This is a hard problem. I understand DEI, and I understand anti DEI, and agree with both in that DEI aims to close a gap in disadvantaged groups that were discriminated against in the past to the point that they are demographically cut off from wealth because they can’t gain any escape velocity to allow them to acquire assets that work for them. They’re locked into the jobs the wealthier don’t want, regardless of their skill level. And even getting to that skill level is a challenge because they’re too busy working 3 low paying jobs to attend school.

On the other hand, members of a demographic that indirectly benefitted from discrimination in the past, but were themselves not direct beneficiaries can’t be punished for that. They apply to jobs just the same, compete just the same, and aspire to be successful just the same. And just because they can’t relate to the fact that the other demographic has it harder, doesn’t make them evil.

So where’s the balance? What’s the solution? And companies implemented DEI bc they were pressured to do it, and now they’re pressured in the opposite direction. Will they be sued again in a few decades for the other kind of discrimination of “we only hire the best, it just so happens that all the best are of X demographic”?

You’re telling me that openly hiring specific races over others is both racist and illegal?

Did the other big tech companies ever get fined for this? All of them had programs with quotas for hiring and promotions based on race and gender. They may still.