
Black Woman Sues University Of Michigan For ‘Racist' Firing
A Black woman who was the former head of the University of Michigan's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) office is suing the school, alleging she was discriminated against when the school fired her for antisemitic remarks she said she never made.
According to the Detroit Free Press, Rachel Dawson attended an academic conference in March 2024 when she was approached by two women asking her how the school was planning to address antisemitism. The women allege Dawson, who then ran University of Michigan's Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives, responded by saying 'The university is controlled by wealthy Jews' and 'We don't work with Jews.'
Dawson has a different recollection of the events and denies ever making remarks of the sort.
From Detroit Free Press:
Dawson said she remembered talking with the two women who accused her, but her recollection of the conversation was far different. She said that when the two women heard she was from U-M, they approached her to discuss rumors of antisemitism on campus. Dawson said she told them that the school was doing its best to combat antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.
She noted that the school had recently opened the Raoul Wallenberg Institute to promote tolerance and that Jewish students had access to support groups like Hillel .
Dawson's suit said the women became hostile, began berating her and even followed her out of the room when she tried to end the conversation. Days later, back at U-M, Dawson said she learned that the women had contacted the Anti-Defamation League, which filed a complaint about her with then-President Santa Ono.
'I am aware of several non-Black employees of the university who have been the subject of similar complaints about their behavior, and none have been terminated,' Dawson wrote in a statement to the school before her disciplinary hearing. 'The allegations against me illustrate how racial and gender biases can shape the interpretation of events and statements, especially for Black women in positions of authority.'
Call me racist, but I'm much more inclined to believe that a group of white women got offended that a Black woman didn't say exactly what they wanted to hear, instead of a Black woman, in a position of power, willfully throwing that out the window to say something heinously antisemitic in a professional setting.
Just saying, we didn't coin the term 'Karen' because entitled white women don't exist.
Moving on, Dawson alleges the University of Michigan didn't follow its usual disciplinary steps when it comes to investigating incidents like these. The school hired an outside law firm, Covington & Burling LLP, to investigate instead of doing it in-house. Covington & Burling also represented the ADL in this case, which Dawson's lawyers allege to be a conflict of interest.
The law firm's report acknowledged that Dawson and the women had differing accounts of the incident but found 'the weight of the available evidence supports the conclusion that Ms. Dawson made the statements attributed to her in the ADL Michigan letter.'
Tabbye Chavous, Dawson's supervisor, was skeptical of how the investigation was being conducted and the findings in the final report. Chavous wrote a letter to the University of Michigan's then-President Santa Ono saying that 'Based on all information available to me, I would respectfully disagree with the conclusion drawn from the report.'
'It is obvious that this is not consistent with our normal processes for investigating alleged similar conduct of employees in a similar position as Ms. Dawson at an off-campus conference,' Chavous wrote. 'Why is the process for this situation and employee seemingly different from similar kinds of allegations and issues with others and how they are dealt with normally?'
After the investigation, Chavous issued Dawson a warning and ordered her to complete anti-bias training. Usually, this would be where the story ends, but not in the case of Dawson. When word of the disciplinary action reached the University of Michigan's Board of Regents, Regent Mark Bernstein wrote, 'that the only acceptable outcome would be for Ms. Dawson to be 'terminated immediately.''
By December 2024, Dawson was fired from her position.
Being prejudiced against someone for their race, religion, gender, or sexuality is the weakest thing a person can do. Yet it's interesting that whenever a white man is accused of racism, all he's expected to do is take an anti-bias class, make an apology, and the consequences are waved away. What Dawson is accused of is objectively awful, yet one can't help but see the double standard in how she's being treated compared to the multitudes of white men who have actually been recorded saying equally if not more heinous things and are still given chance after chance to redeem themselves.
The University of Michigan has stood by its decision to fire Dawson. 'Rachel Dawson was appropriately terminated from her employment at the University of Michigan,' school spokeswoman Kay Jarvis told the Free Press in an email. 'We will vigorously defend this matter.'
Dawson filed her lawsuit in federal court and intends to file a state court discrimination claim as well. Dawson's suit asks the court to declare the University of Michigan violated her civil rights and to award her an undisclosed amount in damages.
SEE ALSO:
UVA President Resigns Over Trump's Anti-DEI Investigation
UNC Asheville Dean Of Students Fired For Pro-DEI Comments
SEE ALSO
Black Woman Sues University Of Michigan For 'Racist' Firing was originally published on newsone.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to expect, and what not to, at the UN meeting on an Israel-Palestinian two-state solution
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly is bringing high-level officials together this week to promote a two-state solution to the decades-old Israel-Palestinian conflict that would place their peoples side by side, living in peace in independent nations. Israel and its close ally the United States are boycotting the two-day meeting, which starts Monday and will be co-chaired by the foreign ministers of France and Saudi Arabia. Israel's right-wing government opposes a two-state solution, and the United States has called the meeting 'counterproductive' to its efforts to end the war in Gaza. France and Saudi Arabia want the meeting to put a spotlight on the two-state solution, which they view as the only viable road map to peace, and to start addressing the steps to get there. The meeting was postponed from late June and downgraded from a four-day meeting of world leaders amid surging tensions in the Middle East, including Israel's 12-day war against Iran and the war in Gaza. 'It was absolutely necessary to restart a political process, the two-state solution process, that is today threatened, more threatened than it has ever been,' French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Sunday on CBS News' 'Face the Nation.' Here's what's useful to know about the upcoming gathering. Why a two-state solution? The idea of dividing the Holy Land goes back decades. When the British mandate over Palestine ended, the U.N. partition plan in 1947 envisioned dividing the territory into Jewish and Arab states. Israel accepted the plan, but upon Israel's declaration of independence the following year, its Arab neighbors declared war and the plan was never implemented. Under a 1949 armistice, Jordan held control over the West Bank and east Jerusalem and Egypt over Gaza. Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians seek those lands for a future independent state alongside Israel, and this idea of a two-state solution based on Israel's pre-1967 boundaries has been the basis of peace talks dating back to the 1990s. The two-state solution has wide international support. The logic behind it is that the population of Israel — along with east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — is divided equally between Jews and Palestinians. The establishment of an independent Palestine would leave Israel as a democratic country with a solid Jewish majority and grant the Palestinians their dream of self-determination. Why hold a conference now? France and Saudi Arabia have said they want to put a spotlight on the two-state solution as the only viable path to peace in the Middle East — and they want to see a road map with specific steps, first ending the war in Gaza. The co-chairs said in a document sent to U.N. members in May that the primary goal of the meeting is to identify actions by 'all relevant actors' to implement the two-state solution — and 'to urgently mobilize the necessary efforts and resources to achieve this aim, through concrete and time-bound commitments.' Saudi diplomat Manal Radwan, who led the country's delegation to the preparatory conference, said the meeting must 'chart a course for action, not reflection.' It must be 'anchored in a credible and irreversible political plan that addresses the root cause of the conflict and offers a real path to peace, dignity and mutual security,' she said. French President Emmanuel Macron has pushed for a broader movement toward a two-state solution in parallel with a recognition of Israel's right to defend itself. He announced late Thursday that France will recognize the state of Palestine officially at the annual gathering of world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly in late September. About 145 countries have recognized the state of Palestine. But Macron's announcement, ahead of Monday's meeting and amid increasing global anger over desperately hungry people in Gaza starting to die from starvation, makes France the most important Western power to do so. What is Israel's view? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects the two-state solution on both nationalistic and security grounds. Netanyahu's religious and nationalist base views the West Bank as the biblical and historical homeland of the Jewish people, while Israeli Jews overwhelmingly consider Jerusalem their eternal capital. The city's eastern side is home to Judaism's holiest site, along with major Christian and Muslim holy places. Hard-line Israelis like Netanyahu believe the Palestinians don't want peace, citing the second Palestinian uprising of the early 2000s, and more recently the Hamas takeover of Gaza two years after Israel withdrew from the territory in 2005. The Hamas takeover led to five wars, including the current and ongoing 21-month conflict. At the same time, Israel also opposes a one-state solution in which Jews could lose their majority. Netanyahu's preference seems to be the status quo, where Israel maintains overall control and Israelis have fuller rights than Palestinians, Israel deepens its control by expanding settlements, and the Palestinian Authority has limited autonomy in pockets of the West Bank. Netanyahu condemned Macron's announcement of Palestinian recognition, saying it 'rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became.' What is the Palestinian view? The Palestinians, who label the current arrangement 'apartheid,' accuse Israel of undermining repeated peace initiatives by deepening settlement construction in the West Bank and threatening annexation. That would harm the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state and their prospects for independence. Ahmed Majdalani, a member of the PLO Executive Committee and close associate of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said the meeting will serve as preparation for a presidential summit expected in September. It will take place either in France or at the U.N. on the sidelines of the high-level meeting, U.N. diplomats said. Majdalani said the Palestinians have several goals, first a 'serious international political process leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state.' The Palestinians also want additional international recognition of their state by major countries including Britain. But expect that to happen in September, not at Monday's meeting, Majdalani said. And he said they want economic and financial support for the Palestinian Authority and international support for the reconstruction and recovery of the Gaza Strip. What will happen — and won't happen — at the meeting? All 193 U.N. member nations have been invited to attend the meeting and a French diplomat said about 40 ministers are expected. The United States and Israel are the only countries who are boycotting. The co-chairs have circulated an outcome document which could be adopted, and there could be some announcements of intentions to recognize a Palestinian state. But with Israel and the United States boycotting, there is no prospect of a breakthrough and the resumption of long-stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on an end to their conflict. Secretary-General António Guterres urged participants after the meeting was announced 'to keep the two-state solution alive.' And he said the international community must not only support a solution where independent states of Palestine and Israel live side-by-side in peace but 'materialize the conditions to make it happen.' ___ Federman reported from Jerusalem. Associated Press writer Angela Charlton in Paris contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
What to expect, and what not to, at the UN meeting on an Israel-Palestinian two-state solution
'It was absolutely necessary to restart a political process, the two-state solution process, that is today threatened, more threatened than it has ever been,' French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Sunday on CBS News' 'Face the Nation.' Advertisement Here's what's useful to know about the upcoming gathering. Why a two-state solution? The idea of dividing the Holy Land goes back decades. When the British mandate over Palestine ended, the U.N. partition plan in 1947 envisioned dividing the territory into Jewish and Arab states. Israel accepted the plan, but upon Israel's declaration of independence the following year, its Arab neighbors declared war and the plan was never implemented. Under a 1949 armistice, Jordan held control over the West Bank and east Jerusalem and Egypt over Gaza. Advertisement Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians seek those lands for a future independent state alongside Israel, and this idea of a two-state solution based on Israel's pre-1967 boundaries has been the basis of peace talks dating back to the 1990s. The two-state solution has wide international support. The logic behind it is that the population of Israel — along with east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — is divided equally between Jews and Palestinians. The establishment of an independent Palestine would leave Israel as a democratic country with a solid Jewish majority and grant the Palestinians their dream of self-determination. Why hold a conference now? France and Saudi Arabia have said they want to put a spotlight on the two-state solution as the only viable path to peace in the Middle East — and they want to see a road map with specific steps, first ending the war in Gaza. The co-chairs said in a document sent to U.N. members in May that the primary goal of the meeting is to identify actions by 'all relevant actors' to implement the two-state solution — and 'to urgently mobilize the necessary efforts and resources to achieve this aim, through concrete and time-bound commitments.' Saudi diplomat Manal Radwan, who led the country's delegation to the preparatory conference, said the meeting must 'chart a course for action, not reflection.' It must be 'anchored in a credible and irreversible political plan that addresses the root cause of the conflict and offers a real path to peace, dignity and mutual security,' she said. Advertisement French President Emmanuel Macron has pushed for a broader movement toward a two-state solution in parallel with a recognition of Israel's right to defend itself. He announced late Thursday that France will recognize the state of Palestine officially at the annual gathering of world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly in late September. About 145 countries have recognized the state of Palestine. But Macron's announcement, ahead of Monday's meeting and amid increasing global anger over desperately hungry people in Gaza starting to die from starvation, makes France the most important Western power to do so. What is Israel's view? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects the two-state solution on both nationalistic and security grounds. Netanyahu's religious and nationalist base views the West Bank as the biblical and historical homeland of the Jewish people, while Israeli Jews overwhelmingly consider Jerusalem their eternal capital. The city's eastern side is home to Judaism's holiest site, along with major Christian and Muslim holy places. Hard-line Israelis like Netanyahu believe the Palestinians don't want peace, citing the second Palestinian uprising of the early 2000s, and more recently the Hamas takeover of Gaza two years after Israel withdrew from the territory in 2005. The Hamas takeover led to five wars, including the current and ongoing 21-month conflict. At the same time, Israel also opposes a one-state solution in which Jews could lose their majority. Netanyahu's preference seems to be the status quo, where Israel maintains overall control and Israelis have fuller rights than Palestinians, Israel deepens its control by expanding settlements, and the Palestinian Authority has limited autonomy in pockets of the West Bank. Netanyahu condemned Macron's announcement of Palestinian recognition, saying it 'rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became.' Advertisement What is the Palestinian view? The Palestinians, who label the current arrangement 'apartheid,' accuse Israel of undermining repeated peace initiatives by deepening settlement construction in the West Bank and threatening annexation. That would harm the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state and their prospects for independence. Ahmed Majdalani, a member of the PLO Executive Committee and close associate of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said the meeting will serve as preparation for a presidential summit expected in September. It will take place either in France or at the U.N. on the sidelines of the high-level meeting, U.N. diplomats said. Majdalani said the Palestinians have several goals, first a 'serious international political process leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state.' The Palestinians also want additional international recognition of their state by major countries including Britain. But expect that to happen in September, not at Monday's meeting, Majdalani said. And he said they want economic and financial support for the Palestinian Authority and international support for the reconstruction and recovery of the Gaza Strip. What will happen — and won't happen — at the meeting? All 193 U.N. member nations have been invited to attend the meeting and a French diplomat said about 40 ministers are expected. The United States and Israel are the only countries who are boycotting. The co-chairs have circulated an outcome document which could be adopted, and there could be some announcements of intentions to recognize a Palestinian state. But with Israel and the United States boycotting, there is no prospect of a breakthrough and the resumption of long-stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on an end to their conflict. Secretary-General António Guterres urged participants after the meeting was announced 'to keep the two-state solution alive.' And he said the international community must not only support a solution where independent states of Palestine and Israel live side-by-side in peace but 'materialize the conditions to make it happen.' Advertisement Federman reported from Jerusalem. Associated Press writer Angela Charlton in Paris contributed to this report.


New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
Progs have abandoned progressivism, Columbia's ‘message of hope' and other commentary
Liberal: Progs Have Abandoned Progressivism 'Today's progressives aren't really progressive in the true sense of the term,' contends The Liberal Patriot's Ruy Teixeira. 'The quintessential moral commitment of midcentury progressives was to make American society truly colorblind.' Now, progs 'favor color-conscious remedies like affirmative action.' They view 'merit and objective measures of achievement . . . with suspicion.' Progressives used to be steadfast defenders of free speech,' but now, they inflate free expression 'with 'violence' and 'harm' and making people feel 'unsafe.'' And they 'prize goals like fighting climate change, procedural justice, and protecting identity groups above prosperity.' 'So can today's progressives be considered 'progressive' when they don't really support free speech, cultural pluralism and the open society? They cannot and voters, especially working class voters, are unlikely to consider them so.' Campus watch: Columbia's 'Message of Hope' 'Because Trump took a stand — and took the heat from progressives and the news media — things may finally change for the better at Columbia,' prays USA Today's Nicole Russell. 'Columbia University has agreed to pay [a] $200 million fine to the federal government to settle accusations that the school failed to protect Jewish students from antisemitism on campus.' Trump was 'standing against a culture on university campuses that promoted progressive values to the exclusion of dissenting opinions': 'Conservative students were shunned. And Jewish students were targeted because of Israel's defense of its citizens.' 'Institutions that accept taxpayer dollars must be held accountable.' 'This is a win for Trump, a scathing reprimand of higher education and a message of hope for American Jews.' Economy: Middle Class' Historic Gains 'Six months into his second term, President Donald Trump is delivering on his promise to create another middle-class economic boom,' cheers W.J. Lee at the Association of Mature American Citizens. Indeed, 'a new Treasury Department report reveals that middle-class and blue-collar workers are experiencing real-wage gains not seen in nearly 60 years': From December 2024 to May 2025, average hourly earnings for middle-class workers rose 1.7%, outpacing inflation. That 'translates to the most impressive half-year real-wage gain at the outset of a presidency' since Richard Nixon's 0.8% increase almost six decades ago. 'The only other time it came close to that? Eight years ago, during Trump's first term.' From the right: Climate Alarms Fall Flat 'The climate alarmists regularly seize on weather events they believe will help them exploit their narrative' but 'ignore contradictory information,' quips the Issues & Insights editorial board. Examples? 'The Northwest Passage is experiencing its third-highest level of sea ice extent in the last two decades,' despite Al Gore's 2009 warning that 'the Arctic polar ice cap could be gone during summer within five to seven years.' Similarly, 'efforts to attribute the deadly Texas flood . . . to human carbon dioxide emissions have been debunked,' and though 'a Tampa, Fla., meteorologist blamed 'climate change' . . . for 90-degree days having doubled in the city,' the average number of days reaching 95°F or higher in the state of Florida has not increased since 1895. Science beat: Fund University Research Locally 'Given the Trump administration's funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, the US must rethink how it endows innovation at American universities,' argue Thomas D. Lehrman and George Gilder at The Wall Street Journal. Publicly funded university research 'has fostered such innovations as the Global Positioning System, cancer therapies, recombinant DNA, and magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI.' That history shows that 'US technological leadership depends on creativity from our campuses.' States looking 'to lead in research and innovation should follow the school-choice playbook and establish a class of nonprofit organizations.' It falls on state leaders to support and 'accelerate the scientific research essential to competing with global rivals and inventing lifesaving technologies.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board