DEI is Power

All the leftists out there who thought DEI policies were a weapon for their side only should pay attention to some recent events. Columbia University fired law professor Katherine Franke, a longtime advocate for Palestinian rights among other causes, because of comments she made to a radio show that had nothing to do with the university. Officially, Franke was fired for "discriminatory harassment in violation of our policies." (NY Times, Inside Higher Ed) The most offensive of her comments seems to have been saying that she had doubts about taking Israeli students right out of military service because they often harassed Arab students.

Various people on Twitter/X have said that this wasn't the real reason, which was, depending on which questionable source you prefer, either desire to crack down on somebody, or second-hand reports of statements by Franke that sound a lot worse than the ones she made on the radio. But it was the alleged "discriminatory harassment" that provided the legal cover for the dismissal.

Columbia's policy in these matters is posted online, so we can consider it. The act is defined like this:

Treating individuals less favorably because of their actual or perceived membership in, or association with, a Protected Class, or having a neutral policy or practice that has a disproportionate and unjustified adverse impact on actual and/or perceived members or associates of one Protected Class more than others, constitutes Discrimination. Discrimination includes treating an individual differently on the basis of their actual or perceived membership in, or association with, a Protected Class in the context of an educational program or activity without a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason so as to deny or limit the ability of the individual to participate in or benefit from Columbia’s services, activities, or privileges.

Discriminatory Harassment may include, but is not limited to, the following acts that denigrate or show hostility or aversion toward one or more actual or perceived members or associates of a Protected Class: verbal abuse; epithets or slurs; negative stereotyping (including, but not limited to, stereotypes about how an individual looks, including skin color, physical features, or style of dress that reflects ethnic traditions; a foreign accent; a foreign name, including names commonly associated with a particular shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; or speaking a foreign language); threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; denigrating jokes; insulting or obscene comments or gestures; calls for genocide and/or violence; and the display or circulation of written or graphic material in any form, including but not limited to social media.

Most of this is pretty standard legal verbiage, and some of the vague-sounding terms have been litigated. But Columbia's policy omits one of the standard items in US sexual harassment law, which is that there has to be a pattern of behavior and you have to request that it stop; only if it then does not stop do you have a harassment case. At Columbia, as happened to Franke, you can be dismissed for a single sentence from just about anywhere, including social media or text messages.

Here is an interesting wrinkle:

Speech or conduct expressing views regarding a particular country’s policies or practices does not necessarily constitute Discriminatory Harassment based on national origin. However, if harassing speech or conduct that otherwise appears to be based on views about a country’s policies or practices is directed at or infused with discriminatory comments about persons from, or associated with, that country or another country, then it may constitute Discriminatory Harassment.

Under this rule it would be ok to criticize the Israeli government so long as you make absolutely clear you are not attacking all Israelis. Which is just the kind of rule that gets broken all the time in angry confrontations like we just saw over Gaza. My Ukraine war feed is full of statements about "Russians" that I am sure violate this policy.

There is much language in the policy about creating a Hostile Environment, which  

can be created by unwelcome conduct that, considering the totality of the circumstances, is subjectively and objectively offensive and is so severe or pervasive that it limits or denies a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from any of the University’s educational programs or activities.

We have seen cases in recent years in which students claimed to have been made so upset that they couldn't study by a whole range of things, including, famously, the appearance at Brown of a speaker who denied the existence of "rape culture." If Jewish students say that the pro-Palestinian encampment in the center of campus makes it impossible for them to study, do they have a case? Could a pro-Palestinian student make the same argument about a Jewish student wearing a provocative button or T-shirt? (Like, "Genesis 12:7")

Who decides which speech acts violate this policy? As the firing of Franke shows, the President and Board decide. Without any kind of public hearing or any of that weak stuff. If they decide to get rid of anyone who has ever waded into a political controversy, they can probably find a reason under the "discriminatory harassment" policy.

If you want freedom of speech, you need to stand for everyone's freedom to speak. Whatever limits you accept on your enemies will eventually be used on you.