J U L Y 2 0 0 6 

Campus Anti-Semitism 

U . S . C O M M I S S I O N O N C I V I L R I G H T S 

B

RIE

FING 

R

E

P

O

RT 

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Washington, DC 20425


Official Business


Penalty for Private Use $300


Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov

Campus Anti-Semitism 


A Briefing Before 

The United States Commission on Civil Rights 

Held in Washington, D.C., November 18, 2005 

Briefing Report 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 

1957. It is directed to: 

• Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their 

race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. 

• Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under 

the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the 

administration of justice. 

• Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the 

laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of

justice. 

• Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal

protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. 

• Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress. 

• Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the 

laws. 

Members of the Commission 

Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman 

Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chairman 

Jennifer C. Braceras

Peter N. Kirsanow 

Arlan D. Melendez 

Ashley L. Taylor, Jr. 

Michael Yaki

Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

624 Ninth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20425 

(202) 376-8128 voice 

(202) 376-8116 TTY 

www.usccr.gov

This report is available on disk in ASCII Text and Microsoft Word 2003 for persons with visual

impairments. Please call (202) 376-8110.

ii
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary...........................................................................................1 

Summary of the Proceedings.................................................................................4 

Statement Submitted to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Briefing on Campus AntiSemitism

Susan B. Tuchman..................................................................................................13

Campus Anti-Semitism

Sarah Stern......................................................................................................22 

Uncivil University: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism in Higher Education 

Gary A. Tobin.................................................................................................27 

Public Comments.............................................................................................56 

Israel on Campus Coalition........................................................................56 

The American Jewish Committee..................................................................57 

The Anti-Defamation League.....................................................................58 

Columbia University................................................................................58 

San Francisco State University....................................................................60 

St. Cloud University.................................................................................64 

University of California at Berkeley..............................................................64 

University of California at Irvine.................................................................65 

University of California at Santa Cruz...........................................................68 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill....................................................68 

Sarah Stern...........................................................................................69 

Susan B. Tuchman...................................................................................69 

Other Submissions..................................................................................71 

Findings and Recommendations...........................................................................72 

Speaker Biographies.........................................................................................74 

Appendix: Letter of Stephanie Monroe, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, United States 

Department of Education ...................................................................................76 

iii
Executive Summary 

On Friday, November 18, 2005, a panel of experts briefed members of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights regarding anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses. 

American college campuses are generally considered welcoming places for Jewish students. Life 

on campus is often enhanced through a number of opportunities for Jewish students. Despite this 

positive environment, many experts agree that anti-Semitism persists on college campuses and is 

often cloaked as criticism of Israel. 

According to various allegations, Jewish students on a number of campuses, Columbia, San 

Francisco State University, and the University of California at Irvine, have recently experienced 

an increase in hostility and intimidation both inside and outside the classroom. In some cases, 

posters, rallies and speakers on campus have promoted hatred of Jews and Israel. There is 

evidence that some of these anti-Semitic incidents are fueled by ideologically biased campus 

programs that receive operating funds from the federal government under Title VI of the Higher 

Education Act. Some of these anti-Semitic incidents have interfered with students’ ability to 

participate in campus activities. 

The panel convened to shed light on the nature and extent of the problem and discussed what can 

be done to resolve these allegations. Members of the panel were: 

• Gary A. Tobin, President, Institute for Jewish and Community Research 

• Susan B. Tuchman, Director, Center for Law and Justice, The Zionist Organization of 

America 

• Sarah Stern, then Director of Governmental and Public Affairs, American Jewish 

Congress 

Representatives of Columbia University, the University of California at Irvine, and the 

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education declined the Commission’s invitation to 

participate the briefing. However, subsequent comments from members of the faculties and 

administrations of Columbia and University of California at Irvine have been summarized below. 

The panel considered whether and to what extent banning or limiting allegedly anti-Semitic 

activities threatens the students’ freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment or the 

professors’ academic freedom and to what extent anti-Zionism or political disagreement with 

Israeli policy is distinguishable from anti-Semitism. 

Dr. Tobin argued that anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are systemic ideologies found in varying 

degrees in colleges and universities throughout the United States. According to Dr. Tobin, death 

threats, threats of violence against Jewish students or students who are supporters of Israel and 

banners and posters containing anti-Semitic rhetoric and images are among the manifestations of

these ideologies which create an environment of intimidation and harassment in contrast to the 

norms and values of the university. Manifestations are also found in biased scholarship 

demonizing Israel, which are shielded by a wrongly defined concept of academic freedom. Dr. 

1
Tobin argued that the use of federal money to support anti-Semitic scholarship and classroom

propaganda constitutes an abuse of the public trust. He concluded by recommending greater 

internal review of Middle Eastern studies departments, vigilant enforcement of rules of civil 

discourse, increased Congressional oversight of federal monies funding academic programs 

where anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism is found. Finally, Dr. Tobin called upon all university 

stakeholders to condemn such rhetoric. 

Ms. Tuchman argued that, although criticism of the state of Israel and its policies is a legitimate 

part of civil discourse, criticism that demonizes Israel, for example by incorporating traditional 

anti-Semitic stereotypes or by comparing Israel’s leaders to Nazis, crosses the line into antiSemitism. Moreover, Ms. Tuchman argued that vandalism, intimidation, and harassment cannot 

be defended as part of a spirited debate on Middle East policy. She cited the destruction of a 

Holocaust memorial constructed by Jewish students on the campus of University of California at 

Irvine as one well-publicized example of anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation. Ms. 

Tuchman concluded by recommending that the Commission: (a) issue a report on campus antiSemitism; (b) solicit input from experts on developing ways to prevent and combat antiSemitism on campus; and (c) urge OCR to conduct a thorough investigation of the Irvine 

incident. 

Ms. Stern expressed the fear that college campuses had become “islands of anti-Semitism”, and 

cited several instances of harassment and intimidation of Jewish students. Among these was a 

pro-Palestinian student rally at San Francisco State University, in which Jewish students were 

surrounded by demonstrators and subjected to anti-Semitic statements. She added that, while 

anti-Semitism often takes the classic ideological form, it has also taken the form of political

criticism of Israel that demonizes the state and holds it up to disproportionate scrutiny. One 

notable expression of this form of anti-Semitism was documented in the David Project’s film

Columbia Unbecoming. This documentary interviewed students who had taken classes in 

Columbia University’s Middle East and Asian Languages Department. She concluded her 

testimony with concerns that this and other federally funded programs at colleges and 

universities have become hotbeds of both anti-Israel and anti-American radicalism.

Finally, the panelists fielded questions from the Commissioners, dealing with several issues: 

• The need and feasibility of administrative oversight of ideologically biased educational 

programs, in light of concern for academic freedom and freedom of speech; 

• Proposed legislation such as the College Access and Opportunity Act that would promote 

diversity of perspectives in higher education programs funded by the federal government; 

• Best practices for university administrators’ responses to anti-Semitic incidents;

• The extent to which anti-Israelism serves as a guise for anti-Semitism;

• Monitoring of anti-Semitic campus incidents consistent with federal hate crimes 

legislation; 

• The extent to which students subjected to anti-Semitic harassment or intimidation are

aware of their rights and what the Commission can do to educate students. 

Based on the record, the Commission adopted findings and recommendations on April 3, 2006. 

The Commission found that: 

2
• Many college campuses throughout the United States continue to experience incidents of 

anti-Semitism, a serious problem warranting further attention 

• When severe, persistent or pervasive, this behavior may constitute a hostile environment 

for students in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

• Anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda has been disseminated on many campuses that 

include traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes and 

defamation. 

• Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or 

anti-Zionism 

• Substantial evidence suggests that many university departments of Middle East studies 

provide one-sided, highly polemical academic presentations and some may repress 

legitimate debate concerning Israel. 

• Many college students do not know what rights and protections they have against antiSemitic behavior. 

• More data are required to determine the full extent of this problem. While the Department 

of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education (“OPE”) requires recipient institutions 

to report hate crimes involving bodily injury, these institutions are not currently required 

to report many crimes that do not involve bodily injury. 

Based on these findings, the Commission recommended that:

• OCR should protect college students from anti-Semitic and other discriminatory 

harassment by vigorously enforcing Title VI against recipients that deny equal 

educational opportunities to all students. 

• University leadership should ensure that all academic departments, including departments 

of Middle East studies, maintain academic standards, respect intellectual diversity, and 

ensure that the rights of all students are fully protected 

• Federal grant-making institutions should exercise appropriate oversight to ensure that 

federal funds are not used in a manner that supports discriminatory conduct. 

• OCR should conduct a public education campaign to inform college students of the rights 

and protections afforded to them under federal civil rights laws, including the right of 

Jewish students to be free from anti-Semitic harassment 

• Congress should direct OPE to collect and report data on a broader range of anti-Semitic 

and other hate crimes that take place at postsecondary institutions consistent with the hate 

crime categories reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Hate Crimes 

Statistics Act. 

• OPE should collect and report data by category of prejudice as well as category of crime 

• Congress should amend Title VI to make clear that discrimination on the basis of Jewish 

heritage constitutes prohibited national origin discrimination.

Finally, the Commission agreed to undertake a public education campaign to inform students of 

the protections available to them against anti-Semitic harassment or intimidation. 

A transcript of the briefing is available on the Commission’s website, www.usccr.gov, and by 

request from the Publications Office, U.S. Commission of Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW, 

Room 600, Washington, D.C. 20425, (202) 376-8128, publications@usccr.gov. 

3
Summary of the Proceedings 

Gary A. Tobin 

Dr. Tobin presented findings his new book The Uncivil University: Politics and Propaganda in 

American Education (Institute for Jewish and Community Research, 2005), coauthored with 

Aryeh K. Weinberg and Jenna Ferer, which documents that he described as anti-Semitism and 

bias against Israel on college campuses. The book is based on more than 50 interviews with 

students on a variety of campuses and more than 40 interviews with leaders of Jewish 

organizations from 2002 through 2005. Campus media, pamphlets, and flyers were also 

examined. 

Dr. Tobin posited that anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are systemic ideologies of higher 

education that can be found on campuses throughout the U.S. Although they are national campus 

phenomena, they are not equally distributed. Also, incidents may vary on a particular campus 

over time. Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism produces an environment of intimidation and 

harassment for Jewish students. Sadly, much of anti-Semitic rhetoric and behavior goes 

undetected since it falls under the debate about the Middle East. This form of anti-Semitism is 

different from past discrimination that plagued college campuses; it goes against the norms and 

values of campuses that allegedly promote racial and ethnic and religious diversity and 

understanding. Some of these activities fall under the protection of freedom of speech, which is 

being abused in the name of open discussion, according to Dr. Tobin. 

Moreover, Dr. Tobin stated that some universities have openly taken a stand against antiSemitism on campuses, but in 2002 only 300 college and university presidents signed a 

statement that pronounced that recent examples of classroom and on-campus debate have crossed 

the line into intimidation and hatred. In the past few months, students who are Jewish or 

supporters of Israel’s right to exist have received death threats and threats of violence. Property 

connected to Jewish organizations has been defaced or destroyed. Posters and websites 

displaying libelous information or images have been widely circulated creating an atmosphere of 

intimidation. He commented that it was unfortunate that more college and university leaders did 

not sign this statement against anti-Semitism.

Some of the anti-Semitic images and language include the most terrible charges that have been 

used against Jews (e.g., posters on campuses that include pictures of Palestinian babies as canned 

meat used by Jews for their ritual purposes). These posters and images are placed on student 

union facilities, or in dorms; they become part of the fabric of the university community. Other 

examples include distortions of history, such as people denying the Holocaust, and claims that 

the real Holocaust is being perpetrated against the Palestinians. These distortions are designed to 

quash unbiased scholarship, quality scholarship, and presentations that encourage open 

discussions. But, these are all protected forms of speech. 

Students who raise differing views have been asked to leave the classroom. Even course

descriptions discouraged students from signing up for a class if they do not agree with the 

4
professor’s point of view. But these activities are shielded by a wrongly defined academic 

freedom and free speech. Academic freedom is a way to excuse this activity. 

Dr. Tobin argues that colleges and universities are part of the public trust owned or financed by 

the American people. The deep reliance on public funds makes the universities adhere to the 

concept of free speech. Higher education is highly dependent on federal, state, and municipal 

governments for financial assistance. Federal assistance to universities extends to all kinds of 

universities, public and private, and it comes in the form of various grants and allocations. The 

total amount of state and federal government assistance adds up to over $160 billion a year. So, 

there is no such thing as truly private university. Universities help create moral citizens; provide 

a moral good; and help to increase the knowledge of society. To utilize public monies and 

endorse through omission or commission the violation of Jewish students’ rights seems to be an 

abuse of the public trust. Teaching and research should be free of politics and propaganda, 

according to Dr. Tobin. 

With academic freedom comes the academic responsibility to establish a peer review, pursue 

honest scholarship, and teach in a way that does not intimidate students. He recommends: (1) 

conducting more research to document systemic anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism in higher 

education; (2) conducting more internal review of Middle East Studies departments and 

institutes; (3) encouraging colleges to establish and enforce appropriate rules about civil 

discourse; (4) establishing congressional oversight committees for the monies that are coming 

from the Congress in support of various academic programs; (5) encouraging more 

accountability for the monies received (lawmakers should consider withholding funds for 

violation of the civil rights of a student); and finally, (6) promoting that all university 

stakeholders assert their moral leadership and condemn anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism on 

college campuses. 

Susan B. Tuchman 

Ms. Tuchman said that anti-Semitism, a hatred toward Jews, has been increasing in frequency 

and severity, according to the Department of State’s “Report on Global Anti-Semitism” issued in 

January 2005. Anti-Semitism can be in the form of intimidation and attacks against Jews (e.g., 

the use of degrading and demeaning slurs, threats and physical assaults) and attacks on Jewish 

property (e.g., vandalism of synagogues, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, and anti-Semitic 

graffiti on walls and buildings). 

As The State Department report recognized, certain forms of anti-Israel sentiment are also an 

expression of anti-Semitism. It is wrong to say that all criticism of Israel and the Israeli 

government is anti-Semitic. Israel’s policies and practices should be open to legitimate criticism.

But, when Israel is demonized, when its leaders are vilified by comparing them to Nazi leaders, 

such as by using Nazi symbols to caricature them ─ this crosses the line. According to Ms. 

Tuchman, when Israel is singled out and condemned, when the criticism uses anti-Jewish images 

and caricature to attack Israel, and when the criticism is factually inaccurate or lacks any 

semblance of balance, then this is another form of anti-Semitism. There is no question that all 

these forms of expressing hatred towards Jews cause pain, discomfort, and fear. 

5
Ms. Tuchman highlighted a few examples of the kinds of harassment and intimidation that 

Jewish students have been subjected to. For example, at the University of California at Irvine, 

Jewish students constructed a Holocaust memorial on the campus. One night the memorial was 

destroyed. At a candlelight vigil held to commemorate the Holocaust, a swastika was carved into 

one of the tables nearby. These anti-Semitic incidents (which can arguably be characterized as 

hate crimes) were reported to the UCI administration and the campus police, but the University 

never publicly acknowledged that the incidents occurred. Here, the University lost an 

opportunity to send a strong message to the campus community that bias and hate would not be 

tolerated, thereby sending a message to the perpetrators that they could get away with it. Jewish 

students perceive the university as taking sides by not taking action, according to Ms. Tuchman. 

The effects of anti-Semitism are serious. Many who are exposed to it feel marginalized, 

unwelcome, intimidated, and afraid. Some students may feel uncomfortable to wear anything on 

campus that identifies them as Jewish. Or, it may mean not affiliating with Jewish programs or 

causes on campus for fear of being targeted. Others may focus on their discomfort or even on 

their fear for their physical safety on campus. 

In October 2004, the Zionist Organization of America filed a complaint with the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 n behalf of Jewish students at UCI, contending that the University had long been aware 

of a hostile and intimidating environment for Jewish students, but that UCI had not taken 

adequate steps to address the problems. OCR determined that an investigation was warranted and

the investigation is underway. The UCI case is not about the suppression or restriction of 

offensive and bigoted speech. Although there are protections afforded to speech and expressive

conduct under the First Amendment, colleges and universities have an obligation under Title VI 

to provide an educational environment that is comfortable and conducive to learning; they have a 

legal obligation to ensure that Jewish students are not subjected to harassment, intimidation, or 

discrimination. They also have an ethical and moral obligation to act as leaders, and promote the 

values of respect, tolerance, and inclusiveness on campus. That is, they must educate students 

that with freedom of speech comes responsibility. 

Ms. Tuchman suggested several steps for the Commission to consider taking to combat hate and 

prejudice against Jews on our college campuses. First, the Commission could issue its own report 

acknowledging that anti-Semitism is a serious problem on campuses. Like the State 

Department’s report, a report from the Commission that recognizes the many facets of antiSemitism would help in educating the public that anti-Semitism can sometimes be expressed in 

more subtle but no less damaging ways. It would also be beneficial if the Commission would 

urge colleges and universities to speak out and condemn hateful speech and conduct as one tool 

for fighting campus anti-Semitism.

Second, the Commission should obtain input from experts who develop remedies for preventing 

and combating anti-Semitism on college campuses. Colleges and universities need specific tools 

for preventing and responding to bigotry, and strategies for building respect, tolerance, and an 

appreciation of our individual differences. 

6
Finally, the Commission should voice its concern about campus anti-Semitism to OCR and urge 

OCR to conduct a thorough investigation of the complaint against UCI, with consideration of all 

of the available evidence. Although it is a complaint against one university, the problem is not 

unique. Whatever the outcome, the case will hopefully send a message to colleges and 

universities across the country: while our government stands behind the principles of free speech, 

it is also committed to ensuring that students are not subjected to hostility, harassment, and 

intimidation on the basis of their race or ethnicity. 

Sarah Stern 

Ms. Stern started by quoting Natan Sharansky, former Minister of Diaspora Affairs for the Israeli 

government, who has referred to the American college campuses as “islands of Anti-Semitism”

and expressed the fear that “the next generation of Americans are becoming the new Jews of 

silence” because of the atmosphere of fear, hatred and intimidation on the American college

campus. 

The excessive fascination with Israel and the tendency to hold it up to disproportionate scrutiny 

has turned over into attitudes and acts of hatred and anti-Semitism on many of the nation’s 

college campuses. There have been a number of examples. For instance, in 2002, at San 

Francisco State University, Jewish students held an Israeli-Palestinian sit-in hoping to engage the 

pro-Palestinian students on campus in a dialogue. What ensued as the rally was closing was a 

hate-fest in which pro-Palestinian students surrounded the 30 remaining Jewish students, 

screaming “Hitler didn’t finish the job” and “Die racist pigs.” In April, a flyer advertising a proPalestinian rally featured a picture of a dead baby with the words, “Canned Palestinian Children 

Meat – Slaughtered According to Jewish Rites under American License,” thereby reinvigorating 

the 900-year-old blood libel that Jews eat Gentile children. 

During Passover of that year, a brick cinderblock was thrown through the glass doors of the 

University of California at Berkeley’s Hillel Building. A week after that, two Orthodox Jews 

were attacked and severely beaten one block from Berkeley’s campus, with anti-Zionist graffiti 

on blocks and buildings near the school. During a vigil for Holocaust Day, Jewish students who 

were saying the mourner’s kaddish, the prayer for the dead, were shouted down by protesting 

students saying a prayer in memory of the suicide bombers. Northwestern University’s Norris 

University Center was marked with a three-foot swastika in 2003, accompanied by the words 

“Die Jews.” 

Although some anti-Semitism takes the classic ideological form, on most campuses antiSemitism has taken a new form. It is the tendency to exaggerate Israel’s weaknesses and 

mistakes. A healthy debate about Israeli policy is acceptable. However, when Israel is demonized 

and made into all that is evil, when the actions that Israel takes to protect its citizens are held up 

to a double standard, and when Jewish students are intimidated and denied the right of political 

expression, then the line has been crossed from legitimate policy into anti-Semitism. According 

to Sharansky, the new anti-Semitism hides behind the cloak of “political criticism of Israel” 

There is one question to consider. That is, would an activity, which would make campus life very 

uncomfortable for Jewish students constitute protected speech under the constitution? Freedom

7
of expression is an integral part of university life. What is not protected is the suppression of 

intellectual diversity and open debate on the part of the professor, or the professor using his desk 

as a bully-pulpit for political ideology, according to Ms. Stern. 

Perhaps the most, well-documented of these cases is that of Columbia University. The film, 

Columbia Unbecoming, which came out last year, interviewed students who had taken classes in 

Columbia’s Middle East and Asian Languages Department (MEALAC). Columbia’s MEALAC 

department is funded, along with 17 other Middle Eastern studies departments in American 

colleges throughout the United States, which costs $120 million dollars of taxpayers’ dollars 

each year. 

There was specific intent behind this congressional allocation to the university. That intent was 

to raise students to be well grounded in the knowledge of foreign languages and cultures so that 

they can best serve the national security interests of our nation. But, Ms. Stern believes that the 

original intent has been turned on its head and many of these regional studies programs have 

become hotbeds of both anti-Israel and anti-American radicalism.

Discussion 

Vice Chair Thernstrom presided over the discussion. She commented that in her experience as a 

Master’s candidate in a Middle Eastern studies program at Harvard University, she found that the 

program was anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian and ideologically biased. Assuming this is true, she is 

concerned about administrative oversight on university campuses. Administrators should not be 

walking into classrooms and deciding what is acceptable or not. As for the pain and discomfort 

issue, it seems to her that pain and discomfort should be separate from physical fear. Universities 

should not be comfortable places for students; they should be exposed to the discomfort of 

dissonant ideas. 

Ms. Tuchman agreed that there should be a certain level of discomfort. Discomfort, however, 

may cause students to avoid areas of the campus because they are going to hear statements and 

see conduct that is inciting hatred of Jews. There are students afraid to wear a kippah, or tee 

shirts that indicate that indicate that they are Jewish or they are supporters of Israel. Ms. 

Tuchman stated that students should not be afraid to be who they are or to say what they believe 

and what they support for fear of consequences. 

Commissioner Braceras commented that this environment can awaken a political and ethnic 

consciousness and snap people out of political apathy. She, too, is uncomfortable about asking 

the federal government or administrators to impose any sort of speech codes or restrictions. 

Universities, however, should not give anti-Semitism a cloak of authenticity or credibility by 

allowing it to come from the professors. 

Dr. Tobin indicated that there should be more internal review of Middle East Studies 

departments. Perhaps committees of scholars should be established to review the level of 

scholarship, quality of teaching, and objectivity of the area on an ongoing basis. Also, antiSemitism disguised as legitimate criticism of Israel should be exposed. Seminars, workshops, 

8
and other campus activities are needed to educate the campus community. As for the pain and 

discomfort issue, colleges and universities should encourage discussion about the difficult issues. 

Commissioner Braceras questioned the line between discomfort and abuse. She acknowledged 

that these posters are offensive, but that they can inspire a productive dialogue on campuses 

about racism and anti-Semitism. She also stated that students have a right to express their views 

no matter how hateful and bigoted they may be. 

Ms. Stern commented that it is wonderful to have the free expression of ideas and the college

classroom in which this is provided should become a liberating and exhilarating experience for 

both student and professor. Then she referred to several excerpts from the film Columbia 

Unbecoming. In one scene, there was a student who raised her hand when there was a class about 

Israeli atrocities. Joseph Mossad was teaching the class about the Jenin incidents, and a girl 

raised her hand and tried to bring up an alternative point of view, and before she could get her 

point across, he shouted, “I will not have anyone sit through this class and deny Israeli 

atrocities.” Commissioner Braceras commented that a distinction can be made between these 

classroom incidents and hateful posters. Commissioner Braceras suggested one way to counter 

these posters is through more speech – put up another poster saying that they are racist. 

Commissioner Kirsanow asked Dr. Tobin why there were a number of presidents who did not 

sign the statement. Dr. Tobin indicated that only one Ivy League president signed it and believes 

that it is an act of moral cowardice in refusing to sign. So, the issue goes to moral leadership by 

administrators, faculty, and alumni. Commissioner Kirsanow also asked the panel why there are 

blatant untruths that are being spoken in the classroom. Dr. Tobin remarked that administrators 

and trustees are too afraid to interfere with free speech and academic freedom. 

Ms. Tuchman revisited the poster discussion. She acknowledged that we cannot tear down those 

signs since they are protected speech, but colleges and universities have an obligation to exercise 

their own free speech rights. They should say that we recognized that students have a right to 

post these offensive and bigoted posters, but that they do not support the message and that the 

message is not consistent with the values of a university. There was a recent illustration of that at 

Rutgers University. There was a cartoon in a student newspaper at Rutgers University that 

mocked the Holocaust. It was a picture of a man sitting on an oven, and another man was 

throwing money at him and it said words to the effect of “Three throws for a dollar, knock the 

Jew in the oven.” According to Ms. Tuchman, the president of Rutgers reacted appropriately, 

issuing a public statement. The statement recognized the right to publish the cartoon, but called 

the cartoon offensive and outrageous in its cruelty. The statement decried the cartoon as 

inconsistent with Rutgers’ values as a university. In the statement, the president expressed the 

hope that students would recognize that with freedom comes responsibility and called for an 

apology. The Rutgers Senate also issued a statement distancing itself from what was done and 

the perpetrators apologized. Later in the discussion Ms. Stern indicated that it is not a question of 

forcing an apology, but to raise issues and point out to people the implications of what they are 

saying. Forcing an apology will only foster resentment. According to Ms. Stern, it would be 

more valuable to hold forums and conduct teaching sessions about the consequences of bigotry, 

hatred, and anti-Semitism. 

9
Ms. Stern addressed the issue of politically incorrect ideas in the classroom. She was particularly 

concerned about a body of scholarship that is all predicated upon the same initial biases and then 

it takes on the guise of legitimate scholarship, but it is basically political propaganda wrapped 

around footnotes and indexes, so it looks legitimate. (e.g., Middle Eastern studies programs). She 

further added that under the National Defense Education Act, these programs are funded on the 

basis of this legislation – at the taxpayers’ expense.1

Critics have indicated that many Title VI centers adopt a politicized approach to education, 

exclude scholars with other perspectives, and discourage students from entering public service 

upon graduation. 

Ms. Stern indicated that the Commission should support the College Access and Opportunity Act 

of 2005 (the “Re-authorization,” H.R. 609) which amends the Higher Education Act of 1965, and 

re-authorizes it as amended. The Re-authorization includes provisions that seek to reform the 

Title VI program, by promoting diversity of perspectives in the centers and activities that Title 

VI funds, and by establishing an advisory board to review the Title VI program and make 

recommendations for improving it and enabling it to fulfill its purposes. 

There was a brief discussion concerning the espousing of ideas and protected speech under the 

First Amendment – that is, the distinction between what is an idea and what is hate. Ms. Stern 

made a comment as to hate speech: if hate speech is intertwined with intellectual ideas, it is 

nonetheless hate speech, which can be determined by an independent advisory board. 

Dr. Tobin identified two separate but related issues. The first is how we deal effectively with 

discrimination, harassment, and the expression of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism. The 

remedies for this should include exposure, additional research, legal remedies (e.g., complaints 

being filed in the appropriate places). The second concerns the quality and atmosphere of higher 

education that free speech issues are a part of. Dr. Tobin suggested that donors and alumni can 

hold these institutions accountable. That is, they should be asserting guidance, moral authority, 

and rules for behavior about what is acceptable and not acceptable. Allowing this open display of 

hostility and ugliness about Jews in Israel helps facilitate and encourage discrimination and 

harassment. 

Commissioner Taylor raised the question of why universities remain silent instead of 

condemning the speech. Ms. Tuchman indicated that most colleges and universities claim they 

remain silent because of the First Amendment in order to encourage the free exchange of ideas 

and rigorous debate. Sometimes university presidents and chancellors have spoken up. Also, the 

1 [As background, the U.S. government, through Title VI of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), 

established foreign language and area studies programs at American universities such as Harvard, Columbia and

Berkeley. The regional studies centers of NDEA aimed to guarantee experts of sufficient quality and quantity to

meet U.S. national security needs. Title VI of Higher Education Act (the successor to the NDEA of 1958) provides 

federal funds to selected international studies and foreign language centers at universities across the country. The 

Title VI program is intended to train experts for national security and other government service, and to educate the 

public on international affairs. Unfortunately, the program has largely failed to meet its national security or other 

objectives, and few Title VI graduates enter government service.] 

10
American Association of University Professors, while against speech codes and restricting 

speech, encourages college administrations to speak up. The ACLU takes the same position. 

Commissioner Taylor stated that he does not understand why universities are not speaking up 

since silence may betoken assent to the views expressed. In support of this argument, Ms. Stern 

remarked that she does not know why it is politically correct to be anti-Semitic and that it takes 

courage to speak up. 

Dr. Tobin described how anti-Israelism serves as an appropriate guise for anti-Semitism. What 

we have seen is the language of anti-Semitism used in the debate about Middle East politics. In 

this discussion, traditional anti-Semitic images are used (e.g., Israel is a Jewish real estate 

venture; Jews control the Congress of the United States; substitute that for Israel controls the 

Congress of the United States; Jews are greedy; Israelis and Israel are greedy; they want to own 

all the oil resources of the Middle East.). Using this type of language goes under the radar and 

most administrators are reluctant to deal with it because they do not want to interfere with a 

debate about politics. Second, this topic is not covered by the media since the Commission is the 

first to actively explore this issue. Occasionally you will hear about isolated outrageous 

incidents. But the overall seriousness of these issues is not well publicized. And, government at 

all levels, which provide money to colleges and universities at all levels, has not only the right 

but an obligation for oversight (e.g., if one receives a grant from the National Science 

Foundation or National Institutes of Health, there are appropriate review and oversight 

requirements that come with those funds). As a final point, Israel is seen as a country of 

privileged whites. The book entitled In Every Tongue: The Racial and Ethnic Diversity of the 

Jewish People discusses how the anti-Israel debate is framed in the politics of race. Jews are 

white colonial oppressors. Palestinians are brown indigenous colonized victims. So, if you 

support Israel you are labeled racist. There is a cartoon to illustrate. It shows Israelis after 

Palestinians, and the caption reads, Are brown lives worth less than white lives? 

Staff Director Marcus indicated that the Commission received a statement from the AntiDefamation League. It argued in part that there is insufficient monitoring of campus anti-Semitic 

incidents (e.g., there is a discrepancy in the manner in which the Department of Education 

collects hate crime statistics, and the manner in which it is collected by the FBI). He asked the 

panel if there is a lack of data about incidents. Ms. Tuchman commented that even before the 

government level, there is a problem in students’ reluctance to report incidents of anti-Semitism.

Even if reported she is not sure that it gets documented. There should be some user-friendly 

grievance procedure where students could come forward without having to confront the 

professor directly. Mr. Marcus asked the panel if there has been adequate public education or 

technical assistance regarding students. If not, should federal agencies do more to ensure that 

educational institutions know their obligations? Dr. Tobin responded that students do not know 

their rights and that all agencies should publicize what their rights are. Ms. Tuchman added that 

it is particularly important in the context of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act since there 

has been a recent change in the way that the statute has been interpreted.2 Up until the fall of

2004, OCR had interpreted the law as providing no protection against anti-Semitism. The statute 

2 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, 

color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. 

11
identifies race, color, and national origin as impermissible bases for discrimination. OCR’s 

interpretation was that anti-Semitism is religious discrimination and does not fall under the 

statute. But, there has been a change in OCR’s interpretation. Vice Chair Abigail Thernstrom

asked if there was any information contained in the freshman handbook as to these changes. Dr. 

Tobin suspects that the handbook would say something generally about pluralism and embracing 

diversity, but does not address the issue directly. He also commented that the university 

handbooks are not going to be publicizing that the students have legal rights for the failure of the 

university to protect their racial and ethnic identity. 

Commissioner Braceras proposed that the Commission to put out a brochure or pamphlet that 

would provide available resources for students about the changes in the law. It would indicate 

who is protected and what types of things are protected and provide addresses and phone number 

of who to contact at the Department of Education. 

Vice Chair Thernstrom moved to include in the record the statement of the Anti-Defamation 

League to which Mr. Marcus referred and a letter from Provost Alan Brinkley of Columbia 

University declining our invitation to participate in the panel discussion. The motion was passed 

unanimously. 

12
Statement Submitted to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Briefing on Campus 

Anti-Semitism

Susan B. Tuchman 

Anti-Semitism – hatred toward Jews – has been increasing in frequency and severity since the 

start of the 21st century, and the roots of the problem run deep. So says our own government in a 

Report on Global Anti-Semitism that was issued by the U.S Department of State and released in 

January 2005. The State Department has recognized that anti-Semitism has several sources. It

can take the form of intimidation and attacks against Jews (e.g., the use of degrading and 

demeaning slurs, threats, and physical assaults) and Jewish property (e.g., vandalism of 

synagogues, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, and anti-Semitic graffiti on walls and 

buildings). Anti-Semitism may also be expressed as traditional anti-Jewish prejudice, including 

assertions that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, 

and the financial world. 

The State Department report also recognizes that certain forms of anti-Israel sentiment are an 

expression of anti-Semitism, rather than legitimate criticism of the State of Israel and its policies 

and practices. When Israel is demonized and its leaders are vilified – by comparing them to Nazi 

leaders or by using Nazi symbols to caricature them – that, according to the State Department’s 

report, is not valid criticism on controversial issues, but rather indicates a bias toward antiSemitism.

Though some have described anti-Zionism as the “new” anti-Semitism, it is not new. The 

understanding of anti-Zionism as a strain of anti-Semitism was recognized and publicly 

pronounced almost 40 years ago by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., when he said that “[w]hen 

people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.” More recently, in July

2004, the Catholic Church issued a similar statement, condemning anti-Zionism as “a 

manifestation of anti-Semitism.” 

It would be wrong and unfair to say that all criticism of Israel and the Israeli government is antiSemitic. The policies and practices of the State of Israel –like any other country--can and should 

be open to rigorous scrutiny and legitimate criticism. But when Israel alone is singled out for 

condemnation, when the criticism uses anti-Jewish images and caricatures to attack Israel and its 

policies, and when the criticism is factually inaccurate or lacks any semblance of balance, then 

the criticism should be seen as an insidious expression of anti-Semitism.

However broadly anti-Semitism is defined, there is no question that hatred expressed toward 

Jews threatens the safety and well-being of the Jewish community. However anti-Semitism is 

expressed ─ through words or actions ─ it causes pain, discomfort, and fear. This is true on our 

college campuses where, unfortunately, anti-Semitism is a growing problem. Jewish students are 

facing anti-Jewish speech and conduct on campuses throughout the United States. For example, 

in 2003, swastikas were spray-painted on the Hillel building at Rutgers University in New 

Jersey, and on the porch and front door of Alpha Epsilon Pi, a historically Jewish fraternity. In 

2004, the Rutgers student newspaper published a cartoon showing a man throwing a ball at 

another man sitting on an oven. The text for the cartoon included the following: “Knock a Jew 

in the oven! Three throws for one dollar!” In June of 2004, arsonists attacked the Hillel House 

13
at the University of California at Santa Cruz. There have been numerous anti-Semitic incidents 

reported at the University of Indiana, Bloomington, in 2004 and 2005, including the drawing of 

swastikas on campus, anti-Semitic comments, harassment, physical intimidation, physical 

assault, and vandalism. One recent example of campus anti-Semitism that has received publicity 

in the media is the hostility and intimidation that Jewish students have faced at Columbia 

University in New York. A professor told one Jewish student at Columbia that she had no claim

to the Land of Israel or a right to express her opinion about Israeli-Palestinian Arab issues 

because she had green eyes and therefore could not be a Semite. 

The effects of anti-Semitism on Jewish college students are serious. Many who are exposed to it 

feel marginalized, unwelcome, intimidated, and afraid. For some students, this may result in 

their being uncomfortable to wear anything on campus that identifies them as Jewish. Or, it may 

mean not affiliating with Jewish programs or causes on campus, for fear of being targeted. For 

some students, it can be difficult for them to concentrate on their academic responsibilities 

because their thoughts are so focused on their discomfort or even on their fear for their physical 

safety on campus. 

The effects of anti-Semitism extend beyond the campus. For Jewish students who are exposed to 

it, they surely take with them into the world after college whatever feelings were engendered by 

the hatred and degradation to which they were subjected. For those who perpetrated the antiSemitism, it is difficult to conceive that the hatred and bias they expressed will suddenly 

disappear once they leave the confines of a college campus. 

I am most familiar with the problem of anti-Semitism as it has affected the Jewish community at 

the University of California at Irvine (UCI). UCI is located in Orange County in southern 

California. There are about 24,000 students there, approximately 1000 of whom are Jewish. 

Since at least 2002, if not earlier, Jewish students have faced a pattern of anti-Semitism on the 

UCI campus that, in 2003 and 2004, escalated into destruction of property, physical threats, and 

violence. 

In 2002, an article appeared in a UCI student publication that repeatedly emphasized the Nazilike notion that Jews are genetically different and separate from non-Jews. Starting at about that 

time, signs began being posted on campus, picturing the Star of David dripping with blood, and 

equating the Star of David with the swastika. 

In 2003, Jewish students constructed a Holocaust memorial on the UCI campus, which was 

supposed to be set up for an entire week. One night, the memorial was destroyed. At a 

candlelight vigil held at about the same time to commemorate the Holocaust, a swastika was 

carved into one of the tables nearby. 

These anti-Semitic incidents--which could properly be characterized as hate crimes—were 

reported to the UCI administration and the campus police, but the University never even 

acknowledged to the UCI community that the incidents had occurred. The official response, or 

lack thereof, was a problem for several reasons. First, the University’s failure to inform the 

community about the attacks lessened the likelihood that the perpetrators of the attacks would be 

apprehended and punished. In fact, the perpetrators were never caught. Second, the University 

14
lost an important opportunity to send a strong message to the campus community that bias and 

hate would not be tolerated on campus. Finally, and perhaps most destructively, UCI’s failure to 

comment publicly sent the message to some students that it was insensitive to hate crimes 

directed toward Jews. 

Anti-Semitic speakers have repeatedly been invited to speak on the UCI campus. In early 2004, 

one speaker told the audience that “there are good Jews and bad Jews,” and he told them about 

his “Jewish Cracker theory”: that Jews are plagued with arrogance that comes from a 

combination of white supremacy and the notion that Jews are the chosen people. The speaker 

spoke from a lectern with the UCI emblem on it, thereby suggesting that his conduct bore the 

imprimatur of the University. 

Every year at UCI, a registered student group on campus sponsors a weeklong event that, over 

the years, has been given a variety of titles. At one point, the event was called “Anti-Zionist 

Week.” Then, the title was change to “Zionist Awareness Week.” Most recently, in 2005, the 

title of the event was “Israel Awareness Week.” But whatever the title, the event has been about 

attacking Jews, Zionists, and those who believe that the State of Israel has the right to exist. 

Here are some examples of what was said about Jews at this event in 2004. There were repeated 

references to the Jewish lobby and how it controls the U.S. government. Students were told that 

Jews use the media to “brainwash” others. They were told that Jews need to be “rehabilitated.” 

They were told that there is a “psychosis” in the Jewish community. 

The effects of the anti-Semitism at UCI have been serious. Since at least 2002, many Jewish 

students have felt marginalized and afraid. Some have been afraid to identify themselves as 

Jewish, or to wear anything that might identify them as Jewish, such as yarmulkes and Stars of 

David. Other students have been reluctant to affiliate with Jewish groups or programs. Some

have altered their usual routes on campus, or have avoided certain areas of the campus entirely, 

so that they will not have to see and hear attacks on Jews and on Israel. Some students have 

actually feared for their physical safety. 

As early as 2002, Jewish students were expressing their fears and concerns to the University. 

Here is an excerpt from a letter that a Jewish graduate student sent to the UCI Chancellor and 

several administrators in April 2002: 

Not only do I feel scared to walk around proudly as a Jewish person on the UC Irvine 

campus, I am terrified for anyone to find out. Today I felt threatened that if students 

knew that I am Jewish and that I support a Jewish state, I would be attacked physically. 

It is my right to walk around this campus and not fear other students and hear 

condemnation from them. It is my right for my government to protect me from harm 

from others. It is my right as a citizen who pays tuition and taxes to be protected from 

such harm. . . . YOU may claim the first amendment. I claim the right to be safe and 

secure. You cannot use the first amendment as an argument against my safety. MY 

SAFETY SUPERCEDES FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS [emphasis in original]. 

15
The Chancellor never responded to this student’s letter. One of the administrators who did 

respond reacted in a telling way: He suggested that the student visit the Counseling Center on 

campus to help her work through her feelings. The response to this student’s call for help 

epitomizes the problem at UCI and may well be a sign of what is happening elsewhere: The 

administration has not viewed the harassment and intimidation of Jewish students as a problem

that it has the responsibility to address. It is the Jewish students who have a problem, and they 

had just better learn to deal with it. 

In 2005, Jewish students at UCI were subjected to more anti-Semitic speech – speech that was 

intended to incite hatred of Jews. In February 2005, a speaker on campus had this to say about 

Jews: “You know the kind of stuff that they’re doing, the type of spying network that they have, 

in this country. Stand up to them.” In May, this same speaker talked about the “den of spies that 

the Jewish lobby has, people in the Jewish lobby spying on behalf of” Israel. The speaker said 

that five Israelis were filming the bombing of the World Trade Center and they were celebrating, 

as part of a spy ring in the U.S. He talked about how arrogant the Jews are. And he said that 

their “days are numbered.” This was precisely the kind of speech that the State Department 

recently recognized in its report as anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitic speech, unless it immediately incites to violence, is protected speech under the First 

Amendment and cannot be suppressed. But that does not mean that it cannot, and should not, be 

addressed and responded to as anti-Semitic bigotry, plain and simple. One legal commentator 

who has focused on how racist speech affects its victims has paid particular attention to hate 

speech and harassment at universities. Calling universities “special places” with duties “to a 

constituency with special vulnerabilities,” this commentator has emphasized the enormous 

damage that results from a university’s tolerance of hateful speech: 

Many of the new adults who come to live and study at the major universities are away 

from home for the first time, and at a vulnerable stage of psychological development. 

Students are particularly dependent on the university for community, for intellectual 

development, and for self-definition. Official tolerance of racist speech in this setting is 

more harmful than generalized tolerance in the community-at-large. 

Matsuda, Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story, 87 MICH. L. REV. 

2320, 2370-71 (1989). 

As this commentator recognized, official tolerance of racist speech “is harmful to student 

perpetrators in that it is a lesson in getting-away-with-it that will have lifelong repercussions.” 

Id. at 2371. A university’s tolerance of racist speech is also harmful to the targets of the speech, 

“who perceive the university as taking sides through inaction, and who are left to their own 

resources in coping with the damage wrought.” Id. Finally, “it is a harm to the goals of 

inclusion, education, development of knowledge and ethics that universities exist and stand for. 

Lessons of cynicism and hate replace lessons in critical thought and inquiry.” Id.

There is another reason why hateful speech toward Jews must be confronted head on. When it is 

not immediately and directly acknowledged and condemned, and when comprehensive programs 

and systems are not in place to adequately address it, slurs and gestures may escalate into 

16
violence. According to the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence at the University of 

Southern Maine, in virtually every one of the investigations of serious violence or threats in high 

schools or colleges conducted by the Maine Attorney General’s Office over the past eight years, 

the same pattern exists: The act of violence was not the beginning but rather the end of a stream

of escalating harassment which at some point began with the use of degrading language. 

That is what happened at UCI. By 2003, there were physical attacks on property, when the 

Holocaust memorial was destroyed and the candlelight vigil in memory of Holocaust victims 

was desecrated by the carving of a swastika into a table at the vigil. In 2004, the problem of antiSemitism escalated into several instances of outright physical threats and violence against Jewish 

students at UCI. 

In January 2004, a Jewish student who was wearing a tee shirt that said, “Everybody loves a 

Jewish boy,” was walking by a table on the campus where members of a student group were 

distributing flyers. Rocks covered the flyers to keep them from blowing away. As the Jewish 

student passed the table, a rock flew in front of his face, barely missing him. The student turned 

and saw a student holding a young child and saying to the child, in a very sarcastic voice, “Don’t 

do that, that’s not right! – as though the child had thrown the rock. The Jewish student said 

nothing and just kept walking. But the experience made him afraid to wear anything that 

identified him as a Jew ever again on campus. 

In February 2004, a Jewish student, who is of Sephardic descent and speaks and understands 

Arabic, was walking toward the Dean of Students’ office with a box of office supplies. He was 

wearing a pin on his sweatshirt that said, “United We Stand,” with an imprint of the American 

and Israeli flags. He passed two students who stared at his pin and said, “Ee Bakh al Yahud,’ 

which means “Slaughter the Jews” in Arabic. The Jewish student ignored the comment and kept 

walking. A heated dialogue ensued, and the Jewish student was surrounded and threatened. 

On or about March 2004, this same Jewish student was wearing a yarmulke and carrying a 

prayer book while walking toward UCI’s science library. He walked by a familiar-looking 

student and said, “What’s up?” The student made an obscene gesture toward the Jewish student 

and his prayer book. They began to argue and the Jewish student was subjected to threatening 

language and hurtful ethnic slurs, including being called a “dirty Jew.” This student could no 

longer take what he felt was a hostile environment for Jewish students at UCI, and he left to 

study elsewhere. He is not the only one; at least one other Jewish student left UCI because of the 

hostile environment he experienced there and transferred to another university. 

Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that recipients of federal funding ensure 

that their programs and activities are free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination on 

the basis of race, color and national origin. Colleges and universities that receive federal funding 

from the U.S. Department of Education must comply with Title VI, and the Office for Civil 

Rights (OCR) in the Department of Education is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that 

colleges and universities are in compliance. 

Historically, OCR interpreted Title VI as not protecting against anti-Semitism, on the ground that 

the law did not cover religious discrimination. In the fall of 2004, OCR changed its policy and 

17
confirmed that Jewish students are a protected class under Title VI. We at the ZOA view this 

policy change as an important development. It is consistent with United States Supreme Court 

decisions that recognize that being “Jewish” is not simply a religious characteristic; it is also a 

racial and ethnic characteristic, describing a people who share not only a religion, but also a 

common ancestry, history, language, heritage and culture. 

In October 2004, the ZOA filed a complaint with OCR under Title VI on behalf of Jewish 

students at UCI, contending that the University had long been aware of a hostile and intimidating 

environment for Jewish students, but that UCI had not taken adequate steps to address the 

problem. After reviewing the allegations of the complaint, OCR determined that an investigation 

was warranted, and the investigation is underway. 

It cannot be stressed enough that the UCI case is not about the suppression or restriction of 

offensive and bigoted speech. The ZOA, and the students on whose behalf the complaint was 

filed, recognize and fully support the protections afforded to speech and expressive conduct 

under the First Amendment. But colleges and universities like UCI have a clear obligation under 

Title VI to provide an educational environment that is comfortable and conducive to learning. 

Colleges and universities like UCI have a legal obligation to ensure that Jewish students are not 

subjected to harassment, intimidation or discrimination. 

One important way that colleges and universities can address the problem is to recognize antiSemitism when it occurs, and to speak out and condemn it, clearly and unequivocally. Colleges 

and universities have First Amendment rights, too. Their failure to speak out against hatred 

expressed toward Jews sends the message, however unintentional, that such hatred is tolerable 

and will be accepted by the campus community. Those who perpetrate the hate are given the 

message that they can get away with their anti-Semitic speech and conduct. For the victims of 

anti-Semitism, the message is that by saying and doing nothing, the University has in effect 

taken the side of those who are perpetrating the hate. The end result is that, unwittingly or not, 

the University has contributed to Jewish students feeling isolated, marginalized, unwelcome and 

afraid. 

The Rutgers University community appropriately responded to the anti-Semitic cartoon in the 

student publication I mentioned earlier, which mocked the Holocaust. The president of Rutgers 

issued a strong statement describing the cartoon as “outrageous in its cruelty.” He noted that 

though the publication was protected by the First Amendment, it was “vicious, provocative and 

hurtful,” and “completely at odds with” the values of the university. The president of Rutgers 

publicly “urged the students involved in the publication to reflect on what they have done, take 

responsibility for their actions and apologize for the hurt they have caused to our community.” 

In addition to the president’s statement, the Rutgers University Senate passed a resolution 

disassociating the Senate from the anti-Semitic message of the cartoon. The students involved in 

the publication issued an apology, which, as the president of Rutgers said, was hopefully a sign 

of progress toward students exercising First Amendment rights in a more responsible way. 

Condemning hateful and bigoted speech and conduct by college and university administrators is 

endorsed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). This is an organization 

founded in 1915, comprised of faculty librarians and academic professionals at two- and four18
year accredited public and private colleges and universities. Its mission is “developing the 

standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this 

country’s colleges and universities.” 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also endorsed colleges and universities 

condemning anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry. Though it has a long history of guarding 

our civil liberties and our right to free speech under the First Amendment, the ACLU has 

emphasized that “campus administrators on the highest level should . . . speak out loudly and 

clearly against expressions of racist, sexist, homophobic and other bias, and react promptly and 

firmly to acts of discriminatory harassment.” 

Speaking out, clearly and unequivocally, against all facets of anti-Jewish bigotry is only part of 

the obligation of our colleges and universities in order to deal with the problem of campus antiSemitism. Colleges and universities must also ensure that they have systems and programs in 

place in order to work, on an ongoing basis, on monitoring the climate on campus, and then 

instituting the necessary changes so that the university community is encouraging vigorous 

debate and academic freedom, while also promoting the values of respect, tolerance, diversity 

and inclusiveness. There should be a structure and a process for gathering information about the 

campus climate, and for generating change and improvements. There should be an office or 

team whose specific mission is to shape the climate on campus. 

There should also be ongoing campus-wide courses, workshops and other programs that address 

the values of respect, tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness. Administrators, staff, faculty and 

students need the tools to understand the meaning of anti-Semitism in all its facets, and the 

impact of anti-Semitic bias and prejudice. They also need the practical skills for intervening in 

low-key ways when students and others use degrading or demeaning language – before the antiSemitism escalates to physical threats or actual violence. 

The problem of anti-Semitism can only be effectively addressed if it is responded to in a 

sustained and continuous way. Ad hoc and sporadic efforts are not enough. 

In the course of my work on the UCI case, I have reached out to many experts who work fulltime on combating hate and intolerance on college campuses. One of the significant points I 

have learned from them is that if there is anti-Semitism on a campus, it is likely that other 

minorities are also being targeted. Accordingly, effectively addressing hatred toward Jews on 

college campuses should have a positive impact on the way in which other minority groups are 

treated on their campuses. We at the ZOA are hopeful that the UCI case will set an important 

precedent for colleges and universities across the country. The case should reinforce the 

understanding of colleges and universities that anti-Semitism is a serious problem, that it takes 

an enormous toll on the Jewish community on campus, and that as educators and leaders, they 

have an obligation under the law to correct the problem. No student should feel afraid or 

intimidated on his or her campus, or reluctant to be who they are for fear of being harassed, 

threatened or even physically attacked. 

Last year, when this Commission commended the State Department for its report on antiSemitism, Commission Chairman Reynolds noted that “[t]he trend toward increasing violence 

19
and hate disrupt freedom for many individuals and can only be reversed with leadership.” We at 

the ZOA could not agree more. That is why the ZOA filed its complaint on behalf of Jewish 

students at UCI. The Commission has already demonstrated its leadership role in the fight 

against campus anti-Semitism by taking on the problem and holding this briefing. Respectfully, 

I would like to suggest other steps for the Commission to consider taking to combat hate and 

prejudice against Jews on our college campuses. 

First, I would suggest that the Commission issue its own report acknowledging that antiSemitism is a serious problem on our campuses. This would send a powerful message to 

colleges and universities. In the report, it would be valuable for the Commission to recognize, as 

did the State Department, that anti-Semitism is not simply comprised of slurs, physical threats 

and assaults, and the destruction or defacement of property. The American public should be 

educated to understand that anti-Semitism embraces more than that, and can sometimes be 

expressed in more subtle and insidious ways. Speech and conduct that single out and demonize 

Israel – without regard for the facts and with no sense of balance or sensitivity to the nuances of

a complicated political situation – may be an expression of anti-Semitism, and this is a 

phenomenon to which we should all be sensitive. 

It would also be beneficial if the Commission would urge colleges and universities to speak out 

and condemn hateful speech and conduct, loudly and clearly, as one tool for fighting campus 

anti-Semitism. We must all stand up for free speech and vigorous debate – and certainly that is 

true when it comes to an academic environment where the free exchange of ideas should be 

encouraged. But hateful, degrading and demeaning speech and conduct is just that – hateful, 

degrading and demeaning, no matter where it occurs, including if it is expressed on a college 

campus. 

The effects on the students subjected to the hate should not be minimized. Our colleges and 

universities need to be leaders, too, in combating anti-Semitism. They must educate and inform

their communities that anti-Semitic speech and conduct is not consistent with the values of their 

universities, and that with freedom – including the freedom of expression – comes responsibility. 

A message to this effect from the Commission would encourage colleges and universities to 

assume a leadership role. If they continue to ignore anti-Semitism on their campuses, or pay lip 

service to these issues, then they become complicit in perpetuating the problem and, intentionally 

or not, make Jewish students feel even more marginalized and unwelcome. 

Second, I would suggest that the Commission obtain input from experts who develop remedies 

for preventing and combating anti-Semitism on college campuses. Colleges and universities 

need specific and effective tools for preventing and responding to bigotry, and strategies for 

building respect, tolerance, and inclusiveness among students. Administrators, staff and 

educators need training to recognize anti-Semitism when it occurs, and to respond to it 

appropriately. 

Third, I would suggest that the Commission voice its concern about campus anti-Semitism, in all 

its facets, to OCR, and urge OCR to conduct a thorough investigation of the complaint against 

UCI, with consideration of all of the available evidence. It is my understanding that the 

complaint against UCI is the first case of anti-Semitism that OCR has agreed to investigate. 

20
Although it is a complaint about anti-Semitism at only one university, the problem is not unique 

to UCI. Whatever the outcome of OCR’s investigation, the case will hopefully send a message 

to colleges and universities across the country: While our government stands behind the 

principles of free speech and open debate, it is also committed to ensuring that students are not 

subjected to hostility, harassment and intimidation on the basis of their race or ethnicity. A 

message from this Commission to OCR, urging a complete and thorough investigation, has 

implications not only for the UCI case, but for other colleges and universities where antiSemitism is a problem. 

21
Campus Anti-Semitism

Sarah Stern 

Natan Sharansky, former prisoner of conscience of the Soviet Union and Minister of Diaspora 

Affairs for the Israeli government, has referred to the American college campuses as “islands of 

Anti-Semitism”, and expressed the fear that “the next generation of Americans are becoming the 

new Jews of silence” because of the atmosphere of fear, hatred and intimidation on the American 

college campus. Sharansky has also said, “On the college campus, Israel is epitomized as the 

epicenter of everything that is hateful in the universe.” 

From San Francisco State, UC Irvine, Santa Cruz and Berkeley in the West to Columbia and 

Harvard on the East, and virtually hundreds of examples in between, this excessive fascination 

with Israel and the tendency to hold it up to disproportionate scrutiny has spilled over into 

attitudes and acts of hatred and anti-Semitism on the college campus towards individual Jewish 

students. 

The sad state of affairs is revealed while doing research on the Internet of the instances of 

campus anti-Semitism. Here are just some of the most egregious: 

• May 7, 2002: San Francisco State University. Four hundred Jewish students held an 

Israeli-Palestinian “Sit-in for Peace in the Middle East”, hoping to engage the proPalestinian students on campus in “dialogue”. A Russian immigrant spoke affectionately 

of his new home in the United States as a haven from anti-Semitism. Others spoke of 

their support for Israel, and a hopeful peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. What 

ensued as the rally was closing, was a hate-fest in which pro-Palestinian students 

surrounded the 30 remaining Jewish students, while cleaning up after the rally, 

screaming, “Hitler didn’t finish the job,” “F...the Jews,” and “Die racist pigs.” University 

and city police formed a barrier, sealing off the Jewish students for more than twenty 

minutes, until they finally funneled them out into the plaza. “I felt very threatened,”

recalls Yitzhak Santis, director of Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Community 

Relations Council in San Francisco. “I’m convinced that if the police had not been 

present there would have been violence.” (Karen Alexander, SAN FRANCISCO DISPATCH, 

June 14, 2002). In April, a flyer advertising a pro-Palestinian rally at San Francisco State 

featured a picture of a dead baby, with the words, “Canned Palestinian Children Meat—

Slaughtered According to Jewish Rites Under American License,” thereby reinvigorating 

the 900 year old blood libel that Jews eat gentile children. (Ibid). 

• Passover of that year, a brick cinderblock was thrown through the glass doors of the 

University of California at Berkeley’s Hillel Building. A week after that, two Orthodox 

Jews were attacked and severely beaten one block from Berkeley’s campus, with antiZionist graffiti appearing scrawled on blocks and buildings near the school. During a 

vigil for Holocaust Day, Jewish students who were saying the mourner’s kaddish, the 

prayer for the dead, were shouted down by protesting students saying a prayer in memory 

of the suicide bombers. 

22
• Northwestern University’s Norris University Center became the home of a three foot 

swastika in November of 2003, accompanied by the words, “Die Jews.” 

• St. Cloud State University in Minnesota has recently had to pay out over a million dollars 

in a class action law suit because of anti-Semitic practices. Professor Ari Zmora had been 

a tenure-track professor of history from 1998 until 2000, when he was suddenly fired.

One of the many incidents he points to is when he was about to deliver a talk featuring 

his mother, talking about her experiences during the Holocaust, which she survived, 

when, as he reported, “the ex-chair of the department approached me and said that I could 

not talk about the Holocaust. When I told her about my mother’s survival and the fact 

that most of my family were destroyed by the Nazis, she said to me, ’You know, the SS 

were wonderful people; they did not participate in the Holocaust.’ As he was preparing to 

leave the university, the issue of fumigating his office was brought up in a meeting of the 

history department faculty, because he was “dirty” and “a practicing Jew.” 

While in the case of St. Cloud, the anti-Semitism took the classic ideological form of denial of 

the Holocaust and support for the Nazi; however, in most campuses throughout the county, as we 

have seen, and I will continue to illustrate, anti-Semitism has taken a new form. It is the tendency 

to exaggerate Israel’s weaknesses and mistakes. Israel is a healthy democracy, and like all 

democracies, it is composed of humans, and is prone to human frailty. A healthy debate about 

Israeli policy, therefore, is not anti-Semitism. Israeli Jews, themselves, are constantly debating 

about Israeli policy, and they certainly can’t be accused of anti-Semitism. However, when Israel 

alone is demonized and made into the sine quo non of all that is evil in the world, when the 

actions that Israel takes to protect its citizens are held up to an egregious double standard, when 

other countries in that situation might be forced to take those same measures, and when Jewish 

students are intimidated and denied the right of political expression or participation in class, 

that is crossing over the boundary from legitimate policy debate into the domain of antiSemitism.

Returning to the words of Natan Sharansky, “One of the major difficulties in grappling with the 

New anti-Semitism, is the ease with which it can be denied. Unlike in the past, post-modern antiSemitism no longer exclusively involves such phenomena as violence against the Jews, sporting 

swastikas and burning synagogues. While these phenomena do indeed exist and are even 

increasing, especially in Europe today they form only part of the problem.” 

Mr. Sharansky continues, “The New anti-Semitism with which we have been dealing in recent 

years hides behind the cloak of ‘political criticism of Israel’, in which the State is Israel is 

discriminated against, held to a double standard, and has doubts cast as on its right to existence 

and security.” As absurd as it may be, anti-Semitism even appears under the banner of “human 

rights” and “humanism.” According to Sharansky, “Equating Zionism with imperialism;

comparing Zionism with Nazism, doubting the right of the Jewish people, unlike other peoples, 

to a national state, cannot be considered ‘political criticism’ or ‘opposition to the occupation.’ 

They must be called by their proper name: anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism, which in the past had 

been the province of the radical right, is gaining more and more ground among organizations and 

societies which had, in the past, symbolized the forces of enlightenment, progress and 

democracy: the left wing political parties, human rights organizations, academic communities 

23
and anti-globalization movements. Those that had been the leaders of the struggle against racism

in its various forms now lead the boycotting of Israel, its ostracism from the family of nations 

and accusations against crimes of humanity. The absurdity shouts to the skies.” (Sharansky, 

Natan, The New Anti-Semitism, January 1, 2002). 

One such example occurred October 20, 2004, when Duke University was home to the fourth 

National Student Conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement. This is a very typical campus 

activity on the Israeli-Palestinian front. Participants portrayed Israel as simply a “racist” and 

“apartheid” state. Among them were Mazin Qumsiyeh, an associate professor from Yale 

University, who is founder of the radical anti-Israel group Al-Awda, who called Zionism “a 

disease,” and Nassar Abufarha, a doctoral candidate from the University of Wisconsin, who 

reportedly said he supported Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Al Aksa Martyrs 

Brigade, as well as a host of others. A revisionist book, “Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis” 

by Lenni Brenner, claiming the early Zionists forged an alliance with the Nazis, was sold at the 

conference. 

There is a question, however, as to whether or not this sort of activity, although making campus 

life very uncomfortable for Jewish students, constitutes protected speech under the constitution. 

Freedom of expression is an integral part of university life. However, one might well ask if we 

would have as much tolerance for seeing the appearance of the large white crosses of the KKK 

on campus as we apparently do for that of swastikas. What is not protected, however, is the 

suppression of intellectual diversity and open debate on the part of the classroom professor; or of 

the professor using his desk as a bully-pulpit for political ideology. 

Perhaps the well-documented of these cases is that of Columbia University. I want to stress that

what happened at Columbia is not unique, but there exists in Columbia a critical mass of Jewish 

students who have enough group support and knowledge of Jewish history and Jewish identity to 

be able to respond to the charges. This, in no way, implies that this problem is unique to 

Columbia, and that these sort of biases are not being transmitted on a daily basis to hundred of

anonymous college students throughout the country. 

The film, Columbia Unbecoming, which came out last year, interviewed students who had taken 

classes in Columbia’s Middle East and Asian Languages Department (MEALAC). Columbia’s 

MEALAC department is funded, along with 17 other Middle Eastern studies departments in 

American colleges throughout the United States, to the tune of 120 million dollars of taxpayer’s 

dollars each year through the Title VI program. What follows are some brief excerpts from the 

film. 

(One female student): “I took a class with George Saliba, the introduction to Islamic 

civilization. Towards the end of the semester, Professor Saliba showed what I felt was an 

anti-Israel film, showing the contemporary conflict between Palestinians and Israelis with 

a very one-sided view. The film and Saliba presented a view that Arabs have a prior 

claim to the land of Israel. And I felt very differently about that. And I was sure to 

express my opinion. For a few minutes, we discussed it inside the classroom and then 

George Saliba sort of drew me outside the classroom, and told me to walk with him this 

way out. And on our way out we actually stood on College Walk right outside for 45 

24
minutes, where I debated with him the fact that the Jewish people had been in Israel for 

thousands of years. He said, ‘You have no voice in this debate.’ So I said, ‘Of course, I’m

allowed to express my opinion.’ He came really close to me. He moved down his 

glasses, and looked right into my eyes, and he said, ‘See, you have green eyes.’ He said, 

‘You’re not a Semite.’ He said, ‘I’m a Semite. I have brown eyes. You have no claim to 

the land of Israel..’ As if my ancestors were not there, as if I’m not really a Jew because I 

have green eyes.” 

The Chairman of Columbia’s MEALAC Department Hamid Dabashi has written in the Egyptian 

newspaper, Al Ahram, on September 23, 2004, “Half a century of systematic maiming and 

murdering of another people has left...Its deep marks on the faces of Israeli Jews, the way they 

talk, walk and the way they greet each other....There is a vulgarity of character that is bone-deep 

and structural to the skeletal vertebrae of its culture.” 

(One student, identified as AH): “Another incident that occurred that made me very 

somewhat uncomfortable occurred during Professor Anijar’s class. It was the day of the 

Palestinian sit-in. He did not cancel class. He had us come to class. And then he 

proceeded to give a 50 minute speech about how there is an important text happening on 

College Walk, he thinks we should all go and read it. Essentially, telling us to go to the 

pro- Palestinian sit-in, and then he cancelled class. We said, ‘Wait a second, you called us 

here in the first place. You did not send us an email saying not to come to class because I 

am going to a sit-in, because this is my personal feeling. Let us discuss what you’re 

doing. Let us discuss the issue.’ He said, ‘No discussion’, and then he left. So I felt this 

totally inappropriate for a college environment.” 

(Another student, identified as NL) : “Joseph Mossad was teaching the class about the 

Jenin incidents, and a girl raised her hand and tried to bring up an alternative point of 

view, and before she could get her point across, he quickly demanded, and shouted at her, 

‘I will not have anyone sit through this class and deny Israeli atrocities.’” 

(Another student, identified as TS): “I was basically new to New York, and my English 

wasn’t very good, then. And I was very impressed by this professor. He has very good 

English. He gave a very good lecture. I realized that he missed a lot of points. Certain 

aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian history just were not there. Others were emphasized. I 

would not call them lies, but they were half-truths. I raised my hand, I said, ‘Hello. My 

name is TS. I’m Israeli. And I would like to ask you some questions.’ And before I 

could continue, he stopped me, and said, ‘You’re Israeli. You served in the IDF?’ I said, 

“Yes”. So his next question was, ‘How many Palestinians have you killed?’ I was 

shocked because I didn’t come here with any antagonism or any bias towards him. I 

asked him, ‘What? What? How come it’s relevant to the discussion?’ And he said, ‘No, 

it’s relevant to this discussion and I demand an answer. How many Palestinians have you 

killed?’ And I said, ‘I’m not going to answer, but I am going to ask you a question. How 

many members of your family celebrated on September 11th, if we’re starting with 

stereotypes?’ And then he blew up and started yelling, and the entire room was just like, 

everybody yelling at everybody, and basically the discussion was over at that point.” 

25
In response to this film, the administration at Columbia has recently established a system of 

grievances. However, I have contacted several Jewish students who are at Columbia now, and 

they have told me that they are totally unaware that such a grievance system exists. Noah Liben, 

who graduated Columbia last year, and is Campus Coordinator for the David Project, which 

produced the film, said that there are several systems, one from each college, and that they have 

been very poorly advertised by the administration, and are not at all “user-friendly.” “The fear 

factor still looms very large”, said Noah. “You cannot come forward anonymously, and the 

procedure does involve disclosure of your name to the professor. The fear of intimidation by or 

retribution on the part of the professor to the student looms very large. The balance of power is 

very lop-sided.” 

This is exactly the antithesis of what one considers to be a healthy intellectual climate. No one 

can prevent a professor from having his or her own point of view on a contemporary issue. 

However, academic freedom is a two-way street. It is not only the freedom of the professor to 

express his point of view, but also the freedom of the student to express hers, without fear of 

retribution or of intimidation. The college experience is the ideal arena to learn to respect 

intellectual diversity and debate, and to learn the rules of civil discourse. The professor, 

irrespective of his point of view, is at the helm of the classroom, and has a unique responsibility 

to foster an atmosphere of respect for individual differences and to create a healthy climate for 

that heady experience of a true intellectual debate. That means it should be free of ad hominem

attacks, and free of fear of intimidation. 

In summation, I would not give today’s American College Campus a good report card in terms 

of anti-Semitism. What exists today spans the gamut from the old classic anti-Semitism to what 

Natan Sharansky refers to as “the new anti-Semitism.” We should have a zero-tolerance policy 

for anti-Semitism, in any of its forms. Remembering the words of the late Dr. Martin Luther 

King, Jr., “You declare, my friend, that you do not hate Jews, you are merely anti-Zionist. And I 

say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain top, let it echo through the valleys of God’s 

green earth when people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews. This is God’s own truth.” 

26
Uncivil University: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism in Higher Education 

Gary A. Tobin 

Academic Freedom and the Public Trust 

At the University of California, Berkeley, renowned both for its academic rigor as well as for its 

progressive, if not radical, political history, there is a six-foot seal embedded in the pavement of 

the main walkway, Sproul Plaza, the staging ground of legendary student protests in the 1960s 

and 1970s. At the center of the seal is a six-inch ring of dirt, around which lies the inscription, 

“This soil and the air space extending above it shall not be a part of any nation and shall not be 

subject to any entity’s jurisdiction.” While many wanted the seal to be a monument to the Free 

Speech Movement, which began on the Berkeley campus in 1964, the university disavowed that 

connection. Nonetheless, campus folklore alleges that this spot is uniquely protected and that 

anyone standing on the seal may claim immunity from arrest or prosecution. 

Despite the myth surrounding the seal and its ring of soil, it is not—it cannot be—an absolute 

sanctuary for those who wish to abuse the right of free speech, because no such place exists, not 

even on the grounds of the University of California, Berkeley. Both the rules of the larger society 

and the social norms of the campus require reasonable boundaries on what can be said. Perhaps 

the campus has fewer constraints, but safety and civility necessitate that some limits are imposed. 

While universities encourage expansive speech, they tend to draw the line on what they consider 

hate speech, even at Berkeley. 

Assigning extralegal status to the seal in Sproul Plaza is as misguided as the oft-cited notion that 

college campuses themselves are untouchable spaces that must remain separate from the 

communities in which they exist in order to protect their own rights of free speech. Despite 

whatever desires students and faculty may have to live within an imaginary seal of immunity 

from which they may disregard the rules of the outside world, college campuses operate—or at 

least they should—by a well-defined code that allows for a greater level of freedom than in the 

non-academic world and simultaneously requires a higher level of accountability in exchange for 

that freedom. When students and faculty invoke the First Amendment to protect their right to 

express unpopular ideas, they are mistakenly conflating free speech with academic freedom. Free 

speech and academic freedom are not the same. Free speech is essential for academic freedom, 

but it is only one component. Overemphasis on free speech hints at a trivial aspiration: the desire

to protest for the sake of protest, to remain on the outside purely for the status such a position 

confers. 

Academic freedom is part of a system unique to the university. It allows for the unfettered 

exploration of unpopular ideas, but only within the context of meaningful scholarship. Academic 

freedom, even more than free speech alone, means that teachers and researchers can pose—

without fear of repercussion and without their own biases clouding their inquiry—every 

reasonable and honest hypothesis. Such a privilege exists only when scholars subscribe to the 

27
system of safeguards set up to ensure both their own immunity from politics (tenure, for 

example) and the integrity and worthiness of their work (peer review in academic journals, 

among others). 

From their early days in the United States, universities were intended to be civil institutions in all 

senses of the word. Initially they were places where young men could learn the skills and 

knowledge necessary to teach and preach Christian values and scripture, then considered the 

mark of a civilized person. As universities became secular institutions (with noted exceptions), 

their classrooms and lecture halls evolved into models of civil discourse, where professors and 

their students could engage in respectful if heated discussion and debate about the most 

contentious topics. 

Free speech on campus has its origins in such unfettered discourse. In the last half-century or so, 

universities, both public and private, have grown in size and influence and, as a result, have 

become even more firmly woven into the civic fabric through their contributions to the greater 

society. Every member of the populace, even those who never set foot on a campus, benefits 

from the knowledge, research, innovation, and education that flow from the halls of academia 

out to the community at large. Colleges are contributors to the commonweal; they are 

institutional citizens. 

Higher education is an approximately $250 billion-a-year enterprise, including a hefty sum

coming from public funds. Research contracts, student loans, and tax subsidies provide the 

university with significant resources. Total federal spending for university research and 

development is around $20 billion, which amounts to over 50% of total higher education 

spending on research and development nationally. 

Grant money comes from a wide variety of federal departments such as Health and Human 

Services, Defense, Agriculture, and Energy, as well as the National Science Foundation, among 

others. Federal financial support for higher education can be found in the most unlikely places. 

For example, the Transportation Equity Act of 2005, for $286.4 billion, included more than $500 

million going to 142 colleges and universities. Some went for “National University 

Transportation Centers” and other funds for road improvement and parking garages. 

Federal student aid is similarly generous. General available aid includes Pell Grants, WorkStudy, Perkins Loans, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants. Designated aid 

includes Stafford Student Loans, Parents Loans for Undergraduate Students, Veterans Loans, and 

others. Total 2003-04 federal student aid amounted to over $80 billion, with Pell grants and 

Stafford loans constituting about 75% of the total. Federal student aid provides over 40% of all 

undergraduate students with assistance. 

State appropriations for public higher education across the nation totaled more than $63 billion 

for the 2002-03 academic year, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. This amounts to 

just below 40% of total expenditures by public universities. Some state systems are more and 

28
some less reliant upon state funding. California, for example, allocates almost $10 billion, 60% 

of total expenditures. Public universities in Vermont, on the other hand, receive 21% of total 

expenditures from the state. In addition to state appropriations, state student aid totaled over $6 

billion for the nation in 2003-04. Nationally, approximately 16% of undergraduate students 

receive some form of state financial aid. Although state research grants are less common than 

federal support, 7% of total spending on research and development comes from state 

governments. 

The combination of public university operating budgets, state and federal research grants, student 

aid, and other government subsidies demonstrates that universities and colleges, whether public 

or private, are at least partially government-sponsored. 

Un-Civility: Campus Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism 

The public provides financial support for higher education because, in its ideal state, the 

university provides the public with new ideas, vital research, and productive citizens. However, 

something is amiss in higher education. 

What was once an ethical arena in which young people came to exercise their minds, to practice 

thinking in a safe and invigorating environment, instead has become more of a stifling museum

devoted to preserving itself. The core values that make the ideal university a singular place have

been subverted. Moreover, the roles that university stakeholders are supposed to play in how 

they execute their various responsibilities have become murky. The civil university, despite its 

good intentions, has lost its civility, and the academy has become vulnerable to the very ills that 

the deliberately rarefied university system was meant to prevent. 

The uncivil university is an abrogation of the partnership agreement between American society 

and colleges and universities. The net result is a loss of the search for truth, a violation of the 

purpose of the university and ultimately of the public trust. In our analysis, we detail a set of

values and cultural norms that no longer reflect their noble origins nor achieve their stated 

purpose. In many cases, a “butterfly effect” has taken place, so that, with a small shift here and 

there, what were once well-intentioned and vital components of the university system, such as an 

emphasis on academic freedom, the willingness to question the established order, a love of 

rigorous scholarship, and an embracing of multiculturalism, have become twisted and sometimes 

barely recognizable versions of their former selves. It is in this unfortunate state that ideologies 

and practices antithetical to the civil university have flourished on some campuses, an indication 

of just how far they have diverged from their purpose. 

The UnCivil University examines one particularly egregious and uncivil violation of the public 

trust—the ideology and expression of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism in higher education. We

chose to examine these two closely related prejudices on college campuses, because the presence 

of anti-Semitism in a community has always been a reliable marker of its ill health. 

29
Our analysis does not purport to say whether anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are rising or 

declining, to count how many campuses in the United States experience anti-Semitism and antiIsraelism and to what extent, or to be a compendium of all of the incidents of anti-Semitism and 

anti-Israelism to have occurred in the last few years. Nor does our analysis claim to be a survey 

of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes on campus. Rather, this volume focuses on the ideology 

of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus and the ways that this ideology is expressed. 

Our analysis has three parts. We define anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism as an ideology. Second, 

we provide evidence about the expression of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism to understand how 

this ideology presents itself as behaviors as well as ideas. And, third, we examine how the 

presence of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus reveals where reform is needed in 

higher education. 

Our definition of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism as part of a combined ideology is critical to 

understanding the growth of intolerance on campus. Criticism of Israel’s government policies, 

along with all nation-states, is legitimate and has a place on campus. One can disagree with 

anything from Israel’s environmental policies to its strategies for national defense. However, 

such forms of critique differ drastically from what has become acceptable discourse on campus, 

both in terms of content and how much attention is devoted to the subject. 

Israel dominates not only discussions of the Middle East, but also unrelated subjects. It is 

common to hear that Israel is the worst offender of human rights issues all over the world. Israel

is compared to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Israelis are called brutal, racist 

murderers committing genocide against the Palestinians. These accusations are not only 

prejudicial against a specific nationality, but often rely upon the use of traditional anti-Semitic 

stereotypes to demonize those who support or represent the Jewish state. Instead of Jews 

controlling the United States government, economy and media, it is Israel and the Israeli lobby. 

Just as Jews have historically been portrayed as caring more about money than people, Israelis 

are greedy for resources and land hungry. They are brutal and conspiratorial, charges levied 

against Jews throughout history. 

While anti-Israelism, in itself, encourages anti-Semitic sentiment, it also invites participation by 

traditional anti-Semites who tailor their bigotry to focus on Israel in order to be acceptable on 

campus. The use of offensive imagery, such as the swastika to portray Jews, the rejection of 

opinion based on ethnicity, and demonization to the point where physical threats seem justified, 

is not part of civil discourse and legitimate critique. They are attempts to intimidate, to alienate 

and to silence Jews and others who support Israel. 

This loss of civility should alarm all members of society, not just the Jewish people, because the 

existence of bigotry and hatred is an indication of a deep gash in the fabric of the public trust. 

The ideology and expression of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism in higher education is not a 

Jewish problem; it is an American problem. 

30
Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are allowed to flourish because the loudest voices, which 

embrace this bigotry, dominate the campus culture. It is symptomatic of what is happening in 

American society as a whole, where, as Morris Fiorina said, “the extremes are overrepresented in 

the political arena and the center underrepresented.” The campus, like American society, is less 

polarized than popular image might have one believe. Those with the most extreme views often 

dominate the ranks and decision-making processes of many institutions and seem—falsely—to 

represent the majority. 

Indeed, anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism flourish on college campuses because of the energetic 

focus of a determined minority and their willingness to dedicate themselves to this cause. AntiIsraelists spend time and energy to promote their cause, while most everyone else is not all that 

engaged. Most faculty do not endorse anti-Israelism as an ideology. Many simply tune it out on 

their campus or on other campuses around the country. Advertisers have long known that readers 

tend to ignore ads for washing machines unless they are looking to buy one. Most faculty are 

involved in their own disciplines and their own social and intellectual circles. Occasionally, what 

they consider to be the “sideshow” of the Palestinian-Israeli debate may attract their attention, 

but fleetingly, and with no real impact. 

The irony of the campus endorsement (through action or by default) of anti-Israelism is that for 

the most part, campuses are not very active about most critical international issues. In spite of all 

the hype about social activism, embracing liberal causes, and fighting for the underdog, the 

campus community is disappointingly complacent about genocide, slavery, abuse of women and 

children, horrific criminal justice systems, and other social and political tragedies around the 

world. Taking up the anti-Israel cause is all the more curious in the context of the blasé response 

to the world’s tragedies. 

Exposing anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism includes the willingness to judge ideas: not all ideas 

are good or of equal worth. Universities should celebrate cultural differences with the ability to 

discern right and wrong across cultural boundaries. Not all cultural practices are good, and not 

all are equal in their contributions to the benefit of the human family. Moral strength means 

celebrating good teaching that helps students think, analyze, and distinguish sound ideas from

suspect ones. It means teaching, not preaching; exploration and rigorous examination, not 

propaganda. This includes anti-Israel propaganda, which cannot be framed as merely a clash of 

cultural ideas. 

This volume is a call for reform in higher education. The university has all the structure, 

mechanisms, and values to address anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus. Formal systems 

include peer review, evaluation of scholarship and teaching, committees for hearing student 

complaints, and disciplinary measures for inappropriate faculty or student behavior. These 

mechanisms are not fully deployed in the case of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism.

They should be, however, because those who support higher education expect colleges to use the 

formal tools in place to keep their own house in order. When it comes to prejudice, propaganda 

31
in the guise of scholarship, or the failure to execute teaching responsibilities adequately, the full 

force of university controls should be exercised. This includes creating a normative environment 

that banishes anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism from the accepted values of the campus and 

disciplining those who violate those norms. 

Campuses also have informal guidelines that prohibit campus sexism, racism, and other forms of 

prejudice. Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism have not been adequately constrained by these 

norms. University presidents, deans, faculty, trustees, and all other stakeholders have not done 

their job in applying these norms to anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism.

Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus are symptoms of a much larger malaise. Reform is 

necessary to protect Jewish students, to be sure. Even more importantly, the failure to ensure the 

intellectual safety of Jewish students marks a corruption of the university as a civil institution. 

Colleges and universities should address anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, not for the sake of the 

Jews, but for their own sake. The uncivil university must reclaim its civility. 

Why Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism Are at Home on Campus 

Higher education is a fertile home for anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism for a variety of reasons. 

First, campuses have been targeted by anti-Israel groups as an arena for the anti-Israel agenda. 

Those who are committed to anti-Israelism hope to capture the hearts and minds of young people 

in America’s educational systems. Arab World and Islamic Resources (AWAIR), an ArabAmerican advocacy group that promotes anti-Israel propaganda, makes clear in its mission 

statement, “AWAIR’s goal is to increase awareness and understanding of this world region 

[Middle East] and this world faith [Islam] through educational outreach.” The Arab World 

Studies Notebook also says, “We hold that preparing our young people for their roles as 

thoughtful, informed citizens of the next century is our most important work.” 

Second, universities are complex bureaucracies. There are a multitude of decision-makers, which

include presidents, trustees, faculty, provosts, deans, associate deans, vice presidents, and 

associate vice presidents. Like New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast following the 

devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the victims of that horrible tragedy were less beleaguered by 

conspiracy than they were by incompetence. Governments at all levels failed, most of all in their 

ability or willingness to communicate with one another to ensure appropriate action. AntiSemitism and anti-Israelism flourish on college campuses partially because of the paralysis of

bureaucracy in dealing with student complaints, monitoring conferences and events, and so on. 

Everyone is in charge, so no one is in charge. Anyone who has been inside higher education 

knows that many colleges and universities are wrapped more in red tape then green ivy. 

Third, higher education is conducive to anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism because many of the 

stakeholders abdicate responsibility. Trustees do not want to interfere for fear of violating 

32
academic freedom. Faculty do not want to appear overzealous criticizing other faculty. Most 

university presidents, provosts, and deans look for stasis and avoid issues that rock the boat. 

Fourth, universities are a fertile environment for anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism because 

activists with the most energy and loudest voices often capture organizational mechanisms. 

People in the middle tend to be disenfranchised by the activists who are most committed to a 

particular agenda. Research performed by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research 

revealed that, in fact, most professors do not hold negative views regarding Israel. Anti-Semites 

and anti-Israelists triumph on campus not because of their large numbers, but because of the 

willingness of the few to pursue their agenda. Those who may disagree with them tend to be 

silent, busy, or indifferent. The same phenomenon is seen in contemporary American politics in 

both the Republican and Democratic parties, and a number of NGOs, including the Presbyterian 

Church. The vast majority of Presbyterians are neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Israel. Yet, a few 

activists were able to capture the institutional decision-making processes to pass anti-Israel 

resolutions supporting divestment from Israel. This phenomenon is widespread on campuses as 

well. 

Fifth, the ideology of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism fits within the larger campus themes that 

include anti-war (violence is never justified, war is bad, there is no just cause), anti-West, antiAmerican (Europe and America are powerful and bad, Brazil and Algeria are good), white 

people are bad, all other people are good, power is bad, weakness is honorable. These themes 

appear over and over again in the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel framework. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism have found their way into 

America’s educational systems, partly from forces outside the university and partly from within. 

Like the United Nations, the campus has developed into a comfortable home for anti-Israelists. 

Moreover, it is a platform from which one can reach a large audience, not only of students, but 

also of the many millions of Americans, and people around the world, who regard the American 

university as the incubator of change and the leader in intellectual thought. 

Some observers argue that levels of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism can be measured primarily 

by the number of events, the shrillness of the rhetoric, or the most egregious expressions of either 

to take place in colleges and universities. Because both anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are 

myths and ideologies, and have become blended in both rhetoric and activity, they exist beyond 

mere measurement of incidences and the most visible expressions. These belief systems, as they 

have in the past, take root in particular groups and institutions and express themselves in 

different ways over time, but they are there, more or less dormant, more or less active. 

The “Israel debate” is not a true intellectual debate at all, but rather a failure of the university 

community at all levels to properly protect its highest ideals. No institution of higher learning 

should allow Jewish students to be intimidated or attacked, or pro-Israel speakers to be so 

physically threatened that they cannot safely visit a campus. Such an environment is antithetical 

to the mission of America’s universities. While we have, unfortunately, come to expect this kind 

33
of atmosphere from Wahhabi extremists from Saudi Arabia or in the official dogma of Iran’s 

dictatorial mullahs, this propaganda has no place on campuses. 

On campus, anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism ideology has four primary components. First, 

Jewish nationalism is characterized as racism. Because “Zionism=Racism,” Jews do not deserve 

to have a nation-state in Israel. Second, the Holocaust is not a Jewish historical experience, but 

rather a Palestinian one. Third, violence against Israelis is justified, even terrorism, and 

Americans cannot judge such actions by Western moral standards. Fourth, Jews and Israel 

control America, the American government, and United States foreign policy. 

Reclaiming the Civil University 

Social norms in society are as important as the rule of law. Civilizations exist through a 

combination of restraint by public authority, self-restraint, and restraint through social approval 

and disapproval. The politics of multiculturalism on campus abhor prejudice based on culture, 

sexual identity, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, and nationality, except in the case of antiSemitism and anti-Israelism.

Changing campus norms can help reclaim a civil institution. Students or faculty who interrupt

debates and lectures should be suspended or put on leave. Those who use violent messages or 

advocate violence should be expelled. Faculty who publish shoddy research should not be 

promoted. A faculty member who intimidates students or evaluates them on the basis of belief 

(the professor’s or the student’s) should be censured—and fired if they persist. Departments that 

discriminate on the basis of ideology either in terms of hiring or promotion should be put in 

receivership or shut down. 

Societal support for higher education is grounded in the belief that democracy is reinforced by a 

good liberal arts education. Stanley N. Katz, director of Princeton University’s Center for Arts 

and Cultural Policy Studies, warned of the need to reform higher education: “A great deal is at 

stake for undergraduate education, and for the country. If we believe, as so many of the founders 

of liberal education did, that the vitality of American democracy depends upon the kind of liberal 

education undergraduates receive, we need to put the reimagination of liberal education near the 

top of our agenda for education in our research universities.” 

Americans cherish their institutions of higher education and are rightfully proud of their quality 

and world leadership. Students from around the United States and the rest of the globe make 

great sacrifices to study at American universities, and they generally graduate well-positioned for 

successful careers and poised to make important contributions to society. The “something amiss 

in higher education” is not education itself, but rather the inappropriate politics that colors too 

much of campus life. The solution is not to balance one biased ideology with another but rather 

to eliminate politics altogether, except as a tool to teach students (and many faculty) to think for 

themselves. 

34
Without essential reforms, the academy risks further and further separation from the public that 

nurtures it and whom it serves. “What is at stake is our future,” according to Brigitte Gabriel, a 

Lebanese-born Arab reformer, “the students of today who will become tomorrow’s leaders. If

their minds are poisoned with irrational hatred and the hate is not combated and eliminated, then 

academic freedom and free speech in an open marketplace of competitive ideas is dead.” 

The stream of goodwill directed towards the university is not endless. It must be renewed 

through the visible efforts of the stakeholders to take more responsibility for ensuring the safety 

and well-being of all members of the university community. The campus must reform not simply 

because the specific ideologies of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism exist, but rather because any 

public institution that fosters expressions of hate is in need of drastic change. Anti-Semitism and 

anti-Israelism have found a harbor on campus, but they need not remain welcome there. It took 

four decades for the uncivil university to reach this point. It should not take another forty years in

this desert for the civil university to find its way home once more. 

Major Findings 

1. Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are systemic in higher education and can be found on 

campuses all over the United States. 

The ideology and expression of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism have taken root throughout 

much of the higher education system, even if embraced by relatively small segments of the 

faculty or student body. 

Although anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are national campus phenomena, they are not equally 

distributed among colleges and universities. Some universities may be relatively free of the 

ideology or its expression, while others may be more problematic. The incidence of antiSemitism and anti-Israelism may also vary on a particular campus over time. 

Our research covered hundreds of campuses. In spite of the claims of some observers who assert 

that anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism affect only a few select campuses, our research disproves 

this assertion. Moreover, anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism can be found in both public and 

private universities throughout all regions of the country and in both elite “Ivies” and community 

colleges. 

Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism find expression inside and outside the classroom, in course 

syllabi, student newspapers, campus posters, rallies, lecture halls, and a host of other ways within 

the university. Middle East Studies departments and centers are particularly egregious in their 

promotion of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism.

35
2. Anti-Semitic behavior often cloaks itself as “legitimate” criticism of Israel. Pervasive antiIsraelism sets the stage for campus anti-Semitism. The distinctions between Israel and Jews 

become increasingly blurred as the rhetoric becomes more uncivil. 

Analyzing or criticizing a policy of the Israeli government is not de facto anti-Semitic, but much 

of anti-Israel rhetoric is subtly or blatantly anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on 

campus have become entwined, so that anti-Israel rhetoric draws from traditional anti-Semitic 

stereotypes. The ideology of anti-Israelism transfers these stereotypes of traditional antiSemitism onto discussions about Israel. Israel is often substituted for Jews as the primary source 

of the world’s woes. 

Anti-Semitism is a belief system, a prejudice against Jews as a mythical enemy. Jews are the 

origin or cause of the inexplicable problems of life and community—poverty, war, or even 

natural disasters. Jews are also enviable. They are cast as rich, unusually clever, and powerful. 

Jews are “other”—people who are not like me, some group that is external to my group. Jews are 

stereotyped as having beliefs, values, and behaviors that are foreign, mysterious, and destructive. 

Anti-Israelism on campus labels Israel as Nazi Germany, claims the Holocaust never occurred, 

that Israel is systematically committing genocide, that Israel and the Jews control the United 

States government, and other ugly charges. 

3. The assault on Jewish nationalism is embedded in the ideology of the left. 

The university has become a home to rhetoric from the left. As mystifying as it may be, the left 

sees no contradiction between its espousal of racial and ethnic equality and its prejudice against 

Jewish national identity. This hypocrisy has been successfully transplanted to higher education. 

While anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism also can be found on the extreme right, this connection is 

largely irrelevant in higher education where the right has little legitimacy. 

This hatred of Israel does not exclusively stem from anti-Semitism, but also includes the 

demonization of America and the West as well. In this way, anti-Israelism from the left can be 

closely related to anti-Americanism. Over time, coming full circle, anti-Americanism endorses 

and devolves into anti-Semitism. And in cases where America is framed as a proxy for Israel and

Jews, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism become one in the same. 

4. The failure to appropriately address anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bigotry is an indicator of a 

frightening breakdown in a number of university processes involving many stakeholders within 

higher education. 

Donors are not paying enough attention (including Jewish donors who give billions of dollars to 

higher education). They are not holding universities as accountable as they do in other realms of 

36
their philanthropy. Trustees, often successful business leaders who are much more attentive in 

their entrepreneurial spheres, fail to appropriately execute their fiduciary duties both in the 

operations of the institution and the mission. For example, they tend to rubber-stamp tenure 

decisions. Most of all, faculty and administrators exhibit unawareness, indifference, and 

sometimes even cowardice in their failure to exert moral leadership in condemning antiSemitism and anti-Israelism.

5. Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are shielded by a wrongly defined academic freedom and 

free speech. 

University stakeholders often accept misuse of academic freedom as a way to excuse antiSemitism and anti-Israelism. Some characterize the “Israel debate” as merely part of the free 

exchange of ideas. 

The discussion of Israel’s faults and wrong actions can be part of campus discussion, as should 

be discussions of all nations, cultures, and societies. However, the red herring of censorship is 

not at issue. Israel-bashing, demonization, double standards, hateful language, anti-Semitic 

images, and obsession with Israel more than any other country are signs, indicators, and alarms

that something other than debate and honest criticism are at work. Universities cannot pretend 

that calling for the destruction of Israel with the use of Nazi images is part of normal academic 

discourse. If they do, they are being untruthful with themselves. 

Clearly, those who support Israel can be found on college campuses all over America. Students 

rally on behalf of Israel, books are published that support Israel, and so on. Anti-Israelism does 

not signal the absence of pro-Israelism. Indeed, this is often the rationale, or excuse, for antiSemitism and anti-Israelism in higher education. Advocates of free speech may say that clearly 

opposing forces can speak on campus and do. The presence of pro-Israel speakers, classes, 

faculty, or materials on campus, however, does not address the core issue. 

Having a pro-Israel speaker does not erase an anti-Semitic diatribe from some other speaker. 

Good Israel talk does not balance bad Israel talk. Indeed, the balanced approach is a denial of the 

problem. Universities do not balance racism and sexism with “positive images” of blacks and 

women. They make it clear that racism and sexism do not belong on campus. Period. The same

needs to be said and done about anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism—they have no place on 

campus. Period. Otherwise, universities should abolish their policies of zero tolerance for 

intimidation of students or hate speech. Why have them, when they are not applied uniformly? If 

hate speech against Jews is allowed as part of the balance of ideas on campus, then hate speech 

against all others should be afforded the same protected status in the name of freedom. Tolerate 

all racism or prohibit it. The truly civil university does not offer a cafeteria of selective 

protections. 

37
Higher education is so concerned about the preservation of academic freedom that academic 

responsibility is ignored. Anti-Israelism can flourish because the academy is afraid to confront 

this ideology and those who preach it for fear of going down some slippery slope that will 

infringe upon academic freedom. But other slippery slopes are just as profoundly damaging to 

the ideals of the university, including the failure to ensure both high quality and honest 

scholarship, adhere to principles of truth, preserve civil discourse and provide freedom from

intellectual intimidation. All of these affect academic freedom, and define academic 

responsibility. 

6. Universities, both public and private, are part of a public trust owned or financed by the 

American people. 

The deep reliance on public funds makes the universities’ almost religious adherence to the 

concept of free speech in opposition to encroachment of the public and the government seem

particularly misplaced. The university is the public; it is a part of the government. It is a civil 

institution. 

Higher education is highly dependent on federal, state, and municipal governments for financial 

assistance in numerous forms. Federal assistance to universities extends to all kinds of 

universities, public and private, and it comes in the form of various grants and allocations. The 

total amount of state and federal dollars that are being injected into the higher education system

is over $140 billion annually. Furthermore, universities are designated as non-profit 

organizations and, as such, are exempt from taxation on a number of levels, further bolstering the 

public’s contribution to higher education. 

7. Because Americans, both individually and through public financing, invest heavily in higher 

education, colleges and universities have a contractual understanding with the public that 

teaching and research are to be free of politics and propaganda. 

Academic freedom requires, not opposition to the larger society, as so often happens when free 

speech is invoked on campus, but rather a contract with society for honest and unbiased teaching 

and research. This distinction seems mainly forgotten, and under the banner of free speech, 

universities increasingly define themselves by their independence from, and often adversarial 

relationship with, authorities of all sorts, including the government, the private sector, and even 

the communities that support them and in which they flourish. If they see their primary purpose 

as bastions of free speech, they must feel particularly beleaguered when the outside world 

requests accountability. In their self-conceived role as havens for otherwise persecuted or 

unpopular points of view, universities see themselves as counterweights, watchdogs, and 

dissenters from established norms, rather than as primary contributors to and shapers of those 

norms. Ideology is characterized as the goal of the university, and objectivity is deemed 

unnecessary or unachievable. While these contrarian roles are sometimes appropriate, they are 

38
only part of the picture, a fact largely forgotten on campus. As a result, universities have become, 

in many ways, obstructionist rather than facilitating entities, promoting political ideologies and 

propaganda. 

8. Jewish students report being intimidated, both inside and outside the classroom, and being 

intellectually and socially threatened for what they believe. 

In a civil university, no group is singled out for slander, no democratic nation is declared 

illegitimate, no political ideology warps the pursuit of truth: The process of learning supersedes 

personal biases. In such a university, bigotry is unacceptable, because the protection of pluralism

and civil rights is part of the campus ideal, reflecting the laws and norms of the general society. 

The campus should serve as a model, both in what it teaches in the classroom and through 

everyday campus life, for embracing pluralism and the protection of civil rights. In a civil 

university, everyone protects each other against bias and hatred. In many universities that 

otherwise consider themselves to be models of civility, anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are not 

only tolerated but allowed to flourish. 

9. The university has the necessary structural mechanisms and procedures that unfortunately are 

not fully deployed in the case of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism. 

Formal systems include peer review, evaluation of scholarship and teaching, committees for 

hearing student complaints, and disciplinary measures for inappropriate faculty or student 

behavior. Self-regulation is part of the agreement that universities have with the public sector. 

10. Both federal and state governments have the legal and moral authority and necessary means 

to address anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus. 

This includes protecting the civil rights of Jewish students through appropriate complaint 

procedures and legislation that sets guidelines for colleges and universities that accept federal 

and state funds. 

Policy Recommendations 

1. More research is necessary to document systemic anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism in higher 

education. 

Additional research, documentation, and exposure are necessary to show how anti-Semitism and 

anti-Israelism affect students, how many students experience discrimination and how university 

39
stakeholders have responded or failed to take appropriate action. Research about faculty, 

trustees, and donors is also essential. 

2. Expose anti-Semitism disguised as legitimate criticism of Israel. 

Seminars, workshops, symposia, lectures, and other campus activities are needed to educate the 

campus community about anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism. This subject also should be 

integrated into appropriate curricula, courses, and syllabi. 

3. Political beliefs should not be considered in the hiring and promotion of faculty. 

Colleges and universities should ensure that political beliefs are not subtly reinforcing an 

ideological orthodoxy. The ideological make-up of faculty should not be self-perpetuating as a 

result of an operative bias in higher education employment practices. 

4. University stakeholders need to reclaim their rightful roles and responsibilities to ensure 

checks and balances in university processes. 

University trustees should be become more involved on a number of levels. First, they need to 

take more responsibility when granting tenure. Trustees, in deference to academic freedom, do 

not exercise their fiduciary obligations when they rubber-stamp tenure decisions made by the 

faculty and administration. Lifetime contracts should not be awarded without more trustee 

consideration. 

Corporate and NGO boards are being challenged to be more responsible in their oversight duties. 

College trustees should not be excused from this national trend. They also need to be more 

informed and attentive to what is being taught on campus. Trustees should not be intimidated 

into believing that they are interfering with academic freedom if they behave like a real board 

and less like the adjunct fundraising department (their only purpose being to give and solicit 

donations). 

Donors and alumni need to demand more accountability when they make gifts to higher 

education, both to help make them be more efficiently managed organizations, and to help guide 

the educational mission. Donor intent is a key element in the American philanthropic system. 

Part of the contract between philanthropists and recipient institutions is that donors have 

something to say about how their money is used. Donations also give philanthropists the right to 

have a say in the operation of the organizations, especially for those who give large gifts. Higher 

education is perhaps the only NGO system where donors are told that their giving offers them no 

right to fundamentally influence the institution: write the check and keep quiet. Hands-off (in the 

name of academic freedom) is the general guideline. Naming chairs or designating dollars for a 

40
particular program provide the illusion of donor control, but most monies are fungible. In a 

system built around “budget relief,” resources are moved around as needed: more resources in 

one area frees up money for some other purpose. Collectively, donors should hold both faculty 

and administrators accountable for dealing with the issue of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on 

campus. 

5. Academic freedom and free speech should be responsibly defined within the boundaries of 

civil discourse. 

The cultural norms of the campus need to change over time, so that anti-Semitism and antiIsraelism are as unacceptable as other forms of prejudice on campus. This requires moral 

leadership, especially from university presidents, chancellors, and others in positions of moral 

authority. They need to speak out firmly, consistently, and passionately about this bigotry. Few 

have followed the lead of President Lawrence Summers of Harvard University or President 

Robert Corrigan of San Francisco State University in doing so. 

University funds should not be used to sponsor racist speakers or events through student 

organizations, events, newspapers, or any activity subsidized with university dollars. Appropriate 

administrative and faculty oversight of student organizations is required, and, if necessary, 

administrative oversight of faculty who, for example, restrict their class enrollment to likeminded students. If student organizations sponsor inappropriate speakers or events, they should 

be put on probation, have their funds restricted, or be disbanded if they persist. 

6. The public sector should continue to press for accountability in higher education. 

Federal and state lawmakers should consider enacting legislation withholding funding to any 

university that violates the civil rights of any student, including those of Jewish students based 

on their religion or ethnic identity, until the violation has been corrected.

The Solomon Amendment is an excellent example. Congress was correct to pass the Solomon 

Amendment to halt all federal funding to colleges and universities that prohibit military 

recruiters from coming to their campuses. It is absurd for the grantee (higher education) to tell 

the grantor (the federal government) what policies must be followed by the armed services in 

order for universities to take the money that they are given. Whether one agrees or not with the 

“don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the military is irrelevant. Congress has the right to set conditions

on dollars it allocates to higher education. Universities have the right to refuse the funds if they 

do not agree with the conditions. They cannot take the funds and simultaneously set the 

conditions for taking them. 

41
7. More internal review of Middle East Studies departments, centers, and institutes is critical. 

Committees of scholars should be established to review the level of scholarship, quality of 

teaching, and objectivity of this discipline. This process should be ongoing until it is clear that 

these departments and institutes conform to norms of quality and honest scholarship and 

teaching. All tenure decisions for this field should be made outside the departments. At the same

time, appropriate public sector oversight of these federally funded programs should be instituted 

in the same ways that the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and 

other public grant-making institutions operate. 

8. Colleges and universities, as part of the public trust, have a special obligation to fight 

discrimination and provide equal protection for all groups including those defined by race, 

color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin. 

Faculty who harass, intimidate, or discriminate against students because they are Jewish, Israeli, 

or supporters of Israel should be disciplined. Reprimand, censure, removal from teaching duties, 

and terminating employment are all appropriate, depending on the seriousness of the breach of 

academic conduct, and the frequency of its re-occurrence from any particular faculty member. 

Because bigotry should have zero tolerance, repeat breaches of this basic pillar of academic 

integrity are grounds for firing both un-tenured and tenured faculty members. Indeed, such 

discrimination should be identified in faculty handbooks as legal cause for removing a tenured 

faculty member. In the meantime, Jewish students who are subject to harassment and 

discrimination should file complaints with the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of 

Education, as students at the University of California, Irvine, have already done. 

9. Colleges should establish and enforce appropriate rules about civil discourse, including the 

protection of Jewish students and other supporters of Israel. 

Civil discourse excludes advocating physical harm or even murder because of someone’s racial, 

ethnic, or national background. These codes of conduct should be well publicized and included 

in student and faculty handbooks. Breach of conduct should require reprimand, suspension, 

expulsion and termination for students and faculty. We are not suggesting that students do not 

have the right to advocate for support of Palestinian causes, or to protest Israeli government 

policies. But they must do so within the established norms of racial and ethnic discourse on 

campus. 

Or, conversely, if campuses want to abandon speech codes, and stop regulating hate speech and 

promoting consciousness and sensitivity about race, gender, ethnicity, and nationality, then let a 

thousand diatribes, insults, and demeaning interactions bloom. If free speech is so valued, then 

let it be free. But universities cannot regulate speech through both formal structures and informal 

norms while selectively ignoring anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism.

42
10. If higher education does not adequately address anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus, 

then federal and state governments should bring the full power of their financial, legal, and 

moral authority to bear on colleges and universities. 

If university faculty and administrators do not curb anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism (or any 

form of prejudice), then governments at all levels should take corrective measures. 

Government should not have to intervene to insure the moral behavior of colleges and 

universities. On the other hand, the public sector would be abdicating its fiduciary and moral 

responsibility to allow anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism to continue unchecked. 

Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism in higher education fall squarely within the purview of the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights and the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. 

Given the pervasiveness of these ideologies on college campuses, government agencies should 

not only be actively fielding complaints of civil rights violations against Jewish students and 

supporters of Israel but should consider a system-wide investigation. 

Examples of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism on Campus 

• Kent State University, Campus Newspaper, April 15, 2002 

At Kent State University, associate professor of history Julio Cesar Pino wrote a poem in 

the Kent Stater on April 15, 2002, titled, “Singing out prayer for a youth martyr,” in 

which he praised a female suicide bomber. 

You are not a terrorist, Ayat. The real terrorists are those who some 100 years 

ago hijacked a beautiful religion and transformed it into a real estate venture. 

Glancing around the world, they saw in Palestine “a land without a people, for a 

people without a land,” as their spokesmen and women chant ad nauseam. The 

Zion of the concertina wire, F-16 bomber death planes and tank crews collecting 

skulls and shedding martyrs’ blood. The birthplace of your ancestor, and mine, 

the Palestinian pacifist Joshua ben Josef, is now a battle zone-with Christians, 

Muslims and peace-loving Jews trapped inside Bethlehem. [...] 

Your last cry, by gesture rather than the spoken word, was “Stop, thief! This is 

not your land and we are a people.” I can assure you, Ayat, that the whole world 

stopped to listen. Even the numbskull who parades as president of the United 

States heard you, and, following the text written for him by his handlers, 

43
expressed astonishment at how a teenager could perpetrate such an act. Simply, 

it is pronounced “justice” and spelled C-O-U-R-A-G-E.3

• University of Massachusetts, Campus Newspaper, Spring 1995 

In the University of Massachusetts student newspaper the Daily Collegian, a letter was

published by emeritus professor of mathematics Helen Cullen, who wrote, “Judaism and 

the Jewish identity are offensive to most human beings and will always cause trouble 

between the Jews and the rest of the human race.”4

• University of Illinois, Campus Newspaper, January 22, 2002 

The University of Illinois student paper, the Daily Illini, printed an opinion piece by 

Washington resident Ariel Sinovsky titled, “Jews Manipulate America.” Sinovsky wrote: 

The Jews, master salesmen that they are, have been able to persuade Americans that 

it is in American interests to support Israeli oppression of Palestinians. [...] Too 

often defective foreign policy has been promoted as something in the interest of 

American people while in reality it was done to satisfy the desires of Jewish 

oligarchs. [...] The President should act immediately to deal with this threat. First, 

separate Jews from all government advisory positions and give them one year fully 

paid sabbatical. [...] Jewish ability to promote their desires, disguised, as being in 

the interest of the American people, one day will evaporate. Then the Jews might 

face another Holocaust.5

The outrage of this article lies not only in the content but also in the headline, which was 

created by the editor. 

• Columbia University, Student Interview 2004 

Columbia student “LS” reported, “I took a class with [Professor] George Saliba [as we 

discussed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he] sort of drew me outside the classroom and 

told me to walk with him on his way out.[...] He said, ‘You have no voice in this 

3 Julio Cesar Pino, Singing Out Prayer for a Youth Martyr, DAILY KENT STATER, April 15, 2002, available 

http://www.stateronline.com/ (last visited May 18, 2006). 

4 Ronnie Friedland, “Interview with Robert Costrell,” Swastika on the Lawn: A Year of Anti-Semitism in

Massachusetts, July 1995, available at http://www.hebrewcollege.edu/sol/ ch06.html (last visited May 18, 2006). 

5 Ariel Sinovsky, Letter to the Editor, DAILY ILLINI, Jan. 22, 2002, available at http://web.archive.org/web/ 

20030410211115/www.dailyillini.com/jan03/jan22/ opinions/stories/letter03.shtml (last visited May 18, 2006). 

44
debate.[...] See, you have green eyes,’ he said, ‘You’re not a Semite.[...] You have no 

claim to the land of Israel.’”6 (Saliba has denied ever making the statement.) 

• Columbia University, Protest/Rally Statements, April 2002 

Professor of Latino Studies at Columbia University Nicholas De Genova proclaimed at a 

rally that “the heritage of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people. The State of

Israel has no claim to the heritage of the Holocaust.”7

• Georgetown University, Faculty Publications and Statements, November 2002 

Georgetown Professor Hisham Sharabi was quoted in the Lebanese Daily Star saying to 

Balamand University students and faculty that “Jews are getting ready to take control of 

us and the Americans have entered the region to possess the oil resources and redraw the 

geopolitical map of the Arab world.”8

• Various Universities, Vandalism, 2002-2005 

In 2002, at the University of Colorado, swastikas were drawn on a religious structure 

utilized by Jewish student groups.9

 At the University of Wisconsin, Madison, someone 

scrawled the messages, “Kill the Jews” and “Make it snow Jewish ash” in a classroom.10

6 Columbia Unbecoming, directed by Avi Goldwasser, DVD (Boston: David Project, 2004).

7 Xan Nowakowski, Students Organize Sit-In to Support Palestinians, COLUMBIA SPECTATOR, April 18, 2002, 

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/ display.v/ART/2002/04/18/3cbe8e3d6a634?in _archive=1 (last visited

May 18, 2006). 

8 “AJC Condemns Anti-Semitic Remarks of Prominent Georgetown Professor,” American Jewish Committee, 

November 21, 2002, http://www.ajc.org/ site/apps/nl/ content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b =849241&ct=868083 (last 

visited May 18, 2006). 

9 Bronson Hilliard, Vandals Strike Jewish Symbol in Colorado, COLORADO DAILY, September 21, 2002, available 

at http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2002/09/22/ export6521.txt (last visited May 18, 2006). 

10 Marc Ballon, Jewish Students and Activists Call UC Irvine a Hotbed of Anti-Semitic Harassment, JEWISH 

JOURNAL, March 11, 2005, available at http://www .jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=13779 (last visited

May 18, 2006). 

45
• University of California, Los Angeles, Conferences, 2001 

In 2001, at a Muslim Student Association conference at the University of California, Los 

Angeles, cleric Muhammad-al-Asi stated, “Israel is as racist as apartheid could ever be ... 

you can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew.”11

• University of Georgia, Campus Newspaper, October 1, 2001 

University of Georgia student Adam Gobin wrote in the Red and Black about Jewish 

influence in America, “Not only does the Israeli lobby control legislation [...] but it also 

controls the media giants.”12

• Northeastern University, Faculty Publications and Statements, December 12-18, 2004 

Professor M. Shahid Alam wrote in the Egyptian weekly, Al-Ahram, that Israel, “could 

only emerge as the bastard child of imperialist powers, and it could only come into 

existence by displacing the greater part of the Palestinian population, by incorporating 

them into an apartheid state, or through some combination of the two. In addition, once 

created, Israel could only survive as a militarist, expansionist, and hegemonic state, 

constantly at war with its neighbors.” He then explained that, “Jews, as junior partners of 

the imperialist powers, would seek to deepen the Orientalist project in the service of

Western power.” The current landscape of Middle East Studies is now divided, Alam 

explained, into “one camp, consisting mostly of Christians and Muslims, [which] has

laboured to bring greater objectivity to their study of Islam and Islamic societies. [...] The 

second camp, now led mostly by Jews, has reverted to Orientalism’s original mission of 

subordinating knowledge to Western power, now filtered through the prism of Zionist 

interests.” These Jews “work to incite a civilisational war between Islam and the West.”13

• Santa Rosa Junior College, Campus Newspaper, March 18, 2003 

In 2003, Santa Rosa Junior College’s student newspaper, The Oak Leaf, published an 

opinion article by civil engineering student Kevin McGuire titled, “Is Anti-Semitism Ever 

the Result of Jewish Behavior?” McGuire wrote: 

11 See Ballon, supra note 9.

12 Adam Gobin, Israeli Influence Impedes Objectivity, RED AND BLACK, October 1, 2002, available at

http://www.redandblack.com/vnews/display.v/ART/ 2002/10/01/3d999d385c3a6?in_archive=1 (last visited May 18, 

2006). 

13 M Shahid Alam, “What Went Wrong?,” Al-Ahram Weekly Online, December 12-18, 2002, available at 

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/616/op13.htm (last visited May 18, 2006). 

46
Israel is the largest and most dangerous terrorist organization in the world.

[...] The Zionist Jews believe they are the “chosen people” of god and that 

the world was given to them and is their possession. The Zionist Jews want 

to establish a Jewish holy land with no non-Jews present. [...] This attitude

of racial hatred and genocide is also reflected in the Torah. [...] In closing, A 

[sic] 1998 quote from Osama Bin Laden: “So we tell the Americans as 

people, and we tell the mothers of soldiers and American mothers in general 

that if they value their lives and the lives of their children, to find a 

nationalist government that will look after their interests and not the 

interests of the Jews.”1 

This piece asserts what anti-Semites have always contended—Jews bring it on 

themselves. This charge is typical of bigots and racists—the victimized group is 

somehow responsible for those who hate them. Such clear anti-Semitism

immediately set off a rancorous debate about how and why such an article was 

printed. The ensuing turmoil led to some campus and community anger directed 

at the newspaper editor who was culpable, and even more so the faculty advisor 

who failed to inform the editor of her right to refuse opinion articles that 

contained hateful language. The faculty advisor refused to publicly discuss the 

incident. However, this is not the first problem for The Oak Leaf. The college paid 

a $45,000 settlement over claims of sexual harassment that arose when male 

students posted anatomically explicit and derogatory remarks about two women 

on campus on a men-only bulletin board created by the journalism department.2 

 

1 . Kevin McGuire, Is Anti-Semitism Ever the Result of Jewish Behavior?, OAK LEAF, March 18, 2003, as 

quoted at 

http://aryan-nations.org/headlinenews/is _antisemitism_ever_the_result_of_jewish_behavior .htm (last 

visited May 18, 2006). 

2 Carol Benfell, Strife No Stranger to SRJC Newspaper, PRESS DEMOCRAT, May 10, 2003, available at

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ frontpage (last visited May 18, 2006). 

47 
• San Francisco State University, Mob Protest/Threats, May 2002 

Professor Laurie Zoloth of San Francisco State University, after having witnessed a mob 

protest against a Jewish student peace rally, was appalled by the absence of faculty 

speaking out against such bigotry. She wrote, “Counter demonstrators poured into the 

plaza, screaming at the Jews to ‘Get out or we will kill you’ and ‘Hitler did not finish the 

job.’ I turned to the police and to every administrator I could find and asked them to 

remove the counter demonstrators from the plaza, to maintain the separation of 100 feet 

that we had been promised. The police told me that they had been told not to arrest 

anyone.” She lamented the fact that “the police could do nothing more than surround the 

Jewish students and community members who were now trapped in a corner of the plaza, 

grouped under the flags of Israel, while an angry, out of control mob, literally chanting 

for our deaths, surrounded us. [...] There was no safe way out of the Plaza. We had to be 

marched back to the Hillel House under armed San Francisco police guard, and we had to 

have a police guard remain outside Hillel.”17 After attempting to shed light on what she 

regarded as a hostile environment for Jews at San Francisco State University, she moved 

to Northwestern University.18 San Francisco State University President Robert Corrigan 

has condemned anti-Semitism on his campus. 

• San Francisco State University, Flyers/Handouts, 2002 

At San Francisco State University, the Muslim Student Union circulated flyers depicting 

a can labeled “Palestinian Baby Meat.” (See following section) Written across the can 

was the phrase, “Manufactured in Israel under U.S. license.” This is a restatement of the 

ancient blood libel that first arose in Europe. Like so much of European anti-Semitism, it 

is now proliferating in the Middle East. The root lies in an accusation that Jews bake 

bread with the blood of gentile children, a lie created to justify the persecution and 

murder of Jews. Surprising to some, it has now arrived at North American universities. 

• University of California, Berkeley, Violence, 2001-2003 

A spate of harassment and violence erupted at the University of California, Berkeley, in 

2001. In December of that year, a member of Chabad, a Jewish religious group, was 

17 Laurie Zoloth, “Fear and Loathing at San Franciso State: Activists at a Jewish Peace Rally Are Confronted by a

Terrifying, Threatening Mob,” Aish, May 9, 2002, at

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Fear_and_Loathing_at_San_Francisco_State.asp (last visited May 

19, 2006).

18 “Faculty,” Northwestern University Center for Genetic Medicine, at http://www.cgm.northwestern 

.edu/faculty_bios/zoloth.htm (last visited May 18, 2006).

48
assaulted on campus on the way to the Chabad house.19 Then during spring break of 

2002, the Hillel window was smashed and graffiti stating, “F**k the Jews,” was painted 

on the building.20 Later, during a Simchat Torah celebration, a Jewish participant was 

assaulted close to campus.

21 These incidents all happened on one campus, over the course 

of a short period of time, highlighting how quickly campuses transform from verbal to 

physical hostility. 

In the Brown University Daily Herald, the student artist who created this satire of

American ignorance of the “other” invoked the classic anti-Semitic blood libel, perhaps 

unaware that the anti-Israel campaign uses the same charges to de-legitimate both the 

Jewish people and the state of Israel. 

19 Joe Eskenazi, Berkeley Chabadnik Attacked in Alleged Hate Incident, J, THE JEWISH NEWS WEEKLY OF

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, December 21, 2001, available at http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/ 

displaystory/story_id/17429/edition_id/345/format/ html/displaystory.html (last visited May 18, 2006).

20 Wendy Lee, Incidents of Violence, Prejudice Followed Last Year’s Attacks, DAILY CALIFORNIAN, September 11, 

2002, available at http://www.dailycal.org/ article.php?id=9390 (last visited May 18, 2006). 

21 Randy Barnes, Students Must Not Tolerate Anti-Semitism, DAILY CALIFORNIAN, October 11, 2001, available at

http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=6607 (last visited May 18, 2006). 

49
Anti-Israel propaganda often likens Jews to Nazis, as in this cartoon 

from Texas A&M University, which juxtaposes a Nazi officer with an 

Israeli soldier by replacing the swastika with the Star of David. 

50
A flyer created by Muslim student groups and funded 

by the Associated Students of San Francisco State 

University dredges up the medieval anti-Semitic 

blood libel of Jews slaughtering children—this time 

Palestinian children—for ritual purposes. 

Methodology 

Time frame 

The Institute for Jewish & Community Research conducted research on anti-Semitism and antiIsraelism in American educational systems from 2002 through 2005. We used a number of 

methods and sources, which are discussed below. 

51
Student interviews 

The Institute conducted over 50 personal interviews with students from a variety of campuses. 

Interviewees included anti-Israel protesters, Jewish students, student leaders, and student 

“observers,” those who were not part of the Israel debate. Our interviews focused on anti-Israel 

protest, anti-Semitism, intellectual freedom, the conflict in the Middle East, Middle East Studies, 

and student safety, among other subjects. 

Key informant interviews 

The Institute conducted over 40 key informant interviews with Jewish organizational leaders to 

assess the Jewish communal response to anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus. Some of

these organizations are listed below: 

• Aish Ha-Torah (student leadership training program) 

• American Israel Public Affairs Committee 

• American Jewish Committee 

• American Jewish Congress 

• Anti-Defamation League

• Caravan for Democracy (the campus division of the Jewish National Fund) 

• Chicago Jewish Community Relations Council 

• Connecticut Jewish Community Relations Council 

• Hadassah Curriculum Watch 

• Hamagshimim (helps foster Jewish student groups) 

• Hillel (national office and campus divisions) 

• San Francisco Federation Israel Center 

• San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council 

Campus literature 

The Institute completed a content analysis of hundreds of anti-Israel materials distributed on 

college campuses or designed for student protest. These include divestment literature, divestment 

petitions, flyers, pamphlets, posters, rally announcements, and other materials. We collected 

these materials by visiting campuses and gathering them from the tables of anti-Israel student 

groups, anti-Israel protesters, posted materials, and so on. We also used the Internet, examining 

activist websites such as electronicintifada.net, internationalanswer.org, and 

palestinecampaign.org, and we downloaded materials for students such as checkpoint flyers, 

divestment strategies, and ways to fend off accusations of anti-Semitism. In addition, we 

conducted extensive content analysis of banners, posters, signs, and sloganeering of anti-Israel 

protesters by attending rallies and examining photos taken at rallies. We paid special attention to 

52
anti-Semitic stereotypes, Holocaust imagery, historical inaccuracies, incitement, 

misrepresentations, negative slogans, and provocative language. 

Newspapers, magazines, internet newswires and websites 

We monitored twenty-five major news outlets on a daily basis, collecting news and opinion 

articles pertaining to anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism. Most prominent among them were The 

Chronicle of Higher Education, The Christian Science Monitor, Haaretz (Israel), The Jerusalem 

Post (Israel), National Review Online, New York Post, The New York Times, San Francisco 

Chronicle, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The Institute also monitored 

weekly news outlets such as Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt), Education Week, Newsweek, Time, and 

others. We analyzed articles on anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism for newsworthy incidents, 

relevant quotes from experts, and for the emergence of general trends. 

We systematically read Jewish community periodicals and news services including The

Forward, the J., and the Jewish Week. When an incident of anti-Semitism and/or anti-Israelism

arose on a campus, the local community newspaper also was consulted. 

Websites 

The Institute regularly analyzed the content found on over 30 websites. The types of websites 

varied and included anti-divestment drives, divestment petitions, faculty organizations, pro-Israel 

advocacy, pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel student and other groups, socialist movement groups, 

university information, university organizations/departments/centers, and others. 

Anti-Israel groups’ websites provided information on anti-Israel campaign goals, links to other 

anti-Israel organizations, literature and propaganda, and past and upcoming events. Divestment 

petition websites, as well as anti-divestment websites, were examined as they were created. We

searched university websites for administrative responses to anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on 

campus. University department websites were examined when they were involved in sponsoring 

a Middle East forum or teach-in on campus. We reviewed faculty organization websites if their 

field was related to the Middle East, or if they issued a statement regarding the Middle East in 

their capacity as professors. 

E-mail newsletters 

The Institute regularly received, reviewed, and analyzed five relevant e-mail newsletters from

Jewish organizations, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Jerusalem 

Center for Public Affairs, as well as grassroots pro-Israel organizations such as Stand With Us. 

We analyzed these newsletters for recent events and incidents on campus. 

53
College and university student newspapers 

The Institute systematically investigated fifteen campus newspapers (and other campus sources) 

selected by geography, campus size, public or private, and other factors. We examined over 

1,500 articles, advertisements, and other materials. These universities include: 

California

• University of California, Berkeley (The Daily Californian) 

• University of California, Irvine (The New University) 

• University of California, Los Angeles (The Daily Bruin) 

• University of California, San Diego (The Guardian) 

Michigan

• University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (The Michigan Daily) 

• Wayne State University (The South End) 

Texas

• University of Houston (The Daily Cougar) 

• University of Texas, Austin (The Daily Texan) 

Colorado

• University of Colorado, Boulder (The Colorado Daily) 

• University of Colorado, Denver (The UCD Advocate) 

New York

• New York University (Washington Square News) 

Illinois

• University of Chicago (The Chicago Maroon) 

Georgia

• Emory University (The Emory Wheel) 

• University of Georgia (The Red & Black) 

New Hampshire

• Dartmouth University (The Dartmouth) 

In addition to these fifteen campuses, the Institute used campus media at colleges and 

universities throughout the country. We analyzed the media content for several themes, 

including: 

• Anti-Israel voices (e.g., opinion articles, speakers, and statements) 

54
• Anti-Israel events (e.g., rallies, street theater, conferences, lectures, and courses) 

• Anti-Semitism (e.g., graffiti, vandalism, vocal threats, libelous accusations, discrimination, and 

physical attacks) 

• Divestment/apartheid accusations (e.g., examples of campus rhetoric and introductions of 

divestment campaign) 

We also evaluated news content for bias and accuracy when it pertained to the Middle East or 

related events on campus. We analyzed editorial boards’ writings as well as their decisions as to 

what submissions to feature on the opinion page. The Institute collected opinion articles and 

evaluated them for egregious anti-Semitic and anti-Israel content. We also identified, collected, 

and monitored contributions to student media from outside the university environment. 

Participant observation 

Institute staff members attended Jewish community meetings with campus administrators and 

were included in discussion groups for campus task forces about these issues. Researchers 

observed pro-Israel and anti-Israel demonstrations on college campuses, and attended teach-ins, 

lectures, and conferences addressing the Middle East conflict. 

55
Public Comments 

In addition to the written and oral testimony presented at the briefing, some organizations and 

individuals contributed statements to the Commission for inclusion in the public record. 

Additionally, Commission staff provided those entities and individuals named in allegations 

made in the record with an opportunity to respond to the allegations. These responses were also 

included in the public record. Below is a summary of highlights of the public record outside of 

the testimony of the panelists. The underlying documents are available for review in the 

Commission’s library. 

The Israel on Campus Coalition 

The Israel on Campus Coalition (“ICC”), a network of 28 national organizations committed to 

working collaboratively to assist students in fostering support for Israel on college campuses, 

submitted a statement to Commissioners on November 17, 2005. 

The ICC statement asserted that, despite a positive environment for Jewish students and

supporters of Israel on college campuses, the campus remains an arena for extremist behavior. 

ICC pointed to university chaplaincy services, Hillel, kosher food service, places for religious 

observance, and unique cultural programming and accommodation for religious holiday

observance as examples of the ways in which many universities have made college campuses 

welcome places for Jewish students. At the same time, ICC stated that “despite that 

overwhelmingly positive environment, problem areas do remain.” 

The ICC cited extremist speakers, the divestment campaign and poor scholarship at Middle East 

Studies departments around the country as examples of the challenges that both Jewish students 

and supporters of Israel face on college campuses. Specifically, the ICC reported that “[i]n some

instances, extremist speakers have been brought to campus at the behest of students, academic 

departments, and/or the university to spew venomous attacks on Jews, Israel, and other 

supporters of Israel.” The ICC characterized the divestment movement as a “thinly veiled and 

politically motivated” attempt to “delegitimize Israel and marginalize Jewish students...” 

The ICC also argued that anti-Semitism can also be motivated by disdain for the state of Israel in 

certain circumstances. Specifically, the ICC argued that attempts to delegitimize the existence of

the Jewish state are “tantamount to anti-Semitism” and are “nothing more than an effort to deny 

the Jewish people the right to self-determination.” According to the ICC, these events have 

forced college administrators to grapple with inadequate and antiquated grievance procedures 

and tensions between the right of the professor to teach and the right of the student to learn in a 

tolerant environment. 

The ICC statement was submitted by the ICC steering committee, which consists of

representatives of Aish Hatorah, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the AntiDefamation League, the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, the Conference of 

Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus 

56
Life, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs/United Jewish Communities, and students at the 

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and the University of Central Florida. The ICC 

supplemented the letter with its 2005 Israel on Campus Yearbook, which provides detail on the 

issues raised in the letter as well as information on alleged incidents of anti-Semitism on college

campuses. 

The American Jewish Committee 

The American Jewish Committee (“AJC”), which calls itself “America’s oldest human relations 

organization, with over 150,000 members and supporters,” submitted a letter to Commissioners 

on November 18, 2005. AJC states that its mission extends to safeguarding the welfare and 

security of Jews in the United States, in Israel, and throughout the world; strengthening the basic 

principles of pluralism around the world, as the best defense against anti-Semitism and other 

forms of bigotry; and enhancing the quality of American Jewish life by helping to ensure Jewish 

continuity and deepen ties between American and Israeli Jews. 

The AJC letter stated that, despite the fact that Jewish campus life is thriving, “[t]here is no 

question that anti-Semitism exists on some college campuses.” The AJC reports, however, that 

this anti-Semitism is different from the anti-Semitism that existed decades ago, during the time

of anti-Jewish quotas. Specifically, the AJC states that “[w]here anti-Semitism does exist, it is 

predominantly expressed as the political anti-Semitism known as anti-Zionism.” The AJC cited 

an increase in anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses in the aftermath of the collapse of the 

peace process in 2000 and during the rise of the divestment campaign. The AJC also argues that 

Israel has been demonized and subjected to double standards in a manner that resembles the 

former stigmatization and dehumanization of Jewish individuals. 

The AJC also expressed concern that some students experience harassment or intimidation for 

speaking out in favor of Israel, both inside and outside the classroom. To address that concern, 

the Committee circulated a statement among some 300 current and former university presidents 

noting these problems which was eventually published in various newspapers throughout the 

Nation. 

Finally, the AJC also noted that many Middle East Studies departments on college campuses 

have become “dogmatic” and “propagandistic” in demonstrating an anti-Israel bent. According 

to the AJC, while there are many legitimate reasons to criticize the state, the line is crossed when

Israel is consistently painted as evil. To address this concern, the Committee works with some

universities to enhance the scholarly study and academic teaching of modern Israel. 

The Committee supplemented the letter with its additional publications—“Why Campus AntiIsrael Activity Flunks Bigotry 101” and “Anti-Semitism Matters.” 

57
The Anti-Defamation League 

The Anti-Defamation League (the “ADL”), founded in 1913 to advance goodwill and mutual 

understanding among Americans of all creeds and races and to combat racial and religious 

prejudice in the United States and abroad, submitted a statement to Commissioners on November 

18, 2005. The ADL commended the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for its “proud tradition of

excellent work in raising awareness of national problems” and stated that they “welcome the 

Commission’s examination of the issue of anti-Semitism on campus and believe the USCCR can 

play a productive role in raising awareness of the impact of anti-Semitism and other forms of

bigotry on campus.” 

The ADL stated that they had documented 1,821 reported crimes and incidents against people 

perceived to be Jewish in the United States for 2004. According to the letter, the League 

identified and responded to over 70 official and identifiable incidents of anti-Semitism on 

college and university campuses during that period. The ADL argued that these numbers are 

deceptive, since hate crimes and incidents may be underreported. By way of example, the ADL 

described ten incidents reported on college campuses between March 2004 and June 2005; six 

additional examples of anti-Zionist activity that they argued have crossed the line into antiSemitism; and a more detailed discussion of incidents at Columbia University and the University

of California at Irvine. 

According to the ADL, Jews have generally found college campuses to be a positive 

environment in recent years, because “[i]institutional anti-Semitism, discrimination, and quotas 

against Jewish students and faculty is largely a thing of the past.” For this reason, the ADL 

indicated that it is “paradoxical” that the American college campus has “emerged as a flashpoint 

for anti-Jewish animus and a site for the expression and dissemination of anti-Semitism.” 

The letter also described incidents in which anti-Israel activism on campus had crossed the line 

into anti-Semitic intimidation and harassment. The League distinguished between legitimate 

criticism of the state of Israel and anti-Semitism based on three distinguishing characteristics of 

anti-Semitic speech previously identified by Natan Sharansky: demonization of Israel, double 

standards in criticizing Israel, and attempts to delegitimize the Jewish state. The letter also 

described the League’s responses to bias, prejudice, and anti-Semitism on campus and urged the 

Commission to support improvements in the government’s collection of data on hate crimes at 

colleges and universities.

Columbia University 

On November 15, 2005, Columbia University Provost Alan Brinkley wrote to the Commission 

on behalf of Columbia President Lee Bollinger to decline the Commission’s invitation to 

participate in the briefing and to address allegations previously made against Columbia. Brinkley 

stressed that “we at Columbia abhor anti-Semitism or any other form of invidious 

discrimination.” He also confirmed the University’s commitment to Jewish studies and its 

support for Jewish life on campus. This letter also addressed allegations of anti-Semitic 

harassment at Columbia, noting that that Columbia instituted formal processes to specific 

grievances related to concerns raised in the context of teaching and discussion about Israel and 

58
Palestine and the conduct of certain faculty members. Brinkley acknowledged that Columbia 

had identified “inconsistencies and weaknesses in the avenues available for students to raise 

concerns about faculty conduct and other important matters were exposed.” The letter insisted 

that Columbia took the appropriate measures and addressed the adjudicated student grievances 

through the framework of the University’s principles and code of conduct. Brinkley stated that 

Columbia had strengthened its procedures for adjudicating grievances and established additional 

venues for students to discuss issues with university administrators. 

On January 20, 2006, Columbia University Professor Hamid Dabashi submitted a sworn 

statement to the Commission in response to testimony presented by Sarah Stern at the briefing. 

Specifically, Professor Dabashi wrote: “I hereby declare that the sentences and sentiments of 

anti-Semitism that Ms. Stern has attributed to me are categorically false and slanderous, and 

defamatory.” In his statement, Dabashi alleged that the sentiments attributed to him by Ms. 

Stern misconstrue an essay he published in the Egyptian periodical al-Ahram in September 2004. 

He emphasized that the phrase “Israeli Jews” does not appear in this essay. He averred in 

conclusion that he has not expressed, nor ever harbored, any anti-Semitic sentiments. He 

concluded by claiming a “complete and unconditional solidarity with the inalienable freedom, 

human rights, public safety, and categorical dignity of all the citizens of [the Middle East] 

region.” The Commission provided Sarah Stern with an opportunity to respond to Professor 

Dabashi’s statements, and her response is summarized below. 

On January 16, 2006, Columbia University Assistant Professor Nicholas DeGenova submitted a 

letter to the Commission denying that he is Anti-Semitic or has made Anti-Semitic remarks. In 

particular, Professor DeGenova claims to have been defamed by allegations that his remarks at 

an April 17, 2002, Columbia University protest rally were anti-Semitic. Rather, he stated that his 

remarks denouncing the state of Israel were directed only to the “state of Israel, the Zionist 

national project, and its colonialist subjugation of the Palestinian people.” Specifically,

Professor DeGenova noted that the reference to him in the Commission’s transcript appears to be 

based on a report published in Columbia Spectator, a Columbia University student newspaper. 

According to DeGenova, his statement should have been quoted as follows: “The heritage of the 

victims of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people. The state of Israel has no legitimate 

claim to the heritage of the Holocaust. The heritage of the oppressed belongs to the oppressed – 

not the oppressor.” DeGenova claimed that the paper failed to include his full remarks, although 

it published his subsequent letter to the editor. He also claimed to be a “sincere and devout 

enemy of anti-Semitism” and of other forms of “racial oppression.” DeGenova argued that it is 

“cynical,” “repulsive,” and “obscene” to abuse the term “anti-Semitism” to “silence” those who, 

like DeGenova, denounce the state of Israel. He stated that he has “saluted the Jewish people 

who truly honor the legacy of the victims of the Holocaust – the anti-Zionist Jews who have 

shown the moral integrity and political courage to denounce Israel’s oppression of the 

Palestinian people and to work actively for the material defeat of the occupation.” DeGenova 

concluded that “[t]he heritage of the Holocaust is rightfully theirs, just as it belongs to the 

Palestinians and all oppressed people, just as I claim it as my own heritage.” 

On February 6, 2006, Elizabeth J. Keefer, General Counsel for Columbia University, submitted a 

notarized letter to the Commission to supplement the letter submitted by Provost Brinkley prior 

to the Commission’s briefing. General Counsel Keefer began by emphasizing Columbia’s 

59
commitment to nondiscrimination, diversity, inclusion, and the fostering of a “culturally and 

intellectually vibrant community of scholars.” 

Ms. Keefer then responded to third-party testimony concerning student complaints and public 

allegations of faculty misconduct in Columbia University classrooms. She recounted the ninemonth work of an ad hoc Columbia faculty committee to address such allegations. According to 

Ms. Keefer, this committee met with 62 students, alumni, faculty and administrators and 

considered more than 60 written submissions. The ad hoc committee released a report on March 

28, 2005, which “addressed particular incidences of faculty misconduct and recommended 

fortifying student grievance procedures to improve the University’s ability to mediate future 

complaints of this nature.” Keefer explained that the procedures provide both formal and 

informal mechanisms for students with complaints about faculty conduct, including mechanisms

for review at the level of the appropriate deans or vice presidents and a final appeal to the 

Provost. 

Ms. Keefer also described outreach efforts that Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, 

Provost Alan Binkley, and other university administrators undertook to “engage the community 

in an open dialogue on a range of issues that formed the heart of the student concerns that 

surfaced last year.” Ms. Keefer reported that Columbia instituted the President’s Council on 

Student Affairs, the President’s Student Advisory Committee on Diversity, and a series of 

“fireside chats” for students at President Bollinger’s home to give students new venues to 

interact directly with senior university administrators on matters of student concern. Keefer 

added that the new Kraft Family Fund for Intercultural and Interfaith Awareness sponsors 

discussions among students and faculty on issues of faith and culture. 

Finally, Ms. Keefer addressed President Bollinger’s decision not to sign the statement entitled 

“Statement of College and University Presidents on Intimidation-Free Campuses,” a petition 

signed by many university presidents and published as an advertisement in The New York Times

in October 2002. Ms. Keefer stated that “President Bollinger, like many other university 

presidents, chose not to sign the petition, believing that it was too narrow in its scope.” She also 

listed several statements made by President Bollinger in 2004 and 2005 stating that acts of 

intimidation and discrimination will not be tolerated at the university. For example, on 

December 8, 2004, President Bollinger announced that “[a]cts of intimidation or discrimination 

against students or any other members of our community on the basis of ethnicity, gender, 

political beliefs, race, religion, or for any other reason are antithetical to University policies and 

principles and are an affront to our community.” Similarly, the University Policy on Academic 

Integrity and Freedom of Expression, dated October 22, 2004, states that “the principle of 

academic freedom ...does not ... extend to protecting behavior in the classroom that threatens or

intimidates students for expressing their viewpoints or that uses the classroom as a means of 

political indoctrination.” 

San Francisco State University 

On January 16, 2006, San Francisco State University President Robert A. Corrigan submitted a 

sworn statement responding to allegations made in oral testimony. Mr. Corrigan stated that a 

60
May 7, 2002, San Francisco State student event led to a “noisy, but non-violent” confrontation 

between Hillel students and pro-Palestinian students. He also stated that the behavior of “some 

pro-Palestinian students represented a serious breach of campus values, as well as policies.” He 

offered, however, that the University’s response to the incident was “comprehensive, thoughtful 

and ultimately very positive.” 

President Corrigan submitted a summary of his response to this event, including pertinent 

documentation, which is also presented in full on the San Francisco State University web site at 

this URL: http://www.sfsu.edu/~news/sfsuresp.htm. According to these materials, the 

university’s response included creation of the President’s Task Force on Inter-Group Relations: 

Initial Focus on the Effect of Middle East Issues on Campus Life; development of academic 

programs and special events for a semester devoted to civil discourse; a retreat for student 

leaders; workshops presented jointly by the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and 

Counseling & Psychological Services; meetings between President Corrigan and leaders of the 

Arab American, Muslim American and Jewish American communities; and sanctions against the

General Union of Palestine Students for actions at the May 7 rally, including loss of funding and 

its web site for one year. 

In particular, President Corrigan stated that his university’s response to the “blood libel” flyers 

described by Ms. Stern was immediate and strong: all posters were removed by University staff 

and students from the group responsible for the posting were “made to recognize its absolute 

unacceptability.” Mr. Corrigan stated that he wrote “strong letters of reproof” to each student 

group whose name is listed on the flyer, although several claimed not to have seen it prior to 

publication. Those letters included the following rebuke: 

I write in disappointment and dismay after seeing the flier promoting the April 8 

campus rally...The flier contains a particularly repellant example of antiSemitism. I am referring, of course, to the “Made in Israel” inset. Its obvious 

unreality makes it the more inflammatory. This is no political statement. It is 

hate speech in words and image. In particular, the phrase “Jewish rites” echoes a 

type of ugly myth that has been used through the centuries specifically to generate 

hatred... 

The flier was much more than an offense to the Jewish community; it was an 

offense to the entire University community and all that we stand for – most 

especially our ability to see the humanity in those with whom we disagree. With 

communications such as this flier, your group defiles itself, dampens its voice, 

and distracts attention from the very cause you want to espouse. 

...In speaking as strongly as I have in this letter, I am doing no more than you 

asked – working to eliminate discrimination and combat racism. And this is just 

as much a protection for Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians as it is for Jews and 

Israelis.... 

President Corrigan also submitted two “Dear Campus Colleague” letters that he had previously 

circulated. President Corrigan’s April 12, 2002, letter included the following statement: 

61
Earlier this week, major campus rallies dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian 

conflict drew audiences as large as 1000 to Malcolm X Plaza. We had on and offcampus speakers, strong and often hostile words, and a march. In marked contrast 

to events on other campuses, these were non-violent – a tribute to many people of 

differing views who united to make sure this was so. 

There was, however, one absolutely unacceptable action. Some of you have 

heard of it, and I am writing to let you know what happened and how we have 

responded. A flier put out by several student groups promoting one of the rallies 

contained an ugly, anti-Semitic section. I do not want to give its words or images 

further visibility by describing them in detail; suffice it to say that they referred to 

the ritual slaughter of babies. I have written individual letters to each of the 

groups and [the] University Dean of Human Relations ... is meeting with them as 

well. We are repeating a familiar message: Hate speech is not free speech. AntiSemitism is as ugly and unallowable as racism or scapegoating of Muslims, 

Arabs, or any other group. None are protected unless all are protected. We 

remain wholly committed to maintaining this campus as a place were all feel safe 

and supported. 

President Corrigan followed this communication with another public letter, dated May 

13, 2002, also addressed to colleagues on the San Francisco State campus. In that letter, 

Mr. Corrigan stated the following: 

In my 14 years as president of this university, I have never been as deeply

distressed and angered by something that happened on this campus as I am by the 

events of last week. On Tuesday, a pro-Israel peace rally, thoughtfully organized 

and carefully carried out by SFSU Hillel members, drawing some 400 participants 

from both campus and community, evoked strong opinions and strong speech – 

some from the free speech platform, much from the nearby pro-Palestinian 

counter-demonstration. But strong, even provocative speech is not the problem, 

nor are strongly held opinions on highly-charged topics. Rather, it was the lack of 

civility and decency on the part of a very few demonstrators at points during the 

rally, and much more markedly after it, when rhetoric and behavior escalated 

beyond what this campus will tolerate. 

For the most part, the most objectionable behavior occurred after the rally’s

organizers brought it to a formal close and a group of pro-Palestinian 

demonstrators who, in keeping with our student event policy, had been held back 

by barricades and campus police, moved on to the event site, where a few dozen 

organizers remained. There, some of the demonstrators behaved in a manner that 

completely violated the values of this institution and of most of you who are 

reading this message. Thankfully, I am not speaking about physical violence. 

The monitoring by University staff throughout the event and the significant police 

presence we had arranged to have on hand ensured the safety of all involved. 

Unfortunately, we were not equally able to ensure civil discourse and maintain the 

sense of security to which every member of this campus is entitled. A small but 

62
terribly destructive number of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, many of whom were 

not SFSU students, abandoned themselves to intimidating behavior and 

statements too hate-filled to repeat. This group became so threatening in gesture 

and hostile in language that we interposed a police line between the groups and 

eventually escorted the Hillel students, and the faculty with them, from the plaza. 

No one was physically assaulted, but that encounter puts at risk all that we value 

and represent as a university community. 

The demonstrators’ behavior is not passing unchallenged. The University’s code 

of student discipline and event policy allow for individual and group sanctions 

ranging from warning to suspension to expulsion for certain violations, and some

of what took place on Tuesday may well fall within that area.... In one instance, 

that of a protestor who seized and stamped on an Israeli flag, the case has already 

gone forward. I fully expect to see other cases presented. If we identify 

violations of public law, we will refer cases to the District Attorney, with our 

strong recommendation for full prosecution. We have requested that the District 

Attorney assign a member of the hate crime unit to work with us.... 

I hope that you will agree that no love of homeland, no fear or grief for loved ones 

in the actual area of Middle East conflict, excuses the behavior that has been 

reported. This is not a war zone. It is a campus, a place where all must feel 

physically protected even as we engage in the disputation that is part of a teaching 

and learning environment. But when disputation degenerates into bigotry and 

hate, we must – and do – act... 

We have reviewed, and will continue to review, the policies and procedures that

guided our responses during the May 7 event. We may well adjust them. 

Certainly, we will take steps to ensure that encounters like those I have described 

will not recur. Nothing justifies such acts of overt hostility, or even the implied 

threat of physical assault. Such behavior is not an expression of free speech. 

The vast majority of this campus community would condemn the hateful speech 

and threatening behavior we saw last Tuesday. It is a very few individuals who 

are fomenting this discord. Yet, as we see, their impact can be profound – if we 

allow it to be. Despite the claims of some, this is not an anti-Semitic campus. 

But as history shows us, silence and passivity can at times of crisis be very 

different from complicity. All of us – and I would say especially members of the 

faculty, who have the greatest opportunity to educate and influence our students – 

have a responsibility to help maintain this as a safe and sustaining environment 

for the expression and exploration of opposing views... 

Show in actions as well as words that you believe not only that “Love is Stronger 

than Hate” but that hateful actions, threats of violence, outrageous slurs and 

bigoted statements are rejected and contemned by our entire campus community. 

63
President Corrigan also noted that the Muslim Student Association wrote a letter of apology, and 

that a subsequent investigation launched to determine whether university funds were used to 

print the flyers determined that they were not. In closing, Mr. Corrigan stressed the efforts of the 

University to make the campus safe, and sustain an environment with zero tolerance for antiSemitism, anti-Muslim prejudice, hatred, speech or intimidation. 

St. Cloud University 

On January 20, 2006, Gail Olson, General Counsel for Minnesota State Colleges and 

Universities, submitted a notarized letter responding to testimony alleging anti-Semitic incidents 

at Saint Cloud University. Ms. Olson noted the commitment of Minnesota State Colleges and 

University System to “addressing anti-Semitic behavior, where it may occur, and for taking steps 

to prevent such behavior in the first place.” With respect to the specific allegations raised at the 

briefing, Ms. Olson wrote that: 

Claims of discrimination based on anti-Semitism and retaliation were brought in 2001

against St. Cloud State University, the System, the faculty union, and several individuals. 

In addition to the claims by the named plaintiffs, the lawsuit was brought as a class 

action. Individuals with no direct involvement in the litigation also voiced concerns.

Ultimately, none of the claims in the lawsuit were either adjudicated or proven....The 

[U]niversity entered into a settlement agreement because it concluded that a trial in this 

case would be divisive and alienating for the university community. 

General Counsel Olson also provided the following correction to the Commission’s record: 

“Arie Zmora served two years as an instructor in a non-tenure track (fixed term) position at St. 

Cloud State University. He raised allegations of discrimination after an unsuccessful bid for a 

tenure-track position.” In closing, she stated that the Executive Director of the Jewish 

Community Relations Council Minnesota and The Dakotas had praised the university’s actions 

in this context. 

University of California at Berkeley 

On February 6, 2006, Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor of the University of California at 

Berkeley, submitted a notarized response to testimony delivered at the briefing. Chancellor 

Birgenau stated that the University of California at Berkeley does not condone anti-Semitism or 

any other form of intolerance. Mr. Birgenau observed that “society looks to us for leadership, 

analysis and understanding.” 

Chancellor Birgenau noted that, following the throwing of a piece of a concrete through the door 

window of the campus Hillel organization, the Associate Chancellor and Dean of Student Life 

assured students gathered in a Hillel meeting that campus police would assist local police in 

investigating the incident, that police patrols near Hillel would be increased, and that campus 

police would respond immediately should any other incident occur. He also noted that two 

64
Orthodox Jews were indeed attacked near campus, but stated that there was no indication that the 

assailants were affiliated with Berkeley and the crime was not classified as a hate crime because 

it was deemed that the motive was robbery. He maintained that the University has no 

information about allegations that Jewish students praying the kaddish (prayer for the dead) were 

shouted down by protesting students saying a prayer for the suicide bombers. Finally, he stated 

that the University issued a statement condemning the Hillel vandalism which offered that “[o]ur 

greatest contribution to the resolution of this conflict is reasoned thoughtful interaction based on 

compassion for one another.” 

After noting these incidents, Chancellor Birgeneau described Berkeley’s response to these 

incidents. He noted that the Associate Chancellor, the Dean of Student Life, the Director, staff 

and students at Hillel have had ongoing communications to address such incidents related to the 

Israeli-Palestinian debate. He noted that there is an Operations Committee that deals with 

protests on the campus and that the Events Management Committee meets weekly during the 

academic year to review controversial events. In addition, he noted that the UCPD Chief of 

Police is a member of both Committees. In concluding, Chancellor Birgeneau stressed that the 

University of California at Berkeley does not condone hate speech, anti-Semitism, or any other 

form of intolerance. 

University of California at Irvine 

On February 3, 2006, Diane Fields Geocaris, Counsel for the University of California at Irvine, 

submitted a letter responding to several references to the University in the briefing record. Ms. 

Geocaris described a series of lectures, panel discussions and workshops that UC-Irvine has 

recently held to address hate incidents, including a presentation on “Muslim-Jewish 

Understanding” featuring the father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl. As an example of the 

success of this dialogue, Ms. Geocaris says that at least one UC Irvine Jewish student has 

recently declared that the campus community largely ignores the “inflammatory Muslim

speakers” who visit the campus. Nevertheless, Ms. Geocaris claimed that “some outside 

organizations” including the Zionist Organization of America (“ZOA”), have “demanded that 

UC Irvine silence this important dialogue.” Specifically, Ms. Geocaris claims that ZOA 

demands “that UC Irvine silence just one side of the dialogue: the Muslim side.” Ms. Geocaris 

states that silencing the dialogue would prevent UC Irvine from performing its primary mission 

of education. 

Ms. Geocaris mentioned that Irvine took several actions in 2002 to assess its policies and 

procedures governing communications and materials on the campus climate and free speech and

demonstration protocols, including reviewing all reported acts that violated the policy to assess 

potential concerns; reviewing all policies and procedures on the use of University property and 

speech and advocacy; providing refresher training to facility managers and campus scheduling 

personnel on these policies; meeting with student leaders to promote communication and 

understanding among student groups; mandating that fall orientation of student group leaders 

include promotion of civil discourse; issuing statements promoting civility, tolerance, and 

understanding in various campus media; and developing a “hate crime” website that provides 

information on how to identify and file a report with campus police. 

65
Ms. Geocaris then addressed a number of specific factual allegations raised during the 

Commission’s briefing. Geocaris argued that UC Irvine appropriately treated vandalism on the 

Irvine campus. Officials contacted the UC Irvine Police Department to report one incident in 

which a Holocaust memorial was disturbed. On another occasion, the university investigated 

swastikas found near a candlelight vigil but was unable to find any witnesses or suspects. 

Geocaris claimed that the Anti-Defamation League has praised UC Irvine’s handling of at least 

one of these incidents. UC Irvine’s former Chancellor Cicerone expressed his concern to the 

Executive Director of UC Irvine Hillel and gave assurances that appropriate action would be 

taken if the culprits were found. 

Responding to allegations that anti-Semitic speakers routinely speak at UC Irvine, Ms. Geocaris 

noted that student groups, rather than University employees, invite such speakers to campus. 

She also argued that UC Irvine cannot prevent the speakers from speaking, nor may it regulate 

the content of their speech. She also claims that students are “learning to distinguish for 

themselves between factually verifiable statements and hate speech because at least one UC 

Irvine student leader has recently and publicly declared that the campus community largely 

ignores inflammatory Muslim speakers.” Ms. Geocaris attributes this to UC Irvine’s “extensive 

actions” toward the goals of inclusion, education, knowledge and ethics. 

With respect to the letter written by a Jewish student to university officials voicing fears for the 

safety of Jews on Irvine’s campus, Ms. Geocaris noted that the letter did not identify a single 

threat or act of violence. Rather, she stated, the letter addressed the offensive nature of the 

speech presented in a march by Muslim students protesting Israel. Ms. Geocaris stated that the 

Associate Vice Chancellor responded to the letter. The response noted the police attention to the 

safety and crowd control and invited the student to visit the Counseling Center. 

With respect to testimony regarding the publication in a student newspaper of an article that 

emphasized the “Nazi-like notion that Jews are genetically different and separate from nonJews,” Ms. Geocaris first stated that the University does not exercise control over the content of 

such publications. She added that the University: (1) worked with the students responsible for 

the publication to make them aware of the presentation’s offensiveness; (2) worked with and 

encouraged Jewish students to present their views of the issues; and (3) attempted to bring the 

two groups together in informal meetings for better mutual understanding. 

With respect to the testimony regarding “Anti-Zionist” week at Irvine, Ms. Geocaris responded 

that the University may not prevent speakers from speaking at a student-sponsored event on 

campus, nor may it regulate the content of their speech. 

Addressing the testimony regarding the rock-throwing incident, Ms. Geocaris responded that the 

aggrieved student did not report the incident until January 2004, several weeks after it took 

place. She continued that, when the student reported the incident to University personnel in the 

Dean of Students’ Office, the student could not identify the names of Muslim Student Union 

members at the table, did not think he was in any danger when the rock was thrown, and could 

not distinguish whether the child was just playing with the rock or threw it intentionally. 

According to Ms. Geocaris, the student decided not to pursue the matter by identifying the 

66
woman he thought responsible for the child. Furthermore, Ms. Geocaris states that in May 2004, 

the student sent Dean Peterson an email describing the incident. This description stated that the 

“rock flew right in front” of the student’s face and that the student was scared to wear a Jewish 

or pro-Israel t-shirt since that day. Ms. Geocaris stated that Dean Peterson left the student a 

voicemail to call her back about the incident, and that the student never returned the call. 

In response to the testimony regarding alleged harassment and threats of one student, Ms. 

Geocaris stated that a Jewish student had filed a police report with campus police describing an 

incident in which between two and five apparently Muslim males confronted him, surrounded 

him, and threatened to beat him. According to Ms. Geocaris, campus police contacted the 

student several times to follow up, and the student failed to respond to these inquires and did not 

show up for an appointment with the campus police. 

According to Ms. Geocaris, the University believes that this is the same incident report by a 

student to personnel in the Dean of Students’ office. The student could not identify the alleged 

harassers by name, but knew that one of them was an MSU member. The Dean of Students’ 

office personnel advised the student to come back if he could spot that particular student, and he 

returned twenty minutes later so reporting. The representative from the Dean of Students’ Office 

followed the aggrieved student, who began shouting at the Muslim Student Union member he 

identified as one of the harassers. The representative separated the two. The Muslim student 

reported that the Jewish student always seemed to engage in behavior that appeared intended to 

provoke Muslim students. The Jewish student did not pursue the matter further. Ms. Geocaris 

stated that the university did not have a record of any request from this student that his transcript

be forwarded, suggesting that Ms. Tuchman’s testimony concerning his transfer might be 

inaccurate. 

In response to Ms. Tuchman’s mention of her organization’s Title VI complaint against Irvine, 

Ms. Geocaris argues that Title VI does not apply to allegations of anti-Semitism because religion 

is not a protected class for purposes of Title VI. Specifically, she argues that (a) the concept of

race as understood at the time of the enactment of Title VI did not extend to Jews and (b) where 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had intended to include religion as a protected category, it only did 

so explicitly. 

Ms. Geocaris also referred to the value the University places on civil discourse and the free 

exchange of ideas consistent with the federal and state constitutions under which it operates. 

According to Ms. Geocaris, under both these authorities, state actors may not regulate speech in 

public forums unless the regulation is neutral with respect to viewpoint and subject matter and is 

a time, place, or manner restriction that serves an important government interest and leaves open 

for communication adequate alternative places. 

Finally, Ms. Geocaris stated that the Zionist Organization of America terminated mediation 

discussions regarding the complaint it had filed with the Department of Education’s Office for 

Civil Rights without explanation. 

Ms. Geocaris appended an email response from the University’s Assistant Vice Chancellor of 

Counseling and Health Services to an email from a graduate student addressing a march by 

67
Muslim students protesting Israel. In the email, the Associate Vice Chancellor recounted his 

personal observations of the march, most notably the marchers’ boisterous and vociferous chants. 

While he agreed that some of the content was offensive, he did not agree that the climate of the 

march was unsafe. The graduate student’s original email voiced concerns about the content of 

the signs carried by marchers. These signs read, among other things, “Zionism is Nazism,” 

“Sharon is Hitler,” and “Israelis kill Palestinian babies.” The student declared that “Not only do I 

feel scared to walk around proudly as a Jewish person on the UC Irvine campus, I am terrified 

for anyone to find out. Today I felt threatened that if students knew that I am Jewish and that I 

support a Jewish state, I would be attacked physically.” 

Ms. Geocaris also appended a letter from student Alex Chazen that appeared in the campus 

newspaper. This letter expressed the need for students to band together against hate speech. 

This letter also questioned the utility of the complaint filed by the Zionist Organization of 

America in addressing the problem of hate speech and discrimination on campus, which 

students, the author believed, could address on their own. 

University of California at Santa Cruz

On January 20, 2006, David S. Kliger, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor 

University of California at Santa Cruz, submitted a letter to the Commission expressing that UC 

Santa Cruz appreciates the opportunity to respond to statements made at the Commission’s 

briefing but indicating that it is unable to do so. Provost Kliger explained that the “testimony 

only mentions UC Santa Cruz and does not identify specific conduct, actions, or events 

pertaining specifically to this campus.” The letter continued, “While we appreciate the 

opportunity to respond, the reference to our campus is so non-substantive that we would not 

know how to respond.” However, the letter affirmed the University’s commitment to academic 

freedom and openness. 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

On January 20, 2006, James Moeser, Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill, submitted a notarized letter to the Commission responding to materials in our record that 

referenced an incident at Chapel Hill. In the incident described, a masked man on a bicycle threw 

a red paint-filled balloon at a representative of the Israel Defense Forces speaking on campus. 

Chancellor Moeser stated that the Executive Director of North Carolina Hillel immediately 

advised Campus Police and the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs of the incident. According 

to Mr. Moeser, an investigation by Campus Police turned up no leads. The Student Affairs 

office offered its support and that of campus counseling services in assisting students and 

members of the community in thinking through their reactions to this incident. Mr. Moeser 

stated that the Executive Director of North Carolina Hillel did not consider the incident antiSemitic, but rather a political statement against the Israel Defense Forces. Mr. Moeser closed by 

stating that, to his knowledge, no similar incidents have taken place on campus. 

68
Sarah N. Stern, The Endowment for the Middle East (EMET) 

Panelist at the November 18, 2005 Briefing 

On February 15, 2006, Sarah Stern submitted a notarized response to the letter submitted by 

Columbia University professor Hamid Dabashi. In her testimony, she alleged that Columbia 

professor Hamid Dabashi wrote the following in the Egyptian newspaper, Al Ahram, on 

September 23, 2004: “Half a century of systematic maiming and murdering of another people 

has left...its deep marks on the faces of Israeli Jews, the way they talk, walk and the way they 

greet each other....There is a vulgarity of character that is bone-deep and structural to the 

skeletal vertebrae of its culture.” In response to Professor Dabashi’s aforementioned response, 

she concedes that the article does not use the term “Israeli Jews.” However, she provides the 

paragraph containing the term “these people,” which she states clearly means Israeli Jews from

the context. She quotes from an article written by Scott Sherman in The Nation which argues 

that the cited paragraph can easily be construed as anti-Semitic. She also states that it is clear 

from the piece that Mr. Dabashi does not feel that Israel has any right to exist. 

Ms. Stern continues that she believes that it is “disingenuous for [Mr. Dabashi] to say that he has 

not had his political views enter his professional life, when he has used his position to intimidate 

students who disagree with him.” She specifically refers the reader to articles published in The 

Columbia Spectator and FrontPageMagazine.com in support. She concludes by suggesting that 

Mr. Dabashi should not have a position of unchecked power over students in a classroom if his 

writings demonstrate a large degree of animus and considerable biases against “Jewish people 

and the Jewish state.” 

Susan B. Tuchman, The Zionist Organization of America’s Center for Law and Justice 

Panelist at the November 18, 2005 Briefing 

On March 20, 2006, Ms. Tuchman submitted a response to comments made by Diane Fields 

Geocaris, Counsel, University of California at Irvine. 

First, Ms. Tuchman denied Ms. Geocaris’ alleged assertion that ZOA seeks to silence or suppress 

speech on campus. Second, she claimed that Irvine still maintains that “there has been no 

indication that any group or individual has been intimidated, harassed, or prevented from 

pursuing all the educational and extracurricular activities available to UC Irvine students.” 

She then addressed each of Irvine’s alleged “misstatements and mischaracterizations” in turn: 

Addressing Irvine’s response to the allegations regarding the vandalization of the Holocaust 

memorial, Ms. Tuchman claimed that campus security was “wholly inadequate,” that Irvine is 

not equipped to conclude that the incident was not a hate crime since it “never completed an 

investigation,” that Irvine’s administration never acknowledged to the university community that 

such an incident had occurred, and that the university bears primary responsibility for failing to 

apprehend the alleged vandals. 

69
Replying to Irvine’s response concerning alleged promotion of anti-Semitic speakers on campus, 

Ms. Tuchman claimed that the appearance of such speakers at a lectern bearing the University’s 

emblem connotes acceptance of the content of the speech. She also took the University to task 

for not explicitly condemning such speeches. 

With respect to the student letter submitted to Irvine describing feelings of fear and physical 

intimidation, Ms. Tuchman alleged that the student found the university’s response insulting and 

upsetting, rather than a “teachable moment.” 

Addressing Irvine’s response concerning the publication of a student newspaper article that 

emphasized the “Nazi-like notion that Jews are genetically different and separate from nonJews,” Ms. Tuchman claimed that the failure to respond to the article connoted acceptance of it 

and contributed to the marginalization of the Jewish community at Irvine. Ms. Tuchman noted 

that the University likewise failed to condemn the above-mentioned Anti-Zionist Week. 

In reply to Irvine’s response to the allegations of the rock-throwing incident, Ms. Tuchman stood 

by her testimony, as it was based on information from the student at whom the rock was thrown 

and corroborated by the email message that the student sent to the Dean of Students. 

Answering Irvine’s response to the allegations of threats and harassment against a Jewish 

student, Ms. Tuchman stood by her statements and claims that Irvine misstates the facts. She 

also claimed that Irvine made false statements maligning the victim. 

In response to Irvine’s statement regarding termination of the mediation, Ms. Tuchman cited 

Irvine’s alleged refusal to acknowledge any harassment, intimidation, or discrimination of 

Jewish students or any obligation to address this problem. 

Ms. Tuchman argued that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to allegations of antiSemitism and that nothing in the First Amendment precludes Irvine from enforcing its own 

policies and protocols regarding intimidation and threats. 

Ms. Tuchman appended a copy of a letter from Irvine student Merav Ceren that was published in 

the UC Irvine campus newspaper. Ceren responds to the aforementioned letter from student 

Alex Chazen that ZOA’s complaint was necessary because “years and years of experiences and 

frustrations prove that the UCI administration won’t or can’t address these problems on their 

own.” The letter refers to repeated petitions from Jewish students to the University 

administration to address harassment, intimidation, and discrimination, including an entreaty 

from Aryeh Green, advisor to former Israeli minister Natan Sharansky, to make the campus safer 

for Jewish students. 

Finally, Ms. Tuchman also appended a copy of an unsigned letter to the editor in the same

campus newspaper similarly mentioned that ZOA’s complaint was precipitated by Jewish 

students who had repeatedly requested help from the Irvine administration in addressing 

harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. The letter argued that the University has an 

obligation to speak out against hate speech, but did not request any speech restrictions. The 

letter concluded by referring to the positive results of the complaint, including University 

70
participation in an academic conference on the Middle East in which University officials invited 

many speakers there to teach Israeli history. 

Other Submissions 

The Commission also received comments in response to its invitation from the following 

additional persons not summarized above, however, because they were not responsive to 

materials actually published by the Commission: 

• Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M., President, DePaul University 

• Norton Mezvinsky, Professor, Central Connecticut State University Professor 

• James Moeser, Chancellor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

• Laura Schachter, Dean of Diversity and Compliance, Hunter College 

• Stephen Brodsky, University Counsel, Pace University 

Their comments as well as the portions of the unpublished record to which they respond are 

available at the Commission’s library. Finally, the Commission solicited comments from the 

following individuals and entities who did not respond to the Commission’s invitation: 

• Henry S. Bienen, President, Northwestern University 

• Hank Brown, President, University of Colorado 

• Jared L. Cohon, President, Carnegie-Mellon University 

• Juan Cole, Professor, University of Michigan 

• David Duke 

• John L. Hennessy, President, Stanford University 

• Adam W. Herbert, President, Indiana University

• Joseph Mossad, Professor, Columbia University 

• Kevin Reilly, President, University of Wisconsin 

• George Saliba, Professor, Columbia University 

• Lawrence H. Summers, President, Harvard University 

71