Concept versus implementation issue

I don't think anyone should be against the concept of hiring and treating people fairly that is the goal of DEI. Nor should anyone be upset with the need for understanding the experiences and thoughts of other groups of people. The issue is the real and/or perceived implementation of a formalized DEI program.

One of the basic rules of any organization, especially Government bureaucracies, is th survive and grow in power. It starts with examinations, reviews, and criticism of the current organization. This leads to the need to generate improvement plans and reviews by a growing staff. Success is easier to achieve by finding and punishing a culprit right away to instill fear in other organizations. (Similar to Fr Leonard Collins in the 60s finding and expelling one or two drunken freshmen to frighten the rest of the delinquents). The growing DEI staff is then able to examine all hiring and teaching decisions, and in many cases to overrule a perfectly valid one.

DEI has an added bludgeon for anyone who disagrees with them. Shout the "Racist" or "Sexist" or "homophobic" magic word and arouse the world, trying them without facts. It's augmented by the fact (I believe) that the office is often staffed by zealots who sometimes carry antagonism towards people in the organization that they view as oppressors. (In the corporate world, the DEI head is often a vice-president, who an African American and/or woman, which has the bonus of looking good at the higher-up diversity quota count.

This is not to say that we should work at the DEI issue and treatment of current and possible employees of various demographic groups.