Update to "Jews don't Count......Or Do They?"

Special carve-out, or total elimination of DEI? That is the question

The wars in Ukraine and in the Gaza Strip hold the world’s attention at present, but there is a third conflict taking place simultaneous to the aforementioned two that in my opinion is just as important, even though no blood is being shed over it: the fight between US universities and its donor class over the issue of speech on campus.

Almost everyone is aware that the majority of US Academia leans to the left, and often to the very left. Free speech on campus has been an issue for decades, and in the previous two, attacks on free speech have come from the left and far left who control academia via what is known as “de-platforming”, the concept in which a person or organization has the right to speech, but not the right to a platform. Through concerted efforts to shut down events i.e. de-platforming, left and far left student groups and organizations have successfully denied speech rights to those whose ideologies they oppose. The examples are numerous.

This state of affairs became the status quo across America, with conservatives long ago ceding academia to the left, and liberals (especially of the Classic Liberal mould), continuously getting squeezed, sounding the alarm the free speech on campus was dying. Almost everyone who was opposed to what was happening on campuses throughout the country became coloured by despair, and defeatism. A “long march through the institutions” saw academia fall to the left.

The violent raid by Hamas on Israel upended this situation, as some student groups and academic figures went as far as to celebrate Hamas’ “decolonization”. Campus politics veer heavily toward support for the Palestinians, as they are viewed as the “oppressed”, with Israel a “colonizer” and “oppressor”. The outbreak of protests and demonstrations on campuses in favour of the Palestinians upset not just many conservatives and liberals, but upset quite a lot of Jews, especially rich and powerful liberal Jews who make up an important segment of the university donor class.

There are those who seek to conflate support for Palestinians with support for the violent actions of Hamas, and that would be unfair. But there are some who have openly supported Hamas as a “de-colonizing force”. Alongside this, there has been a lot of bile and hate directed towards Israel, and to be fair, to Jews as well (and on the flipside, towards Arabs and Muslims). Pro-Palestinian protesters are adamant that anti-Zionism cannot be equated to anti-Semitism, with Jewish pro-Palestinian protesters being very vocal about this. After all, there are many Jewish groups, like the Ultra-Orthodox Satmar, who are opposed to the existence of the present State of Israel on religious grounds.

The explosion of anger and fury on campuses at Israel for its retaliation against Hamas (including the large toll inflicted on the civilian population in the Gaza Strip) has led some powerful donors to take action against what they see as ‘rabid’ anti-Semitism on campus, with some accusing more extreme elements of outright supporting terrorism. The face of this effort comes in the form of Bill Ackman, the billionaire manager, founder, and CEO of hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management, Harvard alum, and big time donor to his alma mater.

Almost a month ago, I wrote the following essay in which I detailed Ackman’s public efforts to address what is going on at certain university campuses regarding the conflict between Israel and Hamas:

---

In the above essay, you’ll see how this fight between the donor class and the universities has progressed. Since then, Ackman has sought the resignation of the heads of UPenn, MIT, and Harvard, collecting his first scalp this past Saturday when Liz Magill resigned as President of the University of Pennsylvania.

This battle is very complex as it touches on many important issues that affect all Americans. Academia and a large chunk of liberals are opposed to the donor class involving themselves in how these institutions are run, seeing it as trespassing on their turf, some going as far as to claim that capital is seeking to capture academia, and change it wholesale to reflect their own interests. To be fair they do have a point. They also raise the issue of free speech on campus, and the right to express opinions without sanction by university authorities. Again, they do have a point.

The reality of the situation is very different though. Ideological capture has long ago eroded free speech on campus, with de-platforming serving as a work around to limit the speech of others. Secondly, without the support of the donor class, these schools would not only be hit financially, but more importantly, they would incur reputational harm, and erode the network system that serves to catapult young people into the nation’s elites.

Matters came to a head last week when the presidents of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT testified on Capitol Hill during a Congressional Inquiry into anti-Semitism on university campuses. Their testimony was a disaster, highlighted by Harvard University President Claudine Gay answering that “context matters” when asked if calling for the genocide of the Jews violated university rules regarding bullying or harassment (she later apologized for her answer). The question that everyone was left with was “How can we combat anti-Semitism while reinforcing freedom of speech on campus?”

The Donors Debate

The three Ivy League presidents clearly walked into a trap that was carefully laid out for them. Not only are these institutions under attack by the donor class, but they are also being threatened by people in US Congress.

This update does not concern itself with the fine details of this fight, nor the ongoing war which sparked it. My focus instead revolves around what will satisfy the complainants in this case? Not only are the issues of free speech on campus and the role of donors in university administration present for all to see (alongside anti-Semitism and ‘Islamophobia’), this fight has also created an opening for those opposed to DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) to hopefully try to take a battering ram to it.

DEI represents not just the ideological capture of the USA’s higher education institutions, but also the ideological capture of the business world as well. DEI is the institutionalization of “Wokeness” in academia, government, and in business. It represents the triumph of “The Woke”, and how they intend to (and already are) fundamentally transforming the USA into something that it never was. Almost three years ago, I wrote this essay about this fundamental transformation:

---

I and many others have written on the very negative aspects of DEI, and as a non-American, I have also made mention of how important it is for the DEI beast to been slain in the metropole, the USA, so that the provinces don’t succumb to it. DEI is fundamentally anti-American, anti-business, anti-meritocratic, and so on. Let’s leave it at that for now.

DEI is also anti-East Asian, anti-Indian, anti-White, anti-Heterosexual, anti-Israeli, and yes, anti-Semitic. How is it anti-Semitic? The DEI Megaplex views Jews as Whites, and therefore as part of the “oppressor class”. People and groups opposed to DEI see this fight between donors and university administrators as an opportunity to finally begin to chop away at DEI. This requires the cooperation and vision of the donor class to do so.

The fear is that Ackman and team would seek a special carve-out within DEI on university campuses for Jews. In effect, this would extend DEI to give Jews protection, making them an officially protected class of people. This would mean that Jews in America would be set apart from those on campus already being discriminated against: East Asians, Indians, and straight White males. If a special carve-out is sought, these groups would not only feel abandoned, but would also resent American Jews for abandoning them despite being wildly successful in the country that they share with them.

There is also another point to make: if certain successful Jews seek a special carve-out for themselves under DEI, they will begin to be counted officially. American Jews live in a country that has been incredibly good for them, no doubt the best ever country for them to live in. Do Bill Ackman, Steven Pinker, and Laurence Tribe want everyone to know just how successful and how over-represented American Jews are in business, academia, government, etc.? The long history of Jewish suffering makes them very, very wary of governments doing headcounts of Jews.

Or should the donor class take the opportunity to wipe out the DEI Megaplex? That entire system is rotten and beyond reform, besides being thoroughly anti-business, anti-meritocratic, and fundamentally anti-American.

For those of us opposed to DEI, Bill Ackman gave us all a glimmer of hope when he published his letter demanding that Harvard remove Claudine Gay from her role of President of Harvard University. In this letter, he made mention of DEI (and more). I’ve excerpted the key parts pertaining to this discussion. You can read the letter in its entirety here.

DEI and the Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (OEDIB)

In recent weeks, I have learned a lot about DEI practices at Harvard and have come to the conclusion that the Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging, which was formed in 2019 under Dean Gay’s oversight and vision the year after she became Dean of FAS, is none of those things. In fact, the actions of the OEDIB have led to preferences and favoritism for certain racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ groups at the expense of other groups, and made some members of the Harvard community feel included at the expense of others that are excluded.

When I mentioned in my December 3rd letter to President Gay that among others, Jewish, Asian, Indian and straight white male students were excluded from the benefits of the ODEIB office, her solution to this problem, which she outlined in an email to the Harvard community, was to propose that the OEDIB include Jewish students in some manner. This is not right answer.

The OEDIB is a major contributing source of discriminatory practices on campus and highly damaging to the culture and sense of community at Harvard. It is beyond repair and should be shut down.

I do not mean to suggest whatsoever that the goal of a diverse university that is welcoming for all should be abandoned. Rather, the OEDIB is not the solution as it is fundamentally an organization with political objectives that are inconsistent with achieving true diversity and inclusion at Harvard.

The OEDIB’s definition of equity is also inconsistent with Harvard excellence. Over its nearly 500-year history, Harvard has been a beacon for excellence based on the equality of opportunity it offers, not by promoting a system or ideology which forces or requires the equality of outcomes.

The most important element here is that Ackman and co. rejected a special carve-out for Jews in favour of trashing the DEI system at Harvard altogether. If this position holds, then DEI could fall like dominoes across academia, government, and business as well.

It does not answer the question of free speech on campus, especially how it has already been eroded, nor does it answer their concerns about anti-Semitism on campus either.

It would be prudent to inform Ackman and co. that any attempt to acquiesce to a special carve-out for Jews on campus would be immediately non-functional, as the ideology underpinning it sees Jews as Whites and therefore “oppressors” and “colonizers”. It simply would not compute. The pushback to such a compromise would be enormous, and even threats from donors to withhold funds would not be a trump card either. This conflict is not financial, but it is ideological, and goes right to the heart of the values that made America the wild success that it is today and has been for some time now, but that also allowed men like Bill Ackman to prosper.