Missing the forest for the trees.

With the current talk about "DEI" I wonder, are they conflating something bad/failure with skin color (i.e "They only got the job because they are a minority, not because they are good at their job!"). Not only that but would they be overfocusing on the failures, conflating correlation with causation, and ignoring when it doesn't match their assumptions? I feel like there is a single fallacy here.

Your query involves several intertwined issues related to logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

1. **Conflating Correlation with Causation**:
- **Logical Fallacy**: This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because two things occur together, one causes the other. In the context of your question, if someone says, "They only got the job because they are a minority," they might be incorrectly assuming that minority status is the direct cause of hiring without considering other factors like qualifications, experience, and skills.

2. **Confirmation Bias**:
- **Cognitive Bias**: Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that confirms pre-existing beliefs. If individuals focus only on the perceived failures of DEI hires while ignoring or downplaying successes, they might be exhibiting confirmation bias.

3. **Cherry-Picking**:
- **Logical Fallacy**: This involves selectively choosing evidence that supports one's argument while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. If someone highlights only the instances where DEI initiatives supposedly led to poor hires and ignores the successes, they are cherry-picking data.

4. **Hasty Generalization**:
- **Logical Fallacy**: This is when a broad conclusion is drawn from a small or unrepresentative sample. For example, if a few DEI hires underperform and someone concludes that all DEI hires are unqualified, they are guilty of hasty generalization.

5. **Stereotyping and Prejudicial Thinking**:
- **Poor Reasoning**: Assuming that DEI hires are less competent merely because they belong to minority groups involves prejudicial thinking and stereotyping, which is poor reasoning and a manifestation of implicit or explicit biases.

6. **"Missing the Forest for the Trees"**:
- **Logical Fallacy/Cognitive Bias**: This idiom suggests focusing too much on small details while missing the bigger picture. In this context, one might focus too much on individual cases of perceived failure and miss the larger goal of DEI initiatives, which is to create a more equitable and inclusive environment that can benefit everyone over time.

To summarize, your concern seems to reflect multiple logical fallacies and cognitive biases including conflating correlation with causation, confirmation bias, cherry-picking, and hasty generalization. These lead to poor reasoning and an incomplete understanding of DEI initiatives and their impacts.

The proposition is not clearly stated, so to answer it an analyst must make a number of assumptions. So, I will take one part  (i.e "They only got the job because they are a minority, not because they are good at their job!"). 

Affirmative Action, by whatever name, is necessarily racist. It explicitly says to judge a person by the color of his skin, not the ability and content of his mind. 

Worse than that, it implicitly states that those the action is supposed to help cannot "do it" on their own. Thus, it denigrates those who accomplish achievements at the cost of those who don't --- and the potential safety of others. For example, just before boarding an airliner from Phoenix to San Diego many years ago, there was an announcement: this is the first flight with an all-female crew. 

I have nothing against female pilots. One of my aerobatic instructors was female. Great pilot. She earned it. Before Affirmative Action. How could I or anyone else know if this airline flight's female pilots were qualified or got there because of affirmative action? 

There is no "conflating correlation with causation." It is a matter of communicating clearly and stating the proposition with precision. 

The real question presented is a fact question: Did they fail? If yes, why? This is not a question of logic, it is a question of fact.

"Person A only got the job because they're a minority."

I don't see a fallacy. It's just a baseless claim (for now).

"DEI caused Bad Thing X to happen."

I can see causal reductionism creeping in here. In reality, there are probably multiple reasons why Bad Thing X happened. DEI is also a bit too vague to be a 'cause' on its own.

"After DEI was implemented, Bad Trend Y was observed. Thus, DEI is causing Bad Trend Y."

Similar to the above, though questionable cause substitutes for causal reductionism (as we are discussing a trend, not a discrete event). It's possible something else is responsible for Bad Trend Y; we can't tell simply from a correlation that DEI is to blame.

Over-focusing on failures and ignoring data when it doesn't match your assumptions is cherry picking.

Sounds like an ad hominem Guilt by association.