Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Minorities" is a diverse group of people by itself. Github already employs tons of white guys, so focusing future recruitment on women/minorities is perfectly sensible. The diversity professionals at Github aren't the ones confused about what is and what isn't racist. Even if github did discriminate against white guys (they don't; it's still a company owned and directed by white men) that wouldn't be a societal prob…
> "Minorities" is a diverse group of people by itself. So would be "everyone except Asians" but that would be considered racist. But "everyone except white people" is clearly not racist because you can't be prejudiced against someone who happens to be white. /s > here are thousands of companies out there where people of color and women face harsh discrimination, so counterbalancing that with companies that favor them…
> Why is the solution not more accountability? More policies in place to make complaints about discrimination more vocal?
That also needs to be part of the solution. Racism is such a pernicious problem that it can only be tackled with an "all of the above" strategy. You also have to realize that any empowerment of women and people of color necessarily comes at the expense of white men, because societal influence is a strictly zero sum game. There is no difference between saying "more minorities in the senate" and "fewer white men in the senate". This is discrimination against white men in the technical sense, but this isn't a situation where everybody can gain at nobody's expense. If minorities are to be represented in politics and in business then white men will have to step aside to make room.