I worked at two companies with hard percentage targets on the basis of race and gender for engineering roles. The goals were for an umbrella category of "divers

I worked at two companies with hard percentage targets on the basis of race and gender for engineering roles. The goals were for an umbrella category of "diverse" people which was all women plus Black and Hispanic people of either gender. What this meant in practice was that White and Asian men were only interviewed of they already had industry experience or went to a top 20 college if they were a new grad, and majored into computer science, EE, math, or something akin to that. For diverse candidates we also interviewed candidates from boot camps, less selective universities, and people who changed interests late in their studies and minored in a tech major. Diverse candidates also got two chances to pass the phone interview. The on-sites were mostly fair, though a handful of hiring managers were known for being particularly lenient towards diverse candidates. I wouldn't say that we ever hired anyone who wasn't capable of doing the job but it was clear that some candidates were more desirable than others. I don't think it manifested in much in the way of people having their capabilities doubted for their race or gender. At the end of the day people's abilities are demonstrated through their work. When you're trying to fix shit you're not going to stop and wonder whether someone got a second chance at the phone screen. I'm Latin myself and I never felt judged for it (though to be transparent I'm of almost entirely Iberian descent and don't have an accent). But there was definitely friction with HR. Our head of HR (or people ops) was very against any mentioning of these practices, and repeatedly said that saying our hiring process is favorable to some people is offensive and could fall afoul of our code of conduct. We held a poll on whether or not employees thought our hiring process was unfair to men. 83% of men responded that it was. Curiously she refused to share the results from women (rumor has it it was just as high). And to put the cherry on top, HR had the worst gender diversity of any org in the company, >90% women. The fact that the same org that was responsible for resolving harassment allegations and other such disputes had goals aimed at increasing the share of women and URM also caused friction. Some suspected that this would lead to impartial investigation. In the end it wasn't something people spent much time thinking about. I was pretty irked about leadership's dishonesty and hypocrisy. But I, and probably most people, didn't resent diverse coworkers for it. They didn't choose this, and many didn't approve of these practices either. It was mostly HR that was a laughing stock in private throughout much of the company. Personally, I think it's fine to see more potential in a underprivileged candidate who came from a poor background vs a candidate with better interview performance but great education. But percentage targets aren't the way to go about it.