Dheeraj,

While I understand your intent, and frankly applaud it, I think your conclusion of “closer to 1:1” is a bit of an overreach as a goal. The shear population numbers here in the U.S. generally go against minorities. Women, who are about 51% of the U.S. population, face an additional challenge in that for social and biological reasons, many choose to step out of their fields to have and raise children. To be fair, more males are staying at home with the kids when their spouse makes significantly more money, but that is not the norm in our society. To change it will take years if not decades or centuries.

This is not to say they should not step back into their fields, but is it really “fair” to force a mandate where after a multi-year absence, those folks get to step back in at the same rate of pay as men and women who did not step out? Isn’t their seniority and knowledge of current industry norms affected by their chosen absences?

I am not putting down having kids, or making a choice to stay home and raise them, but where is the fairness to the employees who did not make that choice? If a business or institution must, because of mandated legal parental leave of a year or more, keep an employee on their books, pay them, and let their seniority grow, how can that be fair? How can it be fair for that employee to have a protected job status just for choosing to do something that does not directly benefit the company? what happens if the company restructures, downsizes or closes a division? why should that persons job be spared? To be clear if a company voluntarily chooses that amount of leave and return, that is great, but it being mandated is a problem.

How do we fairly adjust for the parent that demands to take off work to go to every one of their child’s school events or t-ball games, when the rest of the employees do not get that time? How is it unfair to view that employee as less dedicated to the company when clearly their priorities are not the same as other employees who don’t make that demand? If my daughter has a recital on a work day and I demand to go, must the company let everyone else off too? That is the only “fair” thing to do, but it would destroy the company and its output.

As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The unplanned for or unexpected consequences from any major change can be more damaging than maintaining the status quo.

I am all for women and minorities getting encouragement to enter the STEM fields and to take advanced degrees, I am against mandating some random number of each in the cause to say and industry is “equal”.