A Black woman who was the former head of the University of Michigan’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) office is suing the school, alleging she was discriminated against when the school fired her for antisemitic remarks she said she never made.
According to the Detroit Free Press, Rachel Dawson attended an academic conference in March 2024 when she was approached by two women asking her how the school was planning to address antisemitism. The women allege Dawson, who then ran University of Michigan’s Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives, responded by saying “The university is controlled by wealthy Jews” and “We don’t work with Jews.”
Dawson has a different recollection of the events and denies ever making such remarks.
RELATED CONTENT: ‘This Is How America Was Built’—Dr. Alaysia Black Hackett On The Real Reason DEI Is Under Attack [Exclusive]
From Detroit Free Press:
Dawson said she remembered talking with the two women who accused her, but her recollection of the conversation was far different. She said that when the two women heard she was from U-M, they approached her to discuss rumors of antisemitism on campus. Dawson said she told them that the school was doing its best to combat antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.
She noted that the school had recently opened the Raoul Wallenberg Institute to promote tolerance and that Jewish students had access to support groups like Hillel.
Dawson’s suit said the women became hostile, began berating her and even followed her out of the room when she tried to end the conversation. Days later, back at U-M, Dawson said she learned that the women had contacted the Anti-Defamation League, which filed a complaint about her with then-President Santa Ono.
“I am aware of several non-Black employees of the university who have been the subject of similar complaints about their behavior, and none have been terminated,” Dawson wrote in a statement to the school before her disciplinary hearing. “The allegations against me illustrate how racial and gender biases can shape the interpretation of events and statements, especially for Black women in positions of authority.”
Call me racist, but I’m much more inclined to believe that a group of white women got offended that a Black woman didn’t say exactly what they wanted to hear, instead of a Black woman, in a position of power, willfully throwing that out the window to say something heinously antisemitic in a professional setting.
Just saying, we didn’t coin the term “Karen” because entitled white women don’t exist.
Moving on, Dawson alleges the University of Michigan didn’t follow its usual disciplinary steps when it comes to investigating incidents like these. The school hired an outside law firm, Covington & Burling LLP, to investigate instead of doing it in-house. Covington & Burling also represented the ADL in this case, which Dawson’s lawyers allege to be a conflict of interest.
The law firm’s report acknowledged that Dawson and the women had differing accounts of the incident but found “the weight of the available evidence supports the conclusion that Ms. Dawson made the statements attributed to her in the ADL Michigan letter.”
Tabbye Chavous, Dawson’s supervisor, was skeptical of how the investigation was being conducted and the findings in the final report. Chavous wrote a letter to the University of Michigan’s then-President Santa Ono saying that “Based on all information available to me, I would respectfully disagree with the conclusion drawn from the report.”
“It is obvious that this is not consistent with our normal processes for investigating alleged similar conduct of employees in a similar position as Ms. Dawson at an off-campus conference,” Chavous wrote. “Why is the process for this situation and employee seemingly different from similar kinds of allegations and issues with others and how they are dealt with normally?”
After the investigation, Chavous issued Dawson a warning and ordered her to complete anti-bias training. Usually, this would be where the story ends, but not in the case of Dawson. When word of the disciplinary action reached the University of Michigan’s Board of Regents, Regent Mark Bernstein wrote, “that the only acceptable outcome would be for Ms. Dawson to be ‘terminated immediately.’”
By December 2024, Dawson was fired from her position.
Being prejudiced against someone for their race, religion, gender, or sexuality is the weakest thing a person can do. Yet it’s interesting that whenever a white man is accused of racism, all he’s expected to do is take an anti-bias class, make an apology, and the consequences are waved away. What Dawson is accused of is objectively awful, yet one can’t help but see the double standard in how she’s being treated compared to the multitudes of white men who have actually been recorded saying equally if not more heinous things and are still given chance after chance to redeem themselves.
The University of Michigan has stood by its decision to fire Dawson. “Rachel Dawson was appropriately terminated from her employment at the University of Michigan,” school spokeswoman Kay Jarvis told the Free Press in an email. “We will vigorously defend this matter.”
Dawson filed her lawsuit in federal court and intends to file a state court discrimination claim as well. Dawson’s suit asks the court to declare the University of Michigan violated her civil rights and to award her an undisclosed amount in damages.
RELATED CONTENT: Fox Host Uses ‘DEI’ As Codeword Slur Against Karine Jean‑Pierre In Racist On‑Air Tirade
