Universities and antisemitism

Historian Gerald Tulchinsky has written that Canadian universities were "rife with antisemitism" in the early 20th century. Some universities restricted Jewish admission, Jews were banned from many fraternities and sororities, and many Jewish medical students were unable to find placements in Canada after graduation. (Despite this, Tulchinsky has also written that Canadian universities were "not hotbeds of antisemitism" in general and, indeed, that they played a significant role in the development of a Canadian Jewish culture.)[8]^{: 132–133, 319–321}

McGill University imposed strict maximum quotas on Jewish students in 1920. Before the quotas were introduced, Jewish students represented 25% of arts students and 40% of law students. These rates fell significantly in the following years.[8]

McGill continued to impose a 10% maximum quota on Jewish medical students until the 1960s; it was sometimes noted that the francophone Université de Montréal, unlike McGill, did not restrict Jewish admission after World War II.[8]^: 410 The University of Toronto's medical school also required higher marks of Jewish students until the 1960s, and Toronto's Jewish Mount Sinai Hospital was denied status as a teaching hospital until 1962.[8]^: 415

In 1912, despite strong protests from Canada's Jewish community, the Government of Ontario approved a new constitution for Queen's University that included a phrase affirming that "the trustees shall satisfy themselves of the Christian character of those appointed to the teaching staff." In 1919, newly appointed principal R. Bruce Taylor made antisemitic statements at a meeting of university alumni, saying that "[t]he presence of many Jews tended to lower the tone of Canadian Universities." At least one graduate protested against this statement to the university's chancellor.[8]^{: 132–133} Notwithstanding these developments, Tulchinsky has written that Queen's was "mildly more liberal" than McGill and the University of Toronto in accepting Jewish students and hiring Jewish faculty. Unlike the other universities, Queen's admitted German Jewish refugees as students in the 1930s and 1940s.[8]^{: 320–321}

In April 1933, Nazi Germany passed laws barring Jews from holding any official positions, including teaching at universities.[9] Historian Gerald Holton describes how, with "virtually no audible protest being raised by their colleagues", thousands of Jewish scientists were suddenly forced to give up their university positions and their names were removed from the rolls of institutions where they were employed.[10]

Moshe Y. Herczl has written that universities were part of a larger phenomenon of antisemitism that took place in Hungary after World War I. Christian university students, sometimes joined by their professors, took part in violent demonstrations against Jewish student enrollment during the autumn of 1919. The authorities were forced to temporarily close the universities as a result of the disruption. Shortly thereafter, the Hungarian government prepared a law limiting Jewish enrollment to about 6% of the total university population.

Several departments at Peter Pazmany Catholic University in Budapest supported the proposed quota, as did the administration at the Technical University of Budapest. Some professors called for Jews to be banned from Hungarian universities entirely. After some debate, the Hungarian parliament passed the quota legislation by a vote of 57–7. It came into effect at the beginning of the 1920 academic year, coinciding with another round of antisemitic rioting on campuses. The number of Jews in Hungarian academic institutions fell dramatically in this period; at the University of Budapest, the numbers declined from 4,288 in 1917–18 to only 459 in 1920–21. Several European Jewish organizations opposed the Hungary quota law, arguing that it created a precedent that would be followed by other governments.[11]

Antisemitic rioting continued at Hungarian universities into the 1930s; Jewish students were ostracized and often physically attacked. Christian student associations introduced a petition in 1933 that called for a strict enforcement of government quotas, while other groups passed antisemitic manifestos. The disruption once again led to a temporary closing of the universities.[11]^: 57–58

Further antisemitic legislation was passed by the Hungarian parliament in 1939, on the eve of World War II. Among many other things, this legislation further restricted Jewish enrollment in universities.[11]^: 118

Harvard University introduced policies in the twentieth century to reduce the number of Jews admitted to the university. The policies were introduced in response to the growing number of Jews admitted to the university, with the number of Jewish students admitted to Harvard growing from 7% in 1900 to 27.6% in 1925.[12]

The policies were spearheaded by Abott Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard University from 1909-1933. Lowell labeled the growth of Jewish students at Harvard as the "Jew problem" and asserted that the growing number of Jewish students at Harvard would "ruin the college."[13] Lowell and others' prejudice against Jewish students were not based on religion, but more so on ethnic prejudice that framed Jews as "lacking class," being "overly grasping," and "overly ambitious" in their academic pursuits while showing little interest in extracurriculars.[14] Non-Jews charged Jews with being "clanny, socially unskilled, and either unwilling or unable to 'fit in.'"[15] Furthermore, there was also a prejudice against Jews because of their status as immigrants and people of lower socioeconomic status.  

To reduce the number of Jewish students at Harvard, Lowell asked the committee of admissions to impose higher standards of admissions to members of "the Hebrew race," and wanted to cap the ratio of Jews in the student body at 15%.[13] However, the admissions committee rejected this request because they were "reluctant to publicly endorse a policy of discrimination." Instead, the committee of admissions agreed to shift admissions in a way that would discretely disadvantage Jews. Instead of continuing to admit students based on merit and academic achievement alone, which favored prospective Jewish students as they tended to measurably score higher on entry exams, admissions decided to introduce "character" and "fitness" criteria, which gave them more control over who was admitted and allowed them to weed out many of the academically high scoring prospective Jewish students who they deemed to not 'fit in' with the rest of the student body. Most the time, this meant that the only Jews admitted to the university were those who did not publicly identify with their Jewishness and who did not fit ethnic stereotypes. In addition, Harvard also shifted to the prioritization of legacy admissions. By giving preference to children of alumni, Harvard could maintain the upper-class protestant student body, and exclude the children of Jewish immigrants.

Although disguised, these changes in admissions procedures intentionally and effectively reduced the number of Jewish students admitted to Harvard without having to actually say so. In 1926, the percentage of Jews dropped from 27% to 15%, and held steady at 15% for decades thereafter.[13]

Stanford University launched an internal task force in 2022 to investigate the history of Jewish admissions and experience at the university. The task force was formed after the publication of an online newsletter by Dr. Charles Petersen in 2021 entitled "How I Discovered Stanford's Jewish Quota".[16] In that newsletter, Dr. Petersen shared letters and documents he found in the Stanford archives that pointed toward a pattern of discrimination against Jewish applicants at Stanford in the 1950s. Petersen's essay was the first to substantiate rumors regarding the existence of a quota on Jewish students at Stanford that had been floating for decades.[17] The task force was intended to conduct university-led research to confirm, deny, or elaborate on Petersen' findings.

The task force confirmed Petersen's claims, while adding additional evidence that the university intended to reduce and restrict the number of Jewish students at Stanford University.[18]  The New York Times reported in an opinion piece how the results of the Task Force were "long awaited" and came as "no shock" to the Jewish community.[19] The task report highlighted a 1953 letter from Rixford Snyder, Assistant of Admissions Director, to J.E. Wallace Sterling, then President of Stanford. In the letter, Snyder informed Sterling of the fact that the incoming freshmen class would have "a high percentage of Jewish boys," a "problem" Snyder thought Sterling should know, "since it has very touchy implications." Rix elaborated and warned of how schools in the East, such as the University of Virginia and Cornell, have a very heavy Jewish enrollment and have become largely Jewish institutions.

Also uncovered by the task force was a memo explaining that Snyder identified "a number of high schools in Los Angeles," including Beverly Hills High School and Fairfax High School, "whose student body [sic] runs from 95 to 98% Jewish." Snyder wrote, "if we accept a few Jewish applicants from these schools, the following year we get a flood of Jewish applications," noting that "apparently the information as to who is accepting or rejecting Jewish students travels fast though [Sic] the underground." In light of this, admissions decided to first stop including Beverly Hills and Fairfax high school in recruiting efforts and then reject the majority of those who still applied.

Snyder's strategy was effective as the number of Jewish students enrolled at Stanford from these schools dropped after implementing these changes. According to the task report, Stanford enrolled 67 students from Beverly Hills and 20 students from Fairfax between 1949 and 1952, but only 13 students from Beverly Hills and 1 from Fairfax between 1952 and 1955. The registrars' records indicate no other public school experienced such a steep drop in student enrollment during that time period, or any other period during the 1950s and 1960s. The task force asserted that it is reasonable to conclude that the drop in enrollment was due to the university's reduction in both recruitment and offers of admissions to Jewish high school students, and that this reduction was intentional and targeted.

Stanford University's Task Force also addressed how the university evaded claims that they were discriminating against Jewish applicants and students. The report notes that students, parents, and alumni who raised concerns had their concerns immediately denied and dismissed by the administration. In letters and in public, administrators took advantage of the fact that the university did not have an official "quota" like other universities, and highlighted the fact that they did not ask about ethnicity or religion on applications. However, it was clear that admissions primarily used student enrollment at high density Jewish schools, and other supporting information like fathers' occupation, mothers name, and required headshots, as a proxy that an applicant was Jewish. Despite consistent and convincing claims that the university was discriminating against Jewish applicants and students, the report notes that the university continued to mislead alumni, the Anti-Defamation League, at least one trustee, and faculty.

The first institutional apology was issued in a public letter from the current president of Stanford, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, shortly after the publication of the task report in 2022.[20] Tessier-Lavigne apologized on behalf of the university for discriminating against Jewish students in addition to denying and dismissing claims for decades thereafter and committed to taking steps to enhance Jewish students' experience at Stanford. Rabbi Jessica Kirschner, executive director of Hillel at Stanford, said in an email that "for the people who knew there was something wrong despite official denials, hearing the symbolic head of the university speak the truth out loud and apologize is validating, and maybe even healing."[21] She added that the university's response is an example of what institutional apologies can and should look like, noting how "a new generation of Stanford leadership took evidence seriously, commissioned a strong task force, and did not flinch when its findings did not reflect well on the institution." Others, including President Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, praised the university for acknowledging the mistakes of its past, but also urged the university to acknowledge the discrimination and harassment that Jewish students continue to experience at Stanford.[22]

Between 1948 and 1961, Emory University's former dental school engaged in discriminatory practices against Jewish students under the leadership of dean John Buhler. Arthur Levin, former Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, was the first to conduct research on the issue, and he found that 65% of Jewish students at Emory University's former dental school were flunked out or forced to repeat courses during those years, despite sound academic achievements and manual skills.[23] Levin found that the rate of failures and repeats during that period was significantly higher than the rate of failures and repeats of Jews in years past and was also higher than the rate of failures and repeats of non-Jews during that period.

In 1961, Levin took his research findings to then Emory President, Walter Martin; however, the pattern of discrimination was consistently dismissed and denied.[24] Evidence of discrimination mounted in the 1960's when the dental school changed its application form to include a section that asked applications to indicate their race as Caucasian, Jew, or other.[25] Buhler resigned in 1961 but denied that it had to do with the allegations, and there was no acknowledgement or apology for the discriminatory practices.

In 2006, Associate Professor Eric Goldstein curated an exhibit on Jews at Emory, which included a bar graph that highlighted the rates of failures and forced repeats of Jews in the 50's.[26] The exhibit inspired former dental student, S. Perry Brickman, to organize the production of a documentary film titled, From Silence to Recognition: Confronting Discrimination in Emory's Dental School History. In the film, former students recalled the shock of receiving letters from the school saying that their work was not up to par, with one student recalling the dean asking him, Why do you Jews want to go into dentistry? You don't have it in the hands.[27] A common thread of the film was the shame students felt for decades thereafter. After the film premier, participants received a personal apology from President James Wagner, the first formal acknowledgement and apology from the school.[23]

In Australia, Daniel Wyner of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, says that the "vilification we feel as students on campus ... [is] coming almost entirely from the left." Grahame Leonard, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, says July 2006 had the most antisemitic incidents since records began in 1945, and that many of the incidents were on campus. In Sydney, some Jewish students have started to wear hats over their kippahs. Deon Kamien, former Victorian president of the Union of Jewish Students, told The Age: "It's not something I can put in words. A lot of students who would feel very comfortable wearing a kippah or T-shirt with Hebrew words on it now feel they are being targeted as Jews — not supporters of Israel, but Jews. When they walk past socialist stalls (on campus) they are called fucking Jews."[33]

In September 2002, then-former Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu was prevented from delivering a speech at Concordia University in Montreal after a student protest turned violent. Some protesters harassed the predominantly Jewish audience that had arrived for the speech, and there were reports of Holocaust survivors being assaulted.[34] Figures such as World Jewish Congress secretary Avi Beker described the incident as indicative of an "anti-Semitic campaign" on North American campuses,[35] while journalist Lysiane Gagnon accused the university's pro-Palestinian students union of "refus[ing] to blame those who broke windows, threw chairs around, spat at and shoved the Jewish students who wanted to hear Mr. Netanyahu".[36] The student union's vice-president of communications rejected Gagnon's charge, saying that his organization had on many occasions "publicly condemned any acts of physical violence [...] especially those acts that were antisemitic or anti-Arab in nature."[37] A representative of Concordia's Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights organization claimed that only a small minority of protesters had engaged in violent acts and argued that the protest itself was justified.[34]

The author Rick Salutin argues that accusations of a "new anti-Semitism" in contemporary Canada are usually unspecific, and do not include verifiable names or quotations. He has also written that incidents of "name calling and group hate" at protests are not indicative of a new wave of antisemitism, which is universally regarded as unacceptable within mainstream Canadian discourse.[38]

In France, Patrick Klugman, President of the Union of French Jewish Students (UEJF), wrote in Le Figaro in 2003: "On some university campuses like Nanterre, Villetaneuse and Jussieu, the climate has become very difficult for Jews. In the name of the Palestinian cause, they are castigated as if they were Israeli soldiers! We hear 'death to the Jews' during demonstrations which are supposed to defend the Palestinian cause. Last April, our office was the target of a Molotov cocktail. As a condition for condemning this attack, the lecturers demanded that the UEJF declare a principled position against Israel!"[39]

In the UK, the "Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism" in 2006 reported that "when left wing or pro-Palestinian discourse is manipulated and used as a vehicle for anti-Jewish language and themes, the anti-Semitism is harder to recognize and define ..."[40] The report describes how "tensions and incidents on campus often peak around students' union votes concerning Israel and Zionism," listing by way of example several incidents precipitated by a 2002 University of Manchester students' union motion to declare that anti-Zionism was not antisemitism, and that Israeli goods should be boycotted. During the voting phase, according to the Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester, a leaflet from the General Union of Palestinian Students quoting a neo-Nazi forgery entitled "Prophecy of Benjamin Franklin in Regard of the Jewish Race", was handed out to students lining up to vote.[41] The leaflet described Jews as vampires, and said that if they were not expelled from the United States, they would "enslave the country and destroy its economy."[42] When the motion was defeated, a brick was thrown through the window of one Jewish student residence while a poster with the words "Slaughter the Jews" was stuck to its front door, and a knife was stuck in the door of another.[42]

In October, 2020, UK Education secretary Gavin Williamson sent a letter to vice-chancellors at English universities, accusing the universities of ignoring antisemitism.[43]

A survey published in February 2015 by Trinity College and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights under Law found that 54% of the participants had been subject to or witnessed antisemitism on their campus. The survey had a 10-12% response rate, does not claim to be representative, and included 1,157 self-identified Jewish students at 55 campuses nationwide. The most significant origin for antisemitism, according to the survey was "from an individual student" (29%). Other origins were: In clubs/societies, in lecture/class, in student union, etc.[44][45]

However, a 2017 report from Brandeis University's Steinhardt Social Research Institute indicated that most Jewish students never experience anti-Jewish remarks or physical attacks. The study, "Limits to Hostility," notes that though often reported in the news, actual antisemitic hostility remains rare on most campuses.[46] The study attempts to document student experience at the campus level, adding more detailed information to national-level surveys like the 2015 Trinity College Anti-semitism report.[47]^: 5 The report summary highlights that, though antisemitism does exist on campus, "Jewish students do not think their campus is hostile to Jews" across the campuses surveyed.

In September 2021, in collaboration with the Cohen Group, the Brandeis Center conducted a poll of American Jewish fraternity and sorority members. The survey found that more than 65% of the respondents had experienced or were familiar with an antisemitic attack in the previous 120 days. Nearly half of the respondents felt the need to hide their Jewish identity out of fear.[48]

In 2022 several student groups at the University of Berkeley's School of Law banned inviting speakers who support Zionism or the State of Israel, citing concern for "the safety and welfare of Palestinian students on campus."[49] In an effort to reduce the rise of Anti Semitism on college campuses, the Biden administration launched[50] the first ever national strategy to combat Anti Semitism on May 25, 2023.

Duke's chapter of Students Supporting Israel (SSI), an international pro-Israel movement, was denied recognition by the Duke Student Government (DSG) in November 2021.[51] The incident attracted national media attention, and Duke SSI was officially recognized as a student organization in February 2022 after the student government reconsidered the group's application.[52]

The sitting DSG president vetoed the recognition of Duke SSI in November 2021 five days after the group was recognized by the DSG Senate due to Duke SSI's social media response to claims of "promoting colonialism."[53] This veto was upheld in a meeting by the Senate just two days later.

The incident garnered attention from a variety of individuals, outlets, and organizations. Duke President Vincent E. Price and Provost Sally Kornbluth issued a statement reiterating the university's commitment to equity. Other organizations such as The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law[54] and the Zionist Organization of America,[55] advocated on behalf of SSI after Duke's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine[56] (SJP) challenged SSI's existence.  The Brandeis Center sent a letter to President Price alleging that the derecognition of Duke SSI constituted discrimination against a Jewish student organization.[57]

DSG ultimately recognized SSI as a student organization on February 23, 2022.[58][52]

On August 21, 2022, Berkeley Law Student for Justice in Palestine (Berkeley LSJP)[59] announced nine student organizations adopted a "pro-Palestine bylaw" and vowed[60] not to "invite speakers that have expressed and continued to hold views or host/sponsor/promote events in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine." Berkeley Law Muslim Student Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Womxn of Color Collective, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Queer Caucus, Community Defense Project, Women of Berkeley Law, and Law Students of African Descent were among the student organizations who signed the Law Students for Justice in Palestine at Berkeley Law pledge. This pledge supported the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)[61] movement and called for the suppression of pro-Israel and pro-Zionist rhetoric.

Former Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights; Staff Director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; General Deputy Assistant U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; and current Chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law Kenneth L. Marcus authored an op-ed in the Jewish Journal about the bylaw, titled: "Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones." The article went viral and attracted national attention to the campus conflict. In an interview, Mr. Marcus, a Berkeley law school alumnus, said that he was contacted by law students there who were concerned about the bylaw. He said he spent weeks trying to support them and wrote his article after Berkeley did not "rectify the problem."[62] Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Barbra Streisand both tweeted about the article.[62]

Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinksy described the bylaw as anti-Semitic, but defended his decision not to disband or punish the student groups by stating "it is important to recognize that law student groups have free speech rights, including to express messages that I and others might find offensive."[63]

Numerous organizations and institutions have shared concerns[64] regarding the Law school's bylaws. Attorneys Arsen Ostrovsky and Gabriel Groisman filed a complaint in November 2022 with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[SP1].[65] OCR opened a formal investigation in December 2022.[66] [SP2] Since August, StandWithUs and others have called[67] on law firms to stop funding anti-Semitic Berkeley Law student groups.

From 2019 to 2021, Stanford's Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) division was the subject of allegations regarding a culture of anti-Semitism. In December 2019, CAPS announced the formation of a Diversity Education and Inclusion (DEI) committee made up of CAPS staff[68] and that it would begin weekly DEI seminars. In January 2020, CAPS set up separate "affinity groups" based on race, intended to help staff understand cultural and racial groups and biases. One affinity group was designated for white people and the other for people of color. Rather than create a group for people of Jewish ancestry where members could discuss their lived Jewish experience, CAPS instead pressured Jewish employees to join the white affinity group[69] – despite the fact that 12-15% of Jews in America identify as Jews of color.[68]

In May 2020, Zoom-bombers hijacked a Stanford University townhall and broadcast racist messages, displayed images of swastikas and weapons, and made use of the N-Word. The CAPS DEI group omitted mention of anti-Semitism in its post-mortem of the incident. A CAPS committee member explained: "the DEI committee decided to omit any mention of anti-Semitism so as not to dominate the discussion about anti-Black racism.[69]"

In July 2020, swastikas were found inside of Stanford's Memorial Church.[70] At a DEI seminar following the swastikas' discovery, Dr. Ronald Albucher, a Jewish CAPS employee, asked that the DEI program discuss the incident at one of their weekly meetings. The DEI facilitators said they would discuss it only if time allowed, and ultimately there was no discussion or official mention of the anti-Semitic incident.[71] In January 2021, CAPS diversity trainers said that they take an anti-Zionist approach to social justice, and they described Jews as connected to white supremacy.[70]

Dr. Albucher and his colleague Sheila Levin, another Jewish CAPS employee, filed official complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) through the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.[71][69] The EEOC opened an investigation based on the complaint. On January 10, 2022, EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas called the allegations within the complaint "deeply troubling".[72]

Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) launched a campaign against U.S.-Israel police partnerships at Tufts University in 2018 after a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that a former police officer at Tufts participated in a "military training trip" to Israel.[73]

In November 2020, SJP introduced a referendum for the student election ballot to show Tufts administrators that students did not support alleged militarization of Tufts University Police Department (TUPD), sending officers to train in Israel or with any military bodies, and against the hiring of officers who have participated in such programs.[74] In addition to submitting this referendum to students, they also presented it to the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ), a seven-member group that is tasked with fact checking and removing bias from student government legislation.

TCUJ member Max Price expressed concern, stating that the campaign and referendum rested on mistruths. Price's research showed the law enforcement exchange programs are not military trips, as written in the initial referendum, and that that the event contained no training or military meetings with active military officials in Israel. He cited that all previous participating Palestinian and Israeli officers described the event as an educational seminar hosted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Price clarified that it was the ADL who invited and sponsored the Tufts officer, not that the university had sent them as mentioned in the referendum. And Price showed how the initial referendum submitted called for discrimination against veterans, a protected class. On these fact-based premises, Price asserted that the referendum needed to be amended before it could be approved, and all members of the TCUJ agreed.[75]

After these critiques, SJP asked for Price to be excluded from the vote and discussion due to alleged bias related to him being Jewish and Pro Israel.[76] Price refused to recuse himself from decisions on the referendum. Student government officials interviewed Price for two hour-long sessions to evaluate his personal beliefs, identity, and alleged bias. Their conclusion was that Price had not shown any bias during the TCUJ deliberations and that his critiques of the referendum language had all been fact-based. The TCUJ student government participants determined there was no need for Mr. Price to recuse himself.[77]

SJP continued its demand that the Chair of TCUJ remove Mr. Price from the TCUJ's consideration of the referendum language.[76] SJP filed a complaint against Price demanding his impeachment and removal from TCUJ. In response to SJP's continued pressure, the TCUJ Chair silenced Mr. Price by requiring him to remain "on mute" for the entire TCUJ Zoom meeting held on November 18, 2020, a decision he was not informed of until after the meeting had already started. Members of the Tufts Community Union Senate made anti-Semitic statements and "demonstrate[d] personal bias against Price",[78] and later threatened him with a disciplinary hearing and removal from TCUJ.

Price reported these incidents to the Tufts University administration but did not receive an adequate response. Price reached out to the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law for legal assistance.[79] The Brandeis Center represented Price and wrote a letter to Tufts University President Anthony P. Monaco. This letter urged the university to stop the upcoming hearing because these actions were in violation of Price's right to freedom of speech and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.[80] Ultimately, the hearing was canceled. Tufts University officials did not issue any public statements condemning TCUJ actions against Price or the university's position on the hearing.[81]

Forty two percent of the student population voted on this referendum, which was reported as the highest recorded voter turnout of any "special election" in Tufts history.[82] The referendum passed with 68% of students voting. The Tufts administration did not respond to the demands of this referendum.[83]

On the first day of classes in August 2022, George Washington University psychology professor Lara Sheehi allegedly told an Israeli student in front of other students: "It's not your fault you were born there." Jewish students reported that Sheehi harassed that same student by encouraging other students to demean and exclude them.[84] They criticized Sheehi's choice of Dr. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian as guest lecturer on September 30, 2022. In 2019, Dr. Shalhoub-Kevorkian praised a teenager for attempting to stab two Israelis to death and allegedly used antisemitic language in her classes at Hebrew University. After Dr. Shalhoub-Kevorkian spoke to the class, Jewish students reported feeling "unsafe" and one student left the class crying. Jewish students claim that when they tried to explain their discomfort hearing Dr. Shalhoub-Kevorkian speak, Sheehi accused them of using Islamophobic language and being anti-Palestinian.[85]

Jewish students accused newly-unearthed tweets from Sheehi's since-deleted Twitter account of being antisemitic, such as tweets calling to "destroy Zionism" and describing the Israeli military "genocidal fucks."[85] Jewish students also expressed disappointment when Sheehi refused to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism[86] to define hatred of Jews, because she felt it would interfere with the George Washington University's free speech principles.[87]

In January 2023, Jewish students filed a complaint at the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR). As a result of the OCR complaint, school administrators a third-party investigation from independent law firm, Crowell & Moring LLP.[88] In February 2023, Sheehi responded to the January OCR complaint and investigation. Sheehi asked school administrators to release the in-class recording to prove she said nothing antisemitic.

In May 2023, Crowell & Moring cleared Sheehi of antisemitism charges, having found a lack of supportive evidence to prove the claims. Crowell & Moring, George Washington University administrators, and Jewish students all agreed to pursue remediation.[89] School administrators also brought in facilitators to create a "restorative circle" – a mechanism bringing community members together to discuss harmful behavior in a path towards accountability – between faculty and students.[89]

Although George Washington administrators closed their investigation, the OCR investigation remains open.