Below are some statistics on rates of college diplomas by race, for just African-Americans and non-Hispanic White Americans. The population data is from the US Census Bureau (rounded to nearest %.) The diploma rate is from the US Department of Education (again rounded to nearest %.).

The  under representation of colleged educated blacks in the labor market, both by graduation rate and total population, is not good for the black community. The 2 major reasons are almost certainly financial, i.e., ability to pay for college and cultural, i.e., lower value placed on education. I look forward to some constructive progress on these problems. 

There's no bigotry or racism in acknowledging those numbers, regardless of how they came to be, any more than it's bigoted of me to point out that it's 75 degrees outside and 77 degrees in my home right now. (I should probably turn on the A/C ?) Good or bad, that's the current state of affairs and stating so is not discriminatory.

So why, according to this OANN article, is anyone "ruffled" by Wells Fargo's CEO, Charles Scharf, stating "that the bank had trouble reaching diversity goals because there was not enough qualified minority talent".  "...the unfortunate reality is that there is a very limited pool of black talent to recruit from,” Scharf said in a memo.

Someone named Bacon said he was “shocked and puzzled” by Scharf’s comments. Well, Mr. (?) Bacon, it's very simple. There is a very limited pool, as in less than 3%, of college degreed African-Americans to recruit from. As I've said, that may be a bad thing, but it's reality. It's not Wells Fargo's fault, much less Mr. Scharf's, and it's not discriminatory to explain that's why the racial mix in the WF boardroom is what it is. 

Mr. Scharf is wise enough, though, to not point out the obvious truth about the corporate goals for black Board seats. There are currently 2 of 12 black board members, or 16.67%. This is technical in excess of the 13% black population. However, it's as close to population parity as possible, since there are hardly any fractional people on corporate boards, and 1 out of 12 would be only 8.33%. So I'll grant that they just barely meet population parity.

But that's still a dramatic over representation of the black population if you assume (as I do) that a college degree is a requirement for a sitting Board member. In fact, given that the qualified black population is by definition at most 3% of the general population, their 16.67% representation on the board is more than a 500% over representation. Frankly, I have absolutely no problem with that assuming that all 12 board members are well qualified to be there.

My take aways are simply:

1. Data is not racist. Like the fact that grass is green and sky is blue, "it is what it is".
2. However, as my father often said, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
3. Demands for population parity are often un-reasonable, because they almost always omit some objective truth about the reality in which those demands are made, like disparity in rates of college degrees.