Harvard’s Discrimination Problems Also Include Antisemitism
In early November I wrote a column titled “Diversity Equals Quotas in College Admissions.”
In that column I wrote:
So why are colleges still hiding behind the word “Diversity” when it comes to admissions?
On Monday, this very question was brought to the Supreme Court.
Ed Blum is the founder of the group Student for Fair Admissions (SFFA). Their goal is to bring attention to the fact that “Diversity” in the case of college admissions applies to race, and by seeking this “Diversity” it simultaneously discriminates against others.
There were two cases brought before the court. One against Harvard and the other against the University of North Carolina (UNC). Both cases were challenging the schools affirmative action admission policies.
Later in the column, this was also revealed:
The truth is that these schools simply give lip service to the term “Diversity.” Today, almost 20 years later, skin color is nothing more than the most visible sign of a difference between people. Yet, that does not prove “Diversity.” Anyone can be like minded regardless of race. So to claim that you are seeking to be diverse on skin color alone is a ridiculous sentiment.
In August of this year, The Harvard Crimson released the results of a survey that it conducted. Approximately five hundred professors were questioned on a variety of subjects.
According to the survey, only 16 percent considered their views as moderate and only 1.5 percent identified as conservative.
Not surprisingly, only 25 percent of those surveyed supported hiring more conservative professors. 31 percent openly opposed hiring conservatives, while 44 percent neither supported it, nor opposed it.
So “Diversity” at Harvard means having less than 2 percent of their professors identifying as conservatives.
While this case essentially addresses discrimination against Asian and White students and is still before the Supreme Court, Harvard recently got some additional bad news.
The annual report issued by the AMCHA Initiative, which is a non-profit group that seeks out and exposes antisemitism, ranked Harvard #1 for assaults on Jewish identity.
Not only was Harvard rated as the worst with 25 incidents reported, that amount was almost twice the amount reported against the University of Chicago that reported 13 incidents.
AMCHA breaks any reports of antisemitism down into three categories:
Redefinition: Is the belief that Zionism and Judaism are unrelated and that support of Israel is a colonial political project that exploits Judaism.
Denigration: Is any attempt to vilify those that support Israel or Jews with unnecessary privilege, influence, or power.
Suppression: References boycotting or shutting down events, programs or beliefs that are believed to be Zionist.
The AMCHA Director is Tammi Rossman Benjamin, she puts it this way:
“The massive assault on Jewish identity which attempts to chisel away and erase a student’s connection to their Jewish faith, people, and history on campuses across the country is no coincidence. It is the latest strategy adopted by those who traffic in antisemitism, whether from the left or the right, to further normalize antisemitism and make it easier to harass, bully and abuse Jews on campus and harder for Jewish students to seek recourse.”
Zachary Lech and Alex Bernat are two Jewish students attending Harvard that believe antisemitism isn’t uncommon. Lech stated:
“My cynical answer would be that yes, to some extent Harvard is very comfortable to allow this kind of discrimination to happen on campus just because its commitment to issues regarding Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), is superficial at best and is more done out of a sense that this is what is socially accepted these days and not out of genuine concern for the wellbeing of any group.”
Tammi Rossman Benjamin believes that a “New Solution” is necessary:
“University administrators must acknowledge that harassment and bullying that denies Jewish students, or any student of the ability to participate in campus life should not be tolerated and they must establish a single behavioral standard for responding to harassing behavior, irrespective of the motivation of the perpetrator or the identity of the victim.”
Harvard has some major issues, but they are hardly alone.
Isn’t it strange that since these universities have adopted the “leftist standards” of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, the institutions are actually less diverse, less equal and less inclusive.
To the left, DEI means, believe as we do, or leave.