I worked on some DEI programs. The problem was mixed. Most companies (at least the ones with DEI programs) thought they had big DEI issues because minorities had worse outcomes. But if you looked hard, that wasn’t usually the case. It was merely that minorities were more represented at lower levels and lower levels had higher attrition and what not. On the whole, it tended to look like hiring, retention, and even promotions looked surprisingly equitable. That is, while it would take a long time, it did seem as if things would stop being crusty old white men at the top exclusively.

However there are some noteworthy qualifiers. First, the biggest thing these programs did successfully was just diversifying the entry points so that you could even begin to start conversations with people from other backgrounds. That’s huge and effective.

Second, and this one is more anecdata, but I never really felt the hiring pool of diverse candidates was randomly sampled at all. For all the groaning about meritocracy and white candidates getting shat on, I tended to find in my personal hiring that diverse candidates were often MUCH stronger candidates. I rarely saw unmotivated, underqualified minorities and women make it to an interview stage whereas there’s a ton of white and Asian guys that did. Getting these candidates was harder. Which is to say, without putting any intrinsic value on racial or cultural backgrounds, I do think DEI programs somehow greatly streamlined a meritocratic highlighting of talented folks from diverse backgrounds. Which is ironic because that’s often the opposite claim.

That is, given you are a minority applying to an advanced position, odds are you’re really strong.