Controversy Surrounds University of Michigan Administrator’s Dismissal
The dismissal of a University of Michigan administrator has sparked heated debate after allegations of antisemitic remarks were leveled against her, accusations she staunchly denies. The university contends that her actions demonstrated “extremely poor judgement,” leading to her termination.
Rachel Dawson, who formerly led the Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives at the university, was dismissed following claims of making controversial statements during a conversation at a conference earlier this year. The New York Times reported that Dawson was accused of saying the university was “controlled by wealthy Jews.” This information was reportedly obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Further accusations include comments about Jewish students being “wealthy and privileged” and suggesting they did not require inclusion in diversity initiatives. Additionally, Dawson was purported to have stated that “Jewish People have no genetic DNA that would connect them to the land of Israel.” Dawson’s legal representative, Amanda Ghannam, has refuted these claims entirely.
According to Ghannam, the incident arose after Dawson engaged with two women at the conference who critiqued the university’s atmosphere as antisemitic. Ghannam asserts that Dawson defended the university and that the women, dissatisfied with her perspective, “fabricated” the offending quotes leading to her dismissal.
In a statement, University of Michigan spokesperson Kay Jarvis confirmed Dawson’s firing, citing her conduct during the conference and an on-campus protest as inconsistent with her responsibilities at a multicultural office intended to support all students.
Ghannam criticized the university’s termination process as “unusual,” stating that Dawson was not given the opportunity to provide context during the investigation. Furthermore, Ghannam argued that Dawson was “off the clock” during the conference and thus her speech should be protected under the First Amendment. Plans to pursue legal action against the university on these grounds have been indicated.
Regarding the timing of the alleged remarks, Ghannam emphasized that Dawson was not representing the university at the conference but was rather engaged in a private conversation initiated by strangers.
Editor’s note: The University of Michigan holds Michigan Public’s broadcast license.
—
Read More Michigan News
