[throwaway894345]

If a company gives one white person a job over a more qualified black person, that's unjust, and you can't make up for it by giving a different black person a job over a more qualified white person; rather, this doubles the amount of injustice.

What this does is distribute the injustice evenly between the races, but this sort of concern about races (rather than the individuals that comprise them) strikes me as the very essence of racism: it's treating individuals within a race as unimportant and treating race itself as all-important.

> As a population however, you can tell that it occurs. People within these groups get no benefit of the doubt. They will have to overachieve to get the same opportunities as others.

We can tell that it occurs, but we can't even accurately measure the degree to which it occurs. Our discourse generally just assumes that the degree of disparity is the degree of discrimination on the really, really awful assumption that disparities can only be caused by discrimination.

[AMerePotato]

Ideally everyone would only get the job that they verifiably deserve. Society does not scale to the level of the individual. We can't have an entire jury to judge whether vague criticisms like "They were good but too xyz" is actually grounded in their performance. Having injustice distributed evenly between the races is certainly better than doing nothing and having it being distributed unevenly.

> We can tell that it occurs, but we can't even accurately measure the degree to which it occurs. Our discourse generally just assumes that the degree of disparity is the degree of discrimination on the really, really awful assumption that disparities can only be caused by discrimination.

Plenty of studies have been done on this topic. I don't think it's controversial to say that disparities are due to discrimination