It's not really as clear-cut as that, Australia for instance had some study results* led by a Hardvard Grad show the opposite, that blind recruitment generally favored the white male majority as it precluded affirmative action hires.
If a truly anonymous (which I'm skeptical that study was, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt) hiring method yields more white people, then that's 100% OK. The goal IMO should be to prevent bias with respect to gender, race, etc; not to implement a quota resulting in a certain percentage of people from backgrounds being hired.
"The goal IMO should be to prevent bias with respect to gender, race, etc"
One would think, no?
But there's a considerable number of people who don't feel that way - they think that 50/50 gender balance is a 'moral imperative' for example.
Surely, it's their right to think that, even promote it. But I'm weary of that kind of ideology being used to shut down other voices - which I think happens frequently.
I believe that the Guardian article (and the Graun as a whole, I read it every day and see the pattern) speaks to this: that specific minorities are underrepresented in certain roles 'must be due to racism' I think is unfair. Surely it plays a part, but there are so many other factors.