The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) has publicly accused The New York Times and Bloomberg of concealing a remarkable study conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in partnership with Rutgers University, which found that the outgoing regime under the Democratic Joe Biden administration had turned Brahmins from India into objects of hatred. This study highlights serious concerns regarding the negative impacts of caste-based Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training programmes on Hindu Americans.

In a forceful statement, HAF asserted that the research investigated the effects of anti-caste training developed by Equality Labs, which is widely adopted in both corporate and academic environments. HAF described the findings as profoundly concerning.

“The study shows that DEI corporate and college caste trainings offered by Equality Labs do exactly the opposite of what they claim — they worsen anti-Hindu discrimination and hate,” the organisation stated.

Additionally, HAF claimed that The New York Times had intended to report on the study and had even scheduled a publication date, but the article was unexpectedly withdrawn without any explanation.

Bloomberg reportedly suppressed coverage without providing a formal rationale, too.

HAF’s statement pointed out a particularly disturbing finding from the NCRI study — participants who engaged with Equality Labs training materials were notably more inclined to use dehumanising language for Brahmins, employing terms such as “parasites,” “virus,” or “devil personified.” HAF contended that these findings highlight the perilous potential of such training to exacerbate bias and provoke hostility rather than mitigate discrimination.

Dr Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist and editor-in-chief of Reality’s Last Stand, published an in-depth analysis of the study and the media’s choice to suppress it. Wright’s article underscored the broader ramifications of the NCRI findings, which revealed that DEI initiatives, including those from Equality Labs, may unintentionally promote heightened perceptions of bias, punitive behaviours and authoritarian attitudes.

Wright detailed that the research methodology involved, presenting participants with training materials from Equality Labs and contrasting their reactions with those of a control group that received neutral academic content regarding caste.

The findings were shocking. Individuals in the Equality Labs group were more inclined to identify bias in neutral situations and support punitive measures, including dehumanising language. This was exemplified by altering quotes from Adolf Hitler, where “Jews” was replaced with “Brahmins” to assess reactions. Participants who underwent Equality Labs training showed a significantly higher likelihood of endorsing the modified dehumanising language.

Equality Labs, a leading organisation advocating against caste discrimination, has faced ongoing criticism from Hindu groups for its contentious rhetoric and methods concerning caste issues. The NCRI study provides empirical support for these criticisms, indicating that the materials from Equality Labs may not only be ineffective in addressing caste discrimination but could also intensify divisions and incite animosity.

Three ways in which Brahmins were targeted

1. Heightened bias perception: Training from Equality Labs increased participants’ inclination to detect discrimination in neutral or hypothetical contexts.
2. Hostile attribution bias: The training conditioned participants to perceive injustice against particular groups, fostering scepticism and eroding trust in institutional fairness.
3. Endorsement of dehumanising language: Those who received the training were more prone to support extreme and divisive rhetoric, suggesting a concerning alignment with authoritarian attitudes.

The study highlights potential risks associated with DEI initiatives that depend on divisive and unverified frameworks. Critics contend that such programmes may unintentionally reinforce stereotypes and generate resentment instead of promoting inclusivity.

Wright noted that The New York Times had referenced NCRI’s research in more than 20 previous articles without necessitating peer review. In this instance, however, the editors insisted on peer review as a rationale for delaying publication. Bloomberg completely suppressed the story, reportedly swayed by editors who favour DEI initiatives.

HAF urged both publications to release the findings, contending that the refusal to publish the research compromises transparency and accountability. “To refuse to cover this case-control study is to censor critical information that has immense repercussions for the Hindu American community,” HAF stated.

Saving Hindus from DEI-ing

The NCRI study and its subsequent suppression have ignited a huge debate regarding the effectiveness and ethical considerations of DEI training. Critics argue that these programmes often depend on unproven theories, lack sufficient oversight, and may unintentionally create divisions. A meta-analysis from 2021, referenced by Wright, indicated that numerous DEI initiatives not only fail to mitigate prejudice but may actually intensify it by generating feelings of resentment and perceptions of injustice.

The revelations surrounding caste training are particularly concerning, especially in light of the ongoing discussions about caste discrimination in the United States. Notable legislative efforts, such as California’s Senate Bill 403, aim to tackle caste discrimination; however, detractors contend that these initiatives disproportionately target the Hindu community and are based on biased narratives.

A call for transparency

The NCRI study highlights the critical need for evidence-based strategies to address discrimination and promote inclusivity. The suppression of this study by prominent media outlets raises significant concerns regarding editorial independence and the potential impact of ideological biases.

Given the high stakes involved, the controversy surrounding this study is poised to initiate broader conversations about the effectiveness of DEI programmes, the accountability of the media, and the unintended repercussions of initiatives that are intended to be beneficial.

HAF’s statement concludes: “The public deserves to know if the tools being deployed to foster equity and anti-racism are instead causing harm. To suppress this research is to undermine the very goals of inclusivity and fairness.”

Caste war in the US

The concept of a caste conflict in the United States has gained momentum in recent years, primarily driven by advocacy organisations like Equality Labs. These groups assert that caste-based discrimination is widespread within U.S. institutions, calling for immediate legislative action and the implementation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training programmes.

However, numerous experts and community organisations challenge the accuracy of these assertions, contending that the narrative is exaggerated and potentially detrimental. The issue has escalated to the point where even Donald Trump has publicly opposed California’s Senate Bill 403, vowing to counter what he describes as the ‘radical left’s overreach’ while appealing to Hindu-American voters.

In 2023, the backlash prompted Governor Newsom to veto the bill, arguing that existing anti-discrimination laws already offer adequate protections. Speculation emerged that Vice President Kamala Harris, who has Indian heritage, may have influenced the veto to prevent alienating Hindu-American voters, a significant demographic for the Democratic Party.

The debate over caste discrimination in the U.S. highlights the challenges of navigating sensitive cultural matters through DEI initiatives and legislative measures. The findings of the NCRI study and its purported suppression by major media outlets emphasise the necessity for transparency, accountability, and evidence-based strategies. In the absence of these elements, well-meaning programmes may inadvertently create division rather than promote inclusivity, further polarising communities.