Late change is better than no change at all.
We used to teach kids to be colorblind but now we're teaching them to see nothing but color. It's a sad state of affairs.
I don't think either method worked.
The reality, however, is still far from there. The point of diversity programs is not to accentuate the differences (although it can have that as a second order side effect), but simply to increase the rate at which these barriers break down. There are plenty of studies that show that people who are around others who are "different" (whatever the dimension: body shape/color, religion, political views, etc) in general stop being bothered by the differences. So it's in everybody's interest to try to get more of that. And in the long term it's good for business, even if it may or may not be in the short term -- but why should't corporations invest in the long term?
"Live and let live" is more than just a banal platitude, it's a rule that's useful in keeping society functioning. Throwing radically different folks together and telling them to accept each-other is a fool's errand.
"Live and let live" is not a universal maxim. It was the primary argument in opposition of federal government enforcement against segregation.
Fortunately the facts are against you. Whether it's Boston bussing (I lived through it) or the unremarkableness of women in business, military or government, or removing restrictions on marriage, acceptance demonstrably comes via contact.
There's still a long way to go but things have improved a lot. Just for me: I was born in a country with statutory restrictions on people of different "races". When I came to the US for the first time my parents drove north from Washington DC because had we looked for a hotel in VA my parents would have had to stay in different ones. That's inconceivable now.
And frankly we all have better things (from wifi to medicines to books plays and movies) because more people than before have the opportunity to participate. Shoving some of them down hurts everyone.