Thanks for sharing, [USER=9999]@summer207[/USER]! Definitely a great perspective you've added - that BAME candidates come from all backgrounds, and the spectrum of privilege (whether gender, socio-economic or cultural) still exists. As an international student, talking to folks here about their experiences as British-Asians has always given me insight into how one can feel 'in' but never really 'in'.
Apropos to the idea that BAME candidates shouldn't be grouped together, I've talked to trainees where they felt that "BAME Diversity Groups" were just groups where they lumped together everyone that wasn't white ... it often felt like, in their words, an exercise in otherization, but padded with networking and etc. etc.
A better way do this, as you suggested, would be to have specific groups for specific heritages. I've found that some US firms have this, contrary to MC/SC (someone can correct me if I'm wrong). For instance, Dechert has different groups for AAPI, Black, Latino, South Asian etc. It just makes more sense.
That doesn't mean that BAME diversity groups are bad - don't get me wrong! But what I struggle with is when the feedback from these groups are generally negative, when Grad Rec pushes these groups as the be-all-and-end-all of diversity, when the reality is that diversity committees are often headed up by white men (not that they can't be good allies, but couldn't they put in a female BAME candidate instead?) and that trainee intakes still number 5-9% for BAME candidates!
