[richmarr]

Yeah, I think you're right. I should read more slowly :)

> You can either argue for ignoring all labels or for special label-based treatments, not both.

So, your question is how to square the value-add of diversity against the idea that race/gender doesn't affect technical ability?

If that's the case then I'd call out what I think is an incorrect assumption; that technical ability is perfectly correlated with either productivity (as an employee) or interestingness (as a speaker).

Nor does the performance of the individual equate to performance of teams or large organisations.

While it's not conclusive, there are studies that show that diversity in the workplace correlates with increased performance, and diversity as a nation correlates with increased GDP.

[scintill76]

> If that's the case then I'd call out what I think is an incorrect assumption; that technical ability is perfectly correlated with either productivity (as an employee) or interestingness (as a speaker).

OK, that's interesting and a good point.

> While it's not conclusive, there are studies that show that diversity in the workplace correlates with increased performance

But how should that affect a hiring manager? Should they round-robin through categories of people for each hire? Isn't that just reverse-discrimination? (Or "regular discrimination" if it's the WASP straight male's turn to get hired.) Doing one's best to look past those labels seems to make sense, but the article seems to say we need to consciously label and balance the representation.

[richmarr]

> But how should that affect a hiring manager?

Reverse/positive discrimination is a choice that you can make if you want to. I don't know what evidence there is to support or refute its effectiveness, but there's both appeal and risk there.

Personally I'd make that call based on the circumstances... a senior recruiter (who has built out some of the best teams in the UK) once told me on team diversity; "as soon as it turns into a sausage-fest you're finished". If an environment was 100% white/male then it'd be much less hospitable to other groups, so personally I would use positive discrimination in that case. If an environment was 51/49 male/female then I feel positive discrimination would be inappropriate.

> Doing one's best to look past those labels seems to make sense

As long as you can look past those labels. Which you can't. Check out the research on moral licencing... it shows that the more you believe that you're being meritocratic, the more your subconscious generates excuses for biased behaviour. The only way I know to 'look past' those labels is to (a) use quotas, which often doesn't make sense or (b) use a blinded assessment process & structured interviewing.

Option (b) is an area I'm working on at the moment.

> but the article seems to say we need to consciously label and balance the representation.

Given that tech is already a sausage-fest, and that it's not a natural state of affairs (the gender split having worsened since the 70s), I personally think it's acceptable to try to actively rebalance the way tech is presented both within the industry and to broader society. It needs to be okay to be a woman in tech. There need to be role models. And this seems like a pretty harmless way to build towards that outcome... it's just speakers at a conference. Nobody is being refused a job because of this, and the speakers will be just as good.