I think I need to explain something here. It's important to talk about what's called the motte-and-bailey tactic. With respect to EDI, we see a lot of this.
As I've experienced and demonstrated today, EDI generally involves sweeping programs of racial discrimination, compelled speech and censorship, but when people start to complain about it and it comes under fire, the EDI advocates retreat to positions like, “Well, it's just about making sure that we have good experimental design so that seat belts are designed accounting for women.” That has nothing to do with EDI. That has long been good experimental practice, and that's why you have to have lots of rigour, review and contestation of different ideas. It's so that you can seek out and find error and remove it.
I don't know of any cases where EDI has been beneficial.