>People are different and they have different aptitudes.
There is some thinking that if we don't have ALL categories/jobs/promotions with the same population proportion it is because "systemic racism".
>I am still waiting for at least 53% of NBA be white.
People are in fact different and have different aptitudes, but there's no reason to believe that those differences cut across racial lines. When you see wildly different racial/socioeconomic/gender representation in a field, you should look at it more closely.
Consider basketball. It's predominantly black today, but it wasn't always so. Basketball was at one point more closely associated with Jewish people than blacks people. In fact, not long ago, people called basketball a Jewish sport [1]. And here's a fun fact: the first non-white NBA player was Asian [2]. There was a point in history where Jews and Asians were better represented in basketball than black people.
So why is the NBA 80%+ black today? Let's look at outside factors. During the Great Migration, blacks moved to from southern towns to northern cities and transitioned from a largely rural population to a largely urban one. In a city, basketball is the perfect sport for a poor/working class kid. It doesn't require a field. It doesn't require a lot of equipment. It can be played on pavement. It's easy to pick up but has a high talent ceiling. So if you're a kid in the city who's interested in a sport and you don't have a ton of resources, you're probably going to end up playing basketball for reasons that may have less to do with your natural interests and aptitudes than your situation, environment, and (eventually) societal expectations.
This dynamic cuts both ways. Jeremy Lin was one of the best high school players in the country in 2005 but wasn't nearly as a heavily recruited as he should have been based purely on his stats. UCLA wanted him to be a walk on. If he were black, he would have gotten an athletic scholarship and been on magazine covers. I wonder how many other Asian basketball players are underrecruited simply because they're Asian. Whether it's 1 or 1,000, the sport is poorer for it.
Sometimes what appears to be the consequence of "different aptitudes" can suggest something systemic instead. That doesn't mean that we should enforce a quota, but it does mean that we shouldn't take differences in representation to be the result of differences in aptitude.
>You can see it on your own family with siblings. Same "genetics" but very different aptitudes and skills.
I'm not sure that siblings have the "same genetics" or that it's fair to compare differences in populations to differences in individuals. It's obvious that individuals are different due to genetics. It's not obvious that the distribution of those individual differences should differ across racial lines.
There are absolutely reasons to believe that there are differences of all sorts between races on a statistical/population wide level, but we’re at the point where people can’t even conceive of that.
I think nurses are an excellent example of systemic racism/sexism. Being a nurse used to be seen as an exclusively male profession. Given that it is pretty clear it is a cultural rather than innate association. How we handle this is really complicated and requires a lot more thought than “lets do nothing, it must be natural this is way”.
There is some thinking that if we don't have ALL categories/jobs/promotions with the same population proportion it is because "systemic racism".
I am still waiting for at least 53% of NBA be white.
And 50% of nurse school be male.
Please have to desire and aptitude to do different things.
You can see it on your own family with siblings. Same "genetics" but very different aptitudes and skills.
Feels like a dictatorship where we should have quotas for each profession and team.