Defining Antisemitism as Perceived by the United States Government
The Trump administration's push for universities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism has sparked controversy, with critics arguing that the definition is overly broad and potentially infringes upon free speech and academic freedom.
The IHRA definition, which forms the basis of the administration's approach, states that antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. However, the definition is contested for what else it says, particularly for the examples it provides, such as holding Israel to a double standard or accusing Israel of being a racist endeavour. Critics contend these examples target legitimate political discourse and dissent, especially in relation to Israel and Palestine.
The controversy centres on the administration's use of the IHRA definition as a mandatory tool in university antisemitism trainings and policies. Some schools, including Columbia and Northwestern Universities, have rolled out training and policies that hinge on the IHRA definition. The training videos at Northwestern, for example, were designed by pro-Israel advocacy groups like the Jewish United Federation.
The Trump administration's approach has raised concerns about academic freedom and free speech. Organisations like CAIR-NY have condemned the adoption as an attack on free speech, saying it suppresses Palestinians’ and others' ability to critique Israeli government policies amid ongoing conflict. Columbia University reported that the administration withheld or suspended $400 million in federal funding pending the university’s adoption of the IHRA definition and related anti-discrimination reforms. Some see this as coercive and detrimental to Columbia’s autonomy and academic mission.
Arno Rosenfeld, an expert on campus antisemitism, expresses concern that antisemitism will come to be associated with the authoritarian right-wing crackdown on college campuses. He argues that if you want to address antisemitism in progressive spaces on campuses, you need credible messengers. Rosenfeld also states that asking a Jewish student about their views on Israel at a party is a litmus test based on their identity.
The Trump administration's crackdown on criticism of Israel extends beyond universities. The administration has threatened international students with deportation and frozen funding to universities like Harvard, Columbia, Northwestern, and UCLA. Project Esther, a document drafted by the Heritage Foundation, calls for monitoring the social media accounts of people viewed as pro-Palestinian and suggests deporting people who are pro-Palestinian.
The controversy surrounding the IHRA definition and its implementation in university policies is ongoing, with many questioning the balance between combating antisemitism and upholding free speech and academic freedom.
[1] The Intercept [2] The Forward [3] Middle East Eye [4] The Nation [5] Inside Higher Ed
On a political note, numerous news outlets such as The Intercept, The Forward, Middle East Eye, The Nation, and Inside Higher Ed have reported on the ongoing controversy regarding the Trump administration's use of the IHRA definition in university antisemitism training and policies. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Critics argue that this strategy encroaches upon academic freedom and free speech, with organizations like CAIR-NY voicing their concerns about suppression of Palestinian critiques towards the Israeli government amidst ongoing conflicts.
The Trump administration's crackdown on criticism of Israel is not limited to universities — international students have been threatened with deportation, and funding has been frozen for universities like Harvard, Columbia, Northwestern, and UCLA. [1, 2, 3, 4]
