CobraKing

also, I want to share that OP's original point reflects common hiring practice at my former employer, which is a federal Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) in the South (i.e. majority of students are first-generation college, immigrants, people of color) whose faculty is overwhelmingly white and predominantly male. The diversity hires, that I was aware of, tended to favor White and "model minority" candidates over equally (or better qualified) URM candidates, even though it's obvious that the students would be better served by hiring more professors that reflect the demographics of the student body. There are plenty of highly qualified candidates these days, so to me the biggest problem is bias on the part of many hiring and tenure committees.

all things considered (i.e. equal performance on an interview/test/etc.) it makes better economic sense to hire more women and URMs. A cynic would say that's because it's more acceptable to pay less. But I would argue that someone who has built a successful career despite the headwinds of racism/sexism/implicit biases is going to be tougher and more resilient in the face of unexpected challenges than someone, who for reasons outside their control, has gone through life on an 'easier difficulty level'.

And in fields where innovation matters, more diverse teams are more creative because they explore a larger space of ideas (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9284).

To give another reason, a team that fits into a narrow demographic is unlikely to make products that appeal broadly or to other demographics. This creates market opportunities for more diverse teams. For instance, the Spanx founder was able to create a billion dollar company BECAUSE her inventions were dismissed by male-dominated teams in the garment industry.