"There is no intrinsic reason why these numbers should not be proportional to society in the long run, that's why we compare the ratios." That's true. Roughly

"There is no intrinsic reason why these numbers should not be proportional to society in the long run, that's why we compare the ratios." That's true. Roughly proportional anyway. But there's still gonna be minorities inside that group. I guess what I tried to say earlier is that making sure minoritie's voices are heard is (IMHO) more important than making sure they're represented proportionally to society. Simply because there's always gonna be a minority. "[...] diversity as a thing in and of itself is at least good business. Especially in positions of power and decision-making." Don't forget that huge groups like races, genders, etc. are incredibly diverse already. I guess a stereotypical example would be hiring a white man might diversify your staff more than hiring a black women if that man happens to be a vegan (or whatever). Or take the Fox News staff as an example if you like (they sure look diverse on mute). No argument on the second part though. Any representational entity (management, senate, etc.) should represent society accurately. The rest of your post is a no-brainer. Talking to seemingly different people is always a good idea :)