It's crazy that hiring a woman to be the second woman on a board is considered "diversity hiring" though. It's not a super minority that is being looked for to tout diversity, it's half the population! I'm sure there are women who are both utterly qualified AND can provide a perspective on the more inclusive culture they are trying to create.

Hiring a woman is not crazy in the least. Hiring a woman because she's a woman over a more qualified male candidate (or the other way around) is harmful. There are plenty of women who don't need such "help".

Not sure why we immediately need to jump to the trope that a more qualified male candidate would be passed over. You're treating a seat on the board as if were some sort of technical role with hard skills. It's not - it's a role to be a positive and influential voice within a company dealing with a toxic culture. Being a successful woman and having all the experiences and perspectives that come with that is literally part of their qualification for the position.

> Not sure why we immediately need to jump to the trope that a more qualified male candidate would be passed over.

This is the original piece comment we are talking about:

> He needs to be replaced by a woman

It's evident that the objective is to hire a women, not to hire a qualified person, therefore a less qualified person can be hired just because she is a women. A person hired like this would most likely not get too much respect because she had an advantage not because of her skill, but her gender.

> Being a successful woman and having all the experiences and perspectives that come with that

See my question in another comment.