In the wake of the October 7th incident, college students across the United States responded by praising resistance to settler colonialism. These elites accused Jews of being Zionist oppressors. And influential thinkers justified acts of violence against Jewish students as a proportional response to the “genocide” in Gaza.
Are these reactions surprising? No, these principles have been espoused in CRT and DEI ideology for decades. The students were simply practicing what they were taught.
When Judge Kyle Duncan was abused in the most vile terms at Stanford University, DEI official Tyrian Steinbach asked if his juice was worth the squeeze. But Mr. Steinbach’s actions were not out of order. She followed DEI teachings. In fact, two years earlier, Stanford University’s DEI program had espoused blatant anti-Semitism.
The CAPS DEI program, through its DEI committees, weekly seminars, and racist affinity groups, has denigrated and marginalized Jews based on religion, race, and ethnic identity. Condemns Jews as members of a white, powerful, privileged society that contributes to systemic racism, and seeks to deny and erase Jewish ancestral identity.. Additionally, DEI programs include: denounced Jewish victimhood and deliberately left anti-Semitism out of the program’s agenda.
Again, this kind of dogma is at the heart of DEI intersectionality. As I wrote in 2023, such teachings are not an outlier. They are the rotten core of college campuses. There is no doubt that there are well-meaning DEI employees who are not anti-Semitic. But the entire enterprise is irrevocably tainted by these teachings.
DEI officials are probably keeping quiet about it right now. Across the country, DEI programs are being rebranded to eliminate references to diversity, equity, and inclusion. But they can speak their mind even when no one is listening.
of new york times We provide the following report from the University of Michigan.
The University of Michigan is considering firing a diversity administrator over accusations that he made anti-Semitic comments, according to a lawyer.
Administrator Rachel Dawson is the university’s director of academic multicultural initiatives. She is accused of saying during a March conference conversation that the university is “controlled by wealthy Jews,” according to documents obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information request.
According to the document, she also said that Jewish students are “wealthy and privileged” and do not need her office’s diversity services, and that “Jews do not have the genetic DNA that ties them to the Land of Israel. He was also accused of saying, These were part of the complaint from the Michigan Anti-Defamation League.
Dawson shares another memory.
According to Covington & Burling’s memo, Dawson acknowledged speaking with two professors, but the content of the conversations differed. For example, she said, rather than arguing that Jews have no ancestral rights to Israel, she pointed out that Jews and Palestinians share an ancestral connection to the region.
Mr. Dawson’s alleged comments are not at all surprising. This is exactly the kind of pablum that has been taught in DEI programs for decades.
To Dawson J.D.. (I don’t know if she is an active member of the bar). If these comments were made in a legal conference, would they trigger liability under ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)? DEI officials believe that these comments amount to “harassment” in “conduct related to the practice of law.” Do you “reasonably know” that this might be the case? Click here for a detailed report from times:
The allegations surfaced in March at a diversity conference hosted by the Association of American Universities in Philadelphia. Two professors at the event, Naomi Yavne Cross, who teaches at Loyola University New Orleans, and another Jewish professor, spoke about the “negative experiences” of Jewish students at the University of Michigan. Dr. Yavne Kross said in an interview that he had heard about it.
Dr. Yavne Cross said she decided to approach Michigan DEI administrators after learning they were attending a conference.
“I think my colleagues wanted to know, ‘Is the DEI office working with these students?'” Dr. Yavne Kross said. “‘Should students go to the DEI office?’ She said, ‘No, all Jewish students don’t need us. That was the crux of her statement. ”
She said she was so upset after the conversation that she called a friend who works at the Anti-Defamation League, who encouraged her to file a report, which Dr. Yavne Cross did the same day.
Conservatives have long worried that Rule 8.4(g) could be used as a weapon against conservative speech. Progressives must have similar concerns. Good thing the Second Circuit allowed the challenge to the Connecticut rule to proceed.
Dr. Cross is concerned that DEI is not protecting Jewish students.
Dr. Yavneh Cross said she is a “strong advocate for DEI.” But one of her complaints about the university is that “current DEI claims too often exclude Jews,” even though “anti-Semitism is still very much present.” she added.
“DEI offices too often fail to meet the needs of Jewish students and don’t really recognize that Jewish students are under their jurisdiction,” she said.
I don’t need their help. Jewish students need to realize that DEI offices in places like Michigan State and Stanford are not their allies. And the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology should also respond.
