That's not a refutation of the article, unless you think that 50s-style "integrity, work ethic, and a knack for getting along" hiring practices inherently preclude women/non-whites/non-straight/non-Christian people. Your comment reads like you're just trying to score cheap diversity points against the standards of 60 years ago instead of engaging with the point of the article.
What actually matters is perception of "integrity, work ethic, and a knack for getting along", because people can only make decisions based on their perceptions. Many* assert that the 1950s was a time when people widely believed that Negroes were shiftless, Queers were deviant, and women were hysterical. If you believe this, then it is natural to conclude that a Black man needed to be twice as hardworking in order to overcome the priors of those around him.
* including myself and pretty much everyone I know.
That's still utterly irrelevant to the article. Unless your claim is that the increased workforce participation from reduced discrimination today inherently leads to a "war on stupid people". Otherwise it's just a nitpick on a small point that doesn't detract from the article and invites off-topic comments like mine.
> unless you think that 50s-style "integrity, work ethic, and a knack for getting along" hiring practices inherently preclude women/non-whites/non-straight/non-Christian people.
