You just went from "Org B likely has some issues" to "automatic conclusion."

No, I actually went off the first sentence:

"So which report makes an organization less racist"

So that implies that org B is more racist(because it hired zero brown people) - is that not the conclusion the author of the comment wants us to reach?

* * *

If I say that my uncle is more racist than my cousin, do you think my uncle is racist, or not?

You roll a die 120 times, get 20 1's, 20 2's, 0 3's, 20 4's, 40 5's, and 20 6's.

Do you or do you not think it is incredibly likely this is an unfair die.

That's Company B.

If your company takes a pile of CVs and randomly picks a bunch of people to hire, then yes, you are absolutely correct, there is something very very wrong with company B if a truly random process results in an unequal distribution of hires.

But hiring isn't random. Maybe all the "brown" candidates lacked necessary qualifications. Or needed visas which they couldn't get. Or a million other reasons other than "org B is racist".

My point is: you need further context. To look at that one stat as given above and conclude org B is racist is....unwise.

Is that how you hire? You litearlly roll a dice for an interview? No bias of "This guy looks / acts / talks like me?"

I am not sure I have ever been on a team without some kind of like-me bias. It's real hard.

This is a very inappropriate analogy, because humans are very diverse; the exact opposite of a die's faces.

We’re not discussing f a human. We’re talking about fairly coarse demographic buckets

...or that Org A is "less racist", as I've demonstrated. Poor analogy by the OP.