My response to another commenter the first time this was posted (and flagged - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990433):

It's like a person brand new to the job - you don't know their skills yet. After a few months one's co-workers should see those skills in action enough that the suspicion disappears. And after a few years the worker will hopefully develop enough that they can demonstrate their competency to pretty much anyone.

And ultimately the person will be enjoying their career, which makes most other considerations irrelevant.

It's not as if outsiders to a job have the ability to accurately evaluate the person doing the job. A company can't be held responsible for someone else's Dunning-Kruger effect.

Well, or the suspicion is confirmed. But in any case, "a few years" is a long time to labor under a cloud, esp in an industry where switching jobs every couple of years is common. For myself, I'd prefer to face exactly the same standard as everyone else.

FWIW -- google does not have diversity hires in the interview pipeline. Everyone gets the same interview bar. But 'diversity recruiting' is more aggressive to try and increase the available interview pool.

The author claimed he attended a workshop and discovered that this is not entirely true.

Do diversity hires get any special treatment after a no-hire vote?

The author of the memo indicated that special steps were taken that would/might lower the false negative rate. Unfortunately the reference points to an internal document, but this would seem to indicate that the bar is lowered.

> These days, anyone who could have been a diversity hire is guilty until proven innocent

That says a lot more about you than it does about diversity programmes.

People won't generally admit to these sorts of uncomfortable estimations, but pretty much everyone makes them internally.

If it makes you feel any better, as a rule I give diversity people higher ratings for similar performances.