| Sorry I have to disagree with this. I abide by one rule: if the candidate is good, they get hired. I am not a sexist nor do I discriminate, nor am I guilty of putting women down in any way, shape, or form, especially since before my time so I fail to see how the burden is on my shoulders, and why I should hire someone purely based on their genitalia. I am in no way responsible for what happened before my time. The reality is both men and women suffer from different things, and it's ill to make blanket assumptions based entirely on gender. What if the male I'm hiring is less experienced, but extremely poor and almost homeless. What if the the woman I'm interviewing right after is stable, but a woman? How do I evaluate this case? I think the best we should do is treat both equally, as that's equality and we should all strive to eliminate discrimination amongst each other, not specifically and artificially target one demography that has been oppressed, because there are tons of other causes better suited for awareness than women. What about black people? I very rarely see black people in the tech sector. Maybe we should stop hiring asians and hire blacks instead to level out that inequality? Where does it stop? Discrimination in the face of equality doesn't change the fact that it is still discrimination, even if it in favour of hiring women. Someone will always end up getting hurt, it's always a trade off. I have loads of developer friends who are female and they have absolutely no problem getting hired, because they are GOOD. Just statistically, there are less women in this field. Instead of sacrificing someone else's opportunities in the name of purely gender, offer everyone the same opportunities. What I do think needs to be done is have more communities focused on the STEM fields to make women feel more comfortable ENTERING it, not EXITING it, they've already committed to the field. ---- See my other post as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6875633 |
If your company gets measured (as it will) by future prospective job candidates beyond just this one hire, one thing they will look at is the health of the company (see the article).
A lack of diversity in a company does not say anything conclusive, but it can be a red flag.
As a very low level hiring manager (which it sounds like you may be, very low level) you don't have to think about this much. As you ascend to higher levels, the environment you are providing for employees, and consideration of how each employee you choose contributes to that environment, becomes more of a consideration as to whether someone is not only GOOD at what they do, but also GOOD for the company.
And if someone with an overwhelming advantage in the job marketplace gets edged out in a tie-breaker amongst equal candidates, cry me a river; they will be just fine.