Someone espousing a methodology on behalf of someone else is not the same as the other person saying it.

Here is a presumed actual quote from Dweck that I bet that most people here would agree with (http://www.jonathanfields.com/is-gifted-and-talented-a-life-sentence)

Quote
Q (Jonathan Fields): From what you’ve written, it sounds like the net effect of installing a separate track for “gifted and talented” kids, then labeling them as such may be destructive to both the kids intentionally labeled and those inadvertently labeled “not gifted and talented” by default. I wonder whether you might be kind enough to share your thoughts on this topic.

A (Dweck): Actually, I don’t have a strong position against gifted programs per se. I believe that all children need to be challenged at school. I am concerned, however, when the “gift” is portrayed as a fixed trait and the label becomes a symbol of worth. Students may then care more about the label than about learning–they may become afraid to take on challenges or make mistakes.

I also don’t like the word “gift.” It implies that abilities are simply bestowed from on high, that some students have them and some don’t, and that students have no role to play in developing them. Yet, researchers are beginning to agree that giftedness and talent are quite dynamic and can flourish at any time under the right circumstances (or wither under the wrong ones). Research is also showing the enormous role of dedication, practice, and resilience in the development of talent.

So, any gifted program should focus on teaching students how to challenge themselves, seek learning, value and enjoy effort, and recover from setbacks. This is what they need to develop their abilities. Then again, these lessons would help all students develop their abilities.