[MyShawdowySelf]

> it overwhelmingly benefitting non-URM women

This is sadly a reality that is difficult to talk about.

I would even go further and say that we have a tendency to benefit the "least" minority of the minority. Hiring a black or Hispanic or women from MIT is from my perspectives not really what this work should be about. Those outliers already have enough opportunity, but tend to be the one benefiting from most efforts. I would love to see deeper investment like 3 or 4 year before college in more at risk communities.

[Manuel_D]

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a Latin Stanford graduate, from a wealthy two parent household. I'm sure there were some people who escaped genuine poverty among my classmates, but for the most part anyone at Stanford is privileged regardless of background.

I find that companies only care about improving their annual diversity report pie chart, and have adopted a cynical attitude along the lines of "the diverse talent pool is limited so we need to make sure we get more of them than our competitors". Nobody is actually trying to get more underprivileged people into tech as a whole.

A company instituting a DEI initiative where employees take one day a week mentoring students at a less affluent high school would do way more good than a percentage quota. The former actually makes the world have more software developers of underrepresented backgrounds. The latter just increase the share of "diverse" devs at that particular company, doesn't actually shift the needle in the industry as a whole.