>>If you say you can't have capability and diversity, you are saying that people other than white males can't be capable.
>>
>
>No, I'm not saying that. But let me clarify - I don't believe in seeking diversity. If you get diversity, fine.
>
>There's a great line in the novel/movie "Disclosure". The president of the company (who was kind of a jerk) had a good line at the end...."I was so focused on promoting a woman, when I should have been focused on finding the best person for the job". He again selects a woman, but this time it's the one who is clearly the sharpest and toughest.
>
>There are times when I think about starting a training school. The first person I'd reach out to is a female (she doesn't use this forum so I won't mention her name). Not because she's a female, but because she's a top notch speaker and tough as nails on stage.
>
>I'm really getting tired of this "white male" canard. It artificially inserts emotion/false guilt into a discussion by suggesting that those who don't openly "seek" diversity are insensitive to racial/gender issues.
>

The problem with this approach is that most people are most comfortable with people like themselves. Since white men has the most power, this leads to white men getting the most opportunities. Unless those with power are required to confront that fact, people without power can be shut out even by those who are well-meaning.

I was reading something within the last two weeks. (I think it was in the book "Originals" by Adam Grant, but I can't say for sure.) It was talking about the way companies choose people and it specifically pointed out that the style whereby people are chosen because they fit it can be exclusionary.

Unless diversity (along with ability) is a priority, too many people with ability who are different in some way from those who are making the decisions won't get a chance.

And then, of course, there are the jackasses who consciously discriminate: http://www.themarysue.com/just-more-silicon-valley-tech-bro-sexism/

Tamar

>
>And related...on the topic of sharpest and most qualified - the news yesterday on the FBI 302 report with HRC. The details on her answers to the FBI are stunning. This is beyond smoking gun and illustrates she is no more qualified than Trump.
>
>Someone made an interesting point - had the Ds nominated anyone else, that person would be ahead of Trump by 15 points. And had the Rs nominated anyone else, that person would be ahead of HRC by 15 points.