Intel has proudly announced a new effort to better discriminate against white men:

Following up on its earlier pledge to spend $300 million over the next five years to improve diversity, Intel Corp promised more on Tuesday, this time to back companies with women and minorities in leadership roles.

That's pretty vague.  Are Chinese considered "minorities"?  Are Indians considered "minorities"?  Will Intel feel happy if they back ten companies headed by Chinese-Americans?

Intel Capital, the chipmaker's venture capital arm, said it would allocate $125 million over the next few years to bring more management diversity to its start-up portfolio. Some of that sum will overlap with the previously announced $300 million, Intel said.

While I applaud their continuing effort to disciminate against white men, the only sort of discrimination that is allowed and indeed approved of in our almost colorblind society, there is a little matter of Intel's fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.  They are supposed to maximize the value of their company's investments.  If their prime criterion for investing is color of skin or gender, they could have a shareholder lawsuit on their hands for failing to maximize value.  A public company isn't a social experiment; it has a responsibility to the shareholders, and if they abrogate that responsibility, they should be held liable.

The move comes as technology companies face heavy criticism for their overwhelmingly male and white workforces ...

That's funny, because I thought the overwhelmingly white workforce also had an overwhelming number of Chinese- and Indian-Americans.  Are Chinese and Indians now considered "white" because they are successful?  Why is there no criticism of the overwhelming number of Chinese and Indians in the workforce?

... which some argue creates a climate that discourages women and minorities from aspiring to work in technology or sticking around if they start there.

The presence of white men discourages women and minorities?  You see what liberals do – to justify their arguments, they make out women as sexist against men, and minorities as racist against white people.  This is (still) a majority-white culture; why should you not be surprised to see a majority of whites in the workplace?

Increased diversity would lead to stronger, more innovative companies, the thinking goes.

Then the thinking is racist, because as we all know, "diversity" is the codeword for "get rid of whitey."  How is a company stronger for having different-colored people on its staff?  A company is stronger for having talented people, of whatever race, making products that people want.  I don't see that the race of the people making the products has anything to do with it.

By funnelling some diversity money through venture capital, Intel reasons it can nurture a group of role models that in turn will encourage more minorities and women to aspire to work in technology startups. That will benefit both Intel and the broader economy.

How will purposefully discriminating against white men benefit Intel or the broader economy?  It will foster sexual and racial resentment, but I don't see that it particularly helps anyone.  When Intel announces its revenue numbers, does it break out how much revenue was produced by white people, and how much by women and minorities?  Because if you carry their argument to its logical conclusion, that's what they should be doing.  Maybe Intel should pay lower taxes on products produced by women and minorities, to give them an incentive to "promote diversity."

The fund also led an investment in CareCloud, a Miami-based healthcare provider where the diversity quotient is less obvious given the sea of white male faces that appear on the management section of the company's website.

Not the sea of white male faces!  You know, if the racist article-writer at Reuters had written "the sea of black women faces that appears on the management section," he'd be fired from his job an hour after this article was published.

But women and Hispanics comprise more than half CareCloud's workforce, Lambert said, including founder and chief strategy officer Albert Santalo.

What a relief!  After doing our racial and sexual bean-counting, the groups society has decided to give special treatment to have benefited, and those who were displaced are not even worthy of mention.  All this racial counting is not entirely different from the racial purity laws of the Nazis, and frankly, it's quite sickening.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.