> Not that we will hire them, but that we will interview them. to the extent that the policy causes you to interview people that are obviously less qualified a

> Not that we will hire them, but that we will interview them. to the extent that the policy causes you to interview people that are obviously less qualified and won't get hired... damn, that's really bad news for the candidate. Can you imagine that you're a Star-bellied Sneetch and waste day after valuable day of time interviewing for jobs that you won't get hired for, brought in because you happened to have a star-belly and not because you were among the most obvious fits for the job? Talk about being disadvantaged by systematic racism. In the aggregate, sure, its still probably better for them to be extended the interview... but the wasted time chews up a chunk of that benefit. Since your post expresses the view that you go through more interviews due to your laudably-motivated-diversity program than you would otherwise, which means you're also wasting more applicatints time than you would otherwise... perhaps you should suggest that you company pay a reasonable wage to ever person that makes it to an in person interview as a way of offsetting the negative externality? I don't think it would be all that unreasonable once you consider the man-hour cost you're already putting in to interview the candidate, ... paying the candidate would have a similar cost to having one more person on the panel and would go a long way to make sure you're not burdening job hunters with your interviewing practices.