[zdragnar]

Not really, no. Then again, I'm assuming that this only applies to early screenings and in-person / live interviews will allow a person's subtler characteristics come through.

Personally, back when I was in positions that participated in hiring, I didn't give a damn about a person's name, gender, race, skin color, sexuality, gender identity, age, personal hobbies, political persuasion, religion, food preferences or any other characteristic that wasn't directly related to: Can this person do the job we're hiring them to.

If we needed further consideration to distinguish between equally competent candidates, then we'd look at how motivated they are to grow, aka contribute in other areas. Not because we wanted younger people with longer (cynically: cheaper) career paths, but because the needs of companies change over time, and a flexible outlook means they might keep pace with change, and that's something anyone can do.

[dsfyu404ed]

Agreed. When hiring for a specific position you pick the first peg that fits the hole well enough. The hiring bias problem seems like more of a hiring pipeline bias problem (E.g. sending your recruiter to Harvard instead of a state school resulting in more applications from Harvard students).

[zdragnar]

Ironically, you are totally wrong in your choice of example. Starting in 2017, Harvard admissions became majority-minority, with whites making up just under 50%, and most or all minority race students (including black) being over-represented compared to the general population.

[Domenic_S]

> Can this person do the job we're hiring them to.

Precisely. It's hard enough to find qualified people as it is, without disqualifying them for characteristics that don't even impact ability.