A new workplace study published on Tuesday has revealed that 75.5% of Jewish employees feel diversity, equity, and inclusion approaches within their organizations fail to respond consistently to antisemitism.
The research report titled Yes, But… Antisemitism and the Limits of Workplace Inclusion was published by Pearn Kandola, a business psychology firm co-founded by Professor Binna Kandola. Pearn Kandola is a UK-based occupational psychology consultancy that specializes in diversity, inclusion, and unconscious bias training for corporate and public sector organizations.
The study follows the organization’s 2024 research on workplace antisemitism and Islamophobia, which tracked a nearly 50% increase in antisemitic incidents following the October 7, 2023, attacks.
Following a series of webinars held during Antisemitism at Work Week in June, researchers noted that Jewish attendees repeatedly described a lack of responsiveness from diversity teams regarding antisemitism, prompting a broader investigation into whether these experiences reflected an isolated trend or a systemic pattern.
The research combined a national survey of 1,002 Jewish employees across the UK with qualitative interviews involving participants from various sectors and organizational levels. The interviews included individuals directly involved in diversity and inclusion roles, with some working for large US multinationals and describing interactions with American diversity teams.
Majority of Jewish respondents have misgivings over practical application of corporate commitments to equality
According to the survey findings, while the vast majority of Jewish respondents acknowledged public corporate commitments to equality, major misgivings emerged regarding their practical application. Specifically, 87% of respondents agreed that their organization expressed a clear commitment to tackling racism and discrimination, and 83% agreed that the diversity function was visibly active on these issues. However, 75.5% agreed that their organization’s diversity approach was not consistent in its response to antisemitism, 72.7% noticed a gap between public commitments and actual responses, and 60.5% agreed that antisemitism receives less attention than other forms of racism.
The survey findings also highlighted a severe chilling effect on employee reporting and confidence. Only 15.9% of respondents said they felt able to raise concerns about antisemitism in the workplace. Furthermore, 70.8% of respondents agreed that they had avoided raising concerns because they were unsure how those reports would be received. The report analyzed this low reporting not as an indicator of low prevalence, but as a cycle of futility where employees conclude that speaking up will not yield understanding or action.
The study pointed to organizational listening as a central challenge. The report claimed that providing formal reporting channels or communication pathways is insufficient if institutions lack the capability and motivation to properly receive, interpret, and act upon employee feedback. When concerns are routinely minimized or misread, employees tend to withdraw, creating a dangerous paradox where low formal complaint numbers mistakenly bolster corporate confidence that no underlying problem exists.
Problem goes beyond lack of understanding Kandola tells ‘Post’
Professor Binna Kandola OBE told The Jerusalem Post, “Our research raises serious questions about the way Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) functions operate. We found that many Jewish employees feel overlooked by the very people whose responsibility it is to promote inclusion.”
Professor Kandola added, “The problem goes beyond a lack of understanding of antisemitism. It concerns the assumptions and frameworks that some DEI practitioners use to understand discrimination. Jews are often stereotyped as wealthy, powerful, influential and privileged. Because many are White, they do not fit comfortably into models of discrimination that see racism primarily through the lens of power and privilege. As a result, antisemitism can be minimized, explained away or simply ignored.”
Through in-depth interviews, the research examined how diversity functions can fail to address antisemitism, identifying several recurring rhetorical devices and organizational responses. Among these, denial manifested directly or through silence and omission, such as when Holocaust Memorial Day events omitted references to Jews or when organisations remained silent following October 7. Reversal occurred when individuals raising antisemitism were repositioned as the wrongdoers or accused of self-interest. Liberal arguments regarding merit and fairness were also identified, where perceived Jewish success, wealth, or representation was used to imply that Jewish people do not experience racism or require inclusion support.
Deracialization emerged when antisemitism was reframed as a generic religious matter, an international political issue, or an interpersonal disagreement rather than a form of racial exclusion. Other identified mechanisms included distancing through inaction or framing incidents as isolated anomalies rather than systemic issues, positive self-presentation where inclusion credentials masked operational gaps, trivialization of Jewish safety as low priority, and empathizing primarily with perpetrators over targets.
Additional themes from the interviews explored the complexities of Jewish identity, which participants noted encompasses ethnicity, culture, ancestry, and peoplehood rather than religion alone. Interviewees also discussed the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism, noting that difficulties arose when diversity teams viewed all Jewish concerns exclusively through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Employee resource groups, while intended to offer support, were occasionally reported by interviewees as having been utilized by diversity teams to block action or contain antisemitism as a niche issue relevant only to Jewish networks. Furthermore, participants described heightened fear, visibility concerns, and the heavy emotional burden of acting as educators or public advocates for their community.
The report concluded by outlining several core findings regarding the limitations of current diversity practices. The report emphasized that diversity frameworks centered rigidly on power, privilege, and oppression can inadvertently obscure Jewish vulnerability due to persistent stereotypes surrounding influence and success. The report stressed that psychological safety remains ineffective without active organizational listening, and that professional expertise in antisemitism and prejudice cannot be assumed simply through a general commitment to equality or membership in affinity groups.
Professor Kandola told the Post, “Organizations need to take a critical look at their DEI functions. They should examine the assumptions that underpin their work, the evidence supporting their approaches and whether they are applying the same standards of fairness to everyone. Importantly, these reviews should not be led by the DEI functions themselves.”
Professor Kandola further noted, “We also need to professionalize DEI. A commitment to equality, however sincere, is not a substitute for expertise in the psychology of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. Practitioners must be prepared to recognize and challenge their own biases, not just those of others.”
Based on these conclusions, the report provided six key recommendations for organizational leaders: reappraise the purpose and practice of diversity functions through independent review; redefine professional expertise by ensuring practitioners understand the distinct history and contemporary manifestations of antisemitism; separate representation metrics from inclusion experiences; clarify the role of employee resource groups so they do not act as expert advisory bodies or veto mechanisms; build genuine organizational listening capabilities into reporting structures; and introduce reflexive practice so that inclusion teams routinely examine their own underlying assumptions and potential biases.
“Our findings are not an argument for abandoning DEI. They are an argument for fundamentally rethinking how it operates. An approach to inclusion that fails to recognize discrimination because the people experiencing it do not fit a particular model is failing in its most basic purpose,” Professor Kandola told the Post.
