Way to miss the point.

Lawyers exist to mitigate legal risks, not to solve racism. The parent was just pointing out that anything documented that admits racism occurred creates legal liability. The triggered the lawyers defense mechanisms where they need to clearly document that there was no discrimination in the legal sense.

So the point is that there needs to be a way to report unconscious bias events for data points that don't put the company at legal risk just by having them on record.

I didn't "miss" the point. I'm challenging it. I don't believe that sweeping the actual problem -- racial bias -- under the rug is in any way "attempts to solve the problem".

This is equivalent to "solving" software defects by refusing to record the bug because somebody is scared of a quality lawsuit. It not only doesn't help, it is very likely to make the problem worse.

> Avoiding lawsuits by hiding the facts is in no way an attempt to solve the problem.

That's why it's a conflict. The map is not the territory. If you give them an incentive to reduce reports of discrimination, they will have an incentive to reduce reports of discrimination. Which interferes with other methods that require meticulous reporting.