In Cambridge, brilliance is a given – but moral courage is not. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where equations are solved at light speed and robots teach themselves, the administration has yet to master the basic principle of protecting its students from hate. For all its technological genius, MIT is flunking Leadership 101.

The events unfolding at MIT reveal a profound failure of moral responsibility compounded by the absence of any institutional voice. Since October 7, 2023, antisemitic incidents on campus have surged. In the void left by equivocal leadership and rigid deference to protest culture, Jewish students have been harassed, marginalized, and abandoned, all while MIT continues to collect over $1.2 billion in annual federal research funding and positions itself as a global beacon of enlightenment.

President Donald Trump has cited campus antisemitism as a central complaint in his second administration’s quest to hold higher education accountable. His Department of Education has already frozen funding to Columbia, Penn, and Princeton, citing Title VI violations. MIT, under intensifying scrutiny, may be next. Unlike past rhetorical skirmishes over campus politics, the stakes now involve active federal enforcement, legal precedent, and billions in public funding.

That national spotlight fell most directly on MIT in December 2023. President Sally Kornbluth’s testimony before Congress became a flashpoint. Asked whether calls for the genocide of Jews violated MIT’s code of conduct, she responded: “If targeted at individuals, not public statements.” Harvard and Penn’s presidents resigned shortly after offering similar answers. Kornbluth, backed by MIT’s Corporation board and shielded by institutional norms, remained.

To be fair, MIT’s leadership challenges are structurally unique. Its governance is decentralized, its faculty unusually powerful, and its culture steeped in protest tolerance. But constraints are not excuses. What Jewish students are enduring isn’t discomfort over controversial ideas. It’s discrimination, harassment, and outright intimidation.

In the aftermath of Hamas’ attacks on Oct. 7, MIT’s campus saw organized demonstrations, including a “Victory is Ours” rally where Boston and Cambridge protestors openly celebrated Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. Orientation materials contained links to the Mapping Project, an antisemitic initiative that targets Jewish institutions for dismantling. Jewish students report being called “Nazis,” kicked out of study groups, and bombarded with hateful dorm spam. They fear wearing Stars of David, kippahs, or attending Shabbat dinners. In some cases, students have delayed exams or graduation. Some faculty have left the university entirely.

The damage isn’t anecdotal. MIT’s Holocaust memorial and Hillel center were vandalized. Classrooms were disrupted by chanting mobs. Offices of Jewish and Israeli staff were stormed.

A parallel study by the MIT Jewish Students Association revealed that 59% of Jewish students experienced antisemitism on campus after Oct. 7, 2024. Nearly three-quarters said they felt unsafe expressing their identity. And 74% gave the administration a failing grade in protecting them. 

The role of faculty has deepened the divide. While most faculty have been silent, some professors have spoken out against campus antisemitism, raising concerns on social media and in faculty forums. Others, however, have fueled the problem. A postdoc in the Brain and Cognitive Sciences department referred to Zionism as a “mental illness” and spread organ-harvesting libels. The department’s DEI officer dismissed the complaint. The DEI chair of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning publicly endorsed statements labeling Israel a “genocidal apartheid state.” The MIT Faculty Newsletter Editorial Subcommittee has reportedly ignored pro-Hamas and pro-Nazi messaging while casting Jewish students as aggressors.

Meanwhile, MIT’s DEI efforts have drawn criticism for refusing to acknowledge the plight of Jewish students, despite their status as a minority worthy of protection. The Faculty Working Group on Free Expression noted that its DEI offices have prioritized ideological conformity over intellectual diversity, required political loyalty oaths, and made excuses for “acceptable hate speech,” even in cases involving Nazi imagery.

In contrast, the University of Pennsylvania has attempted reform. After its president’s resignation, Penn introduced independent oversight, bolstered safety measures, and began reassessing DEI implementation. MIT has made no such structural changes.

From 2001 to 2024, MIT received an estimated $3.6 billion from Qatar – one of its largest foreign donors. The agreements and any attached conditions remain opaque. The hypocrisy is clear. In order to qualify for federal funds – on climate, DEI, and sustainability – MIT grant recipients must accept ideological conditions. Yet the institute cannot protect Jewish students under existing civil rights law.

Despite these failings, President Kornbluth has issued repeated statements condemning antisemitism, including one in August 2024 after Mapping Project materials resurfaced. “Antisemitism is totally unacceptable in our community,” she wrote. Critics complain her words are feckless without corresponding action. Her defenders argue she is attempting to thread the needle between free speech and student safety, a daunting task under MIT’s governance model.

The MIT Corporation has remained fully supportive of President Kornbluth. In a Dec. 8, 2023, statement, the board praised her “judgment, integrity, and moral compass,” and affirmed its confidence in her leadership. That support has remained consistent as of this writing.

Policy scrutiny, however, has intensified. The Department of Education opened Title VI investigations into antisemitism and Islamophobia at MIT last fall. In February 2025, the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced visits to 10 campuses, with MIT likely among them.

The pressure is mounting, so MIT must act urgently and decisively. It should release a full donor transparency report, disclosing foreign and domestic contributions, and any conditions attached. It should publicly adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which is already used by the State Department and other federal agencies as the legal standard for Title VI enforcement. And it should reexamine DEI structures that have failed to protect Jewish students.

The Talmud tells the story of Bar Kamtza, a guest publicly humiliated while the rabbis stood silent. The destruction of Jerusalem, it says, came not from outside enemies but from the cowardice of moral leaders. “Because of [Rabbi] Zekharia ben Avkulas’s misplaced caution,” the text reads, “our Temple was destroyed.”

MIT’s leaders are not being asked to rebuild a city. They are being asked to protect their students.

As Theodore Roosevelt said: “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The next best is the wrong thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing.”

MIT has done nothing. That must change.