That is the problem with affirmative action: by definition some candidates are less qualified. Which inevitably means that all members of the group are looked at skeptically, because you just don't know which ones are qualified, and which ones are not.
Oh to be young and foolish again...
You are starting from a false premise. That there are single measurements that apply equally across the board to all candidates and can be used to rank them. Life doesn't work that way.
"Objective" criteria have flaws. Grades, standardized testing, skills tests, they do not capture the world perfectly. Having a higher test score just means you are a better test taker, not that you are smarter or know more or perform better under pressure or are more qualified. I've been in top 1% of standardized test scores my whole life. I have plenty of friends who are just as smart and accomplished but for whatever reason don't test well. Same with grades.
Second, you are confusing cause and effect. Affirmative action is not intended to promote people with lower test scores (or whatever) just because they are minorities. Instead it starts with a simple premise: those with access to more resources perform better on standard metrics. Better schools, better grades, better tests, better connections, etc. Affirmative action attempts to reach past these inherent imbalances by promoting candidates who normally would get overlooked. People who went to a poor state school or HBCU instead of a big-name research institution. People whose grades and test scores are lower not because of inherent ability, but because they don't have access to the same opportunities and resources. People who don't look or talk like the person doing the hiring - we have an inherent bias toward those we see as being like ourselves, having a similar background and customs.
In other words, affirmative action is not about hiring less qualified candidates. It's about recognizing the inherent biases in the system that make minority candidates appear less desirable, because they have lower test scores or come from a minority culture or just look different from your self-selected peer group. It's giving deserving people a chance that they should get but otherwise don't. And it's not about promoting groups; it's about giving overlooked individuals an opportunity to show what they can do.
And engineering has a distinct male-dominated culture. I was a software developer for many years. As much as everyone romanticizes it being a pure meritocracy, it's not. There are ingrained patterns of communication and behavior that are incredibly male oriented. Combative and confrontational, arrogant, very direct. And a dismissive attitude that if you don't talk or think the same way as the group, then you are stupid or don't get it or can't hack it.
Yes there are women who have thrived in this culture, but they have to adapt to "fit" the expected patterns. Meanwhile a lot of incredibly talented people (including many women) are sidelined or ignored because they communicate or see things in a different way. That is a loss for all of us.
Healthy diversity is embracing other ways of doing things, of learning from different perspectives, not cramming everyone into the same square hole. Engineering culture is guilty of the very things people accuse Google of: dismissing those who don't follow the groupthink.
Consider that next time you see some "minority candidate" and assume they are less qualified than you. Understand that they have every bit as much right to be there as you do. Find out what they have to offer and what you can learn from them.
Yes you will occasionally find some minority hires who don't perform that well. But you will find white men who don't perform well either. It's a bell curve. You can't cherry pick a few outliers and assume the whole group is bad. Treat them as individuals regardless of their background, rather than starting off with unwarranted assumptions.