Members of Bowdoin University Students for Justice in Palestine who set up an anti-Israel encampment last week inside the college’s student union building are now facing disciplinary action from the school — including prohibition from attending classes pending permission from the dean’s office.

At Columbia University last month, administrators launched an investigation — together with law enforcement — just hours after anti-Israel demonstrators used cement to clog the sewage system in the School of International and Public Affairs building and sprayed the business school with red paint. 

Days before that, Columbia suspended a student who participated in a masked demonstration in which four people barged into a History of Modern Israel class, banged on drums, chanted “free Palestine” and distributed posters to students that read “CRUSH ZIONISM” with a boot over the Star of David.  

The University of Michigan announced last week that Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, the campus’ SJP chapter, would be suspended for up to two years. Weeks earlier, George Mason University barred the leaders of its SJP chapter from campus for four years after they were caught vandalizing a university building.  

The recent crackdowns on SJP and its affiliated groups — along with other episodes of anti-Israel extremism on campus — are the latest indication that university administrators are approaching antisemitic incidents with a new seriousness since the Trump administration issued executive orders aimed at deterring campus antisemitism.   

Several campus leaders welcomed the shift. For too long “there were no consequences,” said Mark Yudof, chair of the Academic Engagement Network and the former president of the University of California system. “The new Trump administration is very serious and I’ve told [certain universities] they are in jeopardy.” 

“Many of these campuses are at risk,” Yudof told Jewish Insider. In response, “they are saying SJP can have chapters, but they’re violating rules by preventing people from crossing campus or doing overnight encampments or occupying the library.”

Yudof called the Title VI settlements that came in the final days of the Biden administration “relatively weak” and noted that university requirements could “become much stricter in terms of what they need to do by way of enforcement” if the remaining complaints are settled. 

Even with the recent investigation and suspension at Columbia, the university’s Hillel director, Brian Cohen, noted that other university investigations remain open, such as ones against students involved with the encampments and the takeover of Hamilton Hall last April. “These cases should have been resolved months ago, and many of the students involved in those cases remain on campus and continue to break university rules,” Cohen said. “Complicating this all is that despite the best efforts of Columbia’s Public Safety Department to identify students who violate university rules and policies, they are hamstrung by university policies that allow students to conceal their identities.” 

Trump claimed during his 2024 campaign that, if reelected, U.S. universities that failed to address antisemitism would lose accreditation and federal support. In the weeks leading up to Trump’s return to the White House, a number of universities rushed to settle antisemitism complaints with the Biden administration’s DOE in its final days. 

Weeks after Inauguration Day, Trump issued an executive order calling on every federal agency and department to review and report on civil and criminal actions available within their jurisdiction to fight antisemitism. 

Under the executive order, the Department of Justice is directed to review existing antisemitism cases and prepare to more actively bring legal action against those who commit acts of antisemitism in violation of federal civil rights laws. The Department of Education is directed to conduct a thorough review of pending Title VI complaints and investigations. The order also “demands the removal of resident aliens who violate our laws,” according to a White House fact sheet. 

Days later, the DOJ announced a new multi-agency task force whose “first priority” will be to “root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses,” according to an announcement by the department. The DOE also took its first major action under the new administration to combat antisemitism by launching investigations into alleged antisemitic discrimination at five universities — Columbia University; the University of California, Berkeley; Portland State University; Northwestern University and University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. 

“Any student group that openly and continually violates campus rules and/or the law must be held accountable,” Sara Coodin, American Jewish Committee’s director of academic affairs, told JI. “We are glad to see administrators taking steps to enforce their rules and regulations that are meant to foster campus environments welcoming to all students.” 

A spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League echoed that the group is “pleased that many universities are now holding student organizations accountable for violations.” 

“We have been calling for the last 16 months for universities to enforce their policies and codes that govern conduct of students, faculty and student organizations,” the ADL said in a statement to JI, noting that because these types of disciplinary cases often take some time to move through the processes, “it is difficult to attribute recent action to the new administration.”

“But as we have said, fighting antisemitism requires a whole-of-society approach and we welcome the focus and actions from the Trump administration to combat antisemitism on campus,” the statement said. 

Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University Professors, emphasized that cracking down on SJP activity does not suppress political speech. “An SJP chapter that has its campus recognition withdrawn can still post messages on Instagram or X, so its group speech rights remain intact,” Nelson told JI. “Students and faculty remain free to endorse SJP messages.” 

“Moreover, some banned SJP chapters continue to organize campus events,” Nelson said. “But the bans cancel campus funding and send the message that violating laws or campus regulations have consequences, including public condemnation.” Nelson also pointed out that even with the new rules, on many campuses, SJP’s faculty partners, Faculty for Justice in Palestine, retain recognition and can function as SJP surrogates.

Universities across the country are scrambling to prepare for a tougher legal environment before President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House next week, with some settling antisemitism complaints — with resolutions that have faced criticism for their perceived weaknesses — with the Biden administration’s Department of Education in its final weeks.

“We’re seeing what appears to be a rush to issue weak resolution agreements at a time when stronger treatment might be at hand,” Kenneth Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and former U.S. assistant secretary of education in the Bush and Trump administrations, told Jewish Insider.  

Trump ran on a promise that, if reelected, U.S. universities would lose accreditation and federal support if they fail to stop the rising level of antisemitism that has roiled campuses nationwide since the Oct. 7 terror attacks in Israel. 

“Colleges will and must end the antisemitic propaganda or they will lose their accreditation and federal support,” Trump said in virtual remarks in September at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas. 

While the federal government does not directly accredit universities, it plays a significant role in overseeing the organizations that give colleges accreditation. 

In a statement to JI, an Education Department spokesperson declined to address whether the recent influx of settlements were related to the incoming Trump administration. “The Office for Civil Rights works as expeditiously as possible to resolve investigations,” the spokesperson said, pointing to case resolution letters, which provide specific explanations for each case resolution. 

But Marcus noted that the Brandeis Center, which represents Jewish students in their lawsuits against universities, is “hearing from a lot of colleges and universities that are much more motivated to discuss settlement than they had been before the election.”

“That’s not a coincidence,” he told JI. “They clearly hear the footsteps of the new sheriff arriving into town and want to clean things up before President Trump and his team arrive. This is almost certainly related to the uptick in resolutions from OCR.” 

Mark Yudof, chair of the Academic Engagement Network and the former president of the University of California system, echoed that it’s “not accidental” that many universities “are trying to settle before the new administration takes place.” 

The incoming Trump administration “says that Title VI is on the table and I think that universities ought to take that seriously,” Yudof told JI. “There is some probability that there will be partial or full funding cutoffs.”

OCR has more than 120 existing cases related to discrimination based on shared ancestry or national origin under investigation, Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, told lawmakers in September at a roundtable with congressional Democrats, adding that many more go unreported. Before seeking to revoke university funding, Lhamon said that her department must first investigate and communicate a finding that the subject of an investigation has violated civil rights law, at which point she’s required to give schools the opportunity to voluntarily come into compliance. Lhamon said that she does not have the authority to require schools to dismiss problematic faculty.

Settlements to Title VI cases reached this month include Rutgers’ agreement to implement a series of trainings to improve the campus climate. The complaint against the New Jersey public university alleged nearly 300 antisemitic incidents and nearly 150 anti-Arab and anti-Muslim incidents since the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks. Under the new resolution, Rutgers said it would enact several steps, including reviewing its policies and procedures around enforcing Title VI as well as providing training to employees responsible for investigating discrimination complaints. 

“They’re very much in line with what has happened over the last 60 years of Title VI, which is that not one university or school district, public or private, has had even a partial cutoff of federal funds,” said Mark Yudof, chair of the Academic Engagement Network and the former president of the University of California system. 

In its resolution with Johns Hopkins University, in which  OCR said that the Baltimore college did not apply the right legal standard when determining if an incident created a hostile environment on campus, administrators agreed to require annual training for all staff responsible for investigating complaints. They also committed to administer a climate assessment on campus, review response reports from all incidents in the allotted time frame, give training to all students and staff on discrimination and give the office all complaints of discrimination in that time frame.  

Yudof called the recent resolutions — which also includes one made in December across the University of California system campuses — “just OK.” 

“There’s nothing innovative about them,” he said. “They’re very much in line with what has happened over the last 60 years of Title VI, which is that not one university or school district, public or private, has had even a partial cutoff of federal funds.” 

Yudof called for the resolutions to include “establishing Title VI offices to monitor and enforce standards.”

“And I think there ought to be some discipline if the speech itself is not constitutionally protected,” he said. 

Miriam Elman, executive director of AEN, added that in the current climate, “campuses will need to go well beyond the bare minimum requirements delineated in OCR agreements for Jewish students to be fully protected and supported.”

“For example,” Elman said, “none of the settlements have explicitly called for universities to update their policies so that discriminatory, harassing conduct is not shielded from consequences simply by referring to ‘Zionists’ as a substitute for ‘Jews.’” 

Marcus was more critical, describing the agreements as “anodyne” and lacking “the toughness that one sees reflected in President Trump’s statements.”  

“It is common to many of the Biden team’s resolutions that they won’t discuss antisemitism as a general rule, or will also discuss Islamophobia,” Marcus said. “Typically, they’ll want to throw in anti-Arab discrimination and other forms of discrimination as well. There’s a tendency to ‘all lives matter’ antisemitism claims.” 

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was first expanded to include antisemitic acts in December 2019, when then-President Trump signed an executive order at his White House Hanukkah reception. 

“It’s disgraceful that in the final days of the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of Education is letting universities, including Rutgers, five University of California system campuses including UCLA, and Johns Hopkins, off the hook for their failures to address campus antisemitism,” said Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), the new chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

“The Biden team has supposedly kept the Trump Executive Order in place, and yet they don’t mention it, even in those conspicuous places where one would expect to find it,” Marcus said. “They don’t really push for anything that reflects the gravity of the moment. One doesn’t get the sense of crisis, they are more business as usual.”  

On Thursday, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), the new chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, blasted the Biden administration’s Department of Education for the recent series of settlement agreements with colleges and universities over antisemitism complaints. 

“It’s disgraceful that in the final days of the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of Education is letting universities, including Rutgers, five University of California system campuses including UCLA, and Johns Hopkins, off the hook for their failures to address campus antisemitism,” Walberg, who took over leadership of the committee this year, said. “The toothless agreements shield schools from real accountability.” The statement described the agreements as “an obvious effort to shield universities from real accountability by the incoming Trump administration.”

Walberg’s statement, which was an indication that antisemitism will continue to remain a focus for the committee in the new Congress, also demanded that the Department of Education not sign any further agreements in the final days of the Biden administration. He urged the incoming Trump team to “closely examine these agreements and explore options to impose real consequences on schools, which could include giving complainants the opportunity to appeal these weak settlements.”

“Unsuccessful complainants should certainly be able to appeal,” Marcus said, pointing to the resolution at Johns Hopkins, in which the OCR dismissed complaints altogether. 

“It makes all the sense in the world why the House Education Committee would be worried that the Biden team will shut down these investigations at the last minute under terms that are very different than what the new administration would require,” said Kenneth Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and former U.S. assistant secretary of education in the Bush and Trump administrations. “It’s notable that Chairman Walberg is urging the Biden team to hold off on issuing any more resolution agreements.” 

“Giving a similar opportunity to other plaintiffs is a novel idea that the Trump administration should certainly look at, but it’s different from prior practice,” Marcus continued. “What is especially troublesome right now is that the Biden administration entirely eliminated the right to appeal from Title VI and other civil rights complaints, making it difficult for people to get their fair day in court.” (The Brandeis Center has sued the Biden administration over the elimination.) 

“Everybody should have a right to be heard before their cases are dismissed, and if not they should certainly get a right to be heard afterwards,” Marcus said.

Typically, supporters of Jewish students would be urging the OCR to move as fast as possible to issue more resolution agreements. “But in this case it’s different,” Marcus said. “It makes all the sense in the world why the House Education Committee would be worried that the Biden team will shut down these investigations at the last minute under terms that are very different than what the new administration would require. It’s notable that Chairman Walberg is urging the Biden team to hold off on issuing any more resolution agreements.” 

Marcus continued, “Simply as a matter of respecting democratic decision-making, the new administration should be able to handle these cases.”

The recommendations handed down earlier this week from Columbia University’s task force on antisemitism painted a picture of Jewish students feeling “isolation and pain” in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests that have gripped the campus since Oct. 7. 

They also cited a lack of disciplinary response from the university regarding unauthorized protests of the Israel-Hamas war as contributing to Jewish students’ struggles on campus, and called for the university to more effectively investigate policy violations by creating an easier process for filing complaints.

But on the pivotal question of whether some of the slogans chanted at those rallies veer from legitimate political speech into antisemitism the task force’s recommendations are ambiguous.

The report states, “Obviously, the chants ‘gas the Jews’ and ‘Hitler was right’ are calls to genocide, but fortunately no one at Columbia has been shouting these phrases… Rather, many of the chants at recent Columbia protests are viewed differently by different members of the Columbia community: some feel strongly that these are calls to genocide, while others feel strongly that they are not.” 

The report does not, however, specifically address the slogan “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free,” which has frequently been chanted at protests on Columbia’s campus and is widely viewed by Jewish groups as a call for genocide of Israelis.

According to David Schizer, a professor of law and economics and dean emeritus of Columbia’s law school, who is one of the three co-chairs of the task force, the key issue that the 24-page report addresses is the thorny matter of campus free speech — emphasizing that “everyone needs to have a right to speak and to protest,” he said. 

“How can we make sure the people have the right to speak and protest, while at the same time ensuring that protests don’t interfere with the ability of other members of the community to teach classes, study for a test, to hear their professors,” Schizer, who is also the former CEO of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, continued. While the report emphasizes the right to peaceful demonstrations, it also condemns faculty for participating in unauthorized demonstrations.

But some prominent leaders of the movement to fight antisemitism in higher education expressed skepticism that a set of recommendations could fix the raging antisemitism on Columbia’s campus — which has included repeated violations of the rules on protests and physical assault and other serious attacks on Jewish students. 

“The new recommendations have some technically good work which could provide incremental advances, but it’s certainly not the kind of thing that will solve Columbia’s problems,” Kenneth Marcus, founder of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told JI. The Brandeis Center recently filed federal complaints against the University of California for antisemitism at UC Berkeley and American University, while the Department of Education is currently investigating Brandeis Center complaints filed against Wellesley, SUNY New Paltz, the University of Southern California, Brooklyn College and the University of Illinois for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and for discrimination against Jewish students.

The recommendations come as Columbia faces pressure from donors and investigations by Congress and the Biden administration over antisemitism. It also comes in the wake of scrutiny regarding a number of antisemitism task forces set up at elite universities as a response to the surge in antisemitism that erupted following the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks in Israel. Five months later, questions remain over the effectiveness and direction of such groups — with some experts claiming task forces have been all talk with minimal action so far. 

But Schizer said that in Columbia’s case, there have been months of ongoing research of university policies, including interviewing students. It aims to release a series of reports in the coming months with the goal of gaining a deeper understanding of the campus climate and providing further recommendations.

The report states that while it agrees with the university’s principle that calls for genocide, like other incitement to violence, violate the rules, “the application of it should be clarified.”

It goes on to encourage the university’s legal team to “provide more guidance on this issue,” and emphasizes that clearer guidance is needed, like the university has done with its rules on gender-based misconduct to include “scenarios,” “to provide greater clarity help to provide fair notice, so Columbia affiliates have more of a sense of what is permissible (even if offensive) and what is not.” 

Columbia administration plans to review the task force’s interim policy at the end of this semester. Minouche Shafik, the university’s president, said in a statement that the new recommendations —  the first set in a series — are welcomed by the university and “will continue across a number of fronts as the University works to address this ancient, but sadly persistent, form of hate.” 

Marcus said it’s “good that Columbia finally has good people asking serious questions about harassment and disruptive protests,” but he added, “What’s needed is not just a few recommendations regarding the rules on protest. The fact is that there’s been antisemitic bigotry [at] Columbia University for decades now.”

“It’s not as if a few changes to the protest policies are going to substantially change the institution as long as they continue business as usual,” he continued. “Much of what’s in this new set of recommendations could have been written on Oct. 6 given everything that’s happened since. What’s needed is not a series of incremental measures, but a rethinking of what Columbia is doing to cause harm, not just to Jewish students but also to the surrounding community. These recommendations may lead to technical and marginal changes in the ways that the university responds to specific incidents, and generally speaking that’s a good thing. 

But it’s certainly not a solution to the problem.” 

Marcus noted that the recommendations are “framed fairly narrow, with response to only one narrow piece of the problem.” 

“I know this is only one of the series of reports that we can anticipate, but if this is an indication of what’s to come, it may provide some useful professional iteration but not a truly substantial change,” he said. “It does not indicate a new mindset that is ready to deal with the problems Oct. 7 has revealed.” 

Mark Yudof, chair of the Academic Engagement Network, expressed a similar sentiment as Marcus, but added that he’s “hopeful” the report will bring change. Schizer, as well as the two other co-chairs of the task force, Ester Fuchs and Nicolas Lemann, are all longtime members of AEN. 

“We need adequate rules about speech and we need to put teeth into it and have reasonable procedures in which people are actually disciplined for violating the rules,” Yudof said, calling the report “complex.” 

While skeptical, Yudof also expressed praise for the recommendations — “I think Columbia’s report gets at the core problem of education and I applaud them,” he said. 

“I like the report and am hopeful… I would urge the Columbia administration to adopt the recommendations of the task force, but the proof will be in the pudding.”

In the aftermath of a surge in antisemitism that erupted following the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks in Israel, top universities including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern announced the creation of new bodies tasked with studying antisemitism on campus and identifying how to address it. Their impending work is framed with urgency, and the bodies are generally discussed using language about the importance of inclusivity on campus. 

But nearly five months after the environment for Jewish students on these campuses began to rapidly deteriorate, questions remain over the efficacy and mandate of such groups. They will also face the thorny issue of campus free speech as they delve into questions about what, exactly, constitutes antisemitism on campus. 

The question over the credibility of these antisemitism task forces was underscored this week at Harvard, following the resignation of business school professor Raffaella Sadun, the co-chair of the presidential task force, reportedly because she felt university leaders weren’t willing to act on the committee’s recommendations. 

“They’ve utterly failed to protect Jewish and Israeli students. It’s shameful,” a Jewish faculty member at Harvard told Jewish Insider. They requested anonymity to speak candidly about interactions with students and administrators in recent months. The professor has seen numerous Israeli students kicked out of WhatsApp groups unrelated to politics because they are Israeli. The professor also described widespread opposition, among many students, to topics having to do with Israel — and a corresponding reluctance to act from administrators, who fear pushback from far-left students. 

“If you’re an administrator, and you care about your own personal well-being, and you want to keep Harvard out of the news or off social media, you basically try not to engage with these people in a way that will provoke them,” the professor said. “In the end this backfired on Harvard, because their failure to take care of Jewish students contributed to the accusations of institutional antisemitism, the lawsuit, the congressional investigation.”

Harvard announced the creation of an antisemitism task force in January, which immediately faced criticism due to comments made by its other co-chair, historian Derek Penslar, suggesting that antisemitism is not a major problem at Harvard. The body’s full membership has now been announced, but the scope and timeline of its work remains unclear. 

Interim Harvard President Alan Garber said in a Monday email that he expects the work of Harvard’s antisemitism task force to “take several months to complete,” but he asked the co-chairs “to send recommendations to the deans and me on a rolling basis.” It is not clear if the university will provide updates along the way; or if Harvard’s leadership will accept the task force’s recommendations.

At universities that already had antisemitism task forces prior to Oct. 7, those that achieved the most success generally have a budget to pursue actual work, a clear timeline for their work and strong buy-in from administrators, who must be willing to actually implement the groups’ recommendations, according to Miriam Elman, executive director of the Academic Engagement Network, which works to fight anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism at U.S. universities. 

It’s not yet clear if the newly created task forces — especially those at private universities, which don’t have the same obligation for transparency as public universities — will achieve the needed support from leaders.

“I think if the mandate is not clear, if there’s not enough resources, if the council doesn’t have committees and jobs, it’s just going to be window dressing,” said Elman. “It’s not going to be able to do the work that needs to be done.”

At Columbia University, Shai Davidai, an assistant professor in the business school, said he doesn’t have confidence that a newly created antisemitism task force can succeed unless the faculty on the committee changes to include more Zionist and Israeli voices. 

“At universities, if you want to make sure something doesn’t happen, you set up a task force,” Davidai continued. “The task force at Columbia has done absolutely nothing. They just talk.” 

At Stanford University, an antisemitism task force created in the wake of Oct. 7 has, like Harvard’s, been mired in conversations and controversy over its membership. Faculty co-chair Ari Kelman, an associate professor in Stanford’s Graduate School of Education and Religious Studies, had a record of downplaying the threat of campus antisemitism along with recent alliances with anti-Israel groups. He resigned, citing the controversy, and was replaced with Larry Diamond, a pro-Israel professor in Stanford’s political science department. Under its new leadership, the committee also expanded its name and scope in January to include anti-Israel bias. 

Despite the updates, Kevin Feigelis, a doctoral student in the Stanford physics department, who on Thursday testified at a House Education Committee roundtable with Jewish students, said that “the task force has still accomplished nothing and it’s not clear that they have the power to accomplish anything.” 

In January, Feigelis worked with the campus antisemitism task force to plan an on-campus forum meant to combat antisemitism. The symposium was disrupted by a pro-Palestinian protest that included threats to Jewish attendees.

The task force “was instituted just to appease people,” Feigelis said. “Stanford is aware of exactly what is going on, and if they cared they would have done something over the last five months. The university places people on these committees in one of two ways: either it places people who they think are going to be most sympathetic to the university or they go straight to Hillel and ask them. These are both troubling.” 

Feigelis expressed belief that the task force could accomplish more if it consisted of lawyers and more Israeli faculty. 

“If [the administration cared] the committee would not be made of political scientists and a biologist… lawyers should be the ones staffing a committee that determines what constitutes antisemitism. Instead they picked people who have no idea what constitutes free speech or what the code of conduct actually is.” 

He continued, “The task force is currently holding listening sessions, but it’s just not clear what will come of that.” 

After Northwestern University announced in November that it would create an antisemitism task force, 163 faculty and staff members at the university wrote a letter to President Michael Schill saying they were “seriously dismayed and concerned” by the announcement, raising concerns that the task force’s work would challenge “rigorous, open debate.” Three of the signatories of that letter — including Jessica Winegar, a Middle Eastern studies professor and vocal proponent of boycotts of Israel — were then named to the task force, which will also focus on addressing Islamophobia. 

“If you really want to fix the problem, why conflate it with other issues that are going to prolong trying to find a solution to it?” Mike Teplitsky, a Northwestern alum and the president of the Coalition Against Antisemitism at Northwestern, said of the task force’s attempt to also focus on Islamophobia and other forms of hate. “I would call it a bureaucratic distraction from trying to fix the problem.” 

Mark Rotenberg, Hillel International’s vice president for university initiatives and the group’s general counsel, argued that antisemitism has proven to be so severe as to warrant its own mechanisms. The inclusion of Islamophobia “and other hateful behavior” in the group’s mandate would be like if a campus Title IX office, focused on gender-based inequality, was also required to focus on racism.

“Antiracism may be a very important thing, but merging it with the problem of violence in frat houses is not going to signal the women on that campus that they are really taking that problem seriously,” said Rotenberg, who works with administrators at campuses across the U.S. on antisemitism-related issues. “That’s our point about antisemitism.”

Lily Cohen, a Northwestern senior who is a member of the task force, came face to face with antisemitism on campus a year before the Oct. 7 attacks. After writing an op-ed in the campus newspaper decrying antisemitism and speaking out about her support for Zionism, she was called a terrorist and faced an onslaught of hate — including a large banner that was printed with her article, covered by “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” in red paint. 

“I think it comes from the top,” said Cohen, who noted that, after the op-ed incident, “no strong actions were taken to stand up for Jewish students or protect Jewish students, or even just express that that wasn’t OK. It fostered an environment where antisemitism is tolerated at Northwestern as long as it stays just subtle enough that you’re not saying Jews.”

Afterward, she met with university administrators to talk about what happened to her. “At the end of the day, listening is not enough,” she said. “I don’t think in any of the meetings I had with any administrators, that they actually referred to what happened to me as antisemitism. I think that that’s a huge problem here, is how easy it is to say, ‘We are not antisemitic, we’re just anti-Zionist,’ or ‘We don’t hate Jews, we just hate Zionists. We just hate Israel.’”

The group started meeting in January, and it was asked by the president to finish its work by June, which Cohen worries is not enough time, especially given its broad scope. Administrators at the school have not instilled much confidence in her in the past, but she is choosing to be hopeful.

“Being on the committee, I have to be optimistic that we’re going to do something and that the president will take our recommendations seriously, and will put them into action,” she said. “Because if not, what was it all for?”

Gabby Deutch is Jewish Insider’s senior national correspondent; Haley Cohen is eJewishPhilanthropy’s news reporter.