Does D.E.I. Help or Hurt Jewish Students?

Following anti-Israel protests over the Gaza war that disrupted college campuses last year, many universities launched task forces to investigate whether antisemitism was increasing.

Their findings confirmed that it was. Surprisingly, however, one contributing factor identified was diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) programs.https://svtoday.org/

Reports from institutions like Stanford University, Columbia University, and the University of Pennsylvania revealed that Jewish students often felt marginalized rather than supported by D.E.I. initiatives.

These findings highlight a growing challenge on campuses: how Jewish students fit into D.E.I. frameworks.

Many Jewish leaders and students on campus argue they are excluded from these programs but should be included. They point out that while D.E.I. initiatives tend to focus on groups like Black and Hispanic students, they often overlook the discrimination faced by Jewish students, including slurs, threats, and occasional violence.

D.E.I. offices have come under intense scrutiny, facing ideological criticism for allegedly creating divisions among different groups. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, over 200 colleges have scaled back their diversity initiatives in the past two years, with some even shutting down their D.E.I. offices entirely. Fourteen states have enacted laws to restrict or ban these programs.

The potential for further restrictions looms, particularly under the possibility of a second Trump administration. During his first term, former President Trump signed an executive order dismantling federal D.E.I. programs and directed agencies to investigate “illegal discrimination and preferences,” including in higher education.

Critics of identity-based initiatives in higher education, particularly conservatives, have long opposed these programs. Recently, they have gained unexpected allies within parts of the Jewish community, who argue that D.E.I. offices have been unresponsive—or even hostile—to their concerns, particularly during anti-Israel protests.

Defenders of D.E.I. programs, however, assert that these initiatives are critical for fostering safe and inclusive campuses for all students, including Jewish ones.

Recent incidents have underscored the tension between D.E.I. efforts and the experiences of Jewish students and faculty.

At the University of Michigan, a diversity administrator was dismissed after allegedly making antisemitic remarks. Two Jewish professors claimed she referred to the university as being “controlled by wealthy Jews,” though the administrator denied the allegations through her lawyer.

Meanwhile, at a private school diversity conference in Colorado, some speakers labeled the Gaza conflict a genocide and called Israel’s founding racist. Jewish organizations condemned the remarks as antisemitic, prompting an apology from the organizers. One speaker criticized the backlash, claiming it diluted the definition of antisemitism.

At the University of Pittsburgh, the diversity office organized training to address antisemitic stereotypes and support Jewish students—an event often requested by Jewish advocates. However, pro-Palestinian activists disrupted the session by distributing critical fliers, which university diversity officials failed to address, according to Dr. Andrea Beth Goldschmidt, an associate professor who attended. She later penned an essay titled “DEI: Deflect, Excuse, Ignore?” criticizing their inaction.

Who Is D.E.I. For?
Universities have implemented diverse strategies to achieve inclusivity, such as anti-racism and anti-sexism training, efforts to diversify faculty, and identity-based mentorships and affinity groups. These initiatives primarily aim to improve graduation rates and student success, often focusing on underrepresented groups like Black and Hispanic students.

However, as tensions from the Middle East conflict escalate, D.E.I. offices frequently find themselves unprepared to address such complex and sensitive issues. Jewish students and faculty have voiced concerns that these efforts often leave them out, even as antisemitic incidents rise both on and off campuses.

For example, Asher Goodwin, a University of Pittsburgh student, recounted being mocked for wearing a kipa while walking to a Shabbat dinner. After reporting the incident to the D.E.I. office, he was advised to file a complaint but told that no action could be taken. Feeling unsupported, he refrained from reporting a subsequent slur directed at him.

Muslim students have also criticized D.E.I. offices for insufficient responsiveness. Some pro-Palestinian students targeted by conservative groups say their universities provided little protection against public doxxing and harassment.

Revamping D.E.I. Programs
Some Jewish leaders advocate for eliminating D.E.I. initiatives entirely, arguing that these programs often frame Palestinians as victims and pro-Israel Jews as oppressors, disregarding the historical context of antisemitism and the harassment Jewish students face.

Others, however, support D.E.I. efforts but call for greater sensitivity toward Jewish concerns. A Stanford antisemitism report recommended that schools incorporate Jewish students into D.E.I. programming as a short-term solution, ultimately transitioning toward a more inclusive “pluralistic” approach.

Still, some proponents of D.E.I. warn that erasing identity-focused programs undermines their purpose: addressing the unique challenges faced by marginalized groups. Without such programming, Jewish students, they argue, would be even more vulnerable to discrimination.

Jonathan Feingold, a Boston University law professor who studies affirmative action, argued that banning D.E.I. programs would hinder universities’ ability to combat antisemitism. He emphasized that many of the recommendations made by antisemitism task forces rely on identity-focused initiatives.

At the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Goldschmidt lamented the missed opportunity to demonstrate that Jewish students deserve the same protections as other marginalized groups. She urged diversity officers to allow Jewish students to define what constitutes discrimination against them.

Some universities have begun addressing these issues. California, for instance, recently passed legislation requiring schools to recognize antisemitism in D.E.I. trainings. The University of Pennsylvania also established an office for civil rights complaints related to shared ancestry, ethnicity, or religion.

The term “pluralism” has emerged in several reports as a guiding principle for improving D.E.I. efforts. Columbia University professor Nicholas Lemann stressed the importance of ensuring Jewish students feel welcomed by D.E.I. offices. Similarly, Paul Brest, a Stanford professor emeritus, suggested that D.E.I. programs should move beyond identity-based approaches to include everyone.

However, critics argue that this shift risks diluting the purpose of D.E.I. Jerry Kang, a UCLA professor and founding vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion, likened his role to gardening: ensuring all plants thrive doesn’t mean watering them equally. Each group, he said—whether first-generation students, women in STEM, or Jewish students—requires tailored support.

“Identity matters,” Kang concluded, “whether we like it or not.”