The original process the OP describes is exactly what many affirmative action opponents think AA does, that is only consider one demographic and ignore all the others. If you want to open opportunities for women, you post the job notice in places where women will see it. That will get you qualified candidates, and if you find a women who is the best person for the job, you hire her. edit: spelling
exactly. it really is this simple.
increase the number of female applicants and go from there.
We (as a society) allow techniques like Affirmative Action, that encourage [Insert whatever new name for Origination from Africa] to positions in schools, jobs, government, and elsewhere. Women are found severely lacking in the tech sector, due to "bro-tard" style workplace and management. Not to mention, not many women graduate from the heavy tech degrees from universities. Is this not why affirmative action was cre…
> Is this not why affirmative action was created in the first place?
No. Affirmative action was not created to allow for diverse workplaces. It was created to correct for differences in opportunity and implicit associations, etc...
I think most people got this topic wrong, maybe because of all the promotion of women in IT, which mostly is good. If I was a woman, I'd rather apply for someone looking for a developer, than someone looking for a woman - because then I knew I was hired because of my skills and personality - not my gender. In legal terms, this is pretty much what you can do. You can hire a "person" not a person of a specific gender.
The issue is wanting a diverse work force. They want the benefits that a diverse work force can provide, and that includes adding women to the team [1]. So how do they hire for that without discriminating? I think it's a fair question, and one that shouldn't be ignored out of some perceived bias. 1. http://www.ncwit.org/ncwit-fact-sheet
Exactly. It's almost like you don't know what you don't know -- I couldn't guess what companies are missing by being homogenous.
The problem is that this is discriminatory. If you are not hiring based solely on qualifications, and instead on gender, it is discriminating. If you were to switch the genders and say that you are only hiring men, it would be clearly sexist. However, if you do not accept well qualified men who would fit the job, it is seen as "breaking gender barriers". You should be hiring based on the applicant's experience, educa…
That's a fair point. It's hard to pin down why fewer women apply. Is it cultural, social, our industry? Are these things that a single company can sort out or change? How would you encourage or solve the problem of too few women applying, without crossing the ethical, gray, broad boundary of discrimination?
I'm not familiar with and female design groups, but if you are hiring a developer for example, you could advertise to one of the many female tech/programming groups that exist, while at the same time searching for an equal amount of male candidates. Or he could recruit by going along with his plan at the university, but instead setting a personal goal to reach out to an equal number of males and females, and not just saying "women only, sorry". Work on getting an equal number of applicants, then ignore their gender and only choose them based on their experience/education.
This is awful and it's frustrating to see. You have a job to fill and that job needs to be filled by a person. Gender imbalance in your work place isn't something that's up to you to solve. As a company you judge candidates based on merit, not gender! Be interested in hiring good employees, and if a woman applies and she's the best fit for the position, then hire her, but don't give her a leg up over a man because she's going to change some ratio.
If you hire a woman that is 50% as capable of another male candidate, that's asinine and you're an idiot.
Find out where tech women are hanging out and make your job opportunities known there. If you are only going to where tech men are, then you are only going to get tech men applying.
The original process the OP describes is exactly what many affirmative action opponents think AA does, that is only consider one demographic and ignore all the others. If you want to open opportunities for women, you post the job notice in places where women will see it. That will get you qualified candidates, and if you find a women who is the best person for the job, you hire her. edit: spelling
exactly. it really is this simple. increase the number of female applicants and go from there.
>increase the number of female applicants and go from there.
As it turns out, that's a lot easier said than done.
I always see these arguments as very very myopic. If I need a developer, then I hire a developer. I am very much discriminating against accountants, because they don't fit the qualifications that I am looking for. But no intelligent person would ever frame it that way. If you're a 10 to 1 ratio, then you need to diversify, and you would discriminate against men the same way you discriminate against accountants. The enlightened individual realizes very quickly that diversity is the goal because it works better.
That's what the article says. The problem is they want a diverse workforce. So the question becomes how do they hire for that?
Forcing diversity doesn't work. They should instead find out how to get more minorities etc to apply in the first place to be considered equally with other candidates, without their applications being weighted over the others. Hiring based on experience no matter what gender or race you are, and becoming more diverse due to that, is better than discriminating against others for the sake of diversity.
> Forcing diversity doesn't work. They should instead find out how to get more minorities etc to apply in the first place to be considered equally with other candidates, without their applications being weighted over the others.
Yes, that's what they are trying to do. Find out how. How do they signal to that group of people they want effectively, without weighting that group over others (such as by advertising only to that select group, or through other selective means).