I feel like that's a very simplistic way of evaluating progressiveness. A board of a well known tech company is composed of 3 women, and 6 men. By your metric,

I feel like that's a very simplistic way of evaluating progressiveness. A board of a well known tech company is composed of 3 women, and 6 men. By your metric, that's progressiveness. After all, a third are women. Greater than 0. Now what if all of them are white. Is that progressive when the population of the U.S. also includes Hispanics, Asians (who make up a sizable % of the tech industry), and Blacks but the board contains none? As a visible minority, I say yes, because women are under-represented and it's fine if sometimes other ethnicities aren't represented. So by one metric it's not progressive/diverse, but by another it is. Likewise, if a group happens to be all male but contains visible minorities, is that not an example of being progressive? It's not as if North America is completely color blind and minorities don't endure exclusion from a variety of groups ranging from executive positions to judicial positions to political representation in North America. Being white and male in North America carries a privilege very unlike being Black/Asian/Hispanic and male. And so yes, I sound like a broken record on this thread but it irks me when people only judge by gender, when ethnicity is a consideration here in the U.S. And when I look at the partners, they have some visible minorities. But most importantly, when I read their bios, they are clearly very qualified.