were willing to do what it takes to get the job. DEI is giving people who didn't want to put in the work a "just because".

Correlation does not equal causation and giving unqualified people jobs does not fix your "injustice". Your method actually creates a different type of injustice. It disincentivises people to put in the work to get a job. The people who put in the work will be looked over and someone else will be handed the so the company can meet some meaningless quota.

And, frankly, hiring someone just because they are in a minority is just a racist and sexist as not hiring them because of that same reason. You are singling them out based on race and gender instead of judging based on their qualities as an individual.