In this episode, Dr. OiYan Poon joins #RaceClass to discuss her new book “Asian American is Not a Color: Conversations on Race, Affirmative Action and Family.” Dr. Poon is a distinguished social scientist and race scholar. In a wide ranging conversation, Dr. Poon explores her own racial education as child in western, MA; how the term “Asian American” originated within the broader Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s; what it means to be "Asian American"; and why affirmative action is often necessary to combat anti-Asian racism.

It has been a long semester, and we are tired. In this episode, Jon and Arnie connect lots of dots to explore the many ways race shapes contemporary fights in American society. From the Governor of Alabama dog whistling at the UAW, to pundits scolding university presidents who “negotiate” with student protesters, to GOP leaders weaponizing antisemitism for political gain, race is doing work—one way or another. Because it's always about race, even when it's not.

On Wednesday Apr. 24, House Speaker Mike Johnson announced he would tour Columbia University and host a news conference to discuss “the troubling rise of virulent antisemitism on America’s college campuses.” Just ten days’ prior, Johnson appeared alongside Donald Trump for a press conference that “echoed language from the racist [and antisemitic] great replacement theory.” With his pivot to Columbia and feigned concern over anti-semitism, one might say Mike Johnson is engaging in “identity politics” and playing a “Jewish card.”

He is far from alone. Since October 7th, individuals and entities from across the political spectrum have mobilized Jewish identity to wage ideological battles over competing visions of life at home and abroad. With a nod to Carbado & Gulati’s research on “working identity,” we identify four different ways that Jewish identity is being mobilized in this moment: The Comrade. The Sword. The Shield. The Cynic.

[Teaser: Mike Johnson’s behavior falls into that last category. Also very disappointed we didn't have a chance to discuss "The Parrot" (aka how certain Democrats continue to parrot GOP talking points).]

One increasingly encounters the claim that antisemitism is on the rise and progressive politics are to blame. For anyone familiar with Christopher Rufo’s unapologetic smear campaigns against CRT and DEI, there is a reflex to dismiss both claims as somewhat obvious propaganda. That reflex makes sense, but it invites two risks: one analytical, one political. The analytical risk entails discounting actual evidence of anti-Semitism. The political risk entails alienating allies who hold legitimate concerns about antisemitism past and present.

To guard against these risks, we take seriously both claims. We then discuss our provisional conclusions. First, it is likely that students whose dress signals Jewish identity (e.g., wearing a Kippah or Star of David) are increasingly likely to encounter hostility or negative attitudes on campus. Second, rightwing Jewish organizations are responsible, in large part, for this hostility. Here’s why: Through their rhetoric and behavior, including the rigid claim that anti-Zionism is per se antisemitism, these organizations have hardened the conceptual link between Jewish identity and Israel’s current assault on Palestinian life. As a result, symbols of Jewishness are increasingly perceived as symbols of anti-Palestinian animus. To better understand how rightwing rhetoric fuels this new antisemitism (which renders vulnerable Jewish students who are orthodox and anti-Zionist), we turn to Khaled Beydoun’s scholarship on islamophobia.

In this episode, we explore two things that Brown v. Board of Education and DEI have in common.

The first is the story we know well. Both Brown and DEI have been openly vilified by the Right—a history that spans the Southern Manifesto to an ongoing assault on racial diversity.

The second is the story that’s almost never told. The Supreme Court’s most celebrated decision and contemporary efforts to diversify elite institutions valorize and center whiteness—often in ways that naturalize longstanding patterns of racial inequality in the United States.

The answer isn’t to disown Brown or demean inclusionary commitments. But we have to tell the full story. That includes a story about how many of our most prized equality-oriented achievements can undermine the very goal of racial equality.

Rightwing personalities are blaming DEI (“diversity, equity, inclusion”) for everything from broken Boeings and bankrupt banks to a flaccid military and train derailments. These are facially unserious claims. Yet they resonate with much of the public. One might say they enjoy a common-sense logic that pits diversity against excellence.

We explore two factors that feed rightwing DEI smears: (1) engrained racial narratives that rationalize inequality and (2) the Left--specifically, liberal institutions that also rationalize inequality—even when doing so undermines their own DEI policies. To concretize the latter dynamic, we highlight Harvard’s failure to acknowledge all the ways its admissions process functions as preferential treatment for white (often wealthy) applicants.

On Dec. 5, the U.S. House passed HR 894, which states that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” On the same day, House Republicans charged the presidents’ of Harvard, Penn and MIT with institutional “cultures” that “foster [antisemitism] because you have faculty and students who hate Jews, hate Israel and are comfortable apologizing for terror.” As Noah Zatz recently observed, both claims rely on a logical leap that requires “conflating the Israeli state with its Jewish residents in conjunction with metaphors of destruction.”

Building on Zatz’s analysis, we interrogate the claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Even recognizing that criticism targeting Israel can be antisemitic, the now-bipartisan claim that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism raises at least three serious concerns: (1) it is analytically fraught; (2) it is potentially dangerous for Jews and others (in part because it foments social division and can feed white supremacist ideologies like great replacement theory) and (c) it is a predictable and strategic effort to silence dissent and discredit antiracist movements in the United States and beyond and abroad.

On October 7, Hamas launched horrifying and unprecedent attacks targeting Israeli civilians and continues to hold Israeli hostages. Israel responded within an ongoing assault on Gaza that includes airstrikes and a blockade on humanitarian aid. Current estimates suggest that over 1,400 people have died in Israel and nearly 6,000 in Gaza. The conflict remains agonizing front-page news. And yet it feels as if we—the public, media, politicians—are incapable of really talking about what’s happening in Israel and Gaza. One reason is that this conflict, like many others, is racialized. This dynamic shapes how we process, perceive, and engage with the conflict—often in ways we do not see. Professor Sahar Aziz, an expert on authoritarianism, terrorism, and rule of law in the Middle East, joins #RaceClass to help us explore how the world continues to racialize the conflict in Israel and Gaza.

#RaceClass Recs: The Racial Muslim (Aziz); Teach-In on Gaza (CSRR); Traces of the Master Narrative (Ikemoto)

In this special hour-long episode, Professor Victor Ray joins us to discuss racial education, structural racism, identity politics and his recent book "On Critical Race Theory."

In SFFA v. Harvard, the Supreme Court narrowed a university’s ability to consider the racial identity of individual students during admissions. Justice Roberts also emphasized that universities may consider each student’s personal experiences with race or racism. Many schools have responded by adding admissions essays that prompt students to share how race or racism affects their lives.

In this episode of #RaceClass, we explore a basic question: Why ask about race? (Full disclosure: We're concerned that many schools are spending more time wordsmithing their essay prompt than thinking hard about why the question matters.) To help, we explore three answers: (1) academic “merit” includes racial literacy; (2) holistic review requires a full picture of each student’s lived experience; and (3) enrolling students with diverse experiences with racism means more learning for all.