Because measuring diversity of thought is much more difficult, and thought isn't a legally protected class.

> thought isn't a legally protected

So the law justifies the law?

All I meant was that all companies ultimately care about is what is legally required, everything else ends up just being lip service and PR.

To your question though, the law justifies the law unfortunately. That's one big reason I'm opposed to laws and government in general. Something is legal because we said its legal, or more often its legal because a prior generation said it was legal. Put worse, something is punishable because we once wrote down that you would be punished for a specific act.

That's the goal. But you can't get there, under our current system and circumstances, without some DEI-like anti-filter. It's not either-or; "Measure diversity of thought," is step #2, after, "Counteract the social gravity of tribalism in its myriad forms."