Columbia and Google Prove DEI Can Be Beaten But Never Appeased

In the same way, when the rich white child of a UPS executive was arrested at Columbia, she was not promoting herself at the expense of her classmates’ ability to learn, but speaking for the people of Gaza. In her mind, she is the moral actor, and any Jewish classmate who feels threatened is prioritizing their own elite “privilege” over the well-being of millions abroad, as is any classmate who merely wants to go to class.

DEI has then succeeded largely because it has rebranded sociopathy as empathy, and it has degenerated into the absurdity of extremism we are witnessing on Columbia’s campus because that success has in turn attracted the worst types of sociopaths. “It is not that power corrupts,” Frank Herbert, the author of Dune, observed, “but that power attracts the corruptible.”

The reason BLM, LGBT groups, the green movement, and now pro-Palestinian activists have behaved in this manner is not the promotion of DEI ideas. Rather, by providing its adherents with incredible power within any organization, DEI ensured the takeover of those institutions by the corruptible. DEI did not create BLM or the modern LGBT movement, it destroyed them by filling their ranks with newly empowered sociopaths.

This process renders appeasement of DEI futile. There is no way to satisfy the demands of BLM, LGBT, Green, or pro-Palestinian groups within any organization, because what they are after is not security for coworkers and classmates, but power over them. In an era where these movements have been taken over by radical extremists, conceding power to them merely exacerbates their internal conflicts by raising the stakes.

Accusing opponents of being moderates is a good way of displacing rivals. Hence, pro-Palestinian campus activists who insisted on repudiating “From the River to the Sea” were pushed out as Zionists, followed by those who objected to conspiracy theories about the October 7 attacks. Now those who express any concern about Holocaust denial also find themselves under attack as closet Zionists.

Rather than strengthening “moderates” within these movements, every concession college presidents and CEOs made to these groups undermined the moderates and empowered the radicals. When rather than punishment, the powers-that-be rewarded the radicals with further concessions, moderate concerns were proven groundless.

Ironically, the same dynamics which cause extremists to gain influence via the establishment’s appeasement of DEI activists also see them undermined directly by force. The ability of an administration, any administration, to use and sustain force against them proves they are not the ones who wield the real power. As most left-wing groups have driven out those with a genuine investment in whatever issue they are supposed to be focused on in favor of those who see activism as a means of achieving power, the abandonment of the cause by the latter can trigger a rapid collapse.

By charging protestors with disruption and treating them as a minority preventing the vast majority of students from enjoying the educational experience they paid for, or obstructing Google employees from carrying out their jobs, leaders at Columbia and Google were able to frame the protestors as “enemies” of the people. Brown, Princeton, and Penn were acting to defend the rights of their students—not just their Jewish students, but all their students—to go to study and enjoy their education, when they wielded power against the radical activists. Google’s management was not targeting 50 employees, but acting on behalf of 50,000. This was key to their success.

Shafik’s failure at Columbia can be ascribed to her defeat in this framing battle. The issue is not that anyone believes Columbia’s president supports the protests. Rather, it is that they believe she, and not Columbia, is cracking down. The perception is that Columbia’s president banned Students for Justice in Palestine, and that Columbia’s president called the police on protesters—not the community at large.

This perception has had a direct impact on the effectiveness of Columbia’s response. The recourse to the NYPD has been perceived not as an effort to protect the mass of students, but as an attack on them by the president. Even the NYPD seems to have hedged its bets, not wanting to side too openly with a woman who may well be out of a job.

The suspensions of the arrested students have been undermined by a refusal of faculty to abide by them, with many pledging to continue grading the assignments for these students. If they did not do so, the perception would be they would be siding with a “temporary” president against the “students,” which would spell social and career suicide.

There is a lesson here. Power works when it is exercised not on behalf of bureaucrats seeking to preserve their own offices, but in defense of institutions themselves. Just as importantly, an institution’s willingness to defend itself proves that it is worth defending. There is an underserved market for universities, corporations, and even advocacy organizations that are willing to treat themselves as institutions worth defending. The institutions that embrace this approach have a bright future.

Winston Churchill observed, “Nations that went down fighting rose again, but those which surrendered tamely were finished.” The same is true of institutions. If there is one thing we have learned, fighting DEI is sometimes unsuccessful, but appeasing it has a 100 percent record of failure. It merely fuels further extremism. The contrasting fates of Columbia and Google demonstrate that lesson.

Walter Samuel is the pseudonym of a prolific international affairs writer and academic. He has worked in Washington as well as in London and Asia, and holds a Doctorate in International History.