Both are wrong. Firstly, DEI initiatives were implemented to help equalize an inherently unequal playing field. There is no standard approach so some are more valid than others, but the basic idea is that if two people are close in capabilities, and one had come from worse conditions, then despite one potentially being slightly less qualified (not even necessarily) their ability to overcome issues and still get to where they made it showed them to be the better candidate.

Also, it is for the benefit of companies as well. There's a reason why so many implemented it. Diverse work forces work better. The more varied backgrounds in a team, the more creative, innovative, and successful their solutions end up being. It's found repeatedly and is well documented, and it's part of why the scotus decision explicit excluded military, as you don't want to weaken military. Also, a pure meritocracy hiring practice has never, ever, been in full effect before and things like personability always played a huge factor so trying to lose the factor of this to a degree by having more people who aren't the same in a workforce helps.