How would this policy work for non-minority candidates who start with a disadvantage?
I think there's the potential for self-contradiction / hypocrisy by those persons, depending on the particular logic they use.
I also notice the change in the reasoning of proponents of these measures. The issue affirmative action was to address originally was that a hiring manager might choose a candidate based on race, the goal being fairness. Today it's moved to 'righting the wrongs of the past.' The goal I don't know, but it's not fairness.
Ideally, I would hope that everyone who has such a trait also has a group to advocate for them, and thus the hiring managers would be making perfect decisions. I do not think this is at all the case though. Regardless, I think it is better to correct for the traits that do have advocacy behind them rather than just not doing any correction at all.
Thus, I don't think we can expect the hiring process to become transparent anytime soon. It is known that the (opaque) hiring process does discriminate based on race. If I had to guess, the policy mentioned in the article is a direct response to papers like [1], which show that simply changing a person's name to be more "ethnic" results in their application being considered less. Thus I don't mind if someone tries to opaquely enforce a rule like the one in the article to counterbalance this.
The more pain (and hence unlikely to see the light of day) would be companies chipping into a educational fund to support impoverished individuals who would need added education to make it into positions where they can support themselves and break the difficult to climb wealth ladder.
He'll, even the location of on-site jobs can be considered discrimination. All our candidates must attend interviews at our offices in NY, SF, London, or Seattle. All others can spend their own bucks to travel here for the hope that we'll hire you .