Yes, hiring people based on their race/gender creates a perverse framework of incentives. A good example of some of the problems that arise from valuing "diversity" over actual merits is Susan Fowler. Her bosses treated her very badly because she was a woman, by refusing her requests to transfer and giving her bad marks on her performance exams, and the reason they did it was because of their incentive to appear "diverse". I don't mean to excuse their behavior, it was horrible, but maybe things would have been somewhat better if the system didn't reward her bosses for having a woman on their team (and subsequent disincentive for them leaving).

> the reason they did it was because of their incentive to appear "diverse"

This seems to radically mischaracterize the issues in that case.

It seems to match her original blog post.

"It turned out that keeping me on the team made my manager look good, and I overheard him boasting to the rest of the team that even though the rest of the teams were losing their women engineers left and right, he still had some on his team."

(from https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...)

That's not the worst thing she reported, but it's there, and it's definitely very bad. Would you elaborate on what mischaracterization you see?

A characterization that the origin of the problem was Uber paying too much attention to diversity statistics.

I think it's very reasonable to say that the reason it made her bosses look good to have a woman on their team was directly because of the push for diversity and inclusion in the tech world. Why else would they value such a thing?

Uber's problem was the workplace was toxic. In a former company, as a straight guy I've been hit on by another guy who was my team lead (and well connected). I can tell you it was not comfortable. I ended up leaving to another project as a planned transition, but my initial complaints directly to that team lead were laughed off as "I'm kidding (but I'll try again)".

I bet there are a LOT of unreported such cases.

Susan Fowler's case has less to do with race/gender than sexual harassment and abuse of power. I sure as hell would avoid working there if that kind of behavior goes unchecked.

Also, what percentage of women in tech would represent success in diversity? I don't believe it's exactly 50% in any discipline, lest we suggest the diversity of our genders has zero impact on what people want to do with their lives.

So if it's not exactly 50%, what percentage is it? How can you even figure it out?

A lack of diversity is one of those things that you know when you see. But as numbers improve, we are going to run into the problem where we have no idea when to stop obsessing over the numbers.

It's why I feel that equality in opportunity is the more effective measure. Are people doing what they want to be doing with their lives?

Something like 99.9% of midwives in Ontario are female. Is there a diversity problem? If you find men that feel like they can't become midwives for some reason, then yes. But not because that ratio feels imbalanced.

Females in tech in front-line positions roughly match the number of those graduating with relevant education.

It'd rather seem that the primary argument to 'diversity' should be 'getting more women to study the relevant things'.

Though: surveys show that women in tech see the #1 issue is 'lack of role models' - ergo - a degree of feedback here, but really ... I firmly believe that if 50% of Comp Sci grads were women, that roughly 50% of Google Engs would be female.

Caveat: in management positions there is a totally separate spate of issues.

Also - similar issues apply to ethnicity. Tech is about 30% Asian, and very few African Americans or Latinos, which is again commensurate with the pool of graduating talent. Again there are clearly feedback issues - nevertheless - one cannot ignore this white elephant.