We should be choosing the best person for the job, not focusing more on gender or skin color.

Fortunately, you can do both.

Diversity is, on it's own, something that's been shown to improve decision making proficiency.

You should read the article, it does a very good job of outlining exactly how conclusive this finding is.

"The best person for the job", as you say, is the diverse pick.

Right. You don't look at skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. You choose from a pool of all. The best person for the job.

It's ironic that I get down voted in a discussion about true equality, for actually proposing true equality, by people proposing discrimination in an attempt to fight discrimination.

The reality is that we don't want true equality. All of these calls for 'diversity' are merely punitive. Meant to punish the majority for wrongs they never committed in the first place.

It's pretty telling when a company can come right out and say they only want to hire women, with an entire staff of women, and it's seen as 'diverse' (this doesn't even make sense)

I, for one, will never institute these policies in any of the companies I run. I will always pick the best person for the job.

The article suggests that the author is choosing a board member rather than an employee. The author speaks specifically to your concern within it:

In technology, diversity is often a synonym for gender diversity, specifically, women in tech. It shouldn’t be; we should consider age, race, geography of origin, socioeconomic class, sexual identity, native language, and much more.