How (or why) do you read "I don't care what your background is, I care what you bring to the table" as "women and minorities suck at their jobs"? OP doesn't say who sucks at their jobs; he says that whoever they are, be they men, women, minorities, or majorities, he doesn't want them.

There's a bit more nuance to this than "minorities suck at their jobs".

Let's say I have two candidates, one is asian and the other is black, and on paper they both look great. They both attended Harvard, and they both interviewed well.

Now if I know that the average SAT score required for Asians to be admitted to Harvard is 1580, and the average SAT score required for Blacks to be admitted to Harvard is 1360, and all other metrics (GPA, conscientiousness, work habits, etc) fall along similar lines of differing standards, then I would have a statistical bias toward selecting the Asian candidate. Not because I'm racist, but because DEI and other equity efforts at Harvard have pre-biased the candidate pool for me.

In the absence of equity efforts, "I went to Harvard" would be a metric that stands on its own, independent of race. But with DEI, it is not. We have eliminated the "I hate them damn blacks" style of racism and replaced it with a more insidious "In order to make a statistically correct decision, I need to be biased against Blacks" style of racism. I'm not sure this is an improvement.

This is an example from college admissions, but the same analogy can be drawn in any environment with strong DEI influence.

Yet somehow in the pre-affirmative action era you never factored in the fact that white legacy applicants have similar (low) SAT requirements?

They "went to" or also graduated there? If they graduated, their high school score doesn't matter.

It's interesting how much nuance you can add to still arrive at the conclusion that you need to discriminate against blacks.