Two points: 1) Diversity is valuable when it represents diversity of life experience and problem-solving methods, not when it represents some external characte

Two points: 1) Diversity is valuable when it represents diversity of life experience and problem-solving methods, not when it represents some external characteristic like skin color or gender. To substitute these terms out is to be prejudiced, that is, to believe that we can look at someone externally and make informed decisions about their internal makeup. We cannot. Two, you do not manage complex systems by simple statistics. If you could, then all the billions being spent in root cause analysis and so forth would be unneeded. Complex systems, such as those involving people, are, well, complex. For example, if the inputs to the system are heavily skewed, that is, if applicants for speakers come in at a heavily skewed ratio, then the process itself can't be responsible for the outcome. Of course, if the process only serves to facilitate an outcome, then that's fine, but it's no longer a process optimized for finding the best speaker or whatever. You can't have it both ways. I can provide more examples of how trying to reason about these systems in a simplistic fashion is not only a waste of time, but can actually lead to counter-productive results. I refuse to be sexist or racist and I won't tolerate those around me who are sexist or racist. But I also refuse to continue to consume material that promotes this kind of mushy-headed way of looking at something as important as diversity. If you don't understand the problem and don't understand how to deal with it even if you could manage to identify it, then any resulting conversation or action is not going to be very productive.