The linked photo appears to my honky eyes have 1 gay guy, (not gaydar but he is what the article is about) 1 Asian , 1 Muslim, 2 blacks, 1 Hispanic, out of 13 or almost 50%. It goes up if you count the ROTC guys as a protected class (they probably don’t qualify in Texas but might if it was Calif 
).
All kidding aside, IMHO I have to admit to being somewhat pleasantly surprised.
When you open a thread using the words “racism” and “sexism” and much later ask to be instructed about these concepts from first principles, people may decline this burden not because they lack knowledge, but because they doubt your sincerity.
I mean, just maybe was there something other than their abilities that was keeping them from accomplishing the things that “normal” people have accomplished?
It’s really not. It’s like saying “Wow, look how much smarter than the boys this girl had to be for her intelligence to be acknowledged.”
Indeed. It would be exhausting to try to unravel the role that dozens of generations of privilege has played into the notion that people see “The first X to do Y,” and wonder whether that person is legitimately the best, most qualified person to do Y, when they don’t do that otherwise. When the truth is more likely that the “first X” is not merely qualified, but overqualified.
A big part of why it’s still noteworthy to report that “So-and-so is the first X to do Y” is because it’s 2017, and we’re still having “firsts.” It’ll stop being noteworthy when members of protected classes and oppressed minorities can be mediocre, and still get that position. You occasionally see somebody get a job get a job, and it turns out that they’re in over their head, but you’ll rarely, if ever, find someone who’s less than qualified. I mean, you talk about seeing a POC/Woman/LGBTQ person get a job, and wonder whether they’re the most qualified? Holla at me when a POC/Woman/LGBTQ person can be a C student and even get nominated for a high-level executive position (or, say, judges… what percentage of LGBTQ, Women or POC judges do you reckon there are who finished in the bottom half of their law school class, compared to the percentage of straight white male judges?), and then we can have a conversation about “most qualified.”
No, I’m not going to excuse you for this reprehensible attitude. What it shows is that you are either too lazy or self-involved or delusional or have some other serious defect in your character that makes you turn a blind eye to the very real interpersonal and systemic barriers that society and individuals put up against disadvantaged groups of every kind.
You should take this opportunity to find out why it still is a big deal when someone overcomes obstacles to achieve goals that affluent straight white men can easily achieve while working much less hard and being much less competent.
you really do think this is national news worthy simply because this was a woman?
Okay, you’re not even trying to argue honestly now.
That’s a story posted in a Utah-based news site about a person from Utah winning an award. Nowhere does it say that it is nationally significant news or that it is news solely because she is a woman. It’s a very typical local interest story.
In fact, it doesn’t mention the fact that she is the first woman to win until the end of the third paragraph, about 120 words in.
Would you rather it never be mentioned? On what basis would that be justified?
It is currently on CNN. How is that not a national news source?
So let me ask you again. Do you really think this is ‘important’ enough to on CNN?
Apparently you believe it important enough to resurrect a thread, so important it must be…