Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
by Manuel_D on Friday January 10, 2025 @09:16PM
(#42662688)
The DEI policies were effective, particularly the Diverse Slate Approach. But it's legally risky to continue with it under the current administration since it was a race and gender conscious policy. People can argue as to whether it was "discrimination" but it absolutely was conscious of candidate's protected class.
Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
by inemesitaffia on Saturday January 11, 2025 @09:10AM
(#42665977)
Did it note the particular ethnic group that's overrepresented in US Tech?
Unlikely
Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
by Manuel_D on Saturday January 11, 2025 @02:25PM
(#42668282)
The diverse slate Approach'd criteria depended on the role. Ther are some roles where Asians are underrepresented so they'd count in that role. For tech, they're not underrepresented so they don't count towards the DSA.
Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
by inemesitaffia on Monday January 13, 2025 @05:21AM
(#42681967)
Asians aren't overrepresented in US tech?
You haven't seen the numbers? And where's the men in HR?
Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
by Manuel_D on Monday January 13, 2025 @04:20PM
(#42689537)
Yes, Asians are overrepresented in tech. That's why the DSA is not fulfilled if an Asian male is part of the candidate slate for a tech role. The candidate slate needs either a woman or URM (underrepresented racial minority, AKA Black or Latin) in order to proceed.
If there's a different role where Asians are underrepresented, then an Asian candidate could fulfill the DSA requirement.
Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs
by inemesitaffia on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @01:00AM
(#42694205)
We'll I've never heard anyone complain about too many minorities in general at a firm.
Make of that what you will
That seems unnecessarily judgemental about the true effect of the program. Maybe it was really effective and made Meta more productive and also helped many people from historically underrepresented backgrounds people get good jobs, but they're falsely claiming it's ineffective because that's what they expect the current political leadership wants to hear?