An Anti-Semitism Controversy at Stanford

Molly Horwitz, a junior at Stanford University, is running for a spot in Stanford’s student senate. In the course of her campaign, Horwitz, a Latina and a Jew, sought the endorsement of Stanford’s Students of Color Coalition (SOCC) and was granted an interview. During the interview, Horwitz claims, she was asked this question: “Given your strong Jewish identity, how would you vote on divestment?” Although the senate has already passed a resolution urging Stanford to divest from companies alleged to profit from the oppression of Palestinians, divestment remains a live issue at Stanford.

The SOCC has denied Horwitz’s charge. Their denial acknowledges that the charge is serious: “Religious discrimination . . . starkly violates the values on which the Students of Color Coalition is based. Were these allegations true, they would not only merit a public apology but also constitute a betrayal of both the communities SOCC represents and the ideas the coalition members promise to uphold.”

Yet “several students” according to the New York Times piece linked above, “said they did not see it as problematic to connect a stance on divestment with Judaism.”

I don’t know if Horwitz’s story is true, but she explains very well what is “problematic” here. If “SOCC had wanted to know how I felt about divestment, they could have asked that.” What “made me so distressed was not that SOCC had asked me about divestment, but that they had thought my Jewishness might make me a poor Senator.” Would the Stanford students who don’t grasp Horwitz’s distress have trouble grasping why an African-American judicial candidate might object if a Senator were to ask her: “Given your African-American identity, how would you rule on affirmative action cases?”

Horwitz’s story reminds us of the case of Rachel Beyda, a UCLA undergraduate and candidate for the student government’s Judicial Board. This February, the student council refused to confirm her appointment because some members thought that her membership in campus Jewish organizations might constitute a conflict of interest were a case involving divestment to come before the board. They relented only after a faculty adviser insisted that the council couldn’t reject Beyda merely because she was affiliated with Jewish organizations.

The Beyda case followed last year’s attempt by pro-divestment students at UCLA to convince student government candidates to pledge not to travel to Israel on trips sponsored by “pro-Israel” organizations like the Anti-Defamation League. They also charged two senators who had voted against divestment with violating the “ethical code on conflicts of interest” because they “had gone to Israel on sponsored trips.” These actions drew sharp criticism from UCLA’s Chancellor Gene Block.

The already troubling effort to delegitimize supporters of Israel at UCLA transformed, in the Beyda case, into a suspicion and rejection of Jewish students. Whether Horwitz’s Stanford story turns out to be true or not, campus leaders need to be mindful that what happened at UCLA can happen almost anywhere.

“Diversity” Is Now Required At UCLA

After rejecting several previous proposals over the past several years, the UCLA faculty has finally succumbed to politically correct pressure from above (Eugene Block, the Chancellor, and other administrators) and below (“progressive” students) and voted to impose a four-unit “diversity” course requirement on all undergraduates. Ironically, the felt necessity for this new course requirement reveals the hollowness of the ubiquitous claims for the effects of diversity on students and on campus culture in general.

By any measure of diversity — both reasonable ones emphasizing a variety of values and experiences and the one actually employed in higher education, limited to race, ethnicity, and increasingly sex and “gender expression” — UCLA is virtually (and virtuously) boiling over with diversity.  But, according to the militant course mandaters, the fact of diversity is not enough. It has failed to teach the right lessons. Those lessons must be affirmatively, vigorously, actually taught — especially to the students who need them most, those who would not voluntarily take an approved (more on that later) diversity-teaching class. “In order to maximize student preparedness for our global society,” states the UCLA Diversity Initiative Committee’s Proposed Diversity Requirement, “we must enhance student awareness, understanding, and acceptance or at least tolerance of difference through socializing experiences and through our pedagogy.” [Emphasis added]

The idea that “we” — the faculty, probably the least diverse group in the country based on values, ideology, religion, etc. — should or even can inculcate “tolerance of difference” through classes (including STEM classes!) is risible. However, tolerance and appreciation of “difference” must be taught, the mandaters insist, because of another manifest failure of university “diversity” in practice — students are still overflowing with prejudice. Because of the failure of diversity’s “socializing experiences” alone, one of the justifications for the new course requirement and one of its four goals stated in the Proposed Diversity Requirement is “to reduce prejudice on campus with regard to difference.”

As Allyson Bach, a “Campus Celebrity” student leader of the pro-requirement effort, explained in a letter to the Daily Bruin, “Fostering student understanding of the histories and narratives of underrepresented communities at UCLA requires more from the university’s curricula. If students are not encouraged in the classroom to further explore critical issues of a global society, then it unfortunately is not surprising that intolerance and bigotry exist on our campus.”

By “encouraged” Ms. Bach of course means “required,” and in a revealing example of progressive logic she goes on to argue that the fact that some students and alumni disagree with her proves that she’s right. That “negativity” about the new requirement, she asserts, “demonstrate the flaws of our undergraduate education if students graduate UCLA with such viewpoints.”

Her emphasis on requiring understanding of “underrepresented communities” indicates that the requirement’s purpose is more political than pedagogical, an indication confirmed by an Expanded Synopsis’s endorsement of pure attitude and behavior modification. It approvingly cites studies that claim a diversity course requirement has “a positive impact on an individual’s racial and ethnic attitudes, pluralistic orientation, openness to diverse viewpoints, citizenship, critical consciousness, social agency, cognitive skills and tendencies, and moral development.” This is “diversity” as pure didacticism.

Students who themselves are usually described as “diverse” are clearly thought to be less in need of this beneficial attitude and behavior modification than others. As the Proposed Diversity Requirement states, “Although the UCLA student body is highly heterogeneous, comprising individuals from varied backgrounds, characteristics, and cultures, many come from more homogenous environments and have little familiarity with those from other histories, traditions, and experiences.”

There can be no doubt that the universe of the un-diverse in need of improved “racial and ethnic attitudes,” a more “pluralistic orientation,” more openness to “diverse viewpoints,” a higher “critical consciousness,” and even more active “social agency” is largely white. All but universally unacknowledged, however, is that whites at UCLA are not only not a majority; they are exactly as “underrepresented” as blacks. According to the most recent UCLA data, 4.4% of the freshmen admitted in 2014 are black, and according to the most recent census data blacks make up 6.6% of California’s population. According to that same data, whites were 26% of admits, but whites, “not Hispanic or Latino,” are 39% of California’s population. Blacks and whites, in short, are equally “underrepresented”: 4.4 is 67% of 6.6; 26 is 67% of 39. (Asians were 42.3% of admits and 14.1% of California’s population.)

The mandaters, of course, rarely admit that their real goal is attitude and behavior modification of whites. The loftier justification, as the Proposed Diversity Requirement states in its first sentence, is the belief that “a modern university must provide its students with the ability to understand the perspectives of others whose views, backgrounds, and experiences may differ from their own.” This rationale was repeated like a mantra. When he wasn’t handing Hillary a $300,000 check for speaking, for example, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block said repeatedly, as quoted here, that “one of my longstanding priorities and demonstrates our strong commitment to expose undergraduates to views and backgrounds other than their own.”

This “exposure to difference” rationale, however, if taken seriously, reveals the utter impossibility of implementing the requirement in a coherent manner. The proposal entails a new bureaucracy of apparatchiks — “an Undergraduate Council (UgC)-appointed Diversity Requirement Committee (DRC)” [described here and here] — to approve courses that satisfy the new requirement. But there are no corresponding rules regulating who may take which courses, i.e., limiting students to diversity credit for a course in which they in fact study those who are “different.” (Except perhaps for whites, who many would like to see required to take the course on “Understanding Whiteness”).

Unless and until UCLA creates a mechanism to bar diversity credit to blacks who take black history, Asian American women who take a course on Asian American women, gays who take an introduction to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies, etc. (examples taken from example courses listed in Appendix B here), the “exposure to difference” rationale will remain exposed as a sham.

Give Up Your Citizenship for $100,000 over Four Years?

By Gabriella Morrongiello

As recently as 2014, illegal immigrants in 22 states are eligible for lower-cost, in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

While students residing legally or illegally in states such as California, Texas, Maryland, and Virginia are eligible for in-state tuition, legal immigrants, international students, and U.S. citizens from out of state continue to pay out-of-state tuition, often costing several thousand dollars more.

For instance, out-of-state tuition at the University of Virginia (UVA), a public institution in Charlottesville, Va., ranked second highest in the nation in 2013, according to Daily Progress. The annual cost of tuition for out-of-state students attending UVA is currently $36,720, more than double the in-state tuition rate of $10,016 offered to Virginia residents. Similarly, tuition at the University of Maryland (UMD), a public university in College Park, Md., costs out-of-state students $20,145 more annually.

Campus Reform asked out-of-state students attending UVA and UMD–both of which offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants–whether they would consider renouncing their U.S. citizenship to become “undocumented students” eligible for in-state tuition.

WATCH: Students shred their social security cards, become “undocumented” for in-state tuition. 

This article was originally published in Campus Reform.

OBAMACARE HITS CAMPUSES HARD

Higher education and its comfortable inhabitants on campus have long been hotbeds of support for Obama and Obamacare. Now, along with business and labor, i.e., the other inhabitants of what passes for the real world, they are about to become victims of one of its high “Cadillac” tax on generous health plans.

In 2009 President Obama gave assurances that he did not want any tax on health insurance plans he considered wasteful or too generous to affect average Americans. In one of his now famous talks broadcast on CNN, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, “one of the men who helped draft the legislation, [explains] that is not only precisely what will happen — but that was the intention of the tax.”

Politico notes that “a mix of business groups and labor unions” are arm in arm — and up in arms — fighting to kill this tax. Unnoted in the article is that higher education also will be hit especially hard. The dramatic impact of the “Cadillac” tax on higher education has been noticed before, such as on this site (“Obamacare Hits Adjuncts Hard”) and Megan McArdle’s delicious putdown, “Whining Harvard Professors Discover Obamacare.”

Now, as the scheduled 2018 implementation of the tax gets closer and more and more colleges begin to adjust their health plans to deal with it, awareness of the impending pain is beginning to spread. In New Jersey, four of the state’s 11 public colleges and universities have dropped student health insurance, and three of Washington State’s 6 public institutions have done so as well.

A few more examples of tax-induced changes:

  • University of Virginia: “Major changes are coming to the University of Virginia health plan. With U.VA facing rising health care costs, spiking expenses of high-dollar claims and looming fees and taxes connected with federal health reform….”
  • University of Minnesota: “One of the state’s largest employers is proposing to scale back its employee health plans to avoid a massive tax penalty under the new federal health care law.”
  • Ohio University: “Ohio University employees might see their health care deductibles double and premiums rise because of a provision of the Affordable Care Act that taxes so-called “Cadillac” health plans, officials have said.”

In a mailing sent to “Dear Colleagues” last month, Ohio University provided a detailed explanation of the need for its changes:

The university’s health care costs are projected to increase by as much as 8% per year, or $4 to $5 million annually, for the next several years. Additionally, in 2018, the ACA will begin taxing high cost Cadillac health plans where health plan costs exceed $10,200 per year for individuals or $27,500 per year for families. As currently structured, the university’s PPO health plans are on pace to exceed these levels, and subject Ohio University to the Cadillac plan tax.

As more and more colleges and universities cut their benefits in order to make their health plans “sustainable,” I suspect the new campus fetish of “sustainability” will take a serious hit.

BRANDEIS THE LATEST LAWSUIT TARGET

Hans Bader has a perceptive post analyzing the University of Virginia’s new “affirmative consent” policy. Rather than learning from Rolling Stone and stressing due process, the site of the year’s biggest campus rape hoax has redefined sexual assault to include routine contact that no one off campus would deem criminal conduct. As Bader notes, UVA now “forbids the gradual, step-by-step escalation of intimacy without verbal discussion that is how making out actually happens in the real world.”

Bader’s critique provides a way to look at the latest due process lawsuit, this one filed against Brandeis. This case already had attracted some attention, including a typically one-sided piece in the Huffington Post, which without corroboration contended that the accused student had engaged in an act of retaliation. This is the only public instance of the Office for Civil Rights investigating a school after a complaint filed by an accused student (though the lawsuit suggests there’s one other such Title IX case). You can read the lawsuit here.

‘Emergency Suspension’      

The facts of the case differ, and in some aspects dramatically, from most other due process lawsuits, with the possible exception of the Marlboro College case. Unlike most due process suits—which seem to be based on fleeting sexual contact after a night of drinking—the Brandeis lawsuit comes out of a romantic relationship between two males, which lasted nearly two years and in which neither party consumed alcohol during the relationship. Though the couple broke up in summer 2013—at the impetus of the eventual accuser, according to the complaint—they remained friendly for a few months thereafter.

But the friendship deteriorated in fall 2013. Then, in January 2014, the accuser filed the following allegation to Brandeis: “Starting in the month of September, 2011, the Alleged Violator of Policy had numerous inappropriate, nonconsensual sexual interactions with me. These interactions continued to occur until around May 2013.” Brandeis responded by placing the accused student on what the complaint describes as an “emergency suspension,” though no inquiry had occurred and the filing itself contained no specific allegations.

Even though the university had a functioning disciplinary hearing process at the time, Brandeis instead investigated the accuser’s remarkably non-specific complaint through a single investigator, a former OCR employee named Elizabeth Sanghavi. (Sanghavi’s CV lists herself as a co-author of this article on the “Dear Colleague” letter.) Sanghavi interviewed both parties—the accuser described her as “very sensitive”—and a handful of others; according to WBUR, she elected not to record these interviews, for reasons that remain unclear. The accused student had no right to counsel, and no right to see his accuser’s testimony, much less to cross-examine the accuser. None of the interviews with Sanghavi occurred under oath. The accused student received no detailed allegations against him until his first interview with Sanghavi.

 Withholding Information

Under the pre-“Dear Colleague” letter disciplinary process, Brandeis used a “clear and convincing” evidentiary threshold, but the accused here faced the preponderance of evidence (50.01 percent) standard. Though Sanghavi prepared a report based on her interviews, bizarrely, Brandeis policies have the accused student “listen to the [student affairs officer’s] summary of findings and engage in dialog with the [officer] about these findings.” The Brandeis procedures offer no explanation as to why the school doesn’t provide accused students this obviously relevant written material during the process; Brandeis gave the accused student the written report only once it had closed the process and branded him a rapist, and it still has never produced Sanghavi’s notes.

In her findings, Sanghavi concluded that the first time the two students had slept together, the accuser hadn’t given affirmative, verbal consent, and therefore the accused was guilty of sexual assault. As the accused’s attorney, Patricia Hamill, observed, “It defies reason for the Special Examiner to have concluded that John’s ‘first move’ leading to a 21-month consensual relationship was a sexual assault.” Though the two students regularly slept together during this 21-month period, Sanghavi also found the accused guilty of nonconsensual sexual conduct because he sometimes awoke the accuser with a kiss. By this peculiar standard, virtually every long-term couple in the country consists of at least one rapist, and it seems hard to imagine that the accuser wasn’t similarly guilty of such behavior. This is precisely the sort of absurd standard about which Bader writes.

Despite having branded the accused a rapist, Brandeis (in what could only be an implicit recognition of the flimsy nature of the allegations) punished lightly, through a Disciplinary Warning, with no suspension. But as the complaint points out, this was nonetheless a life-altering decision: “[The accused] will now have to disclose, and defend himself against, his deeply blemished University record and reputation to every law school and professional graduate school to which he applies, to his political colleagues, to prospective employers and, should he run for public office, to the electorate.” And he certainly can’t count on anyone he has to tell understanding the strange nature of Brandeis’ process and definition of sexual assault. Indeed, according to the complaint, the accused already lost an internship and job offers as a result of Brandeis’ ruling, which was leaked to his potential employers.

 Who Needs Due Process? 

The Brandeis case resonates for two reasons beyond the specifics of events. First: perhaps the most typical defense of OCR is that the evisceration of campus due process is tolerable, since the worst fate the accused will suffer is expulsion from college. In this case, the accused wasn’t even expelled—but as is clear from the filing, he’s suffered significant consequences, and is likely to do so for years to come, absent a court ruling overturning Brandeis’ action. His fate, therefore, is a reminder of the moral obligation of colleges to do everything they can to get the decision correct—something that, sadly, occurs at very few universities today—before branding one of their students a rapist.

Second, the hyper-technical nature of Brandeis’ findings might well preview a next wave of cases, as more and more states move toward an affirmative consent standard that deems a huge swath of common romantic activity as sexual assault. As the filing in the Brandeis case makes clear, if the accuser in this case committed sexual assault, so have hundreds of thousands of other college students, all over the country.