The New York Times and Bloomberg were set to publish stories reporting the results of a new study revealing the negative effects of DEI training – but, both stories were scrubbed by high-level editors, the study’s researchers say.
The study, “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias,” published by The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University Social Perception Lab examines how subjecting people to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) teachings affects their perceptions of bias towards three groups (race, religion, caste).
In each case, exposure to mainstream DEI instruction actually makes people more paranoid, punitive and hostile, the study finds:
“Across all groupings, instead of reducing bias, they engendered a hostile attribution bias (Epps & Kendall, 1995), amplifying perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice. These results highlight the complex and often counterproductive impacts of pedagogical elements and themes prevalent in mainstream DEI training.”
Ideological DEI training can engender authoritarianism and potentially provoke violence, the study warns:
“While DEI initiatives typically affirm the laudable goals of combating bias and promoting inclusivity, an emerging body of research warns that these interventions may foster authoritarian mindsets, particularly when anti-oppressive narratives exist within an ideological and vindictive monoculture.
“Scholars like Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker have cautioned that extreme egalitarian rhetoric, especially when framed as moral imperatives, can encourage coercive control, intolerance, and punitive attitudes—practices and mental habits that echo the psychological dynamics of historical authoritarian movements. The push toward absolute equity can undermine pluralism and engender a (potentially violent) aspiration of ideological purity.”
Those who receive DEI instruction become more supportive of extremist, demonizing rhetoric, the study found when it showed participants quotes by Adolf Hitler, but replaced “Jews” with “Brahmins” (the highest caste in India). Compared to those who did not attend DEI training, those who did were:
- 35.4% more likely to agree that Brahmins are “parasites.”
- 33.8% more likely to agree that Brahmins are “viruses.”
- 27.1% more likely to agree that Brahmins are “the devil personified.”
“These findings suggest that exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism,” the study warns.
Likewise, DEI-trained participants presented with a scenario in which a student was denied admission to a university were more likely to support punishing the admissions officer – even though the scenario contained no mention of race and provided no evidence of discrimination:
- 12% more willing to support suspending the admission officer for a semester.
- 16% more willing to demand a public apology to the applicant.
- 12% more willing to require additional DEI training to correct the admissions officer.
Thus, instead of improving interracial attitudes, exposure to DEI educational materials “provoked baseless suspicion and encouraged punitive attitudes,” the study concludes:
“This effect highlights a broader issue: DEI narratives that focus heavily on victimization and systemic oppression can foster unwarranted distrust and suspicions of institutions and alter subjective assessments of events.”
While the study’s striking findings refute the legacy media’s narrative promoting DEI ideology, both The New York Times and Bloomberg were prepared to publish the results – until high-level intervention killed their stories.
“Unfortunately, both publications jumped on the story enthusiastically only for it to be inexplicably pulled at the highest editorial levels,” a NCRI researcher told National Review.
“An editor — Nabila Ahmed, the team leader for Global Equality at Bloomberg News who ‘lead[s] a global team of reporters focused on stories that elevate issues of race, gender, diversity and fairness within companies, governments and societies’ — informed the NCRI on November 15 that Bloomberg would not go forward with the article.”
When asked why the story was canceled, Ahmed referred NCRI’s researchers to the executive editor of Bloomberg Equality, who cited an “editorial decision,” but provided no justification for it.
In the case of The New York Times, NCRI told National Review that a journalist had initially said that a story on the study was ready to be published, a claim that the Times denied in an otherwise vague and uninformative statement to National Review:
“‘Our 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,’ a spokesperson for the New York Times told National Review. ‘Speculative claims from outside parties about The Times’s editorial process are just that.’”