

Ask HN: How can we solve diversity in tech talent without allocating quotas? - kedargj

Most commentary and discussions tend to highlight % of people by gender and race, while hinting at allocating quotas in order to bring better balance to the work force.<p>I feel this maybe a flawed approach and there could be a better way to address diversity without going down the quotas approach.<p>What do think?
======
lastofus
Quotas are not the answer... (I can't think of anything I've read recently
that hinted as such)

The answer is similar to the answer for problems that have been recently
highlighted by the Ferguson catastrofuck.

And that answer is to figure out how to remove systemic and often
institutionalized biases and narratives that have been baked into our society
and in turn the heads of individuals growing up and living in it. That's the
first step. The second is to figure out a solution to the income inequality
that opens so many doors for some, and keeps them closed for so many others.
It's about creating a fair playing field for everyone, where a theoretical,
honest to god meritocracy could actually perhaps exist.

How does one go about doing that? No fucking clue.

~~~
1dundundun
This answer will be ignored for the most part but you nailed it. As far as
your last two sentences in your reply, I appreciate the honesty. The fact that
the convo has elevated to this level of nuance and understanding indicates
things are finally moving in the right direction though.

------
webmaven
Quotas are exactly what you need. But not _hiring_ quotas.

Feel free to adjust the percentages below, but this is what you should aim for
to eventually get to gender diversity (for example):

Tell recruiters you want 50% of the qualified candidates they send to you to
be female.

Evaluate resumes in a form stripped of as much identifying information as
possible.

Half of all candidates interviewed should be female. If not, try to identify
an additional upstream bias, perhaps at the resume evaluation stage (example:
Women have less free time for side projects, so make sure that when you
evaluate a Github account it is for quality not quantity).

Aim for diversity in your interviewers. Half of the interviewing employees
should be female. If that isn't possible, at least one of the interviewing
employees _must_ be female (and if you only have one interviewing female
employee, she should get a 'creep factor' veto, _especially_ if anyone else in
the company (like a founder) has a veto. If that isn't possible (because you
have no female employees), _fix it and hire a woman already_.

That's it. No need for actual hiring quotas after that point, you should be
able to hire for merit out of the interviewees. If you end up not being gender
diverse (ie. only industry average or below), _figure out why_ (perhaps an
existing interviewing employee is setting of _their_ 'creep factor' alarms so
they don't accept your offer, or there is a promotion bias and talented women
aren't sticking around after you hire them).

In parallel, you can make similar efforts around race, etc.

------
EvanZ
Why not just hire based on merit, and let gender and race percentages fall
where they may?

~~~
yzzxy
Because practices implicitly assumes that merit === talent, and that natural
talent cannot be hidden by extenuating circumstances such as social pressure
away from a given trade or poor access to learning resources.

~~~
Perdition
So? Expecting industry to solve such a huge societal problem is ridiculous.
The only thing tech businesses can be expected to do is not discriminate.
Restructuring society to address systemic injustice that start well before
kids even go to school is not something industry can achieve.

~~~
yzzxy
I'm arguing that a truly effective meritocratic system should be able to
recognize merit that might be hidden by the kinds of social circumstances that
affirmative action attempts to compensate for. Even if you don't think
industry should address these issues, there's a chance that the game
theoretically optimal option is to make special consideration for
underrepresented groups.

~~~
Perdition
But affirmative action doesn't recognize merit, it rewards luck (at being the
minority given the job) and is designed to even out ethnic/sex ratios without
regard for productivity.

Also, a meritocratic system only requires the "winners" are chosen on the
merit of their work. It will never be possible to eliminate all disadvantages
which might prevent somebody from achieving some abstract concept of
potential.

~~~
lsiebert
How do you define merit then? It may never be possible to eliminate all the
disadvantages, but moving towards equality in outcome is still worthwhile.

Like a blind person can't be made to see, but screen reading software and
braille text is still better then not having those things.

------
greenyoda
By instituting quotas, wouldn't companies be explicitly discriminating against
potential employees (e.g., white males) based on gender and race, which is
illegal under U.S. law?

~~~
lsiebert
Consult your local lawyer, which I am not. That said, see The Supreme Court
case
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Steelworkers_v._Weber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Steelworkers_v._Weber)

It lays out requirements for a legal quota system.

