ALH, unfortunately people are not silent on this.
I, for one, wish they were.
As a business owner, hiring and firing, I did not subscribe to this foolish notion of "equality".
It is my responsibility to hire the BEST people for the job, no excuses.
Any reasons given to justify hiring people just to satisfy some sick and irrational notion that there are benefits in hiring a "broader" range of gender/race and so on, is seriously wrong and MUST NOT be entertained.
Imagine for a moment if only some of the women, (ie those with children) left the workforce, they could be replaced by unemployed fathers, and in one fell swoop we would have cleared up our unemployment problem.
Women have "stepped into the breach" when there was a shortage of men.
For example, women flew the new spitfires to their new flight-lines during the war, because the men were busy fighting.
My position is clear and I am entitled to it, and no one is allowed to criticise me for it, because I am entitled to it, it is mine.
Others may feel inclined to feel otherwise.
The natural order is the judge, not some selfish, entitled, arrogant maggot, who will not accept who or what she is.
They are like spoilt brats who were misguided from an early age to be their own person and do whatever they wanted.
That's the wrong message, and has put women in awkward and sometimes emotionally painful positions because their choices proved to be the wrong ones.
I know of several cases and anecdotes of many more.
One such case I know personally, is a young diminutive lass decided she wanted to be a mechanic, and after having graduated she was for a while, but was soon recruited to a service management position which she is finding even more stressful, and not coping well at all.
Now you would think she could handle an office job in charge of several people, but sadly she is not.
This is not an isolated case.
All thanks to selfish, mentally deficient feminazis, neuters and snags.

That is racial and/or sexual discrimination. To select FOR someone on the basis of race / gender, must mean selecting AGAINST someone on the basis of race / gender.

Assembly Line Human,
So well put ! This applies to literally everything ! I hope your assessment gets the attention it warrants !

Assembly Line Human,
>Targets and quotas are the same. In both situations, there is a policy of ensuring that
>the composition of people matches a predefined ratio in terms of gender, ethnicity.
WRONG!
What you have described are quotas, not targets.

Targets are not an end in themselves, but a way of checking that affirmative action is working.
Affirmative action is investigating the obstacles that prevent people from historically disadvantaged groups getting hired and/or promoted, and changing procedures in order to remove those obstacles.
And we must be clear about this: quotas are NOT affirmative action (even though many people regard them as synonymous, particularly in America). Any business that resorts to quotas is failing at affirmative action.

As for why people are silent on this, you're far better placed to answer the question than I am. Why have you failed to complain about it to anyone who can do something about it?

Aiden said-

"WRONG!
What you have described are quotas, not targets.

Targets are not an end in themselves, but a way of checking that affirmative action is working."

Answer- I am not sure that I understand your post here Aiden.

I'll leave it to others to assert whether or not what you say is reasonable.

We are all responsible for our own judgement.

Targets fill quotas & quotas are there to meet targets, end of argument.

Individual- Thanks for the voice of reason