The interpretation is still somewhat unreliable as in many cases there's still another hypothesis, which is that $UNDERREPRESENTED_MINORITY actually overperforms due to favourable treatment after the selection process
Of course favourable treatment can't make people into superstar startup founders or baseball players (and I'm sure any special treatment afforded to black baseball players in the 1940s was the complete opposite of favourable). But more generally it can make an organisation with fair selection processes look like it sets a higher bar for $MINORITY because it addresses low numbers by being very keen to promote and very reluctant to fire/deselect members of said minority, so these kind of studies still have to be considered with care.
(Of course even if an organisation is proactively treating a minority group favourably after selection doesn't mean that conscious or unconscious biases don't exist in the selection process.)
Of course favourable treatment can't make people into superstar startup founders or baseball players (and I'm sure any special treatment afforded to black baseball players in the 1940s was the complete opposite of favourable). But more generally it can make an organisation with fair selection processes look like it sets a higher bar for $MINORITY because it addresses low numbers by being very keen to promote and very reluctant to fire/deselect members of said minority, so these kind of studies still have to be considered with care.
(Of course even if an organisation is proactively treating a minority group favourably after selection doesn't mean that conscious or unconscious biases don't exist in the selection process.)