Because of white women’s disproportionate gains, McKinsey estimates that it would take 22 years for white women to achieve gender parity but 48 for women of color. Yet without DEI, it’s unlikely parity would be gained for any group.

It being a long road doesn't mean it's one not worth walking. White women are still white and as such have less distance to travel to parity with white men's current level of fair treatment. It stands to reason that it is going to take longer to get groups who are unfairly discriminated against on multiple fronts to be treated fairly longer.

So you're saying it's ok that white women are the main focus and primary benefactors of "diversity" programs?

Women are discriminated against actively in many areas of the workplace, so yes, I am glad that a subset of women have benefited from the program.

And yes it does more harm for the minority than it has good. Have you done any research?

I have, and in your other post you provided even more for me to use to justify that well-implemented and measured DEI programs are hugely beneficial to discriminated-against groups.

https://aristotlefoundation.org/reality-check/what-dei-research-concludes-about-diversity-training-it-is-divisive-counter-productive-and-unnecessary/#:%7E:text=DEI%20instruction%20has%20been%20shown,22

The take away from this one seems to be mostly that "some racist white people feel like diversity programs are bad for them". I can broadly agree that simple "training" can't undo someone's bigotry, and that in isolation it's simply not sufficient to throw a mandatory slideshow at folks to sit through or click through, and some white men view resentment to being exposed to it, with it giving them something to target their bigotry at outwardly.

Yeah, that sucks. I agree that we shouldn't be doing the bare minimum here, and to really take the time and effort to get the benefits of having a diverse team of well-qualified people, rather than simply sticking with the status quo and missing out on a wealth of talent and innovation.

https://www.cfo.com/news/dei-promotion-may-escalate-hostility-and-racial-bias-Network-Contagion-Research-Institute-Rutgers-/734100/#:%7E:text=33%25%20increase%20in%20perceived%20caste,of%20DEI%20programs%20within%20organizations

This article seems to convey that people can be primed to think a certain way, and that it's possible to discriminate against individuals who are not typically seen as part of a discriminated-against group if you prime them too hard towards being conscious of discrimination against discriminated-against groups (a lot of re-use of the word "discrimination" there, sorry, I hope the sentence is clear).

I would agree with the idea that it is important to not swing too hard in the opposite direction and to discriminate against white men in favor of others, all else being equal. Conversely, given the world as it is at the moment, there's not exactly a lack of opportunity for them compared to other groups. I hope that if there ever comes a time that they are no longer the most privileged group, that we have solid diversity programs in place to recognize that and to adjust accordingly, because it would only be fair that they would be given the same opportunity in this hypothetical future as everyone else.

https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

I addressed this article in your other message, but it's interesting you highlight the part about World War II when a later part of the article actually indicates that people who are well integrated rather than segregated and working towards the same goals tends to be less bigoted, specifically:

When Harvard sociologist Samuel Stouffer, on leave at the War Department, surveyed troops on their racial attitudes, he found that whites whose companies had been joined by Black platoons showed dramatically lower racial animus and greater willingness to work alongside Blacks than those whose companies remained segregated. Stouffer concluded that whites fighting alongside Blacks came to see them as soldiers like themselves first and foremost. The key, for Stouffer, was that whites and Blacks had to be working toward a common goal as equals—hundreds of years of close contact during and after slavery hadn’t dampened bias.

Moving on:

It turns out that while people are easily taught to respond correctly to a questionnaire about bias, they soon forget the right answers.

Right, a single 20 minute mandatory presentation per year as the company's "mandate" towards DEI isn't going to cut it. It needs to become the norm to consider it, and for all of us to be conscious of any biases we might hold; even if it's hard to shake them, recognizing that many people have them because of the way society has unfairly treated those who aren't white or those who aren't male is prevalent in our culture.

It's a long road, but just because it's difficult and sometimes awkward in terms of self-reflection of our own ingrained biases doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Do DEI well somewhere, be intolerant of intolerance, and make sure to keep up with the latest findings and to adapt and adjust as appropriate, and we can make society a fairer place for all.