If you were to only recruit from single gender schools then I personally would have an issue with it, same as this issue. However, if you are recruiting from many universities and some happen to be single gender, that is not discriminating.

Duolingo has a policy of only recruiting from schools that have an above-average percent of women in their CS program. How do you feel about that?

I can kind of see what they're getting at. Women are under-represented in the tech industry. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

But this feels like a blunt instrument for a highly-nuanced issue. If diversity of experience is a core value at Duolingo, why not recruit everywhere and tailor the interviewing process to favor candidates from non-traditional backgrounds?

While they've achieved an important milestone, I'd be very worried about the line of thinking that led to this decision if I were a Duolingo investor. All the diversity in the world doesn't mean much if they can't find a way to keep the lights on.

> Duolingo has a policy of only recruiting from schools that have an above-average percent of women in their CS program.

Thats a misleading statement.

IMO, The main reason why they did that is because Carnegie Mellon University has more woman than men in its incoming CS classes, and Duolingo wanted an excuse to exclusively recruit from CMU (Which one of the founders teach at, and is strongly associated with).

Why do they need an excuse, is that not allowed in USA?

So they are more interested in being politically correct than in recruiting the best talent available? My respect for them just went down. This is not a way to fight gender discrimination, but rather to perpetuate it.

Yup, even if you are a women, you have to pay for the sins of your schools historical ‘discrimination’

It's more like: you're in a certain group, you get hired, and you know that the company that hired you has this policy of prioritizing hiring from your group. You spend your days in that company wondering whether you got are there because you're good at what you do, or merely because you are member of the prioritized group. I wouldn't want to be in such position.

idk, if i were a woman i might still prefer that position to not having a job in my field.

Would you enjoy always wondering whether e.g. people in your team are listening to you because what you're saying is worth saying, or if they are merely humoring you and tolerate you in their team on account of orders from above?

Something like this must do ugly things to one's mind and one's perception of self-worth.

Special treatment versus fairness

Wow I have a lot more respect for Duolingo now. That's great!

Why does promoting special treatment rather than fairness increase your respect for them?

What's fair about perpetuating the systematic discrimination that women in tech face?

And in what way is this special treatment?

Companies use a variety of different metrics by which to determine which schools they should recruit from. "We want to increase our diversity" is a reasonable metric to use, and "recruit from colleges with an above-average percentage of people in a minority group we've chosen to view as important" is a reasonable way to accomplish that.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but diversity is more than just a buzzword. Increasing diversity on the development side improves the final product, for a variety of reasons.

May I ask why this increases your respect for them?

What if the companies that were placing job ads on Facebook were also placing job ads on other platforms that weren't targeted to men only? Playing devils advocate here...

I think the previous question was about the institution. In this case, Facebook has people of all genders, not just one.

It only be an apt analogy to the Universities if Facebook were some single-gender social network. Or if an all-gender University let you only recruit one gender.

The devil probably has enough advocates at this point and doesn't need your contribution.

But in general, there are classes of ads that you just can't target based on certain classes, period. Even if you hypothetically might have the ability to target a counterbalancing ad somewhere else. Facebook repeatedly has been in hot water over this, and both they and the people using their ad platform to do this stuff need to get more than a slap on the wrist, in order to deter others from trying the same in the future.

Well if Facebook wasn't a large portion of the online advertising market then there might be an argument. When you try to become a monopoly you get extra responsibilities as you gain market share

Does "have an issue with it" mean "put people in jail for it"? Because thats what it sounds like you're getting at.

Where in the world did you get that from? I never said anything of the sort.

I literally take issue with it, as in I don't think it is right. I said nothing about the implications and I certainly don't think someone should be jailed for poor recruiting practices.

Making something illegal means putting people in jail directly or if they refuse to cooperate. In many countries this is what happens to people with what you would consider poor recruiting practices. It's usually called something like discrimination against a protected class. Many people in power today consider your rejection of jailtime for poor recruiting practices a sexist position.

Barnard is an all-female school. And how often are jobs only open to Barnard students?

Facebook is not a single-gender platform.

Advertising on one platform for one gender doesn't mean the job is only for one gender. And if job was open to one gender only, there're already laws against that...

Saying that "FB is not a single gender platform" is like saying that "Higher education is not a single gender platform".

Recruiting only from Barnard doesn't mean that job is only for one gender either.

You're missing their point about using limits on the market supply to discriminate for a job - i.e. even if that job is "open to all", but you've limited applicants to one gender.

Should we make sure every company that sends recruiters to Barnard's career fair also send recruiters to men-only college career fair?

That's a pointless, loaded question.

HR and legal depts that don't want their company to be sued for violating Title VII will make sure that they aren't recruiting only from Barnard, unless they're some bona fide exception (e.g. hiring models for women's clothing). This idea that they need to recruit from men's only career fairs is your own.

Doesn't your argument about company's not wanting to be sued work exactly the same for those advertising online?

Yes, hence the problem being raised by the article. Using targeted advertising on a protected class is illegal via Title VII.

I'm saying that one-gender-only job advertising is not a novelty that happened for the first time in Facebook.

As other commenter pointed out, how is this different from advertising in women/men magazine? Should we ban those as well? Sure, one can argue that their readers are only 98% one gender. But then some people on FB lie about their gender and some browse FB on somebody else's account. E.g. My GF never logs out off Facebook on shared devices and I see ads targeting women all the time.

All in all, we should look at bigger problem of targeted advertising rather exclusive loaded cases. I've no idea what targeted advertising line is "good enough". On the other hand, targeted advertising is definitely causing massive societal problems and political polarisation.