What puts me off the most is how corporations handled PR or in general the equality/equity topic. It is clear as day that they pretty quickly find a fall guy to

What puts me off the most is how corporations handled PR or in general the equality/equity topic. It is clear as day that they pretty quickly find a fall guy to promote someone whose qualification is gender or ethnicity or whatever. With the accompanying unofficial NDA that nobody is to criticise these moves. That is just not desirable basis for anyone. > gain for one group must necessarily be a loss for another Because that is the most realistic result. In the end it will be the people at the top deciding who gets the most cake and they are pressured by the sentiment of vocal minorities driven mostly by vanity, surprisingly often from the most privileged groups of all. Only solution here is to treat everyone equally and in the worst case, like the sentiment is now, it has to be enshrined in law. Instead of policies for the "just" splitting of booty, increase access to opportunities and transience of mainly economic class in areas that are struggling. And yes, generalizing white, black, latin or whatever people and trying to balance the scales always requires a racist approach. My opinion, perhaps wrong but I don't see evidence against it. Now to my prejudice: Could it be that academics just don't understand that discriminating groups for a labor market inevitably makes them competitors in the labour market? The theories against the idea of a zero sum game cannot hold up, in fact you created it yourself by discriminating like you did. It is self-evidence by the metrics that are put up. > people still found a way to believe they'll be harmed Maybe it is you then? > The change itself has to be the justification. Ah, true believers, discussion pointless... typical for racists.