44 Comments
User's avatar
Dan Dalthorp's avatar

It's hard to make heads or tails out of the results without seeing the data.

For example, Fig. 2b shows "16% difference" in the fraction of students who thought the admissions officer should issue a public apology. Is that 58-42? Or 20-4? The difference is important.

For example, Fig. 2a shows a "% difference b/t treatment and control" of 35 for (e.g.) "how many microaggressions did the applicant experience?". Does that mean that on average people in the treatment group conjured 35% more microaggressions? Or that 35% more people conjured microaggressions? I presume it's the former because I see "t-test" in the footnote. But is the difference because more people were "seeing" microaggressions or was it that the ones who did "see" microaggressions saw more?

Are the data available anywhere?

Expand full comment
Dan Dalthorp's avatar

What does "editorial reversals" mean?

That they had written articles about the study but then canceled them just before publication?

Or that they had made some commitment to publish articles about it but decided not to?

Or that there was an expectation that they would publish articles about them because they had historically published articles about "similar" studies (i.e., similar in the sense of "hard-hitting, uncomfortable research on hot-button issues")?

Expand full comment
Tim Connolly's avatar

“The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review”. Why wouldn’t you welcome peer review to bolster this study and your argument?

Expand full comment
(Don't Respond to) Rick's avatar

"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."

Did we get a link as to why this was shelved? The explanation from the Bloomberg editor, or the peer review? I'd be curious about their reasoning and if it's well-meaning-yet-flawed, or full of shite.

Expand full comment
Julio Gruñón's avatar

I did a deep dive into the study itself, including the supplemental material: https://borncurious.blog/p/the-study-on-dei-causing-hostile

Like a lot of psych studies, there are multiple issues. Of course, this is preaching to the choir at Unsafe Science.

Expand full comment
Howard J. Eagle's avatar

There’s a feature that allows you to listen to the article. Click on the link below. When the article comes up, to listen, click on this symbol ⧁, right above the title.

https://medium.com/@howardjeagle/research-b551399e889a

Expand full comment
Seth Schwartz's avatar

Although the goals of DEI are laudable, the way it is practiced and implemented simply doesn’t work. It actually amplifies division and hostility between groups. In many US states, diversity is increasing to the point where DEI is no longer necessary. I’m in Texas, and we would have a diverse group of students without even having to try.

Expand full comment
Philo Vivero's avatar

Thank you for writing this.

As to trust in Bloomberg and NYT, they lost my trust years ago. And they keep doing things to be sure I don't regret my decision to mentally label them as cheap propaganda.

Expand full comment
Lorenzo Warby's avatar

I linked to this excellent post in a post of my own which goes some way to explaining why the study was ignored.

https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/modelling-coordination-in-an-activist

Expand full comment
Josh Reilly's avatar

I think maybe thou dost protest a wee bit too much. The NCRI study wasn't withdrawn. It was published. And 2 out of how many major outlets held it up? And only one of those actually spiked it. And for the life of me I do not see why you would oppose the NYT's referral for peer review. If it comes back from peer review with solid acceptance, that makes the study arguments and conclusions even stronger. Isn't that the desired result? BTW, major new media outlets spike or turn down research stories all the time. As for the research itself, it seems like it's based on some big assumptions regarding the meaning of the outcomes. Of course the DEI training is likely to increase study subject sensitivity to claims of racism. That's the reason for DEI. But we don't live under Jim Crow racism anymore. We can debate the magnitude of racism in America, but insofar as it exists, it is going to exist in subtle forms, subject to much interpretation. I am a DEI skeptic. Personally I think DEI and its big spokespersons (Kendi et al) have got it all wrong. I am just not sure this study and the NYT's treatment of it amount to quite the big deal you seem to think they do. Still, I welcome this info. If it isn't the barrage that blows a whole in DEI's defenses, it's still a worthy contribution to the debate.

Expand full comment
SkinShallow's avatar

Yes, I agree. The study seems to show that DEI training does EXACTLY what it's supposed to do, ie "increases awareness" of various inequities and manifestations of opression and potential prejudice at work. The assumption is that those inequities exist and people don't condemn them because they consider them normal and acceptable. I'd assume this effect (sensitising to potential discrimination) is an explicit aim of Kendi etc. One can (and imo should) argue with the aim, of course.

Expand full comment
Lee Jussim's avatar

Although it was both NYT and Bloomberg, I actually mostly agree with your analysis (relevant side note: I often post guest posts without endorsing every claim in them). In this case, I am not at all sure that it is fair to characterize either NYT or Bloomberg as "suppressing" the story.

And thanks for the compliments on the studies!

Expand full comment
Simon Lucas's avatar

I assume DEI persists so stubbornly—at least in corporate spaces—because companies keep convincing themselves (with ample encouragement from consultants conveniently armed with pricey diversity programs) that there's a compelling "business case" for diversity. Yet, the evidence shows, at best, a tepid link between demographic diversity and performance. Worse, these justifications are not only scientifically questionable but also morally fraught—and likely counterproductive (just like the programs themselves, as you so aptly demonstrate with this work).

Expand full comment
Stosh Wychulus's avatar

Eric Hoffman, "All causes start as a movement, become a business, and then degenerate into a racket". In this case a multi-billion-dollar industry

Expand full comment
Howard J. Eagle's avatar

Heh. So you have no AUTHENTIC scientific, ANTI-RACIST expertise at all. Hey, its (supposedly) a free country (even though it's the granddaddy of all white-supremacist-based nation-states on the globe). I agree --- "That's why used car dealers think they know vax's cause autism." Like you, they believe they know what anti-racism is, and how it's related to science. I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that I want to know more about you (to the extent and/or degree that I would search). If you knew anything at all about anti-racism, and how it's related to the scientific method --- we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Indeed, the likes of you have absolutely nothing to teach me --- relative to so-called "instructions" concerning authentic research, as it relates to ANTI-RACISM (nothing at all) --- zilch.

Expand full comment
Howard J. Eagle's avatar

Dear Dr. Jussim & All,

I have something to add:

There’s a feature that allows you to listen to the article. Click on the link below. When the article comes up, to listen, click on this symbol ⧁, right above the title.

https://medium.com/@howardjeagle/research-b551399e889a

Expand full comment
jbnn's avatar

When something does not get published in the NYT the whole European msm will ignore it. As news is only true when the NYT writes about it.

Expand full comment
Lee Jussim's avatar

Maybe. We have been in touch with a reporter at The Times of London. IDK if they *will* run a story on it, but we will see. If they do, and if I remember, I will come back here with the link.

Expand full comment
Howard J. Eagle's avatar

And we should applaud them for declining to publish pseudo "science."

Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

troll blocked

Expand full comment
Lee Jussim's avatar

You're in great company; Kendi also called it pseudo-science. Please do post your scientific bona fides here, say, your vita, or google scholar page, so everyone can judge for themselves your own scientific expertise. Else you are just ax-grinding.

Expand full comment
Lee Jussim's avatar

Heh. So you have no scientific expertise at all. Hey, its a free country! That's why used car dealers think they know vax's cause autism. Like you, they believe they know science.

You can find out more about me very easily. In fact, if you knew anything at all about how science worked, it would be so easy, I would not have to provide instructions.

Expand full comment
Howard J. Eagle's avatar

Heh. So you have no AUTHENTIC scientific, ANTI-RACIST expertise at all. Hey, its (supposedly) a free country (even though it's the granddaddy of all white-supremacist-based nation-states on the globe). I agree --- "That's why used car dealers think they know vax's cause autism." Like you, they believe they know what anti-racism is, and how it's related to science. I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that I want to know more about you (to the extent and/or degree that I would search). If you knew anything at all about anti-racism, and how it's related to the scientific method --- we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Indeed, the likes of you have absolutely nothing to teach me --- relative to so-called "instructions" concerning authentic research, as it relates to ANTI-RACISM (nothing at all) --- zilch.

Expand full comment
'od gsal's avatar

Dr Jussim, your paper seems to refer to figures that are out of order or aren’t in the paper. Perhaps the Appendix might be from a previous version of the paper?

https://x.com/CuroRelics/status/1861450054525194325

Expand full comment
Lee Jussim's avatar

Thanks for flagging this, I sincerely appreciate it. We've since found several other minor errors or omissions (nothing that changes the overall patterns, but I would have preferred NCRI to have waited to be sure it was more polished, but so be it) and will upload an improved report over the next week or two.

Expand full comment