[LeroyRaz]

The point is that DEI groups can seem very homogeneous, without diverse viewpoints, and they can weild large amounts of power.

Posters above you have illustrated how issues of DEI are not investigated, if they happen to not fit into the agenda of the DEI group, e.g. examples of Ageism, or things that discriminate against rather than for white men. Such effects exist, as the OP article illustrates.

To say that the DEI groups don't need any white voices because they are some form of silent majority is to elevat the white voice too, which itself seems inequitable and problematic wherever you stand.

What is your point? As you seem to have not engaged with the viewpoints above, it seems you are more reacting against perceived sentiment, rather than trying to discuss ideas

[uoaei]

> is to elevat[e] the white voice too

Elevate?? We are not assigning authority to the white voice, we are assigning hegemony. It is a material fact that whiteness and maleness are the centers of Western philosophy, and everything else is measured based on deviance from that perceived center. There are by now centuries of literature on the matter.

> if they happen to not fit into the agenda of the DEI group

What you call "agenda" I call "bandwidth". Think about it: a fledgling DEI group, small to start, must tackle a lot of metastasized workplace issues. But they're not going to get anything done by spreading their forces too thin. So they focus first on what will make the most material effect with the least effort: call it "productivity". Ageism does fall down the list of priorities, for the simple matter that older people tend to have a larger net worth and so are more insulated from material consequences writ large. It is those who are poorest who need insulation from poverty first, who get help first: this is called "triage". The rising tide starts at the lowest point, right? Without directly asking for everyone's net worth, which is extremely illegal as I'm sure you know, we must resort to proxy measures.

Would you join an engineering team who was constantly switching contexts instead of focusing in on particular features during particular sprints? No, that would be counterproductive. Afford your colleagues the same consideration, even if their goal is not a webapp but compassion in the workplace.

[camelite]

Whiteness and maleness are not and cannot be material facts and it is a category error to insist otherwise, nevermind elevating them as the axiomatic center of your worldview.

[uoaei]

The inequity resulting from the material consequences of appearing in, being raised in, and interacting with society as white and male is a well-established statistical fact.

[camelite]

There are important differences between material and statistical facts you would be better off not glossing over.

And more centrally, whiteness (in particular) and maleness are still not facts. You're in voodoo territory if you center them as such.

[uoaei]

A nice bit of wordplay but that's nonsense. The difference between statistical facts and material facts is, one is a(system-scale) summary of the other (individual-scale) measure.

I fail to see the nit you're picking at with that second bit. Are you saying they are categories? Suppositions? Made up? Do you mean to imply then that they are "spooks" and their presence in the minds of physical agents has no bearing on physical outcomes?