Groundbreaking Study on DEI Cancelled by Bloomberg and New York Times

The DEI propagandists at Bloomberg and NYT block a study on DEI that shows DEI increases woke conflicts.

Colin Wright  at Reality’s Last Stand explains why a Groundbreaking Study on DEI Was Silenced.

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.

The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.

This context makes the suppression of the study even more alarming. The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review—a requirement that had never been imposed on the institute’s earlier findings, even on similarly sensitive topics like extremism or online hate. At Bloomberg, the story was quashed outright by an editor known for public support of DEI initiatives. The editorial decisions were ostensibly justified as routine discretion, yet they align conspicuously with the ideological leanings of those involved. Are these major outlets succumbing to pressures to protect certain narratives at the expense of truth?

Research cited in the report highlights how many DEI programs rely on untested theories or unverified self-reports, with little oversight or accountability. A 2021 meta-analysis found that some initiatives not only fail to reduce prejudice but actually exacerbate it, fueling resentment and perceptions of unfairness. The NCRI study’s findings echo these conclusions, suggesting that far from fostering inclusion, DEI programs may perpetuate a cycle of suspicion and punitive retribution.

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.

No Surprise

Wright’s article is superb. It contains many charts that highlight the blatant bias of the New York Times and Bloomberg. No one should be surprised by this.

MSNBC, CNN, and the Washington Post are equally guilty of similar actions.

In general, mainstream media (non-mainstream media too) is a cesspool of biased reporting.

The cesspool of right-wing reporting is in response to the cesspool reporting on the Left.

Those of us who attempt to cover news items fairly get blasted by the Left and Right. So be it. I choose to comment on the news based on policies, not persons or political parties.

In one sense it’s easier because I don’t care much for any politicians. I am a free market, mind your own business, genuine small government, balanced budget advocate.

Trump is not close, but the Democrats are all much worse. It’s one of the reasons Trump won.

DEI Policy Is Racist Policy

It’s important to note that DEI hiring and training is inherently racist policy.

People should be hired and promoted on the basis of merit, not race. Gaining diversity by racial discrimination is still racial discrimination.

The worst aspect of this madness is the study shows that DEI policy increases racial tensions. Thus, not only does the government (and corporate) hiring result in inferior performance, racial tensions increase in the process.

DEI is so counterproductive that one has to wonder if the real goal of DEI is to increase racial tensions.

Ending DEI in government policy and hiring is one of the things Trump is going to do right. Trashing DEI can’t start soon enough.