Meta and Amazon Scale Back Diversity Programs Amid Growing U.S. Corporate Shift

[Social Media]

 

Meta and Amazon have joined a growing list of American corporations retreating from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, citing shifting legal and political landscapes. This trend reflects a broader rollback of such programs across corporate America, as companies face mounting conservative criticism and potential legal risks.  

 

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, recently announced significant changes to its diversity strategies. The company’s decision impacts hiring, supplier selection, and employee training. In a memo to staff, Meta attributed the move to a "shifting legal and policy landscape." This follows Meta’s earlier decision to discontinue a fact-checking program that had faced criticism from Republicans, including President-elect Donald Trump.  

 

Meta stated that while it will continue seeking diverse talent, it is ending its current approach of selecting candidates from specific pools. The company also plans to halt partnerships with “diverse” suppliers and will instead concentrate on working with small and medium-sized businesses. Furthermore, it will replace its "equity and inclusion" training with programs aimed at mitigating bias universally, regardless of participants’ backgrounds.  

 

Amazon has also taken steps to restructure its DEI efforts. In a December memo, Candi Castleberry, Amazon’s Vice President of Inclusive Experiences and Technology, announced plans to phase out “outdated programs and materials” related to representation and inclusion by the end of 2024. "Rather than have individual groups build programs, we are focusing on programs with proven outcomes — and we also aim to foster a more truly inclusive culture," Castleberry stated in the memo, which was first reported by Bloomberg.  

 

Other major corporations, including Walmart and McDonald’s, have similarly scaled back their diversity initiatives. Financial firms like JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock have recently withdrawn from groups addressing climate change risks, further highlighting the trend of companies moving away from progressive activism.  

 

The rollback of DEI programs has accelerated in the wake of heightened conservative scrutiny. Prominent brands such as Bud Light and Target have faced boycotts and backlash for their efforts to support LGBTQ communities, while Republican leaders have targeted companies like Disney and BlackRock for what they term "woke" practices.  

 

Many DEI efforts were initially implemented following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests sparked by George Floyd’s murder. However, recent court rulings have emboldened critics of such programs. In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions, effectively barring private universities from considering race in their decisions. Additionally, a federal appeals court invalidated a Nasdaq rule requiring listed companies to include at least one woman, racial minority, or LGBTQ person on their boards or explain the absence.  

 

Meta’s and Amazon’s announcements have elicited mixed reactions, with some applauding the shifts as a move toward merit-based practices, while others view them as a retreat from commitments to diversity and inclusion. 

 

Based on a report by BBC 2024-01-13

 

 

[Smokey and the Bandit]

So excellent news, they must have figured it out, DEI doesn't work and is inherently racist!

[Wrwest]

I certainly am supportive of a continuous process of reviewing all laws/regulations after at time to see if the original need for the law/regulation is still present. to see if the law/regulation has addressed the original need. And to decide if the law/regulation needs adjustments (those pesky unintended consequences) or if the need no longer exists. All of that done with thought not blind sweeping emotion. In the case of DEI? Citation of the studies determining that it is no longer needed?

[Watawattana]

1 hour ago, Wrwest said:

I certainly am supportive of a continuous process of reviewing all laws/regulations after at time to see if the original need for the law/regulation is still present. to see if the law/regulation has addressed the original need. And to decide if the law/regulation needs adjustments (those pesky unintended consequences) or if the need no longer exists. All of that done with thought not blind sweeping emotion. In the case of DEI? Citation of the studies determining that it is no longer needed?

Seems more political than fact-based?  I heard part of a Trump interview on the radio where Trump says that he believes the changes are as a result of pressure from Trump.  But of course it might be fact-based too.  I have not yet seen any evidence of that though.

[Purdey]

I agree that hiring should be based on merit. I do hope this doesn't mean more racism and misogyny but let's follow the news.

[blazes]

 

 

Go woke, go broke....

[Justanotherone]

if you hire crap instead of the best candidate... you get woke and broke

[thaibeachlovers]

Amazing. Trump isn't even POTUS and the woke are "woking up" to reality. Well done winner Trump.

 

I'm 100% certain that if Harris had won it wouldn't be happening.

[JonnyF]

Scale back???

 

Such racist, sexist hiring policies should be abandoned immediately.

 

If LA had done that in it's Fire and Mayor's department then the city might not be currently burning to the ground. Go Woke, Go up in Smoke.

[OneMoreFarang]

At least there is some good about Trump.

DEI was always a stupid idea. Unfortunately, Trump had to win the election before some people realized that they should not follow that stupid DEI. 

[Wrwest]

On 1/13/2025 at 7:39 PM, Justanotherone said:

if you hire crap instead of the best candidate... you get woke and broke

As we are witnessing with the unqualified nominee foe Secretary of defense?

[Watawattana]

On 1/14/2025 at 1:06 PM, JonnyF said:

Such racist, sexist hiring policies should be abandoned immediately.

Totally agree.

 

A company I used to work for had these policies, and indeed won awards for having these policies.  Did they follow them though?  Of course not.  They hired just enough to fool the woke brigade, but when it came to promotion it was their mates or 'yes men' (nearly never women by the way) who got promoted, nearly never the best person.

 

Personally, I don't give a cr@p about how someone lives their life or any other of the woke bovine excrement, I was always more interested in happy staff and decent profit.  Has worked well for my company.

[Social Media]

Post using derogatory and toxic nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly, this applies to both sides of the political debate.