I've experienced this too, and in practice DI&E reminds me of the kind of rules advocated for by people who live on a lake, ostensibly to protect the lake but in reality to preserve their own property value and make sure nobody can build near them. Making rules than mean explicit support and sponsorship are needed to get somebody though means that employees end up serving and being promoted at the pleasure of whoever is currently in power, giving them more power. There are many ways this works but all-in, it ends up just consolidating power, not achieving any of the ostensible aims (whether or not you think those aims are worthy)

I _do_ work at Microsoft, and judging by the recent crop of promotions (early September) there was still plenty of opportunity for white males (and everyone else).

Assuming you're in the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC are mere suggestions nowadays. There is no willingness in our DEI-co-opted government to tackle these issues and hold these blatantly illegal and unethical actors accountable.

And yet, I'll bet you the majority of your corporation's management layers are white males.

At Google (in Silicon Valley), 7 out of 8 people in my reporting chain were Indian males. Go figure!

This! Somehow diversity at every office means 50% diversity + 50% indian

someone has to do the actual job, so there will be some part of purely merit based hiring to meet baseline needs

My boss was a woman, my bosses boss was a woman, and my bosses bosses boss was a woman. CEO was a hispanic male

You should carefully document this sort of thing, even if you don't plan to use your documentation in a legal action. Who knows what the future will bring?