I don’t like to brag, but I think I’ve solved the problem of anti-Semitism in higher education. And in the spirit of civic responsibility, I’m offering it free of charge.

The extent of the anti-Semitism can be made clear in this Jewish Insider report on the aftermath of a mob at the University of California, Berkeley. The gist: a violent Jew-hating mob forced the evacuation of a building that was set to host a speech by an IDF reservist. Jews were assaulted and harassed by the crowds.

When Jewish Insider asked Dan Mogulof, a vice chancellor at the school who had been present at the event, if it constituted a security failure, Mogulof responded with one of the grandest gestures of imbecility we have seen in our time: “The fact that we were able to safely evacuate the building and get people away from the mob with what so far are two reports of minor injuries, I’m thankful that happened.”

Success! University event shut down, speech violently suppressed, and only a few Jews were hurt. What more could a university hope to achieve? Mogulof also said he detected not a whiff of bigotry at the event at which demonstrators attacked Jewish students while calling them “dirty Jew.” We may never know their motivation.

Security at such events seems to be the equation that Berkeley can’t solve, as professors stare at the blackboard in confusion hoping Matt Damon’s character from Good Will Hunting will appear from the mists. And it’s obviously not just Berkeley—colleges love to fall back on the security excuse if it means they get to cancel some form of free expression. But in fact the answer has been right in front of their faces the whole time.

The school sent out an email denouncing the incident but did not use the word “Jewish” or “anti-Semitism” because, Mogulof said, “we wanted to universalize it.” Sure, all lives matter, etc. Jewish Insider then describes the following exchange, which is key to understanding how to move forward from here: “[Mogulof] said the school may consider adding a required seminar about ‘the importance of diversity and perspective and civic discourse and freedom of speech,’ but added that he ‘would be hard-pressed to think of policies that would be unique to the Jewish community that would be necessary or effective.’”

A seminar on diversity? Bizarrely, and accidentally, Mogulof is getting warmer. Rep. Adam Schiff, leading Democratic candidate for the California Senate seat vacated by the late Dianne Feinstein, said, “What happened at Berkeley is just the latest, horrifying example” of anti-Semitism on campus. “It’s unacceptable in any setting, especially in a California university that prides itself on inclusion. And yet, this kind of intimidation — and inaction from administrators — is an all-too-common reality for so many Jewish students today.”

If you combine Schiff’s and Mogulof’s explanations, you have the makings of a solution. Schiff says it’s unacceptable at a school that “prides itself on inclusion.” Mogulof says he doesn’t know how to include Jews in the university’s diversity system.

Well, I do. Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are theoretically designed to provide the targeted support that members of “underserved communities” need. In reality, DEI is an anti-Semitism-creating machine of unmatched efficiency.

What Jews on campus need, specifically, is security—just to make sure their events and prayer services and the like can be held without incident. DEI programs increase the security risk to Jewish students. The DEI budget at the University of California, Berkeley is $36 million.

Problem solved. Just redirect some of the $36 million the university spends on DEI toward protecting Jewish students and staff and events. That would satisfy Mogulof’s desire to develop DEI “policies that would be unique to the Jewish community that would be necessary or effective.” And it would make Adam Schiff feel so much better about the pride his state takes in inclusion.

Of course all this raises an obvious alternative: If spending DEI money puts Jews in danger, which then will be mitigated by spending more DEI money, wouldn’t it make more sense to not spend all that money in the first place?

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link