[wholien]

I'd prefer the article to be more upfront about "racial diversity" being "what % are Black", and not "what % are Black, Latino, Asian, etc". Billing Black %, though important, as racial diversity erases all other non-Caucasian groups.

[munchbunny]

While I would prefer to see my demographic represented in the analysis, I'm entirely fine with the lens being focused on black people. If anything good comes of it, underrepresented minorities in general will benefit.

Billing Black %, though important, as racial diversity erases all other non-Caucasian groups.

I think this is a lesser form of "all lives matter", because the "applies to other groups" subtext is pretty obvious. I'm not saying that you're saying "all lives matter", just that I disagree for comparable reasons: it's only an erasure of non-Caucasian groups if you interpret the author uncharitably.

[purple-again]

Does it erase them or does it just take a moment to focus the conversation on the black part?

I’m pretty sure “racial diversity” here doesn’t mean “not white” but instead means racial division in proportion to the population in context.

[daenz]

The "Silicon Valley Tech Media Diversity Report Card" listed in the article has a column for "Black %" as its only diversity metric.