Chances are unless you're seeing the family doctor or going to the same doctor you always go to you are selecting your doctor fairly randomly.
You would, but really unless you have very specific medical conditions and/or a lot of money to burn you have to settle for whichever one's on hand and usually take it on their word and from their diploma on the wall that they know what they're talking about.
I mean what doctors are selected by the health board (and thus available to me). It makes no sense to have demographic quotas when it's literally not relevant to doctoring at all. Ergo, I would prefer doctors (and literally everyone, but doctors seemed like a more impactful example) be hired based on skillset rather than what minority group we're pandering to this week.
Great way to misrepresent what I said.
I mean, hell, you try and come up with 20 candidates out of an equally-qualified group of 200 that doesn't discriminate along some grounds without resorting to a random number generator.
Wow I parsed that really badly. Though to be fair, when are you going to encounter 200 equally-qualified candidates? They're all going to have different experience and so on. If, absurdly, you come out with... any number of candidates who have the same experience, and are all comparably good with relevant skills, then sure, random numbers would be fine.
My point is basically that race shouldn't be part of the equation. If it comes up that Employer X is refusing to hire South-Sudanese Jewish Muslims, then he can be taken to court and tried individually. It makes no sense to counter racist hiring practises with racist hiring practises, even in aggregate, unless your goal is simply to make the company
look fair and equal.