- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Jane Elliott & the Perversity of Diversity


Jane Elliott

2,658 words

In 1949 George Orwell published Nineteen Eighty-Four, his dystopian novel of a totalitarian society. Orwell wrote the novel just after the end of the Second World War. His purpose was to warn us that if he could conceive of an unfeeling, soulless government, then someone, somewhere could create it. Less than twenty years later, Mao Zedong’s Communist Party in China forced the break-up of families and transported 17 million young people from cities to farms and work camps to undergo political indoctrination or what the party euphemistically called “re-education.” The central party tied a pretty bow on the whole thing calling it the “Down to the Countryside Movement.” The starvation and mind-numbing labor lasted for nearly ten years. It was a part of Mao’s “Cultural Revolution,” and it graphically depicted the horror of Orwell’s prediction of people living under the mailed fist of repression, fear, and misery.

The repression of the human spirit and the forced compliance with the state’s values were part of the Orwellian message. In today’s analog of the Oceania superstate, “Diversity Training” is the favored method used by Big Brother to strip away all racial consciousness and bend us to cultural universalist creatures. If the state can browbeat us into believing that black is white and white is black, then all other forms of mind-manipulation are simple.

In December 2017, the Huffington Post as part of celebrating all things Martin Luther King resurrected the harridan of diversity training—Jane Elliott. It’s not that Jane had gone into self-imposed exile, as we might only hope; no, she has been busy delousing governments and corporations of their prejudice-typhus with her own brand of Zyklon-B disinfectant; and doing so by charging $6,000 per day.

In case the reader does not recognize the name, allow me to teleport you back to that not-so-very-good year 1992. It was shortly after the Rodney King verdict in the City of Angels and blacks had begun a conversation about race, the beginning of many such Eric Holderian conversations, by looting, burning, pillaging, beating whites and yellows, killing whites and yellows; you know, the usual annoyance-signaling, this time about police impoliteness while arresting the meth-crazed, alcohol-fueled, six-feet tall, 225 pound Mr. King.

Into the conflagration stepped a third-grade schoolmarm from the small all-white town of Riceville, Iowa. She knew how to rid white people of the dreadful disease of racism, and she convinced Oprah Winfrey to allow her to demonstrate the soul-saving baptism on national TV. The demonstration was simple. As the audience entered the studio, Winfrey’s assistants divided the audience into two groups: one group composed of blue-eyed people and the other group of brown-eyed people. The assistants fed the brown-eyed group doughnuts and coffee and seated them in the front rows. Even more humiliating, the blue-eyes had to wear a collar.

The audience took their seats, the show began, and Oprah introduced Jane Elliott who remarked to the blue-eyed people:

I’ve been a teacher for 25 years in the public, private and parochial schools in this country, and I have seen what brown-eyed people have done as compared to what blue-eyed people do. It’s perfectly obvious, you should have been here this morning when we brought these people in here.[1]

Naturally, the blue-eyed group protested both their ill-treatment (I mean really, doughnut and coffee deprivation—the torture of it all!) and Elliott’s erroneous observation of their arrival time. The big breakthrough, however, was when some blue-eye retorted that Elliott had blue eyes and was not wearing a collar. Jane tersely responded:

Because I’ve learned to act brown-eyed, and the message in this room is, act brown- eyed and you, too, can take off your collar.[2]

Eventually, the brown-eyed folks grew keen on Elliott’s created illusion of their superiority and joined in cohesive role-playing while supporting Elliott’s bullying of the blue-eyed group. They called the blue-eyed people “stupid,” “rude,” and “noisy.”

Okay, let’s cut to the chase here. There was a good deal of back and forth among the two groups, Oprah, and Elliott, after which the audience awoke to the great realization that the demonstration was about institutional racism and in particular about how they had been grotesquely turned into racists for a wholly absurd distinction—their eye color!

Elliott appeared on the Oprah show several more times and once on the late night Johnny Carson show. Thus, one woman found her calling in life and virtually single-handedly created an industry that no one knew was needed or wanted, except by Jane Elliott and leftist apparatchiks in the federal government.

The Huffington Post writer caught up with Jane while she wasn’t screaming at racist audiences for $6,000 a day, and the two of them wept with joy at the recollection of Jane’s immaculate deception on April 6, 1968:

“Martin Luther King, Jr. had been one of our ‘heroes of the month’ in February in my third-grade classroom, and he was dead at the hands of an assassin,” Elliott says, getting choked up. “I hate to talk about this because every time I talk about it, I remember how it felt that day. I was going to have to go into my classroom and explain to my students why the adults in this country had allowed somebody to kill hope. Martin Luther King, for me, was hope for this country.”[3]

The next morning, one of her students walked into the classroom and asked her “who killed that king?” obviously believing that it was the monarch of a country. Such was the innocence of small-town white third graders. She decided to create the eye-color experiment because she said that is what Adolf Hitler did; separate people on the basis of a physical characteristic. But why did she select eye color? In her own words:

Eye color and skin color are caused by the same chemical: melanin. There’s no logic in judging people by the amount of a chemical in their skin. Pigmentation should have nothing to do with how you treat another person, but unfortunately, it does.[4]

But Elliott’s demonstration is a fraud in terms of teaching us about racism. The demonstration only tells us that when you reward one group of people while at the same time withhold the reward from another group, the unrewarded group will be resentful. This same artificial construct can be based on any number of distinctions regardless of how superficial it may be. A person’s height, weight, hair color, age, place of birth, education, food preference, shoe size, et cetera, all could be substituted for eye color, and the demonstration will obtain the same result.

Elliott ignores the mountain of scientific evidence that race is real and that different behavioral and cultural outcomes are determined largely by racial phenotypes. To Elliott, race is just a color and has no bearing on how people of different colors think or act. This is certainly an odd idea seeing that Elliott doesn’t hesitate to disparage nearly all forms of the behavior, culture, thoughts, and acts of people who are colored white.

Insofar as the brown-eyed group’s superiority posturing, as George Bernard Shaw famously observed, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always depend on the support of Paul.” It is shameful but thought-provoking that Elliott has demonstrated in this instance that a doughnut and a cup of coffee is sufficient payment to gain Paul’s support.

Elliott made a sinister remark to the Huffington Post writer that points to an ominous purpose underlying her expensive vaudeville act:

Give me a child at the age of 8 and let me do that exercise, and that child is changed forever.

This reveals that this is a sick woman. A pedagogic Harpy brought to life, so full of hubris and motivated by such loathing for white people that we should be thankful that this former grade-school teacher can no longer grasp her withered talons on our children. Elliott delights in describing how she transformed a “brilliant, self-confident, excited little girl to a frightened, timid, uncertain little almost-person.” What kind of blustering witch is this who gloats on a child’s victimization?

As the twatted Torquemada explained, “God created one race: the human race. Human beings created racism.” And by “human beings” she means white human beings.

Jane Elliott has been a one-trick pony show for twenty-two years and she has learned nothing of history as revealed by her telling cowed audiences that white people had nothing to do with the invention of paper, the alphabet, cloth weaving, or numbers. No, she says, people of color invented all these things and most other items of any value. In her demented Lovecraftian world, white people stole these things.

She does credit, however, white people with inventing, guess what—RACISM! They then exported this fiendish manipulating tool around the world colonializing and enslaving people of color and extracting their land’s wealth for little or no payment. Elliott reveals no insight, no self-awareness that she has waged war against the white race in the boardrooms of corporations and in the halls of government agencies decrying their villainous racism while at the same time denying that race even exists.

Why do we have Jane Elliott and other djinns of diversity training? She may have started the diversity training hustle, but she needed help to fuel its growth. A series of US Supreme Court decisions establishing “hostile work environment” theory and “disparate impact” doctrine, followed by a plethora of civil rights lawsuits against large corporations, gave her that help. In the wake was a plague of social justice league diversity trainers.

Nearly all of these trainer “experts” cut their training teeth in academia using the Tavistock Method of thought control originally developed in the 1920s by intellectual elites. It was a precursor to the infamous MK-ULTRA experiments, which the CIA began in the early 1950s. This method was refined to a fine art by the Soviets when used against political prisoners confined in mental hospitals. It was termed “re-education,” and like diversity training, the program began with a pre-defined outcome. B. K. Eakman described the Soviet program in Cloning of the American Mind:

A controlled stress situation is created by a group leader (“facilitator”) with the ostensible goal of achieving a consensus or agreement which [sic] has, in reality, been predetermined. By using peer pressure in gradually increasing increments, up to and including yelling at, cursing at, and isolating the holdouts, weaker individuals are intimidated into caving in. They emerge, facilitators hope, with a new value structure in place, and the goal is achieved.[5]

The inheritors of the Soviet’s method moved their own insidious brand of thought control from the classrooms to the boardrooms. Who were they? Nearly all were radical leftists, community organizers, and civil rights activists such as Marilyn Loden, Elsie Cross, Judith Katz, Mark Chesler, Lillian Roybal Rose, Tom Kochman, and Price Cobbs.

Let us compare Eakman’s description of the Soviet re-education program with a typical American style diversity-training seminar:

In the mid-1990’s, male employees of the Federal Aviation Agency were tied to a toilet together while female employees were forced to bathe in the same shower. Female employees were also made to share a bed with their male supervisors, and some participants even reported that they were sleep deprived and then verbally assaulted. But the most disturbing element of the FAA diversity training sessions were exercises in which groups of dissenting, or even potentially dissenting employees, were tormented by their peers. For example, in a one FAA diversity-training program, white males were “verbally castigated” by their black co-workers and then forced to run a gauntlet in which they were aggressively fondled by their female co-workers.[6]

If you think this is merely an extreme example, then let us return to examine the words and thoughts of Jane Elliott. In her training sessions, people of color can never be racists no matter what they say to torment the white devils in attendance. They are simply reacting to the real racism already inflicted upon them by whites, according to Elliott.

Elliott has a demonic awareness of the long-term damage her training inflicts especially on younger whites who are more impressionable. She seems to revel in the “discomfort, guilt, shame, embarrassment, and humiliation” that her sensitivity sessions can induce. She even proudly refers to herself in her sessions as “your resident bitch for the day.” A TV show that aired on British Channel 4 in 2009 displayed her chastising whites as if they were all stupid. She told one white man to “keep your fucking mouth shut.”[7]

So, is this multi-billion dollar sensitivity industry having a beneficial result? The data and the statements of the participants would say no. In fact, the trainers’ own statements indicate that they are emphasizing differences in race behavior and are reinforcing the well-known stereotypes. One trainer’s handout chart explained that white people “know through counting and measuring,” Asians “know through striving toward the transcendence,” and blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs “know through symbolic imagery and rhythm.”[8]

These kinds of statements do not show how teamwork is going to be organized or goals achieved when the trainer is actively promoting color and cultural differences. If anything is going to be achieved, it would seem to be the balkanization of the workplace.

But companies are still firmly hitching their wagons to the diversity star because their lawyers have advised them that it looks good in court. In 2011, Walmart used the “diversity defense” to win a class-action suit that alleged gender discrimination. Walmart had taken all the politically correct measures, such as conducting sensitivity sessions, diversity training, and distributing to its employees a well-written handbook propagandizing employee rights. In this way, Walmart and other large corporations make it more difficult for plaintiffs to actually prove discriminatory practices.

In 2016, the Harvard Business Review published an article titled “Diversity Policies Rarely Make Companies Fairer, and They Feel Threatening to White Men.” The authors cited several studies that showed the futility of diversity training, the negative impact such training had on white men, and the counterproductive and inaccurate beliefs the training fosters. Yet the authors (ahem, three females-just wanted to mention that) concluded their article by touting the benefit of corporate diversity policies.[9]

Employees have learned that woe will befall them if they question the value of diversity training. When Kishore Jayabalan, an economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, challenged a well-known diversity trainer with concerns about the trainer’s conclusions, the trainer reported him to the BLS personnel office. Jayabalan was told, “Some people ought to just listen to what’s being taught.” Jayabalan did “listen” and he heard one thing of value—the trainer was paid $15,000 to speak at five three-hour sessions.[10]

As for Jane Elliott’s future, she seems to be joyful at the prospect of white people becoming a minority in the US. It’s like payback time for blacks. As she told a writer for the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain:

For one thing, the main thing, white people are rapidly losing their numerical majority in the United States of America. And so people of colour are going to be the people in positions in power in the future. White people are finally beginning to realise that. Some of them are scared to death.[11]

One who reads her statement can almost hear her snickering at her thought of blacks wreaking vengeance on whites. If her statement disturbs you, it should. The Guardian writer’s unnerved reaction was, “There’s a fierce, even admirable, relish in her words, but also the nagging suspicion that she’s more excited by white fear than she is by black success.”

Jane Elliott, a white woman from a small town in Iowa, who has made a damn good living at the expense of white created institutions, is predicting a race war in the US—and she is cheering for the other team.


[1] “The Daring Racism Experiment That People Still Talk About 20 Years Later,” Huffington Post Online, December 6, 2017,

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/02/jane-elliott-race-experiment-oprah-show_n_6396980.html [2]

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] B.K. Eakman, Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality Through Education (Lafayette, La.: Huntington House, 1998), 194.

[6] www.vasthead.com/Diverse/diverse.html [3]

[7] http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/10/i-sense-a-malign-presence-.html [4]

[8] http://www.sptimes.com/News/022700/news_pf/Perspective/Sensitivity_training_.shtml [5]

[9] https://hbr.org/2016/01/diversity-policies-dont-help-women-or-minorities-and-they-make-white-men-feel-threatened [6]

[10] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1994/12/04/typecasting-diversity/ec1bcd14-98e6-4844-8e26-d575edfad497/?utm_term=.ba67eae02fa9 [7]

[11] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/oct/18/racism-psychology-jane-elliott-4 [8]