I'd say though that your second point is actually part of the first, the desire to look for and help those from disadvantaged backgrounds is really just a sourcing strategy to find that "best person".

Quota filling and box ticking isn't good for anyone and that's a BS strategy any way you look at it. But if you're in it for the right reasons and the candidate's in the right ballpark, is capable, and can also serve as a role model to attract more people like them - it's a win-win.

Especially in tech, recruitment pipelines across the board are so screwed if we only limit ourselves to attracting white, middle class, men as the need for knowledge workers booms. Just to fill future jobs we're going to need people from across the spectrum to feel as they though should be heading for those roles.

IMO you don't defeat racism and sexism by deciding to be racist and sexist.

Erm, no.

My points, to avoid confusion:

1) contextual recruitment means you choose the candidate with better potential for success. That's not any more discriminatory than putting a mental weight to a particular university someone studied at, and is the basis for pretty much every "best practice" recruitment process out there.

2) we need white, middle class men, + a load more other people as well. How is that not clear?

Now you're bullshitting, you've just decided that all people who aren't middle-class white males are inferior, and based it solely on those characteristics.

It seems like, in common with many that you hold to an idea of "positive discrimination", that's what your comment attests to at least. That's still discrimination, if you select on race/sex when it's not relevant then that's racism/sexism. Many people, the majority it seems, are fine with that.

We don't need white middle class men at all, we need people [who can perform job roles]. Those people have a sex and colour, for sure, but that's (mostly) entirely irrelevant to their worth/suitability.