There have always even been black women developers, perhaps not as many as the DEI-brainwashed would like, but that's fine because they're actually competent regardless of who they are.
The narrative that DEI causes unqualified people to be hired is just false fear-mongering.
I’ve been on several university hiring committees and the guidelines were always “if two candidates are equally qualified 1. Hire the veteran 2. Hire the minority” if a hiring committee chooses an unqualified individual to do a job that’s on them.
No proponent of DEI I’ve ever talked to in real life has said we should hire unqualified people to meet some quota.
Not true. Work for a large public tech multinational. We had a several year run where every time we tried to hire onto our team, HR would force severely unqualified people into our interview pipeline. Then after they failed the interview HR would stress that we should strongly consider hiring the person on DEI grounds. We don't do technical interviews on culture fit -- we've gone through significant effort to make sure our interviews are objective and generate good signal regardless of background.
None of these were junior positions, they were all basically senior and staff engineer positions, based on the nature/criticality of the work. We had to interview a wide variety of people all of whom had never had a professional software engineering role before and some who didn't even speak a language shared by any members on our team.
That could equally mean people of color were disproportionately laid off during COVID. I find it meaningless without any breakdown of what those hires were or any other factors that would help determine the base rate. If this and hand-waving about 'DEI is the context you need' is your whole argument, you're bad at statistics and analysis.
> "Major companies added more than 320,000 jobs to their U.S. workforces in 2021, and 94% of those went to people of color, according to Bloomberg."
Searching for the quoted sentence found a NewsNation article. The NewsNation article linked the Bloomberg article.[1]
The quoted sentence could create an impression 6% of newly hired workers were white. This would be incorrect. 2021 was the time of the Great Resignation. People who stopped working were older and white disproportionately. Both articles mentioned this. But not so clearly.
The Bloomberg article said 2021 hiring included hiring back people the companies laid off in 2020. The jobs eliminated in 2020 were lower paying jobs disproportionately. And the workers affected were non white disproportionately.
Amazon added over 200,000 jobs. This was over 60% of the total. Most were warehouse workers and drivers. Do you believe Amazon had diversity quotas for warehouse workers and drivers?
Both articles said remote work changed where companies hired people. Do you believe they did this for diversity or money?
Bloomberg's charts illustrated some of the problems of reducing the data to 1 or 2 numbers even if you ignore resignation. Nike decreased white people at all levels. This was because they decreased jobs at their Oregon headquarters. CVS's professional, managerial, and executive jobs hiring appeared to favor white people. Amazon's professional hiring appeared to favor Asian people.
