A reckoning with DEI pedagogy

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion bureaucracies and programs have become ubiquitous in the corporate and educational sectors. More than half of American employees have DEI meetings or training events at work, at a cost of an estimated $8 billion annually. These initiatives are championed as tools to reduce bias and discrimination, build inclusive and empathetic environments — and redress systemic racism, 

Yet the effectiveness of such trainings has rarely been rigorously and systematically evaluated. When studies have been undertaken, not only are results mixed at best, the prevailing focus has been on potential benefits, with notable exceptions: some programs have been found to reduce organizational diversity and others to produce resentment. 

This lack of critical scrutiny has left organizations vulnerable to adopting policies and practices that are likely to fail — and may actually backfire, fostering divisions and resentment rather than understanding. Our team at the Network Contagion Research Institute sought to fill this gap by investigating how the anti-oppression rhetoric and pedagogy that inform many DEI programs affect beliefs and attitudes toward both the intended beneficiaries and members of groups framed as “oppressors.”  

We did not study entire trainings — though we are interested in doing so. What we tested was whether certain materials and key themes widely employed in diversity interventions foster inclusivity or exclusion, reduce or increase bias and reduce hostility or increase what’s known in psychology as the “hostile attribution bias,” the tendency to perceive hostility or harm where none exists.  

We conducted a series of controlled experiments, focusing on three prominent types of DEI oppression-related interventions: anti-racist, anti-Islamophobia and anti-caste bigotry trainings. We drew themes from works by influential figures in the DEI space including verbatim material from Ibram X. Kendi and Robin diAngelo — and used available material from prominent organizations such as Equality Labs and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.  

Participants were first exposed to either DEI narratives or neutral content. We then evaluated participants’ perceptions of bias in hypothetical situations in which bias was not empirically present, their support for punitive measures against perceived wrongdoers and their attitudes toward the groups and individuals involved in the scenarios presented. 

The results were striking. 

While DEI rhetoric did not directly increase participants’ scores on a left-wing authoritarianism scale, it did lead participants to adopt attitudes and beliefs strikingly similar to those who score high on such scales. These included punitive tendencies, heightened perceptions of systemic oppression, and a willingness to enforce ideological conformity. 

In the study that focused on caste oppression, we used quotes from Mein Kampf, substituting “Brahmin” for “Jew.” Statements such as “Brahmins are parasites” and “Brahmins are the devil personified” received higher levels of agreement from participants exposed to DEI caste-related content than from those in the control group.  

Across all three types of trainings, participants exposed to anti-oppression narratives were more likely than those who were exposed to neutral narratives to perceive prejudice in interactions where none empirically existed. For example, in one scenario involving a college admissions rejection, participants who read anti-racist materials perceived that the admissions officer had acted with 21 percent more racial bias even though the scenario included no evidence of bias — nor even information about race. 

Participants exposed to DEI content were also significantly more likely to endorse punishing the imagined perpetrators of bias. In the above scenario, they were more willing than those in the control group to suspend the admissions officer, demand public apologies and require additional DEI training.  

Requiring DEI training in response to non-existent discrimination points to what could be an insidiously self-perpetuating paradigm.  

When asked by Fox News for comment, DEI superstar Ibram X. Kendi alleged that we had “misrepresented” his work. (We quoted his work verbatim). He also complained that our research wasn’t peer-reviewed, calling it a “so-called study” that “will end up in the historic landfill of pseudoscience alongside other attempts to bring scientific legitimacy to racist propaganda.” To our knowledge, Kendi has not been engaged in any scientific research (peer-reviewed or otherwise), nor any scientific testing of the efficacy of his or any other DEI-related training methods or materials. 

Perhaps best known by his critics for statements like, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination,” his response exemplifies how the DEI paradigm fosters intolerance of dissent and debate, and as we found in our studies, unfairly attributes hostility or harm to even questioning whether programs achieve their goals.  

This could — and probably has — created a culture of “preference falsification” in which people who disagree with the paradigm tend to hide their disagreement, or worse: pretend to endorse the ideology in order to avoid being labeled “racist” or bigoted. And that dynamic seems to have led to a culture of DEI conformity based on a pernicious feedback loop in which large minorities or even a majority may disagree with the ideology but because non-conformists face — or at least justifiably fear — retribution, those who disagree resort to self-censorship or even preference falsification (disingenuous advocacy) out of self-preservation.  

What’s more, the bureaucratic nature of DEI means that its implementation is often driven more by compliance than conviction. Just as individuals engage in preference falsification, organizations may adopt these programs to protect their reputations or avoid lawsuits rather than out of any genuine commitment to principles of equality and non-discrimination. This dynamic incentivizes performative moral grandstanding rather than substantive action, further undermining the potential for meaningful movement toward equality and non-discrimination. 

The DEI industry operates with little transparency or accountability, inserting bureaucracies dedicated to implementing its principles in organizations large and small. Training materials are often proprietary and shielded from public scrutiny, making it nearly impossible to assess their content, effectiveness or negative side effects. 

Our research leads us to conclude that rather than increasing inclusion for all people, some types of DEI rhetoric and pedagogy may instead increase identity-based bias, hypervigilance and division — potentially creating a self-reinforcing system of a perceived need for more DEI programs and bureaucracies.  

We believe a course correction is required: away from an ideological DEI paradigm and toward a commitment to evidence-based practices, including rigorous evaluation, transparency, accountability, and a focus on both pluralism and excellence. 

The DEI paradigm that divides people into “oppressed” and “oppressors” must be replaced with efforts that emphasize shared humanity and mutual respect, the recognition and celebration of individual agency and an environment that fosters genuine dialogue and open inquiry.   

The promise of rejecting discrimination and fostering excellence and social cohesion is too important to abandon. The trajectory of the prevailing DEI paradigm is antithetical to that promise.