> When we boil people down to their demographic membership, we do exactly that. We decide that a latino son of a doctor from Cleveland has more in common with a

> When we boil people down to their demographic membership, we do exactly that. We decide that a latino son of a doctor from Cleveland has more in common with an Nicaraguan in on an H1B than with a Caucasian son of a doctor from Cleveland. I like this line of thinking because it reveals the absurdity of the current demographics. Given that the US professional landscape is radically skewed away from women and people of color in terms of headcount, salary and access to capital, how do you justify this? Is it genuinely your belief that there is an predisposition towards success in this field for white straight men, who compose its overwhelming majority? Were we to NOT do this and actually grade people on their capacity and potential in education, job selection and social standing then I suspect we'd see a much less deviated distribution. But we don't. We see something that more closely resembles the hypothesis that people are doing exactly what you're describing, to the benefit of white folks. People transform criticisms of diversity statistics into a criticism of competency standards on hiring and promotion, which is exactly no one wants.