What are your arguments against anonymity, exactly?
What are your arguments against anonymity, exactly?
"In God We Trust; all others bring data"
For example:
> a purely anonymous system is going to end up with hiring tons of young white males-
A system that's non anonymous has already proven itself to hire a ton of young white males...
> surely fewer than a company that actively discriminates against other groups, but noticibly more than a company that is actively looking for diversity-
Citations needed.
> A company might specifically find value in "we don't just want the world's best engineers: we want a diverse set of backgrounds and viewpoints",
Discrimination isn't good, period. That means discriminating for or against white males. Also, you imply that the groups I mentioned couldn't succeed on their own merit.
Overall, you basically encourage discrimination. Got it.
You literally just kicked off a discussion by using four op-ed pieces as sources. You have no grounds to tell people their posts require some evidence.
Get some actual facts and figures and then make your point.
Also, in debate, you have neither the grounds to speak or be silent. Rules to free discussion exist because we want them to.
EDIT: Upon further reflection, anonymity could help combat ageism (scrubbing specific graduation and employment dates, for example). but in the general sense I believe the point still stands.