I don’t think they were expressing concern, just the fact.

I read it as a damning indictment against anti-“DEI” fanatics that they’re on the wrong side of history when they push the envelope too far in the direction of “merit-based hiring”, as if DEI was something relatively-recently concocted.

Laughably, in the days before “DEI”, “merit-based hiring” usually equated to “good old boys club”. Based on the industries in which I’ve been involved, it’s still very much “good old boys club”, despite best efforts for DEI to try to make things more merit-based.

Huh? Someone saying something is a DEI concern does not mean they find it concerning.

Because it undermines claims of equality? Make conferences for everyone, men and women.

And actually, don't give gold stars to people just for being women (as in, would the same person as a man receive even half the attention), this is the worst way to belittle actual achievements coming from them.

He doesnt sounds like that at all. Whatever is left of your brain, get it checked.

(Legally as in, using the legal system)

DOJ sued Deloitte over DEI programs, they ended up settling for $21.5 million: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/deloitte-pay-215-mi...

Texas Attorney General declared DEI initiatives unconstitutional in a legal opinion: https://www.gibsondunn.com/texas-attorney-general-declares-p...

Several state Attorneys General sent legal threats to 20 major law firms over DEI: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-states-deman...

Texas Attorney General warned major banks that DEI programs violate feduciary duty: https://today.westlaw.com/Document/Ibce2fdc5dcec11efb708bbad...

Don't know about corporates, but Harvard was sued[0] for DEI-esque discrimination.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...

There's a case going through the courts for Red Hat right now where they based managerial bonuses on how diverse their teams were, which reportedly led to them pushing out white males.

Such should rightfully be illegal.

Every statement from company officials such as "we only employ women" or "toxic males", can be used as evidence at court. It is very difficult to prove bias from vague sanitized corporate language, direct "activist" statements make proving such bias very easy. For example recent lawsuit with IBM!

Mainly because the people in power believe they'll be able to replace us all any day now.

>It's a shame that events like this are affected, but I can't help but be glad that this ended...

I suppose you'll leave it up to the reader to determine what it's been replaced with instead. Things like this perhaps? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/white-house-says-us-amb...

As a matter of fact non-white, non-male individuals are disadvantaged in many societies. The consequences of improving the equality of opportunities may sometimes feel like disadvantage to groups that received preferential treatment before. The goal needs to be a levelled playing field for everyone, not denying inequality and punishing those who point out and strive to improve those social injustices.

The federal government has cancelled funding for a ton of genuinely useful scientific research because "o noes not the DEI monster". (Not to mention just putting the word "diversity" in your proposal has been grounds for rejection, even if it you're talking about, say "wifi antenna diversity".)

But sure, I'm glad now you can say whatever you want in your code comments. Seems like a good trade. /s

Reducing funding for something sometimes harmful, which then correspondingly means the funding is not passed on to others, is not the Holocaust.

The utter degrading of the meanings of powerful words might get us there, though.

The same administration who, just yesterday hired a new press secretary who was very obviously not hired for qualifications but instead for being a blonde.

> Why else do you think the "implosions"

Namely by going too far and breaking the law by becoming discriminatory? So now companies are not going to touch DEI.

DEI killed DEI, not Trump.

Many DEI programs were highly discriminatory if not outright racist towards certain minorities that were seen as less worthy. Asians and Jewish individuals were often heavily discriminated against via DEI initiatives. The list goes on.

These programs were, in theory, well intentioned but to suggest they did nothing wrong is simply factually incorrect.

Racism

I should be the last one to defend the existing system.

But IMHO DEI answers the wrong question.

Worthwhile lives does not come from equal access to the hamster wheel.

I am much more pro UBI structures og negative taxation - which are inherently difficult to make descriminatory as there is no personal judgement of the people to receive it.

You probably don't actually want corporations that do intrinsically care about being able to violate federal civil rights and anti-discrimination law, and are willing to lose money and give up influence in order to keep doing so.