But here’s where things get tricky. None of the administrators, at least in the text messages so far released, appeared to be categorically or generally skeptical of identitarian harm claims, which have been ubiquitous on campus for many years now. In fact, they seemed to think that such claims were dubious — “from such a place of privilege,” as Chang-Kim said — only when coming from Jews.
Chang-Kim’s remark was in response to Patashnick’s prediction that Jewish students “will have their own dorm soon.” The notion that Jews were getting more than anyone else was made explicit by Kromm: “If only every identity category had these resources and support.” In fact, as Sibarium pointed out, Jews are conspicuously absent from the list of groups that receive specialized resources at Columbia. Those resources include identity-based dorms — called “Special Interest Communities” — such as Casa Latina, “a safe and accessible space for Latinx communities and allies”; Muslim Student House, “a safe space where the Muslim community can thrive on campus”; and Black Residential, “a safe space created by and for Black students and leaders to advance, advocate for, and support the Black community while fostering fellowship.”
It is against this background of general concern for the emotional and social safety of minority groups that Sorett and company’s indifference to the panelists’ anxieties seemed so discordant. On its own, there’s nothing really wrong with the group-texting administrators’ casting a jaundiced eye at the panelists at the Jewish-life event — if only there were evidence that they were similarly critical about any other group’s complaints. Indeed, campuses might be better off if intelligent skepticism toward claims of harm were less stigmatized, welcomed as loyal criticism rather than condemned as uncaring and even discriminatory. Such a culture might generate less behind-the-scenes snark, and more honest public conversation.
At any rate, no organization would be able to function if all of its members’ private communications were made public. But now that we’ve seen those texts, we can’t unsee them, and they tend to corroborate what critics of campus culture have been saying for the last eight months or so: The current diversity regime suffers from a double standard when it comes to Jews. The Columbia administrators who, between them, are most responsible for student life were not critical of identity-based harm claims in general; they were critical of them only in this case. One solution might be more skepticism all around.
