[biggerbistro]

Actually, diversity measures make things worse by promoting below-average candidates unfairly based on their superficial attributes (skin color, sex etc). This actually achieves the opposite of what is intended as it reduces fitness selection of whatever genes make someone good at/interested in STEM topics. By going against meritocracy you are harming the vulnerable groups by giving them a crutch to rely on.

[panda88888]

In the case of Google, I don't think the bar is being lowered for any candidate, since there are so many candidates to select from. If anything, it's more likely that qualified non-diverse candidate are rejected for random reasons at a higher rate than qualified diverse candidates, because interviewers and hiring committee aren't on the look out for biases.

[omikun]

I don't think anyone is promoting below-average hires as part of diversity programs. If that was the case, they could just hire only women until the desired gender balance is met.

I get the feeling your position is exactly what Google referred to as toxic. Imagine a woman hired in a diversity program hears your position. Do you think she will feel welcomed and understood?

[biggerbistro]

Is that not what a diversity program amounts to? If the candidate was superior on merit alone then market forces would reward those companies that ignored race and gender in their hiring decisions and punish the racist/sexist ones that were passing up perfectly good candidates. If all existing companies are racist/sexist then the potential entrepreneur that starts a competitor and scoops up all the "ignored talent" would make a killing.

Perhaps instead of whining about gender ratios we should be the change we want to see while making a ton of money at the same time?

[alokitr]

I sincerely don't think diversity programs amount to that. And if you know any that do, call them out because they are not diversity programs, they are "discrimination" programs in essence.

As a side note, I think you expect too much from talent in this specific case. There have been more than one companies that have hired excellent talent only to succumb to the market forces.

[biggerbistro]

I'm curious as to why you don't think diversity programs are not exactly that: discrimination programs. Enforcing quotas assumes (usually incorrectly) that there is an equal supply of talent within the underrepresented minority group and that it is simply bias on the part of the hiring managers that prevents equal numbers of blacks/women/hispanics/whatever from being hired. Putting pressure on companies for not having more minority representation is being discriminatory against (usually) white males, as there are limited spots available at a given company.

If you start with the potentially incorrect assumption that your hiring practices are biased in favor of one group over another then doesn't it make more sense to address this bias directly rather than enforcing quotas? Having your hiring process audited and getting rid of any bad weeds seems like a good start. I've seen firsthand manager who have said outright "we can't hire him, we need to hire a woman this time" after interviewing what seemed to be a good candidate.