Algorithmic hiring tools are more effective at enforcing civil rights than human managers.
Computers are consistent and leave a digital trail that makes it possible to prove and litigate discrimination. Human hiring decisions are often noisy and influenced by subconscious biases that are impossible to track. While many fear that AI is the enemy of fairness, it actually provides the transparency needed for legal accountability. An algorithm can be audited and fixed in a way that a manager's internal judgment never can. Moving toward automated hiring could be the most reliable path to achieving workplace equality.
Disparate (Algorithmic) Advantage
SSRN · 6726544
When a hiring manager’s decisions produce a disparity, the causes are opaque, the data are noisy, and isolating the source of the disparity from “holistic judgment” is nearly impossible. When an algorithm produces a disparity, practices are specified, outputs are reproducible, and biases can be measured under controlled conditions. Yet scholars argue that algorithms make civil rights enforcement harder. This consensus has it backwards. Disparate impact law is better suited to algorithms than to