Subtle bias at work?

Firstly- nothing eats at me more than this diversity BS. I'm not talking about the EO program, racism, sexism, or other closed minded prejudice bullshit. I'm talking about the seemingly interest to have that targeted "make up" of a force. Due to the unique business our organization conducts, the most important factor shouldn't be "oh do we have the proper ration of males to females to minority groups for the job" and instead it should be "do we have the right persons for the job!"

Now are they so quick to want to have a conversation about targeting sexes and minority due to drawdowns but the same people didn't seem to give a dam when told cutting dual military BAH and SM pay and benefits would uniquely target females in the military and do drastic damage to our female enlisted numbers? Where was their interest then?

But I'm not subject matter expert on force demographics, just a man that rants on.

This is a horrible study and the worst kind of political correctness. Since when does where you fall on the color or sex spectrum matter? If an organization has to draw down (do less with more), its vital to retain the best folks. Regardless of sex or race. The best people period! Anything less is discriminatory in its nature. I am not sure what Rand is trying to accomplish with this report as federal law prohibits what they are suggesting.

So to paraphrase the author, women and minorities are dumber (lower AFQT scores) and have worse fitness scores, so we should put in some other factors in order to ensure a "diverse force". Here and I thought the military was here to fight the nation's wars. Turns out, we are really here to promote diversity.
First off, this is a not-very-thinly-veiled attempt to suggest standards not be the determining factor in force reductions, and that minorities and women should have special consideration. That fails the very test that they would like to apply - that everyone is treated the same regardless of gender, race, etc.
Secondly, Rand Corp suggesting that minorities are somehow less capable and thus disproportionally affected by QMP and other force reduction systems may or may not be statistically true, but smacks of racism.
I think any separation board action should be completely blind, maybe going so far as using initials or last four SSNs to prevent a name from giving away race or gender. Then we'll see how it goes. If it still comes out disproportionate to the force demographics, then the issue is not bias but rather societal in nature. By the time a Soldier has been in the Army for fifteen years, you aren't going to fix the fact their education wasn't up to par or that they have done things that got them subject to UCMJ. It just is.
The standard should be the standard, no matter what you look like.