Does dei benefit men more? Which groups of people do companies avoid hiring?
Executive summary
DEI programs change who benefits in workplaces but the evidence does not show a simple “DEI benefits men more” answer: surveys and research show the public and workers see mixed impacts, while some reporting finds practices that may advantage particular groups (e.g., gender balancing in colleges) and other studies show gains for women and racial minorities in leadership roles [1] [2] [3]. Multiple surveys and news items also report employers implicitly or explicitly avoiding certain groups—most commonly young workers (Gen Z) or, in some surveys, white men—though those findings are survey-based and contested [4] [5] [6].
1. DEI’s beneficiaries: not uniformly “men,” evidence shows winners are context-dependent
DEI’s stated purpose is to increase representation for historically underrepresented groups; empirical work and policy briefs say formal DEI programs have increased representation of Black women and Latino and Asian Americans in management and that inclusion practices expand opportunities for women and people with disabilities [3]. At the same time, coverage of the Trump administration’s 2025 executive actions suggests changes in federal policy will alter who benefits from DEI in education and hiring, and reporting on a DEI ban notes it may disrupt gender-balancing practices that have sometimes benefited college men—illustrating that effects vary by sector and policy context [7] [2].
2. Public and workplace attitudes: mixed views on whether DEI helps everyone
National surveys show most workers view DEI positively but differ by gender: a Pew report found 56% of workers say focusing on DEI is mainly good, with women more likely than men to endorse DEI and to want their employers to do more [1]. Wikipedia’s synthesis of polling also documents a plurality seeing little impact from DEI in their own jobs, underscoring divergent perceptions between stated goals and everyday experience [8]. These attitude splits mean claims that DEI “benefits men more” rest heavily on which outcomes and populations you measure.
3. Cases and reporting that fuel the “reverse discrimination” claim
Multiple survey-driven stories have circulated claiming firms avoid hiring white men or that hiring managers prioritize diversity over qualifications; ResumeBuilder reported that about 1 in 10 companies with DEI programs avoid hiring white men and that 6 in 10 hiring managers prioritize diversity over qualifications—claims repeated by other outlets—but these are survey snapshots and have drawn pushback and legal scrutiny [5] [6]. Legal developments and company disclosures show firms are also reframing or retreating from explicit targets amid litigation risk and changing investor expectations [9].
4. Who companies avoid hiring, according to reporting and HR research
Journalistic and HR research identifies several groups employers sometimes avoid: Gen Z (Newsweek coverage found many managers report bias against hiring younger entrants), and—per some surveys—majority-group candidates such as white men in organizations emphasizing demographic change [4] [5]. HR advice and anti-bias guides stress that unconscious bias cuts both ways and that companies frequently need better structured processes to avoid excluding any protected group [10] [11].
5. The legal and reputational limits shaping employer behavior
Corporations are actively reframing DEI because of court rulings, investor and regulatory pressure, and litigation risk: board diversity disclosure and DEI-linked pay incentives declined in 2025 as firms sought legally defensible approaches or embedded DEI in governance rather than explicit quotas [9]. That environment makes blunt practices—like “don’t hire X” rules—risky to sustain and more likely to be hidden or rationalized as “talent strategy” decisions [9].
6. Why simple headlines mislead: measurement, selection, and context matter
Studies and surveys cited in the media vary in methods and populations: some measure employer intent, others measure outcomes like promotion rates, and some are self-reported attitudes from HR professionals. Institutional reviews and research syntheses stress that DEI’s measurable benefits often accrue to women and racial minorities in leadership roles, while public perception and specific hiring choices can create the impression of reverse effects depending on which slice of data is presented [3] [1] [8].
7. Bottom line and practical takeaways for readers
Available reporting does not support a blanket claim that DEI benefits men more; instead, evidence shows DEI programs increase representation for many historically excluded groups while perceptions and isolated hiring practices feed narratives of reverse discrimination—especially around white men and younger workers—backed mainly by surveys and contested reporting [3] [5] [4]. Policymakers and employers are recalibrating DEI in 2025 in response to legal rulings and political pressure, and scrutiny of both outcomes and methods is essential to separate real effects from perception-driven claims [9] [7].
Limitations: available sources are survey reports, legal summaries, policy briefs and media stories with varying methods; none provide a definitive causal estimate that “DEI benefits men more” across all settings, and more rigorous longitudinal research is required to resolve that question [8] [1].