This is totally unproven. We have no idea how the market as a whole is going to react. Most companies are going to follow the leaders on this one, and Microsoft and Google taking a clear stance will heavily influence the rest of the market.
That's one way to evaluate things. Another way is to consider diversity in working methods a goal in and of itself, even if it doesn't further capitalist positive outcomes.
I'm curious, though, why that would make you think that racial discrimination is happening? It could just as easily mean that racial discrimination is not happening and that Asian candidates are equally over-represented in the underlying qualifications (e.g. university degrees, prior experience -- both of which are indeed the case).
Also, at a level removed from tech, what criteria do you use to determine whether some system which does not equally represent the general population is discriminatory or not? It seems like the numbers alone here aren't sufficient, but I reckon you've probably given this a lot of thought, so I'd love to hear your mental model there.
The mental model is simple. Tech has grown. It's no longer a niche domain. It employs a large percentage of the overall population.
The fact that it is not representative of the general population (and I'm not even talking about men vs women, that's another huge can of worms), means that something is wrong somewhere along the pipeline.
Either at university level, or at high school level, or before. Or at company level.
Plus diversity gets worse and worse as the pay grade goes up.
In any case, I think affirmative action works, long term, for the affected minorities. As much as people outside those minorities hate it.