See my comment below for more, but essentially it is like affirmative action. Simply reversing a constraint in a vacuum removes tons of other contexts. It's not X + Y = Z, there and many more variables at play. This action is trying to balance variables outside of the control of Sephora.

> This action is trying to balance variables outside of the control of Sephora.

But if those variables exist in the applicant pool, they are discriminating against individual people on the basis of sex.

It is not for Sephora's (or anyone else's) recruiters to wax philosophical on what they think the statistics should look like for the population at large, when considering a candidate.

This brings into focus a very nuanced question of discrimination versus unjust discrimination. The affirmative action debate is divided by these lines. I don't think we're going to make progress on that here, but the summary is that people who agree with you believe both discriminations are unjust, while those who disagree see this discrimination as a temporary action that will lead overall to more justice long term. Along with that comes the question of consequentialism versus deontology, and if the consequential balance is accurate to the world.

> It is not for Sephora's (or anyone else's) recruiters to wax philosophical on what they think the statistics should look like for the population at large, when considering a candidate.

This is not a question of statistics of the population but one of morality. This is what Sephora views as acting ethically. As noted above, not all agree, but that is why they are doing this (assuming they didn't do this for PR, which would be a far stretch, even if this story itself is for PR, which I think is a case of both/and). It is the job of Sephora's recruiters to act within the company's ethics.

I am not willing to accept a principle which artificially exempts people from protection. I'm not going to protect the right to keep and bear arms only for whites, or freedom of expression only for liberal conservatives, the right to a fair trial only for south asians. Adding arbitrary, unfair stipulations to a principle defeats the purpose of having principles.

It is a broadly respected civil right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex when being considered for a job in a role which is not reliant on sex-differentiated characteristics.

The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. constitution is among the proudest arrangements of fourteen words in recent history. That is the way principles work, there's no "unless you're a homosexual" at the end, there's no "unless the allegations are recorded in the wee hours of the morning".

I don't understand how anyone could trade something as eternal and beautiful as body of principles into something as common and detestable as a body of exceptions.

There are two falsehoods your argument is presenting:

> Adding arbitrary, unfair stipulations to a principle defeats the purpose of having principles.

> I don't understand how anyone could trade something as eternal and beautiful as body of principles into something as common and detestable as a body of exceptions.

Neither of these things are occurring. The argument you present is a mix of two straw man statements and a bit of slippery slope for both.

The stipulation is far from arbitrary - it's in direct response to negative discrimination at other related levels. If we are talking justice and fairness, this is a positive move to some (not all, hence grey area). Those with more opportunities inherent in a system for arbitrary reasons do not have those opportunities justly. This policy is an attempt at redistribution of arbitrarily gained opportunity.

To the second, there are many flaws. First, the original principle you listed has an exception itself ("for a job in a role which is not reliant on sex-differentiated characteristics")! Adding a stipulation is a change to the principle, not an abandonment of all principles or even the single principle itself. Exceptions are incredibly important in many cases and are not an argument against a specific exception itself. Additionally, even if we accept the arbitrary "eternal beauty" of principles, the "common detestability" of exceptions, and the binary between them, there is no requirement for all of one or the other. It's just not logically sound. We can have many of one and a few of the other, half and half, etc.

Again, I am not even staking any of these claims on the specific exception, which is a very strong moral grey area. But it's a very understandable and logically sound side. The question becomes one of restorative justice, not one of "principles and exceptions". I think your argument is playing towards a wish for the world and morality to be absolute and clear when we know the world is far from that every time we look at situations that break hard principles once held.

>See my comment below for more, but essentially it is like affirmative action.

That's what's wrong with it.

> I'm trying to imagine what would happen if a company decided to do the opposite of this. Hires men on what they might one day do, while hiring women only on what they do right now.

Uh, it'd be what you see today. When they refer to "Qualifications" here they are referring to either university degrees or experience in top tier tech firms. And it'd be like the process that VCs engage in to hand out money to untested entrepreneurs. You'll get some Job's and you'll get some Duplants (or non-personally, you'll get some Apples and you'll get some Clinkles).

LOTS of people around you got into the industry without this background. It was in fact the norm. I mean ffs, man, Thiel was literally paying men he thought had potential to not finish college and work as EIRs for his private investments.

This practice is so common for men it's difficult to point to even one organization that doesn't have a man with at least one point on their CV where "they had an opportunity."

What's more, the entire landscape is changing faster than recruiters and folks setting "levels" for software engineers can keep up. Startups like Corusera and Udacity are literally making up new "credentials" out of thin air in an effort to bridge this, but the reality is that competitive edge of the junior position hiring market is a lot more about testing capability and potential more than any CV list.

And were the specter of "men not getting what they think they deserve" were not raised, HN would en masse be applauding Sephora for trying to build a sustainable technical organization that values training and internal employee development over 2-year re-employment cycles that give no one any incentive to learn.

I wasn't aware Thiel sponsored only men, or that other practices you mentioned applied only to men. Can you please back this claim up?

He didn't sponsor only men, and I didn't say that. I'm saying: men as the majority group in tech have been the majority benefactors of "taking a chance on someone."

The idea that this is a unique stance to take for women (or indeed, a new concept) is absurd and incendiary on its face.

There are more yellow fish in my tank than there are red. So when I add food to the tank, yellow fish benefit disproportionately. Therefore, I should feed the red fish separately. Got it.

If the yellow fish complained that red fish were getting a free meal at feeding time, you'd have an analogous example.

Simple fact: There are more men in the industry that have experienced this practice than women. It's precisely because there are more men that it's absurd to say this practice is unique and favoring women.

It likely is from a legal perspective, but if you pressed them I'm sure they'd respond "Of course we treat all applicants the same". Demonstrating in court that you were discriminated against like this is difficult, and especially when it's a non-minority (some white man).

Managers in various companies routinely hire people including many men mainly on the basis of potential plus skills and other qualities vs on skills alone. The post talks about Sephora doing so with female candidates (per topic focus) but does not say it doesn't do the same with male candidates.

Part of the comment I quoted indicated that they only did it for women. If they were calling this out as something they do for all candidates and were just talking about how it helps women, I wouldn't see an issue with it.

For example, consider two situations.

"We provide daycare for all employees with children. This helps us recruit a more diverse team because child care responsibilities is something which tends to be unequally distributed in our society."

"We provide daycare for female employees with children. This helps us recruit a more diverse team because child care responsibilities is something which tends to be unequally distributed in our society."

The commenter you quoted made the assumption such was done only for women; the actual post did not state so. The post was focused on their female employees, hence, all points referenced female workers. I wouldn't automatically assume all outlined measures were made only for them unless otherwise stated.