This is really the crux I find in these situations. A pure statistic doesn't tell the whole story. But for pointing it out you usually get labelled a racist.

This is really the crux I find in these situations. A pure statistic doesn't tell the whole story. But for pointing it out you usually get labelled a racist. If there are less people of color applying or objectively eligible for a job the statistics will "paint a damning picture". But maybe the picture isn't damning at all and if the same people had been white they also wouldn't have been chosen. The smaller the numbers involved the less we can just assume that because of the sample size something like this has 'worked itself out'. It's like looking at my coding statistics for the last week. That says nothing as there's so much variability week to week depending on circumstances. But looking at a full year any outliers should have been reduced enough to be able to make decisions based on the numbers. That said looking at the sibling post as well, there seem to be quite a few positions open in that department. So now one could probably start deducing. EDIT: and there comes the down voting for 'being a racist' for pointing out that statistics are statistics and that it looks like statistics might actual favor the article protagonists odds. Awesome!