I think that's a step in the right direction. I'd just take it one step further, consider all the factors of each person's life, and thus treat people as individuals and not as representatives of a few select groups. Intersectionality excludes too many factors as it focuses on just a few.

My wife’s family is from a nearly all white coastal oregon county whose median household income is about the same as the national average household income for black people. Between two individuals with that same income level, the historical reasons why they ended up in that position are irrelevant. Neither person experienced those historical circumstances themselves. And regardless of path dependency, the result of that they’re on the same rung of the economic ladder today. There is no legitimate basis to help one of those people over the other.

And if you’re looking at path dependency, Asians should be the biggest beneficiaries of DEI. My dad was born in a third world village. He’d literally have been far better off going to school in the segregated south than taking a boat to school during monsoon season. I don’t think that should count in how you treat me—I grew up comfortably middle class—but it’s downright bizarre to say I’m somehow more privileged than people whose families have long been in America.

As others have said, that is now an economic advantage. There are other economic advantages. Why not level the economic playing field for everyone?

Why ask me? It was chneu who claimed it existed.

Edit: Yes, I made a bold assertion, based on the view from the working class and the many intelligent white people I know who were held back by not being wealthy or well-connected. For those outside the elite pipeline, it's an advantage not to be white.

If there's a pipeline I don't know about, I'd like to hear it. Point it out so more people can join the pipeline to success!

I think you are describing the situation well. I would put myself in the bucket of equal opportunity. I prefer addressing the causes, and think poverty is a better proxy for the core issue than skin color, and doesn't have the collateral damage.

A black and a white children of dirt poor single mothers are both going to have major headwinds in life.

A black and white children of married techies and doctors are both going to start with a good hand.

Addressing the problem at the college admission stage is just juicing the numbers in a way that says our University is care more about your skin color than what you can do.

It would be far better to look at what we can do to keep kids in school, stabilize their home lives, and make them into competitive college applicants.

This is the route to address equal outcome that doesn't result in unfair circumstances at the individual level. It's slower to show results, but I think it's the only thing they'll actually get there in the end.

If all we care about is the numbers, we could just give honorary diplomas to kids that can't even read and make the numbers work.

I would 100% support blind screening and application where possible. Also educating recruiters and diversifying pipelines. My job had the latter, and I supported it.

What I don't approve of was my annual bonus depending hitting on targets for % minority hires. That shouldn't be on my mind when I'm interviewing candidates.

I addressed this above, I explicitly said it exists, but getting better. You help people break out of poverty and ensure they have actual merit. You don't establish separate requirements and treatment based on race.

You can find a lot of this in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. At its most extreme an Asian Student and Black student with the exact same MCAT test score would have a 21% acceptance rate for the former and 80% acceptance rate for the latter. The lawsuit revealed the admissions office would use intangibles to discriminate, like giving Asian students low "Personality scores"

My bonus at a fortune 50 bay area firm was based (partially) on % minority hires. These were called "DEI Targets"

I've been told face to face by several tech recruiters that they are not looking to hire my race and gender, but I should tell my minority wife should apply.

Google "diversity quotas" or "hiring targets". If you are explicitly demanding a disproportionate number of minority candidates, you are disadvantaging other candidates.

The terms get lumped together by conservatives and then blamed for all evils. Defining it might help, but good luck with that.