If you believe that the status quo is systematically biased, you cannot meanignfully support equality without supporting action to correct the bias.
Unfortunately, most countries/organisations seem to prefer second one, because it's easier and shows effect earlier, although over long period of time, it's going to be the worse one.
If yes, how?
If no, do you think it's better for them to attempt to compensate in a way that is feasible, or to do nothing?
Find why women don't take admissions in STEM as much as men do. If there isn't any human-made reason, then let it be. Don't force equal numbers down the throat of deserving candidates.
What is currently going on in the world isn't going to solve the problem of race/gender based problems.
The reason I asked about your view of feasibility here is that you seem to be arguing that Google (and others with diversity preference in hiring) are making the wrong choice. But the alternatives you seem to favor are not a real choice Google could execute. It's not like they thought about massively altering the perception and delivery of STEM education to all kids, figured out an effective affordable method to do that, and then just did diversity hiring instead because the VP of HR felt like it.
You could certainly make the argument that there's a better choice they could make, or that their apparent choices are doing more harm than good. But right now you're comparing against an impossible straw-man so it's hard to take the argument seriously.
certainly. These companies have funds that can compete with entire country's governments. They can definitely do outreach at the elementary level and provide funds to entire towns, encourage an environment of tech, and more if they wished to.
Do they? no. mostly because these are long term solutions that do nothing in the now outside of a small PR boost. Doing this on a major scale may also cost them profits for a while, which would not reflect well on their stocks.
Why do you believe that? Are there specific examples you're thinking of? How do you know it's too far?
Nirdhan Brahmin has been a popular motif in Indian mythology and epics. Brahmins became victim of same kind of propaganda as happenings with Asians right now in SV.
Generally a push for expediency comes from external pressure, not internal standards, culture, or morals. When I see stories like this, my first thought is that Google doesn't actually care about diversity. What they care about is a negative social stigma around a lack of diversity.
Alternatively, or maybe additionally, it shows a distinct lack of character development and exposure to the complexity of the real world on the part of those in decision making positions. This is a very difficult one to convince people they're victim to; its essentially telling someone that they're too inexperienced to hold their position, but not by any quantifiable metric, yet they've had no problem meeting the metrics they've been assigned. They're doing their job by every metric they have, but the problem arises in the validity of the metrics themselves and the sustainability of the methods they use.
Its the same reason why Engineering teams have architects; you need low-level "expedient" people to implement the tactics of a solution, but you also need strategy at the top to set non-expedient policy and ensure that both the metrics the expedient people work toward are the right ones, and that the methods they use to reach them are sustainable.