Authored by Josh Stevenson via the Brownstone Institute,
President Trump has recently taken decisive action against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government by signing executive orders that dismantle these initiatives. His actions include revoking an order by Lyndon B. Johnson on affirmative action for federal contractors and placing all federal DEI staff on paid administrative leave with plans for their eventual layoff. These moves have sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing that they undo decades of progress toward racial and gender equity in federal employment, while supporters believe they restore merit-based governance.
This fulfills Trump’s campaign promise to eliminate what he describes as “radical and wasteful” DEI programs, aligning with his commitment to a colorblind, merit-based society. The controversy reflects a broader debate on the role of government in promoting diversity versus ensuring equal opportunity based solely on merit. But what does the evidence show?
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become increasingly prevalent in workplaces, educational institutions, and other organizations across the United States. These programs’ stated goals are to foster more inclusive environments, reduce bias, and promote equity for all individuals. A key component of many DEI programs is diversity pedagogy, which often includes lectures, trainings, and educational resources designed to educate participants about their own biases and the ‘systemic nature of oppression.’
A growing body of research suggests that DEI programs, particularly those emphasizing “anti-oppressive” frameworks, have consequences that are completely opposite of their stated goals. While many might give DEI practitioners the benefit of the doubt and see these trainings as well-intentioned, that is up for debate. This study, conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University, investigates the potential for these programs to increase intergroup hostility and even contribute to the rise of authoritarian tendencies.
The study employed an experimental design to examine the impact of different types of educational materials on participants’ attitudes and beliefs. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups:
Participants then evaluated scenarios designed to assess their perceptions of bias, willingness to punish perceived oppressors, support for punitive measures, and overall attitudes toward different groups.
The study found that exposure to “anti-oppressive” DEI materials had several significant effects:
These findings raise significant concerns about the consequences of DEI programs. By emphasizing ‘systemic oppression’ and focusing on narratives of victimization, these programs:
This study offers valuable insights into the consequences of DEI programs. While these initiatives may be well-intentioned, they can sometimes backfire, inadvertently increasing intergroup hostility and fostering a climate of fear and suspicion. At the very least, these findings underscore the urgent need for careful consideration and rigorous evaluation of DEI efforts. More concerning, however, is the extent to which DEI culture has become toxic and counterproductive—so much so that it exacerbates the very problems it claims to resolve.
Reference
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/Instructing-Animosity_11.13.24.pdf
Originally published on the author’s Substack
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.