The college semester starts, for most of us, in less than a month. And whatever the hopes or dreams of college administrators, the war in Gaza has not calmed down — if anything, the turmoil has only increased.
Naturally, Pro-Palestine protests have likewise intensified, with some even explicitly mourning the death of Hamas arch-terrorist Ismail Haniyeh. Student groups seem poised to follow suit, as even this week, several student groups at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee were suspended after a series of violent threats against “Zionists.” Student antisemitism is ready to hit the ground running, most often disguising itself as social justice.
Administrators could be forgiven for being taken unawares last semester. Nobody saw October 7th coming, and no one thought that the response to the worst antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust would be the widespread acceptance and propagation of antisemitism. But that excuse no longer holds water. Administrators have had all summer to prepare, and yet, while there have been some vague nods towards greater urgency in the fight against antisemitism, most American universities seem to just be hoping the problem goes away.
But hope is not a strategy. This type of pernicious hate can’t be wished away upon a star. Universities need a cohesive strategy to adequately protect their Jewish students from antisemitic attacks. But in order to do that, they must first define what antisemitism is.
For context, the most common working definition of antisemitism comes from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which defines it as “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." That’s all well and good, and often very helpful, but it does not necessarily help universities keep Jewish students safe.
The average academic may have a very good — perhaps too good — understanding of what constitutes prejudice or hatred. But antisemitism is uniquely pernicious, particularly within academia. A given professor may not say “I hate the Jews,” but they will place a disproportionate amount of blame for geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East on Israel, sometimes even extending that blame to members of the Jewish diaspora who have no connection to Israel other than being a Jew. That’s still antisemitism.
Examples of rabid antisemitism allowed to persist unfettered at college campuses last semester abound. These include, but are not limited to, rampant blood libels spread by Students for Justice in Palestine chapters around the country, threats of widespread violence against Jewish people (in Israel, the United States, and elsewhere), and numerous displays of support for organizations — like Hamas and Hezbollah — classified as terrorist organizations by the United States government. Any university should incorporate these events into their working definitions.
The goal should not be to keep everyone “happy.” This approach will undoubtedly upset many. Some people are going to want any criticism of Israel or the wearing of a Palestinian flag to be considered antisemitic. Similarly, people who make the claim that the UCLA and Columbia protests and encampments weren’t antisemitic will be apoplectic.
However, the goal isn’t for everyone to agree and sing kumbaya — it is to have a functional environment on campus, with clear expectations of behavior that support liberal education and provide an environment in which students can learn peaceably. Universities are places where students must learn to develop critical thinking skills, explore difficult ideas constructively, and become better members of society — these are the goals of a liberal education, or at least, they used to be.
Defining antisemitism isn’t going to magically return academia to its golden age. It’s not likely to even prevent campus antisemitism in the upcoming semester. But what it will do is provide a standard that can be appealed to — a rule of law — that can serve as a powerful curb on these protests and activities. And when students trespass, engage in violence, or violate civil rights law, they should be punished accordingly.
However, if higher education leaders insist on pretending that everything is normal, they can’t act surprised when things like what happened at UWM — or Columbia, or UCLA — continue to occur in the new semester. They also shouldn’t be surprised if Jewish students flock to universities that are willing to protect them.
Universities’ leadership can still stop Jewish students’ suffering, but until they recognize what those students are experiencing, very little will change.
