Last year, after anti-Israel protests over the Gaza war disrupted university campuses, many universities established special committees to investigate whether anti-Semitism was on the rise.
The answer was “yes”. But one factor they identified was perhaps surprising. It's a diversity, equity, and inclusion program.
A report from Stanford University, Columbia University, and the University of Pennsylvania found that Jewish students sometimes felt more marginalized by DEI programs than they were protected by them.
The task force's report reflects growing tensions on college campuses: How will Jews fit into campus diversity and inclusion programs?
Many Jewish campus leaders and students say that should not be the case. Some argue that the program focuses on black, Hispanic and other student groups and not on Jewish students, who face anti-Semitic slurs, threats and occasional violence. There is.
DEI offices have recently come under chilling ideological attack over concerns that they are pitting different groups against each other. Over the past two years, more than 200 universities have scaled back their diversity efforts, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, which tracks the backlash. Many states have closed their offices completely and 14 states have passed laws banning or restricting DEI.
Universities are now bracing for further crackdowns under the second Trump administration. On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order eliminating federal programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. On his second day in office, he ordered federal agencies to investigate “unlawful discrimination and preferential treatment, including DEI,” in the private sector, including universities.
Conservatives have criticized identity-based programming in higher education and American society for decades. Their attacks have become especially powerful because they have found new allies among some members of the Jewish community. They claim the DEI office has been indifferent or even hostile to their needs, particularly during anti-Israel protests over the Gaza war.
Some defend the program as essential to making campuses safer and more welcoming to everyone, including Jewish students.
Several events in recent months have highlighted tensions between diversity efforts and some Jewish students and faculty.
A diversity administrator at the University of Michigan was fired last month for making anti-Semitic comments. Two Jewish professors at other universities said they asked her if the DEI office worked with Jewish students. She reportedly replied that the university was “controlled by wealthy Jews.” The administrator denied the comment through a lawyer.
At a diversity and inclusion conference for private schools in Colorado, some speakers characterized the war in Gaza as genocide and the creation of the state of Israel as racist. Leaders of several Jewish groups said the remarks were anti-Semitic, and private school groups apologized. One speaker claimed that critics of anti-Semitism were “diluting its meaning”.
At the University of Pittsburgh, the Diversity Office held a training session to explore anti-Semitic tropes and support Jewish students. It was the kind of event that some Jewish critics of diversity programs have often called for. However, pro-Palestinian activists showed up and handed out leaflets criticizing the group conducting the training.
Associate Professor Andrea Beth Goldschmidt, who was in attendance, said members of the university's Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion did not approve of the suspension.
She later wrote an essay titled “DEI: Deflect, Excuse, Ignore?”
Who is DEI for?
Campuses have set up all kinds of programs to achieve their diversity goals. These include training on racism and sexism, efforts to hire more diverse faculty, identity-based affinity groups, mentorship structures, and more.
The goal is typically to improve graduation rates and other measures of success, but the wide variety of these efforts makes it difficult to assess their effectiveness. The program focuses on historically underrepresented groups, such as Black and Hispanic students.
Some DEI offices have authority regarding civil rights and bias complaints. But campus conflicts sparked by Middle East wars often limit the office's ability to respond. Many lack the expertise or authority to handle legally sensitive complaints.
As a freshman at the University of Pittsburgh, Asher Goodwin was walking to Shabbat dinner wearing a kipa when he heard a group of students say, “Look, you're Jewish!” Others were laughing. Goodwin said when he confronted the group and asked the DEI office for help, he was told he needed to file a complaint but there was nothing they could do.
“Another student attending the university has made another student feel left out and excluded,” Goodwin said, adding that the university “should potentially have a conversation with them.”
He said he didn't bother to report it when Goodwin was later slandered.
“We don't expect this office to provide us with anything,” he said.
The university said in a statement that it has zero tolerance for anti-Semitism and takes concerns from students seriously.
Muslim students and faculty have also criticized the DEI office for its slow response. On several campuses where conservative groups posted the names and faces of pro-Palestinian students on social media and billboard trucks, students said they felt like the university was doing little to protect them.
DEI innovation
Some Jewish leaders want to eliminate DEI programs altogether. They argue that the show too often reinforces the idea that Palestinians are oppressed and that pro-Israel Jews are the oppressors. They argue that this ignores the complex and painful history of anti-Semitism that predates the founding of Israel, and that Jews can also be victims of vilification and harassment.
But many others support DEI. They want DEI to be more sensitive to Jewish students. A report from the Stanford University Anti-Semitism Committee recently said schools should find ways to include Jews in DEI programs in the short term, and eventually move toward a more “pluralistic” approach that includes everyone. concluded.
Still others see attacks on DEI as unfounded. They argue that without DEI programs (for example, training students on discrimination), Jewish students would be far worse off.
Jonathan Feingold, an associate professor at Boston University who studies affirmative action, argued that DEI could be a remedy against anti-Semitism on campuses. He noted that if universities did not take identity into account, the type of programming recommended by the Anti-Semitism Task Force would be prohibited. The task itself can also be forced.
“A national DEI ban from the Republican-controlled federal government would undermine the ability of universities to meaningfully combat and redress anti-Semitism on their campuses,” he said.
Dr. Goldschmidt, of the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email that he believes the suspension of anti-Semitism training was a missed opportunity. She said diversity officials are “allowed to apply the same standards and expectations to the Jewish community as to other marginalized groups, and thus to define what constitutes discrimination against our community.” He wrote that he should have shown that.
According to a university official who was in the room, the chaos lasted less than a minute, with fewer than five people silently handing out fliers criticizing the American Jewish Committee, which led the drill, for supporting Israel. The official said the presenter continued speaking and would have interrupted the presentation if DEI officials had acknowledged the incident.
Some schools have begun new programming for Jewish students. In September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill that effectively requires all California State University institutions and community colleges to recognize discrimination against Jews in training.
That same month, the University of Pennsylvania became the first university to establish an office for civil rights complaints related to common ancestry, ethnicity, or religion. (The school's president resigned in 2023 after testifying to legislative leaders that he was not doing enough to stop anti-Semitism on campus.)
One of the words that came up in several anti-Semitism reports to describe what DEI programs should strive for was “pluralism.”
Nicholas Lehman, a professor at Columbia University and co-chair of the university's Anti-Semitism Task Force, said: I would like clarification.”
DEI programs “should not be identity-based,” said Paul Brest, a professor emeritus at Stanford University and a member of the university's anti-Semitism committee. Rather, “we should aim to include everyone,” he said.
However, some DEI proponents believe that making DEI “for everyone” ignores the key purpose of its creation: to direct limited resources to where they are needed most. Some people wonder if there is.
Jerry Kang, founding vice provost for equity, diversity and inclusion at the University of California, Los Angeles, compared his role to that of a gardener. Ensuring all plants grow doesn't mean watering them all equally, he said.
She said groups such as first-generation students facing culture shock, women experiencing bias in engineering programs and Jewish students concerned about anti-Semitism each require unique approaches. Ta.
“Identity really does matter,” Professor Kang said. “Whether we like it or not.”
Sharon Otterman Contributed to the report.