I'm not too sure about that. I think the likelihood of discrimination is probably the same when you have a "diverse" group compared to a relatively homogenous group. What matters is whether there are jerks in either group.
I've been on teams where I was the only white guy and everyone else was Indian and we all got along great, and I've been on teams with lots of different "identities" represented and people did not get along.
If the team is more diverse, someone is more likely to point out when discrimination/prejudice is involved, as there is a higher chance someone will be sensible to the specific type of discrimination involved. Nobody can have a universal perspective on things, and someone from a different background might percieve something you will be unaware of.
For example, one of the canonical inclusion problems for women is that many people perceive their aggressive behavior more negatively. Hiring more women won't help, because women are equally susceptible to the bias. And calling it out on the spot won't help, because how can you know when other people are improperly forming negative opinions?
> The business and political community is hyperfocused on software engineering jobs for two reasons. Corporations want political support for H1-B. And, in some cases, STEM workers have high importance in influencing the political world
Are you saying that this is manufactured, a "liberal agenda", or something else?
Diversity fosters an environment with less marginalization and discrimination.
I could be wrong, but I think women in tech want more women in tech, and candidates from diverse backgrounds want more diversity.