[evilsnoopi3]

> For example, the structure of EEOC Title VII inquisitions pressures companies to search extra hard to hire diverse candidates from a fixed size pipeline (the only way to make this work is to relax qualification requirements while pretending qualification requirements aren't relaxed, and maybe to fire any employees who fail to play along), but they can only go so far before they run up against the letter of the law which prohibits them from, say, openly firing people for their race.

This assumes worker pipelines are fixed which, practically, they aren't. You can increase flows to the pipeline by increasing outreach or incentivizing attainable qualifications. You can also seek trainees rather than day 1 contributors, which admittedly _is_ "relax[ing] qualification requirements" but has the trade-off of providing more purpose-fit employees when they do start contributing.

[throwaway894345]

I think the pipelines are pretty inelastic when you consider that most companies are competing to hire "diverse" candidates from the pipeline and the limits of the sort of training you propose (training might work for candidates who are already pretty well educated and highly interested and motivated to serve in an entry-level position, but you're not likely to have broad success training high school graduates for senior level engineering positions). Consider how much time, money, and energy FAANG companies have spent for so little difference in their demographics.

Moreover, the point of my comment was how the EEOC's notion of discrimination is pretty much "whatever we think is discrimination", so companies have to compete to appear not to discriminate, which manifests as increasingly giving preferential treatment to minorities without actually running afoul of the law as interpreted by the courts. So even if tech companies adopt your suggestions this year, next year they'll be the standard and companies will have to find something else to stay compliant.