|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Edited by: Fern Sidman
The University of Michigan has terminated Rachel Dawson, an administrator who led diversity initiatives, following accusations of anti-Semitic remarks, her lawyer confirmed to The New York Times. This controversial decision, which has sparked discussions about free speech and accountability, adds to an already fraught atmosphere on the Ann Arbor campus. Ms. Dawson has announced her intent to sue the university, citing alleged violations of her First Amendment rights.
According to documents obtained by The New York Times through a freedom of information request, Ms. Dawson, the director of the university’s Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives, allegedly stated during a conference in March that the university was “controlled by wealthy Jews.” She is also accused of making disparaging remarks about Jewish students, describing them as “wealthy and privileged” and suggesting they did not need the services provided by her office. Further allegations include a claim that she questioned the genetic and historical connections between Jewish people and Israel. These comments were detailed in a complaint submitted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of Michigan.
In an interview with The New York Times, Ms. Dawson’s lawyer, Amanda Ghannam, strongly denied the accusations, asserting that Ms. Dawson did not make anti-Semitic comments. Ms. Ghannam said the university initially indicated that Ms. Dawson would undergo training but abruptly changed course and terminated her employment. “The university has clearly, blatantly violated Ms. Dawson’s First Amendment rights, and we will take appropriate legal action,” Ms. Ghannam stated.
University spokeswoman Colleen Mastony declined to confirm the details of Ms. Dawson’s dismissal, citing a policy of not commenting on personnel matters. However, The New York Times reported that emails obtained through a records request revealed internal debates among university leadership. Initially, university leaders had considered a lesser penalty, but a member of the Board of Regents pushed for her dismissal, adding fuel to an already volatile situation on campus.
The allegations and subsequent firing come during a period of heightened tensions at the University of Michigan. The campus community has recently dealt with acts of vandalism, including pro-Hamas graffiti targeting the home of a Jewish Board of Regents member, the New York Times report said. Additionally, student protests have erupted over the university’s plans to scale back some diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which Ms. Dawson’s office was tasked with overseeing.
Ms. Dawson had worked at the university since 2017 and was appointed director of the multicultural initiatives office just over a year ago. In this role, she was responsible for mentoring and supporting students from diverse racial, cultural, and economic backgrounds. According to the report in The New York Times, her leadership and alleged remarks came under scrutiny after the ADL of Michigan filed a formal complaint in August. The university responded by hiring the external law firm Covington & Burling to investigate the matter. The firm’s findings, detailed in a memorandum obtained by The New York Times, reportedly corroborated some of the allegations.
The case has drawn sharp criticism and sparked broader debates on free speech, anti-Semitism, and institutional responses to bias. Some observers have questioned whether the university’s decision to fire Ms. Dawson represents a fair outcome or a capitulation to external pressures. At the same time, the allegations have shed light on persistent concerns about anti-Semitism and discrimination in higher education.
A memo from the law firm Covington & Burling stated that it was “not possible to determine with certainty whether Ms. Dawson made the exact remarks” attributed to her. According to the information provided in The New York Times report, there was no recording of the conversation, and no witnesses beyond the two professors who reported the incident and Ms. Dawson herself. However, the memo, dated September 25, concluded that “the weight of the available evidence supports A.D.L. Michigan’s report.” This finding ultimately led to Ms. Dawson’s dismissal.
The allegations against Ms. Dawson stem from a conversation at a March diversity conference in Philadelphia, hosted by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. As reported by The New York Times, two professors, including Naomi Yavneh Klos of Loyola University New Orleans, approached Ms. Dawson to discuss the experiences of Jewish students at the University of Michigan. Dr. Yavneh Klos recounted that the conversation took a troubling turn when Ms. Dawson allegedly stated that Jewish students were “all rich” and did not need the DEI office’s support. Dr. Yavneh Klos described the remarks as “horrifying” and immediately contacted a friend at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), who encouraged her to file a formal complaint.
Ms. Dawson, however, disputed the account, according to the Covington & Burling investigation cited by The New York Times. While she admitted speaking with the professors, she denied making disparaging remarks about Jewish students. Instead, she claimed that her comments about Jewish and Palestinian ancestral ties were misrepresented.
Covington & Burling has a history of working with the ADL, including on a help line providing pro bono legal assistance to families dealing with anti-Semitism. As The New York Times report highlighted, the firm’s connection to the ADL and its role in corroborating the allegations have added another layer of complexity to the case. The ADL of Michigan, which filed the complaint against Ms. Dawson, has been a vocal advocate for addressing anti-Semitism in higher education, particularly in DEI initiatives.
The law firm’s involvement underscores the university’s unusual response to the case. As Ms. Dawson’s attorney, Amanda Ghannam, pointed out in an interview with The New York Times, it is rare for universities to retain outside legal counsel to investigate allegations against a mid-level administrator. Ms. Ghannam further criticized the university’s decision to dismiss Ms. Dawson despite recommendations from her direct superior for less severe action.
The decision has drawn criticism from Ms. Ghannam, who described the termination as “deeply troubling.” She argued that the allegations were based on a single conversation and questioned whether they warranted such a severe penalty. “It’s deeply troubling that they would escalate the situation to termination based on one conversation in somebody’s private capacity,” Ms. Ghannam told The New York Times.
This episode has unfolded against the backdrop of broader tensions on the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus. The New York Times has previously reported on acts of vandalism, including pro-Hamas graffiti targeting the home of a Jewish member of the Board of Regents. The university has also faced student protests over plans to scale back some DEI initiatives, further amplifying the stakes of this controversy.
According to emails obtained by The New York Times, university administrators initially planned to issue Ms. Dawson a written warning and require her to complete training on anti-Semitism and leadership. As per the New York Times report, in October, Jon Kinsey, a university vice president, informed members of the Michigan Board of Regents that this approach was endorsed by the president’s office. The warning stated that further incidents could result in Ms. Dawson’s termination.
The next day, however, Regent Mark Bernstein expressed strong disapproval of the university’s response in an email addressed to President Santa Ono and other senior officials. The New York Times reported that Bernstein described the proposed disciplinary action as inadequate, writing, “It does not appear that Ms. Dawson has been held accountable in any meaningful way.” He further stated that the university’s approach “makes a mockery of your/our commitment to address anti-Semitism and broaden our D.E.I. efforts to include anti-Semitism and/or Jewish students.”
Bernstein concluded that the only acceptable resolution would be Ms. Dawson’s “immediate” termination. Following this exchange, Ms. Dawson was notified on October 28 that her disciplinary measures had been revised, according to her attorney. This week, she was informed that her employment had been terminated.
Geoffrey Stone, a constitutional law expert at the University of Chicago, told The New York Times that government employees, including public university staff, enjoy broad protections under the First Amendment when their speech is made in a private capacity. For disciplinary action to be justified, the university would need to demonstrate that the alleged comments “substantially undermined” Ms. Dawson’s ability to perform her professional responsibilities.
Even if Ms. Dawson made the remarks attributed to her, Professor Stone argued, her speech would likely remain protected by the First Amendment. This complicates the legal landscape for the university as it prepares for a potential lawsuit from Ms. Dawson, who has alleged that her termination was a violation of her constitutional rights.
The controversy surrounding Ms. Dawson’s dismissal comes at a time when the University of Michigan is grappling with broader issues related to anti-Semitism and the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Dr. Naomi Yavneh Klos, one of the professors who reported Ms. Dawson’s alleged remarks, told The New York Times that anti-Semitism often goes unaddressed within DEI frameworks. “D.E.I. offices very frequently fail to serve the needs of Jewish students and don’t really recognize Jewish students as under their purview,” she said.
The campus is also dealing with a surge in antisemitic incidents. On Monday, Regent Jordan Acker and his family were targeted in an act of vandalism at their home. Two Mason jars filled with what appeared to be urine were thrown through their window, their family car was defaced with an inverted red triangle—a symbol associated with Palestinian resistance that some view as anti-Semitic—and graffiti reading “divest” and “free Palestine” was scrawled on their property, the New York Times reported. This was the third time Acker, who is Jewish, had been targeted by protesters.
In addition to the allegations against Ms. Dawson, the university is facing internal dissent over its broader DEI policies. Last week, approximately 100 students and faculty members protested outside a Michigan Board of Regents meeting, expressing fears that the board might scale back its diversity initiatives. As The New York Times reported, these protests speak volumes about the deep divisions within the campus community regarding the university’s commitment to equity and inclusion.
Critics argue that the decision to terminate Ms. Dawson, coupled with recent anti-Semitic incidents, reflects a failure to adequately address the needs of Jewish students while also exacerbating tensions around DEI efforts. Meanwhile, Ms. Dawson’s attorney has questioned the university’s decision to escalate the matter to termination, particularly given that her alleged remarks occurred in a private conversation.
For Jewish students and staff, the series of anti-Semitic incidents highlights a pressing need for stronger protections and more inclusive policies. For Ms. Dawson and her supporters, the case represents a potential overreach by the university and a troubling precedent for how institutions address contentious allegations. As the university prepares for potential legal battles and continues to navigate internal and external criticism, the fallout from this case is likely to shape conversations about diversity, equity, and inclusion for years to come.
