AppleZulu said:

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.

AppleZulu said:

gwmac said:

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.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinamilanesi/2023/04/20/the-business-impact-of-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.
• McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. McKinsey & Company.

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.

DEI initiatives, though ostensibly designed to promote fairness and inclusivity, often yield unintended consequences that exacerbate the very disparities they aim to address. A study published in the American Sociological Review found that diversity training programs are largely ineffective, showing no measurable improvement in workplace equality. These programs often emphasize superficial markers of diversity, such as race or gender, over deeper qualities like merit and skill.

Rather than fostering harmony, DEI initiatives frequently sow division. A report revealed that mandatory DEI training sessions can create resentment among employees, leading to increased workplace hostility. In environments where identity politics take precedence over shared goals, innovation falters and morale plummets.

The legal ramifications of DEI policies cannot be ignored. The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in college admissions underscores the increasing scrutiny of race-conscious policies. Companies like Meta and Amazon have scaled back their DEI programs, citing concerns over potential litigation and compliance risks. Financially, DEI initiatives divert significant resources from core business functions. Apple, a company renowned for its groundbreaking innovations, could better allocate these funds to research and development, ensuring its continued leadership in the tech industry.

Real-world examples illustrate the dangers of prioritizing DEI over meritocracy. At a leading tech company, aggressive diversity hiring quotas led to the recruitment of underqualified candidates, resulting in plummeting team performance and soaring employee turnover. Another troubling case involves a prestigious university that replaced merit-based scholarships with need-based awards aligned with DEI principles, alienating top-performing students and lowering academic standards.

One of the most insidious aspects of DEI is its tendency to stifle dissent. Critics who question the efficacy or morality of these initiatives often face professional ostracism or even termination. The canceled lecture of geophysicist Dorian Abbot at MIT is a stark example of this trend. This enforced conformity not only suppresses intellectual diversity but also discourages the critical debates essential for progress.

Beyond individual anecdotes, the broader cultural and economic implications of DEI warrant serious consideration. Studies have shown that DEI programs can reinforce stereotypes by overemphasizing group identities, rather than promoting individual achievement. Economically, poorly implemented DEI initiatives can lead to reduced productivity, as teams bogged down by ideological training sessions and identity-driven quotas struggle to meet performance goals.

Apple’s success has always been rooted in a commitment to meritocracy and excellence. By voting to phase out DEI initiatives, shareholders have the opportunity to reaffirm these principles. This decision is not about rejecting diversity but about embracing it in its most authentic form—as the natural result of a culture that rewards talent, creativity, and hard work. The company’s future depends on fostering an environment where the best ideas can flourish, free from the constraints of divisive policies.

DEI initiatives represent a misguided approach to addressing societal inequities, one that often does more harm than good. Apple’s shareholders have a unique opportunity to lead by example, rejecting these flawed programs and charting a path that prioritizes merit, innovation, and unity. Let us choose a future where excellence is the standard, and diversity emerges naturally from a shared commitment to fairness and opportunity.

The mantra of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has pervaded our workplaces, posing as a beacon of progress and inclusivity. Yet, beneath this polished veneer, there lies a troubling reality: systemic barriers remain entrenched, minority voices are drowned out, and a sense of disillusionment spreads like wildfire across both majority and minority groups. This stark contradiction between the lofty ideals and the sobering reality of DEI demands a rigorous, unflinching examination.

 https://gwmac.com/dei-exposed-forced-conformity/