DEI Is Deflating

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has, over the past several years, become part of the fabric of American institutions, notably businesses and schools. In a nutshell, DEI pays no mind to quality but, instead, is a system whereby racial bean counting is the sine qua non of our culture. While this has already been a disastrous policy for all concerned, a recent study delves into the serious damage it has done.

On November 25, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University Social Perception Lab released “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias.” The study examines whether the themes and materials common in DEI training foster inclusion or exacerbate conflicts and whether such materials promote empathy or increase hostility towards groups labeled as oppressors. The study consists of three experiments—one that focused on race, one on religion, and the other on caste.

As noted by National Review’s Abigail Anthony, although proponents of DEI training claim that they are designed to educate individuals about bias and reduce discrimination, “the study found that participants primed with DEI materials were more likely to perceive prejudice where none existed and were more willing to punish the perceived perpetrators.”

In the experiment that focused on race, the researchers randomly assigned 423 Rutgers University undergraduates into two groups: one control group exposed to a neutral essay about U.S. corn production and the other exposed to an essay that combined material from Ibram X. Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility. After exposure to the essays, participants were presented with the following race-neutral scenario: “A student applied to an elite East Coast university in Fall 2024. During the application process, he was interviewed by an admissions officer. Ultimately, the student’s application was rejected.”

The results showed that participants who were primed with Kendi’s and DiAngelo’s books perceived more discrimination from the admissions officer, despite the absence of any racial identification and evidence of discrimination. Those participants also believed that the admissions officer was more unfair to the applicant, had caused more harm to the applicant, and had committed more “microaggressions.”

This is not the only objective examination that shows the deleterious effects of DEI. A study by researchers Jay Greene and James Paul in 2021 details many aspects of the harmful scheme. In a nutshell, the authors find DEI to be “counterproductive and politically radical.”

The part of the study that examines DEI’s effects on elementary schools is particularly damning. It looks at school districts with at least 15,000 students, of which there are 554, and finds that schools with Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) “actually have larger gaps in achievement between black and white students, Hispanic and white students, and non-poor and poor students than districts without CDOs. Those gaps have grown wider over time. This pattern holds true even after controlling for a host of other observable characteristics of those districts.

The researchers explain that the gaps occur because CDOs “are more focused on promoting a political agenda than they are on finding effective educational interventions.”

And that political agenda includes advancing policies that typically exacerbate achievement gaps, such as eliminating gifted programs and advanced math classes “while selecting English and Social Studies content for its political orthodoxy rather than educational quality.”

But the times are changing; businesses nationwide are eliminating their DEI programs.

On Nov 25, Walmart announced that it would stop participating in the Human Rights Coalition’s Corporate Equality Index and remove the gender-neutral term “Latinx” from its documents, according to conservative filmmaker Robby Starbuck, who had been talking to Walmart for a story he was doing featuring the company’s DEI initiatives.

The announcement comes in the wake of similar moves by a string of other major corporations—Ford, John Deere, Lowe’s, Harley-Davidson, Jack Daniel’s, Microsoft, United Airlines, and Boeing—reflecting a backlash against DEI in American life.

Colleges, too, are backing away from the DEI regimen, although these decisions come from state governments, not typically from the colleges themselves.

Texas now has a law that bars public institutions of higher education from having DEI offices, as well as programs, activities, and training conducted by those offices. The law also restricts training or hiring policies based on race, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Public universities in Florida and Utah have banned DEI. At MIT, a private university, President Sally Kornbluth confirmed that the school would “no longer require diversity statements in faculty hiring.” As reported by City Journal, the University of Michigan may soon end its investment in DEI.

Additionally, according to an analysis from OpenTheBooks.com, the University of North Carolina spends an estimated $90 million each year on 686 employees who promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in their departments or across the system. But change there, too, is on the horizon. In a repudiation of DEI ideology, the UNC Board of Governors has voted to repeal its diversity policy.

Not surprisingly, all the usual suspects are in a snit about the pushback against DEI. PEN America’s latest report, released in October, explains that new laws enacted this year are censoring teaching and research directly, imposing ideological restrictions on every aspect of university governance, banning DEI offices, restricting the topics of majors and minors, etc.

What else needs to be done to quash the DEI bilge?

On a national level, incoming President Trump will hopefully rescind all of Joe Biden’s executive orders implementing DEI and gender theory, including Executive Order 13985, which advanced a “whole-of-government equity agenda.”

Additionally, Congress should pass the Dismantle DEI Act, which is currently working its way through the House. If successful, it would eliminate DEI practices throughout the federal bureaucracy.

The feds could also have a hand in ending harmful woke practices in our colleges. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Trump’s plan, which he announced last summer, “would change the accreditation system, protect free speech, eliminate wasteful administrative positions, and use the Justice Department to file lawsuits against schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination.”

Many Americans have had it and are pushing back against progressive nostrums regarding racial identity, diversity, equity, social justice, gender, and inclusion, reports Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He adds that average Americans of all races and ethnicities don’t agree with the views and values promoted by DEI trainers.

Instead of DEI, a more constructive plan would be to implement merit, excellence, and intelligence, or MEI, on the employment level, hiring the best candidates for open roles without considering demographics.

Per Alexandr Wang, MEI is a hiring process based on merit and will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas. “We will not pick winners and losers based on someone being the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ race, gender, and so on.”

Woke may very well be going broke. Good riddance!