Many Jewish faculty and staff say university EDI is failing them

Source: The Conversation – Canada

In 2025, Jewish people were the target of 70 per cent of all police-reported hate crimes in Canada targeting a religious group. Jews make up about one per cent of the Canadian population.

Research indicates that higher education often increases tolerance. A 2026 national survey by sociologists Robert Brym and Rhonda Lenton found that Canadian university students have a low level of negativity toward Jews, but a high level of negativity toward Israel. This is a point of friction since many Canadian Jews feel emotionally attached to Israel and support Israel’s existence.

Most Canadian universities have an infrastructure for addressing discrimination: equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies and action plans.

A new federally commissioned survey of Jewish students in Canadian universities finds they believe EDI offices had generally not engaged with their concerns.

Similarly, my recent study reveals that while many Jewish faculty and staff hoped EDI offices and policies would help them navigate contested terrain after Oct. 7, 2023, many say they encountered silence, indifference and dismissal.

Ongoing debate in Jewish communities

The Hamas attack on Israel, which which killed 1,200 people, destroyed communities and saw 251 people taken hostage,
was traumatic for many Jews.

An extremist Israeli government then launched attacks that have killed approximately 71,000 people in Gaza and catastrophically destroyed infrastructure.

Protests and encampments erupted on many campuses, deepening tensions in an already polarized environment.

Since Oct. 7, there has been an ongoing debate within Jewish communities and beyond about whether EDI offices’ perceived disengagement from Jewish concerns is an accident of implementation, a “bug” or “a feature” that’s closely tied to how EDI has been conceptualized in Canadian higher education.

The framing is significant, since a bug can be patched, but a feature requires rethinking the framework itself.

In Canada, EDI is anchored in the categories of the Employment Equity Act and tied to research funding through federal initiatives such as Canada Research Chairs.

These frameworks are largely organized around race, visibility and under-representation. Jewish identity fits awkwardly within them: Jews are often perceived as white, privileged and well-represented in academia, and Jewishness is typically classified as a religion rather than a peoplehood with diverse ethnic, cultural and religious dimensions.

Research project

My new study is part of a larger mixed-methods project examining the experiences of faculty and staff in Canadian higher education after Oct. 7.

Participants were recruited through Jewish campus organizations, Jewish academic and professional networks, Jewish studies associations and snowball sampling to reach participants across institutions, roles and regions.

To take part, respondents had to be faculty or staff at a Canadian post-secondary institution with knowledge of, experience with or exposure to antisemitism on campus.

The findings here draw on responses from 136 Jewish faculty and staff across universities, provinces, disciplines and career stages. Survey respondents could volunteer for follow-up interviews, and 59 did.

In alignment with critical education theories, such as Critical Race Theory and its adaptation for studying Jewish identity, Hebrew Critical Theory, the project unpacks systemic and institutional manifestations of antisemitism.

The interviews centre those directly affected by marginalization and foreground their lived experiences.

The study documents patterns among people who identified with the noted criteria and chose to participate. It does not claim to speak for all Jews.

The patterns documented, however, were consistent and striking.

Disappointment and disillusionment with EDI

Only 32 per cent of respondents were aware of any institutional policy addressing antisemitism. In contrast, 93 per cent were aware of policies addressing other forms of identity-based discrimination, such as anti-Black or anti-Indigenous racism.

Asked to rate the comprehensiveness of their institution’s EDI efforts on a five-point scale, respondents gave Jewish-focused efforts an average of 1.7, compared to 3.4 for efforts addressing other groups.

A majority, 58 per cent, formally reported experiencing or witnessing at least one antisemitic incident since Oct. 7.

Satisfaction with how reports were handled was low across institutional channels: EDI offices averaged 1.5 out of five and deans 1.8, while external Jewish organizations averaged 3.1.

The interviews help unpack these numbers. Participants described antisemitism as mainly absent from EDI websites, training and policies. As one participant put it:

“The website had a list of various underrepresented groups that the EDI office could help if you had a concern and antisemitism wasn’t there.”

Another participant shared:

“When antisemitic issues had come up, I directed it to the vice president of EDI. They didn’t do anything. In fact, I don’t think they care.”

This (lack of) response was even more disappointing since many participants were invested in campus EDI work. They assumed those tools could be extended to antisemitism if the need arose, but they said this was not the case.

One participant explained:

“I feel like everybody that I’ve advocated for, and worked for, and spoken on behalf of, has turned around and stabbed me in the back.”

At the same time, several participants emphasized Jewish inclusion does not mean flattening differences or appropriating spaces and resources designed to address other forms of marginalization. Many say they want recognition on their own terms, particularly related to antisemitic tropes embedded in some critiques of Zionism.

Support Israel’s existence

Progressive perspectives tend to amplify “anti-Zionist” views. Brym’s 2025 study found while 49 per cent of Canadian Jews don’t identify as Zionists largely because the word has taken on negative connotations, “just one per cent of Canadian Jews (four per cent of those who reject the Zionist label) say they are anti-Zionists,” and 94 per cent support Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

My research results showed that respondents experienced EDI spaces as often treating these mainstream Jewish positions as disqualifying from care and protection.

As a newly developed resource on antisemitism at the University of Toronto acknowledges:

“Actions directed at individual members of our community because they are Jewish or Israeli, or identify as Zionist, can be harassment, discrimination and/or violate law or policy. Such actions directed at individuals … do not cease to be problematic because the word ‘Jewish’ or ‘Israeli’ is replaced with the word ‘Zionist.’ This is distinct from criticisms of the government of Israel and its policies.”

Not about dismantling EDI

Some may read findings like these as a case for dismantling EDI altogether. That is not my conclusion. Antisemitism is increasingly weaponized to undermine equity initiatives, and Jewish academics should be wary of being used as pawns in that effort.

Jews have a long history of working alongside Black, queer and Indigenous communities to remove institutional barriers.

EDI, while imperfect, is the current iteration of that tradition.

But Jews should also not settle for conditional inclusion. Universities should name antisemitism explicitly in EDI policies as a contemporary form of racism. They should recognize Jewish identity beyond religion, and include Jews in data collection.

Most importantly, universities should engage with antisemitism and listen to those who have been on its receiving end, while acknowledging the intersections and differences from other forms of exclusion and marginalization.

EDI’s promise is in offering recognition, respect and care for all campus members. It must be able to adapt and recognize diverse forms of pain and vulnerability. Changing EDI may not be easy at a time of pushback, polarization and global tensions, but that is work worth doing for Jews and non-Jews alike.

Lilach Marom received funding for the project from the Ronald S. Roadburg Foundation.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/09/16/many-jewish-faculty-and-staff-say-university-edi-is-failing-them/