Diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) advocates are in retreat, and we’re all better off as a result. For more on that, please read the related comments of black leaders who are part of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Project 21, who recently published a piece titled: “Rolling Back DEI Rewards Black Americans Instead of Crippling Them.” (In the interest of full disclosure, I am the Executive Director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.) However, DEI advocates are activists at heart and will accordingly not retreat quietly. One of the counter attacks they routinely employ is to cite “unconscious bias” as a justification for DEI. However, as explained below, unconscious bias provides no legitimate justification for DEI.
For years, organizations have embraced unconscious bias training (UBT) as a cornerstone of their DEI initiatives. The premise is alluring: by making individuals aware of their hidden prejudices, we can pave the way for fairer workplaces and a more just society. Millions of dollars and countless hours have been invested in this approach, often presented as the essential first step towards dismantling systemic inequalities. However, a closer look at the evidence reveals a more troubling reality, one that suggests arguments hinging on the necessity and effectiveness of UBT should be firmly rejected.
The very foundation upon which UBT rests – the concept of readily measurable and modifiable "unconscious bias" – is increasingly shaky. While the idea of hidden biases resonates intuitively, the scientific rigor behind its measurement, particularly through tools like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), is far from robust. Critics point to the IAT's poor test-retest reliability, meaning an individual's score can fluctuate wildly even over short periods, casting doubt on whether it truly captures a stable, underlying bias. Furthermore, the correlation between IAT scores and actual discriminatory behavior in real-world settings is weak at best. In fact, unconscious bias training can be a Trojan horse for “the malignant false assumption that White people are inherently racist.” This is part of the reason why the Pacific Legal Foundation has filed two lawsuits (see here and here) challenging mandatory implicit bias training that “imposes divisive ideological requirements.”
Perhaps more concerning is the possibility that what we label "unconscious bias" may, in some instances, be a rational, albeit perhaps uncomfortable, response to observed group differences. For example, if one group consistently and materially underperforms in educational assessments while at the same time being expressly and publicly granted bonus points by educational institutions to improve diversity, a discounting of the resulting resume may be rational. Attributing these associations to unconscious bias risks oversimplifying complex social realities and problematically ignoring pipeline problems.
Even if we accept the premise of unconscious bias, UBT can have unintended negative consequences. For example, UBT has been accused of exacerbating divisions within organizations, “creating suspicion that new hires are less competent,” and even increasing negative stereotypes.
Perhaps the most significant flaw of the UBT-centric approach is its tendency to individualize a problem that is fundamentally systemic. By focusing on the biases within individual minds, organizations can avoid confronting the more challenging task of acknowledging and addressing pipeline problems. As both Charles Murray and Heather Mac Donald have argued, attempting to address problems of inequality without acknowledging pipeline problems related to group differences in areas such as academic testing and criminality constitutes a form of dishonesty that can only lead to even worse outcomes. As the description of Mac Donald’s book When Race Trumps Merit notes: “As long as alleged racism remains the only allowable explanation for racial differences, we will continue tearing down excellence and putting lives, as well as civilizational achievement, at risk.” Similarly, ignoring lifestyle choices and choices regarding educational majors among women simply leads to unhelpful charges of sexism and patriarchy that divert resources in inefficient ways.
Relying heavily on UBT can also create a dangerous illusion of progress. Organizations can point to the number of employees trained as evidence of their commitment to DEI, without undertaking the difficult work of addressing pipeline problems. This "tick-box" approach can lead to complacency, diverting resources and attention from more promising strategies.
Instead of clinging to the flawed premise of UBT as a primary driver of DEI, we must shift our focus towards evidence-based interventions that address our pipeline problems directly. This could include shifting the massive amounts corporations have expended dividing us on the basis of race and sex in the name of DEI to supporting colorblind initiatives designed to raise the floor on a colorblind basis in areas such as education. The diversity implications of such initiatives should be obvious, and would be achieved without all the costs associated with the likely illegal and immoral neo-racist and neo-Marxist “discrimination in the name of anti-discrimination” under the guise of DEI.
The time has come to move beyond the well-intentioned but ultimately limited approach of unconscious bias training, and arguments seeking to salvage DEI on the basis of the necessity and effectiveness of UBT should be met with critical scrutiny and ultimately rejected in favor of more robust, systemic, and evidence-based strategies that have a genuine chance of addressing pipeline problems.
