No, I don't think this is true.

I see your point, as I make very clear, I understand the unfairness of this...let's call it a rebalancing. But I'm not suggesting that people who are incapable of meeting the required standards are hired simply because they're black. I probably should have made that more explicit in the article. There will inevitably be situations where a number of candidates are all well qualified for a role. I'm saying I think it's just if the black person gets hired at a higher rate.

Think of it like this. The day after Jim Crow ended, you'd have to be an idiot not to see that black people deserved to be given more opportunities to make up for everything they'd been denied. A thousand years from now, you'd have to be an idiot not to see that it's ridiculous to still be harping on about the impact of slavery. Right now, we're between those points. Very much closer to the former. As I said, it's vital that we figure out where the tipping point is, but if you thik we're already there, you'd need to make the case for that.