> No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire. Investors are in the business

> No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire. Investors are in the business of gauging likelihood of success. As an extreme example, consider the following scenario: You are an investor during WWII. The Japanese are discriminated against by the general public, and you're considering investing in a company with Japanese founders. You're aware that the company will face significant difficulties because of their race in this climate. It's not unreasonable to forgo investing. The company's chances of success are significantly lower than they would be if the founders were white (in the climate of WWII). Were you required by law not to discriminate, you would be forced to invest in a company you didn't expect to succeed. Of course, you could argue that this isn't discrimination because the actual reason is based on likelihood of success rather than prejudice, which is the case for YC. PG argues that strong accents, which are difficult to decipher, are indicative of sub-par communication skills, and are therefore relevant to the success of the company.