[RangerScience]

Any circumstance in which someone is looking at that is a circumstance in which they could also be treating you like a specific individual; aka, if it matters to them, you're there to ask.

Ironically / IMHO, the irritant at the center of the pearl that is many of these ('social justice') issues is people treating other people as a member of an imagined group rather than a specific human they can talk to.

[dmurray]

Asking specific people about their political views during the hiring process (even general questions like "do you think tech workers should be politically active in the workplace?") is dangerous even if not necessarily illegal. Making hiring decisions based on the applicant's experience and employment history is pretty much best practice.

[RangerScience]

I mean - If it's a problem that they're political or apolitical, then it's already a part of your hiring process.

Whether you talk to them (or not) about it doesn't change that - just means you're hiding that part of the process or including them in it.

[dmurray]

> If it's a problem that they're political or apolitical, then it's already a part of your hiring process.

Definitely not. Unconscious bias is a huge issue in interviewing. Blinding your interviewers to political orientation, or any other factor, is far more effective than telling them just to ignore it.

[RangerScience]

Hmm. I'd expect directly addressing it - instead of either attempting to ignore it or blinding - to be the most effective. IMO it's not just about hiring, it's also about whether or not they'll succeed once hired, and I would expect any unconscious bias to impact that.

Altho TBC I do think you're right that blinding is better than attempting to ignore.

[DenisM]

source?