When that logic is run in the other direction, the courts smack it down. "We weren't discriminating against race, we just happened to use $CRITERION that effectively discriminated against race." Does it really change its force if it's discriminating "for"?
Utter strawman. The pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired. This startup is providing a tool for counteracting that selection bias. It isn't "discrimination" to strive for the broadest possible pool of qualified candidates.
"The pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired."
That makes no sense. It seems far more likely you've just got correlation effects going on; a given physical office has a certain local distributing of people.
And this is part of the reason I'm trying to keep to the legal aspects. Any new pool of applicants can only broaden the "diversity", but that doesn't mean you could use the complementary service without getting into serious legal trouble.
Preferences are one thing, but this appears to be out-and-out racially discriminatory. Even as part of a recruiting diet it seems legally dangerous, because as I tried to show with my link, there are limits to the preferences that can be displayed.
You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services.
Along with it being pretty "scorth-the-Earth" as defenses go, I would submit the alive-and-well recruiting industry of which this startup is trying to become a part is a sufficient counterpoint. Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups... I mean that fully seriously, not merely rhetorically, it's a legitimate advantage that Silicon Valley has over any other region trying to become Silicon Valley because you just can't legislate those networks into existence... but you tap them out as you grow. Especially if you're not in Silicon Valley.
Hence the market for things like, oh, say, Jopwell.
You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services.
Yet another strawman. We haven't even gotten to the details yet; remarkably, you've argued against increasing the pool of qualified applicants, on principle.
Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups
And another strawman! I never claimed referral networks are bad for startups. But those networks also tend to miss large swaths of qualified potential hires. You yourself admitted that eventually those networks get tapped out.
Meanwhile ... is the applicant pool a function of the current employees or not? If not, why are referrals an advantage? In one breath, the claim makes "no sense" to you, but in the next, that fact is a "huge advantage."
"And another strawman! I never claimed referral networks are bad for startups."
Perhaps you ought to be slower to fling about accusations about "strawmen" and actually read what I'm saying. I'm allowed to make points that are not necessarily direct responses to you. You're attempting to control the frame. Well, so am I. I see no reason to hide that.
"In one breath, the claim makes "no sense" to you, but in the next, that fact is a "huge advantage.""
Bollocks. Read more, assume less please.
"remarkably, you've argued against increasing the pool of qualified applicants, on principle."
Again, you're scorching the Earth to save your point. Your point logically explains that it would be perfectly ethical to create a recruiting service that both highly vets its candidates, and only accepts "the majority", because that would "increase the pool of qualified applicants" vs an unvetted population that requires wading through tons of people who barely even read the posting. Your defense is proving far more than you intend. It is perfectly reasonable, and indeed a real hiring company better be considering, the mechanics whereby the "applicant pool is being increased" if they don't want to be sued. You're nuking the ground Jopwell is standing on to defend it, which is precisely the idea that where the pool comes from does matter, beyond just "a big enough pool"!
Utter strawman. The pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired. This startup is providing a tool for counteracting that selection bias. It isn't "discrimination" to strive for the broadest possible pool of qualified candidates.