So many of these posts are discussing equality, equity, righting past wrongs, and many other noble ideals. However, all of these posts are ignoring the actual topic which concerns DEI programs at companies.
Are DEI programs effective? I would challenge anyone to provide one single study that proves they cause more good than harm. I can provide dozens of references to support the opposite claim that they do far more harm than good.
Literally the first item in my search results:
“This is the critical finding of the whole study. While DEI strategies might yield positive results to an organization's diverse makeup and inclusive culture, mature DEI strategies have a concrete and positive impact on the business.”
You know you’re in for a treat when a self-described DEI consultant pens an article proclaiming the business benefits of—surprise!—more DEI consulting. Carolina Milanesi’s Forbes piece might as well be titled “Why You Need to Send Me a Check Right Now.” Here are a few glaring weaknesses:
1. Where’s the Data? For an article about “business impact,” she relies on vague assertions more than concrete evidence. Statements like “companies that invest in DEI see improvements in innovation” lack rigorous data to show any real cause and effect.
2. Self-Interest She’s part of the DEI consulting industry, so she has a personal stake in pushing businesses to invest in more DEI. It’s like a raincoat vendor insisting monsoons are coming.
3. Overgeneralizations She treats DEI as a universal cure-all without acknowledging that in some cases, DEI policies can backfire, cause resentment, or invite legal trouble—issues she conveniently sidesteps.
4. Cherry-Picked Success Stories We hear about one or two alleged triumphs but never about failures or unintended consequences. Where’s the data on programs that triggered reverse discrimination lawsuits or harmed workplace morale?
5. Buzzwords, Not Substance Terms like “innovation” and “growth” are tossed around, but there’s no deep dive into how, specifically, DEI drives these outcomes. It reads more like a sales pitch than a thorough analysis.
6. No Counterarguments Truly robust pieces anticipate pushback and tackle it head-on. Milanesi glosses over controversies around DEI mandates, which does little to strengthen her position.
7. The “DEI Will Save the World” Mantra She implies that embracing DEI solves every organizational woe. Yet real-life examples abound of ham-fisted diversity campaigns leading to groupthink, tokenism, or even lawsuits.
Overall, her article seems more like a pitch for DEI consulting services than a balanced look at the pros and cons. If the takeaway is “Pay for DEI or watch your company crumble,” the reader would be wise to dig deeper before buying in.
Dozens was hyperbole but here are a few:
1. Shortcomings in DEI Training
Claim: Mandatory DEI training is often costly and ineffective.
Why Diversity Programs Fail (Harvard Business Review, 2016) Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev found that most diversity training programs do not change attitudes or improve outcomes long-term. Some can reinforce stereotypes or prompt backlash.
Does Diversity Training Work? (Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009) Experimental evidence shows that one-shot diversity training sessions have minimal impact on implicit biases and can spark resistance rather than empathy.
DEI Training: Harmful, Phony, And Expensive (Rod Dreher, The American Conservative, 2023) Dreher criticizes corporate DEI sessions for oversimplifying complex human interactions, often producing resentment instead of unity.
2. Potential for Reverse Discrimination and Legal Exposure
Claim: Ill-conceived DEI programs can trigger lawsuits and unintended forms of discrimination.
Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program (Fortt, Conley, & Alkhas, Reuters, 2023) This article outlines how programs that favor certain demographics can violate anti-discrimination laws, exposing companies to legal peril and reputational damage.
7 Ways Your DEI Initiatives Are Harming Your Company and How To Resolve It (Brian Dapelo, LinkedIn Pulse, 2023) Highlights that forcing diversity quotas without proper checks can lead to new forms of workplace inequity, ironically eroding trust among employees.
3. Cult-Like or Illiberal Dynamics
Claim: In some cases, DEI fosters an environment of conformity and ostracizes dissent.
Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war (Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Post, 2023) Warns that, under DEI banners, universities sometimes restrict open discourse or cancel events if they diverge from a sanctioned viewpoint.
The Silencing of Heather Mac Donald (Multiple media outlets, 2017) Demonstrates how certain academic communities have disinvited speakers who challenge parts of the DEI narrative, exemplifying how groupthink can stifle debate.
Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives (Dr. Ted Sun, Transcontinental University) Argues that quota-driven DEI policies ignore deep-seated biases and inadvertently intensify divisions, rather than fostering true dialogue.
4. Superficial “Check-the-Box” Approaches
Claim: Many DEI initiatives focus on optics—hitting numeric diversity targets—rather than addressing systemic root causes.
The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex (Harvard Business Review, 2022) Critiques the expensive, top-down model of DEI that rarely measures real improvement in inclusion or retention.
Diversity Inc. (Pamela Newkirk, Basic Books, 2019) Investigates how major corporations throw money at diversity “magic bullet” solutions, yet racial inequitiesoften remain as stark as ever.
5. Economic and Organizational Inefficiencies
Claim: DEI can misallocate substantial resources with little demonstrable ROI.
Why Diversity Training Doesn’t Work: The Challenge for Industry and Academia (Catherine Hein, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2019) Reveals that many corporate interventions have no measurable positive effect on productivity or retention, casting doubt on the ROI of large-scale DEI spending.
Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters (McKinsey & Company, 2020) While widely cited for linking diversity to better financial performance, the report itself admits that correlation does not equal causation—and that poor implementation can undermine potential gains.
Putting It All Together
Critical Research Gap Milanesi’s article touts broad “innovation” benefits but fails to detail how DEI programs specifically achieve these outcomes—or address the possibility of negative side effects.
Ideological vs. Practical Many DEI arguments rely on moral imperatives, yet skip the pragmatic concerns—such as legal liability, reverse discrimination, and employee pushback—that actual business leaders must face.
One-Size-Fits-All Thinking Real inclusivity requires nuanced approaches, not generic mandates or quotas. Genuine change happens over time, through mentorship, leadership development, and open dialogue—not checklists or forced trainings.
Accountability Is Key Critical voices aren’t advocating against diversity; they challenge superficial, dogmatic, or self-serving approaches. The best solution? Evidence-based reforms that measure real progress, respect individual freedoms, and encourage genuine inclusion rather than lip service.
Recommended References for Further Reading
Dobbin, F. & Kalev, A. (2016). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review.
Paluck, E. L. (2009). Does Diversity Training Work?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Fortt, S. E., Conley, D., & Alkhas, N. (2023). Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program. Reuters.
Dapelo, B. (2023). 7 ways your DEI initiatives are harming your company and how to resolve it. LinkedIn Pulse.
Sun, T. (n.d.). Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives. Transcontinental University.
Newkirk, P. (2019). Diversity Inc. Basic Books.
Harvard Business Review. (2022). The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex.
Zakaria, F. (2023). Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war. The Washington Post.
In sum, there is a legitimate debate over how best to achieve genuine inclusivity. Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed DEI can do more harm than good—creating legal headaches, fostering resentment, and entrenching stereotypes. Rather than uncritically accepting calls for more DEI consulting, leaders should scrutinize which measures truly yield lasting, positive outcomes, ensuring their time and resources bolster real equity rather than merely feeding an industry echo chamber.
Is that from ChatGPT? The format looks a lot like how it returns responses to me.
So many of these posts are discussing equality, equity, righting past wrongs, and many other noble ideals. However, all of these posts are ignoring the actual topic which concerns DEI programs at companies.
Are DEI programs effective? I would challenge anyone to provide one single study that proves they cause more good than harm. I can provide dozens of references to support the opposite claim that they do far more harm than good.
Literally the first item in my search results:
“This is the critical finding of the whole study. While DEI strategies might yield positive results to an organization's diverse makeup and inclusive culture, mature DEI strategies have a concrete and positive impact on the business.”
You know you’re in for a treat when a self-described DEI consultant pens an article proclaiming the business benefits of—surprise!—more DEI consulting. Carolina Milanesi’s Forbes piece might as well be titled “Why You Need to Send Me a Check Right Now.” Here are a few glaring weaknesses:
1. Where’s the Data? For an article about “business impact,” she relies on vague assertions more than concrete evidence. Statements like “companies that invest in DEI see improvements in innovation” lack rigorous data to show any real cause and effect.
2. Self-Interest She’s part of the DEI consulting industry, so she has a personal stake in pushing businesses to invest in more DEI. It’s like a raincoat vendor insisting monsoons are coming.
3. Overgeneralizations She treats DEI as a universal cure-all without acknowledging that in some cases, DEI policies can backfire, cause resentment, or invite legal trouble—issues she conveniently sidesteps.
4. Cherry-Picked Success Stories We hear about one or two alleged triumphs but never about failures or unintended consequences. Where’s the data on programs that triggered reverse discrimination lawsuits or harmed workplace morale?
5. Buzzwords, Not Substance Terms like “innovation” and “growth” are tossed around, but there’s no deep dive into how, specifically, DEI drives these outcomes. It reads more like a sales pitch than a thorough analysis.
6. No Counterarguments Truly robust pieces anticipate pushback and tackle it head-on. Milanesi glosses over controversies around DEI mandates, which does little to strengthen her position.
7. The “DEI Will Save the World” Mantra She implies that embracing DEI solves every organizational woe. Yet real-life examples abound of ham-fisted diversity campaigns leading to groupthink, tokenism, or even lawsuits.
Overall, her article seems more like a pitch for DEI consulting services than a balanced look at the pros and cons. If the takeaway is “Pay for DEI or watch your company crumble,” the reader would be wise to dig deeper before buying in.
Dozens was hyperbole but here are a few:
1. Shortcomings in DEI Training
Claim: Mandatory DEI training is often costly and ineffective.
Why Diversity Programs Fail (Harvard Business Review, 2016) Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev found that most diversity training programs do not change attitudes or improve outcomes long-term. Some can reinforce stereotypes or prompt backlash.
Does Diversity Training Work? (Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009) Experimental evidence shows that one-shot diversity training sessions have minimal impact on implicit biases and can spark resistance rather than empathy.
DEI Training: Harmful, Phony, And Expensive (Rod Dreher, The American Conservative, 2023) Dreher criticizes corporate DEI sessions for oversimplifying complex human interactions, often producing resentment instead of unity.
2. Potential for Reverse Discrimination and Legal Exposure
Claim: Ill-conceived DEI programs can trigger lawsuits and unintended forms of discrimination.
Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program (Fortt, Conley, & Alkhas, Reuters, 2023) This article outlines how programs that favor certain demographics can violate anti-discrimination laws, exposing companies to legal peril and reputational damage.
7 Ways Your DEI Initiatives Are Harming Your Company and How To Resolve It (Brian Dapelo, LinkedIn Pulse, 2023) Highlights that forcing diversity quotas without proper checks can lead to new forms of workplace inequity, ironically eroding trust among employees.
3. Cult-Like or Illiberal Dynamics
Claim: In some cases, DEI fosters an environment of conformity and ostracizes dissent.
Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war (Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Post, 2023) Warns that, under DEI banners, universities sometimes restrict open discourse or cancel events if they diverge from a sanctioned viewpoint.
The Silencing of Heather Mac Donald (Multiple media outlets, 2017) Demonstrates how certain academic communities have disinvited speakers who challenge parts of the DEI narrative, exemplifying how groupthink can stifle debate.
Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives (Dr. Ted Sun, Transcontinental University) Argues that quota-driven DEI policies ignore deep-seated biases and inadvertently intensify divisions, rather than fostering true dialogue.
4. Superficial “Check-the-Box” Approaches
Claim: Many DEI initiatives focus on optics—hitting numeric diversity targets—rather than addressing systemic root causes.
The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex (Harvard Business Review, 2022) Critiques the expensive, top-down model of DEI that rarely measures real improvement in inclusion or retention.
Diversity Inc. (Pamela Newkirk, Basic Books, 2019) Investigates how major corporations throw money at diversity “magic bullet” solutions, yet racial inequitiesoften remain as stark as ever.
5. Economic and Organizational Inefficiencies
Claim: DEI can misallocate substantial resources with little demonstrable ROI.
Why Diversity Training Doesn’t Work: The Challenge for Industry and Academia (Catherine Hein, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2019) Reveals that many corporate interventions have no measurable positive effect on productivity or retention, casting doubt on the ROI of large-scale DEI spending.
Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters (McKinsey & Company, 2020) While widely cited for linking diversity to better financial performance, the report itself admits that correlation does not equal causation—and that poor implementation can undermine potential gains.
Putting It All Together
Critical Research Gap Milanesi’s article touts broad “innovation” benefits but fails to detail how DEI programs specifically achieve these outcomes—or address the possibility of negative side effects.
Ideological vs. Practical Many DEI arguments rely on moral imperatives, yet skip the pragmatic concerns—such as legal liability, reverse discrimination, and employee pushback—that actual business leaders must face.
One-Size-Fits-All Thinking Real inclusivity requires nuanced approaches, not generic mandates or quotas. Genuine change happens over time, through mentorship, leadership development, and open dialogue—not checklists or forced trainings.
Accountability Is Key Critical voices aren’t advocating against diversity; they challenge superficial, dogmatic, or self-serving approaches. The best solution? Evidence-based reforms that measure real progress, respect individual freedoms, and encourage genuine inclusion rather than lip service.
Recommended References for Further Reading
Dobbin, F. & Kalev, A. (2016). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review.
Paluck, E. L. (2009). Does Diversity Training Work?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Fortt, S. E., Conley, D., & Alkhas, N. (2023). Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program. Reuters.
Dapelo, B. (2023). 7 ways your DEI initiatives are harming your company and how to resolve it. LinkedIn Pulse.
Sun, T. (n.d.). Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives. Transcontinental University.
Newkirk, P. (2019). Diversity Inc. Basic Books.
Harvard Business Review. (2022). The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex.
Zakaria, F. (2023). Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war. The Washington Post.
In sum, there is a legitimate debate over how best to achieve genuine inclusivity. Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed DEI can do more harm than good—creating legal headaches, fostering resentment, and entrenching stereotypes. Rather than uncritically accepting calls for more DEI consulting, leaders should scrutinize which measures truly yield lasting, positive outcomes, ensuring their time and resources bolster real equity rather than merely feeding an industry echo chamber.
You seem to be confusing the author of the Forbes article as the author of the underlying study, and by extension, the article with the study itself. The Forbes summary isn’t going to include the study’s underlying data. That’s not how that generally works.
Then, “Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed DEI can do more harm than good.”
You’re hilarious. It would be almost axiomatic to say, “Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed [insert literally anything here] can do more harm than good.”
In fact, the Forbes article reports statistical outcomes of the underlying study that more or less say exactly the same thing. By comparing companies with “mature,” well-implemented DEI programs with poorly implemented ‘newbies,’ we see that companies that haven’t “done the work” and followed the recommended strategies to (among other things) build trust and buy-in among employees don’t get good results.
So you took a lot of words to get there, but you’ve essentially reached the same conclusion as the study you mocked. A poorly executed program yields poor results. Nobody in their right mind would argue with that. Your problem is that your rhetoric seeks to conflate that conclusion with one that says any program yields poor results. Those are not the same thing.
You seem to be confusing the author of the Forbes article as the author of the underlying study, and by extension, the article with the study itself. The Forbes summary isn’t going to include the study’s underlying data. That’s not how that generally works.
Then, “Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed DEI can do more harm than good.”
You’re hilarious. It would be almost axiomatic to say, “Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed [insert literally anything here] can do more harm than good.”
In fact, the Forbes article reports statistical outcomes of the underlying study that more or less say exactly the same thing. By comparing companies with “mature,” well-implemented DEI programs with poorly implemented ‘newbies,’ we see that companies that haven’t “done the work” and followed the recommended strategies to (among other things) build trust and buy-in among employees don’t get good results.
So you took a lot of words to get there, but you’ve essentially reached the same conclusion as the study you mocked. A poorly executed program yields poor results. Nobody in their right mind would argue with that. Your problem is that your rhetoric seeks to conflate that conclusion with one that says any program yields poor results. Those are not the same thing.
Wow, it’s cute that you assume I’m “confusing” the Forbes author with the study’s author, as if no one realized a Forbes summary isn’t the underlying data source. Here’s the fun part: you’re so busy declaring me “hilarious” for saying “poorly executed [anything] can do more harm than good” that you’ve missed the actual problem—the Forbes piece provides no direct evidence of “well-implemented” DEI success, just a tidy claim that it exists somewhere out there if you “do the work.” That’s a convenient rhetorical flourish when zero specifics are on display.
Sure, the article and study both say “bad DEI = bad results.” Brilliant. Next revelation: water is wet. But since you brought it up, how exactly do we define a “mature” or “well-implemented” DEI program? That’s precisely the point: people keep invoking this mythical “good DEI” without showing robust, replicable data on what it looks like, how it’s measured, and how it avoids the common pitfalls of tokenism, reverse discrimination, and bottom-line bloat.
If your takeaway is that “nobody in their right mind would argue that a poorly executed program yields poor results,” congratulations—nobody argued the opposite. The real question is: Where’s the proof that a so-called ‘well-executed’ DEI program even exists in practice, let alone delivers consistent, measurable benefits? The Forbes summary is silent on that. Hand-waving about “trust and buy-in” does nothing to prove meaningful outcomes if we can’t define them, measure them, or replicate them.
In other words: until someone shows actual evidence for these “mature” DEI programs beyond feel-good references and vague bullet points, you might want to ease up on the self-congratulatory tone. All we’ve got so far is a broad claim that “DEI works when DEI works,” which isn’t exactly the bombshell you think it is.
You seem to be confusing the author of the Forbes article as the author of the underlying study, and by extension, the article with the study itself. The Forbes summary isn’t going to include the study’s underlying data. That’s not how that generally works.
Then, “Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed DEI can do more harm than good.”
You’re hilarious. It would be almost axiomatic to say, “Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed [insert literally anything here] can do more harm than good.”
In fact, the Forbes article reports statistical outcomes of the underlying study that more or less say exactly the same thing. By comparing companies with “mature,” well-implemented DEI programs with poorly implemented ‘newbies,’ we see that companies that haven’t “done the work” and followed the recommended strategies to (among other things) build trust and buy-in among employees don’t get good results.
So you took a lot of words to get there, but you’ve essentially reached the same conclusion as the study you mocked. A poorly executed program yields poor results. Nobody in their right mind would argue with that. Your problem is that your rhetoric seeks to conflate that conclusion with one that says any program yields poor results. Those are not the same thing.
Wow, it’s cute that you assume I’m “confusing” the Forbes author with the study’s author, as if no one realized a Forbes summary isn’t the underlying data source. Here’s the fun part: you’re so busy declaring me “hilarious” for saying “poorly executed [anything] can do more harm than good” that you’ve missed the actual problem—the Forbes piece provides no direct evidence of “well-implemented” DEI success, just a tidy claim that it exists somewhere out there if you “do the work.” That’s a convenient rhetorical flourish when zero specifics are on display.
Sure, the article and study both say “bad DEI = bad results.” Brilliant. Next revelation: water is wet. But since you brought it up, how exactly do we define a “mature” or “well-implemented” DEI program? That’s precisely the point: people keep invoking this mythical “good DEI” without showing robust, replicable data on what it looks like, how it’s measured, and how it avoids the common pitfalls of tokenism, reverse discrimination, and bottom-line bloat.
If your takeaway is that “nobody in their right mind would argue that a poorly executed program yields poor results,” congratulations—nobody argued the opposite. The real question is: Where’s the proof that a so-called ‘well-executed’ DEI program even exists in practice, let alone delivers consistent, measurable benefits? The Forbes summary is silent on that. Hand-waving about “trust and buy-in” does nothing to prove meaningful outcomes if we can’t define them, measure them, or replicate them.
In other words: until someone shows actual evidence for these “mature” DEI programs beyond feel-good references and vague bullet points, you might want to ease up on the self-congratulatory tone. All we’ve got so far is a broad claim that “DEI works when DEI works,” which isn’t exactly the bombshell you think it is.
The Forbes article links to the referenced study. You can refuse to look at a thing and say it isn’t there, but that doesn’t actually mean nobody else can see it.
So many of these posts are discussing equality, equity, righting past wrongs, and many other noble ideals. However, all of these posts are ignoring the actual topic which concerns DEI programs at companies.
Are DEI programs effective? I would challenge anyone to provide one single study that proves they cause more good than harm. I can provide dozens of references to support the opposite claim that they do far more harm than good.
Literally the first item in my search results:
“This is the critical finding of the whole study. While DEI strategies might yield positive results to an organization's diverse makeup and inclusive culture, mature DEI strategies have a concrete and positive impact on the business.”
You know you’re in for a treat when a self-described DEI consultant pens an article proclaiming the business benefits of—surprise!—more DEI consulting. Carolina Milanesi’s Forbes piece might as well be titled “Why You Need to Send Me a Check Right Now.” Here are a few glaring weaknesses:
1. Where’s the Data? For an article about “business impact,” she relies on vague assertions more than concrete evidence. Statements like “companies that invest in DEI see improvements in innovation” lack rigorous data to show any real cause and effect.
2. Self-Interest She’s part of the DEI consulting industry, so she has a personal stake in pushing businesses to invest in more DEI. It’s like a raincoat vendor insisting monsoons are coming.
3. Overgeneralizations She treats DEI as a universal cure-all without acknowledging that in some cases, DEI policies can backfire, cause resentment, or invite legal trouble—issues she conveniently sidesteps.
4. Cherry-Picked Success Stories We hear about one or two alleged triumphs but never about failures or unintended consequences. Where’s the data on programs that triggered reverse discrimination lawsuits or harmed workplace morale?
5. Buzzwords, Not Substance Terms like “innovation” and “growth” are tossed around, but there’s no deep dive into how, specifically, DEI drives these outcomes. It reads more like a sales pitch than a thorough analysis.
6. No Counterarguments Truly robust pieces anticipate pushback and tackle it head-on. Milanesi glosses over controversies around DEI mandates, which does little to strengthen her position.
7. The “DEI Will Save the World” Mantra She implies that embracing DEI solves every organizational woe. Yet real-life examples abound of ham-fisted diversity campaigns leading to groupthink, tokenism, or even lawsuits.
Overall, her article seems more like a pitch for DEI consulting services than a balanced look at the pros and cons. If the takeaway is “Pay for DEI or watch your company crumble,” the reader would be wise to dig deeper before buying in.
Dozens was hyperbole but here are a few:
1. Shortcomings in DEI Training
Claim: Mandatory DEI training is often costly and ineffective.
Why Diversity Programs Fail (Harvard Business Review, 2016) Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev found that most diversity training programs do not change attitudes or improve outcomes long-term. Some can reinforce stereotypes or prompt backlash.
Does Diversity Training Work? (Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009) Experimental evidence shows that one-shot diversity training sessions have minimal impact on implicit biases and can spark resistance rather than empathy.
DEI Training: Harmful, Phony, And Expensive (Rod Dreher, The American Conservative, 2023) Dreher criticizes corporate DEI sessions for oversimplifying complex human interactions, often producing resentment instead of unity.
2. Potential for Reverse Discrimination and Legal Exposure
Claim: Ill-conceived DEI programs can trigger lawsuits and unintended forms of discrimination.
Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program (Fortt, Conley, & Alkhas, Reuters, 2023) This article outlines how programs that favor certain demographics can violate anti-discrimination laws, exposing companies to legal peril and reputational damage.
7 Ways Your DEI Initiatives Are Harming Your Company and How To Resolve It (Brian Dapelo, LinkedIn Pulse, 2023) Highlights that forcing diversity quotas without proper checks can lead to new forms of workplace inequity, ironically eroding trust among employees.
3. Cult-Like or Illiberal Dynamics
Claim: In some cases, DEI fosters an environment of conformity and ostracizes dissent.
Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war (Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Post, 2023) Warns that, under DEI banners, universities sometimes restrict open discourse or cancel events if they diverge from a sanctioned viewpoint.
The Silencing of Heather Mac Donald (Multiple media outlets, 2017) Demonstrates how certain academic communities have disinvited speakers who challenge parts of the DEI narrative, exemplifying how groupthink can stifle debate.
Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives (Dr. Ted Sun, Transcontinental University) Argues that quota-driven DEI policies ignore deep-seated biases and inadvertently intensify divisions, rather than fostering true dialogue.
4. Superficial “Check-the-Box” Approaches
Claim: Many DEI initiatives focus on optics—hitting numeric diversity targets—rather than addressing systemic root causes.
The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex (Harvard Business Review, 2022) Critiques the expensive, top-down model of DEI that rarely measures real improvement in inclusion or retention.
Diversity Inc. (Pamela Newkirk, Basic Books, 2019) Investigates how major corporations throw money at diversity “magic bullet” solutions, yet racial inequitiesoften remain as stark as ever.
5. Economic and Organizational Inefficiencies
Claim: DEI can misallocate substantial resources with little demonstrable ROI.
Why Diversity Training Doesn’t Work: The Challenge for Industry and Academia (Catherine Hein, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2019) Reveals that many corporate interventions have no measurable positive effect on productivity or retention, casting doubt on the ROI of large-scale DEI spending.
Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters (McKinsey & Company, 2020) While widely cited for linking diversity to better financial performance, the report itself admits that correlation does not equal causation—and that poor implementation can undermine potential gains.
Putting It All Together
Critical Research Gap Milanesi’s article touts broad “innovation” benefits but fails to detail how DEI programs specifically achieve these outcomes—or address the possibility of negative side effects.
Ideological vs. Practical Many DEI arguments rely on moral imperatives, yet skip the pragmatic concerns—such as legal liability, reverse discrimination, and employee pushback—that actual business leaders must face.
One-Size-Fits-All Thinking Real inclusivity requires nuanced approaches, not generic mandates or quotas. Genuine change happens over time, through mentorship, leadership development, and open dialogue—not checklists or forced trainings.
Accountability Is Key Critical voices aren’t advocating against diversity; they challenge superficial, dogmatic, or self-serving approaches. The best solution? Evidence-based reforms that measure real progress, respect individual freedoms, and encourage genuine inclusion rather than lip service.
Recommended References for Further Reading
Dobbin, F. & Kalev, A. (2016). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review.
Paluck, E. L. (2009). Does Diversity Training Work?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Fortt, S. E., Conley, D., & Alkhas, N. (2023). Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program. Reuters.
Dapelo, B. (2023). 7 ways your DEI initiatives are harming your company and how to resolve it. LinkedIn Pulse.
Sun, T. (n.d.). Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives. Transcontinental University.
Newkirk, P. (2019). Diversity Inc. Basic Books.
Harvard Business Review. (2022). The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex.
Zakaria, F. (2023). Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war. The Washington Post.
In sum, there is a legitimate debate over how best to achieve genuine inclusivity. Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed DEI can do more harm than good—creating legal headaches, fostering resentment, and entrenching stereotypes. Rather than uncritically accepting calls for more DEI consulting, leaders should scrutinize which measures truly yield lasting, positive outcomes, ensuring their time and resources bolster real equity rather than merely feeding an industry echo chamber.
Is that from ChatGPT? The format looks a lot like how it returns responses to me.
Fascinating. I haven't much used ChatGPT, but just fiddled around with it and came up with remarkably similar results.
My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.
Yes a bunch of nonsense. DEI has always been misguided, it’s clearly going away, and good riddance.
Funny, as nearly every writer here at AppleInsider appears to be white! (based on the author photos)… Wesley, resign to make room for a DEI hire! Do the right thing!
What is the definition of “white”? I look white by every definition, but had a half middle eastern / half Eastern European heritage. But I’m a white….minority??
Yeah, that's not how DEI works. Lmao. Wtf
Yeah, it kinda is.
Instead of sharing a chart that was posted by End Wokeness out of context, you could read the actual reports they are from. Funny enough, even with this trend, the makeup of the United States workforce top to bottom was still predominantly white. It barely moved the needle. But it was a move in the right direction, at least that is until all of the companies from this study laid off large swaths of their workforce shortly after, which predominantly affected the people of color added to the workforce.
But you wouldn't know that because you saw a chart posted out of context by a bigoted X account and figured that was all the information you needed.
What about some basic math? 204 million white people in the US work force versus 35 million Black, 17 million Asian, and 49 million Hispanic. Even if every minority in America was hired there would still be about 100 million jobs to fill. DEI doesn't take white jobs. It's a fallacy invented by bigots.
Lol. Seems like you're getting a bit worked up. That made no sense. 1) How is it 'out of context'? 2) Do you understand the concept of 'per capita'? 3) DEI is still racism.
Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified? How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job? Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
Funny how “merit” wasn’t important when systematically refusing to hire certain genders and ethnicities was de rigeur. There was no meritocracy then. Now, as soon as anyone talks about systematically extending opportunities to the same people who were previously systematically excluded, we hear how there must be a meritocracy. There’s not much merit in that.
Agreed. The way to fight hate, is with more hate!
DEI is literally the opposite of hate. Hate is exclusion. Inclusion is literally what the I stands for. Increasing the recruitment pool almost always yields stronger teams.
Favoring one group or groups over another group is inherently exclusionary to the latter group. Thus, by your definition, DEI is hateful (which is obvious).
You don’t seem to know what the definition of “definition” is.
Taking down the “whites only” signs in a public high school and escorting black kids in to assure they get the same books and same teachers as the white kids is not “favoring one group or groups over another group.” It is enforcing the opposite.
Nor is it “favoring” the black kids in that high school to recognize that the deficiencies of the separate-and-unequal jr high and elementary schools they’d been to prior to desegregation means they may need extra assistance to catch up to their white peers who’d always gotten the new books and better facilities.
Yes, segregation is officially over (though taxpayer funded school voucher initiatives are working hard to restore it), but the unequal treatment continues to this day, and every initiative to change that, from the workplace all the way back to pre-school is met with opposition seeking to retrench the status quo while euphemistically relabeling it as a meritocracy.
It’s just another version of Jim Crow. Remember ol’ Jim? He had a bit of a passive aggressive vibe. “Sure, you can vote, but first you have to correctly tell me how many jelly beans are in this jar.”
Now it’s “Sure, you can compete for jobs in our meritocracy, but first you have to get an education after we’ve sucked the money out of public schools for these new ‘choice vouchers’ that you can’t use because you don’t have transportation to our private schools on the other side of town, and they won’t take a voucher as full tuition anyway. Also, you’d have to apply and be accepted, and clearly you’re unqualified. And don’t you dare accuse us of discrimination, because you can’t prove it. We’ve outlawed collecting demographic info on our admissions, because that would be ‘racist.’ ”
Looks like you've spent a ton of effort asswaging your cognitive dissonance rather than looking objectively at this issue, turning all your positions into unfixable knots. The people pushing DEI are the same ones 'outlawing' demographic info. We spend more money on education for much poorer results relative to other nations. Vouchers don't work because.. transportation? C'mon. Nobody wants to say the "p" word when it comes to education: parents. It's funny how you take the agency away from POC by attributing all of the inequity purely to external factors. It's not a healthy or productive way to deal with this issue. But, people would rather keep the status quo then feel a bit uncomfortable, which, as someone who spent 10 years helping (primarily) POC kids heal from emotional trauma, is disheartening.
A school voucher for a private school across town is useless to a student who cannot get to the school. Public schools provide free school buses for this purpose unless the school is so close they can walk to it. Requiring the voucher to pay the cost of transportation to the “choice” school would only be keeping minimum parity with the public option. Also, if public schools are so over-funded, then the voucher carrying a given student’s allotment should be more than enough to cover tuition at the much more efficient private schools, but yet it isn’t even close. Vouchers are not about school choice and “the benefits of competition.” They are about re-segregation by leaving the “less desirable” kids behind at separate and unequal schools.
As far as “agency” and external factors, I figure after five centuries of persistently crapping on a given population, maybe it wouldn’t be too terribly patronizing to try to at least stop doing that before giving the parents of that population’s newest generation a firm lecture about bootstraps.
Lol. Another nonsensical post here about DEI. You know the whole point of vouchers is to choose your own school, right? Doesn't have to be over the mountain and through the woods next to grandmother's house. You realize that this will also increase competition between schools and improve schools overall, right? I'm sure you thought of that, it's pretty obvious. And the best part is, no lecture, and no one has to worry about root causes!
My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.
Yes a bunch of nonsense. DEI has always been misguided, it’s clearly going away, and good riddance.
Funny, as nearly every writer here at AppleInsider appears to be white! (based on the author photos)… Wesley, resign to make room for a DEI hire! Do the right thing!
What is the definition of “white”? I look white by every definition, but had a half middle eastern / half Eastern European heritage. But I’m a white….minority??
Yeah, that's not how DEI works. Lmao. Wtf
Yeah, it kinda is.
Instead of sharing a chart that was posted by End Wokeness out of context, you could read the actual reports they are from. Funny enough, even with this trend, the makeup of the United States workforce top to bottom was still predominantly white. It barely moved the needle. But it was a move in the right direction, at least that is until all of the companies from this study laid off large swaths of their workforce shortly after, which predominantly affected the people of color added to the workforce.
But you wouldn't know that because you saw a chart posted out of context by a bigoted X account and figured that was all the information you needed.
What about some basic math? 204 million white people in the US work force versus 35 million Black, 17 million Asian, and 49 million Hispanic. Even if every minority in America was hired there would still be about 100 million jobs to fill. DEI doesn't take white jobs. It's a fallacy invented by bigots.
Lol. Seems like you're getting a bit worked up. That made no sense. 1) How is it 'out of context'? 2) Do you understand the concept of 'per capita'? 3) DEI is still racism.
Out of context: meaning you shared a random image meant to incite anger or other emotions when viewed without the context of the rest of the data.
Don't be deliberately obtuse. Worked up? I don't know about you but I don't like dealing with racists posting nonsense in our forums. But you clearly enjoy racism with a smile, so I apologize if my frustration at having to deal with the failings of our education system comes through in my posts.
"per capita?" Give me a break. Do you understand the concept of systematic racism?
"DEI is racism" says the one that benefits from racism. Lmao, WTF are you talking about.
Ahead of its annual shareholders meeting, Apple has asked investors to vote against a proposal that the company should abandon its diversity hiring practices.
Apple Park
Apple's 2025 shareholders' meeting is on February 25, and as ever will be a mix of regular business and accounting issues, plus proposals by the various shareholders. These proposals have proved controversial before, even Apple usually gets the votes it wants, but this time a topic will be DEI.
As firms including Meta scale back or abandon their Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring, Apple says that it wants to continue. According to BBC News, shareholders in the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) say that DEI policies expose firms to "litigation, reputational and financial risks."
However, in a note to investors, Apple says that its board recommends voting against the proposal.
"At Apple, we believe that how we conduct ourselves is as critical to Apple's success as making the best products in the world," it says. "And we strive to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work."
Addressing the issues over potential litigation, the note says that it is unnecessary to close its DEI policies "as Apple already has a well-established compliance program."
Apple further claims that this proposal "inappropriately attempts to restrict" the company and in particular over how it is "is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in recruiting, hiring, training, or promoting on any basis protected by law."
It's not a surprise that Apple shareholders would propose this, as Big Tech firms are moving against DEI, in what's seen as an attempt to gain favor with president-elect Trump. However, for a note to investors that mostly concentrates on regular corporate issues such as the appointment of accounting firms, Apple is forceful in pushing back against the idea.
While the subject is different, the tone of Apple's response is reminiscent of how in 2014, Tim Cook reacted to another proposal by the NCPPR. The group wanted Apple to justify its environmental and accessibility practices, with the idea that they were too expensive for their return on investment (ROI).
"When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can't see or to help a kid with autism," responded Cook, "I don't think about a bloody ROI."
Apple has really stopped innovating. Too busy being woke! Apple needs a leader like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, people who get things done. I am using only apple products, but I'm so disappointed that they can't get the simplest things done. I hope apple will get a new board and people who care about technology. Apple user since 1983. I had nearly every apple product.
Ahead of its annual shareholders meeting, Apple has asked investors to vote against a proposal that the company should abandon its diversity hiring practices.
Apple Park
Apple's 2025 shareholders' meeting is on February 25, and as ever will be a mix of regular business and accounting issues, plus proposals by the various shareholders. These proposals have proved controversial before, even Apple usually gets the votes it wants, but this time a topic will be DEI.
As firms including Meta scale back or abandon their Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring, Apple says that it wants to continue. According to BBC News, shareholders in the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) say that DEI policies expose firms to "litigation, reputational and financial risks."
However, in a note to investors, Apple says that its board recommends voting against the proposal.
"At Apple, we believe that how we conduct ourselves is as critical to Apple's success as making the best products in the world," it says. "And we strive to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work."
Addressing the issues over potential litigation, the note says that it is unnecessary to close its DEI policies "as Apple already has a well-established compliance program."
Apple further claims that this proposal "inappropriately attempts to restrict" the company and in particular over how it is "is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in recruiting, hiring, training, or promoting on any basis protected by law."
It's not a surprise that Apple shareholders would propose this, as Big Tech firms are moving against DEI, in what's seen as an attempt to gain favor with president-elect Trump. However, for a note to investors that mostly concentrates on regular corporate issues such as the appointment of accounting firms, Apple is forceful in pushing back against the idea.
While the subject is different, the tone of Apple's response is reminiscent of how in 2014, Tim Cook reacted to another proposal by the NCPPR. The group wanted Apple to justify its environmental and accessibility practices, with the idea that they were too expensive for their return on investment (ROI).
"When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can't see or to help a kid with autism," responded Cook, "I don't think about a bloody ROI."
Apple has really stopped innovating. Too busy being woke! Apple needs a leader like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, people who get things done. I am using only apple products, but I'm so disappointed that they can't get the simplest things done. I hope apple will get a new board and people who care about technology. Apple user since 1983. I had nearly every apple product.
Oh great the same boring trope with bigotry de dour.
Ahead of its annual shareholders meeting, Apple has asked investors to vote against a proposal that the company should abandon its diversity hiring practices.
Apple Park
Apple's 2025 shareholders' meeting is on February 25, and as ever will be a mix of regular business and accounting issues, plus proposals by the various shareholders. These proposals have proved controversial before, even Apple usually gets the votes it wants, but this time a topic will be DEI.
As firms including Meta scale back or abandon their Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring, Apple says that it wants to continue. According to BBC News, shareholders in the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) say that DEI policies expose firms to "litigation, reputational and financial risks."
However, in a note to investors, Apple says that its board recommends voting against the proposal.
"At Apple, we believe that how we conduct ourselves is as critical to Apple's success as making the best products in the world," it says. "And we strive to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work."
Addressing the issues over potential litigation, the note says that it is unnecessary to close its DEI policies "as Apple already has a well-established compliance program."
Apple further claims that this proposal "inappropriately attempts to restrict" the company and in particular over how it is "is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in recruiting, hiring, training, or promoting on any basis protected by law."
It's not a surprise that Apple shareholders would propose this, as Big Tech firms are moving against DEI, in what's seen as an attempt to gain favor with president-elect Trump. However, for a note to investors that mostly concentrates on regular corporate issues such as the appointment of accounting firms, Apple is forceful in pushing back against the idea.
While the subject is different, the tone of Apple's response is reminiscent of how in 2014, Tim Cook reacted to another proposal by the NCPPR. The group wanted Apple to justify its environmental and accessibility practices, with the idea that they were too expensive for their return on investment (ROI).
"When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can't see or to help a kid with autism," responded Cook, "I don't think about a bloody ROI."
Apple has really stopped innovating. Too busy being woke! Apple needs a leader like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, people who get things done. I am using only apple products, but I'm so disappointed that they can't get the simplest things done. I hope apple will get a new board and people who care about technology. Apple user since 1983. I had nearly every apple product.
And yet, Apple is the most successful company in the world— with all its attentiveness to things like accessibility, diversity, equity and environmental stewardship. It would be foolish for a company with this level of success to change its board and executive leadership in order to chart some other course, based on your political preferences.
I mean you yourself say you still use only Apple products, despite not liking their commitment to the things mentioned above, and despite your claim that your Apple products “can’t get the simplest things done.”
There’s a whole world of other brands of tech products out there for you to choose from. Why do you think Apple should change big things when you won’t even change small things?
Could it just be cognitive dissonance on your part? Could it be that you’re struggling to process how it is that Apple is doing all the things you’ve been told by the talking heads on TV not to like, and yet they still successfully deliver the high-quality devices you and millions of others prefer and won’t trade for anything else?
Comments
You’re hilarious. It would be almost axiomatic to say, “Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed [insert literally anything here] can do more harm than good.”
In fact, the Forbes article reports statistical outcomes of the underlying study that more or less say exactly the same thing. By comparing companies with “mature,” well-implemented DEI programs with poorly implemented ‘newbies,’ we see that companies that haven’t “done the work” and followed the recommended strategies to (among other things) build trust and buy-in among employees don’t get good results.
Wow, it’s cute that you assume I’m “confusing” the Forbes author with the study’s author, as if no one realized a Forbes summary isn’t the underlying data source. Here’s the fun part: you’re so busy declaring me “hilarious” for saying “poorly executed [anything] can do more harm than good” that you’ve missed the actual problem—the Forbes piece provides no direct evidence of “well-implemented” DEI success, just a tidy claim that it exists somewhere out there if you “do the work.” That’s a convenient rhetorical flourish when zero specifics are on display.
Sure, the article and study both say “bad DEI = bad results.” Brilliant. Next revelation: water is wet. But since you brought it up, how exactly do we define a “mature” or “well-implemented” DEI program? That’s precisely the point: people keep invoking this mythical “good DEI” without showing robust, replicable data on what it looks like, how it’s measured, and how it avoids the common pitfalls of tokenism, reverse discrimination, and bottom-line bloat.
If your takeaway is that “nobody in their right mind would argue that a poorly executed program yields poor results,” congratulations—nobody argued the opposite. The real question is: Where’s the proof that a so-called ‘well-executed’ DEI program even exists in practice, let alone delivers consistent, measurable benefits? The Forbes summary is silent on that. Hand-waving about “trust and buy-in” does nothing to prove meaningful outcomes if we can’t define them, measure them, or replicate them.
In other words: until someone shows actual evidence for these “mature” DEI programs beyond feel-good references and vague bullet points, you might want to ease up on the self-congratulatory tone. All we’ve got so far is a broad claim that “DEI works when DEI works,” which isn’t exactly the bombshell you think it is.
1) How is it 'out of context'?
2) Do you understand the concept of 'per capita'?
3) DEI is still racism.
Don't be deliberately obtuse. Worked up? I don't know about you but I don't like dealing with racists posting nonsense in our forums. But you clearly enjoy racism with a smile, so I apologize if my frustration at having to deal with the failings of our education system comes through in my posts.
"per capita?" Give me a break. Do you understand the concept of systematic racism?
"DEI is racism" says the one that benefits from racism. Lmao, WTF are you talking about.