Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

DEI

Has Intel ki-led all DEI initiatives? I wonder how much money was spent on DEI over the last 10 years starting with BK.

by
| 1491 views | | 17 replies (last February 9, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jkbstbzh

17 replies (most recent on top)

DEI prevented growth paths within the organizations for cross job transfers. If you wanted to become a better engineer breadthwise and learn new skills, it was not an option for the many non-DEI hires at Intel. This leads to stagnation.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @s7+1jkbstbzh

DEI didn't ki-l Intel, poor ELT decisions surrounding product did.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @m4+1jkbstbzh

So shouldn't all you pathetic incels should be VPs at google and meta by now?

Why you hanging around Intel?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @j2+1jkbstbzh

Its RACISM meant to divide rather than unite. It ki-led Intel. Fortunately it has ended

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fr+1jkbstbzh

At least ya'll had a good laugh when BK got inside DEI.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f4+1jkbstbzh

Why does layoff keep pulling down these DEI related posts?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @eg+1jkbstbzh

“ I wonder how much money was spent on DEI over the last 10 years starting with BK.”

  1. 7 Trillion Dollars.
by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dr+1jkbstbzh

Until CP is booted it won’t change.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d9+1jkbstbzh

DEI in the US - likely.
But, then again, Intel in the US is effectively dead with them transitioning to Asia.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bc+1jkbstbzh

I imagine INTC and the rest of corporate America, who have taken US federal $/contracts, are backing away from DEI b/c they don’t want to become the subject of Title VII suits based on -

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

Justice Gorsuch opened the door to such challenges by articulating his view
on p.4 & p. 16 of his concurrence to Title VII challenges

… Congress chose a simple and profound rule. One holding that a recipient of federal funds may never dis- criminate based on race, color, or national origin—period.
If this exposition of Title VI sounds familiar, it should. Just next door, in Title VII, Congress made it “unlawful . . . for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individ- ual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, s-x, or national origin.” §2000e–2(a)(1). Appreciating the breadth of this provision, just three years ago this Court read its essentially identical terms the same way. See Bos- tock, 590 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 4–9). This Court has long recognized, too, that when Congress uses the same terms in the same statute, we should presume they “have the same meaning.” IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U. S. 21, 34 (2005). And that presumption surely makes sense here, for as Justice Stevens recognized years ago, “[b]oth Title VI and Title VII” codify a categorical rule of “individual equal- ity, without regard to race.”…

…. the dissent does not dispute that everything said here about the meaning of Title VI tracks this Court’s precedent in Bostock interpreting mate- rially identical language in Title VII.

==>There is a potential test case in Vaughn v CBS news that could reach US Supreme Court which could result in a nation-wide Title VII ruling in regards to DEI

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b9+1jkbstbzh

Nope, still going strong. Only now we have to specifically interview women in Malaysia and Costa Rica.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @az+1jkbstbzh

No they didn’t. Intel is like California,,, they just double down on stupid.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ay+1jkbstbzh

I lost out on a promotion one year because some minority director of a specific gender and ethnicity that you can all guess said it had to go to a diversity candidate.

Once I finally got promoted into the proper grade and started taking on leadership roles, I was only allowed to hire unqualified diversity candidates of a specific gender and ethnicity despite having many highly qualified people lining up ready to hit the ground running.

So as far as I am concerned -> F*** DEI, I am happy to see it die and laughing my a-s off at Intel losing so much market share to the competition. The company dug it's own grave.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @am+1jkbstbzh

It is truly a sad chapter that has ending. Everyone knows DEI is illegal, reverse discrimination with negative consequences far greater then any positives. Meritocracy is all that matters. Two wrongs don't make a right. I just hope the people who supported such nonsense reflect on how they could of made such a flawed choices and get smarter from the whole sad affair.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aj+1jkbstbzh

What about all the hires and fires because of it.
It pervades the entire company now from top to bottom.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1jkbstbzh

Intel didn't ki-l DEI. DEI ki-led Intel. Sad!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a1+1jkbstbzh

Post a reply

: