Trust the Science: DEI Is Dangerous

National Review Online

Friday, November 29, 2024

 

We were told over and over again by leading institutions, high-profile figures, and the mainstream media that DEI fosters an “inclusive environment” and advances “equity” by eliminating biases and counteracting discrimination. A booming industry emerged: About $8 billion is spent each year on diversity trainings in the United States, and more than half of Americans report that their workplace has DEI trainings or meetings. Of course, DEI is not merely limited to programming at organizations, businesses, and universities. Now, it is entrenched in our laws. President Biden has issued executive orders to promote social justice, beginning on his very first day in the Oval Office.

 

While DEI was celebrated, its opponents realized that it is a dangerous ideology. Some supposedly “equitable” policies have been clear examples of illegal discrimination, while the efforts to be “inclusive” have had disastrous consequences, particularly for single-sex spaces. Yet some of DEI’s terrible effects have more subtly eroded our social fabric: Most, if not all, DEI-themed trainings promote a victimhood mentality by organizing society into a hierarchy of “oppressor” and “oppressed” on the basis of immutable traits, then demonize anyone who is supposedly sitting comfortably atop the totem pole. Regrettably, anyone who expressed even mild objections to DEI could be branded as a reprehensible bigot who needed immediate reeducation, thereby creating a demand for even more progressive-indoctrination sessions.

 

Now, a compelling new study confirms that DEI fosters racial and group animosity, not tolerance.

 

The study released on Monday by Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University Social Perception Lab has devastating but unsurprising results: Across the three experiments, the researchers found that participants exposed to DEI materials were more likely to perceive prejudice where none existed and were more willing to punish the perceived perpetrators. Even worse, the participants who read DEI materials focused on caste were more likely to agree with Hitler quotes that substituted “Jew” with “Brahmin,” the top of the hierarchy group in the Indian caste system. The study found that “participants exposed to the DEI content were markedly more likely to endorse Hitler’s demonization statements, agreeing that Brahmins are ‘parasites’ (+35.4%), ‘viruses’ (+33.8%), and ‘the devil personified’ (+27.1%).”

 

Since DEI programming is so widespread, the study’s findings are obviously newsworthy. Yet our own Abigail Anthony reported that both the New York Times and Bloomberg had prepared articles on the study, then axed the stories just before publication.

 

Why? When asked for an explanation by the study’s authors, the editor of the Bloomberg “Equality” subsection simply cited editorial discretion. At the New York Times, the reporter admitted that he did not have “any concerns about the methodology,” and that someone on the publication’s “data-driven reporting team” had “no problems” with the study. Yet the journalist insisted that the study should undergo peer review before getting coverage, even though he had previously reported on NCRI’s reports that hadn’t been peer-reviewed. That journalist also stipulated, “I told my editor I thought if we were going to write a story casting serious doubts on the efficacy of the work of two of the country’s most prominent DEI scholars, the case against them has to be as strong as possible.”

 

As it happens, the study is strong, and the truth about DEI is getting out, no matter how uncomfortable it makes its reflexive supporters.