University campuses, often lauded as bastions of free thought and inclusive dialogue, are increasingly becoming hotbeds for acts expressing hatred of Jews disguised as political activism. Recent events, particularly the intensification of the Israel-Hamas conflict, have amplified tensions and exposed the vulnerabilities of Jewish students and faculty. In my hometown of Rochester, NY, The University of Rochester provides a stark example of how institutions struggle—or fail outright—to address these concerns, leaving Jewish students and faculty fearful and disillusioned.
However, the University of Rochester is not an isolated situation. What is happening here reflects a broader pattern seen across Ivy League and other major universities. From Harvard to Columbia, Yale to Stanford, Jewish hate incidents have surged under the guise of pro-Palestinian activism. Posters, chants, and protests have blurred the line between criticizing Israeli policies and demonizing Jews. Only Cornell University has taken decisive, appropriate action to protect its Jewish students and staff, standing apart as a rare example of leadership in addressing acts of Jew hate directly.
The Climate at the University of Rochester
The University of Rochester has seen an alarming rise in pro-Palestinian activism on campus, which has often blurred the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and outright hatred of Jews. The environment escalated recently when posters appeared all over the campus that went beyond rhetoric, targeting Jewish faculty directly. These posters included the faces and personal information of Jewish faculty members, labeling them as direct supporters of “genocide” and linking them personally to Israel’s actions in Gaza.
The Administration’s Response
Despite the palpable fear among Jewish students, the University of Rochester’s administration, led by President Sarah Mangelsdorf, has been conspicuously silent or vague in its responses to all incidents. Official statements have condemned “all forms of hate” but failed to address the Jew hate nature of many incidents specifically. Remember, “Black lives matter,” versus “All lives matter?” People view these kinds of statements as a safe copout, a way to avoid their true feelings of bias. No one can be labeled a hater if they say “all lives matter” and then behave in ways where only “some lives really matter.” Most of us know this is pure BS and hypocrisy.
The administration’s response to the posters only added to the frustration and fear felt by Jewish students and faculty. Instead of addressing the content of the posters—which targeted individuals based on their Jewish identity—the university treated the incident primarily as a case of vandalism. Their concern focused on the adhesive used to affix the posters, which damaged campus surfaces, rather than the hateful and intimidating messages the posters conveyed. The perpetrators were identified and arrested for vandalism. This was the university’s way of saying the issue was addressed without addressing the real issue.
This bureaucratic response minimized the gravity of the situation, signaling to the Jewish community that their safety and dignity were secondary to property damage. Many Jewish students did not want to these see arrests, they wanted their fear and safety addressed as Jews. It’s still ok to express acts of hatred of Jews; just don’t damage anything in the process!
President Mangelsdorf, like most other university presidents facing the same issues, has opted to issue statements behind closed doors, refusing to address these issues in any public forum. This reluctance to engage openly exacerbates the fear and isolation felt by Jewish students and faculty. By avoiding public acknowledgment of the problem, the administration signals that these concerns are not a priority, leaving the affected community to fend for themselves in an increasingly hostile environment.
Jewish faculty members reported receiving threats and hate mail following the distribution of the posters. Despite these clear repercussions, the administration refrained from labeling the incident as antisemitism. Instead, they issued yet another generic statement condemning “all forms of hate.” What was said is they condemn all forms of hate except for one group, Jews. Previously, a group of Jewish students were caught taking down pro-Palestinian posters on campus. They were disciplined even with the undamaged wall surfaces when they did this.
A Broader Trend Across Universities
The University of Rochester’s failure to address antisemitism mirrors the response—or lack thereof—at other institutions. Across the United States, Ivy League and major universities have seen a rise in pro-Palestinian protests that often spill over into outright hate speech and intimidation against Jewish students and faculty.
At Columbia University, Jewish students reported feeling unsafe as pro-Palestinian protests included chants glorifying Hamas and justifying the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. At Harvard, over 30 student organizations signed a statement blaming Israel entirely for the conflict, along with announcing a ban on Jewish students participating in these campus organizations. This sparked widespread criticism but no significant intervention from the administration. At Stanford, Jewish students found swastikas and antisemitic messages scrawled across dormitory walls following campus protests.
Cornell: A Case Study in Leadership
Among the chaos, Cornell University has emerged as a rare exception. After credible threats against Jewish students surfaced, Cornell’s administration took immediate and decisive action, increasing security, openly condemning antisemitism, suspending the students involved, and offering support services to affected students and faculty. Cornell has also taken action to prevent outside perpetrators from organizing on campus. This response contrasts starkly with other universities’ vague, noncommittal statements, setting a standard for how institutions should handle such crises.
The Role of External Influence
Coordinated and Funded by External Organizations
One of the most troubling aspects of the pro-Palestinian activism seen on campuses, including the University of Rochester, is that much of it is neither spontaneous nor student-driven. These protests and actions are often funded, coordinated, and directed by national and international organizations without direct ties to the universities. Back in October 2023, when the first protests and sit-ins started, most nationwide used the same green LL Bean tents provided by a central source. These were not spontaneous, organic protests and sit-ins.
Groups with significant financial backing and ideological agendas use campuses as battlegrounds to amplify their messages. These organizations supply protest materials, coordinate messaging, and even organize the logistics of events, leaving little room for genuine grassroots student activism.
Free speech, as protected and valued in academic institutions, is meant to reflect the voices of the community it serves. When external organizations manipulate campus activities, providing resources and direction outside the university, it is no longer free speech. It is now propaganda and manipulation. Universities, however, have failed to recognize or address this critical distinction, allowing such groups to exploit their campuses under the guise of activism.
Wealthy Arab Donors
The reluctance of universities to confront acts of Jew-hatred is often tied to financial incentives. Wealthy donors from Arab nations frequently fund programs and research centers at American universities, creating implicit expectations that institutions avoid criticism of pro-Palestinian activism or acknowledgment of acts of Jew-hatred. At Harvard and other Ivy League schools, the loss of hundreds of millions in donations from their major American Jewish and non-Jewish donors was of no concern because the Arab donations far outnumbered what was lost. Like our politics, the most prominent donors drive our higher education system.
Iran’s Influence
Groups with ties to Iran, an enemy of the US, have also been linked to pro-Palestinian activism on campuses, promoting events and narratives that glorify resistance movements and downplay violence against civilians. This indirect influence through third parties creates additional pressure on universities to remain silent or neutral.
The Fear of Jewish Students and Faculty
Jewish students at the University of Rochester report feeling unsafe, isolated, and unsupported. Many refrain from wearing outward symbols of their identity, such as kippahs or Star of David necklaces, to avoid harassment. Faculty members, too, have expressed fear for their safety, particularly those whose faces were plastered on the posters.
One faculty member, who asked to remain anonymous, shared their experience: “When I saw my face on that poster, labeled as complicit in genocide, I felt vulnerable in a way I never have before. The university’s response made it clear they wouldn’t protect me. It’s terrifying.”
The Impact of Inaction
Fear and Isolation
Jewish students and faculty report heightened anxiety and fear of harassment, leading many to withdraw from campus life or hide their identity.
Erosion of Trust
The administration’s reluctance to address hatred of Jews has led Jewish students and faculty to distrust university leadership, feeling that their concerns are being ignored or dismissed.
Normalization of Hate
By failing to confront the acts that express Jew hatred directly, universities risk normalizing hate speech and creating environments where Jewish students and faculty feel unwelcome and unsafe.
The Danger of Neutrality
In their attempt to avoid controversy, university leaders often claim neutrality. However, by refusing to take a clear stand against hatred of Jews, they effectively take sides—legitimizing the actions of pro-Palestinian activists while alienating Jewish students and faculty. Avoiding controversy may temporarily comfort decision-makers, but it worsens the actual situation, legitimizing hate and emboldening bullies.
What Needs to Change?
- Direct Acknowledgment
- University leaders must explicitly condemn acts of Jew-hatred and recognize when anti-Israel rhetoric crosses into hate speech.
- Balanced Policies
- Policies must protect free speech while ensuring that harassment and hate speech are not tolerated. Universities must distinguish between legitimate campus dialogue and manipulative activities orchestrated by external groups.
- Education and Awareness
- Administrators, faculty, and students need training to recognize and address modern antisemitism.
- Support Systems
- Universities should establish robust support systems for Jewish students and faculty, including safe spaces, mental health resources, and channels for reporting incidents.
- Accountability
- Universities must hold individuals and groups accountable for actions that create a hostile environment, regardless of the political context.
Conclusion: Silence Is Not Neutrality
By refusing to confront acts of Jew-hatred on their campuses, universities like the University of Rochester are not maintaining neutrality—they are taking a side. Their silence emboldens those who spread hate and leaves Jewish students and faculty feeling abandoned and unsafe. Avoiding controversy may provide temporary comfort to decision-makers, but it legitimizes hate, empowers bullies, and alienates the very community members universities are meant to protect.
Authentic leadership requires courage to protect all students and faculty, confront hate in all its forms, and uphold the values of inclusivity and respect that universities claim to champion. Anything less is a failure of both leadership and moral responsibility.