This will draw people on either side of the argument on whether or not this is a constructive thing to do closer to having to define what diversity actually means in any given context. Discourse will need to crystallize around whether or not it is sufficient to define diversity in terms of a couple of specific racial and gender lines.
Put another way, two people, A and B, may have this dialogue:
A: Evidence for my contributions for DEI include <some examples>
B: The <some examples> do not qualify, because the parties impacted do not qualify as "diverse"
---
Regardless of which side of that argument you're on, it seems to me like this is generally a good thing.
Do you suppose this would be grounds to litigate against ideological prejudice?
I couldn't read much of the article as it is paywalled. I had assumed the applicant would have some recourse in the [frankly rather likely] scenario you outlined.
Put another way, two people, A and B, may have this dialogue:
A: Evidence for my contributions for DEI include <some examples>
B: The <some examples> do not qualify, because the parties impacted do not qualify as "diverse"
---
Regardless of which side of that argument you're on, it seems to me like this is generally a good thing.