North Cowichan’s 2025 Budget Includes DEI Training
Corporate America spends approximately $8 billion annually on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, according to research by consulting firm McKinsey. This reflects an ongoing financial commitment to advancing DEI in workplaces, but questions remain. Shareholders and board members often debate the effectiveness of these programs, especially as conservative pushback grows.
DEI programs have become the go-to solution for addressing prejudice and inequality in government offices, businesses, and colleges. The claim? These initiatives build bridges, increase empathy, and make spaces more welcoming. Sounds fantastic, right? But what if some of these programs are actually driving people further apart rather than bringing them together?
With North Cowichan’s ‘People and Culture’ division adding DEI training as part of its million-dollar budget for 2025, it’s time to ask: Is this the best use of taxpayer dollars?
A Study Raises Unexpected Concerns
A recent study, Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Creates the Hostile Attribution Bias, highlights some unintended consequences of anti-oppressive DEI narratives. Conducted by researchers from Narravance and the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), the study suggests that some DEI strategies may actually aggravate prejudice, fuel animosity, and create division where none previously existed.
Researchers divided participants into two groups. One group studied materials from prominent DEI advocates such as Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kendi, and Equality Labs. The second group? They read something completely neutral—like an essay on U.S. grain output (thrilling, I know). Afterward, participants were asked to assess hypothetical scenarios for bias—such as a university admissions process or job hiring decisions.
The results? Not what DEI advocates might have hoped for.
Those who read anti-oppressive DEI materials were significantly more likely to perceive bias in neutral situations. This psychological effect—known as “hostile attribution bias”—causes people to assume bad intentions, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
For example, in one case, participants evaluated a fictional admissions officer. Those exposed to anti-racist literature were more likely to assume racial bias in the decision-making process—even when the process was clearly fair.
And this didn’t just apply to race. Participants who read anti-Islamophobia materials were more likely to perceive discrimination against Muslims, even when Muslims and non-Muslims were treated equally. A similar effect was found in caste-based narratives, reinforcing negative stereotypes about Hindu populations and heightening perceptions of caste-based persecution in otherwise neutral scenarios.
The Problem with “Us vs. Them” Thinking
Here’s where it gets tricky. DEI programs often frame the world in binary terms: oppressors vs. victims, privileged vs. marginalized. While this might feel empowering for some, it has major drawbacks.
For one, it can alienate people who—despite never having done anything wrong—find themselves labeled as “oppressors.” Instead of fostering understanding, this creates resentment and hostility. When DEI training is mandatory, forcing employees to sit through hours of ideological lectures, the risk of backlash only increases.
Many DEI narratives also contain a strong moral absolutism. If society is framed as a battle between “good” and “bad” actors, the response to perceived wrongdoing often becomes punitive. The same study found that participants exposed to anti-racist materials were more likely to support punishment or mandatory DEI training for a fictional admissions officer—even when their decision-making was objectively fair.
This “us vs. them” approach doesn’t lead to reconciliation—it deepens division. The irony? A program designed to reduce bias may, in some cases, be making people more biased.
The Real Issue: Poor Execution, Not the Concept Itself
To be clear, the concept of DEI is not the problem. The intention behind these programs—to promote understanding and inclusion—is commendable. But when DEI efforts rely on ideological frameworks that focus too heavily on identity politics and historical grievances, they lose sight of their original purpose.
Rather than creating environments where people find common ground, these programs often make people hyper-aware of their differences. This isn’t just an issue in workplaces or universities—it’s a broader social trend that fuels mistrust and ideological echo chambers.
If DEI programs are to be successful, they need a major rethink.
What Needs to Change?
The study recommends a few key improvements.
First, transparency is essential. DEI training materials should be publicly available so organizations can evaluate their impact before rolling them out. Blindly adopting these programs without review is a recipe for problems.
Second, DEI programs should focus on connection, not confrontation. Instead of reinforcing an “oppressor vs. oppressed” mindset, training should highlight shared values and mutual understanding. People are more receptive to these ideas when they don’t feel attacked.
Third, DEI content should be independently reviewed. The study suggests creating independent review boards to assess whether DEI training produces real-world benefits or unintended harms.
Lastly, the focus should shift toward solutions rather than scapegoats. Instead of dwelling on blame and guilt, effective DEI programs should encourage constructive dialogue and teamwork. People work together better when they’re encouraged to solve problems, not just listen to lectures about past injustices.
DEI should aim for a more inclusive, fair society where people genuinely respect and understand one another. But good intentions aren’t enough. If these programs continue down a path that fuels division and resentment, they may do more harm than good.
Final Thought: The Charter vs. DEI
“DEI as a government policy initiative has been a blunt social engineering attempt—like performing heart surgery with a hammer. It trades one perceived tyranny for another, forcing communities and the country into a rearward-looking, conflict-based mindset. In practice, DEI is more about Disunity, Exclusion, and Inequality.”
This argument, put forward by William A. Thomas, suggests that DEI strays from Canada’s founding legal principles. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines equality under the law—where race, religion, and identity should not dictate different treatment. Section 15 states:
“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.”
If DEI initiatives conflict with these principles, they need to be re-examined.
The goal should not be to reframe society as a battle between identity groups. The goal should be a society where people are treated equally and fairly—without bias, without special treatment, and without division.
