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.
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.