People always seem to forget there are a lot of types of pasty white males all over the world. Being "white" (or as the article puts it White) isn't much of a quantifier. On that topic neither is "black." "Asian" suffers a little from this problem (eg. Vietnamese people don't have much immediately in common with the Japanese besides likely having the same distant lineage) but at least it has a distinct geographic separation, whereas "white" or "black" could mean anyone, anywhere, esp. in international use.
In the context of diversity quotas, having too many white people employed is like saying a shopping market is bad for having too many tomatos, even though there are thousands or even potentially tens of thousands of tomato cultivars, many with very distinct differences. It's just too broad. How many of those white people are foreign or are the direct descendant of an immigrant? I'll concede it's likely not a huge number, but my point still stands. We need to quantify "white" before we can start calling them as a group over-represented, when some of them might be German, or Irish, or British.
Could it be favoritism or racism? Sure, of course it could be. But assuming it is based on stats alone is part of the reason why race related topics have become such huge talking points lately, even if it is completely unrelated and more the result of the pool of applicanta being skewed toward one type of people. If that is the case, the institution itself needs fixed, and the less represented groups need to be encouraged to enter the field instead. And if there still isn't a "fair" ratio of representation even after that, what else can be done, truly?
AC because people surely will assume I'm being racist, somehow. (race card: I am African American.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
