But that of course assumes that either “skills” or “background” are inherently imbued in a racial classification. They are not.

Obviously.

Thus, if your goal was to gain insight to the African American market you would obtain more relevant “background” from a white kid that grew up with a single parent around 8-mile road in Detroit than you would from a black kid whose dad was an executive with one of the autos, grew up in Bloomfield Hills and went to Harvard.

You’re repeating yourself, and making a point on which we agreed.

The question posed was whether you would be better off choosing one race over the other without knowing the business, its product or needs.

I never posed that question.

The focus is on whether mandates for diversity sought by the left through affirmative action based solely on proportionality are inherently good.

We agreed that it is not.

And while it appears that you also reject that notion there are nevertheless somewhat contradictory statements included at various places that suggest on some level you accept that premise

Then there is either an error in my prose or one in your reading comprehension.

which I am at a loss for why you keep changing the paradigm of the question in your responses rather than just providing a straight answer.

I am unable to fathom how I can be more clear.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.