Past gives context as to why the present is as it is. Agree that its not something to dwell on.
Also, agree with you about hiring the best. One of the issues this startup (I presume) is hoping to solve is to help source great candidates that may not be as well aware of their options in startups or are outside the typical silicon valley friends of friends networks that much of the hiring goes through.
There are other issues like giving students the affordance of entering into the technology world (which is why I am on the board of a computer science high school) that Jopwell and others will try to aid in as well.
To the extent the CEO's claim about a "lack of exposure" is correct, it's entirely possible that separately reaching out to minority candidates will help find "the best". If nothing else, the job market (in Silicon Valley, and elsewhere) is intensely affected by the human social network it's embedded in - it's who you know, and both the natural dynamics of a graph with sparser connections between certain groups than within them, and the instinctive aversion people have to getting to know people that aren't like them (easily overcomeable in the right situation, obviously, but everpresent), make it harder for a minority candidate to have the right connections.
I'll add that minority candidates, including women and members of the LGBTQ+ community are often concerned about tokenization, and this can create a barrier for even the most well-meaning teams of mostly white mostly straight mostly males.
Some weeks ago at SF City Hall I heard some passionate teens and teachers from the Mission talking about their frustration with having Latino cultural education cut in favor of technology education intended largely to grant them token spots at tech companies.
In the east bay, I know there are networks of minorities trying to home-grow startups rather than line up to be someone's diversity hire, and while people are up in arms about this team being not terribly visually diverse, it may be built by people who understand the complex challenges of members of their own communities, including having businesses that don't have models which prey on them.
> This company's operation is probably illegal (see parent post where i listed examples of how they discriminate)
Are you a lawyer? Discrimination law in the US is very complex. If you're not a lwayer, and you're really interested in this, it might be worth your time to ask a lawyer who specializes in these things their opinion on this.
One of the things that makes these things so complicated is that there isn't just one controlling authority called "the law". There are local, state, and federal laws, there are regulatory interpretations of the laws, and there are court decisions about the laws. There are also decisions by regulatory agencies about what the're going to enforce.
> Even though race and color clearly overlap, they are not synonymous. Thus, color discrimination can occur between persons of different races or ethnicities, or between persons of the same race or ethnicity. Although Title VII does not define “color,” the courts and the Commission read “color” to have its commonly understood meaning – pigmentation, complexion, or skin shade or tone. Thus, color discrimination occurs when a person is discriminated against based on the lightness, darkness, or other color characteristic of the person. Title VII prohibits race/color discrimination against all persons, including Caucasians.
EDIT: I think this service is a good idea. I'd be interested why a quote from a US government equal opportunities site got downvotes.
I find it fairly complicated. Are you a lawyer? I am not.
Immediately after the portion of the EEOC page you quote, there appears the text:
"Although a plaintiff may prove a claim of discrimination through direct or circumstantial evidence, some courts take the position that if a white person relies on circumstantial evidence to establish a reverse discrimination claim, he or she must meet a heightened standard of proof. The Commission, in contrast, applies the same standard of proof to all race discrimination claims, regardless of the victim’s race or the type of evidence used. In either case, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains always on the plaintiff.
Employers should adopt 'best practices' to reduce the likelihood of discrimination and to address impediments to equal employment opportunity."
Even if you ignore the complexity directly in that section (which courts? what is the heightened standard? why do courts and the EEOC interpret things differently? what are the consequences of that difference?), there are numerous other complexities not covered by the question of "are Caucasian/white people covered?". I was not trying to say that the question of whether white people are covered is simple, but that the question of which discrimination (encompassing much more) is complicated.
For instance, this service is not discriminating in who they employ, only in who they serve. Is that legal? Under what circumstances? Do laws other than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply? How does this law interact with the right of expressive association? (for instance, presumably, the government does not try to force churches to hire non-Christians as ministers or priests and does not try to force the KKK to admit the people they hate based on race or religion - how does that exception work under the Civil rights Act of 1964?) Does Jopwell have fewer than 15 employees, and does that make it exempt from the CRAo1964? I have heard that this law does not apply to members of Congress hiring staffers or to the Supreme Court hiring clerks - is that correct, and if so, under what provision of the law? How does it apply to college admissions? Do any of the following constitute "color" under the law: sunburning, vitiligo, albinism, tattoos, hair color, baldness, eye color?
Even just the section of the Wikipedia page you link to that discusses employment discrimination includes at least a dozen caveats and extensions, along with multiple SCOTUS cases:
You say "dragging it up", I think "a reminder that we can do better".
History is useful for understanding the present situation and trajectory. It gives us context.
I can't speculate whether or not the practices of this site are illegal as I am not a lawyer, however I can say that it's addressing a very visible problem in hiring practices that are discriminatory. People may not be knowingly discriminating, but it certainly does happen. Often malice and incompetence cause the same results.
I for one think this is great for not only building an equal opportunity for everyone in the industry, but it also broadens the accessible talent pool.
