> But DEI practices happened not because of anecdotes, but data on systemic bias

Often said. Rarely backed up by such data. Efforts to measure bias in tech has consistently shown preferences favoring women:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112, the chart with the important data: https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1418878112/asset/fc20a...

Study on sending resumes to SV tech companies: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484, HN discussion on the paperhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644

Yet all the DEI programs I've seen firsthand have privileged women over men.

Ok, but "tech" is not just Silicon Valley. And as a whole, there is absolutely bias [0]. In the US, mostly for older, white males, in Europe, mostly for younger white males.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429212...

Your own study showed a preference for women. Look at the row "female gender" in the results table: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S00142921220019...

More positive bias than negative.

None of the DEI programs I've encountered have focused on age or disability. Only race and gender, mostly the latter.

That study didn't "measure bias in tech":

"Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology."

The study found that that female applicants have 2x the positive vote rate as identically qualified male applicants when applying for faculty STEM positions (the study investigated other fields too). I'm not sure how this isn't evidence of bias.

If I create identically qualified black and white applicants and the latter are reviewed positively at 2x the rate as the former is not not evidence of racial bias?

But anti-DEI policy allowed a group in the process of losing status to name and point to a target. The function of removing DEI is to relieve them of the feeling that their status was under attack.

This isn’t a gut feeling; it’s blatant racism and twisting the narrative around DEI to rile Trump’s xenophobic and racist base.

One can argue that DEI itself is racist.

In the same way as bleeding on the clothes of the police officers who beat you is destruction of property. Or even an assault on a police officer.

The spirit of DEI initiatives is to balance out the racist-by-default policies and institutions. Which is why racists are losing their minds.

One can argue nearly anything, that doesn't make the argument correct or sound.

This data doesn't exist and you could generate data with the opposite conclusion. It still just offers racial discrimination and nothing more.