Who gets more benefits for dei, white women or Asian/ black men?

Checked on December 9, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

Most available reporting and analysis says white women have captured a disproportionate share of DEI gains in corporate leadership: white women hold nearly 19% of C‑suite roles while women of color hold about 4% (Forbes/McKinsey reporting cited across outlets) [1] [2]. Multiple opinion pieces and summaries argue DEI has often benefited white women more than Black women and other people of color, while other outlets note DEI programs target many groups including veterans, LGBTQ+ people and people with disabilities [3] [4] [5].

1. What the numbers most reporters point to actually show

Coverage relying on McKinsey/Forbes analyses repeatedly states white women hold nearly 19% of C‑suite positions versus roughly 4% for racial and ethnic minority women—this figure is the most cited quantitative evidence that white women have disproportionately benefited in leadership from corporate DEI efforts [1] [2]. Several outlets repeat the same stat in arguing that DEI, as implemented, has often produced gains concentrated among white women rather than equally across racial groups [6] [3].

2. How journalists and commentators explain the pattern

Commentaries and critical pieces argue DEI programs were often framed through a gender lens or designed in ways that let white women leverage both gender‑based remedies and racial privilege, leaving Black women and other women of color behind [3] [7]. These analyses point to historical and institutional dynamics—such as proximity to existing power networks and the framing of initiatives around “women broadly”—as explanations for why gains clustered with white women [3].

3. Evidence on Asian men, Black men and other male groups is limited in these pieces

Available sources emphasize women’s representation gaps and racial disparities within women’s gains rather than directly comparing benefits received by white women versus Asian or Black men. Coverage notes Asian employees are often well‑represented at entry and mid‑levels but underrepresented in C‑suites (only about 1 in 30 make it to the C‑suite in one summary), while pay and promotion patterns differ by group—yet the articles in this set do not provide a clear head‑to‑head statistic comparing DEI benefits for white women versus Asian men or Black men [8] [5]. Therefore, direct comparative conclusions about “who gets more benefits: white women or Asian/Black men” are not present in the current reporting.

4. Broader argument: DEI helps many groups, but distribution varies

Pro‑DEI reporting stresses programs provide supports across many underserved communities—veterans, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ employees, and students of different races—through mentorship, internships, mental‑health services and recruitment pipelines [4] [5]. Those outlets argue that cutting DEI risks losing those targeted supports. Critics counter that the net effect has been uneven: men of color and women of color often still lag in senior leadership and wages despite DEI investments [4] [3].

5. Competing viewpoints and hidden agendas to watch for

Opinion and advocacy pieces that say “DEI was created for white women” or that it “failed Black people” reflect normative judgments and activist agendas; they draw on representation data to make structural critiques but also serve polemical goals [9] [7]. Conversely, mainstream outlets warning against ending DEI emphasize program benefits to many groups and have an institutional interest in defending corporate initiatives [4]. Readers should note these differing institutional and political motives when weighing claims.

6. What’s missing and how to interpret the evidence

Available sources repeatedly document that white women have made measurable gains in leadership roles under current DEI regimes [1] [2]. They do not, however, provide comprehensive, consistent datasets comparing DEI’s net benefits for white women directly against Asian men or Black men across hiring, promotion, pay, and retention metrics—so precise cross‑group comparisons are not found in current reporting [8] [5]. For a definitive answer one would need longitudinal, disaggregated data on promotions, pay increases, DEI hiring outcomes and program participation by race and gender.

7. Bottom line for your question

Reporting and analyses in this set support the conclusion that white women have disproportionately benefited from many corporate DEI efforts—especially in leadership representation—relative to women of color [1] [2]. Available sources do not provide the granular, comparative data needed to declare whether white women have benefited more than Asian men or Black men specifically; that comparison is not found in the current reporting [8] [5].

Want to dive deeper?
How do diversity, equity, and inclusion programs define beneficiaries by race and gender?
What data exists on DEI hiring or promotion outcomes for white women versus Asian and Black men in the U.S. workplace?
Do affirmative-action or DEI policies explicitly prioritize gender over race or vice versa?
How do intersectionality and workplace bias affect career advancement for white women compared with Asian and Black men?
What legal challenges or studies address perceived disparities in DEI benefits across demographic groups?