Remix.run Logo
gsinclair 4 hours ago

I think you need to make a case for DEI being “one of the industry’s greatest strengths”. It’s not obvious to me.

threecheese 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s easy to make an objective case for how ‘D’ is a strength, however E and I are imo more values which intend to attract diversity.

thin_carapace 2 hours ago | parent [-]

there do exist objective arguments for the pursuit of diversity. there do also exist objective arguments otherwise.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12641

heres an article that discusses how inflated diversity could possibly be a cause of social tension. the article's abstract concludes with a shrug ('too many factors!') but it does provide links to research papers arguing both for and against this case.

on the surface it seems pretty clear to me. behaviour is encoded in genetics. if one were surrounded by the same group for a few thousand years, they would share a common base of encodings, therefore social behaviours could be assumed to a higher degree. reference behavioural encodings drastically diverge across cultures (as embodied by religious value sets, or at a different meta level, the idea of low trust vs. high trust societies). based on this drastic divergence, predictions made about one's neighbour scale downwards in accuracy relative to increased cultural diversity.

so i see that jacking up societal entropy leads to lowered societal cohesion. but thats just my stance and id love to hear yours.

crote 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How well would the tech industry do if they fired all the autistic people for "not being team players"? How many dev teams are there without at least one furry, trans person, or socially awkward geek?

ecshafer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> How many dev teams are there without at least one furry, trans person

Very weird to include social awkward geek in there. But my guess would be like 99% of dev teams do not have a trans or furry.

servo_sausage 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are imagining that the opposite of DEI is discrimination, whereas most see the opposite of DEI as merit.

mullingitover 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The irony is that DEI promotes merit by forcing companies to justify hiring beyond basic “cultural fit” vibes.

I’ve been in the business and seen a ton of hires on vibes. DEI actually asked people to expand the talent search, not hire anyone unqualified (which is what the anti-DEI folks are desperate to have us believe it did).

I predict some major EEO lawsuits will eventually bring the pendulum back in the other direction because my sense is that the return to vibes hiring (and RIF-ing) is resulting in very actionable discrimination cases.

semiquaver 3 hours ago | parent [-]

  > my sense is that the return to vibes hiring (and RIF-ing) is resulting in very actionable discrimination cases.
Your sense? Based on what?
mullingitover 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The enthusiasm for disparaging DEI combined with a lack of articulation of how they plan to quantify 'qualifications' in a non-biased manner. My sense is that they don't plan to do this at all, they don't have a plan, and they are going to blunder into patterns of discriminatory practices that DEI frameworks were protecting them against.

semiquaver 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Who is “they?” All employers?

With respect, it seems like the hiring managers you were complaining about above weren’t the only ones operating mostly on vibes.

noitpmeder 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you're not a team player I'd expect you to be on the chopping block regardless of underlying race, mental, culture, ...

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s not like we have a term like “individual contributor” or anything in the industry.

I’ve worked with several excellent “just leave me alone” sysadmin types.

paranoidrobot 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It’s not like we have a term like “individual contributor” or anything in the industry.

Perhaps I'm missing something here.

To me "individual contributor" means anyone who is NOT: A (technical) "Lead", "Chief", "Architect", or (possibly) "Staff" anything, and has no management or team-leader responsibilities.

Terr_ 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, it doesn't mean a 1-person-team, it means your job doesn't include supervising someone else.

sgarland 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Alas, I’ve learned that while everyone wants to hire them to fix their hideously fucked systems, they really don’t enjoy being told that their systems are, in fact, hideously fucked. They’d much prefer you quietly put out fires while biting your tongue about how they aren’t actually fixing any root causes.

noitpmeder 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not saying there can't be very clear counter examples, I guess the overall sense though is that "being a team player' is generally considered an attractive quality in any employee. If A is a team player and B isn't, and they're otherwise equivalent, you're probably going to take/keep A.

It's not like (most) hiring managers put "not a team player" in the pro column.

crote 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem is that people are being cut for not being perceived as a team player, because they don't exactly fit the narrow perspective avoided by the dominant social culture. That doesn't mean they aren't team players.

For example: someone not always looking into your eyes while talking can be perceived as "rude". Same for wearing noise-canceling headphones in a talk-heavy environment. Oh, you don't drink alcohol during the "optional" Friday-afternoon company mixer? That's just weird. Want to have a day off for Eid rather than Christmas? Wellll, you did ask for it six months in advance and we did approve it already, buuuuut Dave planned a last-minute meeting which conflicts with the mandatory team meeting, so we moved the mandatory team meeting onto your day off... We'll just pay the hours you spent doing first-line support during Christmas in cash, okay?

tayo42 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Socially awkward geek isn't dei

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Including them is.

sophrosyne42 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not if they are straight and white, which is a disproportionate amount of socially awkward geeks

throwawaypath 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Only if they're politically aligned and don't question the narrative.

gopperl 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

bmarnane 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If your product is used bya cross-section of society, then having a cross-section of society build it should lead to a better product no?

noitpmeder 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If a qualification for the role is "appreciation for certain less represented cultures/ideas/..." then sure. Otherwise, for a backend c++ engineer the benefits are significantly less obvious, to the point it's really hard to make a case for why DEI concerns should trump traditional evaluation metrics for skill.

The goal should be to hire the best team for the use case, regardless of gender/race/culture/background.

vineyardmike 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> why DEI concerns should trump traditional evaluation metrics for skill

It was never trumping skill. This is just a willful rewrite of history perpetuated for some political goal.

The goal was always to ensure that skill had adequate opportunity to be displayed without bias.

32 minutes ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
crote 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Appreciation isn't always enough, lived experience provides a lot of value as well.

See all the Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names/Addresses/Birthdays/Phone Numbers/Time Zones/etc, for example. Do you want a backend engineer who designs a 64-character ascii text field for legal name and have everyone nod in agreement, or would you rather have one who knows that it isn't going to work for their cousin "Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso"?

> it's really hard to make a case for why DEI concerns should trump traditional evaluation metrics for skill

It doesn't. The goal of DEI has always been to attract a diversity of perspectives, all else being equal. Nobody ever proposed choosing a woefully unqualified diverse candidate over an obviously-qualified Generic White Guy. The only people who would oppose that would be the unqualified Generic White Guy who just happens to be the nephew of the CEO's golf buddy.

CaptainNegative 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't know why someone with a cousin named Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso is that much of a better hire than someone named Jón Bergþóruson, 王小明, Sukarno (with no surname), גִּדְעוֹן בֶּן־גּוּרְיוֹן , or Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. None of whom would classically qualify as diversity hires.

Hiring someone in the off chance that their ethnicity gives them some unique critical unknown unknown that will pop up half a decade down the line resides in the same mental space as a programmer writing `if (5 == i)` in case a future programmer accidentally deletes an =. It's just speculative defensiveness whose efficacy is simply not well established by actual research. And, in my view, just works to confound actual signals that, evidently, gitlab and other employers feel get unfairly overshadowed when emphasizing explicitly pro-diversity hiring policies.

dangus 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

McKinsey has studied this extensively had has repeatedly found that diversity is financially beneficial to companies. They've had at least 4 reports on the subject.

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...

Landing page:

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...

It's obvious why this is the case if you sit down and think about it. Echo chambers of like-minded individuals can't understand customers as well as a workforce of people who represent the diversity of those customers.

This isn't just diversity of race or gender, it's also diversity of thought and background.

Also critical and under-emphasized: the E and I in DEI, equity and inclusion. Power distance and lack of inclusion can railroad companies into giving the people with the most power the most influence on decisions, rather than giving the best ideas a chance to breathe.

In business a classic example might be "men designing women's clothing." How are you going to understand your customers if none of your employees and leadership resemble those customers? Perhaps you can figure it out and make some decent products but your competitor who has more diversity in their workforce is likely to outperform you, which is exactly what McKinsey's studies have demonstrated.

I will also point out that the only reason anyone started questioning this obviously true business concept and changing opinions into being against DEI is because the Republican Party's strategists figured out that they could appropriate and leverage the term "DEI" and attach it to the latent reactionary racism that much of the US still holds dear.

You can get away with saying "I don't like DEI" in public but if you say "I don't like black people" or "I don't think women should get hired for important roles" [1] that is obviously not acceptable, even though a large percentage of Americans feel that way. Right wing media twisted a largely innocent term into a useful dogwhistle.

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X251369844

Squarex an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Not to agree or disagree, but the McKinsey has been heavily criticised as bogus. For example https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1296/GreenHandMar2024.p....

blululu 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Those McKinsey/HBR studies are trash. They privilege the hypothesis, overlook the obvious ecological fallacy at play and add in a bit of a sampling bias for good measure. The fact that East Asian Economies are all booming and exporting globally with ~0 diversity and unique cultures ought to refute this notion. I'm sure there is some no true scotsman line you can play here about how the true meaning of DEI, and I would agree that the stated goals of DEI are all laudable. But in practice these initiatives often amounted to unprincipled discrimination and venal power grabs, which is why they are so widely despised.