A Reflective Approach to Antisemitism Training

With the fall semester now underway, higher ed communities are once again bracing for turbulence. The past two academic years have been dominated by the war in Gaza. On the right, the failure of universities to curb campus antisemitism and disorderly protest has become a rallying cry for institutional change. On the left, opposition to Israel’s actions has too often strayed from protected speech to intimidation and antisemitic tropes.

The bottom line is: None of this is going away. And with Israel deepening its military presence in Gaza, we can expect campus tensions, debates and protests from traditionally progressive student and faculty groups—not to mention federal action in response—to intensify this year.

So my question to campus leaders is: What will you do differently this time?

The goal is not to prevent debate, but to prevent it from collapsing into unproductive extremes. We can do this if we ground our approach to antisemitism in ways that foster serious intellectual engagement, practical tools, meaningful discussion and a wider desire to eliminate discrimination and prejudice from our society.

In my role as special adviser to the Brandeis University President’s Initiative on Antisemitism, I spent time this summer directing the Frieze Family Foundation Summer Institute on Antisemitism in Higher Education. We convened leaders from all corners of the academy across the country for intensive, weeklong explorations of the strategies we need to address antisemitism.

One thing that was clear: Even well-intentioned administrators often lack the basic knowledge necessary to navigate this terrain effectively.

Many participants had minimal understanding of the Israel-Hamas conflict, of Zionism and anti-Zionism, or of the historical and societal contexts of both Israeli and Palestinian life. Others relied heavily on a simplistic “oppressor versus oppressed” framework, a lens ill-suited for understanding a conflict steeped in centuries of shifting power relations and multiple layers of identity.

We also found that many administrators lacked religious literacy—not just about Judaism, but about Islam as well, especially the ways radical Islamist ideologies have impacted the Middle East in recent decades.

The stark truth is that for years, antisemitism has not been treated with the same gravity as other forms of bias and prejudice on campus. This has left gaping holes in our approach to student welfare and campus conduct. Administrators have been ill-prepared to respond effectively to the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist movement—not to mention ill-equipped to respond to the conservative backlash it has fueled.

Can we close these gaps? Absolutely.

Our work this summer revolved around four pillars that can provide administrators with a model for closing gaps.

1. First, we grounded our work in a deep historical understanding. Administrators must have a nuanced grasp of antisemitism, Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—defining and distinguishing those terms and recognizing when criticism of Israel becomes delegitimization and Jew hatred. Equally vital is helping them understand how the discourse plays out on campus, where Israel, Israelis and Zionism are often misconstrued and cast as pariahs.

2. Second, we paired intellectual grounding with practical tools and applications. We provided frameworks for dialogue, de-escalation and effective communication during campus crises and looked at case studies where institutions had successfully navigated incidents without sacrificing free speech or campus safety. From guidance around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to student conduct codes, there are unavoidable legal and bureaucratic aspects of combating antisemitism. We discussed those in depth as well.
3. Third, we shaped trainings in ways that prioritized deep and meaningful discussion over formulaic curricula or box-ticking. As one participant noted, “I appreciate that you didn’t tell us how to teach it, but gave us the respect to figure that out … with our new knowledge and confidence.” The most successful administrators are those who can create space for difficult conversations—so we modeled such a space.
4. Finally, we broadened the application of what we learned to other issues. Trainings doubled as a gateway to understanding other forms of bias and hate—both their similarities and their distinctions. Antisemitism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. From anti-Black racism to Islamophobia, the skills required to address one can strengthen our capacity to address all.

This academic year will be rocky. Antisemitism training will fail if it is about compliance—think videos of “campus antisemitism in the break room” followed by questions like “What did Sally do wrong?” No, thanks. But it will succeed if it is focused on an intrinsic approach that leaves room for people to figure out how they will implement what they’ve internalized.