So much of the kerfuffle about DEI has always been around the fact that people don't understand what DEI means.

Also, in the current environment, I don't see how anyone can look around and argue that merit-based hiring is a norm anywhere. Even at hotspots of anti-DEI, "merit" often means "friend of a friend" or similar.

There's no such thing as merit-based hiring.

I think the idea is that each letter in there is considered a merit, hence why it's always discussed under the "core values" section. That is to say, they're properties that they supposedly value, next to technical excellence, team fit, being a spitfire, whatever.

And that the discussed-to-death diversity hiring quotas are not its entirety, or even necessarily a part, of it.

Merit not being a threshold but a range in actuality probably also plays a role (along with how utter theater the typical job interview really is).

> I wouldn't want to be hired based on something so meaningless.

But that's kinda the point of it all, isn't it? That it's supposed to be empowering the disadvantaged / marginalized. If your background does not put you at a disadvantage, there's nothing to compensate for, then it would indeed be meaningless. But if there is, and you made it, then that is by definition extraordinary. So it is meaningful.

There's definitely a question about whether they'd be stealing your thunder by this, but I'll leave that to an actual aficionado of the topic. Not exactly the expert on all this.