Glenn Loury: The answer I’m taking from you, to my question of how do we get to antisemitism, is that the world is divided into oppressors and victims. The oppressors are white, the victims are BIPOC.
Jews are white, ergo, Jews are oppressors. Palestinianss, I guess by extension of this kind of logic, are people of color, are incorporated somehow into the BIPOC coalition, so they are the victims.
And that’s their account of this conflict that has sued over the last 75 years since the founding of the state of Israel.
I guess I want to say about that, that is a gross oversimplification that actually betrays the responsibility to educate here, regardless of "whose side you’re on," we can get to figuring out what we want to say and what we want to do about the conflict and what’s wrong and what’s right. But let’s just understand the circumstance.
And that is ahistorical and ignorant and should be objected to strongly, should not be tolerated in an institution of higher education.
Tabia Lee: Yes, and unfortunately, Glenn, it’s not only being tolerated, it’s being held up as the only way to understand these geopolitical and world issues in many institutions. And if you even suggest that there’s other ways to view this, that we don’t have to view everything through a matrix of domination and oppression, even just saying that got me labelled as a pariah.
This is the environment that people are working in, and often you don’t hear about it because what happens for us as faculty members, we're advised, at least I was, by many mentors, you know, Lee, just resign. It’ll be like this never happened.
I could’ve taken that option. I could’ve done that. But I felt like there were people who were being very unprofessional bullies and gangsters in a learning environment. So, if I just disappear quietly and save myself, right, then I’m contributing to the problem as well. So that’s why I chose to go public. I knew the risks, I knew that I would probably never get another tenure track position.
Once I went public, hearing from people across the nation that it wasn’t just California. You know, sometimes people say, California, you guys are a little weird over there. That's just the California thing. This is happening all over the place.
==
"Another aspect of the construction of whiteness is the way certain groups have moved into or out of that race. For example, early in our history Irish, Jews, and Italians were considered nonwhite—that is, on a par with African Americans. Over time, they earned the prerogatives and social standing of whites by a process that included joining labor unions, swearing fealty to the Democratic Party, and acquiring wealth, sometimes by illegal or underground means. Whiteness, it turns out, is not only valuable; it is shifting and malleable."
-- "Critical Race Theory (Third Edition)," Delgado & Stefancic
This, partly, gives the game away. "Whiteness" is so malleable that activists can decide that anything they don't like falls under this banner, just as they declared everyone to be a Nazi (before becoming Nazis themselves).
I saw antisemitism on a weekly basis in my two years as a faculty “diversity, equity and inclusion” director.
By: Tabia Lee
Published: Oct 18, 2023
The blatant antisemitism on college campuses has shocked millions of Americans over the past week and a half.
But not me.
I saw antisemitism on a weekly basis in my two years as a faculty “diversity, equity and inclusion” director.
In fact, I can safely say that toxic DEI ideology deliberately stokes hatred toward Israel and the Jewish people.
I was hired to head the DEI department at Silicon Valley’s De Anza College in 2021.
As a black woman, I was the perfect person for the job — on paper.
Yet I made the mistake of trying to create an authentically inclusive learning environment for everyone, including Jewish students.
Turns out, a toxic form of DEI (which is more accurately called “critical social justice”) demanded I do the opposite.
Before I got to campus, Jewish students had endured a litany of hateful and hostile acts.
The school had hosted a Hanukkah party that featured no Hanukkah imagery but plenty of pro-Palestinian protesters.
The student body had passed resolutions on “divesting” from Israel — the first college of its kind to do so — and criticizing Israel’s “attacks against humanity.”
Multiple Jewish students told me the campus was essentially an antisemitic environment.
I tried to right this wrong. First, I hosted Jewish speakers on campus, with the goal of promoting diversity and inclusion by sharing different perspectives.
Critics called me a “dirty Zionist,” and the school refused to promote the events.
I then pushed the administration to issue a strong condemnation of antisemitism.
My request was refused. Some campus leaders and colleagues repeatedly told me I shouldn’t raise issues about Jewish inclusion or antisemitism.
I was told in no uncertain terms that Jews are “white oppressors” and our job as faculty and staff members was to “decenter whiteness.”
I was astounded, but I shouldn’t have been.
At its worst, DEI is built on the unshakable belief that the world is divided into two groups of people: the oppressors and the oppressed.
Jews are categorically placed in the oppressor category, while Israel is branded a “genocidal, settler, colonialist state.”
In this worldview, criticizing Israel and the Jewish people is not only acceptable but praiseworthy.
(Just as it’s OK to attack America and white people.)
If you don’t go after them — or worse, if you defend them — you’re actively abetting racist oppression.
I have never encountered a more hostile environment toward the members of any racial, ethnic or religious group.
I was ultimately fired by De Anza College, and I suspect my defense of Jewish students played a part.
Yet I’ve subsequently found that my experience isn’t unique.
Countless faculty and students on campuses nationwide have told me the DEI ideology encourages antisemitism.
One study found 96% of Israel-focused tweets by campus DEI staff criticized the Jewish state.
And that was before Hamas launched its brutal assault on Israel this month.
Now the colleges and universities beholden to DEI are hurting Jewish students with their silence, their moral equivocation about terrorism against Israel or their outright praise of the terrorists.
Many of the student groups most invested in DEI are actively siding with Hamas.
Look no further than “White Coats for Black Lives,” a national group of medical students with chapters in more than 100 public and private universities.
On Tuesday, just days after Hamas murdered Jewish families in their beds, the DEI-driven group proudly declared it has “long supported Palestine’s struggle for liberation.”
How could a Jewish patient ever trust a medical trainee or professional who subscribes to such blatant antisemitic hatred?
It’s tantamount to threatening their lives, and it raises questions about whether such hate-filled people should even be allowed to practice medicine.
This outpouring of antisemitic hatred is the direct result of DEI’s insistence that Jews are oppressors.
What started with rhetorical attacks has morphed into defending and calling for violent attacks.
It’s inevitable for an ideology that demeans an entire group of people while accusing them of perpetrating massive injustice.
When you stoke that kind of division and anger, you unleash fires you can’t control.
Sure enough, the fire of antisemitism is now burning bright on college campuses.
It needs to be extinguished immediately so it doesn’t spread and do more damage.
I know just the place to start.
Administrators and lawmakers need to get toxic DEI out of higher education.
If they don’t, there will be no true diversity and inclusion on campus, but there will be even more shocking hatred toward Jews.
Why is there marching in the streets to support Hamas, a terrorist organisation that seeks to destroy the west, the way of life that enables these students to be able to go out in protest and to make these statements and to do these things. I wonder if the students understand and recognise that they would be the first to be tamped down on if Hamas had its way,
When we see the destruction of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, the one place where you can be yourself, where you can be an Arab Israeli, you can be a Mizrahi Jew, you can be an LGBTQ+ person freely, without being beheaded. But yet, we see these students holding up banners that say "Queers for Palestine." They would be beheaded in an instant. They would be despised. They are considered despicable.
Why is that taking place? What has happened to our educational system when we see our students out there promoting anti-American sentiment and supporting terrorism? What are the dangers to us as a result of that as a society? Where are we heading with that, and why? And how has it gotten so far? It used to be a fringe thing, but now this is mainstream and students are being told that this is been normalised, the support of terrorism.
That concerns me a great deal because I’m someone who, I love our country, and I love this nation, this is a grand experiment. It’s not perfect. We have things to work on and we always will. We’re human beings you know, trying to realise these aspirations that were set out in the founding documents. And some people want to destroy and shred those documents and lead us into what? What kind of system will we be in when the republic is destroyed, as so many people are calling for.
I can’t support that in good conscience. It’s something that worries me a great deal, and I don’t think we understand the danger of embracing these kind of ideologies. This is everywhere. It’s at our doorstep and we all need to take a look into what’s happening in our schools. Those are the breeding grounds for many of these toxic ideologies.
The people who wail about the imaginary "trans genocide" support a terrorist militia who not only wants to murder them, but plans and eagerly anticipates the day they'll get to do so.
DR LEE: Even I, someone who some may assume would be on the side of so-called 'social justice warriors,' was too heterodox in my thinking. A
By: Tabia Lee
Published: Mar 26, 2023
DR TABIA LEE: Accused of 'whitesplaining'. Told students are either 'victims' or 'oppressors'. And then fired as diversity chief... my grim story of how woke extremists are taking over America's colleges
-
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs on college campuses are being turned on their heads.
Instead of promoting creative new ideas, fairness and welcoming spaces, DEI departments have been hijacked by ideological extremists to enforce ideological compliance.
Believe me, I should know.
In August 2021, I was hired to lead an institution wide transformation as a faculty director for the Office of Equity, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education at De Anza Community College in Cupertino, California. As a life-long teacher, dedicated to pursuing diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, and equity and equality in education this was a dream come true.
Unfortunately, my dream job quickly became a nightmare. And ultimately, I was fired.
I have now come to recognize that adherents of 'critical social justice theory' at De Anza College, who view all social dynamics through a lens of power and privilege, also use it as a cudgel to beat down and silence anyone with whom they may disagree.
Even I, someone who some may assume would be on the side of so-called 'social justice warriors,' was too heterodox in my thinking. And I was bullied out.
To be clear, I am not a liberal or a conservative, nor a Republican or a Democrat. I don't identify as a radical, progressive, or feminist. I have spent my life avoiding labels. I am an educator, scholar, humanist and critical thinker. And it is people like me who are – sadly – being chased out of education.
During the hiring process at De Anza, I was told that the previous leadership running the Office of Equity was 'too woke' and alienating people. Their approach was apparently very aggressive. They would 'call people out,' and accuse them of racism.
It was a sentiment echoed by multiple individuals in over 60 hours of conversations that I conducted to assess the needs of the campus. Many expressed discomfort with the college's intellectually oppressive culture and rigid ideologies.
So, I assured the hiring committee that my approach would be different. As I have all my career, I pledged to create spaces of inquiry where diverse and even divergent viewpoints could be heard would be welcomed and accepted. It is my belief that through this process, people can find areas of commonality and work together in the best interest of students.
Little did I know that this approach would be considered a threat by De Anza College ideologues. And conflict erupted almost immediately after I was hired.
I discovered that fellow faculty and administrators were using definitions for White Supremacy that I was not familiar with. To me, White Supremacy is associated with White Nationalism, the KKK, and Neo-Nazi organizations.
Instead, at De Anza College, White Supremacy was often associated with qualities, such as being on time, objective thinking, using written communications, setting an agenda, and demonstrating a sense of urgency.
These beliefs were aligned with the work of a scholar named Tema Okun and these re-definitions of White Supremacy were not only perpetuated at De Anza College but throughout the California Community College system.
I set out to engage with the De Anza community to develop a better understanding of various words and practices.
I questioned why De Anza's official communications capitalized some student racial categories and not others. For example, the word 'black' was capitalized, while the word 'white' was not. I questioned the use of terms like 'Latinx' and 'Filipinx' to refer to people of Latino and Filipino descent. In my years of experience working with Spanish-speaking and working-class communities, not once did the community ever use those terms to describe themselves.
I believe that terms like 'Latinx' are manipulations of language that originated in the Ivory Tower of academia.
But when I raised these topics for exploration, there was never constructive engagement. Instead, I was put under the spotlight and accused of being aligned with right-wing extremists.
For attempting to set an agenda for meetings, I was accused of Whitespeaking and Whitesplaining and supporting White Supremacy.
As a faculty director, not an administrator, I assumed that I would be permitted all of the academic freedoms of speech and expression that a tenure track position is usually afforded. I was wrong.
In fact, my tenure review process was subverted by ideological extremists, who used it to harass, bully and eventually fire me.
I now have a better understanding of the dominating ideology at work at De Anza College and throughout many of our California Community Colleges.
Unfortunately, a few bad actors working under a banner of 'Critical Social Justice' are subverting the tenure review processes and creating an ideological litmus test for career advancement.
A tenure review process, or any teacher evaluation process should be an objective, evidence-based process. In my case, it was used as an authoritarian enforcement mechanism.
It is my great fear that if folks pushing Critical Social Justice ideology have their way, faculty in California Community Colleges will be required to profess allegiance to certain rigid ideas.
Faculty will be forced to commit to embedding these ideas into their course curriculum. They will be compelled to state their pronouns and demand that all members of their classroom do the same. They will have to view every student as a victim or an oppressor.
There is a reason why these faux-academics insist on chasing free-thinkers out of their midst – it is because they cannot defend their own ideas.
I hope that by sharing my story, I can shine a light on this issue. And since coming forward, I have been contacted by many people, who say they've experienced the same treatment.
Too many faculty members in California Community Colleges are afraid to question this emerging Critical Social Justice ideology. Too many are afraid to question or resist lest they be labeled a racist or worse.
History has shown us that authoritarianism advances through a reliance on intimidation and the compliance of a majority that cowers in fear.
To the educators out there, I encourage you to keep asking questions and promoting critical thinking. There are resources out there to protect your civil liberties. And I want you to know that you are not alone.
This month, I was fired from my position as faculty director for the Office of Equity, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education at De Anza Community College in Cupertino, Calif.—a position I had held for two years. This wasn’t an unexpected development. From the beginning, my colleagues and supervisors had made clear their opposition to the approach I brought to the job. Although I was able to advance some positive initiatives, I did so in the face of constant obstruction.
What made me persona non grata? On paper, I was a good fit for the job. I am a black woman with decades of experience teaching in public schools and leading workshops on diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism. At the Los Angeles Unified School District, I established a network to help minority teachers attain National Board Certification. I designed and facilitated numerous teacher trainings and developed a civic-education program that garnered accolades from the LAUSD Board of Education.
My crime at De Anza was running afoul of the tenets of critical social justice, a worldview that understands knowledge as relative and tied to unequal identity-based power dynamics that must be exposed and dismantled. This, I came to recognize, was the unofficial but strictly enforced ideological orthodoxy of De Anza—as it is at many other educational institutions. When I interviewed for the job in August 2021, there was no indication that I would be required to adhere to this particular vision of social justice. On the contrary, I was informed during the interview process that the office I would be working in had been alienating some faculty with a “too-woke” approach that involved “calling people out.” (After I was hired, this sentiment was echoed by many faculty, staff, and administrators I spoke to.) I told the hiring committee that I valued open dialogue and viewpoint diversity. Given their decision to hire me, I imagined I would find broad support for the vision I had promised to bring to my new role. I was wrong.
Even before any substantive conflicts came to a head, warning lights started flashing. Within my first two weeks on the job, a staff member in my office revealed he had also been a finalist for my position and objected to the fact that I had been chosen over someone who had been there for years “doing the work.” I would have a rough ride ahead, this person told me—and, indeed, I would. It also soon became clear that my supervising dean and her aligned colleagues were attempting to prevent me from performing my duties.
From the beginning, efforts to obstruct my work were framed in terms that might seem bizarre to those outside certain academic spaces. For instance, simply attempting to set an agenda for meetings caused my colleagues to accuse me of “whitespeaking,” “whitesplaining,” and reinforcing “white supremacy”—accusations I had never faced before. I was initially baffled, but as I attended workshops led by my officemates and promoted by my supervising dean, I repeatedly encountered a presentation slide titled “Characteristics of White-Supremacy Culture” that denounced qualities like “sense of urgency” and “worship of the written word.” Written meeting agendas apparently checked both boxes.
You may have encountered this graphic or similar ones before. Derived from Kenneth Jones’s and Tema Okun’s 2001 book, Dismantling Racism, it has appeared in different forms on many institutional websites, sometimes provoking controversy. After all, doesn’t the statement that “objectivity” and “perfectionism” are “white” qualities seem kind of, well, racist? On these grounds, the National Museum of African American History eventually saw fit to remove a “White-Supremacy Culture” page from its site in 2020. But if you are wondering whether this document is still circulating and being cited inside publicly funded educational institutions, the unfortunate answer is yes.
As I attended more events and spoke with more people, I realized that the institutional redefinition of familiar terms wasn’t limited to “white supremacy.” Race, racism, equality, and equity, I discovered, meant different things to my coworkers and supervising dean than they did to me. One of my officemates displayed a graphic of apples dropping to the ground from a tree, with the explanation that “equity means everybody gets some of the apples”; my officemates and supervising dean praised him for this “accurate definition.” When I pointed out that this definition seemed to focus solely on equality of outcomes, without any attention to equality of opportunity or power, it was made clear this perspective wasn’t welcome. “Equity” and “equality,” for my colleagues, were separate and even opposed concepts, and as one of them told me, the aspiration to equality was “a thing of the past.”
Having recognized these differences, I attempted to use them as starting points for dialogue. In the workshops I led, I sought to make space for people to share their own definitions of various concepts and then to identify common points of reference that we could rally around, even as we acknowledged and accepted differences of perspective.
In one workshop, for instance, I presented a chart summarizing two different racial-justice outlooks. The first was what I have called the neo-reconstructionist perspective popularized by Ibram X. Kendi’s bestseller How to Be an Antiracist, which presents an individual’s destiny as determined by social identity and holds that present racial discrimination can be an appropriate remedy for past racial discrimination and that ultimate emancipation from racism isn’t possible. I juxtaposed these views with those promoted by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, which takes a more open-ended view of oppression and privilege, wherein human destiny is determined by human choices, racial discrimination in all forms is rejected, and emancipation from racism is seen as possible and desirable. Without editorializing, I gave participants time to notice the differences between the perspectives. We then came together and shared things that these two seemingly divergent philosophies had in common. The aim was to enable a conversation between two perspectives that I already saw at play in divisions on campus about how to approach issues of race.
When I was evaluated as part of the tenure process, some of my evaluators objected to such efforts to identify points of commonality between divergent viewpoints. They also objected to such views being presented at all. One evaluator, who described herself as a “third-wave antiracist,” aligning her with Kendi’s philosophy, made clear that the way I had presented her worldview was deeply offensive. Another evaluator objected to my presentation of “dangerous ideas” drawn from the scholarship of Sheena Mason, whose theory of “racelessness” presents race as something that can be overcome. This evaluator told me that it was disrespectful of me to set Kendi’s and Mason’s views side-by-side or to treat them as at all comparable.
A dogmatic understanding of social justice shaped organizational and hiring practices. One of the faculty seated on my tenure-review committee invited me to join a socialist network she was a member of. I declined, confessing that I don’t identify with that (or any other) political label. She later observed one of my workshops and wrote up an evaluation before meeting with me to have a conversation about the workshop. I had been told that the post-observation conversation was an important part of the evaluation process. When we finally spoke, after she had already drafted her evaluation, she was dismissive and quickly terminated the conversation, stating we had nothing more to talk about. She proceeded to file her evaluation as it was written prior to our meeting.
This evaluator later gave me a “needs-improvement” rating on the rubric for the “accepts-criticism” criterion. Her aligned colleagues repeatedly assigned me the same rating. It was clear that this rating was rooted in ideological concerns, rather than any substantive objections to my performance. Anything short of lockstep adherence to critical social justice was impermissible. “Criticism” was only supposed to go in one direction. Contextualizing my colleagues’ views and comparing them to other approaches to the same issues, much less criticizing them, was “dangerous”; my supposed failure to “accept criticism” was, simply put, a refusal to accept without question the dogmas these colleagues saw as beyond criticism.
The conflicts were not limited to my tenure-review process. At every turn, I experienced strident opposition when I deviated from the accepted line. When I brought Jewish speakers to campus to address anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, some of my critics branded me a “dirty Zionist” and a “right-wing extremist.” When I formed the Heritage Month Workgroup, bringing together community members to create a multifaith holiday and heritage month calendar, the De Anza student government voted to support this effort. However, my officemates and dean explained to me that such a project was unacceptable, because it didn’t focus on “decentering whiteness.”
When I later sought the support of our academic senate for the Heritage Month project, one opponent asked me if it was “about all the Jewish-inclusion stuff you have been pushing here,” and argued that the senate shouldn’t support the Heritage Month Workgroup efforts, because I was attempting to “turn our school into a religious school.” The senate president deferred to this claim, and the workgroup was denied support.
Just hours after this senate meeting, a group of colleagues attended the Foothill-De Anza Board of Trustees meeting and called for my immediate termination. (A public video of this meeting is available.) These individuals claimed to represent campus racial-affinity groups, but they hadn’t polled their group members or gotten consensus on the statements they issued. This sort of dynamic, where single individuals present themselves as speaking for entire groups, is part and parcel of the critical-social-justice approach. It allows individuals to present their ideological viewpoints as unassailable, since they supposedly represent the experience of the entire identity group to which they belong. Hence, any criticism can be framed as an attack on the group.
The majority of the people employed at De Anza College aren’t ideological extremists. During my time there, people who had previously opted not to engage with my office started to attend my workshops and told me how refreshing my approach was. When under review, I presented letters from collaborators who worked with me on each workshop I facilitated, participant evaluations, and a great deal of other material attesting to the positive impact of my work. None of these things mattered to the board of trustees, the chancellor, or the president. Only the narratives that were put forth by the ideologically biased evaluators mattered. I was fired, in other words, for delivering exactly what I had promised to in my job interview. For those who sought my termination, the same approach that appealed to faculty previously alienated by my office’s divisive callout culture was a threat to the college’s “equity progress.”
For those within the critical-social-justice-ideological complex, asking questions, encouraging other people to ask questions, and considering multiple perspectives—all of these things, which should be central to academic work, are an existential danger. The advocates of critical social justice emphasize oppression and tribalistic identity, and believe that a just society must ensure equality of outcomes; this is in contrast to a classical social-justice approach, which focuses on freedom and individuality, understands knowledge as objective and tied to agency and free will, and believes that a just society emphasizes equality of opportunity. The monoculture of critical social justice needs to suppress this alternative worldview and insulate itself from criticism so its advocates can maintain their dominant position. Protection of orthodoxy supersedes all else: collegiality, professionalism, the truth.
My case, sadly, isn’t unique. At colleges across the country, critical-social-justice adherents are inserting their ideological stances as the supreme determinants of whether candidates advance in the tenure-review process. Faculty are under pressure to profess their allegiance to this particular set of dogmas and to embed a certain way of talking and thinking about race into their course curriculum. They are being encouraged to categorize every student as a victim or an oppressor, and to devote their classes to indoctrination.
If certain ideologues have their way, compelled speech will become an even more common aspect of university life. Faculty and staff will be obligated to declare their gender pronouns and to use gender-neutral terms like “Latinx” and “Filipinx,” even as many members of the groups in question view these terms as expressions of cultural and linguistic imperialism. Soon enough, we may also be formally required to start all classes and meetings with land acknowledgments, regardless of how empty a gesture this may seem to living members of tribal nations.
All of these things are on the horizon, because faculty members are afraid to resist. They know that anyone who questions these practices will be accused of racism and other grave sins. Because critical-social-justice advocates often present themselves as representatives of their identity groups, any criticisms of them can be treated as an attack on the groups they claim to stand for. By this and other means, they ensure their worldview is unassailable. Although I knew I had colleagues who supported my approach, most had been pressured into silence.
As my experience shows, questioning the reigning orthodoxies does carry many risks. But the alternative is worse. Authoritarian ideologies advance through a reliance on intimidation and the compliance of the majority, which cowers in silence—instead of speaking up. Engaging in civil discourse and ensuring that multiple perspectives are presented are crucial, if we want to preserve the components of education that ideologues are seeking to destroy.
There is some reason to hope. Since my firing, I have been contacted by scores of people who have said that they are attempting to resist similar pressures. As bleak as things may seem, there are many who still believe in academia as a space where divergent viewpoints can and must be explored.
==
If you took this story and changed some of the nouns, it could easily be the story of an atheist at an institution dominated by religious people.
You can't just be an atheist and a moral person. Being one of the Good™ people isn't about being moral or ethical, because they define it as being a member of the religion. Every atheist has encountered this.
Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
https://quranx.com/63.4
They are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of Allah be on them! How are they deluded (away from the Truth)!
When you are a member, it doesn't even matter how you behave or what you do (unless you do anything too much like the Bad™ people), because you're one of the tribe and, by definition, one of Us™ and we are Good™.
This is exactly the same thing. It's not enough to be antiracist in a liberal way ("the content of their character") or even in a Xian way ("we are all God's children"). No, you have to be "antiracist" on their terms. It's not about shared values or ideals, or even results. It's about compliance with their dogma and yielding to their (imagined) moral authority.
Dr. Tabia Lee is a longtime educator, pedagogist, and a founding member of Free Black Thought. In 2021, Tabia was hired at DeAnza College in California as the Faculty Director for the Office of Equity, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education. Tabia attempted to reform the toxic campus atmosphere characterized by many faculty and staff members as “too woke.”
DEI colleagues at DeAnza rejected Tabia’s efforts to promote a “pro-human” approach to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Tabia, a black woman, was called a white supremacist, a racist, and a right-wing operative, among other accusations.
In June this year, Tabia was fired. She is suing DeAnza College for violating her academic freedom and free speech rights.
Donate: http://gofundme.com/f/SupportDrLee
Website: http://www.drtlee.com
Free Black Thought https://freeblackthought.com/voices/d...
“A Black DEI Director Canceled by DEI” by Tabia Lee https://compactmag.com/article/a-blac...
