At a company All Hands our company CEO, while talking about diversity, said overtly "we will increase the % of non-White males working here. It does not mean we will discriminate, but we will hire more people who are not White."

So, imagine me going to management and saying "I think person X is showing discrimination against White candidates in their hiring practice." What would you anticipate the outcome of that conversation to be?

Your approaching it from the wrong angle. You need to narrow it down that a better qualified candidate was passed on for being white. The resume/recruiter stage would be the easiest as you have comparable data. But if it’s at the final stage and both candidates are equally qualified, a cultural fit, and can be taken either or, then it wouldn’t matter since it would be up to the hiring managers preference either way.

You are recklessly conflating willful inclusion and willful exclusion, either as a debate tactic or perhaps revealing something about yourself.

You are using hyperbolic language (recklessly), either as a debate tactic or perhaps revealing something about yourself.

Since you appear ignorant to the modern definition of apartheid, hence considering its usage hyperbolic in the context of race-based hiring practices, I offer you the Cambridge definition, unaltered straight from the dictionary:

"a system of keeping groups of people separate and treating them differently, especially when this results in disadvantage for one group"

Revealing that I know better than to engage racist arguments as legitimate ones.