Since Hamas’s October 7 terror attacks against Israel, a troubling pattern has notably risen at universities across the United States: faculty becoming activists on their campuses by using their positions of authority to promote an explicitly anti-Israel narrative. This trend not only undermines the mission of the university to advance knowledge and open inquiry, but also erodes the trust we students place in our professors to teach us how to think, not what to think.
This pattern is not new. It has now embedded itself in all types of universities, from prestigious Ivy Leagues, to flagship state schools, and small liberal arts colleges, including my own Clark University.
One particularly telling example was a film and panel discussion during the Spring 2025 semester that was organized by the unversity’s Peace and Conflict program and sponsored by the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, the Psychology Department, and the American Association of University Professors. The film, titled The Palestine Exception, glorifies the anti-Zionist student encampments that took over numerous American university campuses and completely omits the well-documented antisemitism associated with the 2024 protests. The film also promotes a false definition of Zionism that demonizes Israelis, denies Jewish indigeneity, and distorts the history of Israel’s creation.
The panelists included a professor and PhD candidates from my university, along with a professor from a nearby Worcester university, and a former professor from Emerson College. The names of the panelists were not provided on any promotional material, which is suspicious because academic events typically disclose speaker identities to ensure transparency and accountability.
During the panel, when an audience member asked how we can ensure that Jewish students also have academic freedom in the context of Israel, a PhD candidate responded by saying that “When it comes to Jewish safety…as a student of the Holocaust…it’s not about us right now. We’re not the victims of this genocide.” Setting aside an insertion of the genocide libel, the PhD candidate is essentially saying that concerns over the academic freedom and safety of Jewish students are illegitimate, all while using their academic credentials to engage in blatant Holocaust inversion.
At that moment, the nature of the event was made clear. These academics were using their positions of power and authority to legitimize an anti-Israel narrative, all while encouraging those who disagree to stay silent as a means to shut down discussion and debate.
This is not an isolated incident. In the past year alone, faculty have assigned overtly anti-Israel platforms as required reading, taped anti-Israel propaganda to their doors, and are now scheduled to hold a workshop debating the IHRA working definition of antisemitism in the context of criticizing Zionism.
Based on the description shared in the promotional material, this workshop will likely amount to yet another attempt by ideologues to discredit the most widely accepted definition of antisemitism within the Jewish community and the world, as it labels Holocaust Inversion as a form of antisemitism. There is also high probability that the speakers will repeat the accusation that the IHRA working definition stifles free speech, while omitting its explicit clarification that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
As of this writing, no events platforming dissenting views have been scheduled by any university department, as there is no excuse other than prejudice for faculty to avoid holding an event or film screening presenting a countering perspective. This ultimately sends many Jewish and Zionist students a chilling signal that the anti-Israel narrative has firmly taken root among a considerable share of the faculty.
While our administration has taken a strong and proactive approach to combatting antisemitism and working with the Jewish organizations on campus, there is more that can be done. Administration must adopt the IHRA definition, mandate antisemitism training for faculty, and remind faculty of the university’s standards for educational programming.
This is not to say that faculty are the enemy or that they must engage in self-censorship. Rather, we need to acknowledge that professorial power carries real responsibilities. These responsibilities must include actively correcting misinformation, listening to the concerns of students, and planning academic events that include a range of perspectives rather than just one. When professors continue to platform opinions as fact and promote a specific narrative, they undermine their commitment to open inquiry and the academic freedom of all students.
This article was originally published in Shalom Magazine
