> If you choose not to address it, it is then entirely valid for people to read into this that you hold certain views about diversity they don't want to be associated with.

Are you saying women don't think they'll get a slot at a user group that is begging for anyone to talk up a slot and are quite clear about the urgency of it? I feel like that's sexist somehow, like women fundamentally aren't able to realise user groups would take anyone that comes. This overall feels like trying to pretend like there isn't an extreme shortage when basic stats paint a clear picture.

> Put another way: I've seen groups entirely fail to get women to speak, and I've seen groups that have had no problems getting women to speak. They're not recruiting from different populations. The logical assumption then is not that there aren't enough women who can speak, but that one of them is failing to identify them and nurture an environment where they are prepared to speak.

So you've seen one "Go User Group" get women and another "Go User Group" in the same city/location fail to get women? Or are you talking about different niches?

> If this was an example of such a conference, that might be a valid consideration, but this conference is organized by a for profit company and appears not to have taken CFPs. There are a whole lot of such companies of varying sizes - my girlfriend used to work for a 10,000 employee conference operator.

I see we've gone from talking in generalisation to being specific because generalisations aren't working for you?

I'm going to ignore all your case specific response to a generalised comment thread.

> "My way of thinking" was that e.g. the example of the investment bank was inherently 1) racist, 2) sexist because they knew and were told that had the net effect of weighing details of candidates education that skewed the outcomes but that they had no evidence affected candidate performance, and should stop. No candidates would have any legal recourse for discrimination if they stopped caring about irrelevant details that favored specific schools that reduced the diversity in their hiring.

You explictly said you need to look outside your applicant pool if you're not diverse enough. That, to me, says you'll reject people in your applicant pool because they're not the right gender or race. At which point it's discrimination and racism and sexism and illegal.

> If you don't want to discriminate, you take steps to ensure the pool you get your candidates from isn't massively biased, especially when it is pointed out to you. If you stick with a severely biased pool despite having been told repeatedly about the bias, then it is natural to assume the reason is that you're perfectly happy to discriminate.

I don't think you understood my point, either that or you're ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your point of view.

> In other words: Lack of diversity in your applicant pool is not a reasonable excuse.

Actually, it's a perfectly legal excuse. Can't be sued for not hiring someone who didn't apply. And is a reasonable excuse for any where they have an applicant pool.

As pointed out, skipping over your applicant pool for others because of their sex and gender is illegal and sexist and racist. And I can't think of any reason sexism or racism should be acceptable.