It's certainly not ok to discriminate on the basis of age/gender/race, regardless of whether the victim is old/white/male or young/black/female. And that's exactly why I think it's problematic that the vast majority of fortune-500 executives are oldish/white/men. It hints at the discrimination faced by other demographics when they try to pursue executive roles.

If someone could demonstrate convincingly that executive roles are being awarded out in a purely meritocratic manner, then demographic-imbalances might be excusable. But let's be honest - executive roles at mega-corps are almost always handed out on the basis of personal relationships and perceptions. I strongly suspect that in a purely meritocratic system, we would see far more diversity in the executive ranks.

It's also curious to see the extent to which many commenters are willing to accept the premise that old/white/men are being discriminated against in some roles, but not the premise that other demographics are being discriminated against in other roles. Is the evidence for the former really all that stronger than the evidence for the latter?