[throwawaygulf]

Big tech companies who have huge D&I directives will just hire any BIPOC/minority they can to fill their quotas, culture fit or not (most Bay Area cultures are far-leftist, so they'll assume BIPOCs are on their side). They don't call them quotas, but they have "quarterly and yearly targets" to get to 30% BIPOCs, etc.

Executive compensation is tied to how many BIPOCs they can shuffle in the door. Imagine being the diversity hire so a corporate multi-millionaire could keep his year-end bonus.

[syspec]

For some people, getting their foot in the door is still worth it.

At least some people hired as a "diversity hire", will be great and stand out, and things will slowly slowly slowly change (hopefully)

[masonium]

What you describe is probably mathematically impossible, but it definitely does not reflect reality.

Facebook's median tenure is 2.3 years, so at least 50% of all people at Facebook were hired during the past 2.3 years. If there were a true 'quota' of 30% of BIPOC during that period (a small fraction of the time since their first DEI report), you would necessarily have at 15% of employees represented as such. By Facebook's own numbers, in the article, that is not the case. So, what can we conclude? Either:

1) Facebook's BIPOC employees leave at a much higher rate than other employees (implying a large problem in and of itself). 2) Facebook does not, in fact, have a 30% minimum quota for BIPOC hires.

Your comment, in fact, would deny not only the implication of the article but even the basic facts therein. We know from above that Facebook is definitely not hiring at 30%, so why in the world would they reject a Black PhD in a relevant field, if the will "just hire any [one], culture fit or not"?

[ThrowAwayNonEng]

Is tenure calculated only for departed employees, or also for present employees, too?

If it's the former, then 2.3 years is REALLY low.