Picking a natural effect that is very widespread, defining the "badness" of it as being measured by money and power, and then only caring about the instances wh

Picking a natural effect that is very widespread, defining the "badness" of it as being measured by money and power, and then only caring about the instances where there is money and power to be gained quite obviously opens up people to charges of hypocrisy - there is no way to tell the difference between such diversity advocates and people who don't care about diversity at all. Look at it this way. I make the charge that so-called "diversity advocates" don't care about diversity, that it's not a matter of prioritisation - gender is just a smokescreen. I posit they could achieve 100% female boards but then they'd stop. They wouldn't go on to try and tackle the dominance of women in teaching because they never cared about diversity to begin with: just money and power. What evidence or arguments do you have that could convince bystanders I'm wrong? There are none. The behaviour we observe can be explained in both a complex way (yours) and a simple way (mine), so Occam's Razor applies.