[throwawaykf10]

You have cited a lawsuit (of which there is no recorded outcome, so probably an out-of-court settlement) against the same company that has had to pay millions for discriminating AGAINST women and minorities.

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/google-settles-28...

So maybe one could argue maybe they were not DEI enough!

On this topic HN almost always devolves into anecdotes. There's gotta be data on this. What does the data say? How much have DEI efforts shifted the demographics in these companies and/or the professional prospects of minorities?

My guess: no change at all, because it's all performative.

[Thorrez]

Check out Google's diversity report[1], pages 63-110. It contains a lot of data. E.g. for US tech hiring, in 2015 2.2% of hires were Black+, in 2024, it was 10.0%. For global tech hiring, in 2015 19.6% of hires were women, in 2024, it was 30.2%.

Disclosure: I work at Google.

[1] https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/819bcce604bf5ff7...

[tremon]

Only looking at hiring % doesn't mean anything if we don't know the composition of the hiring pool. For example, page 64 shows that Google's APAC offices have 90.7% Asian workers, up from 90.4% a year earlier -- at the expense of all other ethnicities. Is Google doing a bad job there, or is this an accurate reflection of the available workforce?

[Thorrez]

throwawaykf10 said:

>On this topic HN almost always devolves into anecdotes. There's gotta be data on this. What does the data say? How much have DEI efforts shifted the demographics in these companies and/or the professional prospects of minorities?

>My guess: no change at all, because it's all performative.

I provided data. Not anecdotes. The data shows how the demographics of Google have shifted. The data shows how the professional prospects of minorities have shifted when it comes to Google jobs. The data does not show "no change at all".

A change from 90.4% to 90.7% percentage points I doubt is statistically significant. Phrasing it "at the expense" sounds like it's some terrible decline.

The conversation so far I believe has been about DEI in the US. Why focus on APAC, instead of the the US?

>Only looking at hiring % doesn't mean anything if we don't know the composition of the hiring pool.

What does that mean? Are you saying that if the fraction of CS grads that are Black+ also increased from 2.2% to 10.0%, then Google's DEI efforts did nothing? That conclusion doesn't hold. Google has a lot of DEI efforts, including ones to increase the number of Black+ people who choose to major in CS.