How is this good? Isn't it a clear case of unfair gender discrimination? I get that people want to correct a perceived injustice, but isn't overcompensating just as bad?
But it's not clear how you distinguish between what's an appropriate correction to historical discrimination and what's overcompensation. If the bias were in favor of an over-represented group, it would be more clear -- but that's not what we're seeing. Women are grossly underrepresented in STEM faculty, and the only way to correct that is to hire a greater share of them and to use their gender as a positive discriminating factor in hiring.
I don't believe either of us are in a position to judge whether that should best manifest as a 2:1 ratio during resume reviews, a 1.1:1 ratio in finalized hires, or a 5:1 ratio in outreach, or some other arbitrary number during some other arbitrary phase.
This is affirmative action, which has the following problem: How do it eventually end? This is especially true when the desired quota is impossible (It may or may not be in the case of gender rep in STEM). In the real world, affirmative action policies never end due to social/political pressure, and eventually just inflict the converse problem.
Affirmative action is not the only way to correct imbalances (it may not even do that). The better way, at least in my view, is to correct the cause(s) of the imbalance, then wait. Of course if there's no discernible correctable cause, then the imbalance is clearly natural, and should not be disturbed. This may be slower, but its stable and infallible.
How about this: Should we mandate a numerical balance between men and women in grade school teachers? Should we not hire qualified women until there's a 1:1 ratio between men to women in K-6 education? Why or why not?