The historical question has to address the current facts on the ground, though. Those centuries matter in some ways, for example, in currently poverty rates among black people, for example, which are a disgrace to the US. But how do those centuries justify focusing only on white people in that slide, if the goal of the slide is diversity?<p>I didn&#x27;t miss &quot;to lead&quot;, I referred to it. My point is that no matter the position - rank and file, or leadership; technical or non-technical; etc. etc. - it is never ok to say &quot;this position is not for [race of gender X]&quot;. It&#x27;s just wrong.<p>Again, it&#x27;s fine to say &quot;it would be helpful to have a presence of [group X] here&quot;. That focuses on the positive, doesn&#x27;t exclude a specific group, and there are valid reasons to indeed want a presence of underrepresented minorities, because it&#x27;s about them.<p>In other words, this entire initiative <i>could</i> be done in a non-racist way.