It’s not unusual for students on college campuses to protest political issues. My first memories of college protests started when I was a child with the Vietnam War, and those protests were heightened when the National Guard opened fire on Kent State students in 1970 resulting in the deaths of four students and national outrage.
Today’s students protest mostly about environmental issues – anti-oil and gas – or conservative speakers or influencers who call out some of the overzealous ideology regarding those issues and others.
However, after Hamas brutally attacked and murdered Israelis in the Gaza Strip on Oct. 7 this year, a new and disturbing level of activism – mostly aimed at Israel – is taking place on college campuses across the nation. Instead of uniting for a cause or advocating for civil rights, students are shouting down their classmates and holding dueling protests.
Media reports are chronicling the free-speech battles taking place in the wake of the attack, and Israel’s response. The surge in campus activism has left students, their parents and communities to condemn how university leaders are handling these protests, many of them prompted by antisemitic comments from university professors or student organizations; such as what took place at Harvard, when groups penned a letter blaming Israel for the violence and justifying the Hamas terrorist attack as “justice” for Israel’s decades of occupation.
This is happening in the wake of what many Jewish Americans have been reporting as a rising tide in antisemitism that has been occurring over the last several years. According to a Forbes report, 24 percent of American Jews in the last year have reportedly been targets of antisemitism, whether through physical attacks, remarks in person or remarks online.
Many may be wondering what is leading to this rise in antisemitism, particularly on college campuses, and the Forbes article calls out college Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs as a contributing factor. An interim study in Oklahoma a couple of weeks ago focused on the problematic issues of DEI programs at state universities and colleges, including mandates on college campuses that call for students to pay for mandatory DEI training or for faculty to sign DEI pledges as part of achieving or keeping tenure.
DEI programs have been the target of many Republican state legislatures that have been working to end these mandatory programs on campuses. You may ask why these programs are so problematic and possibly a contributor to incidents of racism and antisemitism on campus.
DEI proponents say these programs help create a sense of “belonging,” and build an inclusive environment on campus. They focus on the concept of systemic racism as institutionalized in our country and also focus on purported inequities non-white students face.
However, the focus of many of these programs divides students into categories either by race, sex, sexual preference, gender preference or religion. And, disturbingly, according to the Forbes article, some DEI training is making assumptions about Jewish employees and particularly about their racial, ethnic, religious and cultural identities.
For example, according to the Forbes article, over the summer, two Jewish mental health counselors who participated in Stanford University’s Counseling & Psychological Services’ (CAPS) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) program filed charges of discrimination against the university. Aside from placing them into a racial and ethnic category with which they did not identify, the program decidedly ignored explicitly antisemitic incidents that occurred on campus. The Stanford DEI committee supported this decision, saying that because “Jews, unlike other minority group[s], possess privilege and power, Jews and victims of Jew-hatred do not merit or necessitate the attention of the DEI committee.”
Most people, you would think, would see that statement as pretty problematic.
What I’ve never been clear on with DEI is what the desired goals and outcomes are purported to be. If it’s diversity of student population, well, statistics in Oklahoma (and likely elsewhere) show that the non-white population of students on campus is growing exponentially and is expected to outpace enrollment of white students within the decade. Diversity is happening any way.
As far as inclusion, legitimate questions arise about the success of these DEI programs. Our country is extremely polarized, and some argue that DEI programs are exacerbating division on campus by promoting identity politics and emphasizing differences between groups.
Equity is the most troubling, because it is a subjective concept. What is considered equitable can vary depending on an individual’s perspective, background, economic status, etc. To achieve equity in its purist sense could require redistribution of assets, income, etc. and for many that crosses a line into socialism and communism.
And, then there is the money being spent on DEI programs. A 2021 report done by the Heritage Foundation that Oklahoma State University had the 23rd highest ration for DEI-staff-to-history faculty. OU’s website shows 11 people on the DEI “team,” including two interns. Salaries for DEI leaders on campus mostly range in six figures, up to more than $200K.
DEI consultants charge thousands for their studies and recommendations to companies and organizations. It’s big business.
So, in the wake of current events and the disturbing nature of many of these pro-Hamas protests, universities should be questioning the effectiveness and impact of any college-mandated program that places individuals into identity boxes. Blaming or admonishing groups of people for the consequences of others’ actions does not acknowledge individuals for who they are and what they stand for.
These programs that appear to sanction divisive concepts in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion certainly couldn’t be what was intended when they were dreamed up in the first place.
Cindy Allen 