Anti-Semitism Gets the DEI Treatment
On Tuesday, Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, announced in an email to the community that the university would take several steps to quell anti-Semitism on campus. Columbia will appoint Title VI and Title VII coordinators to review allegations of discrimination. It will launch new programming around anti-Jewish discrimination, send out regular messages affirming its zero-tolerance policy on hate, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism for certain disciplinary proceedings. In her message, Shipman promised that the university would continue making reforms until it had stamped out anti-Semitism. 'In a recent discussion, a faculty member and I agreed that anti-Semitism at this institution has existed, perhaps less overtly, for a long while, and the work of dismantling it, especially through education and understanding, will take time,' she wrote.
The message was notable for how closely it resembled the communications that university presidents have previously sent out about other forms of discrimination. Replace the references to 'anti-Semitism' with 'racism,' and Shipman's message could practically have been lifted from the statements of summer 2020. As university presidents contort themselves to respond to campus anti-Semitism, they seem to be replicating the DEI push of the past decade, bureaucracy and all. It's not just Columbia. Harvard University is also implementing new trainings, evaluating its administrative complaint structure, and adopting a more expansive definition of anti-Semitism.
Franklin Foer: Columbia University's anti-Semitism problem
Setting aside the question of insanity, Columbia's approach is risky: University leaders may be implementing reforms that aren't proven to work, or are proven not to work. Giving anti-Semitism the DEI treatment is also ironic: Universities are instituting these policies under pressure from the Trump administration, which is simultaneously engaged in an effort to root out DEI from governing and educational institutions across the country.
Anti-Semitism is a real issue at Columbia. As my colleague Franklin Foer documented, university administrators slow-walked responses to anti-Jewish discrimination; such apathy directed at any other protected group would have led to scandal. In the days after Hamas's brutal attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Columbia's student newspaper interviewed dozens of Jewish students about life on campus. Thirteen students said they had suffered attacks or harassment.
Under President Donald Trump, campus anti-Semitism has also been a pretext to wage war on universities. In March, the Trump administration used Columbia's perceived deficiencies in combating anti-Semitism as an excuse to yank $400 million in research funding. It demanded far-reaching concessions as a precondition for getting the money back. Columbia soon acquiesced to the reforms, with only minor changes. But the administration still didn't restore the funding. The two parties have been locked in protracted negotiations ever since, though they are reportedly nearing a deal. Shipman's Tuesday announcement was one attempt among many to satisfy the administration.
Assaf Zeevi, an Israeli professor at Columbia's business school, told me he was encouraged by the latest reforms. He cautioned, however, that these efforts would matter only if the university demonstrates that it will discipline students who harass their Jewish peers or violate protest policies. Otherwise, the recently announced measures are no more than lip service. (Columbia did not immediately provide comment.)
Universities have built up their antidiscrimination apparatuses for decades now. Yet they seemed utterly ill-equipped to address anti-Semitism on their campuses. 'It suggests that whatever tactic universities were using and the huge growth in the bureaucracy dedicated to this hasn't been effective,' Shibley told me. 'I don't think there's any reason to assume that adding some coordinators or throwing more people at the problem is going to solve it.'
Rose Horowitch: The era of DEI for conservatives has begun
Ineffectiveness is one concern. Here's another: As the university sets up a new anti-Semitism bureaucracy, it runs the risk of repeating the overreach of the DEI movement. What began as a well-intentioned effort to address real issues of discrimination resulted in a proliferation of administrators who, in certain instances, evolved into a sort of speech police. David Bernstein, the founder of the North American Values Institute, has criticized DEI initiatives for flattening nuanced issues. 'I don't like the idea of training anybody in ideas,' he told me. 'Just as I'm critical of DEI programs for providing simplistic answers about power and privilege to complex issues, I'm worried that campus anti-Semitism training will use the same playbook.'
The appointment of new Title VI coordinators and the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism could also tend in that direction. FIRE has opposed universities adopting the IHRA definition, arguing that it could be used to punish speech that merely, if harshly, criticizes Israel's government. Universities' existing policies are sufficient to punish anti-Semitic speech, Shibley said. The problem is that schools haven't enforced them.
And then there's the fact that the Trump administration, even as it has focused on addressing anti-Semitism, has pushed universities to get rid of efforts that have the faintest whiff of DEI. The notion that some version of the DEI bureaucracy is appropriate for anti-Semitism and only anti-Semitism is nonsensical. 'Ultimately, the most important thing a university can do to deal with this anti-Semitism problem is to embrace the free expression of ideas and to make sure that they have faculty who embrace a genuine liberal education," Bernstein told me.
The experiments in addressing anti-Semitism are likely to continue all summer and into the next academic year. 'Hopefully, some will work,' Shibley told me. 'I'm concerned, though, that many of them are going to cause government overreach and end up causing more problems than they solve.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Zelensky faces backlash as Ukrainians protest against new anti-corruption law
Ukrainian activists have called for more protests against a law they say weakens the country's anti-corruption bodies, following the first major demonstration against the country's government in more than three years of war. The legislation has also drawn rebukes from European Union officials and international rights groups. President Volodymyr Zelensky, under pressure as the change threatened to endanger his public support at a critical time in the war with Russia, convened the heads of Ukraine's key anti-corruption and security agencies on Wednesday morning in response to the outcry against his decision to approve the new law that was passed by Parliament. 'We all hear what society says,' Mr Zelensky wrote on Telegram after the meeting. But he insisted the new legal framework was needed to crack down harder on corruption. 'Criminal cases should not drag on for years without verdicts, and those working against Ukraine must not feel comfortable or immune from punishment,' the Ukrainian leader said. He said all government agencies agreed to work constructively and respond to public expectations for fairness and effectiveness. A detailed joint action plan is expected within two weeks, aimed at addressing institutional weaknesses, removing legal hurdles, and ensuring justice across the board, he said. Thousands of people gathered in the capital and other cities across Ukraine on Tuesday evening to urge Mr Zelensky to veto the controversial bill. After Mr Zelensky approved it, activists called on social media for another demonstration in the centre of Kyiv on Wednesday evening. The legislation tightens government oversight of two key anti-corruption agencies. Critics say the step could significantly weaken the independence of those agencies and grant Mr Zelensky's circle greater influence over investigations. Fighting entrenched corruption is crucial for Ukraine's aspirations to join the EU and maintain access to billions of dollars in western aid in its fight against Russia's three-year invasion. In a post on X, the EU's enlargement commissioner, Marta Kos, expressed concern over the vote in the Ukrainian parliament, called the Rada, calling it 'a serious step back'. The Ukrainian branch of Transparency International criticised parliament's decision, saying it undermines one of the most significant reforms since what Ukraine calls its Revolution of Dignity in 2014, and damages trust with international partners. It accused authorities of 'dismantling' the country's anti-corruption architecture. Mr Zelensky has been the international face of Ukraine's determination to defeat Russia's all-out invasion, and his domestic troubles are an unwelcome diversion from the war effort. Mr Zelensky said the new law clears out 'Russian influence' from the fight against corruption and ensures punishment for those found guilty of it, after what he said were years-long delays in criminal proceedings involving huge amounts of money. 'The cases that have been lying dormant must be investigated,' Mr Zelensky said in a Telegram post after midnight on Wednesday. 'For years, officials who have fled Ukraine have been casually living abroad for some reason – in very nice countries and without legal consequences – and this is not normal.' He did not provide examples of what he said was Russian interference. Russian officials relished Mr Zelensky's difficulties. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova mocked Mr Zelensky's claim of Russian infiltration into the anti-corruption agency, noting sarcastically that 'they might just as well pull a couple of bears out of the corner'. Delegations from Russia and Ukraine were set to meet in Istanbul on Wednesday for their third round of direct talks in two months, the Kremlin and Ukrainian officials said. The meeting was not expected to make progress on ending the war and would likely focus on exchanges of prisoners of war. The legal changes in Ukraine would grant the prosecutor general new authority over investigations and cases handled by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office.
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
The Violent Gaza-ification of the West Bank
With all eyes on Gaza and on the fallout from Israel's war on five other fronts—Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq, as well as Iran itself—few have noted the unprecedented uptick in violence in the West Bank. Even the murder earlier in July of Saif Musallet, an American citizen, and the attack on CNN's Jeremy Diamond as he was on his way to visit the family of the slain American—both by violent West Bank settlers—did little to attract attention to what is an increasingly unstable tinderbox, fanned by convergence of troubling factors Although President Donald Trump's early January decision to lift sanctions on settlers sent the wrong message, a series of significant developments on the ground have triggered the dramatic increase in West Bank violence: Israeli extremists seizing what they see as an opportunity; their leaders using government platforms to provide support; the IDF looking the other way; and many Palestinian youth becoming radicalized. Looming over it all is the shadow of two of the most extreme leaders of the annexationist minority in Israel, entrusted, since late 2022, by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with portfolios directly relevant to West Bank policies. One, Itamar Ben Gvir, a self-proclaimed Jewish Supremacist, controls the national police force. Since entering office, he has enacted a 'hands of' policy concerning Jewish settler terrorists, relaxed the prerequisites for owning weapons and, prioritizing West Bank settlers, launched a campaign for Israelis to arm themselves. The other, Bezalel Smotrich, employs his dual position as minister of finance and as a minister in the ministry of defense in the service of his three publicly declared objectives: rapid expansion of Jewish settlements, increase pressure on Palestinians to emigrate, and financially choking the Palestinian Authority to bring about its collapse. A third, Minister of Defense Israel Katz, added fuel to the fire on Nov. 22, 2024, by depriving the Shin Bet (Israel's Internal Security Agency) of a vital instrument in dealing with Jewish detainees: administrative detention. With settlers following legal advice not to cooperate with investigators and as evidence obtained by clandestine means cannot be used in an open court lest it exposes sources, court-supervised administrative detention has long proved essential in fighting terrorism—from extreme settlers or otherwise. Emboldened by their leaders' serving in such powerful positions, extremist settlers—by now organized and armed—have made the most of the situation as the Israeli public and the world at large focuses on Gaza. The result: The number of incidents involving armed settlers assaulting Palestinian villages has increased dramatically over the past three years, doubling during the first half of 2025 as compared to the same period the previous year. An additional factor relates to the IDF. Its manpower stretched to the limit, and the top brass consumed by tending to simultaneous challenges from several fronts, lower-rank commanders of units deployed to the West Bank are often reluctant to confront violent settlers, primarily because of the support they enjoy from senior government circles. Last, but hardly least: With West Bank Palestinians harassed by settlers day and night, Palestinian youth, who are being put at risk, find neither the IDF nor the nearly bankrupt Palestinian Authority protecting their families. Images of the endless suffering of Gazans add to the combustible mix. With no hope for a better future, certainly not independence—which the current Israeli government vehemently opposes—their elders, scarred by the pains of the Second Intifada, have no persuasive argument to dissuade them from repeating what the elders have long concluded was a mistake: armed resistance. Consequently, young West Bank Palestinians are increasingly inclined to join militant groups or form their own, and take to arms. Thus, Israeli extremists and radicalized Palestinians feed on each other, using each other to justify violence, killing innocents, vandalizing property, and risking a major conflagration in the process. 'Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of religion, race, or gender,' declared a recent urgent letter to Israel's Minister of Defense. Sent on behalf of Commanders for Israel's Security (CIS)—Israel's largest group of retired generals and diplomats, of which I am a member, it alerted the Minister to the dire consequences of 'organized Jewish groups…setting the area ablaze.' 'Resources must be mobilized,' we urged, 'so that those guilty of terrorism are apprehended, investigated, and swiftly brought to justice.' Although even the murder of an American citizen did little to change the dynamics, recent settlers' assaults on IDF soldiers deployed to protect them, might have. Even those who shamefully looked the other way when the victims were Palestinians—PM Netanyahu included—suddenly realized that this lawlessness could not be tolerated. 'No civilized country can tolerate violent and anarchic acts of burning a military facility, damaging IDF property and attacking security personnel by citizens of the country,' said Netanyahu. In contrast, opposition leader Yair Lapid described the events as 'Jewish terrorists, gangs of criminals, who feel backed by the (governing) coalition.' Time will tell whether this wakeup call triggers effective measures to end Jewish terrorism, which is as immoral as any other kind of terrorism. It also undermines Israel's security and legitimacy. What is certain, from my vantage point, is this: if it does not spark those measures, this cycle of violence will only lead to the Gaza-ification of the West Bank, with tragic consequences for both peoples and further destabilizing effects well beyond the Israeli-Palestinian arena.
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Texas is talking tax cuts. Illinois? More hikes.
The phrase 'there are two Americas' has many meanings. It can mean that there are two justice systems: one for the rich and one for the poor. It can mean right and left. Rural and urban. Ketchup and … the right way to eat a hot dog. When it comes to taxes and spending, state leaders often split into two camps, too — one that talks about priorities and restraint, and one that talks about hiking and expanding. Call them Texas and Illinois. Exhibit A: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott recently announced on the social platform X that state lawmakers this week will be tackling property taxes in a special session. First on the agenda: legislation to cut property taxes. Second on the agenda: legislation to limit spending by government entities that impose property taxes. You don't have to like everything they do in Texas, and we sure don't, but you can't summarily dismiss this kind of thinking, which rarely even enters the discussion in Illinois. While Texas is getting ready to talk about ways to cut taxes and limit spending, our most recent legislative session ended with a handful of new tax hikes and a 'to be continued' on transit that promises to include conversations about other potential tax increases. Importantly, Abbott's message isn't just about people-pleasing tax cuts — it's a call to make relief happen without breaking the bank. Tax cuts and spending cuts have to go hand in hand, otherwise the cycle starts all over again as deficit spending goes up and tax hikes come calling down the road to plug the hole. And to that end, we know it's not all sunshine and roses in Texas. They have fiscal problems, too, namely that local property taxes have grown dramatically in many parts of the state. In Austin, for example, the city's property tax levy increased from $675 million to over $1 billion from 2018 to 2022, representing a 51.4% increase, according to research from the Texas Public Policy Foundation. In 2023, Gov. Greg Abbott and over 80% of Texas voters approved an $18 billion plan aimed at easing the burden on homeowners and businesses. But local governments' overspending has continued to drive up bills, blunting the relief. That's why Abbott is now pushing to rein in local spending as part of the broader fix Texas needs. Still, acknowledging those problems and working to address them is precisely what stands out to us. We like it when leaders are honest about financial problems and willing to tackle them head-on, even when it isn't easy. This isn't a pro-Texas, anti-Illinois commentary. This is an endorsement of good ideas, common sense and getting to work addressing big fiscal problems. We're not saying move to Texas — though Austin and Dallas have their appeal. We like it just fine plunked here in the Midwest next to plenty of fresh water and a climate less prone to life-altering natural disasters. And in the case of the recent loss of young life due to flooding, we're well aware that adequate local government spending on emergency procedures remains vital. We hope Abbott is aware of that, too. But we're seeing Texas leaders bring a refreshingly different mindset to the debate over government and taxpayer dollars. Where Illinois politicians are more likely to stick their heads in the sand, Texas at least appears willing to confront money issues, or at least speak their name out loud. Here in Illinois, the best we've managed to do is form working groups to study our state's property tax problem — which is among the worst in the country — and then move on without real action. That pattern reflects a broader political culture of denial, as if ordinary families aren't struggling to cover mortgages and grocery bills. Not only is tax relief not on the table, but tax hikes are a constant threat here. Illinois is far from alone in this pattern, of course. But as Texas works to tackle taxes and government spending problems, Illinois should at least start talking about them more honestly.
