Well it's interesting to me that that's the message you took from it, though I shouldn't be surprised by it.
No, that's a completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up interpretation of what you claim to have read, and I do not believe that it's possible to get from the words in the article to what you just typed in a rational fashion, so I conclude that you are blinded by hateful ideology.
If you're treating two people equally, and giving them both $100, but one of them's a billionaire and one of them is below the poverty line, that's not admirable, because the effect of your equal treatment of them is disproportionate. Equal treatment regardless of any other concern is just as hostile and dystopian as outright racism, sexism or classism. Remember the cartoon of the people behind the fence? To be equitable means that you shouldn't treat people as though they were all identical in every way, because people are diverse. Yes, you should go out of your way to be inclusive of some people who if all else were equal wouldn't otherwise be included.
So not are you arguing against a fake "DEI", you're arguing for ongoing injustice. Nice one.
ETA: This is, among others, one of the things that Critical Race Theory teaches us - real Critical Race Theory and not the other straw boogeyperson that the right complains about - that because of historic and systemic injustices, some people need a bigger slice of the pie than others.