It's because they don't "get bullied". They _want_ this kind of stupid identity activism and encourage it from the top with their DEI propaganda officers. Any "activism" and identity outrage is an opportunity to make it look like they're doing something "progressive" without actually doing anything meaningful (i.e. expensive) and precludes any material change that would actually help people and threaten the upper classes' power or wealth. The instant that "activists" aren't useful to them anymore, they get axed immediately. Just look at Microsoft's AI ethics team. An entire team dedicated only to whitewashing their corporate image.
I don't think this is true. Why would they spend millions of dollars making elaborate surveillance and censorship tools for a Chinese version of Google search if they wanted everyone to accidentally find out about it later and throw a hissy fit? Why would they try to make deals with the Air Force, DoD, and ICE if they want their employees to sour them? Why create an underclass of contractors if they want their employees to advocate for them? There have been so many political conflicts between employees and management and they mostly end up in the nytimes.
DEI is kind of a different beast. Largely, the employees and management are aligned. There isn't a political war going on.
The AI ethics teams and DEI teams are often powerless appendages that make it seem like they are doing something, but they aren't activists. They are just doing their job.
Not all of the office politics is in their favor. I think modern companies have realized that it's much easier to refocus employee's attention than to outright forbid any dissent. Surveillance and contractor abuse are actual issues that materially affect people, so I suppose it's good that the employees called them out on it. Other issues that get pushed by upper managers... not so much. Also, I don't want to say that all the DEI officers and upper management are conspiring to evilness. Many of them do believe in the cause, but in the grand scheme it works out that way. Political parties certainly know how the ball rolls and abuse identity politics to the maximum extent. Private companies are then all too glad to go with that, even if the good-meaning employees don't know what they're really doing.
> they aren't activists. They are just doing their job
But they try to make their job some sort of activism (especially academics who should strive the most to be unbiased), which usually leads directly to discrimination in some form or the other, since that is the only thing they're allowed to do.
