Whelp I always thought "Forced Diversity" was something that people argued reasonably but some people applied overzealously. Afterall I can think of one or two characters "I" would give that label.
But apparently nope... "Forced" means... Exists.
Who does it mean that to?
The concept of "Forced Diversity" to me would mean to shoe-horn "diversity" into something, with all the potential problems that entails. e.g. minorities and women labeled as the
"diversity hire" can lose respect (the idea is that they only got in due to a quota, not ability). This can even affect minorities and women who
did get in on merit. Say the diversity policy calls for two blacks + two women on your board. If you had two high-scoring black men and two high-scoring women in your intake, then you'd accept those people, and tick off "quotas: filled". A big pat on the back, when you didn't
actually do a single thing to help women or black people. All you did was literally tick the box. Now, they
would have gotten in even without the quotas, but the mere existence of the quotas can make people assume they got accepted because of that. And since your actual score on any hiring criteria is usually confidential information, it's not easy to escape that stigma.
Sure, it's easy to mislabel all occurrences of things being diverse as "Forced Diversity", but this is merely playing off what I described above, but extending it to a societal level. The mere existence of quotas in one area can tarnish the respect for the subgroup who benefits from the quotas, in other areas of their life, even where quotas don't exist.