Google kills diversity hiring targets
Access and Article Context
- Several commenters had trouble accessing the paywalled WSJ link; others pasted large excerpts or alternative mirrors.
- Summary of article as discussed: Google is dropping explicit hiring/leadership diversity targets, removing strong DEI language from its annual report, and citing recent court decisions and new federal executive orders as reasons to “evaluate changes” to DEI programs.
Motivations for Dropping Targets
- Many see this as a business/legal move, not an ideological one:
- Desire to align with the current US administration, avoid antitrust or DEI-related legal risk, and protect government and military contracts.
- As a federal contractor, Google is now under a new executive-order regime replacing older affirmative-action rules.
- Others call it “craven” symbolism either way: DEI was adopted and is now being abandoned primarily for optics.
Is DEI Racist or Corrective?
- One camp argues diversity targets are just a sanitized form of racial discrimination, particularly against white and Asian men, and were likely illegal all along.
- Another camp argues DEI is about counteracting well-documented bias, expanding candidate pools, and improving decision quality through diversity of perspectives.
- Several note a gap between “ideal” DEI (e.g., bias-aware, race-blind processes) and how many corporate programs actually operated (e.g., de facto quotas, bonus incentives, explicit “diversity headcount”).
Experiences and Anecdotes
- Some hiring managers report explicit pressure or mechanisms to prioritize certain genders/races (e.g., extra headcount, quota-like expectations) and say it produced weak teams and resentment.
- Others who ran or participated in DEI initiatives say:
- The main real effect was diversifying who got into the interview funnel.
- Diverse candidates who made it to interviews were often stronger on average because they had to clear higher informal barriers.
- Individual stories include:
- “Diversity recruit” processes that didn’t change bar but altered sourcing.
- Candidates feeling excluded or deprioritized for not disclosing demographic data.
Representation, Metrics, and Categories
- Debate over what “diversity” should be measured against:
- US population, global talent pool, or top-university pipelines.
- Race vs. childhood household income vs. other disadvantage indicators.
- Multiple comments highlight Asians being overrepresented in tech and often treated as “effectively white” in DEI frameworks.
- Several argue that focusing on race entrenches racial thinking instead of moving toward a truly color-blind system; others counter that ongoing racism makes color-blindness aspirational, not current reality.
Meritocracy, Standards, and Interviews
- Some insist DEI lowered standards and distracted Google from technical competitiveness, especially in AI.
- Others argue tech leadership was never a true meritocracy; informal networks (school, family, “clubby” culture) already distort merit.
- There is skepticism that Leetcode-style interviews are an accurate or fair “pure merit” filter; DEI or not, hiring is inherently subjective.
Pipeline vs. Hiring-Stage Fixes
- Significant support for shifting effort upstream:
- Early childhood education, K–12 support, and STEM access rather than late-stage hiring targets.
- Several note that underrepresentation of some groups in CS degrees and elite universities constrains what any corporate hiring program can realistically do.
- Others caution that dismantling DEI at big companies can still harm outreach partnerships that were nudging the pipeline.
What Comes Next
- Some fear a flip to “prove you’re not doing DEI,” where every hire is scrutinized to show the absence of diversity preference, potentially re-normalizing old biases.
- Others welcome the rollback as the end of what they see as divisive, coercive corporate ideology.
- Several point to a broader trend: big tech moving toward “no politics at work,” shrinking DEI orgs, and re-centering on “mission first” and legal compliance.