So you're saying he also shouldn't hire any whites either then right? Because that would, by your calculation, discriminate against all other non-white groups too!
But wait - using your logic we've now shown that it is immoral to hire *anybody*. So something must not be right...
Perhaps it is your definition of "discrimination" as "hiring person A rather than person B." Well that is certainly discrimination by a strict definition of the term and is perfectly acceptable.
BUT what we're talking about is "racial and gender discrimination" which is favoring one population over another based on biological rather than qualification attributes. So that's a bit different. From experimentation we know that men will be judged more competent at certain tasks (math, programming, other "male subjects") than women (from double-blinded tests done using the same exact resumes with recognizably male or female names). And we know this affects everybody (men and women across different groups). Then we can assume that Apple is probably discriminating (on at least a subconscious level) against women already if they aren't aware that they are since nothing will have been done to off-set this effect.
So some people would propose off-setting that amount consciously rather than allow it to continue as an unconscious bias in corporate hiring philosophy. They do this by changing hiring methodology (perhaps removing names from resumes, doing phone and remote interviews rather than in-person, etc.). Perhaps they take the percentage they know to be 'bias' and give a slight advantage to the minority (in some cases they will break the tie in favor against the internal bias).
So *this* is what you think will be "reverse-discrimination" then? Offsetting a known bias? I'm interested in hearing how you may think this is wrong - and even *more* interested in hearing your solutions to the problem.