Upon further review

My post this morning on the latest DEI controversy at the University of Michigan was definitely too flip in its tone, so I’d like to revisit the issue. (I certainly didn’t intend to give the impression that anti-Semitism isn’t a serious issue in America in 2024, when it so obviously is).

I see three separate but related questions here:

(1) The evidentiary question of what the DEI administrator Rachel Dawson actually said.

(2) The substantive question of what the appropriate sanction should have been, given various assumptions about the content of (1).

(3) The meta-issue of UM regent Mark Bernstein intervening in the case after the fact, and convincing UM President Santa Ono to fire Dawson, after the the normal disciplinary process had run its course, and concluded that a formal reprimand and mandatory re-education/training were the warranted sanctions.

As to (1), I think we should be somewhat wary of drawing strong conclusions about what was actually said in this kind of situation, where there’s no recording or transcript, and just two witnesses other than the accused, both of whom are far from disinterested observers. This is especially true that, in terms of appropriate discipline, so much turns on both exactly what was said and how it was said, which, given the circumstances, are things that are very difficult to reconstruct after the fact with a high degree of confidence. It’s simply a fact that, all other things being equal, a black woman’s purported statements are going to be interpreted and treated more harshly than a white person’s statements would be under similar circumstances (This is Racism 101). That, of course, doesn’t mean Dawson didn’t make what could be correctly interpreted as anti-Semitic statements; it merely means some extra caution is in order from an evidentiary standpoint.

As to (2), depending on what conclusions one reaches about the substance of (1), it’s certainly arguable that strong sanctions, up to and including firing, might be warranted. That’s what the university’s investigative process is supposed to decide.

Which brings us to (3). Here, I don’t think there’s any room for reasonable debate. It was a grotesque abuse of economic, social, and institutional privilege for Mark Bernstein to intervene in this case in the way he did, and it’s a grim commentary on the money mania that has taken over our leading universities that the donor class can corrupt university decision making in this way.

That being said, here are a couple of comments from academics I greatly respect. The first is from a Jewish professor at the University of Michigan. The second is from a non-Jewish law professor.

Professor #1:

I lucked out growing up in the one country in the few decades which were by far the best time for Jews ever. Since about 2010 those good days have ended and are sinking fast to where i fear the country looks pretty much like Germany in 1932 say, complete with psychotic fuhrer. so i wonder why you would take this on? Ya, it is embarrassing that Bernstein got out his guns on this matter, and by so doing plays to the dreams of the anti-semites(but [Detroit Lions’ coach] Dan Campbell is doing ads for [Bernstein’s] dad these days), but Dawson as you say is a dumbass anti semite. Is Bernstein embarrassing yes, but given what the other Jew regent is being treated to….

And then there is the academic left concern with Gaza, but not Sudan or anywhere else where innocents are needlessly dying. it ain’t good being a Jew these days if it ever was.

As you can guess DEI is often a disaster: witness your run in with your idiot dean shoved into a role she was not remotely qualified to fill. Oh damn. i would have let this one pass. the most interesting thing in the article was the enormous growth in the endowment. that is incredible. We knew back in the 80s and 90s that the guy running the finances was something of genius outperforming the market consistently, besides with the Fab 5 [Michigan basketball team from the early 1990s] etc opening up the pockets of alums. 

Then in response to my reply saying I had been too glib:

Well Bernstein made a vulgar move but Jews really feel threatened these days. My synagogue in Ann Arbor has been picketed by pro Palestinian sign bearers every Saturday and every holiday, but about 7 years ago the signs changed from free Palestine etc to stuff like stop Jew Power, making it no doubt that anti-zionism is a very thin cover for old fashioned blood libel anti semitism.

Professor #2:

Here’s my issue-spotter take —

— University “DEI” is mostly bullshit (in the technical sense of the Frankfurt school) but must be taken seriously for purposes of the legal aspects of this discussion.

— I’m skeptical of the complainants’ characterization of the conversation, especially because she says “that was the gist of what she said.” And hiring C&B is an insane combo of grift and ass-covering. And this is an odd comment–“Covington & Burling has worked with the A.D.L. before”– since it seems to imply that the neutral, outside investigator is “working with” the complainant.

— But let’s assume the complainants’ description of the conversation is basically accurate.

(1) Any discussion of beliefs or opinions about genetic heritage and its relevance to sovereignty over any land in the world–core political speech, unrelated to the job, totally protected by 1stA

(2) “wealthy Jews control UM.” Anti-semitic vibes, but on its face it’s a combination of facts + political opinions that are borne out by subsequent events, not directly pertaining to this person’s job, so I say legally 1stA protected, morally anti-semitic. It can be tricky because the thing about anti-semitic tropes is that anti-semitism has such a rich history that nearly anything negative has at some point been an anti-semitic trope, making it hard to vividly criticize anyone without invoking one. [But if “wealthy Jews control UM” was given as a reason why Jewish students don’t need DEI services, then it was extra stupid and we’re in category 3, below.]

(3) “Jewish students are wealthy and privileged, so they don’t need DEI services.” Exhibits basic misunderstanding of DEI (which, especially now, is justified as applying to basically everyone of any identity group) and thus her job, and arguably expresses hostility-in-advance to anyone complaining of anti-semitism. Possibly redeemable if it was something like, “Most of our students are so privileged that our office is really focused right now on those who are low-SES or first gen, and it seems like very few Jewish students happen to fall into that category,” but that seems unlikely. Debatable whether her making this statement actually “interferes” with her ability to do her job–the whole point of a DEI admin conference is presumably for having frank discussions about uncomfortable topics and how people’s personal views might interact with the work (I jest) and it wasn’t a public announcement to students. But it does suggest, at least, misapprehension of the job, and it was said in the context of concerns from a particular student (albeit third hand).

So I would say that sending her to re-education camp is justified under the terms of the DEI world we live in. One of the problems with the1stA doctrine, I think, is that it doesn’t have a provision for proportionality. In the Case of the Cheerleader Who Said Fuck, the supreme court clearly thought some sort of reprimand would have been appropriate but thought kicking her off the squad was an over-reaction. But the doctrine was on or off, protected or not protected. I don’t remember how they resolved that. But in this case, I think it’s pretty obviously viewpoint discrimination to escalate from re-education to firing, so definitely unconstitutional, except that the court will pretend to believe the outcome would have been the same if she’d said the same about any group.

Good comment from Alworth:

Glad you revisited this. The first post was glib on a topic that is always fraught and in which misunderstanding is a baseline.

Had I blogged about this issue, I probably would have approached it from this perspective: this case is a perfect illustration of the downstream consequences of a country flirting with Christofascism. A lot of shit is just broken. American Jews are being attacked by both the right and left, and have quite reasonably entered a defensive crouch. The situation is complicated by the fact that many Jews do sit in positions of power in which their over-reactions can harm others. That does not reflect the usual power dynamics in these situations.

It seems like this woman was wronged, but the reason she was wronged points to the precarity of multiple groups whose situations are worsening. And things are about to get a lot worse.