I think that 'non diversity' (or at least how I interpret is) is an indicator of possible unfairness, and not necessarily bad per se. If a company has too few p

I think that 'non diversity' (or at least how I interpret is) is an indicator of possible unfairness, and not necessarily bad per se. If a company has too few people of a given group in comparison to the hiring pool availability, it may be something that the company is doing, maybe unconsciously, to keep them out. If the difference is with respect to the country's distribution of that group (which I suspect is the case in tech), there might be something either with the companies and/or the education-motivation given to access that knowledge. In any case, I think it's worth to look at it and try to solve it, because maybe you end up improving the actual/future employees' life and the company itself. And possibly race is not the only division to look at, as you say. Class is probably more interesting, but also age, family responsibilities or sexual orientation can reveal practices/attitudes that can be improved. I agree with you in the cynical thinking and in the motivations of some of the groups pushing for it, but I think that in the long run thinking about the diversity problem and trying to fix it can lead to better outcomes for everybody.