[whoisjuan]

Where did I mention tech?. Seems that you're equating my statement to saying that 13% of the tech jobs should go to African Americans which is far from what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that the proportions should always match if all citizens are receiving equal opportunities.

Let's imagine a theoretical population somewhere where 80% of the people are white and 20% are black. Let's say 50% of all the population studies some tech related career and following one of your examples 10% of the population studies odontology. Let's assume the rest of the population studies or prepares for something else. Let's assume for a minute that unemployment is at 0%.

Then 40% of tech employed population should be white, 10% should be black.

8% of the employed dentists are white. 2% are black.

The rest of the employed population is 32% white and 8% black.

That's it. That's all what I'm saying. I'm not even remotely trying or interested to argue politics here. I'm telling you in plain layman's terms that populations should downscale proportionally in an organized, civilized society.

You're talking about whether or not this is a problem in other industries, and honestly I couldn't care less about that for the sake of this argument. I'm just telling you how society should work if it was unbiased and logical, not whether or not this works with whatever belief system or preconceptions of race or professional competency you have (or anyone has).

[run2arun]

I agree you did not mention tech. That was my secondary observation regarding the overall issue.

Your original comment reads: > African Americans are 13% of the US Population. Isn't it reasonable to aspire to have at least 13% of African American staff (proportionally adjusted per state/city populations)?

Your thought experiment does not apply here because it assumes the same percentage of every population desires the same career. That need not reflect what we see in the real world. What if 50% of one race and 10% of another desires a specific career, the outcomes will reflect those numbers.

Again, you are ignoring the statement regarding people's interests and who they consider role models and what they consider as rewarding. In a world of equal opportunities, humans are still the variables, they will choose what they like. If there is a systemic problem that prohibits a certain race from reaching their aspirations, that is abominable and should be cut out.

[whoisjuan]

Ok. That's fair. I now understand your point and you're right. Once you bring human and cultural values into the equation the proportions won't work perfectly, perhaps not even close to what the mathematical reasoning suggests.

My idea is that in a world of loud opinions and poor reasoning, we should be able to understand if there are bottlenecks that have nothing to do with culture or interests and more with how society creates equal opportunities for its citizens. Any competent and ethical politician should understand that, regardless if they are right or left. If that was the case policy making will orbit around controlling systemic variables that put minorities in disadvantage and not so much on the emotional vitriol that comes from both sides when talking about diversity and racial equality.

I would hope that a company like Microsoft is willing to create objectives around diversity, not for the optics but rather because they actually have identified said bottlenecks in their own system and understand objectively why this is problematic.

At the end of the day I think the problem is that people always want to pin the problem on someone else, when it's more than clear discrimination happens as a result of an uneducated, siloed sub-societies that are designed to keep social, economical, racial and cultural boundaries. We should design societies in such a way that when a silo is created it can be immediately be disolved to restore the balance.