There was very little thought put into the final interview. The CEO came in late and derailed the active conversation I was having with the other interviewer. Instead of a private room, it was held in a noisy lobby where people were chatting around us. It was distracting, invasive, and difficult to hear. If a private space can’t be reserved, keeping the interview virtual would make much more sense. I noted that I had a disability on my application and said disability but there were no accommodations which wasn’t surprising given that the CEO said he didnt believe in equity. (Yes he said that after I said that I believe in diversity equity and inclusion as a way to foster complex and expansive dialogue.) The CEO debated everything I had to say. Even if it wasn’t of significance. Ex: I said I enjoyed the coffee bar he goes on about how much he hates the coffee in the office. I said that I encountered RDI in the news while collecting news at my former job and he openly expressed doubts about that. I had to go back into my old news logs just to reassure myself. (CNN and John Hopkins and Philanthropy News Digest… I always cite my sources). It just seemed like he wanted to pick apart everything. One frustration was when Uriel asked me what the difference between static and dynamic Excel was. I explained that Static was when the data stays the same and has to be manually entered and dynamic is automatically updated with formulas. He asked me to expand on that and I started to give an example before I stopped to ask him how does RDI use excel so I could give a relevant example. He never answered he just said my definition was wrong even though I didnt get the chance to give him a relevant example. At this point I just nodded and let him be right despite both mine and his definitions and would be examples were correct. Ive used Excel my entire life personally and professionally for at least 15 years so I was very sure despite maybe not being able to explain (or not being given the chance to explain )to his liking. Maybe he too couldn’t hear too well in that room. A lot of things that he said felt vey purposeful and targeting towards who he thought I was as a person and most of those comments were unwarranted . I feel like it was to try to make me uncomfortable but it didn’t make me uncomfortable per say because im used to differing opinions however, it did make me feel like the interview was a time suck and a wasted effort. Comments about immigrants and your efforts against them in the past knowing that I dedicated several volunteer hours making sure they were well adjusted in the US just felt tone deaf. There were many other instances where I felt he lacked social awareness and emotional intelligence. Despite claiming to be non partisan they asked a lot of political questions and inserted his political opinions into the conversation that shouldn’t matter if they were truly nonpartisan. Overall, the CEO’s behavior gave the impression that the interview was less about learning who I was as a candidate and more about picking a debate or trying to catch me in a lie. This was frustrating because I truly admire RDI’s mission and found the earlier team members brilliant, thoughtful, and kind. I wish the final stage had matched that same level of professionalism. This isnt to take away from any of their work I just want this experience to be known.