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.

  • daniyeg@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 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
      1
      ·
      4 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
      0
      ·
      4 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!”

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 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.

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 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
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 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
            1
            ·
            4 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.

  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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
      1
      ·
      4 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
        1
        ·
        4 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
          0
          ·
          4 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
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

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

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 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.

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 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.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 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
      1
      ·
      4 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.

  • notanaltaccount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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
        1
        ·
        4 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.

  • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 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.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 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.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 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.

      • TheOneCurly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 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
          ·
          4 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.

    • bizarroland@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 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.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 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.”

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

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

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 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.

        • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 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?

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 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
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 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.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 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
        ·
        4 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
          ·
          4 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
            4 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.