Concerns Rise in Academia Over New Anti-Semitism Definition

Marianne Hirsch, a prominent genocide scholar at Columbia University, has long relied on the writings of Hannah Arendt, particularly regarding Nazi war crimes. Yet, following Colombia’s recent adoption of a new definition of anti-Semitism—which classifies certain criticisms of Israel as hate speech—Hirsch worries that referencing Arendt’s influential works might now lead to official repercussions.

It’s a significant shift; for the first time in her 50 years of teaching, Hirsch, who is the daughter of Holocaust survivors, is contemplating leaving academia altogether. “The university, which equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and threatens sanctions for dissent, is no longer a space for open inquiry,” she shared with the Associated Press. “I’m not sure how we can effectively teach about genocide in such a climate.”

Hirsch is not isolated in her concerns. Scholars across the nation feel increasingly anxious about growing attempts to redefine anti-Semitism under criteria set during the Trump administration, often accompanied by the looming threat of funding cuts.

Encouraged by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, this new definition includes examples such as applying “double standards” to Israel and likening its policies to Nazism. Recently, Columbia, having reached a $220 million settlement with the Trump administration, agreed to integrate this definition into its disciplinary procedures. It has also been accepted, in some capacity, by prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale.

While advocates argue that these updates are necessary to combat evolving anti-Semitic sentiments, civil liberties organizations caution that this could further stifle discussions surrounding Palestinian rights, especially amid Trump’s administration’s scrutiny.

For Hirsch, the constraints on making Holocaust comparisons and addressing what she describes as a clear censorship concerning Israel’s foundation create a chilling effect on classroom discussions. “We learn by drawing parallels,” she stated, “but now the university claims it’s off-limits. How can you teach where certain topics are taboo?”

A spokesman from Columbia did not respond to requests for comment.

A Framework for Education

When Kenneth Stern drafted the IHRA’s definition two decades ago, he never envisioned it becoming a potential code for hate speech. Back then, as a leading expert on anti-Semitism with the American Jewish Committee, he intended the definition to be a general guideline to help European countries monitor anti-Jewish bias.

In recent times, Stern has publicly critiqued what he sees as the “weaponization” of this definition against pro-Palestinian activists and even anti-Zionist Jews. “Those who believe they are combating hatred are often drawn to simplistic solutions for complex issues,” he noted. “Yet, in this context, it can undermine our understanding of anti-Semitism.”

Stern met with Columbia’s leadership last fall, after which discussions appeared fruitful. However, soon after the Trump administration demanded Columbia hold back $400 million in federal funds due to anti-Semitism concerns, the university decided to adopt the IHRA definition for “training and education” purposes.

Just last week, prior to announcing the restored funding agreement with Trump, university representatives mentioned that specific examples would be developed when evaluating “discriminatory intent” linked to the IHRA’s definition for disciplinary actions.

Stern, currently the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, views this development as a potential narrowing of freedom of expression at universities. He predicts it will further suppress Palestinian narratives and spark lawsuits against the institution.

Columbia is also reorganizing its Middle Eastern Research Division, updating protest regulations, and collaborating with organizations like the Prevention Measures League for anti-Semitism training. Recently, they suspended or expelled approximately 80 students involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

Kenneth Marcus, chair of the law at the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, argues that Columbia’s measures are necessary for safeguarding Jewish students from harassment. He downplays the fears expressed by faculty regarding the IHRA definition, framing it as a means to create clarity and standardize efforts to eliminate anti-Semitism.

“While it’s unfortunate that some faculty may feel compelled to leave, it may not negatively impact students as much as they assume,” Marcus said.

Amid this turmoil, Hirsch remains committed to her research on genocide and its repercussions. She emphasizes the importance of discussing topics such as Israel’s actions in Gaza, where over 58,000 Palestinians have reportedly died. “With this capitulation to Trump, it could be impossible for me to continue that dialogue within Columbia,” she remarked. “If that happens, I’ll pursue my work outside the university’s walls.”