[treeface]

Membership in a group doesn't preclude discrimination against that group.

Total count:

- 9 white males

- 2 black males

- 4 females

- 1 unknown

What strikes me as odd is that at a ratio of 9:6 (or 10:6/9:7), they have completely excluded an entire segment of candidates just to bring their ethnic and gender quotas more in line with what they'd like to see. The fact that it's discrimination is obvious, but whether or not that's bad is another question. If they are just doing so to make their office look more diverse for the sake of diversity, I would personally consider that to be bad business and ethically questionable.

If they're trying to promote a broader scope of cultural experience in their writers, then perhaps it's better to discriminate based on experience, not ethnicity. If they think that women write inherently differently than men, then they have bigger problems related to sexism.

[hashbanged]

> Membership in a group doesn't preclude discrimination against that group.

No, but groups generally don't discriminate against themselves when they are the majority and hold the positions of authority?

> If they're trying to promote a broader scope of cultural experience in their writers, then perhaps it's better to discriminate based on experience, not ethnicity.

> broader scope of cultural experience

> not ethnicity

Care to define "cultural experience" and how it differs from ethnicity?

> they have completely excluded an entire segment of candidates

If you're going to carry on with that narrative, would you explain why you don't agree with my above rejection of such narrative? They are not excluding, they are valuing diversity since they have a lack of it.

EDIT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7594378