> In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line).

I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. It would make much more sense to support diversity if the top of line was boosted. Bottom of line efforts are usually employed to squeeze more cash out of the thing -- at least in a healthy company who was already running at decent margens. So it in my eyes it sounds like another tactic to exploit more out of workers. Not a good thing for the workers, awesome for the fat cats.

Beyond that I am not convinced that diversity actually improves a organization over merit. Please don't take it anti diversity its just pro meritocracy.

> fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism.

Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases. At the end of the day everybody wants special treatment, and when that special treatment can't be hand because of a feature you have no control over it never is a good feeling, unless you already feel yourself in such a superior position to take pity on those who received the special treatment.

As a anecdotal, and maybe this is why I am so passionate about it. I grew up very poor. And my middle school had a program for issuing computers to low income students. The only problem was low income was not the only requirement. Upon request for one you find out the program is not offered to white students. It took me near 5 years to get my first computer that I could use for more than just a few moments in a computer lab. I had to make due with a typewriter and a calculator.

You tell me why that is fair? I remember clearly they had tons of unissued laptops at the time, I walked past the stack in the computer lab every day. Again, tell me how denying somebody a public resource based off their color is fair?

Now take that story and flip the requirement from can't be white to can't be black. If that rubs you wrong in any way then maybe, just maybe you could see how race based initiatives vs wealth based ounces can do more damage than good, because I am sure I am not the only person with such a story.

Beyond that who are we to play god? And decide somebody's worthiness of effort -- based off skin color? History has shown what happened the last time that men did this, and it was not pretty.

> then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession.

I can agree, but again, it is not skin color or gender. I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often.

I think part of the problem is some people what change NOW, but fail to realize any sort of change is going to take generations, at least any sort of lasting change. People have to go through the paces All of america was not always rich, and much of america is built of very hard work and grit, and only now are we just seeing the fruits of the sacrifices past generations made.