DEI: Deflect, excuse, ignore?

As a psychology researcher who has trained and held faculty positions in numerous academic settings throughout the country over the last 20 years (most recently in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine), I have borne witness to the ways in which initiatives focused on enhancing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) have improved student and faculty experiences on campus. Originally developed as a means of supporting equal employment laws and affirmative action, DEI initiatives have proliferated in academic settings to raise awareness of biases that prevail in classrooms and university-affiliated workplaces, uplift the voices of individuals from minoritized backgrounds and provide a critical forum for complaints about discrimination on campus. Yet, as we have seen in the year since the Oct. 7 massacre and the ensuing waves of antisemitism on campuses here in Pittsburgh and across the country, these initiatives have largely failed to consider the experiences and perspectives of Jewish students, faculty and staff.

I recently attended an event on combatting antisemitism sponsored by the Pitt Office for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion as part of an ongoing series, “The Year of Discourse and Dialogue.” The workshop, led by two external representatives from the American Jewish Committee, was advertised as a “session… focused on understanding the roots of antisemitism and responding in ways that support students, faculty, staff and members of the community.” After an introduction that included an explicit warning that extremist rhetoric would not be tolerated (backed by the presence of police officers at the event), we engaged in an ice breaker on ancestry and a brief presentation on the origins of the Jewish people. Shortly thereafter, approximately five individuals (all masked; at least one wearing a keffiyeh) stood up, passed out leaflets intended to discredit the speakers based on AJC’s stance toward Israel (specifically referring to Israel as an apartheid state and implying that the speakers, along with the Jewish people more generally, have a hidden agenda to “whitewash” Israel’s crimes against humanity), and abruptly left the event. The AJC speaker attempted to continue the presentation but became visibly distressed. The room was largely silent, save for one brave individual (believed to be unaffiliated with the OEDI) who encouraged him to continue speaking, assuring him that the rest of the audience was there to learn and wanted to hear what he had to say. At least five representatives from the OEDI stood in the back of the room throughout this short interchange, remaining completely silent.

As an active member of the Jewish community, I have become conditioned to coordinated attempts by anti-Israel agitators to disrupt various forms of Jewish life and culture in the last year. Therefore, I was not surprised or even particularly upset by the appearance of protestors at this event. However, I was shocked and disappointed that at an event designed to provide education on how to “support students, faculty, staff and members of the community,” not one member of the office that sponsored the event found a way to support anyone in the room. Indeed, given the introductory warning and the police presence, it is likely that the OEDI had been primed for the arrival of protesters. Even with this advance preparation, the OEDI seemed unwilling or unable to act in the face of the disruption.

Get The Jewish Chronicle Weekly Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

Audience members attended the event to understand how to be better allies, and how to recognize and respond to even the most insidious or well-disguised forms of antisemitism — from calls for intifada during campus protests, to libelous slander against those who support the Jewish state, to coordinated disruptions in and out of the classroom with an obvious lack of intent to engage in meaningful dialogue. The OEDI is tasked with teaching and leading the community in proper engagement and response, and what are we to take away from their silence in the face of such an event? I fear that the lesson is that we should do nothing, and we should expect nothing. It is unfortunate that the OEDI missed this opportunity to model the very principles the workshop was designed to teach. For the past year, the Jewish community — on campus and off — has been calling for action on antisemitism, rather than mere words. In this case, we got neither.

There were many opportunities for the OEDI representatives to step in at various points throughout the workshop to convey their stance on coordinated efforts to disrupt campus events centered around Judaism, antisemitism and Zionism. Why didn’t they say or do anything? While I can’t speak for the office itself, as an audience member, I felt that the silence implied that such behavior is condoned and/or acceptable. I and my colleagues have heard from multiple students over the past year suggesting that the OEDI has not responded appropriately to complaints of antisemitism on campus, and that the university as a whole has sought to distance itself from assuming responsibility for ensuring the safety of Jewish students since many of the problematic events (including two outright physical attacks on Jewish students) have occurred off campus. This event happened on campus — in fact, was a Pitt-sponsored event designed specifically for Pitt students, faculty and staff — and the “response” was silence. I can only assume from this lack of response that the OEDI is unwilling, or unable, to provide leadership when it comes to Jews on campus. Although I am somewhat heartened by the recent developments concerning an antisemitism working group, the OEDI’s initial reluctance and double standard constraints around defining antisemitism prior to undertaking any significant work makes me fear that they are also unwilling or unable to accept help from the community in learning to do better.

I don’t believe in cancel culture, and I still believe that DEI initiatives have an important role on campus. In fact, I have reached out to numerous individuals from the OEDI and within Pitt leadership about their handling of the workshop, but I have yet to receive a single response — despite this being a “year of discourse and dialogue.” I see this as an excellent learning opportunity for the OEDI and Pitt leadership to meet with Jewish students, faculty, and staff — to hear what we are saying, and to offer us the same support they would offer any other marginalized group on campus. In the numerous micro-aggression trainings I have taken every single year since being employed at Pitt, the key take home message is to accept responsibility when you may have offended someone, even inadvertently, and learn from it so you can avoid similar mistakes in the future. This is Pitt’s chance to practice what it preaches. PJC

Andrea Beth Goldschmidt is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.