The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn were all asked the following question under oath at a recent congressional hearing on antisemitism:

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment?

The answers they gave were frankly, shameful and unacceptable. 

“The context.” “The context.” “The context.”

That’s how all three female Presidents–Dr. Claudine Gay at Harvard, Elizabeth Magill at Penn, and Sally Kornbluth at MIT–all framed their responses to that question.

Apparently, it depends on the context of whether calls for the genocide of Jews violate their university’s code of conduct. 

The Penn President in particular made a revealing comment on how little she actually cared, explaining how calling for the genocide of Jews was not sufficient to enforce Penn’s code of conduct on harassment and bullying. That it would have to result in actual conduct (i.e., genocide).

How are these university presidents still employed as of the publication of this video? 

And if you think the nuanced responses from these three supposed leaders were appropriate, consider these three points:

1. If we replaced Jews with any other ethnic group, the reactions would be very different

Can you imagine what the response would have been from these three university presidents had the Ku Klux Klan marched through their campuses instead of pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas protestors? Had men in white robes carrying torches stomped through their courtyards and public spaces? 

They tried to argue that the Palestinian and Hamas supporters were generally not targeting individuals, which made a difference in their minds, but how could their calls for intifada and genocide against Jews not severely impact individual Jewish students? 

Surely they would have felt otherwise had it been black students in response to a KKK march. They would have argued that this type of demonstration was incitement. That it was bullying and harassment. 

I know that because of point #2.

2. Microaggressions and antisemitism

Since at least 2015 these same universities have pushed prohibitions and trainings on microaggressions. Which, in short, are statements that might offend even one person from a protected or favored group. And importantly, it didn’t even matter if the statement was well-intentioned. 

The reaction from these three university presidents – including many others like them – demonstrates that they simply don’t view Jewish students as part of a protected or favored group like they do black students. For Jews, it all depends on context.

We should call this type of double standard what it is. Let’s use the language pushed by these universities to define it:

“Institutional antisemitism”

We also need to recall some history of antisemitism on campus, which leads to point #3.

3. The history of antisemitism on college campuses is long and dark

I won’t go into all of it here, but just consider what happened at the University of Virginia in 2017 when demonstrators marched and chanted “Jews will not replace us.” If university presidents don’t think these types of hateful demonstrations on campus detrimentally impact Jewish students, they’re willfully blind. They aren’t trying to discover the truth.

One student at MIT highlighted her experiences and those of her fellow Jews at a press conference recently, which I also featured in this video.

She had to leave her study group at MIT because her peers claimed that Jews deserved to die at the music festival because “they were dancing on stolen land.” Other Jews have been scared to leave their dorm rooms.

In the process of advocating for the destruction of the Israeli state, many students on college campuses have created a hostile environment for their Jewish peers.

Anti-Zionism equals Antisemitism

Is it appropriate to link antisemitism with anti-zionism? Some argue that combining the two conflates the issues. They argue that whether Jews deserve a state on what many view as Palestinian land, which is the core belief of Zionists, is separate and distinct from discrimination against Jews as an ethnic group.

I would be more sympathetic to that argument if Israel were not the ONLY Jewish state in the world. And by the way, Israel isn’t even 100% Jewish. There are Muslim Israelis too (approximately 18% of the population as of 2022). Yes, Arabs are citizens of Israel too. 

Compare that to the 20-plus Arab states around the world and tell me how many Jews are citizens of those countries. Practically none. 

To strip away the only home that Jews have – “from the river to the sea” – which means literally from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, stripping away the entire state of Israel from the Jews is practically a death sentence. 

So those types of chants on college campuses – “from the river to the sea” – or calling for a global intifada – which calls for aggressive (i.e., violent) resistance against not only Israel but all who support her – these chants are all antisemitic.

Where do these people expect Jews to go if they are successful at destroying the state of Israel? 

Many of these universities have intensive courses studying the history of racism and discrimination. Few ethnic groups can rival the amount of racism and discrimination that Jews have faced since the dawn of man. From Egypt to Nazi Germany, Jews have been discriminated against and labeled outcasts in practically every society they’ve tried to integrate into. 

This was the main driver of Zionism. Hell, even people like the German philosopher Nietzche were sympathetic to the Zionist movement. 

Anti-Zionism is antisemitism for these reasons. To be very clear though – that doesn’t mean you can’t criticize the state of Israel. There’s much to criticize. Indiscriminate bombings of civilians. Far-right political groups and authoritarian leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu who purposely weaken democratic institutions. 

But criticism of Israel is far different from calling for the destruction of Israel.

The people who call for that – yelling “From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free” – and similar slogans, are no better than racists calling for enslavement or genocide of a different ethnic group. 

It shocked me how these three university presidents in particular have responded to such hatred, which is inherently intimidating and harassing to Jewish students. As I said earlier, it’s strong evidence of the gross double standard of institutional antisemitism. 

So what can be done about antisemitism on college campuses?   

For starters, we can all denounce antisemitism on college campuses. This should be simple. And while all three of these university presidents did so in their opening statements, when questioned later by Representative Elise Stefanik, it was clear their positions were actually not so clear.

They were nuanced. Context-dependent. As if teams of lawyers prepped them for hours all the while stripping them of humanity and any semblance of morality. 

Congress could denounce antisemitism unanimously, which they attempted recently. The problem? More than half of House democrats declined to back the Republican-written resolution, with some arguing that equating criticism of the state of Israel with hatred of Jewish people went too far. That resolution though did not equate mere criticism of Israel with hatred towards Jews, but specifically, anti-zionism, which as described earlier at this point should equate to antisemitism. 

Regardless, the resolution denouncing antisemitism passed by a vote of 311 to 14, drawing the support of all but 1 Republican. 92 democrats voted present – I guess they didn’t want to be on the record as antisemites voting no. 95 democrats to their credit supported it. 

This reveals the biggest rift in the Democratic party in years. Something Biden will need to bridge if he’s going to have any chance against Donald Trump in November 2024. 

Another solution: get foreign money out of American universities. 

Arab countries have given at least $8 billion to elite and Ivy League universities in America over the past few decades. Top donors to American universities are Arab countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Egypt. 

Qatar was the largest source of funding, donating roughly $5 billion and was followed by Saudi Arabia donating roughly $3 billion.

Should we be surprised then that there is an anti-Israel bias in America’s top higher educational institutions? 

The solution here is simple. Ban this form of funding. 

The massive endowments from top schools won’t even notice. 

We cannot have the places where we educate the best and brightest beholden in any way to the demands of foreign countries when it comes to making educational or administrative decisions. Like how to enforce their codes of conduct. 

You cannot tell me that billions of dollars do not come with strings attached. 

Federal grants and the tax-exempt status of these universities should come with strings attached too. 

If universities refuse to enforce their own codes of conduct equally – whether it’s to protect black students, Hispanic students, Jewish students, or any other ethnic or minority group – they should be subject to investigation and the potential loss of federal grant money and enjoyment of tax-exempt status.

There should be no support or rewards from American taxpayers to institutions of higher education that create unsafe and hostile environments for certain classes of students. It is antithetical to our democratic values as a country. And it’s particularly troubling coming from places of higher education that are designed to mold and nurture the minds of young people in America.

There should be new or enhanced legislation to strip federal funds and/or the tax-exempt status of these schools should they fail to enforce their codes of conduct equally. 

Finally, we need more intellectual diversity in higher education. 

We have diversity, equity, and inclusion for everything but ideology. None of the university presidents when asked could tell Congress how many conservatives worked at Harvard, Penn, or MIT. 

That’s a problem.

It doesn’t need to be broadcasted at universities just as we wouldn’t ask someone to broadcast their diversity when walking around campus, but it should be another data point that’s maintained alongside all of the other diversity metrics these schools keep. Almost all of these schools at this point have DEI or diversity, equity, and inclusion chairs – make it part of their job.

If we want a truly enriching environment for everyone, all perspectives from one side of the political spectrum to the other should be encouraged. In my experience, I can’t think of one of my university or law school professors who didn’t do this, but I’ve been out of school admittedly for a decade, so perhaps we need to enforce this form of free thought a little better. 

If students are primarily learning within the rigid framework of oppressed v. oppressor. Where only certain groups can be one or the other, and where Israel and Jews cannot fit into the oppressed category in the modern era, there’s something terribly wrong. The world is not black and white, oppressed and oppressor, good and bad, right and wrong. 

Israelis make valid points about their conflict, but Palestinians do too. 

It’s a university’s job to teach BOTH sides of the conflict, force the students to argue BOTH sides, and then ultimately, let their critical thought lead them to whatever conclusion they land on. 

But more importantly, it’s a university’s job to create a safe space for students to learn. It’s their job to enforce their code of conduct in a color-blind and ethnicity-blind way. 

The presidents at Harvard, Penn, and MIT failed at that paramount responsibility – miserably. They revealed how morally bankrupt and wedded to a twisted pedagogy they truly are. 

For that, they should all resign or be forced to resign. If they don’t, I can only hope more donors and trustees hit them where it hurts – their wallets. And I hope Congress does the same.