A Context Dependent Decision

I am far less concerned for the status of university presidents than I am for the safety and welfare of university faculty and, above all, students; there is more than academic freedom at stake.

The implication is: You may speak, but only I get to determine the meaning of your words.

Photo via Flickr.

“I am a 70-year-old Jewish man, but never in my life have I seen or felt the antisemitism of the last few weeks,” Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of the Law School at UC Berkeley wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times. “I have heard antisemitic things from time to time through my life. I remember as a child being called a ‘dirty Jew,’ and my friends and I being called ‘Christ killers’ as we walked to Hebrew school. I recall a college girlfriend’s parents telling her that she should not go out with me because ‘Jews are different.’ I had an incident in a class I was teaching about the ethics of negotiations, where a student matter of factly said, ‘the other side will try to Jew you down,’ without the slightest sense of how that was a slur.” But, Chemerinsky adds, “none of this prepared me for the last few weeks.”1

Chemerinsky’s piece appeared about three weeks into Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, and it correlated with more than merely anecdotal reports of an alarming increase in antisemitism across the United States. In a report published in early December, the Anti-Defamation League reported over two thousand antisemitic incidents across the US, up from fewer than five hundred in the same period last year, representing, the organization said, “a 337-percent increase year-over-year.”2

The rise of antisemitic incidents documented by the Anti-Defamation League was particularly profound on university campuses—just as Chemerinsky says in his piece, based on his experiences at UC Berkeley. Nearly three quarters of Jewish students on campuses across the US have “experienced or witnessed antisemitism,” the ADL claimed in another recent report.3 “No student should feel threatened or intimidated on campus,” the ADL president announced. “No student should feel the need to hide their religious or cultural identities. No parent should ever have to wonder whether it’s safe to send their kids to certain schools—but that’s the sad reality for American Jews today,” he added. “University administrators need to wake up and recognize that Jewish students uniquely need protection now—and policymakers must step up, provide resources and enforce Title VI.”

The sharp increase in such reports of antisemitism led the US House of Representatives, responding to the ADL’s appeal, to summon the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania for hearings aimed at “holding campus leaders accountable and confronting antisemitism.”4 Of the hours of testimony, one scene that captured national attention was that of New York Rep. Elise Stefanik confronting U Penn president Elizabeth Magill and demanding her response to a particularly heinous slogan.

Here is how that confrontation played out:

Congresswoman Stefanik: Ms. Magill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no? 

President Magill: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.

Congresswoman Stefanik: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?

President Magill: If it is directed, and severe, pervasive, it is harassment. 

Congresswoman Stefanik: So the answer is yes. 

President Magill: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman. 

Congresswoman Stefanik: It’s a context dependent decision. That’s your testimony today, calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest question to answer. Yes, Ms. Magill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes? Yes or no?

President Magill: If the speech becomes conduct. It can be harassment, yes. 

Congresswoman Stefanik: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide. The speech is not harassment. This is unacceptable. Ms. Magill, I’m gonna give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s Code of Conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment? Yes or no? 

President Magill: It can be harassment. 5

The equivocation and prevarication offered by President Magill and the other campus leaders were not well received. Newspaper headlines called the university presidents out for their refusal to acknowledge and confront the alarming rise in campus antisemitism. The Biden White House swiftly condemned the presidents. The House itself shortly afterward passed a bipartisan resolution condemning both antisemitism on college campuses and the presidents’ testimony, stating that they were “evasive and dismissive” when asked if calls for the genocide of Jews violate university policies on bullying and harassment and failed “to simply condemn such action.”6

Overlooked in all the furor over the presidents’ refusal to condemn such a hateful slogan was the fact that neither Stefanik nor anyone else provided or referred to a single instance of anyone on any campus across the United States actually calling for a “genocide of Jews.” That’s because at no point in the past few weeks of protest has anyone called for such a thing. (When Congresswoman Stefanik asked Sally Kornbluth of MIT, “Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?” Kornbluth replied, “I have not heard calling for the genocide of Jews on our campus.”)7 There was literally no basis in reality for the line of questioning that grabbed national attention for its apparent outrage and led, within days, to the firing of President Magill, congressional resolutions, and White House calls for action.

Also overlooked during the hearings and the media circus that it generated was the fact that the very term antisemitism has in recent years been deliberately stretched to the breaking point in order to encompass criticism of the state of Israel. Organizations like the ADL have been working for years to impose on governments including the US government and state legislatures across the country the long discredited International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which deliberately and mendaciously conflates criticism of the policies of the Zionist state with racism against the Jewish people.8 This redefinition is exactly what allows organizations like the ADL and the American Jewish Committee to spot a criticism of Israeli policy—a protest against the bombing of Gaza for instance—and call it out as “antisemitism.”

Consider a recent ADL survey claiming to assess “whether there have been increases in antisemitic incidents based on real or perceived Jewishness or support for Israel and if students feel less safe on campus and less comfortable with others knowing about their Jewish identity or views of Israel.”9 Look at the very premise of the survey: “Jewish identity” is, in the survey’s own terms, functionally inseparable from “views of Israel,” just as “real or perceived Jewishness” is interchangeable with “support for Israel.” There is no way to disaggregate data on anti-Jewish bigotry from data on protests against Israel in such investigations. According to the methodology of this survey (and there are plenty more like it out there), then, the protests, demonstrations, sit-ins, teach-ins, die-ins, and so on taking place on US campuses in response to the unprecedented and extraordinary violence Israel has unleashed on the Palestinian people all simply register as “antisemitism.”

As a result, when parsing one of the compendious reports documenting what the ADL warns us is the rise of “antisemitism” on university campuses, it is utterly and deliberately impossible to separate what we would normally use the English word antisemitism to refer to—i.e., actual racism against Jewish people—from criticism of and protest against Israeli state violence such as is being visited on Gaza right now. Israel has so far killed more than 20,000 people, including almost 10,000 children, since it began its assault on Gaza in October, and it has displaced almost 90 percent of the population from their homes. As far as the ADL is concerned, an expression of anti-Jewish bigotry and an anti-apartheid protest in response to this deliberately inflicted catastrophe are both, equally, instances of what it reserves the right to call “antisemitism.”

It follows that the spike in “antisemitism” observed by organizations like the ADL and individuals like Erwin Chemerinsky correlates directly—and not coincidentally—to the proliferation of protests against the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, which provided the backdrop against which the survey was conducted. Once you get past the examples from his past, each instance of “antisemitism” Chemerinsky describes in his LA Times op-ed involves positions he heard people take on Hamas, Israel, and Zionism; not one involves an instance of actual antisemitism corresponding to the examples from his youth.

None of this means that antisemitism in the dictionary sense of the word is not also on the rise, and I don’t doubt that it is. But organizations like the ADL have invested so much time and energy into conflating anti-Zionism and antisemitism that it has become impossible to disentangle data on the one from data on the other.

Key to this charge of “rising antisemitism,” as orchestrated by the ADL and similar organizations, is the attempt to lay interpretive claim to the slogans and chants used by students and other protesters. This includes the attempt to redefine those words, turning them from demands for peace, equality, and justice to proclamations of racial hatred. Consider two recurring examples of this linguistic distortion.

The first is intifada. The word entered the English language in the 1980s to refer to the generally unarmed uprising against Israeli rule in the occupied territories that occurred during that decade. (It even earned itself an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.) In Arabic its meaning ranges from “shaking off” to “overturning,” both in a political sense, as in an undoing of oppression. According to the ADL, however, the word intifada invokes “terrorism and indiscriminate violence against civilians by terrorist groups, including suicide bombings in buses and restaurants.” The term, the ADL continues, has recurred at anti-Israel rallies for years. “Jews and Israelis”—note again the lack of distinction—“hear this slogan as a call for indiscriminate violence against Israel,” it adds, “and potentially against Jews and Jewish institutions worldwide.” Although most of Elise Stefanik’s grilling of the university presidents relied on her regurgitation of ADL talking points, on intifada she outdid even the ADL, claiming that a call for intifada is a call “to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally.”

In effect, then, this Arabic-language word means not what its users think it means, but what the ADL and its claimed constituency say they hear. The implication is: You may speak, but only I get to determine the meaning of your words. You might claim to be challenging an oppressive political-racial structure—refusing the logic of military occupation, speaking up against genocide—but I know that secretly you just want Jews to be killed, and you’re using a code language to signal your wicked intent. Such a linguistic maneuver is not just absurd: it involves a carefully engineered sense of paranoia on behalf of the assumed Jewish self that it claims to represent.

We can see the same logic at play in “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” That phrase “is a rallying cry for terrorist groups and their sympathizers,” the American Jewish Committee tells us.10 “It is also a common call-to-arms for pro-Palestinian activists, especially student activists on college campuses. It calls for the establishment of a State of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, erasing the State of Israel and its people.” Even before the humiliating congressional hearing, Harvard president Claudine Gay had already embraced this warped understanding of the phrase in an email that promised antisemitism training for Harvard students, faculty, and staff, and specifically condemned the phrase, saying “from the river to the sea” conveys “specific historical meanings that to a great many people imply the eradication of Jews from Israel and engender both pain and existential fears within our Jewish community.”11

In point of fact, the phrase “from the river to the sea” first entered the political lexicon in the right-wing Likud party platform of 1977, which asserts that “the right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace” and hence “between the Sea and the river Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty.”12 A variation on that theme recurs in Israel’s quasi-constitutional Jewish Nation-State Law of 2018, which, on the basis that “the Land of Israel is the historic national home of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established,” proclaims that “exercising the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”13 This is no longer a mere slogan but established law. Clearly, the ADL and AJC have no issues with this version of the claim on the land from the river to the sea, in the service of a system of apartheid whose true name they dare not speak.

There are before us, in fact, two antagonistic visions of the land “between the river and the sea,” and in essence the contemporary struggle between Zionism and the Palestinian people can be understood in terms of that antagonism: between the presently constituted state that grants exclusive rights only to Jews—the apartheid state of Israel14—or the vision of Palestine as an ecumenical democratic and secular state of all its citizens—Muslims, Christians and Jews alike—for which Palestinians and their allies, including their Jewish allies, are calling. Understandably reluctant to express their support for Israeli apartheid in positive terms except through the utterly oxymoronic claim that Israel is a “Jewish and democratic state,” organizations like the ADL and AJC resort to the only alternative, working negatively, by expressing their dread of secular democracy in the worst possible terms: as a bloodbath. In effect, the phrasing “erasing the state of Israel and its people” equates the end of apartheid state with genocide: the word that dominated the recent congressional hearings.

We have entered, in a sense, an alternative reality, passing through the looking glass and into a realm where the chain that ties signifier to signified has been sundered. When the same lies and distortions are repeated again and again, they begin to take on a sense of reality—and reality itself, viewed through a distorted lens, becomes unrecognizable. Can it be any wonder that so many Jewish Americans have come to internalize the claim that the eruption of national protests against Israel’s campaign of genocidal violence in Gaza actually represents an existential threat to their physical safety if not their very survival? When the President of the United States says, as he has done on more than one occasion, “I believe, without Israel as a freestanding state, not a Jew in the world is safe—not a Jew in the world is safe,”15 is there any surprise that his astonishing statement can be taken by Jewish Americans to mean that they are not safe in the United States? Add that to the newspaper headlines, the congressional hearings, and the statistics urgently propagated by the ADL about skyrocketing incidents of antisemitism, and you have an audience primed to believe in its own dire vulnerability.

On at least two occasions I know of, protestors demonstrating against the Israeli bombing of Gaza chanting the well-known slogan “We charge you with genocide” were reported on social media as having chanted “We want Jewish genocide.” One of these instances was a protest I attended at UCLA, and I still recall being shocked at the extent of the falsification of something I’d heard with my own ears only hours before. Was this simple fabrication, or a case of a person so primed to hear a protest against Israeli state violence as an outright expression of antisemitism that they really believed they heard “we want Jewish genocide”? The other instance, regarding a protest at UPenn, was also documented on social media: “‘We want Jewish genocide,’” reads the text superimposed on the video of the protest, transcribing what it claims the student protesters were chanting. “This is my Alma Mater. This is the University of Pennsylvania. They are cheering for my death & the death of all Jews.”16 As USA Today and others documented, the claim was false.17

There is, of course, a complication to the rhetorical jujitsu engaged in by the ADL and others, which is the existence of anti-Zionist Jews. What to do with all those Jewish activists chaining themselves to the White House fence, blockading highways and shipping ports, staging sit-ins in Grand Central Station, and so on? As far as they are concerned, their sense of their own Jewishness demands a stance against Zionism, not for it. Organizations like the ADL have no way to contend with this or any other kind of Jewish anti-Zionism. Faced with this quandary, and having boxed itself into a corner, the best the ADL can do is to accuse Jewish Voice for Peace of engaging in antisemitism.18

It’s in these accusations that the equation of Jewishness with Israel and antisemitism with anti-Zionism most obviously collapses in on itself in a cloud of rhetorical dust. But as the recent congressional hearings reminds us, even the void of substance can be put to malign uses. Retaliation against students protesting the bombardment of Gaza has been ferocious. In the days after a coalition of Harvard student groups issued a letter condemning the Israeli onslaught in early October, a billboard truck emblazoned with the names and photos of student signatories under the headline HARVARD’S LEADING ANTISEMITES took to the streets of Cambridge in an attempt to intimidate students into withdrawing their signatures.19 Similar “doxing trucks” later appeared in the neighborhoods around Columbia University and other campuses. These trucks are an extension of online Zionist doxing sites that have been around for decades, posting crude attempts at character assassination of students and faculty (including myself) who criticize Israeli occupation and apartheid policies.

Such harassment does not amount merely to idle threats. The billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman joined other CEOs in asking Harvard to release the names of individual students who signed the letter, “so as to insure that none of us inadvertently hire any of their members.”20 Offers of employment have been withdrawn from students who express support for Palestinian rights.21 Ryna Workman, an NYU Law student, had their job offer with the law firm Winston & Strawn rescinded for having issued a statement identifying Israel and its occupation as the cause of the violence that has been unfolding since October 7. Workman was also removed as student bar association president by the university itself.22 Separately, a group of more than two dozen major law firms sent a letter to law schools across the US condemning “anti-semitic activities” on their campuses, hinting that the firms would curtail hiring from schools where they have seen activity that they consider to be “concerning.”23

Even professors at universities and law schools have denounced and shamed their students in a cruel and vindictive abdication of the duty of care we owe our pupils. “Don’t hire my anti-semitic law students,” the UC Berkeley law professor Steven Solomon wrote in the Wall Street Journal; “would your clients want an attorney who condones hatred and monstrous crimes?”24 Again, the charge of “antisemitism” is deployed in such a way that principled criticism of the Israeli state becomes functionally indistinguishable from activity that those of us who are more fastidious in the appropriate use of words made available to us by the English language would ordinarily call “antisemitism”—namely, racism against Jewish people.

On several campuses, chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine have been threatened with closure or suspended. SJP was suspended at Rutgers; Columbia doubled down by suspending both SJP and Jewish Voice for Peace. Florida has banned SJP altogether from campuses,25 and UC Irvine—a campus already notorious for suspending Muslim and Palestinian students for protesting a visit from the Israeli ambassador to the US during a previous Israeli bombardment of Gaza in 2009, facilitating the students’ arrest and actual criminal prosecution26—charged its campus SJP with “disorderly conduct and violation of university regulations.” Brown University similarly had scores of its own students arrested for organizing a sit-in, that staple of campus protests since at least the 1960s.27 Most worrying of all, some universities have turned to outfits like the ADL and AJC for guidance and “training,” which is like putting the wolf in charge of the henhouse—or the military censor in charge of academic freedom. (As President Magill at Penn tried to salvage her position, for instance, the university announced that it is “actively partnering” with the AJC and that it plans to “refer” to the IHRA definition of antisemitism).28

At colleges and universities across the country, talks providing Palestinian perspectives or even the vantage point of international humanitarian law have been driven online or canceled altogether. Again at Columbia, a talk by Omar Shakir of Human Rights Watch was canceled by the university, rescheduled, and canceled again on the flimsiest of pretexts.29

At my home institution of UCLA, a teach-in I co-organized with colleagues in other departments during the first week of the bombardment was moved online at the last minute due to a mass of threatening messages received in anticipation of our event. As it was, students who gathered to watch the online event on a laptop outside the room where we’d originally planned to meet were set upon by masked Zionist thugs who threw the laptop into the trash and threatened them with physical harm. (A security officer was able to intervene, but the students still decamped out of concern for their physical safety).30

Students wearing keffiyehs on campus are likewise harassed. “Thank you for walking through neighborhoods and making families feel unsafe with your terrorist scarf,” a woman (Eve Gerber, the wife of former Council of Economic Advisers chair Jason Furman) accosted a Harvard graduate student in Cambridge.31 Abdelwahab Omira, an Arab student at Stanford, was struck by a car in a hit-and-run incident that the local police are treating as a hate crime because of the epithets hurled at him by the driver.32 Worse still, three students of Palestinian heritage attending Trinity College, Haverford, and Brown were shot and wounded in Vermont in a gun attack that left one of them paralyzed; their crime had been wearing keffiyehs and talking in Arabic.33

These attacks on Palestinian students and others—including plenty of Jewish students—who express solidarity with Palestinians or their outrage at Israel’s relentless violations of international humanitarian law are systematic, pervasive, coordinated, and omnipresent. They do not, however, dominate headlines across the nation as manifestations of one coordinated campaign of racist suppression, which they are. They are not the subject of congressional hearings. And they have certainly not led to the summoning of university presidents to the House of Representatives to discuss campus climate concerns. There are very clear reasons why one set of students is elevated and privileged over others—and they have little to do with the students themselves and everything to do with the lobbying organizations who claim to speak on their behalf.

In the days following Stefanik’s interrogation of Magill and the other presidents, the newspaper headlines crying “furor,” “uproar,” and “outrage” were reserved not for the misleading distortions of language that led to the interrogation but rather for the university presidents and their evasive answers. Instead of challenging the very premise of this frankly outrageous interrogation of academic leaders by the nation’s legislative body—which harked back to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, and the last major systematic assault on academic and intellectual freedom in the United States—the university presidents tried to prevaricate and equivocate. At a moment of political urgency, their responses were academic in the worst possible sense of that word.

And the result was inevitable. The same hedge fund billionaire who had asked Harvard for the names of protesting students now set upon Harvard, Penn, and MIT, threatening to mobilize other members of the donor class if they did not fire their presidents. The spectacle of a billionaire donor threatening major academic institutions with emotional blackmail ought to have been seen as obscene, but it worked. When Magill herself stepped down, Ackman boasted “one down,” and Stefanik, too, was quick to claim victory. “One down,” she gloated; “two to go.”34

I am far less concerned for the status of university presidents than I am for the safety and welfare of university faculty and, above all, students; there is more than academic freedom at stake. In October, the ADL joined with the Brandeis Center, another Zionist organization, in a letter urging university presidents to investigate their own SJP students “for potential violations of 18 USC 2339A and B, and its state equivalents, that is, for potential violations of the prohibition against materially supporting a foreign terrorist organization.” This dramatically increases the stakes of the ADL’s pursuit to suppress student criticism of Israel. To ban a student organization is bad enough; to suggest, as the excitable Columbia professor Shai Davidai does, that students protesting against Israel’s genocide in Gaza are “pro-Hamas” (rather than simply anti-genocide) is worse; but to call for students to be charged with material support for terrorism in order to silence them goes to a whole other level of viciousness.35 As the legal scholars Anthony O’Rourke and Wadie Said argue in a recent article, “federal law enforcement has the capacity, and is under real pressure, to use the material support statute to launch specious federal terrorism investigations on college campuses, especially against students of Palestinian descent or Muslim faith, based solely on their public statements.”36

No students or faculty speaking out on any other issue across the United States must contend with such levels of organized and coordinated harassment and intimidation, whose sole intent is to silence the criticism on American college campuses of the racism and violence of what is, after all, a foreign power. Even as students protesting the bombardment of Gaza are being harassed, intimidated, and doxed on campuses across the country; even as certain faculty are denouncing their own students for speaking up for Palestinian rights; even as Palestinian-American students have been shot at and injured, public attention and political capital are being focused not on these actual crimes and forms of violence—let alone the actually genocidal violence in Gaza in which we, as American taxpayers accountable for our President and our representatives in congress, are complicit. Instead, national attention is trained on imaginary outrages like the supposed calls for “Jewish genocide,” and the false and misleading campaign to reclassify legitimate protests against Israeli state violence as “hate speech” in order to abolish it from campus.

Calls for censorship, interdiction, surveillance and punishment of speech on campus are sure to intensify in the weeks and months ahead. Meanwhile, the imaginary “genocide” that’s not being called for here will continue to overshadow the actual genocide that is taking place in Gaza, with aircraft, missiles, bombs, and shells that we paid for.

  1. “Opinion: Nothing has prepared me for the antisemitism I see on college campuses now,” via the Los Angeles Times

  2. “ADL Reports Unprecedented Rise in Antisemitic Incidents Post-Oct. 7,” via ADL. 

  3. “Campus Antisemitism: A Study of Campus Climate Before and After the Hamas Terrorist Attacks,” via ADL

  4. “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism: Full Committee Hearing,” via the Committee on Education & the Workforce

  5. “ICYMI: During Questions from Stefanik, Presidents of Harvard, UPENN, & MIT Refuse to Condemn Calls for Genocide of Jews,” press release from the office of Elise Stefanik. 

  6. “House passes resolution condemning testimony by university presidents over antisemitism,” via CNN

  7. Transcript via Roll Call. 

  8. “128 scholars ask UN not to adopt IHRA definition of anti-Semitism,” via al Jazeera

  9. “Campus Antisemitism: A Study of Campus Climate Before and After the Hamas Terrorist Attacks,” via ADL

  10. “Translate Hate: From the River to the Sea,” via AJC.  

  11. “Harvard is Ignoring Its Own Antisemitism Experts,” Jewish Currents

  12. “Likud Party: Original Party Platform (1977),” via Jewish Virtual Library

  13. Basic Law: Israel–The Nation State of the Jewish People (25 July 2018), via Adalah

  14. “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: A Look Into Decades of Oppression and Domination, via Amnesty International.” 

  15. ​​”Remarks by President Biden at a Campaign Reception, December 12, 2023,” via whitehouse.gov

  16. “10/17/2023 Instagram post by @Jewishbreakingnews,” via archive.org

  17. “University of Pennsylvania students chanted ‘We charge you with genocide’ at rally —Fact check,” USA Today

  18. “Who are the Primary Groups Behind the U.S. Anti-Israel Rallies?” via ADL

  19. “As Students Face Retaliation for Israel Statement, a ‘Doxxing Truck’ Displaying Students’ Faces Comes to Harvard’s Campus,” Harvard Crimson

  20. via X, formerly Twitter

  21. “A Prestigious Law Firm Rescinded Job Offers for Columbia and Harvard Students, but It May Reverse Itself.” 

  22. “NYU law student who blamed Israel after Hamas attack defends remarks,” ABC news

  23. “Top law firms warn colleges to take an ‘unequivocal stance’ against antisemitism and hint they won’t recruit students from those that fail to do so,” Fortune

  24. “Don’t Hire My Anti-Semitic Law Students,” the Wall Street Journal

  25. “Florida Bans Students for Justice in Palestine on Some Campuses,” Inside Higher Ed. 

  26. “The Irvine 11: Giving voice to the voiceless,” al Jazeera 

  27. “Forty-one students arrested, booked within University Hall following second sit-in demanding divestment, ceasefire,” the Brown Daily Herald

  28. “Harvard is Ignoring Its Own Antisemitism Experts,” Jewish Currents

  29. via Omar Shakir on X, formerly Twitter. 

  30. Video via CAIR California

  31. via the Sparrow Project on X, formerly Twitter. 

  32. “​​Muslim student struck in Stanford hit-and-run calls for love, compassion, from hospital bed,” via CNN

  33. “For Palestinian Students Shot in Vermont, a Collision of Two Worlds,” the New York Times

  34. “Bill Ackman’s Big Bet Against University Presidents,” via Politico; press release from the office of Elise Stefanik. 

  35. Shai Davidai on X, formerly Twitter. 

  36. “Terrorism Investigations on Campus and the New McCarthyism,” Dissent

If you like this article, please subscribe or leave a tax-deductible tip below to support n+1.

Related Articles

More by this Author