I think the thing is that in a huge amount of hiring, we don't know what attribute K is, nor if it is good to be considered favorably during hiring. It is amazing how often we look back and see what we used to evaluate people by 50 years ago was so wrong, but believe that we have it right THIS time.
So, as a people we default back to hiring people who look like us, think like us, and act like us, even if that isn't representative of the larger population, and even if it restricts the population of people who are likely to be perfectly qualified, given the chance. Keep the playing field tilted towards "us", whoever that may be in the given situation.
And it just so happens that with our enlightenment we exclude the people who have always been excluded. A funny coincidence how we keep coming up with that same solution, rather than challenging our own assumptions as lazy mammals.
So, as a people we default back to hiring people who look like us, think like us, and act like us, even if that isn't representative of the larger population, and even if it restricts the population of people who are likely to be perfectly qualified, given the chance. Keep the playing field tilted towards "us", whoever that may be in the given situation.
And it just so happens that with our enlightenment we exclude the people who have always been excluded. A funny coincidence how we keep coming up with that same solution, rather than challenging our own assumptions as lazy mammals.