Antisemitism Among College Faculty and in Classrooms

Trends, Patterns and Institutional Dynamics

Introduction

In recent years, antisemitism has reached historic levels across the United States. This has been a serious issue both nationally and on college and university campuses with ADL tracking 1,694 incidents on U.S. campuses in 2024 and 583 in 2025. Despite the year-over-year decline, incidents on campus remain significantly higher than in 2022 (219 incidents) and 2021 (155 incidents). These incidents have ranged from harassment and exclusion to vandalism, intimidation and physical assault, contributing to heightened concern among students, staff, faculty, parents, administrators and other stakeholders.

Public attention and institutional responses have largely focused on student-driven antisemitism, particularly in the context of protests, demonstrations and campus activism. Far less scrutiny has been directed toward the role of faculty and the classroom environment - spaces that are less visible to those outside the institution but nonetheless play a critical role in shaping student experience and, at times, normalizing antisemitism. This gap in attention persists despite findings from ADL's January 2025 campus antisemitism report, conducted in partnership with Hillel International and College Pulse, which found that more than a quarter (27.3%) of Jewish students reported observing antisemitic activity by faculty. Notably, the report also found that exposure to faculty engaging in anti-Jewish rhetoric was associated with significantly higher perceptions of a hostile campus environment, alongside decreased confidence in administrators’ ability to effectively address antisemitism.

Part of the challenge lies in the relative opacity of academic spaces. Faculty conduct, curricular choices and broader academic structures are less publicly visible than campus demonstrations, making incidents and patterns within classrooms more difficult to document and assess - even as they may meaningfully shape campus climate. These dynamics are further shaped by the position of authority faculty occupy. Within the classroom, students may feel limited in their willingness to question or push back on certain perspectives, especially when doing so could carry perceived risks related to participation, grading or their ongoing academic relationships.

These less visible domains - including teaching practices, grading, academic culture and faculty-led initiatives - can strongly influence whether Jewish and Israeli students experience the university as inclusive or exclusionary. When such environments signal - explicitly or implicitly - that certain perspectives may be judged more harshly, students may self-censor to avoid social or academic repercussions. This dynamic is reflected in the same January 2025 ADL report, which found that fewer than half (49.6%) of Jewish students felt “very” or “extremely” comfortable with others on campus knowing their Jewish identity, and only 26.7% felt comfortable sharing their views on Israel. Together, these patterns suggest that concerns about being singled out or penalized can shape not only classroom participation, but also how openly students express core aspects of their identity.

These dynamics do not present uniformly across institutions, nor do they characterize all faculty. However, recurring patterns across multiple campuses suggest the need for closer examination. This report identifies several such patterns, focusing specifically on how faculty behavior and academic structures may shape the classroom and broader academic environment.

One-Sided Framing and the Blurring of Education with Advocacy

A central concern involves the presentation of course material in ways that are perceived as ideologically one-sided, particularly on topics related to Israel, Zionism and Jewish identity. In some cases, faculty introduce highly politicized interpretations into courses, including those not directly focused on Middle Eastern politics, which can give the impression that a particular viewpoint is not only dominant but expected. In other cases, faculty conduct has normalized language and conceptual frameworks that blur the line between political critique and harmful generalization, contributing to the spread of misinformation and the deepening of social divisions. Terms such as “colonialism,” “apartheid,” or “genocide” are increasingly used in academic contexts to describe Israel, often in ways that promote narratives which misrepresent a highly complex historical and political reality.

These dynamics can manifest through selective readings, framing of lectures or the treatment of contested claims as settled fact. Students may encounter narratives that emphasize a single moral or political interpretation without equivalent exposure to alternative perspectives. Over time, this can narrow the scope of classroom inquiry and discourage open debate.

In some cases, a course might incorporate extensive material critical of Israel without engaging substantively with counterarguments or historical complexities. 

For instance, at Stanford University, a course titled Palestine Across Disciplines: An Introduction offered a one-sided description stating "How do we talk about Palestine and Palestinian life in the midst of devastation and genocide?” Meanwhile, a Yale seminar description alluded to Israel as a "settler-colonial structure of occupation and violence." 

At Princeton University, a course titled Gender, Reproduction and Genocide focused on the “ongoing genocide in Gaza” and offered a reading list that included an abstract reading: "Israel’s genocidal project, hypervisible now in the intensification of warfare against the occupied and besieged Gaza Strip, but also unfolding across occupied Palestinian territory since the 1948 Nakba.”

These concerns are particularly significant as descriptions and syllabi may signal a specific interpretive lens or normative stance, shaping student expectations before the course even begins. For students - especially those enrolled in required courses or programs with limited alternatives - such framing can create the perception that certain viewpoints are privileged while others are marginal or unwelcome. This, in turn, may influence how comfortable students feel expressing dissenting perspectives, and can contribute to a broader sense that intellectual diversity within the classroom is constrained.

This kind of rhetoric has also directly entered the classroom. For example, a student at the University of Missouri reported that, during a session on International Politics and Conflict in a required course for journalism majors titled Cross Cultural Journalism, a professor showed the students a movie about the previous mayor of Ramallah (in the West Bank) and reportedly used the movie “to push her personal world view on her students” with Israel being “named an occupational force whose main target is to kill all Palestinian citizens.”

Similarly, in August 2025, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, a professor reportedly opened the first day of an engineering class by asserting that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza. This followed a similar pattern from the previous semester, when he began the course with a brief commentary expressing sympathy for claims of “genocide in Palestine” and encouraged like-minded students to speak with him.

Meanwhile, at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, the Core Curriculum consists of several required modules for incoming students, including one course taught to roughly 420 first-year graduate students. According to reports, the instructor of that course described Israel as a “colonial settler state” and referred to it as “so-called Israel.” One student later reflected that the course “puts the idea into everyone’s head that the Jews stole the land and it should belong to the indigenous people.” Additional allegations included comments that Jewish donors to the school were seeking to launder “blood money” through philanthropy. In one exercise, students were also reportedly asked to consider the possibility that a hypothetical “development team is concerned that working in Palestine could turn off wealthy U.S. donors that support Israel.” When complaints emerged, the instructor reportedly dismissed critics as “privileged, white students” uncomfortable with being challenged in a required class.

In other cases, a class outside political science - such as literature or the arts - might embed political messaging about Israel in ways that feel tangential to the subject matter. For instance, a National Cinema course description at Northwestern included the following language: 

“This course offers an historiographic account of Palestinian film and media in relation to Indigeneity, settler colonial occupation, right to return, genocide, diaspora, and survival and resilience...Prominent scholars and reputable human rights organizations explain that the ongoing genocide in Palestine is perhaps one of the most documented forms of violence." 

A course titled English Composition in Connection with the Reading of World Literature at the University of California, Berkeley temporarily listed a course description that read: 

“With the US-backed and -funded genocide being carried out against Indigenous Palestinians by the Israeli Occupying Force, many have found it difficult to envision a reality beyond the one we are living in today. At the same time, we have also seen a rise in global socialist (and in particular Leninist) movements that are actively combating this destructive imperial agenda. From the Hamas revolutionary resistance forces combating settler-colonialism...there continues to be a commitment to anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism in what has been termed the Global South and those within the Global North that actively challenge it...How do we learn from the revolutionary visions set out by those who have come before us, and those who will come after?"

In more extreme cases, some professors may use their platforms to actively guide students on how to advocate against Israel, Zionism and even protections designed to combat antisemitism. For instance, during a class at California State University, Los Angeles, a professor was recorded coaching her students on how they could oppose a state bill addressing antisemitism in educational spaces. Referencing the bill, the professor stated: “We can push Gavin Newsom to veto 715, so if you’re willing, so this is a long way of me introducing you to a thing you can do right now... You can sign [a] petition to veto AB 715.”

Taken together, these patterns point to a troubling erosion of the principles that underpin higher education - namely, intellectual pluralism, critical inquiry and the open exchange of ideas. When courses present contested political claims as settled truth, or consistently privilege one interpretive framework while marginalizing others, the classroom risks becoming a site of ideological reinforcement rather than genuine learning. Over time, such an environment may not only constrain students’ ability to engage critically with differing perspectives, but also create implicit pressures to conform, thereby undermining both academic freedom and the development of independent thought.

Introduction of Pro-Terrorism Narratives

A further area of concern involves instances in which faculty introduce or appear to legitimize rhetoric that expresses support for, or justification of, designated terrorist organizations. While universities are spaces for the examination of controversial ideas, the introduction or endorsement of rhetoric that appears to justify or support acts of terrorism is not simply a matter of academic debate. It represents a serious breach of academic responsibility and raises profound concerns about the misuse of classroom authority, the erosion of ethical boundaries in teaching, and the normalization of violence within an educational setting.

In Spring 2024, students at the University of California, Berkeley were reportedly assigned Ghassan Kanafani's Men in the Sun in a history course, with the professor noting Kanafani's affiliation with the PFLP. Additional assignments in this course focused on Leila Khaled – a member of PFLP – and asked students to consider questions concerning "armed struggle" and Palestinian resistance following 1948. Students were also assigned Patrick Wolfe's essay on how Zionism constitutes a settler-colonial project. The course additionally allegedly offered extra credit for attendance at a university-sponsored event series entitled Thinking from Palestine: Dispossession, Liberation, and Return, which was advertised using language describing Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide.

In September 2025, the Center for Palestine Studies at Columbia University reportedly promoted an extracurricular external course at the People’s Forum that required students to read a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) - a designated terrorist organization - leader’s teachings. 

Meanwhile, in November 2023, a University of California, Irvine professor – commenting on the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel – stated: "The Zionists have been exposed for the criminals and blood-thirsty animals that they are. This is a gift from Allah to the world." He also remarked: "This is a chance for us. Allah is giving us a golden opportunity. Every now and then, with His divine wisdom, He sends reminders to us, whether it was 9/11 or the Second Intifada, or some other issue that is waking the Muslims' spirit." That same month, a Virginia Tech professor stated that Hezbollah terrorism is "a form of anti-imperialism that unfortunately the Western left shies away from too much... We must refuse those who demand that we condemn Palestinian violence.” Similarly, in October 2023, a Cornell professor stated that he was “exhilarated” by Hamas’ attack on Israel. More recently, in April 2026, a group called Shut it Down NYU hosted an off-campus event near New York University (but unaffiliated with the University) that featured a lecture by a former Columbia University professor who reportedly encouraged students to study and draw lessons from Hamas and other terrorist groups, including their planning of the October 7 attacks and the idea of martyrdom.

The impact of these dynamics is shaped in part by the authority faculty hold within the classroom. Students may feel constrained in their ability to challenge or question such content, particularly where participation, grading or academic relationships are at stake. This can be especially acute for Jewish students, who may experience such rhetoric not as abstract political discourse but as directly threatening, particularly when it relates to violence against Israelis or Jewish communities.

Moreover, the introduction of pro-terrorism narratives into coursework may contribute to a broader campus climate in which the boundaries of acceptable discourse are shifted. When expressions that appear to endorse or excuse violence are treated as legitimate academic perspectives, it can create an environment in which antisemitic rhetoric – especially when intertwined with narratives about Israel – becomes more difficult to distinguish from sanctioned academic content.

In this context, the issue is not simply one of viewpoint diversity, but of how authority, pedagogy and institutional norms can be leveraged to legitimize rhetoric that normalizes or excuses violence, distorts moral boundaries and contributes to an environment in which antisemitic narratives and hostility toward Jewish members of campus communities are not only tolerated, but implicitly reinforced within the classroom.

Academic Incentives and the Subtle Pressure to Conform

Another pattern involves the integration of political engagement into coursework, sometimes through grading structures or informal incentives. While not always explicit, these practices can create an environment in which students perceive that certain forms of political expression are rewarded.

For instance, students may be offered extra credit for attending protests, participating in demonstrations or producing assignments aligned with a particular political stance. Even when participation is optional, the availability of such incentives can introduce subtle pressure, especially in competitive academic settings.

A course might, for example, provide additional marks for attending a rally or submitting reflective work based on participation in activism related to the Israel-Hamas war. For example, in October 2023 – mere weeks after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel – a teaching assistant at the University of California, Berkeley, offered her students extra credit for attending an anti-Israel walkout, promoted as a walkout “against the settler-colonial occupation of Gaza.” The issue was swiftly addressed by the administration, who cited a policy prohibiting political indoctrination on campus. That same month, another graduate instructor at the University of California, Berkeley canceled class altogether in support of a campus walkout for Gaza. Students were informed that participation in the protest represented an important learning opportunity and an act of solidarity with Palestinians. Also that month, at UCLA, a teaching assistant reportedly sent an email to their students stating that anyone who attended an anti-Israel “Emergency Teach-in on the Crisis in Palestine" would receive extra credit.

Meanwhile, in October 2025, at the University of California, San Diego, a mandatory introductory undergraduate course in the ethnic studies program reportedly referred to Israel as a "genocidal settler colonial project in Palestine" and encouraged students to use Slack to submit assignments to the professor's private email to avoid university "surveillance.” And, in February 2024, students at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign were reportedly offered extra credit to attend a meeting with a speaker who made remarks including: “Zionism is racism" and "How you act today is how you would have acted during the actual Holocaust," in reference to Israel's war in Gaza. In 2024, an art history professor at Santa Monica College reportedly included an assignment to design an art exhibition at an “often illegal” encampment on the college grounds “to educate the community about the ongoing conflict in Gaza on the occupied Palestinian lands.”

On other campuses, this issue has manifested in the cancellation of classes, disrupting the academic experience of students. For example, in January 2024, at the University of California, Irvine an assistant professor reportedly emailed students in her Comparative Literature class: "In observance of the week-long global strike (Jan 21-28) to support the Palestinian people's call to end the genocide, I am canceling our Week 3 classes.” In December 2024, a professor at New York University reportedly cancelled her final classes to protest Israel, urging her students to call for boycotts against Israel at a protest instead of completing their coursework.

Similarly, at Columbia, the University’s Task Force on Antisemitism stated, in their fourth report, that: 

“Unfortunately, several instructors encouraged their students, during class, to participate in the 2023-24 academic year’s protests; cancelled class sessions in the hope their students would join the protests; or moved their classes off campus so they could be used as political organizing sessions. Some held their classes or office hours in a protester encampment (where in several cases it was indicated Zionists were not welcome).”

These dynamics can blur the line between academic evaluation and political alignment, potentially affecting how comfortable students feel expressing dissenting views. In contexts where anti-Zionist or anti-Israel positions are embedded within coursework or incentivized through grading, Jewish students - particularly those for whom Zionism is a core component of their identity - may perceive that their beliefs are not only unwelcome but academically disadvantageous. This can give rise to a form of discrimination, in which students feel pressured to either conform, remain silent or risk academic penalty for expressing views tied to their identity. Over time, such environments may reinforce antisemitic exclusion not through overt hostility, but by structuring participation and success in ways that marginalize Jewish perspectives and normalize their absence from academic discourse.

Classroom Dynamics and the Singling Out of Students

One of the most serious concerns involves reports of Jewish and Israeli students being singled out in classroom settings. This can occur in both direct and indirect ways, ranging from explicit comments to more subtle forms of social pressure.

In some instances, students have been asked to speak on behalf of Israel or Jewish communities, effectively positioning them as representatives of broader political entities. In others, classroom discussions may include generalizations that associate Jewish identity with political actions or power structures.

Columbia’s Classroom Experience Task Force report described several cases in which Jewish or Israeli students were allegedly treated as representatives of Israel or held personally responsible for Israeli government policy. Examples included:

Such issues have been recorded on other campuses as well. At Cornell University, the administration had to cancel two classes and suspend a professor after the professor reportedly told a graduate student “to drop a class he was teaching about Gaza because the student is Israeli.”

Even when such incidents are not overtly hostile in tone, they can nonetheless reflect and reinforce underlying antisemitic dynamics. The expectation that Jewish or Israeli students must justify, condemn or explain the actions of a state - or be held morally accountable for them - echoes long-standing antisemitic tropes of collective Jewish responsibility and dual loyalty. These classroom environments can signal to Jewish students that their identity is inherently political, suspect or open to scrutiny in ways that other identities are not. Over time, this creates a chilling effect: students may self-censor, avoid participation or withdraw from academic spaces altogether to avoid being put on display or subjected to implicit judgment. Beyond individual discomfort, such patterns risk normalizing the marginalization of Jewish voices within intellectual settings, undermining principles of equal treatment and open inquiry, and contributing to a broader campus climate in which antisemitism - whether explicit or subtle - can take root and persist.

Faculty Governance, Institutional Positions and Support for BDS Initiatives

Beyond the classroom, faculty organizations, senates, governments, unions and academic bodies increasingly engage in political resolutions, particularly those related to boycotts or divestment initiatives concerning Israel. These actions represent a shift from individual expression to institutional positioning.

When faculty governance bodies adopt or seriously entertain such measures, they move beyond abstract debate and seek to embed highly charged political positions within the formal structures of the university. This risks institutionalizing exclusion – particularly where policies or norms effectively marginalize Jewish scholars, Israeli academics or perspectives associated with Zionism. In doing so, these actions can contribute to a more divisive campus climate in which antisemitic assumptions may be reinforced and certain members of the academic community are implicitly excluded from full participation.

For example, in January 2025, the City University of New York faculty union voted to boycott Israeli entities. While the resolution initially passed, the union subsequently released a statement noting: “The Delegate Assembly chose to rescind the resolution because irregularities were identified in the January 23 vote. The irregularities were corrected and a revote was held,” leading to the resolution being rejected. Meanwhile, in April 2025, the faculty union for the 23 campuses in the California State University System passed a resolution titled, "Stop CSU partnership with Israeli universities." In December 2024, the Rutgers Adjunct Faculty Union passed a resolution that called for academic and economic boycotts of and divestment from Israel. And in May 2024, faculty at Amherst College passed a resolution calling for the College to divest from Israel. A similar resolution was passed by the University of Michigan Faculty Senate Assembly in January 2024. 

At the University of California, Berkeley, throughout 2025 and 2026, Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) repeatedly sponsored or promoted events advocating for divestment and boycott. These included town halls, teach-ins, rallies and public campaigns that framed divestment as both a moral and institutional obligation. Promotional materials frequently described Israel as genocidal, colonial or engaged in ethnic cleansing while urging participants to support academic and economic boycott efforts. In 2025, a town hall was organized and advertised with language that included calls to build “the power we need to win unprecedented divestments in our union’s upcoming contract campaign.”

Columbia has also had a long history of faculty participation in anti-Israel divestment advocacy. In 2016, forty Columbia faculty members signed a petition supporting Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) and urging Columbia to divest from companies alleged to “supply, perpetuate, and profit from a system that has subjugated the Palestinian people.”

This history matters because post-October 7 faculty activism did not emerge in a vacuum. The language of apartheid, divestment and institutional complicity had already been embedded in parts of Columbia’s faculty culture. Although divestment campaigns are formally directed at university investments, they can also affect academic climate by positioning Israel - and often Zionism - as uniquely illegitimate within the university’s moral and political vocabulary.

This pattern continued in 2024, when three divestment proposals submitted to Columbia’s Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI) framed Israel through accusations of “genocide” and “apartheid.” The first proposal was submitted by an Adjunct Assistant Professor from the Department of Population and Family Health within Columbia’s medical system, while the second and third proposals were submitted by individual students on behalf of “concerned students, faculty, staff, and alumni,” with affiliations listed including the History Department, Political Science Department and the Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race. The proposals called on Columbia to divest from entities connected to Israel and reflected the continued integration of anti-Israel activism into faculty-affiliated and academic institutional channels. In November 2025, ACSRI rejected all three proposals.Such developments reflect a growing breakdown in the balance between academic freedom, institutional neutrality and political engagement, as formal university structures are increasingly used to advance politicized agendas. In practice, this shift risks entrenching divisive ideologies within the academy, eroding viewpoint diversity, and fostering conditions in which antisemitism can become normalized.

Faculty Activism and Its Influence on Academic Culture

Faculty involvement in organized political advocacy represents another significant trend. Groups such as Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) – a growing network of more than 130 affiliated university faculty and staff groups – have established a presence on many campuses and often engage in coordinated activities including public statements, events and campaigns.

While faculty participation in political life is not new, the scale, coordination and ideological coherence of such efforts can extend their influence deeply into academic spaces. As detailed in ADL’s backgrounder on the FSJP network, FSJP and similar networks promote frameworks that characterize Israel as inherently illegitimate - often describing it as a “settler-colonial,” “racist,” or “apartheid” state - and advocate for measures such as academic boycotts of Israeli institutions, the exclusion of Zionist perspectives from academic discourse, and protections for activism that may violate university policies. These positions are frequently framed as scholarly or justice-oriented, even as critics argue that they can contribute to the exclusion or stigmatization of Jewish and Israeli members of the academic community.

Perhaps even more concerningly, these dynamics can extend beyond the classroom itself. Through their institutional authority, tenure protections and access to internal administrative channels, some faculty networks – including FSJP chapters – play an active role in supporting aligned student organizations. In certain cases, this includes providing guidance, advocacy or institutional backing to groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters and related campus coalitions. This support can amplify the reach and influence of these organizations while also, at times, contributing to efforts that shield them from disciplinary action by university administrations, raising serious concerns about accountability, fairness in the enforcement of campus policies, and the appropriate boundaries of faculty involvement in student activism. It may also create potential conflicts of interest, particularly where faculty roles as educators and evaluators intersect with their engagement in advocacy tied to specific students and student groups.

The impact of such activism is amplified by the institutional authority faculty hold. Through curriculum design, departmental influence and control over academic spaces, faculty can shape which perspectives are treated as legitimate or credible. In some cases, this has included the normalization of rhetoric that blurs the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitic tropes, as well as the marginalization of Jewish student organizations or expressions of Jewish identity associated with Zionism.

As a result, faculty-led activism may contribute to academic environments in which antisemitic assumptions are embedded within intellectual frameworks rather than expressed overtly. When political positions that reject or delegitimize core aspects of many Jewish students’ identities are presented as academically authoritative or institutionally endorsed, it can reinforce exclusionary dynamics while limiting the space for dissenting viewpoints.

In this context, the issue is not simply one of faculty political engagement, but of how organized advocacy - when combined with academic authority - can shape institutional norms in ways that risk normalizing antisemitism, marginalizing Jewish participation and narrowing the boundaries of acceptable discourse within the university.

Conclusion

The patterns outlined in this report indicate that faculty play a significant role in shaping how political and identity-related issues are experienced within higher education. Across multiple campuses and disciplines, there is a discernible trend in which discourse surrounding Israel, Zionism and Jewish identity is framed in ways that go beyond critical inquiry and, in some cases, veer into rhetoric that can reasonably be understood as antisemitic. These dynamics operate at multiple levels, from individual classroom interactions to broader institutional choices about curriculum and programming.

While academic freedom and critical inquiry are essential to the mission of higher education, they cannot serve as a shield for the repeated presentation of one-sided or exclusionary narratives that delegitimize or demonize a particular people or identity. When critiques of Israel are advanced through language or frameworks that erase Jewish historical ties, apply double standards or invoke tropes that echo longstanding antisemitic themes, the result is not robust debate - it is the normalization of bias within academic spaces.

Recent institutional efforts also demonstrate that a different approach is possible. The University and Its Purpose: A Declaration of First Principles, adopted by the Vanderbilt University Board of Trust in June 2026, reaffirms that: 

“A university’s obligation is not to protect students from ideas, but rather to expose them to ideas, and to help make them capable of understanding and assessing them, and, hopefully, of having ideas of their own...Universities fail in this purpose if they try to settle debates rather than encourage them, or when they suppress or censor points of view due to political expediency or other convictions unrelated to their academic merit. Faculty — individually and through academic units — fail in their responsibility if course offerings, syllabi, or class discussions suppress or promote ideas and perspectives that are rooted in political or personal commitments as opposed to academic merit.

The university will protect a student’s right to expert instruction, to fair evaluation of their work solely based on academic standards, and to the freedom to take reasoned exceptions to the views of their professors.”

These principles provide a compelling model for preserving academic freedom through intellectual pluralism, viewpoint diversity and rigorous scholarship rather than ideological advocacy.

Recognizing and addressing these patterns is therefore not in tension with academic freedom, but necessary to preserve it. Universities have a responsibility to ensure that classrooms remain places of genuine intellectual openness, where contested issues are explored with rigor, balance and respect for all students. A clear-eyed examination of the trends documented in this report should prompt serious reflection on the boundaries between scholarship and advocacy, and on the ways in which current practices may be contributing to an environment in which Jewish students feel marginalized or excluded.