That's just backwards. It should be most qualified,not special treatment.
To clarify the title, the article specifies that those considered for roles or jobs should be proportional, not necessarily resulting in total proportionality.
Still defeats the point of having the best qualified staff. That should be the only concern. not SJW nonsense.
And I suppose in terms of movie-making the best-qualified staff can be determined simply by looking at where they attended college? I'm the last person who would identify with the social justice movement, but all you're doing in this case is counter-signalling instead of illuminating a substantive disagreement.
The amount of highly-qualified workers suitable for a position in one of J.J. Abrams' films is undoubtedly bigger than the amount of highly-qualified workers he is willing to hire. I have no idea where you get this fantasy conception of the labour market, as if there aren't search frictions and as if "the most qualified candidate" is something which can be immediately or efficiently discerned.
Say there are 100 non-Hispanic white folk, 100 black people and a collection of other ethnic groups present in the US. Why the fuck
shouldn't J.J. Abrams constrain himself to considering 63 white people and
just 12 black people. It's pretty clear that this isn't going to lead to the over-employment of blacks, or the under-employment of whites. Simply making your pool of potential employees proportional isn't an example of social justice run amok, just a high-profile employer trying to do
his part, free of government involvement, to ameliorate an issue.
JJ Abrams now requires proportional representation of minorities on his staff