Indiana Watchdog Releases DEI Audit. This Is a Model for States Across the US. 80%

By Felix Miller95%

7/14/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Appeal to Authority, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 42.2% saturation with 295 hits. Analysis detected 2,706 faulty-reasoning hits from 699 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.8% and a BS Rank of 80% (4,581 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

Last year, many Indiana public school teachers promised to end racist diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in schools. 
If successful, such assurances and the policies that follow would be models for other states. 
How’s it going? 
Turns out, the racism in public education runs deep. 
This week, the Indiana Family Institute released an audit of DEI in the state’s K-12 schools and found that significant work remains . 
While some school officials have wiped DEI statements from their websites along with mentions of so-called antiracism, auditors report, “Quietly deleting DEI language from websites may improve public perception, but it does not ensure that the policies, trainings, and practices themselves have been dismantled.” 
The audit demonstrates that district administrators have snuck DEI in through the back door by way of staff positions, professional development for teachers, curricula, strategic planning, and student programming . 
Educators carefully renamed certain activities and positions without changing the descriptions, allowing DEI to persist under the radar. 
Auditors even identified recommendations from the state Department of Education that continue to apply DEI-related concepts to instruction. 
For example, the Indiana Department of Education recommends a literature curriculum called “Wit & Wisdom” that teaches students to interpret reading assignments from the perspective of “power, oppression, race, gender, and social identity.” 
Some of the materials showcasing the work of communist artists are included in assignments for kindergarteners. 
In Carmel Clay Schools, just 30 minutes north of Indianapolis, school officials use equity grading techniques to evaluate student work. 
These grading practices assume that ethnic minorities are oppressed in public school systems and need lower standards just to get by. 
Districts such as San Diego Unified in California adopted equitable grading practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, making schoolwork effectively optional for students. 
In Carmel Clay, students can turn in blank assignments and still receive 50% credit. 
And as in San Diego, students can take exams more than once to improve their scores. 
Policies such as this do not inspire student achievement but, instead, foster the soft bigotry of low expectations. 
Carmel Clay is a particularly stark example, as the Family Institute’s audit provides pictures from middle and high schools in the district that promote drag queens and “transgenderism” on hallway placards. 
Officials from other districts have been more subtle. 
In Fort Wayne, near the Ohio border, school personnel have renamed DEI staff positions while keeping the responsibilities the same. 
One “director of DEI” role was simply changed to “director of students & staff relations.” 
The Family Institute’s report has nearly 70 pages filled with examples. 
The use of racial preferences and advocacy for radical gender policies conflicts with state and federal civil rights laws, as well as basic biology. 
“Rather than fostering unity, DEI frameworks often encourage resentment, categorize individuals as oppressors or the oppressed, and shift focus away from merit, personal responsibility, and shared citizenship,” said the Indiana Family Institute’s Ryan McCann. 
Given the findings, the report recommends additional audits of every public school district in Indiana. 
Researchers should review curricula, scour school policies for violations of parental rights , and confirm that hiring and promotion practices are based on merit. 
State legislators should prohibit the use and application of DEI and racial preferences in school materials. 
Policymakers should consider the provisions from Idaho and Florida that say no teacher or student can be compelled to affirm an idea that violates civil rights laws. 
Meanwhile, local school boards should not wait for state lawmakers to act but should adopt policies that reject racial preferences and stop instruction that tells students they can choose a different gender. 
No child should be discriminated against because of skin color or sex, and DEI betrays the idea of equality under the law by advocating for racism in the name of equity. 
Yet instead of treating students equally, DEI policies create favored classes through gross violations of civil rights statutes. 
The Indiana Family Institute has performed a valuable service for policymakers and moms and dads. 
While Indiana K-12 law is too lenient for now and hardly a national model, the Family Institute’s audit is a design worth repeating around the country. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.6%Felix Miller: 3.9%Daily Signal: 6.2%Confirmation Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Felix Miller: 3.5%Daily Signal: 3.1%Availability Heuristic11.9%This article: 2.9%Felix Miller: 0.8%Daily Signal: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 1.3%Felix Miller: 0.7%Daily Signal: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.3%This article: 1.6%Felix Miller: 2.8%Daily Signal: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias1.6%This article: 6.9%Felix Miller: 13.0%Daily Signal: 8.5%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.2%Daily Signal: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.0%Felix Miller: 3.1%Daily Signal: 0.5%Status Quo Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Felix Miller: 1.7%Daily Signal: 1.2%Optimism Bias5.9%This article: 9.4%Felix Miller: 0.5%Daily Signal: 1.3%Pessimism Bias9.4%This article: 42.2%Felix Miller: 7.1%Daily Signal: 9.1%Negativity Bias42.2%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%Felix Miller: 2.3%Daily Signal: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error13.6%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 5.1%Daily Signal: 3.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Felix Miller: 2.9%Daily Signal: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.0%This article: 2.1%Felix Miller: 5.9%Daily Signal: 2.3%Halo Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.7%Daily Signal: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Felix Miller: 0.9%Daily Signal: 1.3%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 1.3%Felix Miller: 2.1%Daily Signal: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 1.3%Daily Signal: 3.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 7.6%Felix Miller: 4.4%Daily Signal: 2.7%Straw Man7.6%This article: 31.6%Felix Miller: 0.8%Daily Signal: 4.6%Appeal to Authority31.6%This article: 18.6%Felix Miller: 3.7%Daily Signal: 2.8%False Dilemma18.6%This article: 4.7%Felix Miller: 0.2%Daily Signal: 1.6%Slippery Slope4.7%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.4%Daily Signal: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.5%Felix Miller: 15.7%Daily Signal: 9.4%Hasty Generalization21.5%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.4%Daily Signal: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 3.8%Daily Signal: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.9%Felix Miller: 10.4%Daily Signal: 7.2%Appeal to Emotion18.9%This article: 6.7%Felix Miller: 3.2%Daily Signal: 2.2%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 3.1%Felix Miller: 2.0%Daily Signal: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.4%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 1.3%Burden of Proof3.4%This article: 3.4%Felix Miller: 1.1%Daily Signal: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.4%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.5%Daily Signal: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.7%Felix Miller: 2.6%Daily Signal: 2.5%Anecdotal17.7%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.6%Felix Miller: 1.1%Daily Signal: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.6%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.9%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.2%Special Pleading3.9%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.4%Daily Signal: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.0%Felix Miller: 4.3%Daily Signal: 2.7%Unattributed Quote7.0%This article: 11.2%Felix Miller: 0.5%Daily Signal: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection11.2%This article: 27.2%Felix Miller: 25.7%Daily Signal: 9.7%Biased Writer Voice27.2%This article: 37.1%Felix Miller: 11.0%Daily Signal: 3.9%Indoctrination37.1%This article: 0.0%Felix Miller: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Felix Miller: 25.7%Daily Signal: 10.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias14.7%This article: 3.3%Felix Miller: 0.8%Daily Signal: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

699 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech596writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageIndiana Family Institute • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageIndiana Family Institute • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageRyan McCann • 34 words • 100.0% coverageIndiana Family Institute • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ryan McCann

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words33% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+92.6 ptsWriter: 7.4%Ryan McCann: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+62.2 ptsWriter: 37.8%Ryan McCann: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.9 ptsWriter: 31.9%Ryan McCann: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%Ryan McCann: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Ryan McCann: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.