But don't candidates for Google jobs have to jump through several tedious rounds of interview? How likely is it that there's going to be a snobby Indian in each of those rounds who gets to veto a candidate?
1. Companies like Google tend to want hiring approval to be unanimous or close to unanimous - the more rounds of approval you have, the more likely one person can derail it. (Not to mention team matching, SVP approval, etc.)
2. With enough interviews of enough candidates, this still leaves you with a statistical bias in aggregate, even if it's possible for one candidate to avoid biased interviewers. (The converse of course, is that the experience for a single candidate is quite often worse than the median experience.)
At Google you get interviewed (usually only one round with multiple people in it) and then your interview feedback goes to a hiring committee and they make the decision.
Could the hiring committee identify you as UC? Quite likely based on surname, but I don't know if they see a surname.
Also, in the article, the discrimination happened after someone was hired. Promotions (Google again uses a committee system here), project assignments, etc can all be influenced in a way that is impossible for you to "hide" who you are.
2. With enough interviews of enough candidates, this still leaves you with a statistical bias in aggregate, even if it's possible for one candidate to avoid biased interviewers. (The converse of course, is that the experience for a single candidate is quite often worse than the median experience.)