November 25, 2024 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... 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. Why Was This Groundbreaking Study on DEI Silenced?
most corps are dropping this now as Americans are upset most of the jobs going overseas and asking for diversity for American workers as corps move more and more to overseas workers
if one mentions diversity when a corp is outsourcing most of the jobs overseas, the company will stop supporting diversity, and turn to cost savings to justify not supporting diversity, which in this case would mean hiring Americans too
Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs cannot be justified rationally. Those who advocate them try to suppress criticism of them, just as they try to suppress books like The Bell Curve. This is the reality: intelligence is the major factor determining academic and economic success; it is primarily determined genetically; people of some races have higher average intelligence than people of other races.
We all know why. They needed DEI to "induce hostility, increase authoritarian tendencies, and foster agreement with extreme rhetoric..." There's not enough natural racism in America for it to be a useful tool for social/political control. They needed to manufacture more.
Let's say you had to go to mandatory DEI training. Would it change you? Would it piss you off? Would you be resentful about wasting you time? Would your extreme rhetoric change?
I would love to go to DEI training, but only if I was allowed to politely debate with the instructor without getting into trouble. If I had to remain silent, and pretend that I agreed, it would feel like totalitarian indoctrination.
And if you were included in a study on the results of DEI, you could vent your hostility and feelings of exposure to "totalitarian indoctrination". Those feelings would be reflected in the study. Does that mean that DEI training is toxic or are there some people going in anti DEI, who will not agree with or mistrust any information given?
DEI should be debated. It should not be insisted upon. The only diversity that is beneficial is diversity of opinion. The partisans of DEI try to suppress diversity of opinion. I welcome challenges to my opinions. I want to be able to safely answer those challenges.
soon most IT and customer service will be moved overseas the American worker will be considered the DEI hire
It should not be hard for anyone to figure out that pushing racial identity and discrimination is going to cause problems.
If only two outlets lost interest, we should be fine since presumably all other outlets have not "shelved" it. I have worked in the private sector over 30 yrs (many employers) and I have had to take their diversity course pretty much every year. So what?
I object to being required to pretend that the average Negro is as intelligent as the average white person.
DEI means lowering entrance requirements for Negroes. In the process better qualified. whites and East Asians are discriminated against. No organization benefits by doing that.
DEI does not create opportunities. It takes them from those who deserve them and gives them to those who do not deserve them. The only diversity that is beneficial is diversity of opinion. The partisans of DEI try to suppress the opinions of Charles Murray, Jared Taylor, and Professors Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and J. Philippe Rushton. All to often they succeed.
Lowering "entrance requirements"???? Dude, any DEI courses are taken after you have been hired. Dude, you're just a flaming racist living in an alternate reality.
I am explaining why DEI is bad for the organizations that use it. Selecting on the basis of diversity, equity, and inclusion is no match for selecting on the basis of excellence, merit, and qualifications.
DEI courses cannot make up for the 15 point IQ gap between average intelligence of whites and blacks. When President Trump ends DEI in government and private hiring millions of Negroes will be fired from jobs they never deserved and thrown back to the slums they came from. Their jobs will be available to whites and East Asians who have the intelligence to perform well.
Geeze....this is so off base. I've worked with many people of many different races and genders....and capable top of the line people are in all racial /gender categories. The problem with DEI is the process focuses on race/gender not merit. Outcomes can be bad with that focus.
Ah yes, a much traded screenshot among the anti-DEI crowd. This "Black activist" gave a talk starting with a racist comment "whites are racist demons" to get the crowd on her side and dressed inappropriately to be taken seriously. Before DEI the image was used by the anti-CRT crowd but her lecture was given before anyone knew anything about CRT. What will the racist demons use the image for next? Maybe USAID paid for this?
This study was silenced because an influential segment of our elected officials and wealthiest people are "Neo- Malthusian" in terms of their Economic Philosophy. Many of our elected officials are given a script to read that they obediently read but if they traced the information back they would find out that the national leader of their political party is being fed that script by somebody who is being paid by Neo- Malthusians! .... The Bill Gates' "Innovation to zero" lecture made him the poster boy for Neo - Malthusian economic philosophy. The Bill Gates theory depends totally on the Al Gore Carbon Tax Theory.
