> I haven't suggested skipping over any applicant pool. I'm assuming you're referring to this: I'm referring to this. "The point is that if you genuinely want

> I haven't suggested skipping over any applicant pool. I'm assuming you're referring to this: I'm referring to this. "The point is that if you genuinely want to address diversity, and your applicant pool isn't diverse, then you need to look beyond your applicant pool" There is no way to look at that statement other than you would not hire someone out of your applicant pool but instead headhunt to hire someone for diversity purposes. I hope you never get take to an employment tributional because these sort of statements will almost certainly result in your losing and if you're working for a company facing problems internally. > After you've given excuses for why it's totally reasonable that people don't have women in their applicant pools. You can dress this up however you want, the reality is that it comes across as a clear defense of events failing to take steps to get diverse lineups. I'm sure you don't even think you're doing this, but it was very noticeable. To be honest, you've came into this discussion with a bias and a preconvieced idea. Opinions such as this about me only ever come from men who want to virtue signal. These are often met with laugther when I tell women about them. There is a simple fact, I've explained to you multiple times your suggestion as quoted above is sexist and racist and is illegal and you continue to act like me explaining the law is somehow me being prejudice againist women. Quite simply this isn't dressing anything up. This is the law. THE LAW. There are many companies who would fire you for gross misconduct for breaking that law.