This is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as anything except a temporary, remedial, and aspirational policy (McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail, Steelworkers v. Weber, Johnson v. Santa Clara).
We can probably expect the current SCOTUS to either introduce stricter tests or strengthen the current test. My own prediction is that, absent any sort of legislative action [1], SCOTUS will strengthen of the second prong of the Weber test ("not unnecessarily trammeled") to include the entire recruitment/hiring process. And probably also reaffirmations/broadening in scope of the "no quotas" rule.
From what I can tell, this is also a fairly recent phenomenon in tech. This guy's career goes back to 2000, back when tech jobs didn't have the appeal (or paychecks) they do today and diversity wasn't front-and-center. So even if you and GP are 100% correct about today [2], that doesn't really say anything about the world 20 years ago.
--
[1] which appears to be unlikely at the moment, but I'd be more confident saying so if Nov 7 fell within the edit window for this comment ;-)
[2] I'm intentionally stating this is a hypothetical and reserving my own opinion on it, because I think arguments are especially constructive when we can identify ways in which conclusions might fail even when accepting premises from which the conclusion is claimed to follow. Otherwise, especially on issues like this one, we end up with an intractable duel between contradictory axioms and no one benefits/learns anything.
We can probably expect the current SCOTUS to either introduce stricter tests or strengthen the current test. My own prediction is that, absent any sort of legislative action [1], SCOTUS will strengthen of the second prong of the Weber test ("not unnecessarily trammeled") to include the entire recruitment/hiring process. And probably also reaffirmations/broadening in scope of the "no quotas" rule.
From what I can tell, this is also a fairly recent phenomenon in tech. This guy's career goes back to 2000, back when tech jobs didn't have the appeal (or paychecks) they do today and diversity wasn't front-and-center. So even if you and GP are 100% correct about today [2], that doesn't really say anything about the world 20 years ago.
--
[1] which appears to be unlikely at the moment, but I'd be more confident saying so if Nov 7 fell within the edit window for this comment ;-)
[2] I'm intentionally stating this is a hypothetical and reserving my own opinion on it, because I think arguments are especially constructive when we can identify ways in which conclusions might fail even when accepting premises from which the conclusion is claimed to follow. Otherwise, especially on issues like this one, we end up with an intractable duel between contradictory axioms and no one benefits/learns anything.