Obviously the study came up with improper biased conclusions.
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 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.
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?
Don’t need a “study” to confirm that. We saw the confirmation three weeks ago.
Some years ago, an unemployed truck driver blamed his unemployment on homosexuals. The Unitarian church is known for it’s non-judgemental doctrine, so a Unitarian church became the target for his revenge.
The plaintiff, David Duvall — a white man — worked for Novant Health for five years as its Senior Vice President of Marketing and Communications. He reported to a Black man. The evidence at trial showed that Duvall had performed well. But he was still fired in July 2018, and he was permanently replaced by a Black woman. Duvall sued, alleging that he was a victim of discrimination because of his status as a white man.
I know it is an OUTRAGE when a white man of privilege can utilize discrimination laws in his favor.
At trial, the jury heard that Novant Health had adopted a widespread DEI initiative, which included a commitment to add diversity to the executive and senior leadership teams. The company also developed DEI benchmarks and metrics, which showed a dramatic increase in female leaders and a decrease of white leaders over the time leading up to Duvall’s firing. The jury also heard that Novant Health provided “race-based bonuses” to executives who achieved DEI objectives.
AMAZING what occurs when executives are financially rewarded for certain outcomes.
Moreover, at trial, Duvall’s boss offered shifting explanations for his termination, none of which were given at the time of his firing. Although the supervisor testified that the termination was due to a lack of “engagement” and “support from the executive team,” he told a corporate recruiter that it was the result of a “desire to bring in new leaders” and a “desire for a different point of view, [a] different … flair.”
Why? And btw I noticed the gratuitous and needless insertion of the flag word “privilege” (a technique created by 70’s style left wing attempts to commandeer language to shut down discussion)
In principle, it should not be controversial that everyone should be treated with respect and given an opportunity. Making that cultural shift, was the hope of DEI. The reality is, when someone sees someone, who is different, win, at their expense, they blame the difference. Bigoted attitudes are reinforced, and here we are.
How do you deal with de facto discrimination? When I worked for the pump seal company, in the late 70s, there was 1 African American in all of Marketing, Engineering, DP, and Accounting. All management was white, straight, male, and Catholic. All women were secretaries, clerks, and a couple draftsmen.
The study found that participants were primed by the DEI material to look for discrimination. For example, one group was read material from DEI instructional matter while the control group was read material about planting corn. Then both groups were read about someone who applied for a job and was denied. There was no mention of race, etc. The groups were then asked if there was discrimination against the person who applied for the job. The corn group didn’t find so while the DEI group did. One can see how lots of these DEI sessions/classes in a company can create discord and be counterproductive.
I always thought the EEO was supposed to stop discrimination.
When I was a production manager, my hiring practices were monitored by the corporate HR department. Our employment applications were generic. No questions about sex, race, age or anything that could be discriminatory. However, the secretary was required to make a visual determination of the applicant’s sex, race, age, whatever; and log it into a notebook. This book was locked away and only she had the key. The GM didn’t have a key to it either.
Twice a year we had a two-day inspection by corporate HR. One of the things they looked at was this book and what my staffing looked like. If the log showed that 10% of the applicants were of a certain race, I better have close to 10% of that race working for me. I was questioned once about being shy on the female percentage. I had a few, and they were tougher and meaner than some of the men, but it wasn’t enough to satisfy the applicant percentage. So I made an effort to get things balanced out. It never came up again during an audit.
While I generally agree that some of these programs have gone too far, I think many were/are beneficial. For example at my fortune 500 company, One of our DEI policies is that for every job opening you must interview at least one minority for the job. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the minority gets hired, it simply means that your candidate pool has to at least include one that makes it to the interview stage. You are still welcome to hire the SWM if you wish.
True. The current DEI paradigm which is now being rejected started in 2020 after George Floyd. The diversity movement which had been in the corporate world for over a decade was hijacked by the critical race theory out of academia. Critical theory in general tends to challenge and dismantle power structures and systematize oppressors and oppressed. Critical theory then applied to race sees everything/everyone through the lens of racism.
At any rate, because of the movements in society after George Floyd corporate execs adopted this DEI approach. The divisiveness produced inside the companies has proved counterproductive. It has lasted 3-4 years but is now being phased out.
I have never had a problem calling someone a “he” or a “she” as they wish.
But god do I dislike “they”. It is totally political. It is politics in the workplace. It is forcing everyone to go along with something that is called personal immature confusion.
I have no luck with the theys. They let me know it. It is their politics.
You want to be a he or a she then you are. But note you did not bring politics into it, thank you.
Forcing people to give you a position is not appreciated if you run the organization never mind if you just want a job.
On the flip side I am disappointed in myself for taking that position. I want to be open and tolerant. Is that what is meant by going in with the people who want to bash? I do not want to bash. But don’t get in my face.
For starters you stop scratching the scab for political gain. The rest of America got over slavery.
100% bad is difficult to achieve.
When you test a new drug, how many deaths are deemed acceptable 50%? 10%? 5%?
While in Silicon Valley over 35 years ago I first heard about the quota system and I figured it would end badly. Sadly I was right. Americans love magic numbers but they don’t always work. Life, culture, and societies are complex systems that cannot be fixed by quotas.
It’s been said ad nauseum on this board. Most people can’t even define DEI, many of them are eager to share their opinion about something they don’t understand.
DEI programs and initiatives are not all the same. Quotas don’t define DEI. Firing an old white dude to increase diversity is not representative of many DEI programs.
Sure, there are a lot of companies walking back their efforts. Probably because they were not well thought-out, and poorly executed. For every company walking back DEI initiatives, there are many more that are not.
Didn’t read the link but read a similar report. The “convergence with authoritarian attitudes” was actually in increased agreement with “slightly altered” (changing racial/country names) quotes from a certain WWII German leader*.
*given the propensity of flagging posts, I’m sure the obvious proper name would draw a flag.
