@deploredbanked good point - i do not exactly know the sexuality of my coworkers. But if any of them are queer, it would be a good idea to create a place where they are able to open up and be themselves? I think that people should have equal opportunity and one way to achieve that is by making every place welcoming to everyone. Also, the coversations in a team where everyone is seemingly white-cis-male are quite different from a team that has people who are oficially not straight white male. The culture/vibe changes if a group is more diverse. That is my selfish motivation.

Why is this question closed? It's no more "opinion based" than any other question. I have to guess that the real motivation in closing is dislike of the subject matter. I voted to reopen

I don't know how to assess the sexuality of employees, but the sex and skin colour should be a numbers game. By definition, the pool is bigger at entree level, so by having more entree level positions your chances of making total variety are higher. Also if there are positions such as a designer that have a more diverse pool your chances are better. Obviously, this is if you need the total diversity up by % in a time limit, long term options would be investing in education and hoping it repays in years, depends on your goals.

Is there any specific company policy or something else with your company that makes your company less appealing for those groups of people compared to other companies in your area?

@AndreschSerj: this is a great goal but don't be too hard on yourself either. In my engineering freshman class (many years ago) we were 300+ males and 2 females. It's impossible to hire gender parity in my job and experience level. In my sons engineering freshman class (at MIT) there were more females than males. So things ARE getting more diverse but it takes time to work its way through the generational system. Set realistic goals and celebrate the ones you achieve.

Bringing gender/sexuality or anything that can be seen as political into the hiring process is just asking for trouble. And at the very least you'd also be chasing away people who don't want to disclose these things to coworkers and their employer. It's none of your business.

This question is phrased as a short-term process when the issue might be a long-term issue. How could the company make the whole field more welcoming to people who are not in the mainstream? This might need to ask how to open training schools or mentoring programs for minority students. The company may need to take public stands against discrimination and discriminatory laws. There are many different aspects depending on where the company operates. In which country / state is this company located?

Since you're already aware that there's a lack of available hires in your industry, and that presumably this is a leading factor in the lack of diversity in your workforce, what makes you think that your company is not already a "safe workplace for everyone"? You write that you "wish we could attract a more diverse workforce", but you can only attract that which is already out there to be attracted. If more diverse workers in your industry simply don't exist, how can you attract more of them to your specific company ... ?

“There is no problem with inclusion in tech!” holler the people who downvote and vote to close every discussion of minority inclusion.

@mxyzplk How is that remarkable? If you don't think there is a problem, why wouldn't you downvote a question where the premise is there is a problem?

@Greg I was about to ask the same thing... Minefield ahead!

@TheEvilMetal I could understand your objection if this question was about the interviewing process or anything else that happens after a candidate has already applied, but the question is how to make the company "more appealing" to more kinds of applicants. For example, I'm sure you wouldn't say it's "asking for trouble" for a company to realise that their job openings are being advertised in places men are more likely to see, and therefore intentionally put up the same adverts in some places that women are more likely to see; as far as I can see, that's the kind of thing we're talking about.

@JoeStrazzere I'm not going to second guess why the question was closed, but to me it's more along the lines of the OP hasn't demonstrated that they are in a position to make changes, so any suggestions are potentially impossible for the OP to implement, thus making the question appear moot. Even mxyzplk's very good answer is predicated on being able to change the hiring process.

As someone who looks like a cis-het white male but isn't actually and is kinda quiet about it most of the time, I applaud the initiative, and if I had people at my company putting in the effort, I'd be happy and my colleagues might even find out I'm queer :)

I voted to close. Firstly - I disagree with all DIE initiatives. They are outgrowths of Gramscii's theory of cultural hegemony. But putting aside my personal issues with DIE - there is the technical problem of targeting 10% of 50% of 23% of the population and asking 'well, where are they?'. Secondly - when these initiatives invariably fail, eventually people start hiring not based on Meritocracy, but based on protected characteristics - which is not only immoral but highly illegal. And we have the successful lawsuits to back this up. We should not be encouraging illegal activity.

To add to that - here is the Acid test that I encourage everyone to use: Replace the words 'Straight, white man' with say 'Jew' - if what you've written sounds horrendous, then you - my friend - have some horrible beliefs. On the flipside - replace the word BiPoC with 'White' and see if you sound like a southern democrat from the 1950s - same line applies. Trying to fight discrimination with discrimination is a zero-sum game and it never ends well. We should not be promoting these poisonous ideas.