As a professor who served on a hiring committee this past year in a top-15 engineering department in the US (and not in CS), some of this did not really ring as true to me. Overall, I came away more pleasantly surprised by our process than how I might have assumed it to be as a PhD student (where I assumed it was entirely based on favoritism). Based on the intersection of publication record, research statement and topic areas we were recruiting for this cycle (which was clearly advertised in our position), there were really only about 20-25 applications which were plausibly competitive.

We ended up doing a standardized set of Zoom interviews for about 15 of them - here too, many candidates were simply unable to clearly explain their past work and make a clear pitch for their vision and work (even with slides). This is an essential skill for running a lab and one any prospective candidate should practice and refine! From that point on the whole department was involved and, at least for us, everyone had an equal say and felt safe speaking up. ~4-5 were invited for on-campus interviews and one candidate was liked the most by nearly everyone, leading to a consensus.

As a public university, there are a lot of things we do in a standardized way, and sets of personal questions etc. we do not ask. Is it fair? I'll leave others to judge, as selecting one person to hire out of ~200 applicants is not an easy task. But I don't think it was capricious either. At our department, we intend for everyone who comes as an assistant prof to be tenured, so it is very much a long-term hire and commitment we are making. We take that job seriously.