You may be asking some of these questions: Why is antisemitism in higher education such a concern right now? Have the protests on campuses been antisemitic? Why have some Jews participated in the protests? Should we be concerned about what the government is doing in response? Why is a large part of the Jewish community supporting the protesters’ civil rights, even though their messaging may appear to be antisemitic and make some of us uncomfortable?
In the interests of being well informed on this topic, we have compiled this document in the format of frequently asked questions with brief responses. A list of links to more information, and opinion from a variety of sources, is found at the end of the Q&A.
A. Hatred and bigotry against Jews has existed for thousands of years. Jews were perceived as different and persecuted as outsiders from biblical times. Most historians date the roots of modern antisemitism back to the early years of Christianity, when religious antisemitism took root as a vehicle for persecuting those who would not follow the teachings of the Gospels and convert to the new Christianity. From its initial depiction as an outdated religion, to its perception as a contradiction of the emerging teachings of the New Testament, some early Christian authorities sought to silence those who still practiced Judaism, and its followers were threatened with discrimination, and even death. It is only within this century that these teachings have been eliminated from Christian theology. See Jewish Foundations of the New Testament: Addressing the Roots of Antisemitismby Jesper Svartvik.
Jews throughout history have alternately been accepted or maligned as the “other”. From the anti-Jewish purges during the Spanish Inquisition, through anti-Jewish discrimination, edicts and killing sprees (pogroms) in Russia and throughout Eastern Europe, antisemitism was prevalent, and fueled widespread persecution of Jewish people and communities. Nazi propaganda expanded religious and social persecution further by depicting Jews as biologically and, thus racially, inferior. At the same time, Jews were also accused of being cunning enough to have caused Germany’s loss in World War I. Hitler and the Nazi regime retooled antisemitism into the racially-based “justification” for genocide—now known as the Final Solution of the Holocaust.
Jewish communities flourished through the early part of the 20th century in the greater Middle East — in present-day Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and Morocco and other places in the region — until Zionism and Arab nationalism took hold. See Before Zionism: The Shared Life of Jews and Palestinians (+972 magazine).
Antisemitism in the Arab world “traces its historical roots from pre-1948 socio-cultural and religious dynamics, through the impact of Nazi Germany and Soviet-era propaganda, to contemporary times where radical Islamist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and ISIS perpetuate antisemitic ideologies.” See "Antisemitism in the Arabic Speaking Sphere: Historical Roots, Contemporary Dynamics, and Global Impact" by Omar Mohammad. Anti-Jewish sentiment and violence led to persecution and expulsion of Mizrahi Jews from their centuries-old home communities in the Middle East and Northern Africa in the early and mid-20th century.
While much of contemporary antisemitism is based on stereotypes and conspiracy theories, since the founding of Israel in 1948, Jews living outside Israel have been accused of being more loyal to Israel than to their country of residence. Some contemporary anti-Jewish tropes conflate being Jewish with unconditional support of the current policies of Israel’s government and the Gaza war. See T'ruah's “A Very Brief Guide to Antisemitism"and Jewish Foundations of the New Testament: Addressing the Roots of Antisemitism by Jesper Svartvik. Unlike many other bigotries, anti-Semitism is not merely a social prejudice; it is a conspiracy theory about how the world operates — see "Why So Many People Still Don’t Understand Anti-Semitism" (paywall).
A. The term “antisemitism” was popularized by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in the late 1800s. While no definition has been generally agreed upon, nor has any the force of U.S. law, the most commonly adopted resource is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition which states that “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 working definition goes on to give examples that identify scenarios that may be considered antisemitic. Criticism of the IHRA working definition — especially attempts to codify it as a legal or legalistic resource — has inspired other definitions including the Jerusalem Declaration and the Nexus Document. See also Five Definitions of Antisemitism by Rabbi Toby Manewith. An attempt to codify the IHRA definition currently making its way through Congress called the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025 is meeting with significant opposition from the Jewish community (see "Progressive Jewish groups oppose Antisemitism Awareness Act ahead of Senate vote," April 30, 2025).
A. While some countries other than the U.S. criminalize hate speech (see Canada Criminal Code, Germany’s Laws on Hate), the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently provided protection from prosecution based on First Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. However, just as criminal acts motivated by bias against a person’s religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation may be prosecuted at the federal, state or local level, so verbal harassment and physical assault on Jews or Jewish organizations may be prosecuted as hate crimes and can warrant steeper punishment than the crime on its own.
Similarly, hate speech that incites violence or contains threats or harassment could lose the free speech protection afforded by the First Amendment to the Constitution and be criminally prosecuted. Antisemitic vandalism or destruction of property are generally considered civil infractions (see “What is Hate Speech?”).
A recent case in Canada (see article by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center) calls attention to that country’s justice system after a man convicted of threatening to “kill as many Jews as possible” by bombing all of Toronto's synagogues was released on bail. According to Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, FSWC’s Senior Director of Policy and Advocacy, “History has repeatedly shown that when this kind of hatred is ignored or minimized, it paves the way to more widespread and dangerous violence. These acts are not isolated incidents — they’re part of a deeply troubling historical pattern whose gravity must be taken seriously.” The person convicted for these crimes faces a possible sentence of five to seven years. See video: "Man Convicted of Threatening to Bomb Toronto Synagogues Denies 'Accusations'."
A. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) can take up civil cases, based on the 2016 Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, however OCR staffing was significantly cut back in early 2025. The typical process has involved a careful examination to determine whether a violation actually occurred and proposed remedies, which result in an agreement between the offending party and OCR. Such an agreement was made between Brown University and the OCR in July 2024. See "Brown Reaches Agreement That Resolves OCR Complaint Alleging Antisemitism." A general description of this process can also be found in "Letter from Secretary Cardona regarding antisemitism on college campuses," May 3, 2024.
Complaints about antisemitism in the workplace can be referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Note: The EEO is currently operating without a quorum of commissioners. Two members of the five-member commission have been recently fired by President Trump).
A. The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism has been adopted as the accepted working definition by a series of U.S. administrations, U.S. states and cities, organizations and educational institutions. It states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” In fact, many Jews have been critical of Israel’s government policies at various times — for example, in a 2021 Pew Survey, only 40% of American Jews approved of Netanyahu’s leadership.
While expressions of such criticism, and expressions of pro-Palestinian advocacy can veer into antisemitism, criticism of the State of Israel's actions is not inherently antisemitic. However, in context, a statement that is antisemitic in intent might be considered under the IHRA definition. The IHRA definition also labels as antisemitic “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor, and as such actually limits speech that criticizes Israel." This is also a controversial element of the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025 that is currently being considered by Congress. See "Why Bend the Arc: Jewish Action Opposes the Antisemitism Awareness Act). Other definitions (see links above) provide more nuanced language for treating Israel-related criticism.
A. The Jewish people have had a continuous presence in the land of Israel dating back more than 3,000 years. Many Jews living in the diaspora (around the world) have a strong attachment to Israel. Identification of Israel as a Jewish homeland, and the connection with the land of Israel dominate the Torah and are prolifically referenced in Jewish liturgy. Due to the persistence of antisemitism, and in particular since the Holocaust, the need for a safe homeland for Jews has been a pressing concern.
However, support for Israel as a Jewish homeland does not automatically imply support for the policies or actions of its current government. Israel grants citizenship to all Jews living outside of the Jewish state (see The Law of Return). Some American Jews have decided to “make aliyah” (settle in Israel) and become official members of Israeli society. Historically, Jewish-Americans are deeply committed to American democracy regardless of their attachment to Israel.
Accusing American Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to the United States is a common antisemitic trope that can lead to claims that Jews cannot be trusted if they support the State of Israel. In fact, not all Jews support the need for a Jewish state in Israel, and not all people who support the State of Israel are Jews. Claims that all Jews support the policies of Israel’s current government, and blaming the whole of the Jewish community for actions taken by Israel, are both examples of antisemitic viewpoints. Suggestions that all Irish-Americans are, by virtue of their heritage, more loyal to Ireland, or that all Italian-Americans are more loyal to Italy would be unlikely to be taken seriously. However, it is also true that this concept led the U.S. government to sequester Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II for a similar accusation of dual loyalty.
A. While some Jews believe that criticism of the State of Israel in any form should be considered antisemitism, a large number of Jewish organizations, drawing on Jewish values, have come out in support of the right of all students — those who are U.S. citizens, on student visas, holders of green cards, or temporary residents — to protest on campus. These organizations argue that the safety of the Jewish community depends on democratic principles, including protection of minorities, and challenge the Trump administration’s claim that these students are being targeted in the name of fighting antisemitism. See:
A. Antisemitism has been present in higher education settings just as it has been elsewhere in society. Criticism of the actions of the State of Israel is not new, and has escalated on campuses since the attack of October 7, 2023. Since the Hamas attacks, visibly Jewish students have been increasingly treated as surrogates for Israelis, assumed to be heavily supportive of Israel, and have become the targets of protests on many college campuses. Some Jewish students report being harassed, threatened, blocked from free movement, restricted from attending classes, or feeling generally uncomfortable with their treatment by other students or faculty. In some cases, protests have included physical altercations, classroom invasions, and damage to property. Many pro-Palestinian campus faculty and student groups appear to be well organized, and have elicited widespread support.
The situation is complex. In the past two years, pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses have been the subject of many serious allegations of antisemitism. There have been well-documented cases of antisemitic harassment and even violence within pro-Palestinian protests and elsewhere on campuses. In contrast, holding protest signs that conflate Judaism and Zionism, demanding that Jews condemn or renounce personal connections to Israel, hurling verbal epithets at visibly Jewish or Israeli students, social ostracism and xenophobia, and other non-violent, pro-Palestinian speech — including rhetoric opposing the Gaza war or opposing the policies of the current Israeli government — do not necessarily meet the current definitions of antisemitic hate crimes.
There are also numerous compelling instances of Jewish students (and professors) at universities taking part in pro-Palestinian rallies and encampments, some including visibly Jewish ritual in their pro-Palestinian activism (e.g. inviting non-Jewish fellow protesters to take part), and feeling welcomed, supported, and valued in their Jewishness. While some Jewish students and staff have experienced othering and antisemitism in the protests, many have said that, as Jews, they feel it is important to stand up for the rights of the Palestinian people and oppose policies of the current Israel government and the Gaza war.
It should be noted that feelings of alienation have also been experienced by Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian students since the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. In a survey, 92% of Harvard’s Muslim students felt there would be penalties for expressing their political views on campus, as compared with 61% of Jewish students. Islamophobia, and the civil rights of Muslim students subject to harassment, are not being addressed by the Trump administration. See "Garber announces new steps to combat bias against Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians."
Some college administrators — mindful of their responsibility to respect free speech — have failed to turn these protest situations into learning opportunities by teaching about the history of the conflict, moderating views on both sides, and replacing heated rhetoric with informed debate. Media reports have focused on the more poorly managed situations in which administrators over- or underreacted, and have led to the resignations of several college presidents. Harvard, and other institutions, have responded by creating task forces to address antisemitism and Islamophobia. See "Across 500 Pages, Harvard Task Force Reports Detail Hostility on Campus and Urge Broad Policy Changes." While some of the protests have now been quelled in number and intensity (see "The Campus Protest Conundrum") and tighter enforcement of college rules, and pro-Palestinian activists’ fears of Trump administration repercussions have reduced visible protests, the issues underlying the protests continue to simmer on campuses.
A. The Trump administration has expressed views that academic institutions are “elitist” and predominantly left-leaning, “woke, and powerful. This has made them targets for conservatives, who wish to exert some control over their staffing, admission policies and curricula. The current campaign to exert federal control over them is ostensibly to address a perception of an inadequate response to antisemitism on campus. Yet it is happening at the same time as the administration orders them to close down their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It is also noteworthy that the administration has also greatly reduced the staff of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which is charged to pursue instances of discrimination related to race or national origin.
Robert Kuttner, American journalist, Brandeis Heller professor, co-founder and current co-editor of The American Prospect, has this to say on this topic: “Were elite institutions unified in their resistance to Trump, that would make it harder for him to persist in his assaults and would strengthen the resolve of courts. But courage continues to be the exception. If Trump survives his serial blunders and keeps defying the rule of law, bastions of privilege like Harvard and Columbia and the craven law firms will be his accomplices.” See also "The Weaponization of Antisemitism" by Anita Diamant.
A. The administration’s selectivity in targeting bias against Jews has led many Jews and Jewish organizations to argue that antisemitism is being used as a pretext for attacking left-leaning critics of the administration (see "I Can’t Believe Anyone Thinks That Trump Actually Cares About Antisemitism" (New York Times, April 28, 2025). By targeting DEI programs — which generally support all minorities — the administration has taken positions that are, in effect, against the interests of groups frequently subject to discrimination, including Jews.
Islamophobia, the harassment of Muslim students, is not being addressed by the Trump administration. The administration’s approach to combating antisemitism at colleges and universities (see "Justice Department Announces Plan to Combat Antisemitism") has focused on pro-Palestinian protests and is the subject of a White House Fact Sheet on Combating Anti-Semitism which references “pro-Hamas” and “anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities." The administration’s current activities concerning antisemitism appear to draw heavily upon Project Esther, created by the conservative Heritage Foundation’s self-styled National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, implementing, to date, 27 of the 47 specific recommendations or requirements set out in the document.
Project Esther was:
A: The President cannot legally revoke an institution’s tax-exempt status. The IRS, as part of the Treasury Department, can initiate the process, which is normally very lengthy and can allow the institution to remedy any problem discovered. The government would have difficulty proving their case in court if this would cause a college to have lower after-tax operating funds—thus impacting scholarships and research —and causing donors to be unable to write off their gifts. See "House Republicans look to help Trump strip tax-exempt status of nonprofits he says support terrorism."
A. Pressuring institutions to comply with administration demands by threatening to withhold — or actually withdrawing — federal funding can result in a potential loss of a large percent of the revenue of some research universities. In most cases it amounts to 10-13%. Major categories of lost funding are health and defense projects. It is unclear that new funds will materialize for basic research that has no immediate payoff. See "Federal Funds Were the Lifeblood of U.S. Scientific Discovery. Where Will the Money Come From Now? (Boston Globe, April 28, 2025). Although many higher education institutions have endowments, much of those funds are committed to the specific purposes set by the donors, so cannot be repurposed.
In addition to potential loss of critical research, a brain drain of researchers leaving the U.S. and going overseas has been noted, and overseas talent is beginning to choose non-U.S. research venues. Ironically, the institutions with higher percentages of Jewish students are some of those targeted, and these losses may be felt by the students who have been identified as the intended beneficiaries of the administration’s pressure campaign.
A. All United States residents are entitled to due process (see "Right to Due Process: Overview") as stated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. However, visas of those without citizenship or permanent resident status can be revoked as a result of criminal proceedings, making re-entry difficult. Revocation can lead to deportation via a removal order. The deportation process takes place in immigration courts and involves multiple steps. Immigrants who, on entry to the U.S., evade the standard immigration process and are later apprehended and convicted may be imprisoned, and/or deported. In all cases, authorities such as ICE are required by law to follow the established process due to all residents, established under the U.S. Constitution and by law. Accusations alone are insufficient to trigger deportation without due process.
The Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as an attempt to by-pass the requirement of due process in detaining and/or deporting non-citizens. To date the courts have not supported this use of this wartime emergency law. Also being considered by the administration is suspension of habeas corpus so as to bypass appearance before a judge as a challenge to a detention. Both of these emergency legal actions were intended for use during times of war or major civil disruption. Courts have challenged whether the current national situation stands up to historical precedent and the intentions of the legislation (see "Trump Team Mulls Suspending the Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus to Speed Deportations").
A: A concern is that this type of action can stir up resentment against Jews and contribute to a recurring stereotype that Jews, in general, secretly control the administration’s agenda. Efforts that focus on international students and pro-Palestinian protests at universities in the name of fighting antisemitism might have led people to the conclusion that the Jewish community is in favor of these policies. See "Over 500 Rabbis Sign Letter: Project Esther Isn’t for Us and It Isn’t About Our Safety." In fact, although the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially spoke out in support of the Trump administration’s interventions, they have recently modified their position by objecting to alleged rampant violations of due process. ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt clarified ADL’s position in an April 3, 2025 essay, saying, “We must fight for Jewish students — and our values." No one should minimize the hateful, violent acts committed against Jewish students, but if we sacrifice our constitutional freedoms in the pursuit of security, we undermine the very foundation of the diverse, pluralistic society we seek to defend.”
A: Since the new administration took office in January 2025, there has been a reduction in force and attention to the FBI focus on domestic terrorism, largely associated with right-wing extremist groups who are commonly antisemitic. See "FBI scales back staffing, tracking of domestic terrorism probes, sources say."
President Trump has said little to nothing about Elon Musk’s and Steve Bannon’s Nazi-style salutes, or Vice President Vance’s support for Germany’s growing far-Right political party, and he waited six days before reaching out to Pennsylvania’s Gov. Josh Shapiro after the post-Seder hate motivated vandalism at the governor’s residence. President Trump’s history of re-tweeting antisemitic memes and tropes and other antisemitic microaggressions is well documented. He has attempted to manipulate Jewish members of Congress, characterizing some as “good Jews,” and others who don’t support him as potentially responsible for downturns in the economy. His recent appointment of Mike Huckabee, a staunch right-wing Evangelical Christian, as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel was a slap in the face to the many qualified Israeli-born and Jewish professionals who might have been selected for that key diplomatic role.
T'ruah CEO Rabbi Jill Jacobs highlights the challenge in her May 22, 2025 Letter from T'ruah ("Criticism of Israel and Antisemitism: How to Tell Where One Ends and the Other Begins"): “As protests against the war (in Gaza) have erupted, so has significant confusion … about the boundaries between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. This may be understandable given Israel’s standing as the only Jewish country in the world, which can lead to conflation between Israel as a country and Jews as a people. Add to the mix the persistence of antisemitism over more than two millennia and the confusion becomes even less surprising.”
Antisemitism exists in higher education as elsewhere in society, and is now being used as a wedge issue and smokescreen for attacking private, primarily left-leaning, institutions which are otherwise outside of significant government control. The hard work of addressing underlying hostilities continues on campuses, and many question whether the administration’s pressure has had any positive impact.
A sincere effort to address the issue would involve collaboration between the administration and each academic institution. The Department of Education’s established process for addressing hate incidents on campus should be implemented where appropriate. Accurate reporting and balanced education on the history of the Middle East; guidance to students and staff on strategies for civil debate and protest; creation of a culture of pluralism, and more are being called for.
Although some Jewish organizations view the administration’s campaign favorably, many see it as having the potential to further exacerbate existing tensions, perpetuate antisemitic tropes and propaganda, and spread inaccuracies and disinformation about the intentions of Jewish communities and institutions (see "Jewish People Fear Scapegoating as Trump Invokes Antisemitism to Justify Crackdowns").
Antisemitism must be addressed in the context of other forms of hate speech and behavior, and due to its unique history and manifestations, should also be recognized as a distinct form of hatred and bigotry. Due process must be followed for accusations of antisemitism leveled against individual students, student groups and entire academic institutions. Concerns about the legality of the current process being implemented by the government are being addressed in court proceedings, the judgements of which only will be as effective as the enforcement, which must follow.
For full articles and videos (some not mentioned above), see links below. Please feel free to supplement this list with additional material of interest on the topics by emailing
In Chapter 5 of the report, we call for comprehensive, integrated, and sustained changes in how the University operates. First, we call for changes in admissions and student life that align with the report of the Joint Task Force Subcommittee on Pluralism. This subcommittee emphasizes: The promotion of a culture of pluralism, defined as recognizing the diversity of identities and ideologies on campus; respecting, relating, and cooperating with one another; and connecting personal and campus civic values to advance our educational and research mission. These campus civic values are anchored in the University’s Values Statement advancing respect for the rights, differences, and dignity of others; honesty and integrity in all dealings; conscientious pursuit of excellence in our work; accountability for actions and conduct in the community; and responsibility for the bonds and bridges that enable all to grow with and learn from one another.”
To achieve these goals, we specifically call for changes in:
We also call for changes that touch on governance issues to strengthen ladder faculty oversight of educational programs and instructor training across Harvard’s Schools.”
As noted above, Harvard has recently entered into legal settlements and resolutions. While these are still very new, we note that they may address — and potentially even obviate the need for — some of the recommendations set forth in this report. Additionally, the University has publicly summarized some of the actions it has taken since our Task Force released its Preliminary Recommendations in June 2024.”
Finally, we urge the University and its Schools to take on the mantle of moral leadership in the fight against antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias. We are deeply concerned that these forms of bigotry are becoming increasingly normalized in academia, particularly within what seem to be highly politicized disciplines such as public health, medicine, and education. Harvard has a responsibility to actively counter this trend and serve as a model for higher education institutions nationwide.”
105 Hudson Road, Sudbury, MA 01776
(978) 443-9622|Email Us
Sign up to receive our weekly newsletter,
Mah Chadash, in your inbox.