Yes, they do run the danger of doing that. However, I think it's fairly well understood. There's good psychological and social evidence on this. Having a number of different perspectives within the research and teaching community brings epistemic benefits—that is, benefits with respect to finding out and justifying the truth.
What is good about this policy is the way it has diversified the research community. A secondary good is that it has made the results of the research community more acceptable and more trustworthy for other people.
We do not want to go back to the days when a certain group of people were shut out from the research community. Those people were deprived of the benefits of scientific research. That is the terrible thing. The DEI movement grew out of trying to correct that. In doing so, it has, I think, gone too far in various respects and made some mistakes. That's just the sort of thing that calls for the detailed ethical investigation that I've been talking about in much of my work.