More on the Unsupported Charges of Anti-Semitism in DEI Offices [UPDATED]

I have a followup essay at Social Science Space.

[UPDATE: this essay has now been cross-posted on the AAUP's Academe Blog.]

There Is No Proof of Rampant Anti-Semitism in University Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Offices

Published on 01/19/2022  by Steven Lubet

The right-wing Heritage Foundation has accused university Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices of spreading anti-Semitism on campuses, but its recently  issued report does not back up the claim. Although Heritage touts the study, titled Inclusion Delusion: The Antisemitism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Staff at Universities, as revealing that “an overwhelming number of DEI hires are spewing antisemitic views about Israel on social media,” it is actually an instance of selective data presentation in support of a conservative cause.

The study’s authors claim that DEI offices not only fail to protect the interests of Jewish student, but instead “foment” anti-Semitism and “may be contributing to an increase in anti-Jewish hatred.” While certain DEI advocates have been inexcusably dismissive of Jewish students and faculty, sometimes veering into negative stereotypes and even overt hostility, the study’s methodology does not begin to establish its overheated assertion that “political activism of DEI staff may help explain the rising frequency of antisemitic incidents” on campuses.

The Heritage study began by identifying 2,933 DEI personnel at 65 major U.S. universities, of whom 741 had publicly accessible Twitter accounts. Those accounts were then searched for tweets, retweets, and likes that evinced, as the report put it, “anti-Israel attitudes that are so out of proportion and imbalanced as to constitute antisemitism.”

The researchers ultimately found 605 tweets with extraordinarily harsh statements about Israel, a phenomenon that may indeed coincide with anti-Semitism. Many such tweets threw down a new twist on an ancient blood libel, as in “israel (sic) has a particular loathing for children. they target them with violence specifically and intentionally every single day.”

Another charged,

Y’all love to add the word liberal in front of the most evil things and it’s unhingedddd. Wtf is a liberal Zionist? What’s next? Liberal Nazi? Liberal colonizer? Liberal murderer? Liberal imperialist? Liberal fascist?

And a third threatened, “‘from the river to the sea’ means that we will decolonize every block and every grain of sand in palestine (sic).”

In contrast to all that condemnation, there were only 28 tweets favorable to Israel, some of them only mildly so. But the imbalance does not tell the whole story, because the most important information is strangely missing from the report.

In a study of anti-Semitism among DEI personal, the most significant figure would be the number or proportion of biased staffers, not the ratio of nasty tweets. And yet, as I have explained in The Forward, the Heritage report never tells us whether the 605 troubling tweets were generated by a single person tweeting almost 600 times, by 30 DEI officers tweeting 20 times apiece, or by 300 personnel tweeting only twice each.

Although the Heritage website claims to have documented an “overwhelming pattern” of anti-Semitism – a conclusion repeated in media reports – there may well be no pattern at all. If it turns out that only a handful of DEI personnel were responsible for nearly all of the Israel bashing – which can hardly be ruled out, given the profound enmity toward Israel of some progressives – the modal number of angry tweets per staffer could easily be zero.

The authors of the Heritage Report – Jay Greene, a Harvard PhD, and James Paul, a doctoral fellow at the University of Arkansas – have not been forthcoming about the glaring omission in their report. They did not respond to my repeated requests for the number of unique accounts responsible for the anti-Israel tweets identified in their study. Nor have they posted their underlying data, which would have been routine for a published academic paper.

In a recent webinar, Dr. Greene was asked twice about whether the hostile tweets might have been concentrated in a few accounts. He was evasive both times, saying first that the question indicated a “failure to grasp sampling techniques,” comparing his study to a public opinion poll, and later claiming that the number of tweeters was not relevant, as opposed to the “percentage of tweets.”

Neither explanation holds up. Samples in public opinion polls are carefully randomized and controlled for demographics. The number of individuals in each category is not only relevant but essential.

It is obvious that Greene and Paul could have reported the actual number of hostile tweeters if it had indeed been “overwhelming.” Greene acknowledged at the webinar that they had collected the names and titles of every tweeter, as well as their university affiliations, so it would have taken nothing more than counting to provide the needed figure.

In social science, it is called “data dredging” – considered methodologically improper – when researchers publish only favorable results and suppress everything else. In litigation, an “adverse inference” can be drawn against a party who fails to produce material evidence that is under its control.

Absent a credible explanation for the conspicuous omission – and there is no explanation at all in the report – the most logical conclusion is that a full account of the findings would undermine or refute the Heritage Foundation’s accusations against DEI programs.

The report does make one interesting comparison, contrasting tweets about China and Israel. It turns out that China was named in only about one third as many tweets as Israel during the study’s time frame, which is not specified in the report. Most of those comments (133 out of 216) were positive toward China, notwithstanding the anti-democracy crackdown in Hong Kong and ongoing repression of Uighurs, among other depredations. This disparity was offered as “evidence of a double-standard with respect to the Jewish state.”

It is a huge leap, however, to infer antipathy toward Israel, let alone anti-Semitism, from silence on China. If the study occurred in the shadow of the 2020 presidential campaign, when Donald Trump was regularly inveighing against the “China virus,” such forbearance might indicate only an intention to avoid stoking then-rampant anti-Asian prejudice.

I have never hesitated to call out anti-Semitism, often masquerading as anti-Zionism, among progressives. It is equally important, however, to avoid unsupported accusations, especially when made in pursuit of unrelated political objectives.

The Heritage Foundation is bluntly engaged in an all-out campaign to defund university DEI programs, calling them a “Diversity-Industrial Complex” driven by “watered down Marxism,” as is exemplified by the Twitter study’s conclusion: “It is clear that DEI staff at universities actually function as political activists, articulating and enforcing a narrow and radical ideological agenda.”

Perhaps that passes for clarity in some quarters, but the anti-Semitism angle just muddies it up.

Comments

[anon]

Perhaps you are missing the point. Perhaps the point is that we have 3,000 persons hired to be political activists by predominately leftist university administrations.

The real question is whether ANY DEI "officer" should be publicly asserting hostile political viewpoints about ANY ethnicity or race.

The "Palestine" comment, for example. This has nothing to do with inclusion of persons who are Jewish. In fact, it demonstrates such a fundamental misunderstanding of what should be the true role of a DEI office that the person should be publicly reprimanded.

That is the issue. Why are these folks still working in these "DEI" roles? I suspect because they were hired with the tacit understanding that leftists should hate Jewish people because Jews are equivalent to Israel, and can't be accepted into the twisted "DEI" world of today.

[A non]

Yep, the universities have basically institutionalized McCarthyism and Doublespeak. America's gone full-on banana republic, all whilst Brandon, "liberals," and "progressives" all pretend to be *defending* the rule of law.

Some questions, though. Why don't Republican-controlled state legislatures criminalize these practices, or at least impose civil sanctions on unis for any implementation of DEI offices (ie, create private law rights for students and faculty to be free from this form of brainwashing, blatant abuse of power, totalitarianism, and partisan politics)? Why don't they criminalize the rendering of "diversity statements" (attestation to a particular political dogma) as mandatory components of jobs applications in their respective states? Why don't they systematically buttress academics' freedom of speech and academic freedom via the creation of civil penalties and criminal sanctions for any public university administration which transgresses those freedoms? Is it because these legislators are all cowards, or is it because they're not really opposed to these policies at the end of the day (or both)?

Back to Brandon, why don't American election law scholars undertake deep-dive comparative law projects vis-a-vis the proposed federal changes to voting laws, comparing them to other developed Western countries' voting laws? How about asking a whole bunch of election law scholars in other countries what they think (ie, how disturbed they are) by these Democrat proposals?

[anon]

Anon

All good points.

Here's problem. Numerous instances of unlawful discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. are easily demonstrated. But, anyone who tries to prove it (save on behalf of a favored group) will be in big, big trouble.

These folks are the most revengeful, hateful, vindictive people imaginable. Go against them, and they swarm with vile venom, seeking to destroy anyone who dares to question their obvious use of race, etc. to destroy the power held by those they despise, and seize power for themselves.

"Conservatives" have not been eager to fight these battles, because to do so subjects one to accusations. In academia, especially in legal academia, there is, in short, no way to win, even if the claim is meritorious.

As for voting standards, one need go no further than the Carnegie study some years back. Jimmy Carter and many other prominent Democrats signed off on voter id, etc.

The radical wing of the Democratic party, represented by those too young to know better and those too old to think about anything other than holding on to their personal power and privilege, can't even remember what was "normal" ten years ago.

[A non]

anon,

You say there's no way for conservatives to win. This, due to (1) a collective action problem (many people are disgusted by these tactics, but haven't the time or inclination to unite to do something about it) and (2) reasonable and prudent fear that the personal costs far outweigh the benefits of speaking up, and (3) also believing that one must operate within the bounds of the legal academy's "normal science" in order to perpetuate one's careers and to flourish ( accordingly, leading to both self-censorship and the crafting of one's academic and public extra-mural views within the bounds of the liberal-sculpted paradigm).

Yes, "progressives" and "liberals" have, together, established the panopticon in the modern academy (and elsewhere), even whilst projecting authoritarianism on to others. Bringing about the instantiation of all three phenomena noted above are part of well-established leftist tactics used time and time again in old authoritarian states.

All three can be overcome, however. You just need people to organize. Dialog with your faculty colleagues being a complete waste of time, why not instead get national right-wing media outlets to do exposés on their scholarship and outside work, and on these DEI folks and their deeds? Since these progressive-totalitarians operate with complete impunity and believe themselves to be unstoppable, they will only be thwarted if you give them grounds to be desperately, desperately afraid.

[anon]

A non

I take your point about action.

But have you read an issue of e.g. the Atlantic lately (it has declared its mission, expressly, is to destroy the Republican party). "Right wing" outlets just don't have any sway in academia. Those who speak so knowingly about the evilness of "Fox" have never watched even a minute of it.

There is no refuge, A non. You are so spot on: as an individual, if you call them on their unlawful bigotry, you're done. If you go to the "press" you are facing the same mind set. There are always the armies of DEI officers and others to id you, and make sure you pay.

It truly is like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Just like in the movie, they howl with bloody terror when they encounter someone who isn't EXACTLY what they demand. They are so intolerant, and yet, they think they are carrying on a "liberal" legacy.

It is so horrible. If you express any dissatisfaction with any of it, they respond by telling you to hit the road. Remember: There are very few who benefit from the new bigotry who are going to be willing to speak against the way they benefit from it. And, if you aren't the "right" identity, you're beneath their contempt. It is impossible to win. It is like O'Brien explaining to Winston "If you want a picture of the future ... ." (YOu know the rest ...) It is that bad.

Look at teh main post above. Lubet accepts that at least ONE DEI officer has espoused a genocidal slogan: and he doesn't call for action to remove this person! Instead, he defends the enterprise the accepts and cradles such a person in its warm embrace.

You know what is the most comical? Elderly white cis gender males who spout all the "woke" snotty claptrap because, as boomers, they so desperately need to conform, and they so risibly want to be perceived as "cool."

It is so pathetic.

[A non]

anon,

I don't care that faculties and DEI officers don't watch Fox. I don't either; it's dumb and pseudo-conservative. Only an American Democrat, moreover, could seriously believe that Murdoch was really for Trump (neolib vs paleocon). Just look at when Fox endorsed Trump in 2016...

Instead, the idea would be that the faculty members know, and live with the idea, that millions of average Americans will learn about who they are and what they do. To shine a light on scholarship, policy influence, and institutional practices (which would otherwise be buried in law reviews or court cases, or, in the case of DEI folks, institutional policies and decisions no one would otherwise know about) that, when learned by the average person, will enrage them. Remember, the average academic is to the left of the average person on the left, too.

To that end, people need to organize. Those DEI people who undertake these horrors are equally vulnerable. It's just that no one on the right seems to see that it takes a mass to counteract them. Since you can't pull in those allies from amongst most academics, bring in Josephine Sixpack instead - who would LOVE to learn what she's helping to pay for in terms of her kids' education. Academics aren't really afraid of each other; they're afraid of Les Deplorables, with whom they almost never interact.

I don't think you've got Steve pegged, unfortunately. American Dem Hebrews have consistently failed to see how their summum bonum for American politics and social values can't be squared with those they support for the land of milk and honey. It's irrational; but, as their politics is mostly irrational (despite liberals and progressives claims to the contrary), it's too difficult, emotionally and dispositionally, for someone like Steve to give up the leftist aspirations in the face of their patent falsity and clear threat to his own grandchildren's socioeconomic well-being and survival.

[anon]

A non

Honestly, there aren't enough folks to organize in legal academia. Hiring practices have rigorously screened out anyone who hasn't sniffed the foul pods. Those who harbor reservations are too intimidated to speak out and any effort to "organize" would be met with brutal force. There are literally riots when anyone who doesn't espouse the party line even dares to come on campus to speak. These are just that much authoritarian indoctrination camps.

DEI "training" shows no shame about the anti white, anti male and anti conservative hate it incorporates. This animus is open. This is a testament to the total lack of accountability for what, as I said above, is likely unlawful conduct.

I take it you comment from afar. It is easy to tell those in a prison to break free. It isn't so easy to do this, especially when your fellows will declare you a racist if you even try a little bit to dissent from ANYTHING.

I don't know what you mean by "pegging" Steve. I simply pointed out that I don't perceive that he has called for the termination of a DEI officer who posted a tweet calling for genocide. It matters not whether that genocide is against "Hebrews" (only really extreme groups here use that word, which is considered a vile epithet) or any other group. A "DEI" officer should be held to at least some minimal standard.

Finally, I'd like to know to what "national right wing media outlets" you referred above.

[A non]

I'm not saying legal academics should act on campus. I'm calling for an expansion of the panopticon to cover the leftists in order to modify their behavior. Send their information to the right-wing media outlets to elucidate and promulgate to millions of Americans.

There are enough faculty and students across the 200 or so law schools to do the job. Secretly. Anonymously.

Make them have deep reservations about each and every line of an article sent for publication. Of everything posted on to twitter. Send things like this to Tucker to explain to all of his viewers (what it entails about the author's true views about the constitution and America; what he thinks about the law; his fitness to be a member of a state bar; etc):
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3983598

How about lectures? How many students do you have per class? Do you KNOW each one of them and KNOW their politics with absolute certainty? How many law lectures are online? Think they can't ALL be recorded, whether you wish them to be or not? Why not make it the case that leftists fret over EVERY single word they utter in class, that they become hesitant about the fact that ANY throwaway political line they say over Zoom can end up on Drudge?

This is doable. It's more difficult to do for/to DEI officers, but our boy from Yale showed the Jacobin there what for by recording the threats.

Up the ante.

[anon]

Good thoughts.

But, honestly, what you describe reminds me of how like-minded folks who haven't sniffed the pods feel now about the pressure the left has been able to bring to bear. DEI officers who publicly advocate genocide with impunity can't even draw condemnation from a guy like Lubet. This is cogent evidence of just how powerless many feel to even comment on their tactics. .

You have described their tactics, or at least a part of their program of intimidation and control. I think these tactics perhaps could be employed, but, it will still be the case that the "powers that be" will still be in control.

They are a mean spirited bunch, A non. They are incredibly brutal and out of control. They will make an example of anyone doing what you suggest. They are, truly, primitively cruel.

Rather than learned professionals, they are spoiled and privileged beyond belief, and eager to punish others for sport.