DEI
Despite Billions In Backing, Studies Show Diversity Trainings Just Aren’t Working
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
A number of corporations are beginning to retreat from their diversity initiatives, with American Airlines, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase and Lowe’s all editing their DEI policies to be less racially focused following lawsuit threats from conservatives.
A wealth of research suggests that the billions of dollars corporate America, academia and government agencies have spent on diversity training have done little to impact people’s behavior.
What impact diversity trainings do have is often short-lived or purely influences beliefs without impacting actions, according to a review of multiple meta-analyses, a type of research that summarizes the results of hundreds of studies. American businesses alone spend roughly $8 billion a year on the same diversity trainings research suggests are ineffective, according to the Harvard Business Review.
On top of the billions corporations spend on diversity trainings, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public funds flow to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives through state universities and the federal government.
A 2020 meta-analysis synthesized findings from 492 different studies and found that trainings designed to reduce implicit bias, a term used by academics to refer to discriminatory attitudes people hold but are not consciously aware of, “generally produced trivial changes in behavior.” Per the study, the trainings had “relatively weak” effects on measures of implicit bias, however, it also found that changes in implicit biases didn’t necessarily translate to behavioral changes.
Many nonprofits, like the National Equity Project, provide diversity training services to public and private clients like businesses.
“Nonprofit spending on the left, roughly defined, swamps the center-right by a factor of three or four to one depending on the year … and yet the country hasn’t really moved much,” Capital Research Center Senior Investigative Researcher Ken Braun told the Daily Caller News Foundation, speaking on diversity training spending. “The very fact that DEI was ever created demonstrates the abject failure of decades of spending and messaging on what we used to call ‘affirmative action.’”
Diversity trainings may influence the stated beliefs of participants, but cause little change in day-to-day behavior. A study conducted by a team of University of Pennsylvania researchers in 2019 surveyed 3,000 employees at a multi-national company and found that the impact of anti-sexism training led to employees acknowledging that women face discrimination, but not changing the way they behaved.
The apparent inefficacy of diversity training hasn’t stopped bureaucrats from spending public funds on it, with a number of school districts and public colleges paying Ibram X. Kendi, the academic famous for popularizing the idea of “anti-racism,” tens of thousands of dollars for presentations. Roughly two-thirds of American colleges in 2016 had diversity training for faculty, and 43% of those trainings were mandatory, according to a survey conducted by researchers Frank Dobbin of Harvard University and Alexandra Kalev of Tel-Aviv University.
President Joe Biden signed an executive order in June 2021 ordering federal agencies to increase their diversity programming, asserting that “such training programs should enable federal employees, managers and leaders to have knowledge of systemic and institutional racism and bias.”
Questions surrounding the effectiveness of diversity trainings have existed for some time, with a 2009 analysis of hundreds of studies published in the Annual Review of Psychology failing to find evidence that diversity trainings are effective at reducing prejudice or influencing behavior in the ways intended.
Despite academics struggling to find evidence to support the efficacy of diversity trainings, many corporations leaned into such initiatives after the consulting firm McKinsey and Company published a report in 2015 claiming that companies with more diverse executives saw higher profits, according to the Wall Street Journal. Multiple academics, however, failed to replicate the results of the consulting firm’s study.
Repeating the studies of others is a common practice used in academia to determine if a result is reflective of reality or if it was the product of poor methodology or dumb luck. Econ Journal Watch (EJW), a publication run by economics professors, was among those that attempted to recreate McKinsey’s findings only to discover no statistically significant link between executive diversity and profitability.
“Caution is warranted in relying on McKinsey’s findings to support the view that US publicly traded firms can deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives,” EJW’s report reads. “We are unable to replicate the same statistically reliable association between firm financial performance and executive race/ethnic diversity as they report.”
A number of corporations are beginning to retreat from their diversity initiatives, with American Airlines, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase and Lowe’s all editing their DEI policies to be less racially focused following lawsuit threats from conservatives.
Braun called the apparent movement of corporate America away from DEI initiatives “encouraging” but laughed when asked if academia and the federal government might follow suit.
Other studies have found that diversity trainings don’t only fail to alter people’s behavior but sometimes produce backlash effects that make people more prejudiced. Dobbin and Kalev, in a book they co-authored, found that after implementing diversity trainings, firms saw a decrease in women and minorities in leadership positions.
“If diversity training has no impact whatsoever, that would mean that perhaps billions of dollars are being wasted annually in the United States on these efforts,” journalist Jesse Singal wrote in 2023. “But there’s a darker possibility: Some diversity initiatives might actually worsen the DEI climates of the organizations that pay for them.”
Featured Image: Benjamin Child/Unsplash
From StosselTV
The government promised to expand broadband, build hundreds of thousands of EV chargers, and to bring back semiconductor jobs. They delivered delays, waste, and failure. Why? Because they spend your money, not their own.
After three years and $65 billion spent to expand broadband, not a single person has yet been connected.
Also, two years into Biden’s $7.5 billion EV charging stations initiative, which was supposed to build 500,000 stations, only seven have been built.
The CHIPS Act promised to bring semiconductor jobs back to America. But the money got tied up in DEI quotas, climate pledges, and union mandates.
When bureaucrats spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to spend it carefully. Our new video explains why government should leave building things to the private sector.
After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.
——————————————
Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.
Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.
Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.
Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club. Other honors include the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award.
————
To get our new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscribe ————
Censorship Industrial Complex
Biden admin used banks to spy on Americans’ financial data, targeted Trump supporters: House report
From LifeSiteNews
‘The scale of this surveillance is staggering,’ warns a startling new US House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. ‘Without safeguards, this could lead to widespread abuse of power and debanking.’
A startling report from the U.S. House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government reveals how, under the Biden-Harris administration, the FBI and the Treasury Department have manipulated federal laws such as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to access Americans’ private financial data – without a warrant.
The committee has published a succinct video summary of its 47-page report on X, beginning with a question: “Think your finances are private? Think again.”
The video explains:
“The federal government has conditioned financial institutions to work for them, inducing them to hand over your sensitive financial data without a warrant
When a bank submits an inquiry with your financial details, the federal government compiles it into a searchable database. In 2023, this database was accessed by over 14,000 government employees to conduct more than 3 million warrantless searches.
The federal government’s financial surveillance program is vast and can lead to something called ‘debanking.’ If you’re flagged, you could lose access to your own money. If you buy a Bible, shop at Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shops, or an ammo store, your financial data could be shared.
The system is broken and your privacy is under attack. Federal law enforcement is seeking unfettered access to your finances, all while ignoring your 4th Amendment rights.
The next time you swipe your card, know that someone may be watching. And it’s not just the banks. It’s the federal government.”
Purchase of Bibles or firearms deemed by the government as signs of ‘extremism’
“It all started after a whistleblower told the Committee that following January 6, Bank of America (BoA) voluntarily provided the FBI with a list of individuals who used BoA cards in the DC area during that time—without legal process,” noted the committee in a thread on X. “The federal government used sweeping terms like ‘MAGA’ and ‘TRUMP’ to flag Americans, even treating the purchase of Bibles or firearms as signs of ‘extremism.’”
“The scale of this surveillance is staggering,” they declared on X.
“This ongoing investigation reveals a disturbing trend: The government is using financial institutions as de facto arms of law enforcement, profiling Americans and flagging them as ‘suspicious’ based on vague criteria,” continues the thread. “Without safeguards, this could lead to widespread abuse of power and debanking. This investigation is not over. The federal government’s ability to spy on Americans’ financial data cannot go unchecked.”
The committee report warns:
All Americans should be disturbed by how their financial data is collected, made accessible to, and searched by federal and state officials, including law enforcement and regulatory agencies. With the rise in e-commerce and the widespread adoption of cash alternatives like credit cards or peer-to-peer payment services, the future leaves very little financial activity beyond the purview of modern financial institutions or the government’s prying eyes. This is because, as a condition of participating in the modern economy, Americans are forced to disclose details of their private lives to a financial industry that has been too eager to pass this information along to federal law enforcement.
‘Your beliefs or your bank account: You can’t have both’
“No American should have to worry that a financial institution will deny them service based on their religious beliefs,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Jeremy Tedesco concerning a case involving the debanking by Bank of America of a conservative Christian charity that partners with Ugandan ministries to provide basic necessities for orphaned and vulnerable children. “Canceling their account hurts those in need. It also sends a disturbing message to everyone—you can have your beliefs or your bank account, but you can’t have both.”
Bank of America is not the only major financial institution engaging in this type of behavior. ADF cited examples of JPMorgan Chase denying payments or cancelling accounts associated with people and organizations who hold mainstream American values, including:
- Former Ambassador Sam Brownback
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
The CBC gets $1.4 billion per year, but the Trudeau government wants to give it more
Nearly half of non-terminally ill Canadians who choose euthanasia say they are lonely
‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
National1 day ago
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
National2 days agoWhen is the election!? Singh finally commits and Poilievre asks Governor General to step in
-
National2 days agoCanadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute
-
Daily Caller18 hours agoLNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy
-
National18 hours agoCanadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches
-
Alberta2 days agoFree Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy19 hours agoChristmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup