Way too much emphasis on if you went to the "right" high school or college for something given to people with ten year's experience, interest in those that took a hyper competitive view to niche hobbies in their high school years, why they picked the third level institution they did (economic necessity did not seem likely to be an acceptable answer).
> Way too much emphasis on if you went to the "right" high school or college for something given to people with ten year's experience, interest in those that took a hyper competitive view to niche hobbies in their high school years, why they picked the third level institution they did (economic necessity did not seem likely to be an acceptable answer).
Do rich golf-playing Harvard graduates really apply for a remote 100k per-year positions at Canonical? Or what is the idea of such interview?
In the US the two are intertwined because historical discrimination produced reduced chances for black people to make it into the middle and upper class, and this is a generational effect. Consequentially things that discriminate against the working class will also discriminate against historically discriminated minorities.
I don't think there is a way you can assert hiring practices that discern based on economic status are de facto racist in the modern US. That seems to be quite a stretch. In fact, many of the practices at large organizations are designed expressly to favor historically discriminated populations - and in other cases historically discriminated populations don't need an artificial advantage and have outpaced other populations on their own merit.
> I don't think there is a way you can assert hiring practices that discern based on economic status are de facto racist in the modern US. That seems to be quite a stretch.
It meets the "disparate impact" criterion, which is the legal bar for racism.
