Debating Christianity and Religion

There will never be absolute proof that there is systemic racism because proof of such a thing requires reading individuals' minds and assessing how they actually judge another person.

Question for Debate: How should we handle a situation where there is reasonable or even very reasonable suspicion based on statistics about outcomes, but there will never be, and can never be, any proof that anyone is guilty of anything, even if they are?

Example: Jim is a racist, and wants only white people to work at his company. However, John is a nice guy, and hired on merit, and just happened to have all white people working at his company. Jim and John both say exactly the same, that they hired on merit. We can't prove Jim is lying even though he is, and anything we do against him will hurt John, who did nothing wrong, but likewise we can never prove so. So we can either let Jim commit potentially market-crushing unfairness, or we can get Jim and also unfairly punish John. Or is there some third option?

It can be proven by the interviewee data . On Jim's data it will show that he interviewed only white people and selected only white people however on John data it will show that he interviewed people from all racial backgrounds and selected those who were competent who happen to be white . Such as situation can also be avoided if during the application process they remove name , race and where you live and replace it with a numerical code to each applicant . This process will then ensure that applicants don't face bias and demonstrate that the applicant would be chosen on merit .