> Referring to people as "tokens" implies that their presence is just for show. I'm sure those mentors don't appreciate that sort of attack on their professional accomplishments, and to assume that they're there just for show is—dare I say it—racist. Consider replacing "token" with "single" in that sentence if that's not what you mean.
He was in this case seemingly implying that if someone writes about how one should take action against racism, but yet hires only a single black man and black woman amongst hundreds, then 1) it does not seem like they're taking action, and 2) the absence of more black people makes it look like other competent black people have likely been excluded from consideration due to race and the two that are there were not excluded because of a perceived need for a token.
Note the difference between implying they were included for their race - which would have been a slight on them - and implying they were not excluded despite their race.
I don't think this is a slight against the persons in question at all. If I disliked blondes (I'm being cowardly and using that as an example since I am one myself), and wanted to exclude blondes but was worried about public perceptions, I might leave a token blonde or two on my list, but that does not imply I'd pick my token blond at random - I'd pick the best of the bunch. I'd just exclude a bunch of other eligible blondes.
Of course it's possible that some racist would just pick their "token black person" at random, to compound their stupidity, but calling someone a "token" does not imply anything about how you think the selection was done.
The only thing that claim says is that Mike believes that it rings hollow to claim to take action yet not have found more black people that were at least as skilled as some of the other white people on the list.
My (black) wife regularly complains about the "token black people" in various settings, and when she does, it is certainly not to slight them, but to complain about why other competent black people aren't included as well.
(I know Mike, though I've never discussed race with him)
I don't think that's the most reasonable interpretation. If someone is concerned with appearances, then they're choosing someone for their appearance over their merit. Accusing someone of tokenism is claiming that they would've made a more homogeneous choice based on their judgment of merit, but put merit aside in order to keep up appearances. Tokenism and a lack of merit go hand in hand.
In other words, no one hates blondes. They prejudge blondes to be less competent, but they still keep a couple on the team, despite their prejudgment of being less competent. Being a token anything means merit wasn't the deciding factor for being chosen. It is bad.
First of all, I've met plenty of people who hold racist views without considering people of other races to be less competent.
Secondly, even if they do consider them less competent, that does not mean they would not prefer the best. Personally I'd think it unlikely they'd just pick some random person from a group unless they were so blatantly in your face racist that they'd consider all of them useless. I don't think you'll find many in the latter group, and fewer yet willing to hire even the token black person to an important position.
He was in this case seemingly implying that if someone writes about how one should take action against racism, but yet hires only a single black man and black woman amongst hundreds, then 1) it does not seem like they're taking action, and 2) the absence of more black people makes it look like other competent black people have likely been excluded from consideration due to race and the two that are there were not excluded because of a perceived need for a token.
Note the difference between implying they were included for their race - which would have been a slight on them - and implying they were not excluded despite their race.
I don't think this is a slight against the persons in question at all. If I disliked blondes (I'm being cowardly and using that as an example since I am one myself), and wanted to exclude blondes but was worried about public perceptions, I might leave a token blonde or two on my list, but that does not imply I'd pick my token blond at random - I'd pick the best of the bunch. I'd just exclude a bunch of other eligible blondes.
Of course it's possible that some racist would just pick their "token black person" at random, to compound their stupidity, but calling someone a "token" does not imply anything about how you think the selection was done.
The only thing that claim says is that Mike believes that it rings hollow to claim to take action yet not have found more black people that were at least as skilled as some of the other white people on the list.
My (black) wife regularly complains about the "token black people" in various settings, and when she does, it is certainly not to slight them, but to complain about why other competent black people aren't included as well.
(I know Mike, though I've never discussed race with him)