In a recent study that has sparked controversy and debate, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) claims to have discovered that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education may not have the positive impact many believe it does.
Instead, according to their research titled “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias,” such education could be fostering hostility rather than understanding and tolerance among individuals. This study suggests that DEI materials, particularly those promoting left-wing ideas on race and identity, may lead individuals to perceive prejudice where there is none and react punitively towards imagined offenses.
The findings of this controversial study were met with resistance from major media outlets. Both The New York Times and Bloomberg reportedly declined to publish articles on the NCRI's findings, citing editorial concerns. This decision has raised questions about the freedom of research dissemination and the role of media in covering sensitive topics. According to communications revealed by the National Review, this refusal marks an unprecedented event in NCRI's five-year history of publishing studies on contentious issues without such pushback from media entities.
The situation took a more complicated turn when The New York Times suggested that they might consider publishing the article if the study underwent peer review—a step deemed unusual by NCRI researchers given their past experiences with coverage of their work by the same publication. On the other side, Bloomberg News pointed to an "editorial decision" as the reason for not proceeding with publication, as communicated by Nabila Ahmed, team leader for Global Equality at Bloomberg News.
At its core, this incident highlights a broader debate over how sensitive topics are covered in legacy media and raises questions about editorial standards and biases. Furthermore, it brings to light concerns over academic freedom and whether certain topics are considered too hot to handle by mainstream news platforms.
The experiment conducted by NCRI involved 850 participants who were divided into groups; one group received neutral essays on India's caste system while another was exposed to caste-sensitivity-training material from Equality Labs. Remarkably, participants who engaged with DEI-inspired content showed a greater likelihood of agreeing with negatively modified statements about Brahmins—an upper class in India's caste system—when compared to their counterparts who read neutral material.
This study posits that DEI initiatives could unintentionally instigate division instead of unity. It suggests that such education may prime individuals to identify enemies where none exist and support punitive actions without just cause. These findings challenge prevailing narratives around DEI programs and call for a deeper examination of how these initiatives are designed and implemented.
Instead, according to their research titled “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias,” such education could be fostering hostility rather than understanding and tolerance among individuals. This study suggests that DEI materials, particularly those promoting left-wing ideas on race and identity, may lead individuals to perceive prejudice where there is none and react punitively towards imagined offenses.
The findings of this controversial study were met with resistance from major media outlets. Both The New York Times and Bloomberg reportedly declined to publish articles on the NCRI's findings, citing editorial concerns. This decision has raised questions about the freedom of research dissemination and the role of media in covering sensitive topics. According to communications revealed by the National Review, this refusal marks an unprecedented event in NCRI's five-year history of publishing studies on contentious issues without such pushback from media entities.
The situation took a more complicated turn when The New York Times suggested that they might consider publishing the article if the study underwent peer review—a step deemed unusual by NCRI researchers given their past experiences with coverage of their work by the same publication. On the other side, Bloomberg News pointed to an "editorial decision" as the reason for not proceeding with publication, as communicated by Nabila Ahmed, team leader for Global Equality at Bloomberg News.
At its core, this incident highlights a broader debate over how sensitive topics are covered in legacy media and raises questions about editorial standards and biases. Furthermore, it brings to light concerns over academic freedom and whether certain topics are considered too hot to handle by mainstream news platforms.
The experiment conducted by NCRI involved 850 participants who were divided into groups; one group received neutral essays on India's caste system while another was exposed to caste-sensitivity-training material from Equality Labs. Remarkably, participants who engaged with DEI-inspired content showed a greater likelihood of agreeing with negatively modified statements about Brahmins—an upper class in India's caste system—when compared to their counterparts who read neutral material.
This study posits that DEI initiatives could unintentionally instigate division instead of unity. It suggests that such education may prime individuals to identify enemies where none exist and support punitive actions without just cause. These findings challenge prevailing narratives around DEI programs and call for a deeper examination of how these initiatives are designed and implemented.
