Is that kind of questioning even legal during an interview?
Or is it done after hours, at a drink to get to know the candidate better? Does the interviewer pretend to be a bigot just to see what the candidate's reaction is?
What happened to just hiring the best people for a job rather than trying to create a corporate utopia?
Hiring standards cannot create an "artificial, arbitrary, or unnecessary barrier to employment" ... "which adversely affects equal employment opportunity for a protected class of persons." So e.g. weightlifting requirement, if not central to the job at hand (as in the case I quoted) would not be allowed because it's an artificial barrier which excludes women.
This standard is arguably artificial and unnecessary, but it would be hard to show it adversely affects employment opportunity of a protected class.
What makes you think someone's level of bigotry does not have an effect on whether they're the best person for a job?
Diversity, meaning racial and gender diversity, has been repeatedly shown to be an advantage for a company. So has some degree of cultural fit, meaning having similar values. When M&As fail (and they often do), it's almost always because of cultural mismatch.
So I, and the research, would argue that asking people if they believe in and value diversity is an important indicator of their success at a company like Reddit, or any other company striving to be a diverse and equal workplace.
Perhaps Ms. Pao feels that pro-diversity attitudes make the best hires, even if it means a small compromise on coding quality.
It's Reddit after all: users are already tolerant and accepting of horrid site performance ;)
When hiring one candidate severely restricts hiring others (e.g. because that first candidate would make them feel uncomfortable and/or not welcome), then this has nothing to do with a "corporate utopia" and everything with hiring the best people for a job.