Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts
39 comments
·December 8, 2025RankingMember
cmcaleer
MS (or any large company for that matter) didn’t participate in BLM discussions and get speakers to describe themselves and list their pronouns because they thought it was virtuous or right, they were just following the cultural zeitgeist in a way that they thought would make them more money.
Walking it back is just the same behaviour manifesting in a different way. Investors don’t value DEI in the same way they did before so it becomes an expense with no value to shareholders, so it gets cut.
It’s very cynical but nothing about this should be particularly shocking.
sdsd
>surely they can ally to resist culture war nonsense from making its way into their employee handbooks?
I think that's the point, using "pressure from the administration" as an excuse to nix culture war entanglements they got themselves into over the previous ~10 years. I think the "modern titans of industry" have wanted to dip out of this stuff for some time and felt stuck. Now they can do so while having plausible deniability (it was da govamint made us do it!)
this_user
The only reason implemented these measures in the first place was because of pressure from the other side of the political spectrum. It's hardly surprising that pressure from the opposite direction will make them walk it back.
null
bitmasher9
Everything is negotiable. Why would you resist joining the culture war, if your participation can be profitable.
p0w3n3d
If you are obliged by the investors too
shadowgovt
Not really. This is one of the things Google got right; organize your company so founders have a controlling interest and it doesn't matter fundamentally what the investors think, they can't steer the company.
At best, they are trading baseball cards with your corporate logo on them.
alt227
> a glorified reality show egomaniac
He is also.... the president of the United States?
neogodless
I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to the president of the United States.
While I don't think "corporations should be in charge", I also don't think a President should be dictating corporate culture or policy short of going through the proper channels of using Congress to write legislation that keeps corporations in check and doesn't allow their power and influence to grow too large.
But... uh... yeah that isn't happening either. Instead, those in power are helping each other out, at the expense of common citizens of the U.S. (and likely at the expense of people outside the U.S. too.)
terminalshort
But the president absolutely can enforce civil rights laws which clearly ban racial discrimination in hiring and promotions.
westmeal
So what?
rtkwe
There's a hell of a lot of power vested in the executive branch especially in the DOJ to really mess with companies and the real protection against it's misuse was the agreement that the President didn't directly instruct and control who the DOJ actually indicted. It used to be a notable event when a president even appeared to hint that he was encouraging investigations (not even indictments) into specific companies now we've got a president explicitly demanding the DOJ indict specific people and find any reason to do so, see Comey and Letitia James's recent indictments.
ImPostingOnHN
He is also a 34-time convicted criminal and rapist. We don't have to list everything someone is, every time they're mentioned.
alt227
The OP was questioning why these companies are doing what this man is asking them to. I feel the reason is because this man is the president.
The fact is relevant to the statement, which is why I wrote it.
mc32
Whatever they do, companies should not be doing quotas other than bringing in the people who will propel the mission.
Instead, they should put their effort on pipeline. From kindergarten, drive kids to want to participate in a dynamic economy instead of pursuing selling themselves short and perhaps getting involved in the underground economy, dead-end jobs, etc. Go give it a go in all areas of the nation that are under-served. That is the way to do it. If you do it any time later, like at hiring time, then you risk hiring on things other than merit.
terminalshort
That racist DEI filth is the culture war bullshit.
delichon
Due to current admin policies, failing to do this would limit Microsoft's ability to drink from the federal trough. Whatever value they put in diversity is less than they put in large contracts.
hypeatei
At the risk of sounding like an LLM, you're absolutely right!
It would be stupid not to kowtow to the current admin given how much business Microsoft does with the US government. The pendulum will swing back, guarantee it.
shadowgovt
[delayed]
Hasz
DEI used to make them money, and now it loses them money. It is not surprising they would jettison it.
afavour
No matter how you might view the topic I hope we can all agree that this is vacuous nonsense:
> “We are not doing a traditional report this year as we’ve evolved beyond that to formats that are more dynamic and accessible — stories, videos, and insights that show inclusion in action,”
Oh, you wanted hard numbers? What about a TikTok video instead?
Just be honest about this stuff. It’s insulting to the intelligences of all involved to pretend that you just coincidentally happen to be making these shifts.
jhickok
Agreed-- I despise being continuously antagonized by corporate-speak.
null
whynotminot
While there’s a lot of this era that’s deeply unfortunate, this kind of question on my yearly review would be incredibly vexing to me:
> What impact did your actions have in contributing to a more diverse and inclusive Microsoft?
What does this even mean? How do I show I did this? If I don’t interpret the meaning of this question correctly, do I fail the test and end up some HR watchlist? If I don’t succeed at whatever this is going for, will I not promote?
heeton
[delayed]
alt227
I feel like the general answer is going to be 'None', and that Microsft is not really going to care about that very much.
MrBuddyCasino
Imagine the person asking this question to be a soviet commissar, and you get an accurate mental model to work with.
I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to a glorified reality show egomaniac. Allying to price-fix is one thing, but surely they can ally to resist culture war nonsense from making its way into their employee handbooks?