How DEI Pedagogy Instructs for Animosity
* Report: INSTRUCTING ANIMOSITY: HOW DEI PEDAGOGY PRODUCES THE HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS. By Ankita and Anisha Jagdeep, et al. Network Contagion Research Institute, Rutgers University Social Perception Lab, 2024.
URL = https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/Instructing-Animosity_11.13.24.pdf
Description
"DEI programs purport to cultivate inclusive environments for people from diverse backgrounds and encourage greater empathy in interpersonal interactions. A key component of DEI offerings lies in diversity pedagogy: Lectures, trainings and educational resources ostensibly designed to educate participants about their prejudice and bias in order to eliminate discrimination (Iyer, 2022). As institutions across corporate and educational sectors increasingly embed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) into their foundational strategies, it is crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of common aspects of this pedagogy.
A 2023 study by the Pew Research Center found that 52% of American workers have DEI meetings or training events at work, and according to Iris Bohnet, a professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, $8 billion is spent annually on such programs.
Despite widespread investment in and adoption of diversity pedagogy through lectures, educational resources, and training, assessments of efficacy have produced mixed results.
A meta-analysis by Paluck et al. (2021) found that too few studies in the field have investigated real-world impact on “light-touch” interventions or seminars and training programs.
Taken together, the limited evidence suggests that some DEI programs not only fail to achieve their goals but can actively undermine diversity efforts. Specifically, mandatory trainings that focus on particular target groups can foster discomfort and perceptions of unfairness (Burnett and Aguinis, 2024). DEI initiatives seen as affirmative action rather than business strategy can provoke backlash, increasing rather than reducing racial resentment (Kidder et al., 2004; Legault et al. (2001). And diversity initiatives aimed at managing bias can fail, sometimes resulting in decreased representation and triggering negativity among employees (Leslie, 2019; Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). In other words, some DEI programs appear to backfire.
Given both the lack of rigorous research on diversity initiatives and the documented potential of DEI efforts backfiring, a better assessment of the efficacy and effects of contemporary diversity training is warranted. This study focused on diversity training interventions that emphasize awareness of and opposition to “systemic oppression,” a trend fueled by the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement and popularized by texts such as Ibram X. Kendi’s, How to Be an Antiracist.
While not representative of all DEI pedagogy, “anti-racism” and “anti-oppression” pedagogy and intervention materials have seen widespread adoption across sectors like higher education and healthcare. Yet this pedagogy lacks rigorous evaluation of effectiveness, particularly with respect to reducing bias and improving interpersonal/inter-group dynamics. The prominent “anti-oppressive pedagogy” in DEI programming can carry perceived rhetorical threats for those whose politics or other beliefs run counter to the fundamental premises of the critical paradigm from which the pedagogy derives. Programming may reflexively cast members of so-called “dominant” groups or those who disagree with “anti-oppressive,” “anti-racist,” or modern-day “anti-fascist” framings as oppressive, racist, or fascist.
The studies reported herein assess a crucial question: Do ideas and rhetoric foundational to many DEI trainings foster pluralistic inclusiveness, or do they exacerbate intergroup and interpersonal conflicts? Do they increase empathy and understanding or increase hostility towards members of groups labeled as oppressors?
Across three groupings—race, religion, and caste—NCRI collected anti-oppressive DEI educational materials frequently used in interventional and educational settings. The religion-focused interventions drew on content from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), commonly used in sensitivity training on Islamophobia. For race, materials featured excerpts from DEI scholars like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. Caste interventions featured anti-oppression narratives from Equality Labs, one of the most prolific training providers for caste discrimination in North America.
Rhetoric from these materials was excerpted and administered in psychological surveys measuring explicit bias, social distancing, demonization, and authoritarian tendencies. Participants were randomly assigned to review these materials or neutral control material. Their responses to this material was assessed through various questions assessing intergroup hostility and authoritarianism, and through scenario-based questions (details on all demographic data, survey questions, essay conditions, responses and analyses can be found in a supplementary document to this report).
Across all groupings, instead of reducing bias, they engendered a hostile attribution bias (Epps & Kendall, 1995), amplifying perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice. These results highlight the complex and often counterproductive impacts of pedagogical elements and themes prevalent in mainstream DEI training."
More information
Leslie, L. M. (2019). DIVERSITY INITIATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A TYPOLOGICAL THEORY OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~eparker/syllabi/leslie2019diversityinitiativeeffectiveness.pdf
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/Dobbin_best_practices.pdf
Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2011, November 28). Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice. Sage Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797611427918
Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., Chrobot‐Mason, D., Mollica, K. A., & Friedman, R. A. (2004, January 1). BACKLASH TOWARD DIVERSITY INITIATIVES: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF DIVERSITY PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION, PERSONAL AND GROUP OUTCOMES. International Journal of Conflict Management. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb022908/full/html
Burnett, L., & Aguinis, H. (2024). How to prevent and minimize DEI backfire. ScienceDirect. https://www.hermanaguinis.com/pdf/BHDEI.pdf
Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S., & Green, D. P. (2021, January). Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges. Annual Review of Psychology. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619;jsessionid=_JkF8gMZpzs5Gelx0WZkpOJA8EzwR5 tqNlvEmbLD.annurevlive-10-241-10-100
Minkin, R. (2023, May 17). Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/
Iyer, A. (2022, April 13). Understanding advantaged groups’ opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat. Compass Journals. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12666