> DEI is not redistribution. It's eliminating bias that favors the powerful groups, mostly white guys, that have benefitted - many unwittingly - from that bias for all of US history. If you want your job on merit, if you want a fair chance rather than a handout, you should favor DEI.
This runs directly contrary to my experience with DEI. I demoed setups for anonymized zoom interviews, and blinded resume review. HR didn't want any of it. Instead, we made exec's bonuses contingent on keeping the percentage of male employees in their org below a cap - exceed the cap, lose your bonus. The cap was lower than men's representation in the field.
If DEI was about promoting merit, it would be focused on making interviews more objective, and anonymizing as much of the hiring process as we can. In practice, it's the opposite: directly tying incentives to the demographics of the candidates and penalizing those who don't adhere to the desired ethnic and gender ratio.
Funny, whenever HN talks about how poor management is at managing software projects, we can recognize that doing management poorly is management's fault.
Yet whenever it's DEI, it's the fault of DEI for some manager being incompetent.
>HR didn't want any of it
Why would they? I've never seen an HR department that actually cared about outcomes. I've been in multiple companies that struggle to hire people because HR insists on being the one writing the requirements, and they blatantly fuck it up, like asking for multiple years experience in a brand new tool, or "requiring" a programming language fluency that we don't use.
Why is it DEIs fault that HR sucks at their job?
If we had this same standard for other ways HR sucks, we would have reverted to Waterfall design methods, and we would eliminate sexual harassment training since sometimes companies retaliate.
Meanwhile how quickly lots of companies are running from DEI shows they never really cared about it, and did not hire competent people to run it. Why is that DEI's fault?
Funny how this standard only applies to DEI
>it would be focused on making interviews more objective, and anonymizing as much of the hiring process as we can
It literally is in a shitload of companies. Why do you think you get to generalize from your singular experience?
I have not been at a single company that anonymizes its interview pipeline. Are there some examples of companies that do this?
I know Interviewing.io does, but they don't have the final say in hires. They just forwarded candidate to companies, which were under no obligation to maintain anonymity. Ironically Interviewing.io's anonymity is why Meta refused to work with them: https://interviewing.io/blog/i-love-meritocracy-but-all-the-...
This runs directly contrary to my experience with DEI. I demoed setups for anonymized zoom interviews, and blinded resume review. HR didn't want any of it. Instead, we made exec's bonuses contingent on keeping the percentage of male employees in their org below a cap - exceed the cap, lose your bonus. The cap was lower than men's representation in the field.
If DEI was about promoting merit, it would be focused on making interviews more objective, and anonymizing as much of the hiring process as we can. In practice, it's the opposite: directly tying incentives to the demographics of the candidates and penalizing those who don't adhere to the desired ethnic and gender ratio.