“universities behave as if employment discrimination laws don't exist. At least they're starting to be held accountable”
This seems to be suggesting that they are violating employment discrimination laws, but that the laws so far have not been enforced perfectly.
I think parent is saying that they are not violating employment discrimination laws, they are just less paranoid about accidentally violating them than FAANG companies are.
Universities do generally have a much smaller $$$ target on their back, so it would not be too surprising if big tech is more paranoid about lawsuits than universities.
Big tech's methods for avoiding liability may seem silly or extreme, but they arguably also work: if you literally know nothing about someone's protected classes you cannot make decisions based on them. Academic hiring, meanwhile, seems intent on collecting as much information as possible about as many protected characteristics as possible.
> The review was completed in September and indicates that race was inappropriately considered and used in a way that is inconsistent with University policy in the hiring process for an assistant professor position in the department. Race was inappropriately considered in the hiring process even after some faculty received guidance from College of Arts & Sciences and University leadership that such considerations are inappropriate.
So in this case the distinction is meaningless because the GP was literally saying "big tech has tons of barriers up in place, but universities seem not to care very much until someone actually calls them out for breaking the law".
Yeah, the law doesn't require avoiding asking specific types of questions, but big tech lawyers recommend being careful because knowing that information can expose you to potential legal liability. The decision to limit how much you know about a candidate's background is a direct side effect of the law and its application, even if the law itself doesn't say you can't know this stuff.