I have long written about the foolishness of pushing
diversity onto people and for diversity
initiatives. Though one could make the case that making people experience the results of diversity is one of the most
effective arguments against pushing diversity one can proffer. Once
people see the results of these efforts, their foolishness becomes rather
self-evident. However, our society continues to push diversity as if it is the
most wonderful thing that could ever happen to people or any given
organization. But what about when it is factually proven to be otherwise. What
should the media do with this information?
Well, here is what some of the
media has done,
“In a stunning series of
events, two leading media organizations—The New York Times and Bloomberg—abruptly
shelved coverage of a groundbreaking study that raises serious concerns about
the psychological impacts of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) pedagogy.
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 decision to withhold coverage raises serious questions
about transparency, editorial independence, and the growing influence of
ideological biases in the media.
The NCRI study investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically training programs that draw heavily from texts like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Through carefully controlled experiments, 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.”[1]
They hid the data!
Teaching people to see attacks in minor interactions
leads to a situation where people read attacks and racism where no such thing was intended,
“The harm in question goes
far beyond the scope of individual programs. Across multiple experiments, the
study documented a consistent pattern: exposure to anti-oppressive DEI rhetoric
heightened participants’ tendency to attribute hostility and bias to ambiguous
situations. In one experiment, participants read excerpts from Robin DiAngelo
and Ibram X. Kendi, juxtaposed against a neutral control text about corn
production. Afterward, they were asked to evaluate a hypothetical scenario: an
applicant being rejected from an elite university. Those exposed to the DEI
materials were far more likely to perceive racism in the admissions process,
despite no evidence to support such a conclusion.”[2]
This is much the same thing that happens to a lot of
women who focus on gender studies, they start to see the world through a lens
of women as oppressed and men as the oppressors. Ironically, once people have
this kind of worldview, they then tend to take on an authoritarian attitude to
those they consider to be their oppressors, they also cause people to be far
less trusting of society in general,
“This discrepancy highlights
a core issue with DEI narratives that emphasize systemic oppression. By priming
participants to see injustice against specific groups, these trainings appear
to cultivate a “hostile attribution bias”—a tendency to perceive prejudice and
discrimination even where none exists. While sensitivity to genuine bias is
critical, the NCRI findings suggest that DEI interventions like the ISPU
materials may create unwarranted distrust in institutions and undermine
confidence in objective fairness…
… The
findings suggest that these programs may not only fail to address systemic
injustice but actively cultivate divisive and authoritarian mindsets….”[3]
The damage done to our society through mass immigration
and from the top down enforced diversity is then multiplied with diversity
initiatives in a host of different ways. The focus on diversity initiatives is
making it almost impossible for America to compete against China in the
technology space, for one. But secondly, the constant focus on diversity and
forcing this topic on people is turning people against each other, and creating
a hostile work environment, literally. As the Putnam study showed nearly two decades ago,
where diversity increases, so to does division. Which makes sense, because they both stem from the same root word. These diversity initiatives will
eventually come to an end, the only question is how much damage will they do in
the meantime?
And of course, how did these large media institutions
handle this research again? As we noted, they tried to hide it,
“Yet, as troubling as the
study’s findings are, its suppression may be even more consequential. The
decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger
issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information. In a moment when public
trust in institutions is already fragile, the media’s role as a gatekeeper of
information becomes all the more worrying. When powerful outlets like The New
York Times and Bloomberg withhold stories of such significance, they fracture
trust with the American people.”[4]
Not surprising in the slightest, is it? The Bible notes
that people are good at suppressing the truths that they do not want to hear.
This is part of the fallen human nature. In this case, powerful organizations
that promote diversity do not want it getting out that researchers are gathering
a growing body of research about the damage it does. So spread the word.
List of References
[1] Colin
Wright, 2024, https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/why-was-this-groundbreaking-study?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR03N0iu84qbKf8ohLPyNvKjho2q68dNW-1luU6010rrhOVNeoPS-fOIVc0_aem_o_BjczYslZYJsNLZsjNg7w
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment