[collyw]

> In other words, ideally the racial and gender distribution of a team would be as inconsequential and unbiased as blood type or handedness, in that the aggregate demographic ratios on your teams would at least match that of the residential population in your area, and ideally that of your broader geographic location.

Ok, I don't know about race, but for gender look up the "gender equality paradox". In countries with greater equality rights for women they show less of an interest in STEM subjects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

Like I say I don't know of any similar studies done for race, but it would indicate that you shouldn't necessarily expect outcomes that "would match that of the residential population in your area, and ideally that of your broader geographic location".

In my opinion we should be pushing for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome (you appear to want the latter).

[omar_a1]

That's why I sprinkled the word "ideally" so liberally throughout that comment, as that was the premise of your question. To actually reflect the population, you'd have to somehow address centuries of institutionalized disenfranchisement, de facto segregation, educational barriers, racially-moticated policing and disproportionate conviction rates (highlighted by the OP). That's a lot to put on a hiring manager who isn't even sure that racism is an actual, tangible thing.

Realistically, the most that hiring managers (save for huge FAANG institutions) can do is thoroughly ensure that their team isn't inadvertently (or blatantly) racist/sexist in their hiring process and on the job, and to post the job in enough places that a diverse applicant pool will see the posting.

With that said, hand-waving away that there are few to no women or African Americans/Latinos/Native Americans/etc. on the team with an overzealous application of the Equality Paradox is a pretty dangerous mindset to get into. It's essentially passing the buck, and is eerily reminiscent of the claims made by 1950's Southern US Politicians that Blacks were the ones who were self-segregating because they wanted to, not the other way around.

What I'm saying is, the ideal 50/50 gender ratio/representative race may be unrealistic for a myriad of reasons, but if you're a 50-person start-up with 2 women, one of whom is HR, and no black people, I'd take a good, hard look at the company culture that's being fostered, and particularly whether turnover for women and People of Color at your company is worse than average.

[collyw]

> Realistically, the what most hiring managers (save for huge FAANG institutions) can do is thoroughly ensure that their team isn't inadvertently (or blatantly) racist/sexist in their hiring process and on the job, and to post the job in enough places that a diverse applicant pool will see the posting.

I have been involved in hiring people before. There was absolutely nothing racist or sexist in the way we hire. Fact was we go two applicants. Neither were women or minority status. Fact is that the industry is full of white men (even here in Europe).

We should be hiring on ability to do the job and nothing else.

[omar_a1]

So, a quick note that my comments regarding racial representation are somewhat US-centric. I'd expect a company in Europe to be a much higher % white because your population is.

> We should be hiring on ability to do the job and nothing else.

This is exactly my point! Yet there is quite a lot of inadvertent, or even blatant, racism and sexism that happens during the hiring process and on the job.

[collyw]

If that is exactly you point then why do you have an expectation on outcome?

[omar_a1]

Because programming ability isn't determined by melanin concentration in the skin, or by what pronouns you use, and hence shouldn't show selection bias in hiring, save for a biased selection process.