cross-posted from: https://yall.theatl.social/post/3229309

From the Atlanta Daily World:

In a surprising yet increasingly common move, Microsoft has quietly dismantled its team dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).  The decision, communicated via email to the affected employees on July 1, cited “changing business needs” as the reason for the layoffs. While the exact number of employees impacted remains unclear, the team’s lead didn’t … Continued

The post Microsoft Says Bye-Bye DEI, Joins Growing List Of Corporations Dismantling Diversity Teams appeared first on Atlanta Daily World.

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Companies are stopping because the orange clown supreme court ruled that racists, sexists and bigots could sue companies for not allowing them to hate.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      Okay… I’ll bite… So what’s wrong with your weird genitalia that makes you like you?

      • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m the one that’s nothing wrong with. Diversity teams were always a waste of time and resources and hiring based on race, gender or disability will always lead to a worse work force than hiring based on skill.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          We don’t live in a perfect meritocracy where people are judged solely in grounds of their skills, we live in a society that is already prejudiced where a lot of minorities don’t get the chance to prove themselves. There’s studies proving how young white men are favored over any other demographics even when other people have equal or better resumes.

          • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            2 months ago

            That might well be true, but businesses not hiring based on skill shoot themselves in the foot. Call out favouritism and discrimination when you see it, but DEI teams don’t do anyone any favours.

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              However logical it may or may not be, it’s a reality. Just yesterday we got a stark reminder of how pervasive poor decisions are.

              Also, simply “calling out” your boss and HR for making poor decisions is more likely to put them against you than to fix anything.

              Frankly feels like this anti-DEI wave is more politically motivated than a matter of results.

              • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I couldn’t, because I’m not american. They should have enough land to live by their own culture though, otherwise it will go extinct eventually.

            • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              People tend to hire people that they like. You don’t really know who is best for a job unless you’ve hired multiple people and they have been working for a while.

              Having employees who happen to have the same background as hiring managers is not the same as having the best employees, but that’s what we have.

              If you’d had DEI training you’d know this. 😉

        • vithigar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Bad news. They usually don’t hire based on relevant skills either. The skills required to create an appealing resume and do well in a job interview very rarely have anything to do with the skills required for the actual job.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I’m sure it can be, but at least at our company, it was pretty rad. Basically, we had a series of company lunches where you’d sit at a table with people different from you, a speaker would talk about how being different impacts them, and then you’d discuss things at the table after the meal.

      I got to know people and saw things from a different perspective. None of it was mandatory, but we had a great turnout.

      We didn’t have anything like hiring quotas or any of that nonsense, just a series of optional company meetings with one mandatory training session a as a kickoff that focused on psychological safety with DEI as flavor. We also had some employee-led “diversity groups,” but I don’t think anyone actually went to them.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        we had a series of company lunches where you’d sit at a table with people different from you

        Believe or not, most people don’t want to waste anymore of their time a work then necessary. So unless your work load is light enough to where you don’t care about wasting 1 hour like that, I don’t get it.

        We are only doing this circle jerk because boomers are bigots and sex pests. I don’t need this bullshit “training” They can stop being bigots and stop harassing women for sex at work!!! Wouldn’t that solve the issue, no grifters needed, management is enough as is.

        What I need is more time to spend with family.

        Like guy above said, it aint like executives buy into it, it does not change anything besides them getting good PR off wasting MY TIME.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          So unless your work load is light enough to where you don’t care about wasting 1 hour like that, I don’t get it.

          Exactly. At my company, the only people with the time to participate in DEI are those who have such little workload they need something like this to justify their job.

  • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    2 months ago

    DEI is like Agile. There’s a right way and a wrong way to do it.

    The wrong way is profitable for consultants and easy for the company, so that is what gets implemented in most cases.

    The right way requires actual buy-in from C-staff down and needs constant work and adjustment to the specific company. There is no one size fits all solution. More work, less money. Very few companies do this.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      Eh that’s the thing. The wrong way isn’t even profitable. Maybe a minor bump in hiring ability and branding, but ultimately not worth the headache.

  • xenomor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Anything that corporations do, that isn’t directly oriented toward revenue generation, is window dressing, marketing, and bullshit. They don’t actually care about addressing social ailments like inequity, they don’t care about environmental destruction. While individuals within these organizations may believe in these causes, the machine itself is just lying when they parade these initiatives out. They don’t care about their workforce (beyond maintaining functionality), and they certainly don’t care about their society. If these corporations were people, they’d be considered sociopaths, with ZERO exceptions.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I used to be that cynical. But I’ve seen some good things in large orgs. I’m slightly less cynical now.

      • xenomor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Just to clarify what I said: I know that there are good people working in these corporations, and I know that good sometimes happens. What I am saying is that the organization itself doesn’t care the way they are often given credit for by their own marketing, media coverage, and public perception. The incentives that are foundational to these organizations are antithetical to achieving anything beyond revenue that is either widespread or long-term in nature. I am all in favor of holding corporations accountable, and pressuring them to be better members of our society, but people should never fool themselves into thinking that meaningful, sustainable change on social or environmental issues will ever result from actions taken by corporations. Those kinds of changes can only come from governments that are open and accountable to their people, and have the confidence to check the actions of private industry.

        • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No I hear you, and largely agree - but I do think corporations can choose to do good things and they can also - actually do good things. Sometimes they’re unrelated, sometimes it really is as simple as, say, choosing less packaging and thereby creating less waste. Or, whatever.

          In the case of DEI, I’m guessing (in the case of the companies listed in the article) they adopted the hype without having a plan other than a basic number, i.e. 20% of VP positions will be held by people representing minority groups or whatever their metric was - and the fact is it can’t be tacked-on to hiring, it’s got to be baked into things; a truly successful DEI initiative wouldn’t need DEI, is one way to look at it.

          I definitely think DEI initiatives serve a useful purpose that shouldn’t be needed. But it is. How a company deals with diversity could differ, some don’t need to because they’re already doing it; some are run by trumpublican assholes who don’t care. It’s a rich tapestry 😄

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is the first time I hear about DEI. I see and understand the acronym as something I should search on a popular search engine that is not the one that starts with a g. As such, I’ve been working for 30 years and I’m perplexed by something I have no clue about which might possibly apply to me as a LGBTQA minority person. But first things first, let’s all go figure out what this acronym means.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Honestly I haven’t heard any good news about Microsoft in like 10 years. They just keep making awful decisions.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s like 25 for me. How to half-ass your way atop other’s work to monopolize a new economy.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Goes back way further, almost all the way to the beginning. Seattle Computer Products’ QDOS was bought and rebranded as MS-DOS. They never had any original ideas of their own. Always a day late and a dollar short, and when they finally get around to it, it’s with someone else’s shit they acquired or ripped off.

        • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          Au contraire. Their original idea was to close-source code and “license” the software which was a brilliantly evil way to cripple innovation and enforce broken mediocrity.

          • catloaf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            And they embraced, extended, and extinguished their way to the #1 PC OS.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 months ago

      Microsoft is usually a very big player when it comes enabling disabled people to do things they normally couldnt (e. g hands free keyboards, alternative game controllers.) VS Code is also one of the most popular code editors on the market.

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is part of Leonard Leo’s plan to re-mccarthy-ize US society and purge anyone left of fascist, same way he orchestrated the right wing take over of our courts.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nah. DEI just made for good press. Now that is over so are Dei initiatives. Just like that they would burn baby seals alive in an incenerator if it would increase profitability. Line must go up.

      Also the DEI officers can be a liability too. If they get too uppity and don’t get their way, they could choose the digital town square to air their grievances. And that’s bad press and makes line go down.

      • Copernican@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah. I never understood why DEI required a discreet team. It seems like it should just be a function, commitment, and initiative of HR.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I kinda do. It requires a DEI first way of thinking. And HR is company first, avoid lawsuits. And if you want to change culture and way of thinking that is engrained, you need to put in a lot of effort. It does not matter which entrenched thing you want to change… It takes work.

          Too bad the people that say they want to do this choose the battering ram approach mostly and that just causes people to dig in deeper. It’s politics.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    55
    ·
    2 months ago

    Kinda glad, as a gamer I’m tired of DEI telling me I can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it.

    I’m all for more diversity and inclusion, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it, how DEI was being used in the gaming industry was definitely the wrong way.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not trying to make a “did you assume my gender?!” joke, but uh, you actually did assume their gender incorrectly. Which I find a bit ironic.

        • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Hey, hey, hold on. I looked at their comment history, I don’t think that necessarily.

          I mean, it’s possible, but I’m trying to be charitable here.

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Why would we give someone the benefit of the doubt when we could instead label them as an enemy and then feel no remorse when we assume all their traits are negative? /s

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Remasters that remove characters or stages because they’re “problematic content”, redesigns of familiar characters that remove their sex appeal because feminity in and of itself is somehow misogynistic (seriously I’m a lady just wants to play a beautiful woman in my escapist fantasies, ya know cause it’s MY fantasy and we all wanna be more attractive?), risque humor no longer being allowed, localizations that remove or change dialogue seen as sexist (Even if it’s villain dialogue, or done to show that a specific character has flaws that include outdated views), the terms “Male and Female” are now “Body Type A” and “Body Type B” (Look I’m trans, non-binary identity is more common, I get it… but… this feels more patronizing than inclusive…)

        Lots of shit like that… and as a gamer it is quite frankly embarrassing. Games are a form of art, and we should not apologize for art.

        Btw, I know the Body Type A/B thing sounds pedantic, but it really just feels like trying too hard yet not hard enough… If it’s really too offensive to just have a drop down menu that says “MALE or FEMALE” in current year, just have a character creator that lets me pick masculine/feminine/androgynous traits from menus and ask for my pronouns at the end. That’d be a much better solution (and was fucking awesome when Cyberpunk 2077 did it)

        A lot of games are very lazy and have two body types, an overly masculine buff guy (A) and a curvaceous lady (B), then ask if you want to be referred to as “He, She, or They”, while I understand They (Non-Binary individuals exist), can someone tell me who the fuck outside of a Right Wing troll trying (and failing) to be funny is going to pick the buff guy + the “she/her” pronouns?

        It’s just one of those situations where I just wanna say “Your attempt at inclusion is so poor, I’d rather you just call me a slur at this point.”

        • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Every single thing you’re complaining about was implemented by game devs themselves, none were mandated by any DEI program. You say that you believe art has value and shouldn’t apologize for itself - and yet when you see the art current creators are making you recoil from it and say that it needs to be changed. You are exactly what you are accusing others of being.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I had heard they were DEI mandates, if they weren’t then I am mistaken and apologize. But as far as I’m aware, this was mandated.

            So if you have proof it was a decision of the devs themselves, I’d love to see it.

        • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Um. I think there are some kinds we should apologize for. I’m sure you could imagine the kind of hypothetical challenge I might put forward.

          But that said, it sounds like your concern is more about that sort of rainbow capitalism / design by committee flavor that would balk at, say, Bayonetta. I get that.

          It reminds me of a story that… was it Contrapoints? told about how progressive people will sometimes do this thing where they’ve clocked you as probably trans or something, and they want to ask your pronouns, but they’ll do it by having everyone sit down in a circle and share theirs one at a time, which makes the whole thing very strange because everybody is staring and waiting for your turn to go.

          Less conscientious people will be like “she looks like a woman… I’ll go with she.” They can guess wrong, of course, but the casualness of it can also be really freeing in its own way.

          A thing I’m not sure about, though: while some of the ideas put forward by these well-meaning but oblivious people might be kind of cringe, I don’t know that they haven’t affected anything positive. Rainbow Six Siege sells the shit out of its diversity characters to an almost distracting degree, but still, I think it’s kind of nice.

          So, I guess my hope is not that DEI committees get disbanded, that seems kind of bad, but that the right people get involved in them. Hold back the busybodies when they get too sex-repressed, maybe.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            God that brings my blood to a boil, I sadly have seen plenty of neo-liberal nonsense, it doesn’t do people like me favors, it just radicalizes people into thinking my existence is a “distraction”

            Fuck Rainbow Capitalism

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      What you’re complaining about sounds like the symptom of the lack of a DEI team where companies just apply diversity bandaids instead of hiring professionals.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Honestly these “Diversity Bandaids” seem to be more common when DEI is applied than not, it really feels more like a pro-censorship initiative more than actually trying to elevate women and minorities in the workplace.

        • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’ve worked with DEI. What you’re describing is poor DEI. But yes, it’s unfortunately common specially in large corporations.

    • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s not really the fault of DEI, although I share your feelings on the matter. I feel like corporate media has just become a smooth, grey blob of whatever is determined to appeal to the widest audience of people.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        it is not an insult that you think it is… just another group of people getting fucked by the owner class lol

        i am sorry that some boomer white cuck hurt you tho

        • kevindqc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          lol it’s not an insult, I match most of those myself, it’s just that it’s usually the privileged people who see equity as useless.

          This quote comes to mind: when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

          • sunzu@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You are implying a lot here and clearly don’t understand how DEI was implemented by corporations if you think you are getting “equity” lol

            Learn to spot corporate propaganda.

  • daniyeg@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    191
    ·
    2 months ago

    companies experimented with appearing more “socially conscious”, waited for a bit, saw it didn’t generate any extra revenue for them, then axed it to appear more profitable.

    capital has gotten really dumb, and if you think any one of these really gave a shit about diversity, you might be dumber.

    • Jin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 months ago

      Good example is doing pride month, where companies changes their profile picture and so on. They have branches around the world, and some won’t do anything, like the middle east. Money talks and companies doesn’t give a damn.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think there’s that and there’s also the growing cancel culture of the right. They’re boycotting anything and everything that even smells of equity/diversity. Repugnicans have proved that they can affect businesses and will do so with their army of right wing media viewers so it makes sense that corporations would cater to them.

      The left has their grassroots movements, but there is no major media outlet that convinces others to join in on the boycotts. They might report it’s happening, but they don’t go all Sean Hannity with some version of “they’re taking your job prospects and giving it to some undeserving lazy _____ person because they’re the real racists and they hate you!”

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        It doesn’t help when things are constructed around DEI as the main design principle rather than being actually inclusive. It seeped into nerd culture and struck out in a massive way.

        Look at The Acolyte. It’s genuine shit story, the writing was bad, the actors were one-dimensional, and it took the lore in a direction that made no sense. Star Wars stories have been bad to the same degree, but now people get to grab ahold of DEI and blame it for everything else wrong with the show.

        • mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’ve always thought that trying to address DEI from the top-down is never the right way to do it. This include college admissions. All it actually does is promote unfairness and a non-meritocracy. It takes many years of training to learn the skills needed for certain jobs. Hiring someone because of their skin color instead of their qualifications can actually hurt the bottom line (and top line) and just leads to more resentment. And it also really cheapens and damages the reputation of the minorities who actually worked and earned their way to their spot. Had a super smart Nigerian friend who is a medical doctor who finished very high up in rankings in medical school. But because of DEI policies, people will always wonder if he got to his place because of “quotas”.

          • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            You can’t do it from the bottom up because you just get racists who won’t hire people, like the black guy recently who changed his name on job applications and started getting interviews. I’ve seen that happen with friends, too.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        This is kind of the thing.

        Having DEI committees is now one of several symbols of the political ideologies of a company and its “senior leadership”.

        For both sides, I think a lot of people (or at least those that have the privilege of choosing where they work) do not want to work for a company that directly conflicts with their political leanings.

        A far left worker who sees their employer axing their DEI programs could see that as a symbol that the company is swinging hard to the right, and may adapt more conservative practices that may effect them directly. See: Hobby Lobby trying to block their health insurance from covering birth control.

        Likewise, a far right worker who sees their employer adopting a leftist program like DEI might start to get concerned that their employer may also start swinging more to the left and adopt progressive practices that might impact them directly. Like paying them a living wage, providing all the PPE they could ever need, or hiring a queer person.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          …that might impact them directly. Like paying them a living wage, providing all the PPE they could ever need, or hiring a queer person.

          Grosssssssss! Ughhh how dare they force their liberal living wage on me!? They’re trying to make me transgender with all that free PPE!