Look at the footer for [REDACTED]: This program and all offers related to it are void where prohibited or restricted by law or where operation of the program wo

Look at the footer for [REDACTED]: This program and all offers related to it are void where prohibited or restricted by law or where operation of the program would violate any law or right. All participants in the program must agree to the terms and conditions of the program which will be provided to the selected applicants. ;) Though it isn't illegal.. Here's my economics 2 cents on discrimination: if "white" firms discriminate against minorities, the result is for them to behave as if they would rather pay their own money (the savings not spent on costly searches by successfully hiring an employee/having more business partners available) just to avoid transactions with members of a community. The tendency, then, is for them to prosper less than the non-anti-minority firms, so over the long term the discriminatory element of the economy just decreases more and more over time. However if you go ahead and do the opposite, namely increasing diversity in a sector typically overrepresented by whites (compared to composition of national demographics) so that it matches the nation's diversity, I think there are two benefits for the corporations: one, the direct benefit of being able to promote their diversity initiatives as a type of signaled altruism which could be attractive to potential future interns, and two, the indirect, long-term benefit of having greater access to a population whose compensation is often much cheaper. The programs may be instituted with good in mind, but I remain cynical that there aren't also special interests who realize they can invest in making this a common practice now, just so the price to hire a STEM employee in the future decreases greatly as the pool of applicants is much much less limited. As for the morality of the "virtue signalling" and underhanded & cynical investments... I don't think is so bad. The only time poorer minorities significantly 'catch up' with the opportunities to the majority's wealth, and social capital in general, is during times of war. Since I don't think war is preferable to diversity initiatives, I think these things do more good in the long term. (I say all of this as a minority, too, but opportunities given only to those allowed to bear "true authentic identities from wounds of history" leave me incredibly skeptical nowadays, much more than they used to) Would you say that your country is one where, if discrimination happens, it's mostly like "whites forbidding nonwhites" instead of "whites compensating lack of nonwhites"? I wouldn't be surprised if a good deal of the reason desegregation took ~100 years after the abolition of slavery to become law is because the economy had a selection pressure for that, regardless of hostilities...