[bee_rider]

Are you describing what is in the article, or what happens in the real world? If you are describing what happens in real life, I basically agree, it is good that we’re pushing for diversity. But the article has quotes like:

> For example, within hedge funds, the ideal entry-level candidate might be an experienced former investment banker who went to a top MBA program. This preferred pedigree sets a minimum bar for both competence and work ethic. This first-pass filter enormously winnows the field of underrepresented candidates. To relax requirements for diversity’s sake, this will be diluted in various ways. First, the work experience might be stripped. Next, the role gets offered to MBA interns.

And

> By the 1960s, the systematic selection for competence came into direct conflict with the political imperatives of the civil rights movement. During the period from 1961 to 1972, a series of Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and laws—most critically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964—put meritocracy and the new political imperative of protected-group diversity on a collision course.

I don’t see how it could be read in a way that is compatible with your description.

I think the article is (as I read it) wrong.