Let's formalize it a bit, I think this helps clarify.
Let A be the hiring propensity, B be job preparation (education, experience, what have you), and C be the "blinding factors" Helsinki is trying to address.
As a model we would like the joint propensity for everyone to be normalized. In other words, P(A,B,C) would be about the same.
The joint propensity P(A,B,C) would be expressed as
P(A,B,C) = P(A | B,C) * P(B | C) * P(C) [0]
Helsinki is making the first term, P(A | B,C) independent of their "blinding factors", or, in other words, P(A | B,C) = P(A | B).[1]
The remaining terms P(B | C) and P(C) are unaffected. It is P(B|C) differential that many arguing for what I call non-autarky "social corrections" (we do something as a society).
Since Helsinki's decision affects _only_ the conditional probability P(A| B,C), the other factors are still at play, and P(A,B,C) remains at issue.
There is nothing that can be done by Helsinki's hiring department for P(B|C) in the short term -- people are dealt the hand they have, life isn't fair, and so on. Completely true.
By blinding themselves, they set P(A|B) to be flat on C and no "equalization" of P(A,B,C) can be observed.
A truly egalitarian society would have P(B|C) = P(B). However, we aren't there. C, what Helsinki blinds themselves to, matters for qualifying life experiences.
The model that is being argued for by you and others I believe is formalized as a conditional independence model, namely that the propensity of hiring is independent of race, conditional on life preparation: P(A,C | B) = P(A|B) * P(C|B).[2] Note though: bias still persists: P(C|B) = P(B|C)*P(C)/P(B) -- we can't get away from that P(B|C) term in either model, and we know qualitatively that P(B|C) != P(B), hence why a correction can be positively argued for (rather than solely from emotion or duty).
Anyhow, that's the model in mind, and I'm open to being wrong/corrected. Thoughts?
--------------------
After thinking about it more, it seems that the ultimate goal of Helsinki is to make P(A|B,C) = P(A|B), not the latter model.
--------------------
[0] Chained conditional probabilites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_rule_(probability)
[1] Independent variables definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theo...
[2] Conditional independence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_independence
Edit: I should have been more precise when referring to blind hiring. I meant completely blind hiring, including the "on-site" interview stage(making it "blind" could be difficult). Obviously you're also correct about the earlier life experiences which could have been impacted by numerous factors, but my perception on that is the same as with law, it shouldn't be retroactive because you can't change people's past. Besides, each case is different and applying counter-biases here is like blind shooting.
If I understand where you are coming from, "landing the job interview" are the direct factors Helsinki is choosing to be blind to, like name and so forth. Am I understanding that right? If so, let me clarify the point -- the factors that Helsinki _will_ judge resumes on -- experience and so forth -- are pre-conditioned on your name (etc.). So the fact that one makes the initial cut is still driven by the factors Helsinki chose to be blind to.
> Also, I completely condemn the notion of attempting to fix the problem with affirmative action, primarily because it attempts to solve inequality(evil) with deliberate and explicit discrimination(greater evil).
I get where you're coming from on this. The method I propose, if Helsinki uses the blinding methodology, is to impose any "corrective"/affirmative actions after the the blind evaluation of skills. That way every person is ensured to be qualified (avoiding the critique of "diversity hires"). One possible (and usually a default) "corrective" approach is autarky/doing nothing.
And... that's my whole point! I appreciate the discussion.