The entire article is based upon former recruiters' frustration that the diversity candidates they brought (the ones that gave them "double points") often did n

The entire article is based upon former recruiters' frustration that the diversity candidates they brought (the ones that gave them "double points") often did not make it through final scrutiny. They blame "risk-averse white/asian decision makers", but how would they really know that there were no legitimate technical or team-fit reasons behind the rejections ? And how much is confirmation bias helping create that suspicion, when you're financially incentivized to favor these candidates ? Especially at a company with such a high hiring bar, there's a world between scanning keywords on a resume + asking multiple-choice questions in a phone screen, and assessing the depth of a candidate's technical aptness : if sourcers were in a position to make that call, well wouldn't they be called technical managers ? While there might be some truth in that report, it's also not hard to imagine that "losing double points candidates + a pinch of ideology + lack of technical background to deeply assess candidates" might have fuelled enough frustration in disgruntled former employees to take this to the journalists.