>Past discrimination doesn't justify discrimination in the present.
You show a kind of logical thinking, since it is in fact a kind of discrimination in the present. However, you can verify for yourself that this is correct through something like the following. It's pseudocode, to help you reason correctly:
// assume all we know about the candidate is whether they are "A" or "B" and their years of experience.
// generate 10,000 candidates
candidates = 10,000 x random (a or b)
for each candidate trueability = random (1 to 100) // their true ability which we don't know is a random number 1 to 100
for each candidate years of experience = random (1 to 20)
// however, let's corrupt our data. Let's artificially reduce the years of experience for all candidates who are "A".
// let's add sexism
for each candidate:
if candidate gender == "A" then years of experience = 0
Under this scenario, is using the proxy "years of experience" the best way to get trueability?
Bag of candidates = 10 random candidates from all candidates
How can you judge the best candidate if the most salient characteristic (years of experience) is artificially constrained?
This is the situation under the true historical context I quoted above:
>The IBM interviewer commented that he had never seen such a high score from any applicant and offered me either a secretarial or an entry sales position. I countered that I was interested in their advertised technical positions that required a math background, especially given my score on their math aptitude test, but he simply said that those positions were for males. End of conversation.
This means that my outrageous pseudocode with this corrupt line that caps talented candidates at 0 years of experience - actually describes real life. Continuing to use the proxy rather than get the trueability is not justified.
Under such a scenario, it is no longer possible to use the salient proxy characteristic to judge the candidate.
I want you to really get this, so I'll use a final motivating example.
- Should a company hire violent rapists?
Of course not. They are a threat to other employees.
Okay, so what if someone accused you of being a violent rapist even though you were innocent? That would suck! Imagine if you tried to appeal but were told: "Sorry. We understand you were falsely accused in the past, but a false accusation in the past does NOT justify us spending resources on determining whether the accusation is true or not. It is easiest for us to use the proxy of not hiring anyone like you."
I use this example because if I were a woman denied a job just because I wasn't a man, I would feel it is a gross injustice similar to a false accusation. So, you should use that feeling to realize that the "discrimination" you're complaining about is in fact righting a wrong.
You are saying: "Righting past wrongs does not justify spending present resources". This is a moral question. Personally, I feel I have enough resources to spend an extra few seconds each candidate to see their true ability, rather than applying a heuristic based on past discrimination. In my experience this also gives me access to better teams faster. If that comes at the cost that I have to get to know candidates it seems like a small price to pay.