My initial reaction to hearing news like this is that more qualified candidates are going to be passed over in favor of more diverse candidates. This in turn can quickly turn into viewing minority candidates as diversity hires.
There is a lot of sexism, racism, and classism in our society. We need to hit it at the root where it occurs and realize that any other approach to correct it can end up being more costly. For example, many attempts to correct racism don't account for classism. This ends up creating resentment in class minorities who aren't racial minorities, which ends up perpetuating racism and creating groups who are opposed to the notion of social justice in general.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/04/05/gender-quotas-a...
I haven't seen a lot of discussion around this - it may be bunk. But there are a lot of intuitive ideas about hiring that don't hold up.
I agree, that's why I think companies should consider what is putting off women & why the gender balance in tech is so heavily weighted towards males.
That is, most companies (regardless of conscious choice) are finding the best (young, white) male developers only.
I think the societal biases are imprinted in people during their social development.
Girls are less likely to be given the equipment and backing to get into software development at an early age, and their peers would rarely understand such an interest.
The field and the associated character traits around it are viewed as nerdy or boring, the people who don't give a stuff about such judgements seem to be the people who do gain an interest in the field and consider working in it.
I think companies can take steps to improve outreach to excluded groups, and set up policies to help reduce exclusionary behaviour in the workplace. I don't really care if it's their fault or not.
The gender imbalance in fields like programming and nursing is larger in the most "fair and evolved" societies (e.g. Denmark), because these societies allow biological gender differences to more freely assert themselves.
Affirmative action reeks of plastering over a bug instead of squashing it at the root cause.
It usually reflects the pool of applicants.
If women are self-excluding, what is causing the hostility in that environment? If they're systemically-excluded, how do we remove it?
The implication here is that earned (through training) software and programming skills are equally distributed among the entire population. This is simply not true just by looking at StackOverflow/CS major demographics.
They are finding the best female developers. There just aren't that many (for whatever reason)
This sounds like you think companies don't have an obligation to improve their environments so that women feel included. Consider a developer that you would say is among the best: would she accept a position at your company? Why not?
I had to seek out recruiting female engineers. Now with more balanced gender ratio in the company, things are just better.
Now the chances are that you haven't selected the best is some global absolute sense as that would be stunningly unlikely. So you've actually selected from a sample that is exceptionally biased in numerous ways. By having a drive for, say, female developers, you're just replacing one very biased sample with another very biased sample.
Now, if you're at a sufficiently small organisation and you're recruiting sufficiently few people, and you're only interested in the immediate needs of your organisation, it is reasonable to assume that a female biased cohort won't necessarily lead to better candidates due to the current heavy gender imbalance.
However, not everyone recruits with such constraints. For example, I work for a large, global organisation that recruits 100's of devs a year into a pool of 1000's of devs. Given the statistical significance, any gender imbalance is not because we recruited the best, it's because we recruited the best of a very badly skewed pool. The corollary is that, if we don't try to address this, we are deliberately ignoring a huge pool of potentially talented devs.
Now, it would be correct to argue that, if we were just to select women from the existing pool, it isn't likely to help things much. If an organisation is doing that then they're mostly doing it to appear diverse. But a drive for female devs that affects the pool absolutely can make a difference. It's not easy, it can mean planning for the long term i.e. going to universities, schools etc. but I strongly believe that it's worth it.
I respectfully disagree. This position doesn't take into account how existing gender biases affect those who are choosing which field to enter. If a field is primarily composed of men, then young women may not feel welcome in the field and may go elsewhere, meaning there are fewer good developers in the pool to begin with. This leads to lower quality overall in the field than if there were no bias.
It becomes a tragedy of the commons situation: if everyone hires the best regardless of gender, then we continue to repel half of the population. But if one company biases towards hiring women even if they're somewhat less skilled, then they are at a disadvantage to companies that don't do this. This is why things like hiring quotas and other forms of affirmative action exist.
One way to change this is to correct the imbalance in industry, giving young women a more welcoming environment, role models, etc. However, this actively requires a different hiring strategy than "only the best." As I said, this gets into a "tragedy of the commons" situation, which can only be resolved through collective action, whether voluntarily within the industry like hiring quotas and outreach to women or enforced by the government through affirmative action-style laws.
Now it is up to you to decide if "below average" is the same as "not as capable".