HN Explorer

Do we need dei in tech?

13 points by acidpanda ↗ HN
Looking for civil discourse only. Paul Graham tweeted the other day about Brian Armstrong being "ahead of his time" in response to Google and Meta slashing DEI-related jobs, and today said "Prediction: Wokeness will recede significantly in 2024.. I think wokeness actually peaked in 2020 or 2021 and has been slowly contracting since then..."

As a Black American, and a founder, I find it concerning that people are still thinking DEI, affirmative action, and "wokeness" are politically correct agendas (especially since we are now in a U.S. Election year). I believe that DEI is necessary to facilitate diversity in perspective in helping build great technology. "Wokeness" is becoming a derogatory term to promote willful ignorance (the opposite of "woke" is "sleep.") What do y'all think?

22 comments

[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 73.4 ms ] thread
haltist
If you are correct then DEI companies will be more profitable than those without because that's how capitalism works. Whatever makes the most money is the market winner. If being woke is more profitable then most companies will be woke.
acidpanda
Disney apparently seems to be pretty "woke" nowadays and they're still around
haltist
What was their latest production you paid money to see?
acidpanda
my Hulu subscription
symmetrist
That's nice. I hope you got good value out of it and their woke programming.
acidpanda
I actually have lol - I need to watch The Creator tho, I'll get around to it this weekend. Distributed by 20th Century Fox, now owned by Disney.

Not saying I'm a fan of the way in which they acquire up a lot of things but they do have good programming.

haltist
I did not know that 20th Century Fox was woke but since they are owned by Disney I'm sure they have the required number of diversity hires on their board of directors and studio executive teams. This would logically follow from their DEI policies.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
tuatoru
DEI policies force employers to look at all potential employees as members of ethnicity- and gender-based categories. Some people object to the racism and sexism inherent in this forced ontology and don't see how it fits with meritocracy. Me, for one.

On a meta level, attempting to control what and how people think (not just what they do) is totalitarian, and I want no part of such a society. Too much of actually-implemented DEI stuff comes across as attempting to control what we think, not just what we do.

Another result of DEI as implemented is that DEI is just another set of power levers that is used to maintain and reinforce existing power structures. People from the Ivies are making up the DEI jargon and rituals, and gatekeeping (continued) employment using facility with these as one of their tools of control.

hindsightbias
Perhaps wait a bit until we see the response to meritocratic Asian representation at Ivies and FAANGs. WASPs should be careful for what they wish for.

Will never fail to amaze me the folks who don’t grok they are part of the fuzzy algorithm.

monsecchris
If DEI created better outcomes we would see basketball teams ditching a few black players for weaker individual players of other skin colours.
acidpanda
I don't think it's about a Darwinism philosophy. I do think there are some players stereotyped out of the NBA or NCAA, based on a recruiter's perception of what said player can do and the opportunities given to said player. It's pretty undeniable what a player with great skill and commitment can do with a good team. So maybe the focus should be on giving better chances.
k310
“Woke”is a codeword. Try not to use it, or others.

Bottom line, one cannot build a company consisting of a monoculture, and a healthy company respects all its employees.

Monocultures, especially in leadership groups have similar life experiences, reflected in unresponsive products, and unresponsiveness to employees who don't.

Nextgrid
DEI and "wokeness" was popular back when most of tech was unprofitable advertising-funded ("growth & engagement") garbage which which is extremely risk-averse and vulnerable to public opinion, thus copious amounts of virtue signalling were needed and DEI filled that niche. These companies were more akin to playgrounds than actual for-profit enterprises.

That era is over - the majority of unprofitable companies have been purged, what remains makes actual money and is much less exposed to public opinion. Therefore, not only is there much less need to virtue-signal, but said virtue signalling and people behind it is now a major expense deemed unnecessary in what is now a for-profit company whose primary objective is to make profit (and not be a playground). Thus, "DEI" people get the boot.

Is this to say some of the concepts behind DEI are bad or unnecessary? No, but you don'y need "DEI" for that, you just need a competent HR department. It should be HR's job to deal with cases of racism, discrimination or noxious unprofessional conduct.

acidpanda
I do believe that the advertising-funded models definitely are not to be depended on, and social media has suffered a lot because of that. I also think that the enforcement of that responsibility does fall in HR, but maybe DEI is also needed for that. Some of the time you're dealing with civil rights cases and other times you're seeking out diverse, non-traditional candidates to add to your company's perspective. It doesn't even have to be race-specific it could also be class-specific.
eurekin
I think, if you're competent that's all that matters
mattigames
But what if your parents and their parents (and so for) have been systematically oppresed by the goverment and by private companies to put you in a position where becoming competent is way harder than it is for your peers? I know this argument can have reasonable criticisms and that they are many variables at play, but just saying "if you are competent that's all that matters" its just extremely reductionist.
eurekin
I'd just do the best I could in that situation
mattigames
Sometimes their best it's not good enough to succeed, sometimes society has extend their hand to help them get out of their ugly situation, the situation that previous generations put them in; this of community-focused approach to society issues it's why homelessness in Japan is 0.2 per 10000 habitants vs 17 in the USA.
eurekin
I have family in Japan, it's complicated. Extending hand is OK, forcing others to comply is not
mattigames
Yeah, in countries where they teach empathy in schools they don't need to force any of this, the vast majority understands from a young age that is the right thing, in countries like the US they don't, that's why they end up worshipping people that represent the full opposite, people like Trump.

Somehow it's ok to force people to pay taxes and at the same time make holes on those laws so people like Bezos pay next to zero taxes, but making companies hire black people is just "too much forcing", your definition of what is acceptable forcing and what is not seems extremely biased.

eurekin
Force hirings? How's that any good? I'd rather be given a opportunity to learn and grow competencies so later, I'd apply as a valuable contributor.

Edit: I genuinely don't know what's the intended meaning and the way it should work. Is this universally applied, or only to specific jobs? If universally, would you be willing to have a surgical operation done on yourself by me, if I were forced hired as a surgeon? Similar for engineering jobs, where there is no quick way to being productive