> Sidenote, I appreciate your viewpoints to this complex subject and that we're able to discuss it calmly. These things can boil out of control even if you try to be as gentle as possible.

Likewise.

> That's a fair example. Today? Likely not. The 1st generation however? I imagine plenty of women/etc felt resentment towards men for being unfairly chosen in the market.

I'd imagine that's true too - however I can't quite understand why we'd know this, and then hold onto the same resentment if the tables are turned more fair now (not even that I'm arguing for it to be anywhere near as explicit as that was, we're talking about tipping factors and increments, not outright discrimination against a group).

> I just mean that, the moment we stop choosing based on criteria that matter to the subject (skill/talent/etc), and instead choose on criteria that matter to a 3rd party subject (skin color/etc)

Again, the argument isn't that we're selecting them based on that 3rd party characteristic though, but using that as a lens to the demonstrated skill/talent. To choose another characteristic - someone who went to an inner city school in a deprived neighbourhood getting a B+ vs someone who went to a private school getting an A-. The former far outperformed their relative expectation, and being within the same ballpark as the latter, would arguably make a better hire. But if we reserved it strictly to looking at "who comes out on top", then the latter could be the only rational choice, even if (given their position) they should have gotten an A+.

> inherently be hiring less qualified individuals

We can argue around this point, but I think it's important to draw it out: hiring someone isn't an absolute. "Qualified" isn't a definitive bar, but a spectrum that can be interpreted in different ways (at least for the vast majority of roles).

> shoehorning more women into X field is really an effective approach

Again, can we move away from implying this is some kind of forcing? We're not dragging underrepresented groups into these roles, but giving them organic opportunities.

I honestly don't buy into the argument around "gender specific" roles - there are enough women who are interested in them already to show that isn't the case. We're literally trying to shift societal expectations - this can't be done in one generation, which is why I respectfully discount an anecdote on that timeframe for this.

We have several hundred years of society deeming that certain roles are for men, and some are for women, and then... men go into male roles and women into female roles. Doesn't mean anything other than we've configured a system and it's behaving as expected, and there's enough exceptions to prove that those societal expectations are worthless, and if they were no longer there, there's the potential for us to be in a much different place (with more, much needed, talent).

> So I think we'd need to be very sure that we're acknowledging the costs now and if they're worth a perceived gain in the future.

I would again like to draw out my point that this isn't about gifting an unsuitable applicant a job over someone who is suitable. There might be costs, but there are also costs to perpetuating the notion that there are some jobs some people aren't supposed to be doing (both explicitly, and implicitly through having no role models doing them).

My closing statement is therefore (based on my point above) - contextual recruitment that gives weight to the performance of underrepresented groups in technology (whilst still ensuring they're technically capable) is a net positive for the company, and the longer term recruitment pipeline.

> To choose another characteristic - someone who went to an inner city school in a deprived neighbourhood getting a B+ vs someone who went to a private school getting an A-. The former far outperformed their relative expectation, and being within the same ballpark as the latter, would arguably make a better hire.

But that is not what you are doing. If it was simply that I am sure people would be more on board. But what you are doing is looking at their skin color and gender. Completely different. Seeing how we are talking about race and gender I can only assume you are suggesting that if somebody of a given race enters the room they must have come from the inner city -- sounds raciest to me.

That being said, I am 100% helping the poor find their way. And guess what? With the exception of gender it still hits most of the race targets that have affirmative action today.

The support for the disadvantaged, and truly underrepresented -- the poor people -- of America is what we should e focusing on. Unilaterally poor people have less access to good education, tools and supplies to learn anything. And the problem self balances! Whoever is poor gets a equally opportunity for help, and when they are not poor they don't get help!

And as I have said many times today, and all the time. You fix these problems at the start of somebodies life, not at the middle. You have to go to poor areas (yes, that means monitory races in a lot of cases) and make sure single parents have extra support and access to computers and tutoring. You need to pour the money in to low income areas and pay teachers a competitive rate to get THE BEST teachers in to those schools. Further more you need classes that teach far beyond the basics. You need basic finances, subsidized savings accounts to teach personal finance. Lessons on delayed gratification.

Nobody likes being left out because of their race or sex. You can't change it, and you are stuck with it. That was the entire point of civil rights movement. The second you start inspecting race or gender for programs you are taking steps backwards. You are causing segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color. And judging by some of the sentiment of some groups today, resentment and hate is exactly what you are left with when you base decisions on race and sex. I don't expect the rich to get mad because some poor kid got a job, made a company and is now rich. I mean I guess it could be happen, but that would be silly.

2 things here, I think we've argued down a path by using too many examples.

My broader point is around the use of context of performance in recruitment - that is most often done, as you've referenced, from the perspective of parental income over and above anything else.

My points around race and gender are definitely not an insinuation that someone of a particular race is from a specific socioeconomic background or location either.

And again, it's not about giving undue preference to someone solely based on their protected characteristics either - in relation to the original point about how we ensure a diverse culture in an organisation, you don't get there without appreciating the context of the groups, and how they've had to perform to get there, in said organisation.

In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line).

I don't mean to just attack your argument, but I don't think "segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color" fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. If you agree contextual recruitment makes sense (which you have done), then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession.

> In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line).

I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. It would make much more sense to support diversity if the top of line was boosted. Bottom of line efforts are usually employed to squeeze more cash out of the thing -- at least in a healthy company who was already running at decent margens. So it in my eyes it sounds like another tactic to exploit more out of workers. Not a good thing for the workers, awesome for the fat cats.

Beyond that I am not convinced that diversity actually improves a organization over merit. Please don't take it anti diversity its just pro meritocracy.

> fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism.

Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases. At the end of the day everybody wants special treatment, and when that special treatment can't be hand because of a feature you have no control over it never is a good feeling, unless you already feel yourself in such a superior position to take pity on those who received the special treatment.

As a anecdotal, and maybe this is why I am so passionate about it. I grew up very poor. And my middle school had a program for issuing computers to low income students. The only problem was low income was not the only requirement. Upon request for one you find out the program is not offered to white students. It took me near 5 years to get my first computer that I could use for more than just a few moments in a computer lab. I had to make due with a typewriter and a calculator.

You tell me why that is fair? I remember clearly they had tons of unissued laptops at the time, I walked past the stack in the computer lab every day. Again, tell me how denying somebody a public resource based off their color is fair?

Now take that story and flip the requirement from can't be white to can't be black. If that rubs you wrong in any way then maybe, just maybe you could see how race based initiatives vs wealth based ounces can do more damage than good, because I am sure I am not the only person with such a story.

Beyond that who are we to play god? And decide somebody's worthiness of effort -- based off skin color? History has shown what happened the last time that men did this, and it was not pretty.

> then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession.

I can agree, but again, it is not skin color or gender. I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often.

I think part of the problem is some people what change NOW, but fail to realize any sort of change is going to take generations, at least any sort of lasting change. People have to go through the paces All of america was not always rich, and much of america is built of very hard work and grit, and only now are we just seeing the fruits of the sacrifices past generations made.

> I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved.

Not quoting it wrong - it doesn't suggest that inherently, bottom line comes after top line, and thus it makes no judgement on whether it was increased by reducing costs or increasing sales. I meant the latter, but my statement didn't exclude it.

> pro meritocracy

In an ideal world, that's the ideal state. We just need to get there, that's the issue here.

> Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases.

You've made an impassioned argument about positive action as a concept there, and I actually work in a marketing space around inequality from a parental income perspective so 100% appreciate the points you raise. I also went to a poor school where my teachers didn't have batteries for the clocks, and could only photocopy the exam marking scheme on one side, meaning the greatest expectation they had for us was a C grade.

I do, however, think we're talking at cross-purposes, and the issues you've raised with the education system (I believe) are different from the points I've been working through about recruitment choices in later employment.

Fairness is different in education (I agree with you that any kind of artificial limit on access to a decent education is a shitshow we should be ashamed of), where quality should be consistent and equitable, versus what it is when making a qualitative decision on a hire. It's not about fairness in the latter situation at all, but identifying greater potential in candidates - whether that's through raw grades or taking into account the context those grades were achieved in (which, is more often than not based on the education they achieved, but not always)

I know, based on the POLAR[0] information about my school, I've been looked at through a Widening Participation/positive action lens. I wouldn't begrudge someone from another underrepresented group to be given that treatment based on another characteristic of theirs.

For example, if there's a lack of men teaching primary/kindergarten in an area, then I'd be ok seeing them to be selected over a female equivalent of similar qualified status as the environment for a male primary teacher is societally harsher.

> I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often.

True - but if we wind it all the way to my argument up the thread about role models and success, the educational fix also comes from breaking those subcultures through example.

[0] the UK's access to higher education ranking for UK areas

I am done replying directly to this topic. I feel that we could disagree forever. Thank you for a honest debate on this issue. As I constantly reevaluate my position on any stance I take; I will consider the arguments you made in combination with any future information I gather on this topic.

I should also state that I do see the points you make. I am just not convinced that the solution proposed will have the intended outcome, or not create new problems.