The all too common business model is to privatize profits as much as possible, socialize losses as much as possible, and hide the dividing line so those paying the losses can't see what's actually going on.  That's Socialism in the U.S.  We actually keep a place for it.

While I agree that mandates dictating numerical quotas of various types often can be excessive and even counter-productive, I believe they represent a more complex and nuanced situation than is appropriately addressed by declaring there should be a quota of zero for such efforts.

Legislation, and to a lesser extent regulation, have great difficulty incorporating judgment and insight.  Thus, they often default to numbers which may lack context.  We have seen many examples of the need for higher-level intervention to serve the greater good in the face of self- or other (including profit)-motivated resistance.  All things considered, slavery was incredibly profitable and contributed greatly to our nation’s early prosperity.  Its vestiges continue to provide lower-priced labor and politically-manipulable classes.  Some find that desirable.  Others differ.

DEI presumably is motivated to right longstanding wrongs regarding access to economic opportunities.  A subtext that many economists endorse is that opening such access in the long run benefits employers as well as employee.  Thus, short-term profits may not be the suitable measure for judging something like DEI.  One has to take into account effects on other stakeholders who otherwise may not be considered.  

However, my sense is that DEI rules react to indicators of a lack of DEI but may not reliably or reasonably accomplish their intent.  While some no doubt disagree with the intent of DEI, I believe most people would say DEI is not the problem; but rather methods attempting to deal with it are.  Fix them.