The NBA and WNBA Get an A+ for "Racial Hiring Practices" Despite Significant Racial Disparities?

 The University of Central Florida praises the NBA for its "commitment to racial equality," despite this significant evidence of racial inequality:

	Share of U.S. Population, 2011		Share of NBA, 2012	Share of WNBA, 2011
Blacks	13.1%	<	78%	63%
Whites	63.4%	>	17%	21%
Hispanics	16.7%	>	4%	3%
Asians	5.0%	>	3%	0%

Based on the data in the chart above, what letter grade would you assign for the "racial hiring practices" of the NBA and WNBA?  When determining your grade, you would obviously consider the fact that the racial shares of professional basketball players diverge significantly from the racial makeup of the U.S. population, suggesting that there might be some racial bias or discrimination when hiring players.  For example, blacks were 13.1% of the U.S. population in 2011, but were significantly overrepresented in professional basketball: 78% of NBA players (2012) and 63% of WNBA players (2011) are black.  Whites are 63.4% of the U.S. population, but are significantly underrepresented in pro basketball: only 17% of NBA and 21% of WNBA players are white.  Likewise, Hispanics and Asians are significantly underrepresented in both the NBA and WNBA compared to their shares of the U.S. population, and Asians have no representation in the WNBA.  

When determining your letter grade for the "racial hiring practices" of the NBA and WNBA consider what would happen if some of the outcomes were reversed, e.g. blacks are 13.1% of the population, but make up only say 5% of some outcome like managerial positions, boards of directors, city payrolls for police or fire workers, teaching positions, coaching positions, etc.  In most cases of gender or racial under-representation, the goal of advocacy groups or government agencies is often perfect statistical gender or racial parity based on shares of the general population (see example here of perfect gender parity being the stated goal of the Commerce Department for STEM jobs and college majors).

Given the statistical outcomes above where whites are underrepresented in the NBA by a factor of 3.7 times compared to their share of the general population (17% vs. 63.4%) and blacks are overrepresented in the NBA by a factor of 6 times (78% vs. 13%) compared to their share of the general population, it would seem that the logical conclusion is that the racial outcomes for the NBA and WNBA depart dramatically from the standard measures of diversity and the racial hiring practices of the NBA and WNBA should earn a letter grade of F. When women or minorities are underrepresented in some outcome (STEM jobs, college enrollment, boards of directors, executive positions, etc.), efforts are made to "increase diversity" by increasing the gender or racial shares of various outcomes to the gender or racial shares of the overall population.  

But when it comes to the NBA and WNBA, much different standards of diversity are apparently applied to the racial composition of professional basketball teams.  According to the "Racial and Gender Report Cards" (released annually by the "The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport" at the University of Central Florida") the NBA got a letter grade of A+ for "racial hiring practices" in 2012 (just released this week) and the WNBA got a letter grade of A+ for 2011 (results for 2012 are not yet available), for the significant over-representation of black players and the significant under-representation of white, Hispanic and Asian players.  

This seems pretty Orwellian in the sense that "all racial and gender groups are equal and important for purposes of diversity, but some groups are apparently more equal than others."  For example, when women are underrepresented in STEM fields, the gender activists invoke the "disparity-proves-discrimination dogma" and mobilize resources and support to address the gender disparity. But when women are overrepresented in earning college degrees (140 females per 100 men), or 7 out of 11 graduate degrees, or outnumber male veterinarians by more than 3:1, those disparities, and the "disparity-proves-discrimination" dogma are ignored.

Likewise, now that whites, Hispanics, and Asians are significantly underrepresented in the NBA and WNBA, the "disparity-proves-discrimination" dogma is abandoned and a new mantra is adopted by the "Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport": "racial disparities-prove-success" as long as blacks are over-represented and whites, Asians and Hispanics are under-represented, and deserve letter grades of A+.  In fact, the 2012 report praised the "NBA’s continued commitment to racial equality," despite the overwhelming evidence of  significant racial inequality?  

Interestingly, the "Institute of Diversity and Ethics in Sport" was headed until recently by two white male admininstrators (see photo below).  What grade would they give their own organization for the category of "Top Management" (one of the categories they use for the NBA and WNBA)? Wouldn't this be a letter grade of F for being 100% white and male?