If you merely <i>know</i> about the race&#x2F;sex&#x2F;whatever of your candidates then you&#x27;re <i>already</i> giving some weight to those attributes whether you want to or not.<p>If we had some way of scoring candidates numerically, then yes, you&#x27;d just pick the biggest number. But I&#x27;ve never heard of a hiring system that worked like that. There&#x27;s always some subjectivity. You can look at a bunch of resumes and rank them, but a good chunk of that ranking is guesswork and opinion. That gives room for your biases to play, and you&#x27;ll end up with the &quot;best&quot; candidates tending to match those biases. And don&#x27;t tell me you don&#x27;t have any racial or gender biases; you do, everybody does.<p>You shouldn&#x27;t give up a 9.9&#x2F;10 because he&#x27;s white, and hire a 2.4&#x2F;10 because she&#x27;s black. But if you have a bunch of candidates around 8&#x2F;10, consider hiring the minority candidate who&#x27;s a 7.9 rather than the candidate who matches the existing demographics of your team and is an 8.1. Your numbers are probably ±3 anyway, so it&#x27;s not the irrational decision it sounds like it would be in a universe of pure numbers.