Hard disagree. On the one hand, "we have to hire a minority" is extremely blunt interpretation of DEI. But the intent is to foster diversity and that does mean hiring underrepresented groups. Having a diverse team is net positive on a lot of fronts. There are studies showing it actually improves team performance, but more generally it improves society. It may be marginally "unfair" for a particular company to be the one picking up the slack for society, but given the systemic discrimination that exists against minorities in so many part of society, giving them any sort of accommodation in hiring can at least offset the injustice elsewhere. The net result is a better society. Why is that the responsibility of a private company? Because companies are people and people live in society.
The people "balancing the scales" are ideologically motivated and are prone to their own error. So, you need to reckon with whether they're doing more harm than good. And to the extent that they're doing harm, what is the solution?
Is your argument "humans are fallible so we should give up?" The effectiveness (and sincerity) of DEI programs have certainly been mixed, but they should produce measurable outcomes that can be iterated and improved upon. A lot of the commentary in this thread and the rhetoric from the White House is that DEI is bad idea and should not be attempted because we shouldn't seek equity.
