The start of a new academic year at American universities provides a good opportunity to take stock of anti-Semitism on campus. That includes reviewing what happened last year and anticipating what looks likely in the year ahead.
Of course the 7 October atrocities happened shortly after the start of the last year’s fall semester. The unhinged anti-Israel reaction on many campuses, including at some of the most elite institutions, continues to cast a long shadow.
Columbia, an Ivy League institution based in New York, was arguably at the epicentre of such protests. It includes many academics teaching post-colonial studies, a sizeable diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) bureaucracy and it runs courses promoting student activism. The university’s final report on anti-Semitic incidents on campus, published in August, makes for grim reading. Jewish students were assaulted, spat on, were the victims of face-to-face and online abuse and were excluded from clubs if they were sympathetic to Israel. Divisions over the way she had handled Gaza solidarity encampments eventually forced Columbia’s president, Minouche Shafik, to resign in August. Three deans also had to resign after texts became public containing derogatory statements at a meeting with Jewish alumni over concerns about anti-Semitism at Columbia.
Back in December Shafik had managed to avoid the congressional grilling of the presidents of Harvard, MIT and Pennsylvania because of another commitment. Her peers had caused outrage by insisting that calling for the genocide of Jews did not necessarily violate their universities’ rules on bullying and harassment. They argued that such statements had to be judged according to their “context”. In contrast, mandatory training for Harvard undergraduates has suggested that they could be disciplined for “sizeism”, “fatphobia”, “cisheterosexism” and “ableism”. Shortly after the December hearing the presidents of Harvard and Pennsylvania, Claudine Gay and Liz Magill respectively, resigned although the MIT president, Sally Kornbluth, did not.
The Columbia president, Minouche Shafik, eventually testified in April. She took a firmer stand against anti-Semitism than those who testified in December but was equivocal on whether certain phrases – such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “long live intifada” - are anti-Semitic. When she resigned she pointed to the toll the turmoil at the university had taken on her family.
Nevertheless Columbia remains under close congressional scrutiny. Virginia Foxx (pictured above), a Republican representative from North Carolina, issued six subpoenas for university officials. Katrina Armstrong, the university’s interim president, was the only named official to be subpoenaed. As part of the probe, Columbia and nine other elite universities have been asked to submit their plans for tackling anti-Semitism for Congress’s consideration
Two legal cases that came to court before the start of the new academic year are worthy of note. A Cornell student, Patrick Dai, was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for making online death threats and threats of violence against Jewish students. Also Jewish students successfully won a judgment effectively preventing the university of California, Los Angeles, from running any part of its programme on parts of the campus where Jews had been refused access. This usually happened when anti-Israel protesters occupied a part of the campus and demanded Jewish students renounced Israel’s right to exist before proceeding further. The judgment created a legal precedent. For example any university which does not clamp down on student societies which prevents Zionist Jews from joining will face serious legal consequences.
Several donors have withdrawn from universities because of what they perceived as their inadequate response to Hamas’s 7 October terrorist atrocities. This, combined with the costs of settling lawsuits brought by Jewish students, may have hit hard the finances of even the wealthiest Ivy League universities.
It is likely that the current academic year will be as dramatic as the last. In August Jewish students at the University of Pittsburgh were attacked by an individual wielding a bottle. One man, not affiliated to the university, has been arrested in connection with the incident.
In the autumn the trial of some Columbia anti-Israel protestors will begin relating to their involvement in protests at the university, in particular their illegal occupation of the Hamilton Hall. Although 30 cases of criminal trespass were dismissed by the judge the remainder of those charged rejected a plea deal.
Meanwhile, university authorities are faced with ensuring campus life is not disrupted in the way it was in the last academic year. Many universities have issued new time, manner and place regulations governing where and when demonstrations can be held. They also restrict the use of noise amplification and signage.
Some protesters have accused the authorities of suppressing free speech but this does not convince. Protests began more-or-less on the first day of this semester. One need only look at university newspapers such as the Columbia Spectator, the student newspaper, to find opinion pieces by anti-Israel groups. Free speech rights also do not give student protestors an unlimited entitlement to disrupt campus life. Those who engage in civil disobedience need to be prepared to face the consequences. Nor should it be permissible to make certain areas of a campus no-go areas for Jewish students.
Even at this early stage of the new academic year it looks clear that certain themes will dominate the controversy around Israel and anti-Semitism. One is the possibility that increasingly militant tactics might turn other students against the protesters. For example, the student governing body of the University of Michigan voted not to distribute funds to any student groups unless the university agreed to divest from Israel. The university has responded by saying it will issue funds to groups directly itself. However, this move could cause resentment if it makes life more difficult for student groups.
There is some evidence that the protesters’ activities have turned opinion of people outside campus against them. A piece in the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper, illustrated this point. It featured snippets of interviews with freshers saying that when relatives or friends discovered they were going to Harvard they urged them to avoid the protests.
Another theme is the demand for a boycott and divestment from Israel. The American Association of University Professors has issued a statement supporting the principle of academic boycotts. Many see this as a gesture of support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
A third theme is the influence of foreign players on the protest scene. America’s Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, has been quoted as saying that Iran is paying anti-Israel student protesters as a means of trying to influence American foreign policy. Others have noted what they regard as the sinister effect of Qatari money on the development of anti-Israel sentiment in certain areas of study.
A monetary link to the protests from Iran has not yet received much media attention. However, the way that overseas students from Muslim-majority countries significantly increases the numbers of those at protests has been noted. Donald Trump has said he will revoke their visas if elected President.
One particularly difficult theme is the relationship between the majority of Jewish students who support Israel and those who are anti-Zionist. Many Jewish students face hostility on two fronts. They are attacked for being Zionists by both Jewish anti-Zionists and other anti-Israel protesters. At the same time more militant Zionists crticise them for failing to give Israel unconditional support and being sympathetic to Palestinian suffering. Stephen Bartell, a Princeton maths major, whose friend Omer Neutra was taken hostage on 7 October, has written movingly on this dilemma in Sources, a Jewish journal.
If the new time, manner and place regulations prove effective there will probably be less focus on the protests and the vulnerability of Jewish students. The problem is that protesters have shown themselves prepared to flout rules in pursuit of their aims. Should this happen universities will have to be consistent in their application of disciplinary procedures. Reports and guidelines issued by various taskforces emphasise this point.
The unpredictable nature of the protests makes it difficult to forecast whether campuses will be brought to an equilibrium. Alternatively the volatility that typified last year could become the norm. It looks likely that the emotional focus will not be so much on calls for a ceasefire as demands for a boycott. If the latter are unsuccessful, protesters will have to choose between adopting ever more desperate tactics or trying to achieve more modest demands.
Universities have had a chance to prepare themselves for the new academic year over the summer. However, the pressure from political interference, the impact of court cases, the backlash from donors and continuing protests means that the current situation looks unsustainable. Something is going to have to give.
Guy Whitehouse is a member of the Academy of Ideas and the Free Speech Union. His views do not necessarily reflect those of those organisations.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Radicalism of fools project.
PHOTO: "File:Virginia Foxx 2009.jpg" by Tom Photos is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.