DEI makes people sympathetic to Hitler, hostile to others, research shows
Adherents of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) exhibit more hostility and are more likely to sympathize with Adolf Hitler, a recent study shows.
DEI is a Marxist ideology that has ballooned over the last four years into an $8 billion-per-year industry. It stratifies society into classes of race, gender, and sexual preference. White, heterosexual men are perceived as the most privileged group, so DEI places them in the lowest social order. A black, homosexual woman, on the other hand, is perceived as having permanent victimhood and therefore belongs in the upper social echelons.
A report published by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) sought to assess whether DEI programming causes people to become more inclusive or more hostile and authoritarian towards those who disagree with them. Researchers conducted three studies to measure how participants reacted to DEI pedagogy on race, religion, and caste systems.
The race study
In the race study, researchers randomly separated 423 undergraduates from Rutgers University into two groups. One group was asked to read an essay about U.S. corn production, while the other group was asked to read a DEI text based on books by Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. DiAngelo and Kendi, whose real name is Ibram Henry Rogers, write extensively about how white people are natural oppressors. They are considered foreparents of the DEI movement.
One excerpt from the DEI essay given to the experimental group read:
White people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview. Racism is the norm; it is not unusual. As a result, interaction with White people is at times so overwhelming, draining, and incomprehensible that it causes serious anguish for People of Color.
After reading the texts, the students were asked to react to the following 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 students who read the DEI essay were significantly more hostile than the control group who had read about US corn production. They saw the admissions officer as discriminatory despite no evidence of race or discrimination. The students also believed the officer should be punished. Some said he should be forced to issue a public apology, while others advocated for investigations, required re-education, suspension, or termination. Some participants said the university should close its campus to white students for a day.
While the DEI-programmed students felt more hostility toward the admissions officer, they exhibited no extra warmth toward the applicant than the control group, suggesting that DEI fosters hate without inclusion.
The religion study
The researchers sought to examine how people reacted to material that preached anti-Islamophobia. They recruited 2,017 participants who they split into two groups. The control group was asked to read the essay on US corn production while the experimental group was asked to read a text about Islamophobia. An excerpt from the Islamophobia text read:
Islamophobia in the U.S. manifests in many ways – harassment and violence by anti-Muslim hate groups, institutionalized anti-Muslim legislation, and bias in the justice system. The U.S. has a long history of the legalized othering of Muslims, with legislation like the anti-terror Patriot Act targeting Muslims as dangerous outsiders whose actions should be surveilled and their movements curtailed. Anti-Shariah, anti-immigration, and voter-ID legislation go hand in hand in manufacturing bigotry and creating fear.
Both groups were then given two scenarios that each involved a man convicted of terrorism for bombing a local government building. In one scenario, however, the convicted terrorist’s name was George Green, while the other was named Ahmed Akhtar.
Although the material facts in both scenarios were identical, the participants who had read about Islamophobia rated Akhtar’s conviction as unfair and unjust. Notably, their feelings about Green’s conviction were similar to the control group’s.
The caste study
In the third experiment, researchers recruited 847 participants and separated them into two groups. The control group was given a neutral, academic essay on caste systems to read, while the experimental group was given a study on the caste system among American Hindus. The study, published by a Leftist organization called Equality Labs, argued that caste is prevalent among Hindus in the US and encouraged “caste sensitivity training.” The research has been widely panned as being flawed, and more serious figures show that less than half of American Hindus identify with any caste.
The Equality Labs study contained DEI rhetoric about caste. One excerpt read:
Shudras and Dalits are caste-oppressed; they experience profound injustices, including socioeconomic hardship and brutal violence at the hands of the upper castes. Dalits live in segregated ghettos, are banned from temples, and are denied access to schools and public amenities. The 2,500-year old caste system is enforced by violence and maintained by one of the world’s oldest, most persistent cultures.
The control text, on the other hand, contained the following excerpt::
Jāti and varna are concepts from India that describe ways people might identify and interact socially. Jāti refers to groups with common characteristics, including clan, class, language, family background, region of origin, religion, and occupation. Varna describes a philosophy in Hindu scripture of understanding human diversity and purpose.
Both groups were then given the following scenario:
Raj Kumar applied to an elite East Coast university in Fall 2022. During the application process, he was interviewed by an admissions officer, Anand Prakash. Ultimately, Raj’s application was rejected.
As in the anti-white study, the experimental group said the admissions officer was discriminatory and unfair, despite the absence of any evidence of caste. Participants of that group were also more likely to support punishment for the admissions officer and view Hindus as racist.
Those who read the DEI caste sensitivity training text also exhibit sympathy with Adolf Hitler. Researchers took statements by Hitler demonizing Jews and replaced the word “Jew” with “Brahmin,” the upper class in the Hindu caste system. DEI participants agreed that Brahmin were “parasites,” “viruses,” and “the devil personified.”
“The evidence presented in these studies reveals that while purporting to combat bias, some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment,” the researchers concluded. “Although not addressed in the studies reported herein, it is also possible that these factors are mutually reinforcing and spread through social contagion.”
Media refuse to report the research
Legacy media outlets refused to publish the above report despite at first being eager to do so, according to the National Review. Both Bloomberg and The New York Times were about to report on the studies but inexplicably backed out last minute. Unsurprisingly, it was Bloomberg’s team leader for Global Equality, Nabila Ahmed, who informed NCRI that the paper would not be publishing the research due to “editorial concerns.”
A reporter at The New York Times had written an article on the NCRI report but it was axed for publication after an editor demanded that it first be peer-reviewed, despite there being no issues with the methodology.
“The piece was reported and ready for publication, but at the eleventh hour, the New York Times insisted the research undergo peer review after discussions with editorial staff — an unprecedented demand for our work,” an NCRI researcher told National Review. “The journalist involved had previously covered far more sensitive NCRI findings, such as our QAnon and January 6th studies, without any such request.”
A spokesperson for The New York Times denied the article was “ready for publication.”
