I'm on the fence about this. I think that it's true the most hiring decisions aren't merit-based, nor do they necessarily need to be. Most jobs can be sufficiently done by the average-skilled person, it's only the most skilled positions were you can argue that one person is just simply the best (and sufficiently that it matters). I think DEI practices would be fine in the former case since it's just another biasing metric like nepotism.

As for highly skilled positions, most people in those positions grow up saturated in the culture from a young age, typically from parents in that field themselves. I think there is arguments to be made that DEI practices now can produce a larger skilled pool in the next generation.

The questions are 1. How much does it help the next generation? 2. Is it worth the cost of lower standards now?