Conservative opponents of DEI may not be as colorblind as they claim
But our research published in 2024 in the peer-reviewed Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, suggests that conservative critiques of DEI often boil down to one thing: anti-Black racism.
As psychology researchers, we wanted to understand why people react to DEI the way they do. So, we recruited more than 1,000 people to take part in three related studies.
For each study, we measured participants' conservatism on a seven-point scale ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Single-item measures such as this are often used by researchers.
We also measured participants' anti-Black racism using the symbolic racism scale, which is a well-validated and commonly used measure of anti-Black racism. Research suggests that as overt racism has become less acceptable, people tend to direct racism toward symbols of racial equality, like DEI. That meant the symbolic racism scale was an ideal measure of anti-Black racism for our purposes.
In the first study, we asked participants to read a job advertisement from either a company that emphasizes DEI or a company that emphasized teamwork and good professional relationships. Then, participants rated their interest in the job and how fair they thought the company was. In later studies, they also indicated how well they thought they'd fit in.
We found that participants who scored higher on our measure of conservatism expressed significantly less interest in pursuing a job at the company promoting DEI, and viewed it as less fair compared with the company promoting teamwork.
We then added symbolic racism to our statistical model. Once we did that, our measure of conservatism no longer predicted job interest or perceived fairness in the pro-DEI company condition.
In other words, symbolic racism accounted for the effect of conservatism on outcomes in the DEI condition. This suggests that conservative participants' reactions to DEI aren't independent from symbolic racism.
We expanded on these findings in our following studies. In the second study, participants were randomly assigned to read descriptions of similar pro-DEI or pro-teamwork companies. Additionally, half of the participants were told why the organization supported either DEI or teamwork, and the other half were not.
We found that participants who scored higher on conservatism expressed less interest in applying for a job at the pro-DEI company and viewed it as being less fair, regardless of whether DEI – or teamwork – was clearly tied to job-related criteria.
We estimated statistical models similar to the ones we built in the first study. And we again found that when we added symbolic racism to our statistical model, negative views of the DEI company disappeared. Thus, negative reactions to the pro-DEI organization seemed to reflect race-related rather than job-related concerns.
In the third study, participants read job advertisements for a pro-DEI, pro-teamwork or pro-family-values company. The pro-family-values company was described as seeking to preserve traditional values.
We found that participants who more strongly endorsed conservatism were more interested in applying for a job at that company, and viewed it as more fair and a better 'fit' in the pro-family-values scenario. The opposite was true of reactions to the pro-DEI company.
When we added symbolic racism to our models, we found that positive views of the pro-family-values company remained significant, but negative views of the pro-DEI company disappeared. This suggests that opposition to DEI is rooted in anti-Black racism, not concerns about politics.
Given the fraught political environment, organizations will need to address criticisms of DEI programs. Successfully responding to these criticisms requires addressing the underlying motive — which our research suggests is often anti-Black racism.
As part of the hiring process, many companies and organizations ask job applicants about their views on DEI or what they've done to promote it. In our study, we included requests for similar statements.
However, no one has tested whether people's answers to these statements actually predict performance related to DEI. That's what our team plans to examine next — whether someone's stated views on DEI can forecast job outcomes like collaborating effectively in diverse teams.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Abigail Folberg, University of Nebraska Omaha; Laura Brooks Dueland, University of Nebraska Omaha, and Mikki Hebl, Rice University
Read more:
The backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion in business is in full force − but myths obscure the real value of DEI
How DEI rollbacks at colleges and universities set back learning
Court blocks grants to Black women entrepreneurs in case that could restrict DEI efforts by companies and charities
Abigail Folberg receives funding from the National Science Foundation and has previously received funding from the Society for the Psychological Study for Social Issues, the American Psychological Foundation, and The Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
Laura Brooks Dueland is a co-founder of Inclusion Analytics, LLC.
Mikki Hebl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
37 minutes ago
- New York Times
Senate Advances Trump Clawback of Foreign Aid and Public Broadcast Funds
The Senate on Tuesday voted to take up legislation to claw back $9 billion for foreign aid and public broadcasting, signaling that the Republican-led Congress is poised to acquiesce to President Trump in a simmering battle with the White House over spending powers. The 51-to-50 vote came after Republican leaders agreed to a handful of concessions to win the votes of holdouts who were uneasy with the proposed rescissions. G.O.P. leaders said on Tuesday they would strip out a $400 million cut that Mr. Trump requested to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, a move that the White House signaled it would not contest. Even then, some Republican senators refused to support a move that they said would relinquish their constitutional power over federal spending, forcing their leaders to summon Vice President JD Vance to the Capitol to break a tie and ram the legislation through a pair of procedural votes. 'We're lawmakers; we should be legislating,' Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said in a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday night announcing her opposition to the package. 'What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, 'This is the priority. We want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round.' I don't accept that.' She was joined by two other Republicans in siding with Democrats in opposition to advancing the measure: Senators Susan Collins of Maine, the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Senate Republicans are hoping to approve the package as early as Wednesday. That would send it back to the House, which passed the bill last month but would still need to give it final approval by Friday for the cuts to be enacted. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Bloomberg
38 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Amazon, Verra on Carbon Credit Integrity
Jamey Mulligan, Head, Carbon Neutralization Science & Strategy, Amazon and Jerry Seager, Senior Director, Program Quality, Verra discuss the carbon credit market and scaling nature protection through net-zero strategies with Bloomberg Green's Brian Kahn at Bloomberg Green Seattle 2025. (Source: Bloomberg)


Fox News
38 minutes ago
- Fox News
Senate GOP blows through 2nd hurdle of the night, teeing up Trump's clawback bill for hourslong debate
Senate Republicans again coalesced behind President Donald Trump's multibillion-dollar spending clawback package and propelled the legislation through its final procedural hurdle, again with the aid of Vice President JD Vance. Lawmakers will now go back and forth through 10 hours of debate on the bill, where Senate Democrats are expected to bleed time and slam the legislation for its cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting funding. Trump's smaller, $9 billion package passed with nearly all Senate Republicans, while all Senate Democrats voted against it. Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., were the only Republicans to vote against the bill. Once debate has wrapped up on the bill, lawmakers will go through another vote-a-rama, where an unlimited number of amendments can be offered for the bill by either side of the aisle. Democrats will likely try to sideline or derail the package, while the GOP is expected to offer an amendment that would spare about $400 million in international HIV and AIDS funding from the chopping block. The carveout for the Bush-era President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was agreed to ahead of the vote and is backed by the White House. Trimming funding from the program rattled some Senate Republicans, who publicly and privately warned they may not support the bill unless a fix was found. However, slashing the funding cut from the package could prove a tricky sell to the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has called on Senate Republicans to not change the bill. He's been joined by fiscal hawks in the House Freedom Caucus, too, who have demanded that the Senate GOP stay the course on the rescissions package and warned that they would have serious issues if changes were made, stopping short of declaring a full-on rebellion against the bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., hoped that his colleagues in the lower chamber would play ball and pass the bill ahead of a looming Friday deadline. "There was a lot of interest among our members in doing something on the PEPFAR issue," he said ahead of the vote. "So, that's reflected in the substitute, and we hope that if we can get this across the finish line in the Senate that the House will accept that one small modification."