Princeton engineering dean states Oct. 7 massacre helped trigger ‘backlash’ to DEI
‘Part of the backlash also was spurred by the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, the war in Gaza, and the protests,’ the Princeton official said.
‘If we do the easy thing—which is to just eliminate the programs without replacing them with something else or evolving them—then it will hurt the engineering profession,’ she added.
A Princeton official has expressed her opposition to the anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) movement in higher education, and recognized that “[p]art of the backlash also was spurred by the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.”
Princeton University’s Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Dr. Andrea Goldsmith, was interviewed on Sept. 30 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers concerning her perspective on the current state of DEI in engineering and higher education.
Goldsmith stated that opponents of DEI programs believe that such initiatives harm meritocracy, and that “[p]art of the backlash also was spurred by the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, the war in Gaza, and the protests.”
”One notion is that Jewish students are also a minority that needs protection, and why is it that DEI programs are only focused on certain segments of the population as opposed to diversity and inclusion for everyone, for people with all different perspectives, and those who are victims or subject to explicit bias, implicit bias, or discrimination,” Goldsmith said.
“I think that these are legitimate concerns, and that programs around diversity and inclusion should be addressing them,” she continued.
[RELATED: UN official with history of controversial anti-Israel comments to speak at Princeton]
Some have stated that DEI programs at colleges and universities can promote or facilitate anti-Semitism, including two Stanford professors who expressed this concern in an Aug. 30 New York Times op-ed.
During her interview, Goldsmith said that, while she understands certain objections to DEI initiatives, she still opposes eliminating such programs, and believes that doing so would harm the engineering profession.
“We need to be mindful of the concerns that have been raised about DEI programs. I don’t think they are completely unfounded,” Goldsmith said. “If we do the easy thing—which is to just eliminate the programs without replacing them with something else or evolving them—then it will hurt the engineering profession.”
Goldsmith also criticized the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to make college admissions race-neutral, alleging that the Justices’ decision, along with other factors, has cast DEI in a negative light.
“I think the Supreme Court’s decision, along with the political polarization and the recent protests at universities, have all been pieces of a puzzle that have come together to paint all DEI programs with a broad brush of not being about excellence and lowering barriers but really being about promoting certain groups of people at the expense of others,” she said.
Goldsmith believes that current methods used to measure the success of DEI are flawed and may require significant changes.
“The metrics being used to assess whether these programs are achieving their goals need to be reviewed. If they are not, the programs need to be improved. If we do that, I think DEI programs will continue to positively impact the engineering profession.”
Goldsmith’s comments come in the wake of significant crackdowns on DEI in multiple states. Some states, however, are still promoting DEI, including Princeton’s state of New Jersey. The state legislature is considering a bill that would require public colleges and universities to “develop a faculty and student diversity plan” that includes a mandate to “establish diversity goals for increasing the recruitment and retention of students, faculty, and staff who represent diverse backgrounds.”
Campus Reform has reached out to Princeton University and Dr. Goldsmith for comment. This story will be updated accordingly.