Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is a luxury the business world can’t afford, say some conservative media outlets who are cheering major layoffs in Big Tech. The told-you-so cheers come as departments which stepped up “diversity hires” over the last few years are pared down by a new tech industry austerity movement. (Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently called 2023 the “year of efficiency” and received hosannas from Wall Street.)
The Washington Times, in particular, calls the reversal — or at least the paring down — of a more diverse workforce in Silicon Valley a good thing. The headline of a recent opinion piece addressing recent tech layoffs and the corresponding DEI stall reads: “DEI is dying in Big Tech. Good riddance.”
What’s wrong with hiring a more diverse workforce? Ian Haworth, in the Washington Times, writes: “While many are mourning this supposedly backward step in the world of equity, the removal of these jobs is undeniably a net positive for society.”
Haworth states above that people losing these jobs, especially women and people of color (beneficiaries of DEI), makes society better. Haworth believes the lost jobs weren’t justified by economic need, and laments the “fundamental lie that diversity, as they see it, provides any benefit for industry.”
The Washington Times doesn’t give consideration to workplace diversity’s role in helping to eradicate systemic biases in software development or workplace environments in general — diversity which even many pure market capitalists believe helps the bottom line by expanding the potential customer base for tech products.
(Note: Consulting giant McKinsey reports that it is “increasingly clear that companies with more diverse workforces perform better financially.)
Haworth says instead that “the harsh reality is that such on-the-surface diversity does nothing to improve the products and services developed by Silicon Valley.”
Haworth cites a Bloomberg article reporting that “companies that made promises to hire more underrepresented groups are gutting departments meant to achieve these goals.” He pegs the waylaid diversity efforts by what he calls the “charlatans” of Silicon Valley as corrupt from the start, cheering the setback.
Ironically, Haworth’s article won’t likely reach as many people in underrepresented groups — even those who might agree with him — because the algorithms employed to distribute his message currently function with myriad built-in biases.
Even ChatGPT, the AI technology taking the planet by storm, warns users that its technology “may occasionally produce harmful instructions or biased content.”
