Nov 1, 2026 06:46 PM
This is kind of unintentionally hilarious. Republicans already know that DEI is just another iteration of positive discrimination that gets inevitably re-branded by Democrats and literary intellectuals after the GOP turns the most current label into yet another pejorative. And adjusting the specific terminology that such a rebranding exhibits is just a micro-version of the same tactical revisionism that their rivals are likewise well aware of. It's as if these northeastern researchers are unlettered in the history of this reciprocal cat-and-mouse game, which is a strategical component of their own party heritage (that even any usually Dem-voting independents among them should also be knowledgeable about).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don't call it DEI: How changing the language can win over Republicans
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/10...i-training
PRESS RELEASE: Replacing commonly used diversity, equity and inclusion-related terminology such as “belonging” with carefully matched alternative language may improve Republicans’ favorability toward diversity training, according to new Cornell University research.
“A common assumption is that conservatives push back on diversity training because they disagree with what it teaches,” said Devon Proudfoot, associate professor of organizational behavior. “We wanted to know whether the words used to initially frame the training also played a role, and we found that they do.”
When the researchers described the same training without the buzzwords from political debates – words like “inclusion” and “belonging” – Republicans were more enthusiastic about it and saw it as less politically biased, Proudfoot said.
“Nothing about the training itself changed, only the language that was used to introduce it,” she said. “Right now, anything labeled ‘DEI’ can trigger a political reaction before people even get to the content. Companies still want employees to come into these trainings with an open mind, so we asked whether something as simple as changing the language used to describe the training could help.”
The researchers showed study participants various DEI training presentations and articles on human resource issues at work. The language used to initially frame the training content or article was varied, replacing words such as ‘‘diversity,’’ ‘‘inclusion,’’ and “privilege” with carefully matched alternative terms such as “differences,” “being visible, heard, and considered” and “unfair advantages.”
“Terms such as ‘diversity,’ ‘inclusion,’ and ‘belonging’ are not inherently political, but frequent use in partisan debate has given them political connotations,” Proudfoot said. “Training introduced with this vocabulary may therefore call to mind political identities and party positions, leading Republicans to read the training as pushing a progressive agenda instead of improving workplace dynamics.”
Across the studies, the results showed that Republicans reported higher enthusiasm for training sessions framed in alternative DEI language and viewed them as less politically biased.
“Some of the words we use to describe diversity training have turned into political signals,” Proudfoot said. “A word like ‘inclusion’ can read as a political statement to some people, even when the training itself is about something everyone agrees on.
“Our results suggest that companies can lower the temperature by describing what the training covers in plain terms rather than borrowing the vocabulary of current political debates over DEI,” Proudfoot said. “It’s not a cure-all, but it’s a low-cost and easy change to make.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don't call it DEI: How changing the language can win over Republicans
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/10...i-training
PRESS RELEASE: Replacing commonly used diversity, equity and inclusion-related terminology such as “belonging” with carefully matched alternative language may improve Republicans’ favorability toward diversity training, according to new Cornell University research.
“A common assumption is that conservatives push back on diversity training because they disagree with what it teaches,” said Devon Proudfoot, associate professor of organizational behavior. “We wanted to know whether the words used to initially frame the training also played a role, and we found that they do.”
When the researchers described the same training without the buzzwords from political debates – words like “inclusion” and “belonging” – Republicans were more enthusiastic about it and saw it as less politically biased, Proudfoot said.
“Nothing about the training itself changed, only the language that was used to introduce it,” she said. “Right now, anything labeled ‘DEI’ can trigger a political reaction before people even get to the content. Companies still want employees to come into these trainings with an open mind, so we asked whether something as simple as changing the language used to describe the training could help.”
The researchers showed study participants various DEI training presentations and articles on human resource issues at work. The language used to initially frame the training content or article was varied, replacing words such as ‘‘diversity,’’ ‘‘inclusion,’’ and “privilege” with carefully matched alternative terms such as “differences,” “being visible, heard, and considered” and “unfair advantages.”
“Terms such as ‘diversity,’ ‘inclusion,’ and ‘belonging’ are not inherently political, but frequent use in partisan debate has given them political connotations,” Proudfoot said. “Training introduced with this vocabulary may therefore call to mind political identities and party positions, leading Republicans to read the training as pushing a progressive agenda instead of improving workplace dynamics.”
Across the studies, the results showed that Republicans reported higher enthusiasm for training sessions framed in alternative DEI language and viewed them as less politically biased.
“Some of the words we use to describe diversity training have turned into political signals,” Proudfoot said. “A word like ‘inclusion’ can read as a political statement to some people, even when the training itself is about something everyone agrees on.
“Our results suggest that companies can lower the temperature by describing what the training covers in plain terms rather than borrowing the vocabulary of current political debates over DEI,” Proudfoot said. “It’s not a cure-all, but it’s a low-cost and easy change to make.”