Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, U.S. college campuses, academic associations and other academic institutions have seen a rise in subtle, often informal efforts to exclude or marginalize Israeli institutions, scholars, or perspectives. These efforts frequently fall under what experts have identified as “soft boycotts” or “shadow boycotts.” Unlike formal, public resolutions passed through recognized channels, such as a student government vote, these tactics operate behind the scenes - through silence, omission, or quiet pressure.
Although less visible than organized campaigns of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, soft and shadow boycotts often serve similar ends: they seek to delegitimize and ostracize Israeli academic, cultural, and political presence by quietly discouraging engagement, participation, or partnership. The lack of transparency and accountability make these boycotts difficult to track and address - yet their impact is no less real for those targeted.
This backgrounder explains what soft and shadow boycotts are, how they intersect with the BDS movement, why they are problematic for institutions and individuals, what they really target, and how they can be countered. It is intended as a resource for university and association leadership, policymakers, faculty, staff and students committed to upholding academic freedom, intellectual integrity, and equal treatment and access in educational institutions.
What Are "Soft" and "Shadow" Boycotts - and How They Relate to BDS
Soft and shadow boycotts refer to informal, often unspoken efforts to marginalize Israeli individuals or institutions, typically by quietly excluding them from conferences, grants, partnerships, academic magazines or public collaboration, or even influencing hiring, promotion and performance review decisions. While soft boycotts rely on institutional silence or external social pressure to discourage formal engagement with Israeli institutions, shadow boycotts operate through behind-the-scenes decisions - often without any public acknowledgment or transparent or clear reasoning. Both tactics are enforced through peer pressure and serve to discourage engagement with Israeli-affiliated scholars, research and academic institutions.
While they may not be formal resolutions, soft and shadow boycotts often align with or advance the broader aims of the BDS movement, which calls for public, systemic boycotts of Israel in academic, cultural, and economic spheres. Soft and shadow boycotts function as a quieter, sometimes more socially palatable way to promote similar forms of exclusion and marginalization without the scrutiny or accountability of public endorsement.
Why These Boycotts Are Problematic
- They Undermine Academic Freedom: Boycotts - whether formal or informal - that restrict academic engagement based on nationality or institutional affiliation threaten the foundational principles of academic freedom and open inquiry. They hinder scholarly collaboration and research advancements and politicize spaces meant for learning and research. Critically, by targeting Israeli institutions or scholars, these boycotts often indiscriminately affect all academics affiliated with those institutions, regardless of their individual views or identities - including scholars and students who are Arab citizens of Israel.
- They Encourage Discrimination by Proxy: Soft and shadow boycotts often result in individuals being penalized not for their views or actions, but simply for their affiliation with Israeli institutions or with Israel as a country. This form of collective punishment shifts blame from governments to private citizens and scholars.
- They Lack Transparency and Due Process: Because these boycotts are often unspoken or informal, those targeted have no ability to respond, appeal, or even confirm they are being excluded. This lack of transparency can stifle open dialogue across academic and cultural spaces and leaves those affected unable to demonstrate or challenge the fact that they are being targeted.
- They Disproportionately Target One Nation: While framed as moral or political acts, these tactics often single out Israel in ways that are inconsistent with how other nations are treated. This double standard can fuel concerns about bias and politicization under the guise of ethics and justice.
What These Boycotts Really Target (and Their Impact)
Despite claims of being directed at institutions or government policy, soft and shadow boycotts often end up targeting individuals - Israeli academics, artists, scientists, students, and even diaspora Jews perceived as being “connected to” Israel. These boycotts go beyond critique of government policy and instead ostracize people based on association.
Key areas of targeting include:
- Academic and research collaboration: Israeli scholars may be quietly excluded from conferences, panels, publications, or joint research projects and even career advancement opportunities, such as hiring, promotion or performance-based recognition. Some grant providers and departments may decline collaboration without explanation. In some instances, data produced by Israeli institutions - regardless of the discipline or context - has been dismissed or refused for use. Such exclusions are based solely on affiliation with Israel.
- Student opportunities: Israeli students or those who express support for Israel may face social isolation, exclusion from activist clubs or academic groups, or pressure to disavow their affiliations in order to be accepted. In some cases, students and faculty have quietly discouraged participation in study abroad programs in Israel or enrollment in courses led by Jewish or Zionist professors, subtly pressuring others to avoid these opportunities based on political bias rather than academic merit.
The impact of these exclusions is significant. They stifle intellectual exchange, narrow the scope of global cooperation, restrict growth opportunities, and create hostile environments where students, staff and faculty are forced to conceal their identities or political beliefs. For Israeli scholars, it may mean fewer platforms to share research or contribute to their field. For non-Israeli allies and Jewish students, it can create a chilling effect on expression and participation. For many, it can mean stalled or prematurely ended careers - either due to a sudden loss of opportunities or the ongoing strain of navigating persistent hostility and exclusion at every stage. Ultimately, these tactics erode academic neutrality and deepen polarization on campus.
Countering Soft and Shadow Boycotts
- Reaffirm Academic Freedom and Open Exchange: Institutions should clearly state that the work of scholars and students must be evaluated based on merit, not national origin, religion or political assumptions. Public commitments to open inquiry help set the tone for resisting informal exclusions.
- Strengthen Academic Ties: Institutions must double down on official research, study, and collaborative partnerships with Israeli institutions - not only to uphold academic freedom and global exchange, but to send a clear message that discriminatory and divisive pressure campaigns will not dictate the boundaries of scholarly engagement.
- Increase Transparency: When collaborations, classes, study abroad opportunities or speakers are rejected, universities and academic departments should be encouraged to give valid reasons. Opaque decisions create space for discrimination; transparency fosters accountability.
- Address Double Standards: Education and policy guidance should help students and faculty understand how selective boycotts may reflect or enable bias. Critique is valid, but consistent standards are essential.
- Speak Up: University presidents, deans, department heads, and leaders of professional academic associations should be prepared to push back against soft and shadow boycotts by defending academic freedom and publicly supporting inclusion across ideological and national lines.
- Support Dialogue, Not Disengagement: Rather than boycotting, institutions should foster spaces for debate, collaboration, and nuanced discussion of global conflicts - including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dialogue and civil discourse can challenge ideas without silencing individuals.
- Encourage Allyship and Reporting: Those who observe informal exclusion or discrimination should be encouraged to speak out and report concerns. Institutions must create safe, confidential channels for members of their campuses and associations to report patterns of marginalization - particularly when such exclusion occurs informally and is difficult to prove or document with concrete evidence – and must address the concerns.
Individuals can use our letter template to write to their campus (or association) leadership to urge them to reject Israel-related boycotts: https://notoleranceforantisemitism.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/letter-urging-campus-administration-reject-israel-related-boycotts