DEI Linked to 'Increased Hostility,' 'Authoritarian Policing': Study – JP
A new study found that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts contribute to psychological harm, hostility, and support for “adapted Adolf Hitler quotes,” a report from JP states.
According to the outlet, mainstream media sources New York Times and Bloomberg were preparing to publish stories on the study, but ultimately chose to move away from the findings.
The study, called “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias,” assessed whether the themes present in DEI materials promote inclusion or heighten distress and hostility.
According to the study, “DEI narratives that focus heavily on victimization and systemic oppression can foster unwarranted distrust and suspicions of institutions and alter subjective assessments of events.”
“In the effort to improve sensitivity to genuine injustices against people from designated identities, such trainings may instead create a hostile attribution bias. This could, in turn, undermine trust in institutions, even in the absence of bias or unfair treatment (as in our scenarios),” the study continued.
When assessing perceptions of castes, the study “revealed a significant increase in agreement with demonizing statements adapted from Adolf Hitler’s quotes, where the term ‘Jew’ was replaced with ‘Brahmin,’ a group often depicted as oppressors in caste narratives.”
“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 explained.
DEI narratives can “engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment,” the study noted in its conclusion.
A Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) told JP that both the New York Times and Bloomberg “jumped on the story enthusiastically only for it to be inexplicably pulled at the highest editorial levels,” noting that such an event has “never happened to the NCRI in its 5-year history.”
A New York Times reporter told the NCRI that peer review was needed.
“The piece was reported and ready for publication, but at the eleventh hour, the New York Times insisted the research undergo peer review after discussions with editorial staff — an unprecedented demand for our work,” an NCRI researcher said. “The journalist involved had previously covered far more sensitive NCRI findings, such as our QAnon and January 6th studies, without any such request.”
A spokesperson for the New York Times said that journalists are “always considering potential topics for news coverage, evaluating them for newsworthiness, and often choose not to pursue further reporting for a variety of reasons,” adding, “Speculative claims from outside parties about The Times’s editorial process are just that.”