Basically it comes down to having a responsibility to check for reasonable fairness and do something when it becomes apparent that there is an issue.
Fire the non-asian people? Make a ruling that no one but asians are hired until this fairness is achieved? What is fair? And then, what do we do about other groups that are underrepresented? Will there come a time when a white woman is not hired and is passed over by a asian male? Is that in keeping with the demands for inclusiveness?
That means collecting the stats and when you see something like this identifying the problem and taking steps to rectify it.
As I noted, since there is a multiplicity of demands for inclusiveness, that in order to comply with them, someone is going to lose based not on their ability to do the job, but where their anscesters came from.
It looks like the issue is understood, the lawsuit cites the reason why it is happening, so really there isn't much excuse for not fixing it.
Yes, eliminating networking, and hiring exclusively a particular enthinicity, as the overarching criteria of the job, perhaps fireing some, until the company reflect the proper diversity.
I don't know your ethnicity, but would you give up your job for hiring someone of a different ethnicity? I didn't give up my job, but I gave up three promotions so a woman could get promoted. There was a quota system on promotions, and I voluntarily gave up deserved promotions for a female. It didn't work out for the place, since they left. But I do understand that in real life, it isn't always fair.
As to how to fix it, use less recommendations and more objective hiring.
It's got nothing to do with quotas, they are a bad way to address the issue. That's why the only people who suggest them are people who oppose diversity. They are not needed here.
The problem is of course, that in a numbers or percentages based system, you have to deal with numbers as a measurement of success. Otherise you throw out all of the numbers altogether.
What you are suggesting if you use as little as possible a quota as possible, is that since a 75 percent figure was claimed as the asian applicants, with 21 positions filled, anything other than 15.75 asian hires is racist.I guess one of them has to be a pregnant female.
That would be accepting that entering an application makes all potential employees as qualified as each other. So 75 percent is an inviolable number, and must be adhered to, otherwise you will be sued.
And that, sir, would be the very definition of a quota.
Now we are going to get uncomfortable. Who gets a job between 3 equal candidates, a white woman, a non gender specific person of African descent, or an asian male? The implied inequality is simple when it's a male of European descent, let's just in this case discard those in order to avoid a lawsuit, because hiring one might put you over your limit. Not hiring the white male is an easy decision, but not so much when the underrepresented groups become pitted against each other. Challenge, make your choice of the first three. No need for your rationalization, just your choice. Who gets the job?
And no, Animojo, I don't oppose diversity, nor do I care for your implicit accusation that I do. I do however, not ascribe to simplistic ideas as to what constitutes diversity. My questions are uncomfortable, piss people off, and perhaps constitute a learning experience.