A federal court judge on Tuesday dismissed a discrimination case brought by a former University of Michigan diversity administrator who was fired after allegedly making antisemitic remarks at a conference in 2024.
Rachel Dawson, served as the director of the university's Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives until she was fired after two women approached her at a conference and reported to the Anti-Defamation League and the University that she made derisive comments about Jewish students.
Dawson filed a lawsuit, claiming she was terminated because of bias against her as a Black woman, noting that other university employees who made comments about their own views — including a School of Social Work board member who appeared in videos to have followed university student protestors on campus calling them “terrorists” — were not fired.
Federal court Judge Shalina Kumar, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, found the claims of discrimination based on gender and race were not substantiated.
“Dawson’s allegations could permit an inference that the University unfairly subjected her to discipline and termination based on the antisemitic viewpoint she was believed to have expressed, treating her differently than her University colleagues accused of publicly making other bigoted or offensive remarks,” Kumar wrote. “But nothing other than Dawson’s own conclusions support that the University took these actions against her because of her race or gender.”
A footnote on the last page of her 20-page decision offered a concise summary: "Unfortunately for Dawson, speakers — alleged or confirmed — of antisemitic remarks is not a protected class under Title VII."
Dawson's lawyer, Amanda Ghannam, told Michigan Public that she still has a case pending before the Michigan Court of Claims regarding the free speech aspects of her termination.
"At the end of the day, she was fired for sharing her opinion about the situation in Palestine/Israel, including that she believes both groups of people deserve better leadership and equal rights, and her comments about the University’s attempts to address multiple types of bias on campus," Ghannam said about her client. "She continues to believe that public employees’ free speech rights must be respected and that universities should combat all forms of prejudice on campus."
U-M officials have stood by the decision to end Dawson's employment.
“Ms. Dawson was fired by the Provost because her behavior as a university representative at a conference and during an on-campus protest was inconsistent with her job responsibilities, including leading a multicultural office charged with supporting all students, and represented extremely poor judgement,” U-M spokesperson Kay Jarvis previously told Michigan Public.
Claims
According to the complaint, a professor who presented at the conference approached Dawson along with another woman after learning that she worked for the University of Michigan to ask Jewish students were faring given the tensions protests on college campuses around Israel’s intense response to the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023.
“We don’t work with Jews,” the women recalled Dawson saying according to court records. “They are wealthy and privileged and take care of themselves.”
Ghannam presented a different account of what transpired at the conference, noting in the complaint that after Dawson “shared her personal opinion that the University had made great efforts to combat antisemitism as well as other types of bias” after which the women she spoke to “became visibly angry” and asked her if she believed Palestinian people had a right to live in the region. Dawson responded that she did.
The complaint in Dawson's federal lawsuit held that the women “falsely accused” Dawson of “making antisemitic comments” which they shared with the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights organization, and University administrators.
Ghannam contended that the University “deviated from its typical disciplinary procedures” and hired a third-party investigator. Dawson’s supervisor wrote to then-University of Michigan President Santa Ono arguing there was no way to substantiate the claims made against Dawson, which he said amounted to competing narratives.
Neither U-M nor the university's attorneys involved in this case responded to a request for comment regarding the dismissal of the lawsuit.
Editor's note: The University of Michigan holds Michigan Public's broadcast license.
