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.

  • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Everything a corporation does that’s not outright trying to fuck you out of your time or money is 100% a scam they’re trying to pull to convince you they care.

    I really wish people would stop falling for it, because, well, there’s never going to be real progress made unless there’s the force of law behind things like DEI.

    • bizarroland@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean the entire purpose of a dei group in a company is to make sure that the company isn’t doing things that will get them fucking sued into the ground, like choosing to only hire young white males for instance.

      If they want to disband this group fine, just that’s going to be exhibit A in all of the lawsuits.

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

        You mean the lawsuits that will be tossed out by the totally not corrupt upstanding officials at the “Supreme” Court?

        • bizarroland@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Do you realize how difficult it would be to get a simple case like this in front of the supreme court?

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

            Do you realise how easy it will be to get a case in front of the supreme court if it affects the interests of the oligarchy?

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

        An assessment test I did for a job recently was essentially just an SAT and IQ test. None of it had to do with the position but it was a quick way for them to say “no foreigners.”

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I dunno. I’m a believer that there is real benefit to diverse teams and there is some evidence in support of this. Seems like a diverse team could really help a company figure out how to keep fucking the money out of you harder.

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

        Doing good work takes time to make money, execs need those quarterly bonuses right now. Much easier to do a bunch of layoffs and get that line up now.

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

          Which is ultimately the biggest reason companies suck so much worse now than they used to. Over a long enough time frame profit isn’t the worst way to steer an organization. Negative actions have repercussions and companies used to avoid those.

          But investors shortened the time frame so that everything and anyone is disposable. We have a handful of rich people hollowing out pretty much all companies in America and stripping them of value as fast as possible. We’re destroying our economic base in a fire sale for like 9 people.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I dunno. I’m a believer that there is real benefit to diverse teams and there is some evidence in support of this.

        You’re 100% right! But good luck convincing the bean counters.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well yeah. The point of a corp is to make a profit. By any means necessary. They are even legally compelled to do so. They are not here to serve us. They are here to take your money. Sometimes even backing you into a corner to force you to do it.

      I just got done watching Fallout and I fully believe our corporations would do the same as the ones in the series given the chance.

      Edit: after some research and the person below me informing me, I was mistaken about the legal requirement.

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        Minor niggle: they’re legally compelled to work in the best interests of the shareholders which is usually but not always seeking profit at all costs.

        But, in general, I don’t disagree, I merely was mentioning that people keep getting suckered by pretty words and meaningless promises of change and then not bothering to make it have actual legal requirements behind it.

        The mistake is looking at a CEO going Trust Me Bro, and trusting them. See: frog and scorpion story.

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

          A CEOs job is literally to serve the financial interests of the shareholders.

          In fact a CEO can be fired or charged for not doing it.

          How is that not legally compelling a company to make the most money possible, when to have their top employee by the balls like that?

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            A CEO can be fired for anything.

            A CEO can absolutely not be criminally charged for not maximizing short term profits at all costs. That’s not what fiduciary duty means.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                It’s not “how I see it”. It’s a clearly defined legal term, that functionally means that you’re required to act in good faith.

                It doesn’t mean more than that, and minority shareholders that have tried to sue on the grounds that they have any additional legal obligation have been laughed out of court.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Serving the financial interests of shareholders doesn’t necessarily mean maximizing short-term profits, as this often leads to less profit in the long term due to things like legal issues, loss of reputation, high turnover, etc. Long term growth and stability can be much more valuable than a couple quarters of unsustainable profit.

            A good example of this is Red Lobster, whose new owners sold off all their restaurant real estate holdings to a newly formed shell company and then began charging each individual restaurant massive amounts of rent. Selling these properties gave the company a short-term boost of cash, but now they’re bankrupt because they saddled the company with so much debt and rent that they can’t cover.

    • glowie@h4x0r.host
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      If they brag about DEI on marketing pages… That’s all the initiative is for. Virtue signalling for sales.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The company I work for is tireless about DEI and at least the CEO is personally a big believer. I think the instant he goes, though, the entire thing goes. We have hundreds of people working on it. And they have produced more backlash against DEI than real progress on it. So yeah, there are true believers out there, but the system as a whole doesn’t give a fuck, never did, and there’s never going to come a time when we all turn some corner and want more, more, more DEI staff at work. In my humble opinion the movement is dead already and will be remembered as an artifact of the last decade or so. The actual problem itself will continue to improve, generationally, just as it has done for a hundred years.

      • wagoner@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That generational improvement is not the natural order of the universe. It’s the result of individuals putting themselves in harms way to push for change. It’s hard-fought legislation moving the cause forward. It’s constitutional amendments. It’s legal cases won against the odds. It’s corporations jumping on the bandwagon not wanting to be seen to oppose respectable society.

        But those who have always fought against the process are racking up wins. That generational change you’ve observed that looked inevitable is under severe threat. You cannot count on it happening by itself.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        And they have produced more backlash against DEI than real progress on it.

        That’s the thing…it doesn’t actually work. It doesn’t help anything. It’s just virtue signaling. I understand, hypothetically, how a DEI program could help make a company’s culture more inclusive, but the vast majority of them just add more buzzwords and red tape and performative resume enhancers.

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

          virtue signaling

          Stop giving this tired interpretation to everything. Not everyone is performing a dance to impress others. I already said that our CEO is a genuine true believer. And it’s not crazy to think that there are people out there who actually care about equality and inclusion. FUCK I get so tired of this “virtue signaling” bullshit. Do you think I’m cussing you out right now to win points with whoever is watching? I promise you I don’t give a fuck.

  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Almost as if it was a bullshit endeavor all along, just corporate marketing. Those departments are never given the funding or staff required to enact functional change within organizations. Unionize, folks!

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Their main function was to avoid lawsuits, like the rest of HR. I feel like these companies forgot that they were all sued because they discriminated against women and non-white applicants and employees. This is just going to make it easier to prove discrimination in court.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is a reflection of them anticipating that discrimination lawsuits will no longer be a thing under a Project 2025 Trump dictatorship.

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

          Lol. Lawsuits are part of America. There’s no way to get rid of them. That’s how minor issues are adjudicated in America.

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

            No, I mean discrimination will be legalized/tolerated again. The Heritage Foundation stacked courts won’t give a fuck.

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

              They don’t care about policy, they care about tax cuts. Rich Republicans do not care about social issues. Their judges won’t care about one side or the other.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Rather than thinking of it as a cynical farce that was a total lie, can we think of it as perhaps a genuine impulse which was not strong enough to override other business considerations, and which most companies fumbled, and which no company was willing to make material sacrifices for when it came right down to it. I genuinely think a lot of people would like to see true equity at work, but they have no idea how to bring it about, they are too outmatched by other cultural forces, and ultimately they can’t make a convincing business justification for it.

      I call it a well-intentioned but doomed escapade. Not a big fat lie.

      • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I understand your premise but work experience has taught me that corporations don’t give a fuck about their people, equity, and the like. It is all image control. It is all about money and nothing more, those “other business considerations” will always take precedence unless they are regulated to do so.

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

          I don’t think we are disagreeing. It’s like I already said: other business considerations will always win out. But it is not crazy to think that there are individuals out there within corporations who genuinely believe that DEI is a good thing. Tech companies top asset is their people, and those people are not all white males. Having an inclusive workplace is just good business. And especially when it comes to women, having an inclusive workplace fends off lawsuits. I know the CEO of our company personally well enough to know that he is a genuine believer. He was raised liberal by parents who were civil rights activists and he does not want to perpetuate America’s abysmal history of exclusion and exploitation if he can help it. This is not image control. I get very tired of people saying that this is all virtue signaling, some performance, by people who don’t truly care, for some powerful audience who do actually care. Who is that audience supposed to be?? Shareholders??? lol

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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
      5
      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.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

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

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      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.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        4
        ·
        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
          5
          ·
          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
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

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

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.

  • notanaltaccount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    In the future there will probably white people suing for racism based on the existence of dei and the courts are now so racist those lawsuits will be allowed because the same territories that fought for slave ownership during rhe civil war have political leverage via republicans

    Dei is now a legal liability instead of protecting against lawsuits. Many companies that are laying off people cant justify keeping dei in that environment when they are laying off people that do work that is closely aligned with the business. Laying off a senior programmer but keeping dei seems a bit unfair and since dei could be a liability why keep it?

    There was also pressure to hire more black people in business back in covid times and post-covid and companies did that, with data showing it probably impacted other races getting hired. It’s risky for them to keep doing that and likely expensive. Dei was also keeping more data allowing them to get sued to more easily either way. Many employees complained about dei and that it was all for show even when the expense was there.

    Its also became synonymous with woke and republicans hate the term. Conpanies only do what the prevailing political winds say so they can fit in with legal compliance enough to keep profiting. They don’t care and are mostly an illusion of a logo with greedy people worshipping money behind the veneer.

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

        Youre right. And… Do you think DEI becoming a buzzword in the Republican culture war makes it more or less likely there will be more of those lawsuits?

        But yes, at the end of the day, whatever the reason it just means more racism, because bias is often hard to prove and you often can’t prove that bias accounts for a lack of advancement, you just feel it, and bias can make getting ahead so much harder in so many ways.

        I think Republicans especially hated DEI because it could include trans and LGBT people. The existence of trans people means their made up god is fake, because their fantasy book says Adam and Eve, not Adam Eve and They/Them. If trans people are real, then the magical fantasy book is a lie, and then they’ve been lied to and fooled and their magic jebus bread didnt really have magical powers and they can’t possibly admit to that, so here we are.

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

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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
          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
            0
            ·
            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.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        1
        ·
        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.

  • xenomor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    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
      1
      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
        1
        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
          1
          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 😄

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