Diversity for the sake of diversity?

Are you going to fire/reject more competent employees because they have the bad luck of being part of a certain race or gender that just happens to be more numerous for a field?

Discrimination is bad, but in this case it is what it is, and it's not discrimination. More white/Asian males become computer scientists than any other race or gender, and that's just the way it is. Don't blame Microsoft, blame the primary education system that has failed so many people.

It's easy to just say hire the best candidate, but a lot of time its who you know, not what you know. A lot of those people that get those jobs already have connection most minorities won't have for another generation.

So they should be discriminated against because of that?

Why do people assume people of race/sexuality (which doesn't get brought up and isn't always obvious) ect are giving them a leg up? There are a few cases I'm sure where someone of minority got hired because of that (mainly government) but you'd be lying if you said the exact opposite doesn't happen.

Stop assuming white straight males are "the best" and so should be hired over everyone else.

But that would be ignorant of systematic unbalances which they could otherwise help combat. Same with scolarships etc

I can understand why many would find positive discrimination irkesome but its there for a reason and it would be niave to think that everyone starts off with the same opportunities in life. It was only 60 years ago that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a bus. Even though that degree of discrimination doesn't openly exist today, people are being brought up in homes and communities that have been completely shaped by that degree of opression. Again only 60 years ago.

In terms of being gay friendly I think it is the equivalent of being indifferent. Replace it with human, if you were human friendly you wouldn't automatically jump to the conclusion of someone being bias in favour of humans.

Forced diversity is just wrong for all involved. Being hired/laid-off/promoted should never be about gender/race/nationality/religion/etc.

So MS has forced parity with the rest of the tech indusrty?

...I couldn't resist

I don't think anyone is assuming white males are the best. I think are trying to highlight the idea that releasing this information and then HR departments saying things like 'We are trying to diversify the work force' is redundent as it should be the best person for the job. 100% of people hired for MS were the best for their job because they should be the best, not because they were a latina female.

But in an industry where majority of those applying are white males, the best that is hired might just be a white male. If they want more diversity they need to goto the route of the issue and that is education, get more people into their field and you'll have more to hire later.

The way I take it is, these companies are trying to appear friendly to all types of people, doesn't mean they will hire you if you're not the best for the job.

If you have a work place that is predominantly straight white male, and the business doesn't promote that it is diverse and friendly to minorities, it becomes incredibly less appealing for those minorities to apply thus that company could be missing out on the best candidate.

They're trying to cast their nets as wide as they can to get the person.

Also I think people are automatically assuming that this article is an attack on MS. Its not, its just bringing up some interesting statistics which will likely be used to encourage certain minorities to work in certain fields if there is obvious unbalance

I sure as hell hope someone being laid off or promoted has been influenced by their race, gender etc