"The Dodgy Data Behind the DEI Crusade"

   First, note that "workplace harmony" was not a reason originally cited in favor of "diversity" initiatives--which was the successor to the now-expanded idea of "DEI."

   To riff on that point for a second: note that the more the idea expands, the easier it is to rationalize (in the bad sense of 'rationalize'). First there was "diversity." Then that was, without democratic ratification, expanded into "diversity, equity and inclusion." Now the left seeks to expand that in various ways, though no single way has been agreed upon. Candidates for expansion of the acronym (not: not actually an acronym): "access," "belonging," and "(social) justice." (The latter expansion yielded the abbreviation 'JEDI,' about which lefties were ecstatic...though then UnScientific UnAmerican puplished an essay arguing that this was politically no bueno because the Jedi are white male colonizers who use violence to solve their problems... This is what counts as an argument on the left these days...) And what's really meant is something more like: diversity or equity or inclusion or [additional BS ideas to be added later]. By repeatedly expanding the abbreviation, and treating it like a disjunction, the left can basically re-engineer institutions however it wants...especially if something like "(social) justice," that protean nonsense term, is added.

   Second: political correctness, i.e. the subordination of the epistemic to the political, is almost a defining characteristic of contemporary progressivism. That DEI is good is an axiom. As is that it increases the effectiveness of organizations. The left will never subject that to actual empirical investigation. That's not how they roll. Any study they conduct will aim at bolstering their axiom, not testing it. 

   Third, of course: DEI does not improve the effectiveness of organizations. We have studies supporting this, but we don't really need them: if the goal is greater effectiveness, then we should merely be shooting for greater effectiveness. In hiring: if you want to find the best person, aim to find the best person--regardless of race, sex, etc. Don't aim to find the politically correct kind of person and hope for the best. The only even halfway decent idea associated with DEI in this respect is: aim to take a wider view, recognizing that you may have a parochial view of who the best person is. Consider the possibility that people who don't satisfy narrow criteria may add something to your organization that would increase effectiveness. MMT might seem stupid, but if, say, the econ department is hiring, and you've got all the other bases covered, maybe someone who studies MMT will add an important perspective...even if he's wrong. That isn't crazy. But that's not what's being done. DEI as it stands is a cover story for racial etc. preferences. It's a wildly dishonest view/policy/whatever-it-is.