I'm not getting that implication. They are saying that, on occasion, HR tries to shove a resume down his throat on the basis of race/sexuality when the applicant is lacking experience. That, in no way, leads me to extrapolate any kind of volume one way or another.

HR is literally not allowed, legally, to do that. Given that their entire existence is predicated on not getting the company sued I’m sure they’re well aware of that.

So either OP should file a lawsuit or they’re imagining things.

What law would HR be violating by pushing certain resumes based on favored traits? IME this pretty common at all sorts of big companies.

People don't whistle-blow because its obvious you'll get buried if you do. Just ask James Damore.

Well that's sort of their own doing. When you formalize the process of prioritizing individuals based solely on their attributes that have no relation to merit (skin color) then you must necessarily accept that people will presume that skin-color alone played a role in their hiring.

HN is always complaining that tech hiring is broken and that whiteboard/leetcode is a waste of time. So it’s not like the current interview process has relation to merit either. Just filtering for people who have time and resources for dealing with bullshit, which given the demographics of the US serves as a nice racial filter as well.

No, that’s your assumption. The parent comment didn’t say it happens all the time, only that it does happen.

Nah, it’s pretty obvious. Maybe you need to learn to read between the lines.

Or perhaps our unconscious bias is providing a motivation to project meanings onto other people's words.

No, it’s a clear statement with clear implications that you’re willfully ignoring.