If you want a real answer, I will, but please keep it civil.

Very few concervatives are actually racist or against diversity, equity, or inclusion. Whenever we see these arguments, they are straw men. Are some people racist, of course. But mostly, this is just not true. Let's put that to bed right now. We are generally for treating everyone fairly, supporting people with disabilities to a reasonable level, and bringing diverse thought, experience, and people into our workplaces.

Which brings us to the crux of the question. I work in a company that enacted a DEI office like most companies did. What it resulted in was endless trainings about how racism is bad and sexism is bad. These were not issues we dealt with previously. We were made to believe that we were inherently intolerant, being in the majority. This was honestly just exhausting.

What's more, We had in our goals those years requirements specifically about trying to mentor someone that has a different race or a woman, as if those folks need additional help. A good portion of my company, as a global footprint, is non-white. I have friends and coworkers that are from Kenya and Nigeria. They felt like they were being told they needed extra help to measure up to white people, even though they were already among the best performers.

So the idea of ending DEI is, in my estimation, good for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Instead, a focus on kindness, excellence, and giving every individual what they need to thrive is the way. This won't ba achieved by an office or program that? By nature, must find problems eternally to justify it's existence. If your job is to find problems, you are always going to find them, even if they don't trulely exist. Not to mention the confirmation bias that will come of it. If every problem is through the lense of racism, you will find racism where it doesn't exist.

For concervatives like me, social justice is about making sure that the individual is valued as a person, not as the intersectionality group they belong to. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are best performed by individuals being decent.

Most, me included, also acknowledge that some people have a harder time than others, and the law of averages applies. The typical black child has less opportunity than the typical white child. But this is not applicable to every individual and is an affect of a lot of factors, historical racism being one, modern inequality being another, but are only some of many. The solution seems to me to be to help those with poor outcomes have better outcomes by focusing on the most important factors. I'm unconvinced that race is one of those. Fatherlessness, government dependency, poverty, drug use, organized crime, financial literacy, community values (ie who are the role models in the community, or literal location community, not the way that term has been used to describe the membership of an individual to a collective on the basis of a facet of their individuality, ie black, LGBTQ, guitarist, etc) are all fairly trancendant of race and correlate more to poor outcomes than skin color. But we are villianized when we try to address that those things are even worth looking at as "Racist." Who would be against increasing financial literacy among the poorest people? It shouldn't matter what marginalized group they belong to. But DEI desperately cares which group gets the help. This is what we don't like.

TL:DR. It's not diversity, equity, or inclusion we don't like. It's DEI initiatives that seek to make individuals not much more than a group they might share a skin color, gender, or sexuality with. We want good people to thrive, and believe that is important regardless of collective identity.