I imagine it would be difficult getting a paper published that shows otherwise since diversity, equity, and inclusion have seemingly become tantamount to unquestionable religious dogma.
For example, you have the Biden administration publishing this blatantly contradictory guidance:
> The scientific integrity principles and best practices identified in the report aim to ensure that science is conducted, managed, communicated, and used in ways that preserve its accuracy and objectivity and protect it from suppression, manipulation, and inappropriate influence—including political interference.
>
> […]
>
> Scientific integrity policies should be modernized to address important, emergent issues of our time. They must advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/01/11/whit...
Then you have Nature with this “ethics guidance” that seem to suggest it would be considered unethical to publish a study that challenges the present narrative of diversity, equity, and inclusion:
> Academic content that […] promotes privileged, exclusionary perspectives raises ethics concerns that may require revisions or supersede the value of publication.
> Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society. With this guidance, we take a step towards countering this.
> Consideration of risks and benefits (above and beyond any institutional ethics review) underlies the editorial process of all forms of scholarly communication in our publications. Editors consider harms that might result from the publication of a piece of scholarly communication, may seek external guidance on such potential risks of harm as part of the editorial process, and in cases of substantial risk of harm that outweighs any potential benefits, may decline publication (or correct, retract, remove or otherwise amend already published content).
> Regardless of content type (research, review or opinion) and, for research, regardless of whether a research project was reviewed and approved by appropriate ethics specialists, editors may raise with the authors concerns regarding potentially sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+ assumptions, implications or speech in their submission; engage external ethics experts to provide input on such issues as part of the peer review process; or request modifications to (or correct or otherwise amend post-publication), and in severe cases refuse publication of (or retract post-publication) sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+ content