> Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I wonder if that's because there are interviewing processes in place that weed these p

> Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I wonder if that's because there are interviewing processes in place that weed these people out. Possibly even ones that have been standard for decades or longer? > I think those people are rare enough that they can be filtered out at the very end of the process when there is already objective evidence that the candidate is competent. This sounds like a real good way to open yourself up to legal liability for exactly the type of discrimination you are worried about. Even if there isn't any discrimination. > I think they may even be best filtered out in a paied trial period with some kind of commitment to hire them unless there is a problem. That way the decision can also be made by the people who will work most closely with the candidate. Suppose you hire a candidate who benefits from the interview process you describe (maybe the "deferred culture fit"?) You seem to mostly be concerned with non-white people, so let's assume they're that. In 2022, who wants to put themselves out there and accuse a non-white person of creating problems in a progressive workplace? Nobody, that's who. > I'm against the idea of testing for cultural fit because I think that leads to less diversity (including less diversity of thought and opinion) which I believe is harmful for teams. I think we work best together with people who are different from us, as long as we are still nice and respectful to each other. I'm against the idea of assuming that anybody who isn't a "straight, white, Christian male" is going to be discriminated against at every turn during the hiring process. ESPECIALLY not in Silicon Valley or NYC. Somehow everybody in these coastal cities is highly aware of and sensitive to ism/phobia, and still very ist/phobe.