Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook News

Meta Kills DEI Programs (axios.com) 172

Mark Zuckerberg's Meta is terminating major DEI programs, effective immediately -- including for hiring, training and picking suppliers. Axios: Meta said it was changing course because the "legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing," per a memo by Janelle Gale, vice president of human resources.

Meta Kills DEI Programs

Comments Filter:
  • by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:03PM (#65078453) Homepage

    I got modded "troll" for this before, but I'll say it again: Orange Man's dick is so far down Fuckerberg's throat it's making me gag.

    • ATM.

    • /This/ is what first came to mind?

      "Rent-free", bro. CBT can help.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sebby ( 238625 )

      I got modded "troll" for this before, but I'll say it again: Orange Man's dick is so far down Fuckerberg's throat it's making me gag.

      Funny, I thought it was the other way around: that Zuck's tongue was so far up Trump's ass that Zuck couldn't dictate any press releases anymore.

      • by Frank Burly ( 4247955 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:29PM (#65078567)
        It's the billionaires' version of the ouroboros. People believe that it will protect them from The Woke and bring back the 1950s America they remember hearing about in the 80s.
        • If 1950s' business laws were reapplied billionaires wouldn't exist. Back then antitrust had teeth, unions had power, and jobs were kept in country quite forcefully, and almost everything bigtech does routinelly was strictly forbidden.

          Interestingly, I don't hear Conservatives wanting to bring back those 1950s. I wonder why? /s

      • I got modded "troll" for this before, but I'll say it again: Orange Man's dick is so far down Fuckerberg's throat it's making me gag.

        Funny, I thought it was the other way around: that Zuck's tongue was so far up Trump's ass that Zuck couldn't dictate any press releases anymore.

        Could be both. Mark and Elon have proved to be very flexible, especially when they lean to the right. :-)

        (Maybe they're taking pilates?)

    • This is nothing to do with that. This is just your 3 yearly reminder that corporations are not doing anything for you, and instead virtue signalling to whichever government is currently running the show.

      • Corporations are not virtue signaling to the government nor should they be. They virtue signal to their customers. For government they just pay bribes in the form of campaign contributions and then get kickbacks in the form of tax incentives. The reality is that most people probably support most of the goals of DEI initiatives but few people support all of them. And the DEI programs aren't leading to increased bottom lines. There was a time when customers cared about these things. But the word is focused
    • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:28PM (#65078563)

      It probably just never made any business sense. Tell me, how does stuff like this improve any organization at all?

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]

    • by nucrash ( 549705 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:47PM (#65078661)

      I know people are pissed off how often fascism is brought up, but damn if this doesn't feel eerily familiar to nations bending over backwards to appease a certain German leader.

      I feel like if I dig further, I could find certain businesses in Germany that did the same thing.

    • I got modded "troll" for this before, but I'll say it again: Orange Man's dick is so far down Fuckerberg's throat it's making me gag.

      The most unrealistic part of that is that it could ever go “way down”.

    • You should have seen it coming.

      The Zuck was never a normal middle class person and he has never experienced a normal middle class life or the challenges that go with it. Knowing or understanding the poor? Or LGBT people? Or immigrants? Or PoC? Or the struggles that they, or any other marginalized portion of the population, have in their lives? It's all entirely beyond him... totally outside the Zuck's world and experience.

      He's a rich kid birthed from New York money who's been raised and prepared to be

  • It collects a bunch of people together who are far more likely to sue over silly bullshit like pronouns. They did it to themselves.
    • There's absolutely zero evidence that's true.

      • by KlomDark ( 6370 )
        The hyper-rich are abandoning it because why? Oh, because it risks their money through lawsuits. There's your evidence right there.
        • Funny, haven't seen the risk of lawsuit mentioned once in any of these articles on the topic. Again, you're pushing your own prejudice and assumptions with absolutely zero data to back it up.

      • by Calydor ( 739835 )

        It's hard to collect evidence of 'more likely to' until it happens, and by the time it happens it's kinda too late for whoever's on the receiving end.

        It does seem like a reasonable assumption, however, that people who primarily got their job to fill some kind of politically correct quota are going to push that as far as they can because they do not have the same level of expertise (note that I am not saying they have no expertise) as someone hired entirely on their professional merits to do so.

        • That's not how hiring of these folks work. No company is picking people mostly because of the color of their skin or who they choose to date/marry. First and foremost, they're still looking for who can best fill the position and meet their needs. It's simply that all else being equal, they'll consider how diversity within their workforce will benefit their organization and the role.

          Studies show companies with a more diverse workforce perform better, drive higher profits, and retain employees better.

    • Project much?

  • Win (Score:2, Informative)

    by colonslash ( 544210 )
    This is a win for meritocracy. This is a win for people who are smarter and work harder. Boosting those people, encouraging them to contribute to their fullest, helps everyone.

    I congratulate Facebook for ending their racist and sexist policies.

    • Re:Win (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:21PM (#65078527)
      Meritocracy in some cases, "old boys' network" in others.
      • Re:Win (Score:4, Insightful)

        by colonslash ( 544210 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:30PM (#65078573)
        I wish there was still an old boys network, I would love to have some male spaces to go to.
      • Meritocracy in some cases, "old boys' network" in others.

        Or in the upcoming U.S. administration, "Broligarchs".

      • by Hodr ( 219920 )

        Tell me, how does the 'old boys' network help you with getting a job in a company that is barely 20 years old and whose average employee age is under 30?

        Oh, I wen't to kindergarten with your brother, fine chap he was. I can't tell you how many times he helped me hide Oreos from the teacher in his diaper. That's just the kind of gumption we're looking for here at Meta. Tell me, you don't associate with any of those so called "girls", those cootie-coated vermin, do you?

    • Re:Win (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:31PM (#65078575)

      DEI and meritocracy are not mutually exclusive. Not only is there a wealth of evidence that diverse teams develop better solutions - especially when creativity is required, meaning that DEI may be part of the merit of hiring, but there's also a virtually endless set of examples that without DEI merit doesn't necessarily prevail. I've lost count of the number of times I've gotten someone a job, or someone's gotten me a job, or promotion, or some similar white boys club we all circle jerk in to prevail in our society. Yeah I've absolutely gotten a job over another white man who was far better than I am, but hey, I was friends with the hiring manager, tough shit, learn to schmooze more.

      Meritocracy is a fantasy.

      • by sinij ( 911942 )

        DEI and meritocracy are not mutually exclusive.

        They are, by definition. You either consider merit OR you consider immutable characteristics. These circles don't intersect.

        • You either consider merit OR you consider immutable characteristics. These circles don't intersect.

          Of course they do. Being born with high IQ, high level of will-power enhancing hormones, and a set of Big-5 traits that's right now well-aligned with high earning possibilities, in a family able to provide good nutrition and educational opportunities during one's youth, is a set ot immutable characteristics. The tiny amount of actual effort the individual adds atop that huge pile of positive immutables we then label "merit", whereas other individuals that put much more effort but atop a much smaller set of

        • by psmears ( 629712 )

          DEI and meritocracy are not mutually exclusive.

          They are, by definition. You either consider merit OR you consider immutable characteristics. These circles don't intersect.

          No, that's wrong. If your organisation has an in-built systematic bias (deliberately or unconsciously) that discriminates for or against a particular immutable characteristic, such as race or sex, then that's not meritocracy - you're hiring based on that characteristic instead of on merit. The whole point of DEI - at least, done right - is to remove that sort of systematic bias. So that you only hire based on merit, suitability for the role, etc.

      • but there's also a virtually endless set of examples that without DEI merit doesn't necessarily prevail. I've lost count of the number of times I've gotten someone a job, or someone's gotten me a job, or promotion, or some similar white boys club we all circle jerk in to prevail in our society.

        It has never been a meritocracy. Also, white people get senior leadership positions more often because of who they are related to or friends with, not their skin color. If your founder was a white guy, chances are your board and executive suite will be filled with his relatives and friends growing up and people he likes working with. It's really stupid to focus on race. Being white doesn't help you one bit in corporate America. Being a white male is a mostly neutral to sometimes slightly negative trait

      • An example of bias and meritocracy that isn't complicated: Some sport, I forget which, had 3/4 of the professionals people of the same 3 birth months, when on average you'd expect 1/4. There wasn't any intentional birthmonthism going on though; what happened is that kids got separated by school year and then by 100% meritocracy students who were 1/2 year older than other students got favored for more and more training. So if you try to run a meritocracy you need to account for all sorts of things, and check

      • The wealth of evidence you are talking about was manufactured by the DEI industry to prove their point. It's a lot like religion. If you accept tainted axioms, you can "prove" anything you want. Diverse teams develop better solutions? Does that sound like every dysfunctional government comittee I ever had the displeasure of dealing with. So you're a beneficiary of the white boys club, good for you... to make things simple for you to understan, DEI is the same but with different skin colours. DEI became a we
    • Next, let's end equal opportunity in sports such as the NFL draft: [wikipedia.org]

      [Co-owner of the Philadelphia Eagles Burt] Bell's inability to sign a desired prospect, Stan Kostka, in 1935, eventually led Bell to believe the only way for the NFL to have enduring success was for all teams to have an equal opportunity to sign eligible players.

      Or maybe using racist and sexist policies to fight racism and sexism is just as hypocritical (or not) as using controlled burns to prevent wildfires! (In other words, fighting fire

      • Eliminate MLB's antitrust exemption too, while we're at it!

        Oh, wait - that's a special rule that benefits a bunch of old rich white guys, never mind...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 )

      This is a win for meritocracy. This is a win for people who are smarter and work harder. Boosting those people, encouraging them to contribute to their fullest, helps everyone.

      I congratulate Facebook for ending their racist and sexist policies.

      Yep, DEI policies needed to go.

      I can recall a conversation some time ago with a co-worker about racism in education and job opportunities, and this was some time ago so DEI hadn't hit its peak yet. I asked where I could find some policy, regulation, or legislation, that worked against anyone in getting an education and/or job. He used words like "systemic" or "endemic" to describe the problem. If that's the case then how is anyone to solve the problem? There's nothing to point to show as evidence of rac

      • Except DEI (and equal opportunity and affirmative action) is intended to be exactly what you describe at the end. "hire the more diverse/minority candidate all things being otherwise equal". Sometimes that means you have to look a little harder to *find* the equally qualified diverse candidate, because of the results of systemic challenges and processes. Hence things like the NFL coaching interview process that requires them to interview(not necessarily hire) a black candidate.

        But as usual to people who've

        • But as usual to people who've enjoyed the privilege of the current system, any attempt to even the scales feels like oppression to them.

          You mean the current system of DEI? Sure, there's people that will claim oppression by losing their DEI advantage but the very core of DEI is racist, sexist, and other "-ists".

          I suspect that is not what you meant by "privilege of the current system", I just thought I'd turn it around to demonstrate how deep the BS has got.

          It is near impossible for applicants to any job, university, or whatever, to differ on nothing but their DEI "scores". Someone is almost certainly to come out on top on measures of pure

          • > I suspect that is not what you meant by "privilege of the current system", I just thought I'd turn it around to demonstrate how deep the BS has got.

            "The current system" is still one that privileges the same groups it always has. DEI did not change that, it barely got a chance to do anything before the usual whiners complained about losing their special positions. I'm sure you thought you were being super clever though.

            > It is near impossible for applicants to any job, university, or whatever, to d

    • Meta will announce layoffs and by sheer coincidence apply for the same number of H-1Bs. https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]

    • How embarassing that people actually think this way.

    • by Dan667 ( 564390 )
      meritocracy and facebook in the same sentence is hilarious. You know what people use facebook for right? It is not quite the shining start of innovation and achievement and more a cesspool of anti-intellectualism and distracting people from actually being productive.
    • Do you congratulate Zuck for being a shameless opportunist?

      If a Nazi becomes the next US president, Zuck will probably be the first to wear a swastika and start writing Yiddish in Fraktur script.

  • No more DEI. No more fact checkers.

    The cancer has taken over long ago. And it's spreading.

  • by HnT ( 306652 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:20PM (#65078523)

    Huge corps turning whichever way the wind blows, who would have thunk it! I feel bad for those who actually thought these greedy chameleons are on their side.. back when twitter and facebook were more like online kangaroo-courts.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:25PM (#65078551)
    Bottom line is nobody wants to hire Americans. We cost too much and we have too many rights. Everybody just wants as many work visa employees as they can get their grubby little paws on. As an added bonus flooding the market was cheap labor drives down wages for the people you're forced to hire locally.

    I guess this will make a nice virtue signal for a certain class of voter but it's not going to help anyone reading this article get hired at meta or anywhere else.
    • How can you possibly reach this conclusion when all they did was cut their DEI department? It's a zero value-add function that only existed to improve their ESG score.

      Zuckerberg realizes that Blackrock and Vanguard can't use ESG against them anymore, so they trimmed the fat.

      In general, no one wants to hire Americans when cheaper labor is available elsewhere. This submission has no specific relation to that fact. DEI departments are functionally useless no matter where you hire, enabling Meta to cut the dep

    • by migos ( 10321981 )
      You've probably never been in a position to hire talents. Average Americans are incredibly dumb.
  • by Improv ( 2467 ) <pgunn01@gmail.com> on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:30PM (#65078571) Homepage Journal

    DEI has as an industry been the wrong answer to some of the right problems (and some of the wrong ones too). Good to see it continue to erode; I just hope we can keep the backlash against DEI not turn into intolerance of difference. The important line is to tolerate difference rather than validate everyone.

  • Along with becoming troglodytes, maybe they can learn some grammar?
  • I hate DEI, it means disgusting sexist and racist discrimination and should be illegal everywhere.

    But Zuck is only doing this because he is (rightly) afraid Trump will shut down Facebook and THIS is the beginning of a totalitarian US.

    When democrats said Trump was a fascist and the republicans laughed it off - THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEANT.
    • by sinij ( 911942 )

      When democrats said Trump was a fascist and the republicans laughed it off - THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEANT.

      This would only make sense if Zuck was forced to implement these changes under duress. What evidence do you have that Zuck, a white male of Jewish ancestry, is a true believer of DEI and was forced into taking this action?

    • Just because they've ditched DEI programmes doesn't mean they they will suddenly be sexist, racist or anything else. In my opinion it means that they've got so tired of managing impossible DEI politics, trying to please everyone at the same time, that they've given up and will allow people to figure out decent behaviour themselves, as it should have been from the beginning.

      • what exactly is "DEI politics". DEI at these companies really is not over-reaching. "DEI politics" might be a thing, but DEI itself, at least in the bing tech companies but also in every small company I've seen, is pretty reasonably just "respect each-other".
    • This is the best objection to this sudden policy change in this whole thread. That it was done under duress from the government. That shouldn't be happening.
    • No, he's doing it because his DEI function is zero value-add that only existed to keep Meta in the good graces of Vanguard and Blackrock. Zuck rightly has concluded that the heydey of ESG is ending and that it's safe to trim DEI dept hires.

  • by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:48PM (#65078663)

    All the DEI crap got so widespread and intense that it is simply impossible to manage, impossible to please everyone at the same time and, unfortunately, you can't please everyone at the same time. I bet they couldn't wait to ditch all the DEI and all the management of it.

  • by Stolovaya ( 1019922 ) <skingiiiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 10, 2025 @01:53PM (#65078687)

    DEI has become a bit of a four-letter word.

    Making sure that people aren't discriminated against, overlooked for promotions, not hired, etc. on the basis of immutable characteristics like race, gender, sex, etc. isn't bad, and needs to be encouraged.

    But the general feel of what DEI is is that it's supposed to encourage/promote people that belong to minority groups, and that can come at the expense of someone from a majority group.

    If you're considering factors such as race, gender, sex, etc. when hiring or promoting, you're already engaging in some sort of discrimination. Now, some people do have bias, and sometimes (not always) that bias may be unconscious. But I don't think the answer to is to focus so hard on minority groups that you give the perception that you're discriminating against majority groups.

    We've unfortunately let the extremes from both sides set the tone (far-left and DEI, far-right and discriminating against minorities). I say this as someone on the left, but I do blame a bit of this on the left listening to the far-left; Equal Employment Opportunities should be enough, but it wasn't for them; it had to go further.

    And because of that, you're now seeing this backlash, and I have concerns on where exactly this will lead.

    To further complicate it, things like "DEI" are defined and treated differently by different people; there doesn't really seem to be a standard on what it is. Are you just not discriminating or are you discriminating to help someone that has been part of a historically marginalized group? Because there's a difference.

    • DEI has become a bit of a four letter word because all the usual idiots ban in about it incessantly and a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

      Making sure people aren't discriminated against for promotions IS DEI and that does come at the expense of the mediocre in the majority because it means they have to now compete on merit. If you are used to a life of privilege then equity feels like oppression.

      If you are considering factors like race sex etc for any individual candidate in hiring then you are

  • by irreverentdiscourse ( 1922968 ) on Friday January 10, 2025 @02:23PM (#65078847)

    This is all just a desperate ploy to get MAGA users to come back to Facebook. It obviously won't work, so it will just dilute and worsen his own product and cost him ad revenue. It's almost as if this dingbat isn't good at running a business.

    He's just buddying up to Trump so he can get his anti-trust cases thrown out. He doesn't care about any of you barely educated racists and your misguided BS about DEI.

  • The summary of all DEI training and policies breaks down to.

    1. If you're a cis white male, who doesn't accept woke concepts, including feminism, and refuse to change your gender / sexual alignment, through radical means, and refuses to apologize for simply existing, you're the single point of failure and pain for the planet.

    2. If you're a white male who accepts the fact you're the problem, and makes great effort to humiliate, denigrate, and punish yourself for nothing, including denouncing whiteness and “the” penis, you're simply disgusting scum, but you might be useful as a some type of slave.

    3. If you're a white female, you've been assaulted simply by being born white.

    4. If you're a CIS person, and you would rather not radicalize gender and alignment, and believe being straight is acceptable, you're a violent enemy of the LGBTYQ community.

    5. If not, you're not white, you're accepted for having value and purpose.

    That's literally the DEI stance, DEI is a racist, xenophobic and usually predatory movement. If you want to hear laughable junk from the “woke” / DEI community, look at books like “White Fragility”, which is the new standard of literary garbage. I've used “The Great Gatsby” to demonstrate junk writing, but “White Fragility”... that was the modern literary equivalent of “I have a dream” i

  • I don't have a problem with the idea of "diversity, equity and inclusion". I also don't have a problem with "affirmative action", or with the idea that companies and universities should take extra steps to recruit, hire and promote members of "marginalized groups".

    What I do have a problem with is the increasingly-common idea that every company, and every place of learning, needs to hire a full-time "DEI specialist" to explain to them how to do these things. According to Glassdoor, a "DEI specialist" earns an average salary of $123K. (The average salary for a roofer, who does skilled manual labor in a dangerous and unpleasant environment, is $43K).

    I get it that if you are engaging in affirmative action-- for example, giving extra points in your hiring algorithm to someone for being a member of a marginalized group-- you may need to spend some time and effort to determine the best way to do that, and you may need to spend a little bit of time tracking the outcome of your efforts. (For example, you have to decide who qualifies as a "member of a marginalized group"-- do you count everyone in a particular demographic, or do you take into account the personal background of each individual? If you are awarding "extra points" in your hiring algorithm, how many points do you award?)

    But constructing an affirmative action/DEI policy should be, at most, a few days' worth of work, and it's something that should only have to be altered or reviewed every few years. I'm not even sure that it needs to be done independently by different companies (it seems like someone could construct an industry-wide guideline to "best practices" in this area, and HR departments could simply follow that). I can't imagine why you would need to pay someone with a graduate degree to wake up every morning, drive to work, and put in a solid 8 hours on DEI-related tasks, five days a week, week after week, year after year.

    I literally don't know how a "DEI specialist" fills his or her time, although I'm sure they find ways to do it. It seems to me that DEI specialists are hired not because they do useful work, but because simply having them on the payroll provides some extra layer of protection against lawsuits.

  • for when the USA reintroduces slaver....er, guaranteed employment for PoC.
    We know who'l be "just following orders"

  • Zuckerberg continues to Zuck up to Trump/Musk/MAGA.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser

Working...