Why Was This Groundbreaking Study on DEI Silenced?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In a stunning series of events, two leading media organizations— The New York Times and Bloomberg—abruptly shelved coverage of a groundbreaking study that raises serious concerns about the psychological impacts of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) pedagogy. The study , conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with Rutgers University, found that certain DEI practices could induce hostility, increase authoritarian tendencies, and foster agreement with extreme rhetoric. With billions of dollars invested annually in these initiatives, the public has a right to know if such programs—heralded as effective moral solutions to bigotry and hate—might instead be fueling the very problems they claim to solve. The decision to withhold coverage raises serious questions about transparency, editorial independence, and the growing influence of ideological biases in the media.
The NCRI study investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically training programs that draw heavily from texts like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility . The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Through carefully controlled experiments, the researchers demonstrated that exposure to anti-oppressive (i.e., anti-racist) rhetoric—common in many DEI initiatives—consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed. Participants were more likely to see prejudice in neutral scenarios and to support punitive actions against imagined offenders. These effects were not marginal; hostility and punitive tendencies increased by double-digit percentages across multiple measures. Perhaps most troubling, the study revealed a chilling convergence with authoritarian attitudes, suggesting that such training is fostering not empathy, but coercion and control.
The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.
This context makes the suppression of the study even more alarming. The New York Times , which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review—a requirement that had never been imposed on the institute’s earlier findings, even on similarly sensitive topics like extremism or online hate. At Bloomberg , the story was quashed outright by an editor known for public support of DEI initiatives. The editorial decisions were ostensibly justified as routine discretion, yet they align conspicuously with the ideological leanings of those involved. Are these major outlets succumbing to pressures to protect certain narratives at the expense of truth?
For Joel Finkelstein, the NCRI researcher leading the study, the editorial reversals are as revealing as the data itself. In communications with reporters, he described the findings as “sobering with likely impact for DEI policy, as well as congressional impacts and potentially civil litigation.” Finkelstein further stated that, “This seems like an effort to suppress research that challenges prevailing narratives around DEI and worryingly, implicates standard practices for egregious harms.”
The harm in question goes far beyond the scope of individual programs. Across multiple experiments, the study documented a consistent pattern: exposure to anti-oppressive DEI rhetoric heightened participants’ tendency to attribute hostility and bias to ambiguous situations. In one experiment, participants read excerpts from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, juxtaposed against a neutral control text about corn production. Afterward, they were asked to evaluate a hypothetical scenario: an applicant being rejected from an elite university. Those exposed to the DEI materials were far more likely to perceive racism in the admissions process, despite no evidence to support such a conclusion.
They were also more likely to advocate punitive measures, such as suspending the admissions officer or mandating additional DEI training.
A particularly revealing aspect of the study focused on DEI training centered on Islamophobia, using materials developed by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU). The findings echoed the broader concerns of the study but offered unique insights into how DEI programming shapes perceptions of bias and fairness. Participants were presented with a scenario involving two fictional individuals, Ahmed Akhtar and George Green, both convicted of identical terrorism charges. When participants were exposed to the ISPU-inspired training materials, their perception of Ahmed’s trial was significantly altered—they rated it as far less fair than George’s, despite the trials being described in identical terms.
This discrepancy highlights a core issue with DEI narratives that emphasize systemic oppression. By priming participants to see injustice against specific groups, these trainings appear to cultivate a “hostile attribution bias”—a tendency to perceive prejudice and discrimination even where none exists. While sensitivity to genuine bias is critical, the NCRI findings suggest that DEI interventions like the ISPU materials may create unwarranted distrust in institutions and undermine confidence in objective fairness.
Another alarming aspect of the NCRI study involved DEI training on caste discrimination. Participants exposed to materials from Equality Labs—a prominent provider of anti-caste training—were significantly more likely to perceive bias and endorse dehumanizing rhetoric, including adapted quotes from Adolf Hitler where the term “Jew” was replaced with “Brahmin.” The findings suggest that these programs may not only fail to address systemic injustice but actively cultivate divisive and authoritarian mindsets.
Critics of DEI have long pointed to its lack of empirical support, and the NCRI study adds weight to those concerns. Research cited in the report highlights how many DEI programs rely on untested theories or unverified self-reports, with little oversight or accountability. A 2021 meta-analysis found that some initiatives not only fail to reduce prejudice but actually exacerbate it, fueling resentment and perceptions of unfairness. The NCRI study’s findings echo these conclusions, suggesting that far from fostering inclusion, DEI programs may perpetuate a cycle of suspicion and punitive retribution.
Yet, as troubling as the study’s findings are, its suppression may be even more consequential. The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information. In a moment when public trust in institutions is already fragile, the media’s role as a gatekeeper of information becomes all the more worrying. When powerful outlets like The New York Times and Bloomberg withhold stories of such significance, they fracture trust with the American people.
The public deserves to know if the tools being deployed to foster “equity” and “anti-racism” are instead causing harm. The NCRI study raises urgent questions about the real social consequences of DEI programming, but it also underscores the need for transparency and accountability in how we address these issues. Suppressing this research does further the goal of making society more inclusive and accepting—it undermines it.
As DEI programs continue to expand across schools, workplaces, and governments, the stakes could not be higher. Whether this research sparks a broader reckoning or remains buried will depend on whether institutions—and the media that hold them accountable—are willing to confront uncomfortable truths.
Tags
Who is online
319 visitors
There's really no mystery why the Times didn't cover the story:
it doesn't fit the narrative they promote, it's not covered.
Nabila Ahmed, the team leader for Global Equality at Bloomberg News who “lead[s] a global team of reporters focused on stories that elevate issues of race, gender, diversity and fairness within companies, governments and societies” killed the story at Bloomberg. What a surprise...
“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%),” the study reads. “These findings suggest that exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism.”
Seems like this should cause some people to think twice about pushing such a hateful ideology on kids...
First, I've no doubt that if a study had been done like this before the civil war the conclusions would have said that such efforts to emancipate the slaves "may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility" among white folk in the South. Change is never easy and choosing to overturn the status quo is inevitably going to anger one group or another. As to the fact that there was a slight increase in those in the study to see racial bias in situations after reading some of the DEI materials that's what educating people to become more aware of injustice does.
And while I'm sure the rightwing conservative bigots hate being more visible and hate getting called out for their racism and discrimination that still lingers in just about every nook and cranny of society, especially in conservative strongholds, pointing it out is not reverse racism or hate. If what this article claims were actually true and it's unjust to fight injustice, then I suppose that will make lots of rightwing conservatives happy that they don't have to change, they can continue to be hateful bigots, and those on the receiving end of the injustice will have to just suck it up and learn to live with it as their parents and grandparents and great grandparents were forced to and we'll never make any progress, the status quo of white makes right will live on.
With that said, I think this article is misleading and is cherry picking the data to present DEI in the worst possible light. Why would they do such a thing? Oh yeah, they're a hard-right leaning media whose editors "align with conservative ideology" with "one-sided promotion of selective science".
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Reality's Last Stand - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)
That’s such batshit crazy argument that I kind of have to give you credit for creativity. Most people wouldn’t even try to justify creating racism where none exists.
In this 2019 survey half of white people say Trump has made race relations in the US worse. DEI or no DEI, there is a lot of racism in America, the vast majority of it toward racial minorities. The right seems to have a terrible guilty conscience about this , which is why they constantly try to discredit anti-racism.
Why would you embrace an ideology that makes people racist?
Nothing you wrote justifies a system that creates MORE racism.
Racism creates more racism. Whether you like it or not, there are tens of millions of white racists in this country. If you know people, you know that.
Right. So creating more racism helps how?
Anti-racism?... lol
Do you have an example?
Saying racism is not an issue in America creates more racism.
That doesn't make any sense. Pointing out that DEI creates racists has nothing to do with "saying racism is not an issue."
How would that be?
Have seen you minimize racism a ton, havent really see you point it out, except to object to Black lives Matter etc.
Nah, some lives matter, some don’t.
Cynic...
"Whether you like it or not, there are tens of millions of white racists in this country."
No, there is no systemic racism in the US, nor are there "millions of white racists" here. You've been making this baseless claim for a long time now and it is not supported by any kind of credible evidence.
On the surface, that message is absolutely correct and seems unassailable, I mean come on, "All Lives" should "matter", right? It's a no brainer. However, on deeper inspection, it's a bit more complex of a message.
If there was an epidemic of border patrol agents getting killed on the border and a group of them started protesting for better equipment and policies to keep the border patrol officers safe so some started holding signs that said "Border Patrol Lives Matter!" would that be offensive to other officers? Should they only be allowed to put up signs that say "All Officers Lives Matter!"? One group is being specifically targeted and has a much lower rate of mortality than other officers working different regions and safety levels, so why wouldn't it be appropriate to specify one group that experiences FAR higher risk than others?
Of course, that difference is what worthless bigoted pieces of shit refuse to accept or recognize, they want to hide behind the veil of impartiality and claim they're as much victims as the groups they are trying to minimize and diminish even though they're not facing any sort of societal injustice.
So yes, while "All Lives Matter", there really isn't any reason to be marching with that sign because not "All Lives" are threatened in the same ways.
Just more white racist deflection avoiding the real problem because addressing it honestly would show the need for personal change and reflection which clearly white rightwing conservatives are simply unwilling or perhaps incapable of doing. The black-on-black violence is just another symptom of the systemic racism in our society. To try and use it as an excuse not to support proactive policies for identifying and reducing the systemic racism in our society is, in of itself, fucking racist.
Oh. And the author is a lifelong democrat who's never voted for a Republican.
Such a perfect example of how the far left reacts when confronted with reality...
So certain “some’’ DEI practices COULD induce hostility. Etc etc….Sounds like cherry picking, ‘’some, could’’
….Sounds like cherry picking, ‘’some, could’
Lol. You are the one who used the word "some" Not the author. And to put it in quotation marks.... Tsk tsk.
SO let's use an actual quote
The author used CERTAIN I used some meaning not all. How many is certain, 5% 95% 50%?
I also used the word COULD, COULD what 90% of the time 5% 39.5%?
People that are racist COULD pass it on to their children, friends or like minded people.
If those people make up a certain % of the American public then perhaps the authors of this study could do another study on what % of the American public is racist.
No, not really since I’m using the same metric as the study did.