In the wake of October 7, college students across the country responded by praising the resistance against settler colonialism. These elites accused Jewish people of being Zionist oppressors. And leading thinkers justified acts of violence against Jewish students as a proportional response to “genocide” in Gaza.
Should any of these reactions have been surprising? No. These principles have been espoused in CRT and DEI ideologies for decades. Students were merely implementing what they were taught.
When Judge Kyle Duncan was shouted down in the most vile terms at Stanford, Tirien Steinbach, the DEI apparatchik, asked whether his juice was worth the squeeze. But Steinbach was not acting out of turn. She was following DEI teachings. Indeed, two years earlier, DEI programs at Stanford espoused overt anti-semitism.
Through its DEI committee, weekly seminars and racially segregated affinity groups, the CAPS DEI program has maligned and marginalized Jews on the basis of religion, race and ethnic identity by castigating Jews as white, powerful and privileged members of society who contribute to systemic racism and denying and attempting to erase Jewish ancestral identity. In addition, the DEI program has denigrated the concept of Jewish victimhood and deliberately excluded anti-Semitism from the program’s agenda.
Again, this sort of dogma is at the center of DEI intersectionality. As I wrote in 2023, such teaching are not outliers; they are the rotten core of college campuses. I have no doubt there are well-meaning DEI officials who are not anti-semitic. But the entire enterprise is irreparably tainted by these teachings.
Perhaps now DEI officials are laying low and staying quiet. Across the country, DEI programs are being rebranded to eliminate references to diversity, equity, and inclusion. But when no one is listening, they can speak their minds.
The New York Times offers this report from the University of Michigan:
The University of Michigan is considering firing an administrator who works on diversity initiatives over accusations that she made antisemitic comments, according to her lawyer.
The administrator, Rachel Dawson, is director of the university’s office of academic multicultural initiatives. She was accused of saying in a conversation at a conference in March that the university was “controlled by wealthy Jews,” according to documents obtained by The New York Times through a freedom of information request.
She was also accused of saying that Jewish students were “wealthy and privileged” and not in need of her office’s diversity services, and that “Jewish people have no genetic DNA that would connect them to the land of Israel,” according to the documents, which were part of a complaint from the Anti-Defamation League of Michigan.
Dawson has a different recollection:
According to the Covington & Burling memo, Ms. Dawson confirmed that she spoke to the two professors, but she gave a different version of the conversation. Rather than claiming Jews had no ancestral claim to Israel, for example, she said she had pointed out that Jews and Palestinians shared an ancestral connection to the region.
If Dawson made the alleged comments, it would be utterly unsurprising. This is exactly the sort of pablum that has been taught at DEI programs for decades.
Dawson has a JD. (I am not sure if she is an active member of the bar). Had these comments been made at a legal conference, would they trigger liability under ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)? Would a DEI official “reasonably know” that these comments could constitute “harassment” in “conduct related to the practice of law”? Here is more reporting from the Times:
The allegations arose in March at a diversity conference in Philadelphia, sponsored by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. Two professors who attended the event, Naomi Yavneh Klos, who teaches at Loyola University New Orleans, and another Jewish professor said they had heard about the “negative experience” of a University of Michigan Jewish student, Dr. Yavneh Klos said in an interview.
When they learned that a Michigan D.E.I. administrator was at the conference, they decided to approach her, Dr. Yavneh Klos said.
“I think my colleague wanted to know, ‘Does the D.E.I. office work with these students?'” Dr. Yavneh Klos said. “‘Should the student go to the D.E.I. office?’ She said no. Jewish students are all rich. They don’t need us. That was the gist of what she said. It was really horrifying.”
She said she was so upset after the conversation that she called a friend who works for the Anti-Defamation League, who encouraged her to file a report, which Dr. Yavneh Klos did that same day.
Conservatives have long worried that Rule 8.4(g) could be weaponized against conservative speech. Progressives should have similar worries. Good thing the Second Circuit allowed a challenge to Connecticut’s rule go forward.
Dr. Klos worries that DEI does not protect Jewish students:
Dr. Yavneh Klos said she was a “tremendous advocate for D.E.I.” But one of her frustrations with colleges, she added, was that “the current D.E.I. narrative very often excludes Jews” even as “antisemitism is still very much present.”
“D.E.I. offices very frequently fail to serve the needs of Jewish students, and don’t really recognize Jewish students as under their purview,” she said.
We don’t need their help. Jewish students should recognize that DEI offices at places like Michigan and Stanford are not their allies. And the Department of Education should respond accordingly.
