I agree with then that it is better to not require DEI (due to the reasons they mention there (they are compelled speech and are irrelevant to what you are applying for, and that there are other contributions that are independent from DEI, as explained there), and others), but that does not necessarily mean that DEI should be banned; it only means that they should not be required, and that DEI statements alone are not a suitable criteria for admission. What is a suitable criteria is your competence at your work, if you have done it good.
Wikipedia says "Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks which seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability." This is not inherently a bad thing, although bad things can be (and are) done with it (like bad things can be (and are) done with many things), such as the required DEI statements over everything else.
Just because someone wrote a DEI statement does not necessarily mean that they are not qualified (or good at science or whatever it is they are applying for) nor does it necessary mean that they are qualified, and the same is true if they did not make a DEI statement.
One article (apparently by the same author) mentions that the Canadian government denied Patanjali Kambhampati (a physical chemist who seems quite accomplished, and works on quantum dots, has published 132 papers, and has an h index of 37) grants because he refuses to write the kind of woke diversity statement that the Canadian grant authorities demand. It also says, "What's even worse than diversity statements, is evaluating them as the first step in the grant-giving process". Of course, a better evaluation should be by the scientific merit, not by diversity statements.
Wikipedia says "Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks which seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability." This is not inherently a bad thing, although bad things can be (and are) done with it (like bad things can be (and are) done with many things), such as the required DEI statements over everything else.
Just because someone wrote a DEI statement does not necessarily mean that they are not qualified (or good at science or whatever it is they are applying for) nor does it necessary mean that they are qualified, and the same is true if they did not make a DEI statement.
One article (apparently by the same author) mentions that the Canadian government denied Patanjali Kambhampati (a physical chemist who seems quite accomplished, and works on quantum dots, has published 132 papers, and has an h index of 37) grants because he refuses to write the kind of woke diversity statement that the Canadian grant authorities demand. It also says, "What's even worse than diversity statements, is evaluating them as the first step in the grant-giving process". Of course, a better evaluation should be by the scientific merit, not by diversity statements.