The university has traditionally served as an enclave for intellectual
expression, insulated from the distractions of the world outside. It has
also served as a trendsetter for that outside society, a laboratory where
social change first begins to ferment and find an outlet. To a large extent,
the excitement and passion on American campuses stem from the combination
of scholarly debate and student activism in a sheltered environment.
In recent decades, Jews have generally found the American campus to
be a positive environment. Gone are the days of quotas limiting the number
of Jewish students at our nation's top colleges and universities. It is
now common to find flourishing Jewish life on many campuses, anchored by
vibrant Hillel programs and increasingly popular Jewish Studies Departments.
Jewish faculty have thrived at many of the nation's top institutions, both
as teachers and administrators.
Institutionalized discrimination against Jews is a thing of the past.
Jewish students and faculty are found in great numbers at elite universities
which once resisted their presence. A majority of Ivy League universities
and many others now have or have had Jewish presidents. There are few if
any positions in American higher education that are not open to Jewish
talent. Therefore, it is paradoxical that the American college and university
campus recently emerged as one of the major sites for the expression and
dissemination of anti-Semitism.
At hundreds of institutions of higher learning, the concepts of academic
freedom and student activism (which have been part of the Jewish success
story on campus) have been invoked to shield hatred. No longer the ivory
towers they were once considered, colleges and universities are proving
all too porous to the prejudices emerging in our society. In recent years,
campuses have become a new proving ground for the tactics of all manner
of extremists, forcing some colleges and universities onto the frontline
in the fight against extremism and anti-Semitism.
Why Campus Anti-Semitism?
The Nation of Islam, or far-right extremists denying the existence of the
Holocaust, for example, may not have had their geneses at universities,
but their speakers and advertisements have found fertile ground there.
As students form their sense of self at college and seek a niche in the
world, some are especially vulnerable to hatemongers who either stir their
developing political passions or couch bigotry in academic terms designed
to appeal to their intellectual curiosity. Controversial speech is often
welcomed at universities more than in other venues; students see their
campuses as havens of free expression, with the right to speak near sacred.
Racists and demagogues have ably exploited schools' commitment to free
speech, cloaking their propaganda in the guise of academic freedom. They
have two objectives: hooking the country's future leaders on the ideas
they preach, and generating mainstream media coverage through the controversy
that inevitably erupts over particularly incendiary events.
Among America's students are many who grew up with little or no contact
with Jews and who have a limited personal background to fall back upon
when professional anti-Semites come to campus. For instance, young adults
with little knowledge of the Holocaust might cast an uncritical look at
a campus newspaper advertisement or scholarly-looking text claiming to
prove that the murder of 6 million Jews is an historical hoax.
All too eager to prove their commitment to a free exchange of ideas,
many students -- and sadly, school administrators as well -- in their idealism
and naiveté, fail to distinguish adequately between debate that
enriches and elevates the mind and speech that lowers the level of discourse
to name-calling and lies. Many tend to treat all opinions and statements
of fact as meriting equal consideration. This mind-set is often encouraged
by the current academic vogue of deconstruction and post-modernism, which
emphasize relativism and the social construction of "truth." The resulting
intellectual atmosphere has provided fertile ground for the airing of conspiracy
theories, newly invented mythologies and, in some instances, anti-Semitic
Another factor that has allowed anti-Semitic arguments to proliferate
on campuses is the notion that the First Amendment requires their airing.
But the Constitution does not oblige universities to host everyone who
wants to speak or write there, nor does it require campus newspaper editors
to publish every item submitted to them. Campus leaders and journalists
have the job of responsibly drawing a line between valid, fact-based opinions
and outright bigotry. Moreover, free speech is a two-way street. Students
and school administrators have the right and responsibility to condemn
and counter hatred. Their failure to do so not only contributes to the
spread of hate-filled rhetoric, but causes victimized students to feel
defensive, angry and isolated.
Instead of remaining a place where ideas and backgrounds mix harmoniously,
or at least contend civilly, many campuses are becoming polarized along
ethnic lines and riven by suspicions. The symptoms range from acts of vandalism
to hate-filled rallies to ethnic stereotypes that are tolerated in student
While a growing number of university presidents have responded strongly
to the importation of bigotry to their campus, many others, regrettably,
have not used their platforms to forcefully counter the hatemonger. Some
college presidents have issued anemic and generic responses to naked anti-Semitism,
using the shield of free expression as an excuse not to condemn extremism
at their schools. Responses are often delayed, and then come only as a
reaction to pressure from students, alumni, faculty and the surrounding
community. Some college heads seem to believe that a response from the
president will only fan the flames and keep an unwelcome incident in the
But just as student groups may exercise their right of free speech by
sponsoring a controversial speaker or printing an incendiary opinion, university
administrators may exercise their right of free speech by publicly criticizing
both the message and the messenger. Criticism is not censorship. The fact
that prejudice sometimes comes from a disadvantaged minority group does
not give university heads carte blanche to ignore it. Most presidents would
presumably want to uphold and elevate the level of debate on their campuses,
not protect the racists who would turn the schools into battlefields of
name-calling. Leaders must not abdicate their obligation to lead.
Administrators also do a disservice to their students when they hesitate
to criticize students' spoken or printed words that eschew the standards
of accountability and accuracy applied in most American workplaces. Instead
of preparing them for the professional world, where one's work is usually
subject to scrutiny and corrective review, these school officials allow
students to think that their actions will never have consequences or ramifications
beyond the walls of academia.
The hesitancy on the part of certain school heads in responding to anti-Semitism
only seems that much more glaring when compared to the positive, timely
statements made by some of their peers. University presidents who unequivocally
and immediately condemn expressions of bigotry on their campuses send a
clear message to students about the line that separates academic freedom
This report will discuss and analyze the most significant recent anti-Semitic
developments on American campuses, and will outline ADL approaches to addressing
this troubling problem.