In the year that has passed since Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, college campuses have been embroiled in debates over the resulting conflict. A major focus of these debates has been the increase in reports of anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, with campus administrators, teachers, politicians and pundits furiously arguing about the prevalence and severity of anti-Semitism on campus.
They also debated the forces that drive it, how universities should respond and how we can address and respond to concerns about anti-Semitism at the same time intimidation and hostility towards Muslim and Palestinian students as a result of the war.
These debates are important not only because they inform how campuses should deal with anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice in the new academic year, but also because they address key issues for higher education, including free speech, diversity And institutional neutrality.
Unfortunately, systematic data have played only a minor role in these debates. Experts trade claims about what protesters really want. Or they warn that anti-Semitism is unfair.”armed” Unpleasant suppress criticism of Israel. In the meantime, politicians And philanthropists castigate schools based on their perception of how administrators handled the conflict.
However, claims about anti-Semitism on campus are often based on anecdotes, headlines and social media trends. Rather than representing the range of perspectives among students, anecdotes, headlines, and popular social media posts tend to amplify the loudest, most viral, and most extreme voices.
If college and university administrators want to make things better—for Jewish students and their entire campus communities—we believe they need a more systematic understanding of the perspectives of all students on campus, including both Jews and non-Jews.
Using data to understand different perspectives
Over the past year, our team at the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies has used systematic data to get a better picture of what students actually think about anti-Semitism, Israel, and their campus climate. We surveyed thousands of Jewish students and more than 4,000 non-Jewish students on 60 campuses. Because they provide a more representative picture of student attitudes and experiences than media reports based on isolated events, these surveys can help answer some of the most important questions about what universities themselves name a crisis of anti-Semitism on campus.
How serious is anti-Semitism on campus?
In our December 2023 report, we showed that a majority of Jewish students felt there was one hostile environment towards Jews on their campus. This hostility was much more common in some schools than others. Very few students had experienced direct threats to their safety.
Although high-profile media figures and politicians argue about when to criticize Israel crosses the line into anti-Semitismwe asked Jewish students – those dealing with anti-Semitism – what they thought.
We showed this in our April 2024 report more than 90% of Jewish students at these schools believed that denying Israel’s right to exist was anti-Semitic. However, only a minority felt the same way about the intense criticism of Israel’s human rights record.
What non-Jewish students think about Jews and Israel
We discovered this in an August 2024 report two-thirds of non-Jewish students in the 60 schools we surveyed, they did not hold views about Jews or Israel that were likely to threaten their Jewish peers, even though they were often critical of the Israeli government. However, we found two other groups of students whose views were more likely to contribute to Jewish students’ experiences with anti-Semitism on campus. But these two groups were very different from each other.
About 15% of non-Jewish students in these schools tend to express extreme hostility toward Israel. They deny its right to exist at all and don’t want to be friends with anyone who thinks differently. Although these students do not show explicit hostility toward Jews, their hostility toward Israel’s existence is so intense that it poisons interactions with Jewish peers—as virtually all Jewish students view this view as anti-Semitic.
Another group of students, also about 15% of the non-Jewish population at these schools, is willing to endorse explicitly anti-Jewish beliefs, such as “Jews have too much power in America.” However, they do not appear to be deeply motivated by political criticism of the Israeli government. They are likely to endorse anti-Israel rhetoric, such as the claim that “Israel supporters control the media,” which echoes traditional anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.
Better data leads to better debates
Better data will not magically solve anti-Semitism on campus. It will also not solve Islamophobia, or broader issues about how universities deal with this politically polarized moment. But we believe it can help educators and key stakeholders meet these challenges more productively.
Developing a better understanding of Jewish students’ concerns about anti-Semitism, and what “anti-Semitism” means to those students, can help administrators understand the scope and nature of the problem. Understanding the views of non-Jewish students can help administrators come up with effective solutions.
A new year
As the war in the Middle East enters its second year, the issues that have sparked protests are unlikely to end. Universities must still find a way to support Jewish students while upholding the principles of free speech, and teachers will have to rethink how to teach and talk about controversial topics. As we see, using systematic data to understand the perspectives of all students—not just those with the loudest voices—should be a priority for higher education institutions whose mission is to create and disseminate knowledge.
This article is republished from The conversationan independent, nonprofit news organization that brings you facts and trusted analysis to help you understand our complex world. It was written by: Graham Wright, Brandeis University And Leonard Saxe, Brandeis University
Read more:
The authors do not work for, consult with, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.