On the plus side, I'm very happy to see that YCombinator decides to send, not just a rejection, but actionable feedback that they think the company should follow. I think that's a good thing, and so far samples of these have seemed to usually hit the mark.
On the other hand, the reason they always tell you never to explain why you gave a candidate a "no" is, that it will give them grounds to think you are wrong and discriminated against you. That might (might!) be the case here - the Author seems to give serious weight to the possibility of discrmination, which is of course completely possible. Had YC kept their mouth shut and not offered their valuable advice, maybe there would've been less thoughts of discrimination? I'd just hate to discourage YC from offering advice.
Someone with more legal experience can weigh in, but I wasn't under the impression that people applying for investment were given the same protections as people applying for employment. Disclaimer: I have no legal experience and am talking out of my ass.
With employment, companies have learned to shut up. "Sorry, we're not hiring. Best of luck." As you've said, this is due to applicants getting a lot of protections based on race, gender, color, creed, etc. If the employer admits to rejecting a candidate for being in a protected class, (or even anything that can allude to their status) they're opening themselves up to a lawsuit.
In contrast, I don't think that investing any of this. If you choose only to invest in black-owned companies, it's your money. If you choose only to invest in male-owned companies, it's your money. Sure, you'll be crucified by the press, but I don't think that there's a lawsuit in that.
As a result, investment companies can be a little bit more frank with their rejected candidates.
Now, one thing that complicates things in this case is that YC isn't just investing in companies; they're providing guidance and mentoring. Would this mentoring process (teaching someone how to build a business and then taking a share of the profits) be considered hiring?
I'd hate for YC to be sued for this by some asshole who's just looking for a quick payout and then completely stop giving advice to rejected candidates.
In terms of public opinion, I'd like to think that the backlash YC/pg sometimes get doesn't bother them, but I'm sure it does to at least some degree.
I'm really not trying to argue against the author or make them feel bad, btw - I just want to point out that I think this specific interperatation of what happened is probably wrong, and to point out that we as a community need to make sure we don't rush to attack anyone, lest we deter YC from providing this service.
An application for a company to get an investment something very different. (And Y Combinator can use whatever criteria fits them best, they're picking companies, not people)
Also remember, YC payed for the interview, hard to think they didn't have a legitimate interest at that point.
Indeed. That said, there is always room for lawyer to attempt to frame the YC model as actual employment in a similar way that they have with some contractors.
For example, based on the set schedule and other things determined by YC and not the founders. Public statements about choosing people and not companies. One might see an attempt by a lawyer down the road to call YC an employer that pays these individuals to accelerate the growth of a particular company as opposed to purely investors.
I'm definitely not trying to say this is valid as I do not have the legal knowledge, simply saying that it is plausible someone might try it and wouldn't be unreasonable if YC kept it in mind.
On the plus side, I'm very happy to see that YCombinator decides to send, not just a rejection, but actionable feedback that they think the company should follow. I think that's a good thing, and so far samples of these have seemed to usually hit the mark.
On the other hand, the reason they always tell you never to explain why you gave a candidate a "no" is, that it will give them grounds to think you are wrong and discriminated against you. That might (might!) be the case here - the Author seems to give serious weight to the possibility of discrmination, which is of course completely possible. Had YC kept their mouth shut and not offered their valuable advice, maybe there would've been less thoughts of discrimination? I'd just hate to discourage YC from offering advice.