>

Very well said
Here is why institutional racism is a problem... WHICH members of Congress? The one that has more white guys named Tom than all minorities combined? >

I find it kind of weird that the report summations only cite "top senior" staffers.  It acknowledges progress, shows a vast gap between both parties as well as ideological subgroups of those parties, but still frames it as a "both sides" issue which doesn't seem to advance their point. >

When will the rates of job application matter to outlets churning out pieces with SJ veneer? Simply holding the staffer distribution against the general population tacitly posits that each race applies to each job in each industry at commensurate rates. Which is laughable.
If the race ratio of applicants varies significantly from that of the hired, then there’s certainly something here. But those numbers never make it into these pieces because, perhaps, they don’t always align with the narrative the publication’s readers are expecting/comfortable with. In other words, it’s not the right truth.
Either put forth a genuine effort to show that there is a tangible result of bias against POC in these hirings, or get on a different topic altogether. But these outlets need to stop churning out pieces with SJ flavor and nothing actionable. It turns what a large slice of the population believes to be a real struggle with class mobility/better wages into garden variety entertainment, just like the next thing in our doom scroll feeds. And the next thing, and the next.