The Oct. 7 terrorist attack and subsequent Israel-Hamas war transformed American college campuses into a different type of battleground. Extreme anti-Israel protests have been accompanied by a surge in antisemitic incidents. School administrators are walking a tightrope, trying to balance students’ freedom of expression with campus safety. The correct path forward is clear: College and university presidents should follow the law and enforce the rules equally for everyone.
A cornerstone of this approach is a moral and legal imperative to define and denounce antisemitism. Doing so is not a political statement. Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, colleges and universities are legally bound to protect their students from discrimination based on, among other things, religion or national origin. Failure to identify and properly address antisemitism is often a result of ambiguous or nonexistent definitions of the term.
Adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s standard, as the U.S. Department of Education has done, would provide colleges and universities with a globally recognized framework and align with schools’ obligations under the Civil Rights Act. The alliance’s working definition is as follows: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The alliance also includes practical examples of antisemitic content and commentary, along with resources for scholars and education professionals. Integrating this important tool does not require a formal announcement or change in official policy. Administrators can simply instruct deans and other campus officials to use the alliance’s definition when evaluating bias incidents on campus.
This is a necessary step, but it is not enough. The University of Pennsylvania adopted the alliance’s standard as part of an “antisemitism action plan,” but it was too little too late. President Elizabeth Magill’s lackluster response to a surge in antisemitism on campus led to a donor revolt, an embarrassing congressional hearing and eventually her resignation. A proactive approach to the issue with meaningful action to protect Jewish students would have almost certainly saved Magill’s job.
To avoid her fate, college and university presidents must consistently and relentlessly apply policies across the board. The basic legal and moral expectation on any college campus is that no students will be targeted due to their race, religion, ethnicity or national origin. Jewish and Israeli students do not seek special treatment. Selective enforcement, as we saw when MIT president Sally Kornbluth reversed suspensions for foreign students who had violated campus rules citing “visa issues,” undermines the integrity of institutional rules and sets a dangerous precedent. Having different sets of standards for student conduct is counterproductive and dangerous.
Related: Students have reacted strongly to university presidents’ Congressional testimony about antisemitism
While many institutions have struggled mightily in this climate, others have avoided scrutiny. High-profile leadership failures, such as the case of Harvard president Claudine Gay, make the front page. Those who successfully navigate these troubled waters do not generate headlines. Syracuse University is a great example of a school getting it right. A viral video captured Syracuse staff calmly and deliberately instructing students to remove signage calling for an “intifada.” The university interpreted the signage as calling for the genocide of Jews and therefore determined that this form of protest was a violation of the student code of conduct.
Colleges and universities often serve as melting pots for students representing a wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. It is the job of administrators to channel this dynamic into academic discovery and learning while keeping students safe from discrimination and harassment. Schools do not need to choose sides in geopolitical conflicts or decide between protecting one group of students or another. They must simply uphold and safeguard the rights of everyone. Institutionalizing the alliance’s definition of antisemitism will further protect Jewish and Zionist students now and in the future. Administrators must lead the way and take this practical action now.
Avi D. Gordon is executive director of Alums for Campus Fairness, which is sponsoring an advocacy campaign at several universities across the country, including Cornell and Northwestern, encouraging them to define and denounce antisemitism.
This op-ed about campus antisemitism was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.
At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information. We will not consider letters that do not contain a full name and valid email address. You may submit news tips or ideas here without a full name, but not letters.
By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email address. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.