One of the most profound and honest conversations I’ve ever had on the subject of DEI came courtesy of a DEI advocate I spoke with last year. I asked her a simple question: if she believed in DEI as a useful element of corporate policy in theory, why is it that so many DEI programs fail in practice? Her honest answer: “We have to be very robust in our methodology, and we haven’t been. Being able to articulate the meaning of the D, E, and I is critical. If you can’t present it to highlight the fundamental good in the training, it doesn’t work.” An obvious answer, perhaps — but a telling one. The reason for the diversity downshift in American culture, in many cases, is a practitioner issue: DEI proponents have, in many instances, failed to make the argument of why such training is a fundamental good. To the contrary, we’re seeing a growing body of evidence that DEI’s fundamental good, just maybe, was profoundly oversold.
On Monday, we got our first look at a critical scientific finding that’s lending new support to the arguments of DEI’s strongest critics — and taking flack from progressive media outlets set on not giving it the coverage it clearly deserves. A study from the Network Contagion Research Institute, released in collaboration with the Rutgers University Social Perception Lab, examined the effects of exposure to training that emphasizes awareness of/opposition to “systemic oppression.” Its goal was answering the question at the core of the DEI debate: do diversity programs that highlight systemic oppression actually reduce bias and improve group dynamics by “increas[ing] empathy,” or do they “increase hostility” towards those that antiracist philosophy paints as oppressive?
The study had subjects read either (1) an essay containing typical antiracist arguments about white supremacy and race discrimination, or (2) a control essay about corn production. After reading, subjects analyzed a race-neutral hypothetical interaction: a student applying to an elite university and having their application rejected by an admissions officer. Subjects who read the antiracist essay, which contained excerpts from antiracist figures such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, viewed the student’s rejection through what the study deemed hostile attribution bias, perceiving the admissions officer as discriminatory, unfair, and guilty of ‘microaggressions.’
The subjects who were primed with antiracist literature:
- Demonstrated an increased willingness to punish the admissions officer in the hypothetical scenario, despite the scenario not mentioning the race of the student.
- Viewed real-life court cases as discriminatory that the control subjects perceived as fair
- Viewed entire people groups (Hindus) as more racially discriminatory after reading material on caste discrimination
The study explained the risk of DEI programs focused on oppressed/oppressor class groupings in the following way: “[DEI] interventions may foster authoritarian mindsets, particularly when anti-oppressive narratives exist within an ideological and vindictive monoculture.” In other words, the oppressor/oppressed distinctions reflected in many modern DEI narratives can actually increase bias, hostility, and attribution of discriminatory beliefs among groups, as opposed to decreasing them. This finding suggests that exposure to ‘antiracist’ narratives decreases people’s ability to view situations rationally; if biased by a preconceived narrative of discrimination, people are more inclined to see discrimination at play in interactions that an unbiased observer might perceive as perfectly fair and reasonable.
CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE
Is this survey the nail in the coffin for dwindling DEI programs? Of course not — at the end of the day, it’s just one study within a larger body of literature. But the response of media outlets like the New York Times and Bloomberg, who suppressed coverage of the study, should be an indicator to us as to just how important these findings are. This survey is not business as usual. On the contrary, its findings should be a wake-up call to those who still hold out optimism for DEI efforts as a whole. For years, DEI critics have argued that the narratives of modern ‘antiracism,’ which too often prioritizes identity politics and indefensibly broad generalizations over the necessary nuance of looking at the real world, are unfit for purpose. These findings are incredibly sharp arrows in our quiver.
It’s time for Americans at large, and the institutions and governments that serve them, to put DEI programs under the fine-toothed comb of scrutiny they have always deserved and examine if their fundamental good is really as good as it’s advertised to be. Programs that create and foster hostility on the basis of race fail basic function tests for building society, engendering trust in institutions, and making Americans less divided. And if DEI programs can’t do any of those three, whether in the boardroom, the classroom, or in the government briefing room, it’s time to ask why they exist at all.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN and the Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X @IsaacWillour.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.