There’s a question of the relevant structure that’s supposed to be diverse, though. An ecosystem is diverse if it has many types of organisms, including predators and prey. But does that mean the individual members should be diverse, so that predators should behave like prey? No, since then the overall system would lack diversity because its members wouldn’t be occupying their various roles.

I can see Trump supporters saying they’re correcting for imperial left-wing tendencies, such as the emasculation of American men. Trump’s acting as the predator in this scenario, and what would a whole society be without the human version of predators (go-getters, etc)? Saying that Trump’s regime itself should be diverse might be like saying a predator should be less predatorial, which would call for a weakening of the larger system’s diversity, as in that of American society.

Similarly, Fox News might justify its “fair and balanced” slogan by saying not that their coverage in itself is balanced, but that by providing a right-wing viewpoint, they’re correcting for the left-wing, neoliberal bias in journalism at large.

Also, regarding the need to eradicate “systemic disadvantages against specific subgroups,” I wonder whether that should include both external and internal disadvantages. A racist society in which Whites oppress Blacks is one thing. But a relatively free society in which different kinds of people go their separate ways and naturally excel at different tasks is another.

In the latter scenario, we could expect to see that different kinds of people dominate in different fields, which would be due to the “disadvantage” implicit in the limits of character, genetics, and upbringing. Should those internal limits be nullified, making for forced equity? That would seem to contradict the bulk of your article since it would require eliminating the diversity between individuals’ interests.