Conservative opponents of DEI may not be as colorblind as they claim
Critics of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, commonly referred to by the acronym DEI, are increasingly using boycotts and bans to fight against their use. People often argue that this anti-DEI backlash is motivated by race-neutral concerns – for example, that DEI practices are irrelevant to work performance or are too political.
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
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This millennial was rejected from 200 jobs—now he makes millions charging wealthy families six-figures to get their kids into the Ivy Leagues
Like many Gen Zers today, after graduating from college, Christopher Rim was rejected from more than 200 job applications—including at top firms like Goldman Sachs and BCG. But, he says, 'that was the best thing that could have happened to me.' Now, he's making millions disrupting the $3 billion college consultancy industry. How much would you pay to help your child get accepted into Harvard, Stanford, or MIT? $10,000? What about $100,000, or even $750,000? Hundreds of families are paying six-figure price tags to a young millennial named Christopher Rim to get their kids into their top college choices. As the founder and CEO of college admissions consultancy group Command Education, Rim has become a wizard of sorts for how to crack the Ivy League code. Over the last five years, 94% of his clients have been accepted into their top three college choices. And while the $3 billion college consultancy industry may sound like another leg-up the rich have to get their children into schools, Rim says it's about helping students reach their dreams and unlock their potential. After all, on average, only about 5% of pupils who want to go to an Ivy League school actually get in. 'You have one chance. That's it,' the 30-year-old tells Fortune. 'You can't go back to college or apply to these selective universities again.' Unlocking potential is something that hits home in Rim's own story toward success, both in his own journey trying to attend an Ivy League school as well as trying to find his footing as a young graduate. As a public high school student in New Jersey, Rim was told he'd never be cut out for an Ivy League institution. While he admits himself that he wasn't the smartest kid in his class, he had a mission to attend Yale University, and decided to apply even when his guidance counselor pleaded with him to settle for Rutgers University, an in-state public school. Out of the nearly two dozen students from his school who applied to Yale, he was the only one who got in—despite having a lower GPA than the rest. As a student, he kept the ball rolling by charging high schoolers $50 to edit their admissions essays and advising them on how to strengthen their resumes and 'authentically stick out.' After his first two clients got into MIT and Stanford, he realized he might have a gift, and thus Command Education was born in 2015 in his New Haven, Conn., dorm room. However, Rim still wasn't sure it was the key to a post-grad career. Then came the time to apply for jobs. 'I applied to over 200 jobs senior year. All my friends were getting jobs at Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, BCG, major corporations. I got none. I got zero,' he says. 'And that was the best thing to have that happen to me.' Instead of letting the rejection defeat him—like what happens to millions of young adults each year—Rim used it as motivation to help others reach their dream college, too. 'Everyone has this potential, and I was able to instill that confidence and belief and motivate them through the process,' Rim says. 'I think that was a major reason as to why my students succeeded, which, of course, led me to succeed with the business.' So far, Command Education has guided over 1,500 students into top-tier schools, with acceptance rates that soar far above the national average—more than seven times higher at places like Harvard, Caltech, and the University of Chicago. And with parents investing close to $100,000 on average for his services, Rim isn't just shaping student futures, he's built a booming business in the process. While he declined to comment on his company's revenue, his average fee and high demand would put that figure in the millions. (Rim also explained that the $750,000 price tag was a one-off example that included working with a student starting in middle school and having unlimited access to services.) With or without professional help, getting into a top institution is no easy feat. In fact, over the last decade, colleges have only gotten more selective in the students they accept. However, it's not because schools have gotten much smaller in size, it's because more students are applying. For Harvard's class of 2028, who just finished their first year of college, over 54,000 applicants battled for just 1,970 seats; an acceptance rate of 3.6%. That's up from about 37,000 applicants competing for 2,080 spots for the class of 2019, an acceptance rate of 5.6%. Even then, not all accepted students ultimately choose to attend that school. At the same time, college is only getting more expensive. Tuition and fees at private universities have increased by about 41%, when adjusted for inflation, according to U.S. News and World Report. And while some colleges have made attempts at softening the burden for many lower-income students—like Harvard making tuition free for families making less than $200,000—attending a top college remains an uphill battle for many students. However, Rim says services like his aren't making the process less equitable, but rather helping young people find their true calling. 'I know I am not helping my student take a spot away from a middle-class student or a lower-income family student,' Rim adds. 'I'm helping other wealthy families and their kids compete against other wealthy families.' And despite some students feeling that their degree wasn't worth the cost, Rim says demand is higher than it's ever been before. But young people are expanding their interests outside of the traditional Ivy Leagues to other top-ranked schools like Duke University, Vanderbilt University, and the University of North Carolina. 'If you want to get a specific job at a bank, consulting firm, or become a doctor or lawyer, your school is going to matter a lot,' he tells Fortune. But at the end of the day, he says it's about finding students' passions and interests. 'I really will never tell a student, join the debate team, join band club, join newspaper club, because we think that's what colleges want. In fact, it's the total opposite,' Rim says. 'Do what you want.' This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Can Only Buy 1 Cathie Wood Stock in 2025, It Should Be This
Cathie Wood, founder, CEO and chief investment officer of Ark Invest, continues to make headlines for her high-conviction approach to disruptive innovation. Her flagship fund, the Ark Innovation ETF (ARKK), has posted a 52.9% return in the past 52 weeks, reflecting investor confidence. Known for identifying transformational themes early, Wood maintains focused exposure to industries like genomics, autonomous technology, and blockchain. Within this context, Natera (NTRA) has drawn sharp relevance. The company leads in cell-free DNA testing and precision medicine, aligning directly with Ark's long-term thesis. CoreWeave Just Revealed the Largest-Ever Nvidia Blackwell GPU Cluster. Should You Buy CRWV Stock? AMD Is Gunning for Nvidia's AI Chip Throne. Should You Buy AMD Stock Now? The Saturday Spread: Statistical Signals Flash Green for CMG, TMUS and VALE Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! For investors seeking a stock that fits the Ark playbook, Natera may represent one of the most fundamentally aligned additions under Wood's current investment lens. Based in Austin, Texas, stands Natera (NTRA), a pioneer in the field of cell-free DNA and genetic testing. The $23.3 billion biotech firm's arsenal includes powerful offerings like Panorama for prenatal screening, Signatera for real-time cancer surveillance, and Prospera, which sharpens the lens on transplant rejection. Over the last three months, the stock has climbed 16.9%, leaving the broader S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) 5.4% gain behind. On May 8, Natera opened the books on its first-quarter, and the results exceeded Wall Street expectations. Investors responded swiftly, with the stock inching up 1.5% the same day. Natera posted $501.8 million in total revenues, a 36.5% year-over-year increase that soared past Wall Street's $443.3 million forecast. Behind those numbers were powerhouse operations. The company processed 855,100 tests during the quarter, up 16.2% year over year. Women's health volumes climbed meaningfully over the fourth quarter, but it was Signatera that stole the spotlight. The personalized, tumor-informed molecular residual disease test reached new heights, recording its highest volume quarter ever. Clinical volumes for Signatera grew 52% year over year, with a sequential gain of roughly 16,005 units over Q4, marking the most significant quarter-on-quarter growth to date. Gross margins landed at 63.1%, reflecting solid cost discipline. Moreover, Natera's net loss narrowed 1% from the year-ago period to $66.9 million. Also, the company managed to trim its loss per share by 10.7% to $0.50, outperforming analysts' projections of a $0.59 loss per share. As for liquidity, the balance sheet remained in good shape. Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash climbed to $973.8 million, up from $945.6 million on Dec 31, 2024. CEO Steve Chapman has made no secret of the firm's long-term vision. He believes Signatera could ultimately generate over $5 billion in annual revenue, and he emphasized that they are still playing in the shallow end of a much deeper market pool. In a move that reinforced this optimism, Natera has raised its full-year revenue guidance to between $1.94 billion and $2.02 billion. That is a $70 million boost from the midpoint of its earlier outlook, pointing to a 26% year-over-year growth. On the other hand, analysts expect the Q2 2025 loss per share to widen 100% year over year to $0.60. For FY25, the loss per share is projected to increase 37% to $2.10, but FY26 could bring relief, with a forecast 64.8% narrowing to $0.74, hinting that profitability may finally be within reach. Analysts seem to be singing in harmony when it comes to NTRA, marking it with a firm 'Strong Buy' rating. Out of 19 analysts following the stock, 16 have given it an enthusiastic 'Strong Buy' rating, and the remaining three have placed their bets on a 'Moderate Buy.' The average price target of $200.42 represents potential upside of 17.6%. Meanwhile, the Street-High target of $251 hints at a 48% climb from current levels. Such projections do not come lightly and often reflect deep-rooted confidence in future earnings momentum and strategic execution. On the date of publication, Aanchal Sugandh did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Make Over a 2.4% One-Month Yield Shorting Nvidia Out-of-the-Money Puts
Nvidia Inc. (NVDA) stock is cheap based on free cash flow (FCF) price targets. Investors can short out-of-the-money (OTM) NVDA put options to make a 1-month 2.4% yield. This is at 5% lower exercise prices, providing a cheaper potential buy-in point for investors. NVDA closed at $143.85 on Friday, June 20. In my last Barchart article on May 30, I argued that NVDA stock was worth $191.34 per share. That is still one-third (+33.0%) higher than Friday's price. The Saturday Spread: Statistical Signals Flash Green for CMG, TMUS and VALE Make Over a 2.4% One-Month Yield Shorting Nvidia Out-of-the-Money Puts Stop Missing Market Moves: Get the FREE Barchart Brief – your midday dose of stock movers, trending sectors, and actionable trade ideas, delivered right to your inbox. Sign Up Now! This article will discuss one way to play NVDA by shorting out-of-the-money (OTM) puts. That way, an investor can set a potentially lower buy-in point and get paid for this. But first, let's look at Nvidia's free cash flow and the related price target. In my last Barchart article, I showed that Nvidia's Q1 FCF of $26.125 billion represented an astounding 59.3% of quarterly revenue. That means almost 60% of its sales revenue goes straight into its bank account with no cash outlays on it (even after record-high capex spending). Moreover, I showed that over the last 12 months (LTM), its FCF margin was almost 50% (48.5%). That implies going forward its FCF could rise to a record high. For example, based on analysts' next 12-month (NTM) projections of $225 billion, using a 50% FCF margin free cash flow could exceed $112 billion: $225b x 50% FCF margin = $112.5b FCF How to value NVDA? Let's think about what the market might be projecting. For example, let's assume the market believes Nvidia will make $100 billion in FCF, slightly less than 4 times its Q1 FCF. So, given its market cap today of $3,508 billion, that represents a 2.85% yield: $100b/$3,508 = 0.0285 = 2.850% FCF yield So, using our NTM forecast of $112.5b, its market cap could rise to $3.75 trillion $112.5b / 0.0285 = $3,947 billion NTM mkt cap That represents an upside of 12.5% from today's market cap: $3,947b / $3,508b mkt cap today = 1.125 So, that makes its target price at least 12.5% more: $143.85 x 1.125 = $161.83 However, if Nvidia makes better than 50% FCF margins over the next year, its target price could be much higher. For example, even a 10% higher FCF margin leads to a 24% upside: 0.55 x $225b = $123.75b FCF $123.75b / 0.0285 FCF yield = $4,342 billion mkt cap; $4,342b / $3,508b = 1.2377 = +23.8% upside 1.1238 x $143.85 p/sh = $178 per share The bottom line is that Nvidia's strong FCF and FCF margins will lead to a significantly higher price, between $162 and $178 per share. This coincides with what other analysts are projecting. For example, 66 analysts surveyed by Yahoo! Finance show an average price target of $172.60. Similarly, Barchart's mean survey shows $174.83 per share. In addition, which tracks analysts who have written recently on NVDA stock, has an average price of $179.87 from 40 analysts. My analysis above shows you why these analysts have these higher price targets. But there is no guarantee NVDA will rise to these targets over the next year. So, one way to play this is to sell short out-of-the-money (OTM) puts in nearby expiry periods. In my May 30 Barchart article, I suggest selling short the $128 strike price put expiring July 3 for a 3.125% yield at a 3.72% out-of-the-money (i.e., below the trading price) strike. For example, the midpoint premium was $4.00, so $4.00/$128.00 equals 0.03125. That was for a one-month play (34 days to expiry or DTE). Today, that strike price has a much lower premium of just 39 cents. So, an investor has already made $3.61 (i.e., $4.00-$0.39), or a net 2.82% yield (i.e., $3.61/$128 = 0.028). It makes sense to roll this over and set a new one-month short-put play. That means buying back the short put at 39 cents and reinvesting at a slightly higher strike price one month out. For example, look at the July 25 expiration period (i.e., 34 DTE). It shows that the $137 strike price put options expiring July 25, i.e., 4.7% below Friday's price, have a $3.40 midpoint premium. That means a new short seller of these puts can make a 2.48% yield over the next month (i.e., $3.40/$137.00 = 0.0248). For less risk-averse investors, a 2.70% yield is possible at the $138 strike price(i.e., $3.72/$138.00 = 0.02696). This strike price is just 4% below Friday's close. Moreover, even after rolling the prior trade over, the net yield with the $137 strike put play is still 2.20% (i.e., $3.40-0.39 = $3.01/$137.00 = 0.02197). So, that means over two months, a short seller of these OTM puts will have made 2.82% plus 2.20%, or 5.02% total (2.51% on average for both months). In addition, an investor's breakeven point, even if NVDA falls to $137.00 over the next month, is lower: $137 - $3.40 = $133.60 p/ sh That is -7.125% below Friday's closing price. In other words, this is a good way to set a lower buy-in point for new investors in NVDA stock. For existing investors, it is a way to potentially lower their average cost, as well as produce extra income on their holdings. And don't forget, given the target price of $172.60, the breakeven point presents a potential upside of over 29%: $172.60/$133.60-1 = 1.292 -1 = +29.2% upside The bottom line is that investors can potentially make over a 2% yield over the next month shorting these out-of-the-money (OTM) puts. On the date of publication, Mark R. Hake, CFA did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
