[rule_follower]

Isn't it one of the great assumptions of our age that everyone is "equal" and ought be proportionally represented in every endeavor? And that inequitable representation is evidence of a moral or actual crime against the under represented? (At least in cases when an official oppressor class is over represented and an official victim class is under represented. And also when participating in the endeavor is desirable.)

[loco5niner]

Well, everyone is "equal" in value as a human being, but it is incorrect to say that everyone is equal in talent or potential.

Take the Olympics for example. Different body types, genetically predetermined before birth, will give certain people advantages in one sport, but disadvantages in other sports. Tall people have a huge advantage in volleyball, basketball, etc, but not soccer. Kenyans have an advantage at long distance running, but I doubt they are a common sight in the powerlifting arena. Want to climb Mt Everest? More than likely, a Sherpa would go with you, because they have unique physical qualifications.

There's nothing inherently "better" about all these people, but they do happen to have an inherent advantage when it comes to performing specific tasks.

The argument that all people ought to be proportionally represented in every endeavor ignores the basic fact that people have distinctly different skill sets based on their genetic makeup.

[spacehome]

No, of course not, to both questions. All people should be treated equitably under the law, and we decided it’s illegal to discriminate along a very small number of dimensions for the essentials of life: employment and housing. But people are not equal at all. Some people are better tenants or employees than others, and it’s ethical to discriminate along those lines. And, yes, some people are better interviewees, too.

[loco5niner]

Good points all. Some people are more disciplined, motivated, and responsible than others and that should be rewarded.