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

[Ohnooze]

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".

How are we creating a society that makes it harder for women and minorities to obtain skills? I was under the impression there were a good number of educational financial programs for minorities and females.

Also your 50% of women doesn't take out the number of women who decide not to work after having children? My wife for example quit working for a good number of years to stay home with the kids. This is not uncommon at all especially with daycare being so expensive.

In fact I saw somewhere that over 25% of families have only one parent working and my guess is that the one working is almost always the man.

And how do you know that 10% of the workforce isn't gay?

 

[Michiel]

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.

DEI was never a movement for fairness.

 

[poshflamingos]

The first error is thinking that it is an injustice.

Of course it's an injustice, why wouldn't it be? Do you think women and minorities are born inherently less competent than white men? Do you think competence is genetic and only white men have those genes? That's absurd, women and minorities are just as capable and the fact that they are not properly represented in positions of power show that society is discriminating against them.

The number one issue we have with getting apprentices is to pass a drug tests. (...) 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. (...) If you aren't willing to work hard to build the skills to pass through an apprenticeship, that is on the individual.

I don't know what gave you the idea that appreticeships have any relevance here. Those are not high paying jobs nor positions of power. I'm talking about STEM in universities and jobs, leadership positions within companies, and politics.
I don't know what the quip about substance use is about either. I can assure you that white men in tech, leadership positions and politics are not at all concerned about their use of alcohol or weed affecting their employment. That kind of thing is only a concern on low-level blue collar work.

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. (...) 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".

That is completely ridiculous. Just because someone is not a white man does not mean they are not qualified. Even though in smaller numbers, some women and some monirities do still manage to get through university and are perfectly qualified for those jobs, only historically those groups of people are passed over in favor of white men even when they are qualified. DEI means giving jobs to those qualified women/minorities. It does not mean you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and giving jobs to people who don't have the qualifications. Your notion that only white men could possibly be qualified for important jobs is extremely worrying and says a lot about your worldview.
Also, you people complain about DEI in tech, DEI in video games, DEI in entertainment and so on. None of those are jobs where people's lives are at risk. Don't try to pretend that "lives are at risk" has even been a real concern here.

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.

No, it isn't. Creating a society where women and minorities are not given the same opportunities as white men leading to an imbalance favoring white men in positions of power is what is racist and sexist.
Again, the fact that you think DEI is a problem because it "disadvantages white men", but the centuries of history in your country where women/minorities consistently faced those same disadvantages are not a problem, says a lot about you (royal "you", all anti-DEI people).

 

[Michiel]

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.

That's not how statistics work so no, that's not what you'd expect. Men and women are different. Black and non-black cultures are different. Trans people are different again (and are also definitely not 1%, more like 0.1%). People aren't just interchangeable.

You DEI people also always gloss over the fact that most white men work regular jobs. Many work shitty jobs or are jobless. I'm sure white men are also "overrepresented" in garbage collection, sewage treatment, and oil drilling platform workers... yet never a peep from you DEI people about forcing 50% female "representation" in anything but the high-profile, high paying or comfortable jobs.

 

[Michiel]

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?

How about all of it? First of all it's "Equity" not "Equality". I definitely oppose equity (= equal outcomes instead of equal opportunities/equal treatment) and I strongly oppose government mandated- , forced diversity (really, anti-white and anti asian discrimination), equity and so-called "inclusion" which in practice is just exclusion and censorship based on political beliefs.

Just because something sounds nice, doesn't mean it is nice.
The doctrine of "equity" is at the core of the communist horrors of the 20th century. It's about as un-American as you can get.

 

[poshflamingos]

How are we creating a society that makes it harder for women and minorities to obtain skills? I was under the impression there were a good number of educational financial programs for minorities and females.

Young men are incentivised to pursue high paying STEM careers, young women aren't. The few women that do end up going to STEM regardless find a field dominated by men and hostile against them. When applying for jobs, hiring managers (conciously or inconciously) favor white men over equally qualified women and minorities. Things like these are what lead to the imbalance you observe in high-paying jobs being disproportionally dominated by men.

Also your 50% of women doesn't take out the number of women who decide not to work after having children?

Those aren't real numbers, I made them up to illustrate my point. The workforce isn't exactly 50% women and 10% gay. It could be 40% women, or 30% women, the point is that positions of power should reflect that proportion, and they don't.

And how do you know that 10% of the workforce isn't gay?

That is not the point. The point is, for it to be fair, you would need a system to ensure that the percentage of gay people on positions of power match the percentage of gay people in the population (10% in this made-up example), but you people would whine that it's "unfair for straight people to give jobs to gay people", even though the whole point of that system is to correct the injustice of straight people being over-represented.
If gay people are already represented correctly in positions of power, that is great. If they aren't, we need to fix that. But you'd have a problem with that notion, wouldn't you?

 

[poshflamingos]

That's not how statistics work so no, that's not what you'd expect. Men and women are different. Black and non-black cultures are different. Trans people are different again (and are also definitely not 1%, more like 0.1%). People aren't just interchangeable.

Sure, they are different. I'm not claiming every culture is perfectly equal.
But are you somehow under the impression that only white men want positions of power, and only white men deserve them? Are you under the impression that women and minorities are under-represented in positions of power simply because they don't care about power and money? Do you think women, black people and the LGBT community is simply not interested in having political representation, that's why they aren't in political positions?

You DEI people also always gloss over the fact that most white men work regular jobs. Many work shitty jobs or are jobless. I'm sure white men are also "overrepresented" in garbage collection, sewage treatment, and oil drilling platform workers... yet never a peep from you DEI people about forcing 50% female "representation" in anything but the high-profile, high paying or comfortable jobs.

Like I repeated multiple times, this isn't about regular jobs, this is about positions of power. Nobody is complaining about the lack of men in nursing, psychology, veterinary, entry-level health services, or childhood education either.
What matters is positions of power, because it's the money and influence from those positions that can affect society as a whole, and those are teh positions that white men have dominated in detriment of other groups.

 

[lonetac]

How about all of it? First of all it's "Equity" not "Equality". I definitely oppose equity (= equal outcomes instead of equal opportunities/equal treatment) and I strongly oppose government mandated- , forced diversity (really, anti-white and anti asian discrimination), equity and so-called "inclusion" which in practice is just exclusion and censorship based on political beliefs.

Just because something sounds nice, doesn't mean it is nice.
The doctrine of "equity" is at the core of the communist horrors of the 20th century. It's about as un-American as you can get.

see, you still dont know what DEI is and you oppose it. Try rereading this thread and what I stated originally so you can stop repeating the same Fox news headline that is perverting the meaning. Think beyond your preconceived bias of "race" being forced into positions. It demonstrates you still dont know what you are talking about.

Cmon man, have an ounce of integrity.

 

[lonetac]

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.

That isnt DEI, thats what Trump and Fox tell you DEI is.

But its not.

 

[Ohnooze]

Young men are incentivised to pursue high paying STEM careers, young women aren't.

How's that?

The few women that do end up going to STEM regardless find a field dominated by men and hostile against them

I think this is largely untrue. I've been in the engineering field for almost 30 years and don't see this at all.

When applying for jobs, hiring managers (conciously or inconciously) favor white men over equally qualified women and minorities.

Yeah I can't say I agree with this. From what I see in engineering we have as many minorities as engineers and designers as we do white people and that's been pretty consistent between everywhere I have worked. It's interesting to read your view when my experience has largely been very different.
The chemical plat I worked at, at my last job was ran by a black woman and when she left a Vietnamese man took her spot. Under him was a black man and gay man. Under them was a straight white guy and under him a Mexican guy. These were everything from project managers to design leads. Now I understand that this is one place (Lubrizol in this instance) but this situation isn't unheard of and I think you're really making a bunch of blanket assumptions.

If gay people are already represented correctly in positions of power, that is great. If they aren't, we need to fix that. But you'd have a problem with that notion, wouldn't you?

I think it's all stupid. How do you do this....put out an ad asking for only gay people to apply? I mean this is just over the top ridiculous stuff.
How about we stop trying to micromanage society and force stupid quotas into everything?
People who are good at their jobs stand out regardless of identity.

 

[sreams]

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.

You missed my point. DEI may be called "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion"... but it isn't that. So I don't support it.

 

[jeffbert]

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.

I think you mistook 'equality' for 'equity'; in DEI the 'E' is for 'equity', which literally means, as they use it, obtaining the same outcome, though not starting at the same point.

It is not about ramps for wheelchairs!

They want people who are not 10s to have the same chances at being hired for the most demanding jobs. In other words, jobs for which such DEI people are not qualified. We ought to want the best qualified, rather than a workforce of X% these guys because the population itself is composed of X% these guys.

We live in the real world, & sometimes, things do not work out that way. Asians generally are top qualified; why? because their culture values education. White males because there are so many of them; white females not so much, because many are mothers, & that is more than a full time job.

I am crippled, & really know what it is like being rejected. I could not hide my condition if life depended on it. When I started working, I benefitted from a tax incentive for the business to hire me. I was technically qualified, but it was known that employers might hesitate to hire the 'handicapped' for whatever reason. Not the same thing as DEI.

What was the deal with the Air Traffic Controllers? They had turned away perfectly qualified applicants simply because they thought that more people of diverse groups ought to have these VERY IMPORTANT jobs. The result was that the tower was manned by fewer than the minimum needed for safe operation. Why, because they could not find enough DEI applicants. Result: dead people!