DEI is a trojan horse, first and foremost because the United States IS diverse. So what's the push to make "diverse" what already IS diverse?
I'm tail end of the baby boom and even when growing up in a suburb of Chicago, there were "diverse" people in our milieu that represented their overall percentage of the population. They were NOT "marginalized" either, unless you consider making two black students our Prom King and Queen a form of "marginalization."
I have numerous anecdotes on various DEI blunders that I've witnessed over the years, fodder for my Substack. Here's a piece that infers why no one told Claudine Gay to get rid of the plagiarism before she submitted her dissertation:
dogl.substack.com/p/a-b…
Another "offensive" story involves the diverse restaurant where I served pizza in the 80s, which traded its Mexican busboys for black kids from the Projects, with disastrous results. It's actually quite funny -- they practically paid the Mexicans' airfare to return after the black kids from the Projects debacle.
It's unfortunate, because I believe we all want to see people succeed, but the crux of DEI is to let some people get by with piss poor performance, in all too many cases, which isn't helpful to the "diverse" in any way, shape, or form. It merely teaches them that mediocrity is good enough, that skin color is merit enough, which perpetuates a true inability to compete.