I observe the correct definition, which to me in this case has no inherent positive or negative connotations. I guess that's the key issue: you'd rather avoid using the correct term since to many it automatically implies a negative connotation. I'd rather use the correct term and explain that it's not inherently negative and in specific cases might be a good thing.
I never stated that I don't believe a bias exist. What I believe is that there is a bias, but there are also a lot of other factors which lead to a ratio imbalance, so it's difficult to discern whether the imbalance comes from unfair discrimination or other, potentially legit factors and how much is to be accounted to the unfair discrimination.
As example, if you employ positive discrimination to try to correct the bias and reach 55% of white workers, is that good enough? Or are you still under the mark? Or maybe you overcompensated and are over the mark? You have no way to know if you cannot define the supposedly "unbiased" ratio, which is not an easy thing to do.
Also, even if there is an issue to correct, in my opinion this kind of positive discrimination is only a workaround, not a proper solution. To make a car analogy, it's like having a car which pulls to the right. The "positive discrimination" solution is to always steer slightly to the left if you want to go straight: you will go straight, but you have to actively correct your direction, and you'll always have to if you don't fix the underlying problem.
Said that, not all workarounds are a bad thing as long as they are recognized as such and you don't forget to fix the underlying problem in the long term... which is sadly what tends to happen when workarounds are involved.
That's exactly the "proper solution" I'm talking about, but I doubt it will ultimately lead to perfectly matching ratios: as I said I believe there are other factors beside discrimination which might lead to an imbalance, and that imbalance is not necessarily unfair.
