Should I pay for recruiter fees out of my own pocket if I want to send a recruiter to an HBCU while I'm at it?

I'm not going to do a diversity spiel, but I have had the "would be nice for our team to have different kinds of people" discussion before, and part of solving that can involve more focused recruiting efforts (including stuff like sponsoring those kinds of events). It's totally a work-related thing. Why would I pay out of pocket to help my company hire?

Recruiting is different than public outreach. I think the strategy in recruiting is to hire the best people you can regardless of identity. “Best” is qualified by the tasks of the particular role

> "would be nice for our team to have different kinds of people"

so if you have a business case for recruiting different kinds of people (who currently don't get recruited), then that's not a political agenda. If you can point to evidence that the recruitment team is missing out on great candidates because of some systemic mis-identification.

But if you are suggesting that it would make the world a more equal place to hire those different people, even though they currently would not be hired, then that's not a great business case, and thus, becomes a political agenda.

> Django Girls is an international non-profit organization started to inspire women from all backgrounds to get interested in technology and to become programmers, offering a safe and friendly environment.

It's something that most tech companies would be willing to sponsor, not political at all.

It is political to sponsor an organisation attempting to correct for the disincentives women face in technical fields. Some people would prefer not to sponsor that, as they believe women are represented at their natural and correct ratios in tech.

Basically some people see affirmative action of any kind as anathema, and they get angry and insecure when these things are suggested, and people respond in turn. So I see how this could become a source of conflict.

Strong disagree here. By only including women they have made it highly political.

To be clear: are you saying that corporations shouldn’t sponsor anything, or are you singling out Django Girls as a “political” sponsorship?

If the latter, you’re kinda proving GP’s point. Django Girls is an ostensibly non-political organization, politicized solely because it acknowledges an aspect of people’s identity.

Idk anything about django girls (or the org behind django) I was assuming it’s an example of a politically motivated public outreach. Seems to me company time is better spent making good products than doing outreach. Like I have my own politically-motivated community involvements, but they have nothing to do with whatever company I work for, and I’ll continue doing them when I change companies anyway.

Companies sponsor things all the time — as marketing, to help with recruitment, etc. So my question is, do you think all corporate sponsorships are inappropriate? Or just “political” ones?

I think /individuals/ should be political actors, not companies. Companies should focus on market operations: build product, provide service. Maybe that doesn’t directly answer the question but I’m not sure it’s a great question tbh.