This response seems to indicate that you wish it were, which seems like an acknowledgement that it isn't identically distributed. In which case, it seems a bit premature to jump to "straight up racist hiring practices" being the only explanation for disparities between any given field and the country-wide demographics.
> Or are you suggesting that some races / genders / etc are better at some things than others?
No, it seems to be you trying to suggest this. I'm pointing out that there could be alternate explanations besides "straight up racist hiring practices" that could cause any given application pool to deviate from the general population. This could mean anything from small-number statistical sampling fluctuations, to lack of aspirational representation causing a demographic to enter the field, to general structural suppression in society etc etc.
Very few companies are directly in the position to directly influence the development of people who will be in their application pool in several years time.
This response seems to indicate that you wish it were, which seems like an acknowledgement that it isn't identically distributed. In which case, it seems a bit premature to jump to "straight up racist hiring practices" being the only explanation for disparities between any given field and the country-wide demographics.
> Or are you suggesting that some races / genders / etc are better at some things than others?
No, it seems to be you trying to suggest this. I'm pointing out that there could be alternate explanations besides "straight up racist hiring practices" that could cause any given application pool to deviate from the general population. This could mean anything from small-number statistical sampling fluctuations, to lack of aspirational representation causing a demographic to enter the field, to general structural suppression in society etc etc.
Very few companies are directly in the position to directly influence the development of people who will be in their application pool in several years time.