30.09.26

Editorial Note

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Amnesty International USA released a new report titled “Student Speech Under Attack: Suppression of Pro-Palestine Speech and Dissent on Campus.” The report claims to be “analyzing how higher education institutions, the federal government, and policymakers censored and suppressed speech in support of Palestinian rights and critical of the Israeli government.” 

According to the authors, the report is based on a two-year investigation covering instances at 46 public and 34 private university and college campuses nationwide, in 28 states and the District of Columbia. The report also includes case studies of six universities and colleges that were sites of student activism: the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of Michigan; Columbia University; City College of New York; Tulane University; and the University of Texas at Austin.

The report documented “fierce retaliation against pro-Palestinian speech and expression that began in late 2023 and continues today.” It also claims that “This repression has infringed on academic freedom and violated students’ and scholars’ free speech, association, and assembly rights across the country.”

The report looks at punitive responses to the campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza since October 2023, adding, albeit irrelevantly, that the war was “declared an ongoing genocide” by Amnesty International.

However, the report criticizes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, which was adopted by the IHRA Plenary in Budapest in 2015, and describes it as “overly broad.” 

The report provides three of the IHRA Working Definition examples, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” as well as “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

According to the report, these examples have been “interpreted by some to equate criticism of Israel and its policies or opposition to Zionism with antisemitism.” For ACLU and Amnesty International, the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism “includes protected political speech and is not limited to harassing speech or conduct that creates a hostile educational environment.” And for ACLU and Amnesty, “Speech that is critical of Israel cannot, alone, constitute harassment.” ACLU and Amnesty add that the IHRA Definition “equates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination in a manner that could chill the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

For ACLU and Amnesty, the IHRA Definition examples “chill free speech of students, faculty, and staff on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.” ACLU and Amnesty repeat that “the IHRA framework has been used to silence criticism of Israeli government policies and to suppress the speech and activism of university students, professors, and organizers in support of Palestinian rights.” Again stating that these IHRA examples “chill speech critical of the Israeli government or of Zionism.”

But those who are familiar with the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism know that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an intergovernmental organization with 35 Member Countries, 1 Liaison Country, and 7 Observer Countries that was founded in 1998 by former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson to address issues related to the Holocaust and genocide of the Roma. The experts in the IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial built an international consensus around the non-legally binding Working Definition of Antisemitism, which was then adopted by the Plenary, the IHRA’s decision-making body made up of representatives from all IHRA Member Countries. With evidence that the scourge of antisemitism was once again on the rise, IHRA resolved to take a leading role in combating it. Combating antisemitism requires international cooperation among experts, governments, and civil society. Following the example of the Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion (2013), the IHRA’s experts set out to adopt a similar tool to guide the organization’s work on combating antisemitism: the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.

The countries that adopted, endorsed, embraced, recognized, or supported the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitisn, include: Albania (2020) Argentina (2020) Australia (2021) Austria (2017) Belgium (2018) Bosnia (2022) Bulgaria (2017) Canada (2019) Colombia (2022) Costa Rica (2025) Croatia (2023) Cyprus (2019) Czech Republic (2019) Denmark (2022) Estonia (2021) Finland (2022) France (2019) Germany (2017) Greece (2019) Guatemala (2021) Hungary (2019) Ireland (2025) Israel (2017) Italy (2020) Latvia (2023) Lithuania (2018) Luxembourg (2019) Malta (2025) Moldova (2019) Netherlands (2018) North Macedonia (2018) Norway (2024) Panama (2023) Philippines (2022) Poland (2021) Portugal (2021) Romania (2017) Serbia (2020) Slovakia (2018) Slovenia (2018) South Korea (2021) Spain (2020) Sweden (2020) Switzerland (2021) United Kingdom (2016) United States (2019) Uruguay (2020) and many international organizations.

Interestingly, the ACLU and Amnesty report neglects to refer to the part of the Definition which states that “Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” 

Israel Academia Monitor has repeatedly reported that pro-Palestinian activists have been attacking the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism in a concentrated effort to discredit it.   

The broader context of the report is highly troubling. Both organizations have a well-documented record of criticism and activism directed at Israel in the name of human rights. This should come as no surprise that over time, they have evolved from a primarily universalist effort to protect individual human rights into an increasingly politicized movement shaped by anti-colonial and structural critiques, within which Israel has increasingly been placed at the center. A particularly important question, therefore, is whether this framework produces an asymmetrical treatment of Israel compared with other states. Even a cursory comparison of Amnesty’s treatment of Israel with its treatment of Iran, Syria, Russia, China, and other governments raises questions about whether its application of human-rights standards is consistent across cases and whether an anti-Israel bias has become embedded in its approach.

Overall, the report is indifferent to campus antisemitism.

As mentioned before, the IHRA Definition states clearly that antisemitic manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, which is conceived as the Jewish collectivity.

It is possible that ACLU and Amnesty attack the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism because, according to the Definition, they could fit the description of antisemitism. The U.S. has adopted the Definition and should inquire into this.  

REFERENCES:

New ACLU and Amnesty International USA Report Uncovers Widespread Suppression of Pro-Palestine Speech Across College Campuses

New ACLU and Amnesty International USA Report Uncovers Widespread Suppression of Pro-Palestine Speech Across College Campuses

Findings Show Concerted Efforts to Censor and Retaliate Against Speech in support of Palestinian Rights in Colleges and Universities 

September 23, 2026 9:00 am

Media Contact media@aclu.org (212) 549-2666 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 United States

WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International USA released a new report, “Student Speech Under Attack: Suppression of Pro-Palestine Speech and Dissent on Campus,” analyzing how higher education institutions, the federal government, and policymakers censored and suppressed speech in support of Palestinian rights and critical of the Israeli government. The report documents fierce retaliation against pro-Palestinian speech and expression that began in late 2023 and continues today. This repression has infringed on academic freedom and violated students’ and scholars’ free speech, association, and assembly rights across the country.

The report provides an in-depth review of university and college administrations’ punitive responses to campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, which has been declared an ongoing genocide by Amnesty International. The report documents how colleges and universities aggressively enforced campus policies and wielded disciplinary actions against community members based on their viewpoint, such as by suspending students, terminating faculty, and banning student organizations. It also documents how campus police and law enforcement used unlawful and unnecessary force against largely peaceful protesters, often leading to serious psychological harm and physical injuries. This nationwide crackdown has also contributed both to the rise of surveillance on campus to identify those who expressed pro-Palestinian views, and to universities’ failure to protect international students and scholars who spoke out under the Biden and Trump administrations from harassment and immigration enforcement.

The report also details how the Trump administration retaliated against universities and colleges that were sites of pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide activism. Under the guise of applying civil rights laws to combating campus antisemitism, the federal government withheld federal funding and research grants to coerce universities into accepting overly broad agreements that curtailed lawful expression on campus.

“Universities and colleges must take all possible measures to ensure that their campuses are spaces where students may exercise their rights to freedom of speech and expression without fear of unwarranted punishment or retaliation regardless of viewpoint,” said Jennifer Turner, principal human rights researcher in the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “Schools should resist the pressures placed on them to silence and punish students or faculty who engage in protest or advocacy for Palestinian rights. Instead, they should stand up to the federal government’s intimidation tactics and defend the university’s core mission of fostering free-flowing inquiry and debate.”

The report closely documents the federal government’s targeting of noncitizen students and scholars for arrest, detention, and deportation based on their political views and in direct retaliation for their advocacy for Palestinian rights. Such actions include revoking the visas and green cards of noncitizen students and scholars who engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy – such as Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Dr. Badar Khan Suri, among others – and arresting, detaining, and attempting to deport them solely because of their political viewpoints and constitutionally protected expression.

“Universities and colleges should prepare students for open discourse in a pluralistic society. Instead, campus leadership has suppressed free speech and peaceful protest while enabling the Trump administration to advance its anti-rights agenda and seek ideological control over higher education,” saidJustin Mazzola, deputy director of research at Amnesty International USA. “The Trump administration’s targeting of students and faculty who oppose Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza is dangerously reminiscent of McCarthy-era censorship and a blatant violation of academic freedom. The Trump administration must stop stifling political expression on campus and end its relentless push for ideological conformity in higher education. Students’ rights must be respected, protected, and fulfilled.”

The report is based on a two-year investigation that covered instances at 46 public and 34 private university and college campuses nationwide, located in 28 states and the District of Columbia. It additionally includes detailed case studies of six universities and colleges that were sites of student activism: the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of Michigan; Columbia University; City College of New York; Tulane University; and the University of Texas at Austin.

The “Student Speech Under Attack: Suppression of Pro-Palestine Speech and Dissent on Campus” report concludes with recommendations for college and university leadership, as well as any law enforcement to:

• Uphold free speech protections for all students and scholars, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, and race, and ensure that campus policies on political speech and protest are viewpoint neutral.
• Refrain from adopting overly broad and vague policies against discrimination and harassment that punish or chill protected political speech.
• Resist demands from the federal government that undermine academic freedom and students’ and faculty’s civil and human rights.
• Impose strict limits on the deployment of law enforcement and use of less-lethal / crowd-control weapons, especially in the context of protests on college campuses.

The report also includes urgent calls for the Trump administration and Congress to:

• Cease the campaign to deport students and faculty involved in Palestinian rights advocacy and end all pending removal proceedings against students and faculty targeted in retaliation for their lawful advocacy in support of Palestinian rights.
• Cease the misuse of Title VI investigations to compel universities and colleges to impose unconstitutional policies and measures that violate free speech and undermine academic freedom.
• Oppose any legislation that would punish noncitizens for exercising their First Amendment rights.
• Oppose any legislation that threatens free expression and academic freedom to suppress criticism of the Israeli government or support for Palestinian rights.

You can read the full report and findings here. 

You can also read the executive summary here.

=========================================================

https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/09/Report_CampusProtest-2.pdf

© 2026 American Civil Liberties Union
For information on copyright, usage rights, and privacy, please visit the ACLU  Site User Agreement at https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-site-user-agreement.
For information on accessibility, please visit the ACLU Statement on  
Website Accessibility at https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-statement-accessibility.
Contents
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
Research Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
University and Law Enforcement Responses  
to Student Protests and Encampments ………………………………………………………………………………………………….20
Background ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20
Law Enforcement Response and Deployment of Less-Lethal Weapons  ………………………………………………22
Chemical Irritants ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
Kinetic Impact Projectiles …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..25
Batons ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
Tasers ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………28
Unnecessary or Excessive Use of Force  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29
Recent University Actions to Restrict Protest  
and Silence Pro-Palestinian Speech …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….31
Disciplinary Actions Against Students and Faculty  
Resulting In Suspensions and Other Sanctions …………………………………………………………………………………………………….33
More Punitive Punishments Compared to Past Demonstrations ………………………………………………………..36
Interim Suspensions and Campus Bans ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..40
Terminations and Suspensions of Faculty …………………………………………………………………………………………………………44
Banning of Student Organizations and Censorship of Pro-Palestinian Speech ……………………………….47
University Retaliation and Censorship of Graduating Students ………………………………………………………………..52
Increased Surveillance on Campus ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….54
Problematic Adoption of Campus Policies That Suppress  
Protected Political Speech Broadly Defined as Antisemitism   ……………………………………………………………………55
Universities’ Responsibility to Protect Noncitizen  
Students and Faculty From ICE Enforcement Activity  ……………………………………………………………………………………58
Responding to and Preparing for ICE Attempts to Enter Campus ……………………………………………………..58
Responding to ICE Requests for Information …………………………………………………………………………………………………60
287(g) Agreements Deputizing Campus Police to Act as Immigration Agents …………………………… 61
Case Studies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………63 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..63 University of Michigan  ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..69 Columbia University ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………73
City College of New York (CCNY) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….79
Tulane University …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….82
University of Texas at Austin  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………86
The Trump Administration’s Crackdowns  on Pro-Palestine Speech and Universities  
That Were Sites of Student Activism …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..91
Executive Orders Targeting Non-U.S. Citizen Scholars  
and Students for Exercising Their First Amendment Rights ………………………………………………………………………..94
Campus Visits by the Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism ………………………………………………………94
Abuse of Title VI Investigations and Consideration of  
Constitutionally Protected Speech in Determining  
Whether Schools Have Violated Title VI …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..95
Withdrawal of Federal Funding and Attempted  
Hostile Ideological Takeovers of Universities ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..98
Using Claimed Civil Rights Enforcement Authority  
to Investigate and Seek Information About Students and Faculty ………………………………………………………..106
The Trump Administration’s Campaign  to Detain and Deport Students and Scholars  
Involved in Palestinian Rights Advocacy  …………………………………………………………………………………………108
Immigration Enforcement Based on Lawful  
Pro-Palestinian Advocacy and Protected Speech ………………………………………………………………………………………………111
Abuse of the “Foreign Policy Ground” of the Immigration and Nationality Act ……………………………112 Government Reliance on Private Third Parties to Identify  
and Target Students and Scholars for Deportation …………………………………………………………………………………………113
Attempts to Evade Federal Court Review of  
Constitutional Challenges to Detention and Deportation ………………………………………………………………………….115
The Ideological Deportation Policy Is  
Unconstitutional and Violates International Law …………………………………………………………………………………………….115
Broader Revocations of Student Visas, Terminations  
of International Students’ Status, and Social Media Vetting ……………………………………………………………………..117
Case Studies: ICE Arrests, Detentions,  
and Attempts to Deport Students and Scholars…………………………………………………………………………………………………118
Mahmoud Khalil …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….118 

Rümeysa Öztürk  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………122
Mohsen Mahdawi ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….125
Dr. Badar Khan Suri ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..128
Yunseo Chung ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….130 Leqaa Kordia …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….131
Additional Cases …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….132
Intimidation and Chilling Effect on  
Free Speech and Association Rights ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..135
Legal Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………138
U.S. Constitutional Law  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….138
International Law and Standards ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..148
Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..153
Appendix I: Your Rights on Campus ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….158
Appendix II: Campus Resolution Toolkit………………………………………………………………………………………… 161
Appendix III: University Responses ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 167
Endnotes ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………186

Executive Summary
Over the last three years, there have been widespread attacks on free speech and association on college campuses, particularly against students, faculty, and staff protesting Israel’s war on Gaza  and the U.S. government’s political, economic,  and military support of the war.
This report is based on a two-year investigation that covered events at 46 public and 34 private university and college campuses nationwide, located in 28 states and the District of Columbia. Based on our research of the policies and practices of dozens of U.S. universities and colleges and the impact of those responses on student protesters and the broader academic community, this report documents the heavy-handed and excessive responses by some university and college administrators and police to campus protests concerning Israel’s assault on Gaza following the Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel on October 7,
2023. It also documents suppression and retaliation against pro-Palestine speech and expression on campus that began in late 2023 and continues today.
Colleges and universities violated basic free speech, association, and assembly rights and caused serious harm when they summoned campus police and local law enforcement, resulting in arrests and unlawful and unnecessary use of force. Universities’ responses to campus-related Palestine advocacy and pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been more punitive in comparison with their historical responses to other comparable demonstrations over decades. Colleges and universities have imposed sweeping restrictions on student speech, initiated disciplinary actions against students, and imposed severe punishments including expulsions and suspensions. By doing so these universities directly or indirectly have made it easier for the Trump administration to crack down on student activism, causing long-term damage to higher education.
This report also documents the Trump administration’s widespread, McCarthyite censorship and retaliation campaign deployed against pro-Palestine advocates on university and college campuses, and against universities that were sites of pro-Palestine student activism. The administration has abused civil rights laws to suppress criticism of Israel, withhold federal research grants from universities due to their refusal to conform to the government’s preferred ideological approach, and coerce universities into accepting broad-ranging agreements to restore federal funding in exchange for making institutional changes in programs, curricula, admissions, and hiring, curtailing the free speech rights of students and faculty.
The Trump administration has also targeted noncitizen students and scholars for arrest, detention, and deportation based on their political views and in direct retaliation for their advocacy for Palestinian rights. The Trump administration has attempted to pressure university officials to target non-U.S. citizen students, faculty, and staff for their political speech and protest activity, in violation of the First Amendment. The administration’s actions violate foundational academic freedom principles, First Amendment rights, and the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression, and association enshrined in international law.
This report also details how these actions have profoundly chilled student speech and advocacy, resulting in a steep decline in protests and a less visible protest movement on campuses across the country. Fears of punishment, retribution, or deportation have deterred students and faculty from criticizing Israel or advocating for Palestinian rights.
Findings are based on desk research, analysis of college and university policies and records, reports and other documents and statements by U.S. government agencies and executive officials, court records, caselaw, published investigative journalism, survey questionnaire responses from students who participated in multiple protests at 41 college campuses around the country, interviews, and factfinding conducted during a two-year investigation. This report also contains detailed case studies of six universities: Columbia University, City College of New York, Tulane University, the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), the University of Michigan, and the University of Texas at Austin.
University and Law Enforcement Responses  to Student Protests and Encampments
Since the Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel  on October 7, 2023, including the attacks on civilians and taking of hostages which Amnesty International and a United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry have concluded amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity,1 colleges and universities across the United States have been sites of mass demonstrations, encampments, and other types of protest actions as students, faculty, and campus staff have protested mass atrocities committed in the context of Israel’s war on the occupied Gaza strip,2 which Amnesty International,3 Human Rights Watch,4 Doctors Without Borders,5 Physicians for Human
Rights,6 the leading Israeli human rights group B’Tselem,7 and international bodies, including a United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry,8 have concluded amounted to war crimes and a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.9
Campus protesters often called attention to the complicity of the U.S. government in these atrocities.10 Their demands included calls for a ceasefire, a halt to U.S. military funding for Israel, and calling for their academic institutions to divest from weapons manufacturing companies and other companies that have profited from violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Gaza.11 In response, opponents of these students’ messages  —  including President Donald Trump  —  frequently characterized peaceful protest and any speech in favor of Palestinian rights as inherently supportive of Hamas and antisemitic.
The 2023-2024 academic year saw an expansive series of protests, demonstrations, and encampments on university and college campuses — both large and small — across the country. According to the organization Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), more than 1,360 student demonstrations took place in the United States between October 7, 2023, and May 3, 2024, protesting the Israeli government’s ongoing military campaign against Palestinians in Gaza and calling for university divestment from Israel and in support of Palestinian rights. ACLED determined that 97 percent, an overwhelming majority of those protests, remained peaceful.12 More than 170 encampments were established in the first semester of 2024. In some cases, students, faculty, and staff engaged in acts of civil disobedience, such as occupying campus buildings, graffitiing, and disrupting classes, as a form of protest.
Faced with intense pressure from donors, trustees, alumni, and figures outside of university or college leadership, including members of Congress, to reign in these demonstrations, many universities and colleges moved swiftly to suppress proPalestinian protests and dismantle encampments.13 In many cases, peaceful student protests were met with campus police or local law enforcement summoned by university officials.
Police in full riot gear and campus police used physical force and less-lethal weapons including batons, kinetic impact projectiles such as rubber bullets and foam-tipped rounds, chemical irritants such as pepper spray and tear gas, and electronic conduction devices such as tasers.14 Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps conducted analysis of verified photos, videos, and social media posts of 20 schools they monitored.15 Of these, 17 schools had claims posted online describing or showing chemical irritants being used against students16 and 10 schools where officers appear to have responded to protests armed with kinetic impact projectiles.17 The research further documented photos or videos from at least 10 schools showing injuries to students; about half appearing to be related to chemical irritants.
Media reported witness accounts of injuries such  as bleeding puncture wounds, head injuries, broken teeth, and suspected broken bones, most notably
at UCLA,18 Columbia University,19 and the City College of New York,20 among others. Despite the documented unnecessary or excessive use of force leading to serious injuries inflicted by less-lethal weapons on student protesters, several public universities in California, including UCLA, where the media and a UCLA Task Force reported a number of injuries, restocked their less-lethal weapons and increased budgets allocated for campus policing in preparation for the following academic year.21
Thousands of these protesters were arrested, and many were also disciplined by their schools. In 2024, protesters were detained at more than 70 schools  in at least 30 states, according to data collected  by The New York Times.22 According to media reports, more than 3,200 people were arrested  by police on university campuses, including students, teachers, human rights observers, and journalists, in many instances for trespassing.23  In some instances, prosecutors charged students with serious felonies, including assault of police officers, wearing disguises, mob violence, and attempted ethnic intimidation.24 Students and faculty who participated in Palestine solidarity actions were also subject to doxxing, profiling, and retaliatory attacks by third parties, with little to no protection from their universities and colleges.25
Recent University Actions to Restrict  and Punish Protest and Pro-Palestinian Speech
Since the initial encampment movement, from late 2024 through to publication of this report in fall 2026, universities across the country have continued to take action to restrict protest and association by students expressing Palestinian solidarity. Colleges and universities have censored pro-Palestinian expression; punitively enforced campus policies through internal disciplinary or code of conduct processes against students; punished them with suspensions, expulsions, and other sanctions; conducted ongoing surveillance of their activities; and made restrictive changes to school policies governing peaceful assemblies and  free speech on campus.
Universities have punitively enforced campus policies through internal disciplinary or code of conduct processes against students, faculty, and staff for campus-related Palestine advocacy. Hundreds of students have faced sanctions such as campus bans, suspensions, and expulsions for alleged code of conduct violations or disciplinary charges related to their participation in proPalestinian demonstrations. These punishments can impose severe and life-long consequences and profoundly disrupt students’ lives and academic careers.26 Universities have swiftly imposed interim suspensions and campus bans on students who have been merely arrested or charged with violating campus codes of conduct, before they have been convicted of any crime, the disciplinary process has concluded, or, in some cases, internal investigations have even begun.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of students at universities nationwide have faced campus disciplinary proceedings for alleged code of conduct violations carrying potential sanctions.27 (Due to lack of transparency concerning internal campus disciplinary processes it is not possible to determine the precise number.) Palestine Legal reported that in 2025, it received 663 requests for legal assistance in cases in which university administrations had launched investigations or imposed sanctions for campus-related Palestine advocacy.28 According to Palestine Legal, the most common punishments students faced in 2025 were interim suspensions and campus bans.29 In 2024, the group received reports of more than 580 cases related to university administration investigations and sanctions.30
In some cases, public universities have expelled students for engaging in protected political speech. In other cases, some of the demonstrations, offcampus protests, and graduation speeches that led to disciplinary actions included violations of student conduct rules and/or laws,  or were not protected speech. In some instances where students were disciplined for student conduct rule violations, the discipline imposed was disproportionate to the misconduct or amounted to unusual punishment, suggesting viewpoint discrimination.

campus before dismantling the pro-Palestine  encampment on May 2, 2024.
Universities’ selective enforcement of campus policies in response to Palestine solidarity protests raises serious concerns about viewpoint discrimination. In numerous instances reviewed during our investigation, the exceptionally harsh penalties applied to protesters and faculty, such as banishment, expulsion, and termination, were disproportionate and appear to be targeting students and faculty on the basis of their beliefs. Moreover, the severe punishments such as suspensions and expulsions imposed on students for their conduct during demonstrations are far beyond what universities have historically imposed for similar acts of civil disobedience.
In some cases, students were treated more harshly than others who have engaged in similar conduct, ostensibly on the basis of their political views. According to analysis of reported incidents and complaints, students who support Palestinian rights tend to face harsher disciplinary action, including disciplinary action for violating policies that students report have not typically been enforced against other students or punished in ways that such actions have not been punished in the past.31
Colleges should not punish protesters or student groups more harshly than other groups in similar circumstances because administrators found  their message upsetting, offensive, or divisive, or because it demanded extra security or prompted counter-protest. Even in cases where punishment  is warranted, students remain entitled to meaningful due process rights.
In some instances, universities explicitly changed their policies in ways that seemed to deliberately target pro-Palestine demonstrations. Many universities that had never objected when students camped out on campus to buy sports tickets or napped in libraries created policies prohibiting tents and sleeping on campus after pro-Palestine encampments were established on campuses across the country in the spring of 2024. Many colleges and universities adopted new restrictions on campus speech and protest, especially at the outset of the 2024–2025 academic year, including rules that banned the installation of tents, prohibited protests in certain public parts of campus, restricted the use of amplified sound, banned chalking on campus sidewalks, mandated the university’s prior approval for demonstrations, and prohibited students from hanging banners or flags outside dorm windows.32 If institutions allow certain activities and items at other campus events, such as voice amplification, tents, lawn chairs, or blankets, they should not impose such restrictions on pro-Palestinian protesters simply because of  the content of their protest.
There have been multiple instances of colleges and universities banning pro-Palestinian student organizations, retaliating against students who participate in student protests, and censoring proPalestinian expression. Examples of these instances are wide-ranging. Student chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) have faced bans on college campuses.
Students have reported their universities’ efforts
to prohibit hanging Palestinian flags, carrying or displaying banners, and displaying keffiyehs to symbolically express Palestinian solidarity and protest the war in Gaza.33 Universities canceled film screenings, banned students from delivering commencement speeches that highlight their solidarity with Palestine or punished them when they did so, and forbade certain regalia such as keffiyehs from being worn during graduation ceremonies.34
Universities have reprimanded or formally sanctioned scores of professors and staff who have supported or participated in campus-related Palestine advocacy and demonstrations. Some faculty members who took part in demonstrations or were otherwise involved in Palestine activism have been terminated, suspended, denied tenure, had job offers revoked, or not had their contracts renewed by their universities.35
Universities’ internal disciplinary actions, including expulsion or termination of students’ enrollment status, and their request or authorization of law enforcement intervention to disperse demonstrations that resulted in arrests of students and faculty, have had downstream immigration consequences, placing noncitizen students’ and faculty’s immigration status at risk. In some cases, universities have failed to protect their noncitizen students and faculty from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement activity — or at least could have done more to protect them.
Instead of targeting students and faculty who are expressing their right to protest and association, higher education institutions have a responsibility to protect these rights. The First Amendment compels public universities and colleges to respect free speech rights,36 and some have failed these obligations. While the Constitution does not bind private institutions, they should similarly be guided by their commitments to academic freedom and free inquiry. Moreover, under international law, which enshrines the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression, and association, and which warrants a higher protection for civil disobedience than U.S. law, all universities and colleges have human rights responsibilities to protect students’ right to express themselves and peaceably protest on campus.37
Adoption of Campus Policies that  Suppress Protected Political Speech  
Broadly Defined as Antisemitism
A number of universities have adopted the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
(IHRA)’s overly broad definition of antisemitism. The IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism says that examples of antisemitism include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” and “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”38
The IHRA framework — including both its definition of antisemitism and the accompanying contemporary examples — has been interpreted  by some to equate criticism of Israel and its policies or opposition to Zionism with antisemitism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes protected political speech and is not limited to harassing speech or conduct that creates a hostile educational environment. Speech that is critical of Israel cannot, alone, constitute harassment.39 Moreover, the IHRA framework equates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination in a manner that could chill the exercise of First Amendment rights. Campus policies relying on the IHRA definition would likely chill free speech of students, faculty, and staff on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.40
In practice, the IHRA framework has been used to silence criticism of Israeli government policies and to suppress the speech and activism of university students, professors, and organizers in support of Palestinian rights. At colleges and universities across the country, numerous complaints and lawsuits based on the IHRA definition have been filed in an attempt to stop speech and to target faculty for what they said, materials they included in their courses, and speakers they invited to campus.41 The IHRA definition has been deployed to try to cancel campus events, including at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst,42 Indiana University,43 Columbia University,44 the
University of California at Berkeley,45 Arizona State University,46 the University of New Mexico,47 and elsewhere.48 Adoption of the IHRA definition has also led to reviews of course syllabi and reading lists, impacting university curricula.49
Campus policies incorporating the IHRA definition of antisemitism misconstrue anti-discrimination law to censor and stifle campus speech. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act already offers strong protections for students who are subject to discrimination and harassment. These policies go far beyond what Title VI requires and could chill protected student and faculty speech that does not violate Title VI. The expansion of what constitutes discrimination is too broad and will inevitably infringe on lawful, important academic discussions and debates on campus about Palestine and Israel, putting academic freedom principles at risk. As written, these campus policies will likely chill speech critical of the Israeli government or of Zionism that does not rise to the level of a Title VI violation and impede important academic discussions and debates on campus about Palestine and Israel.
In recent rulings in cases examining the intersection of Title VI hostile educational environment claims and the First Amendment in the context of proPalestine protests on college campuses, federal courts have held that Title VI does not require a university to squash speech protected by the First Amendment.50 Evaluating speech in the form of rallies, flyers, speeches, sit-ins, and protests, courts have found that the speech at issue is protected by the First Amendment, including phrases such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “globalize the intifada.”51 Finding that speech on matters of public concern directed to the community at large is very different from targeted, personal harassment aimed at a particular person, federal courts ruled that political speech will generally not meet the high standard for proving hostility or offensiveness required under Title VI.
The Trump Administration’s Abuse of
Title VI and Attempted Hostile Ideological Takeovers of Universities
Since the first months of President Trump’s second term, his administration has leveraged several federal agencies and departments in its campaign against pro-Palestine speech and activism on campus. With the stated goal of combating antisemitism,  the administration has deployed the Department  of Justice, the Department of Education, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,  the Department of Health and Human Services,  and the General Services Administration to suppress free speech on campus.
The Trump administration created a three-agency task force aimed at ending antisemitism on college campuses. Armed with an executive order that redefines antisemitism to include critiques of the state of Israel, the task force has targeted at least 60 colleges and universities, cutting or threatening funding at these institutions.52
The Trump administration has weaponized Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color or national origin in any activity or program receiving federal financial assistance, using the civil rights law as a tool to undermine free speech, suppress criticism of Israel, and defund higher education. The administration has encouraged the Department of Education to consider protected speech in determining whether any actionable harassment under Title VI, including allegations that the school is responsible for a “hostile environment,” was motivated by antisemitism.53
The Department of Education Office for Civil
Rights (OCR) enforces Title VI by investigating
and resolving complaints that students or others are being subjected to hostile environments or otherwise being discriminated against on campus because of their race, national origin, or other traits protected under civil rights laws. In total, OCR has opened more than 100 investigations into allegations of a hostile educational environment based on antisemitism at colleges and universities since October 7, 2023 (24 such investigations were opened in all previous years combined).54 There were incidents that likely merited Title VI investigations. Jewish students expressed fear and concern for their safety and well-being related to antisemitism, including antisemitic harassment on their campuses.55 Likewise, Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian students reported fears for their personal safety and concerns related to anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bias and harassment on their campuses.56 However, it is the Trump administration’s use of Title VI investigations  and enforcement actions to suppress protected speech and chill or encroach on the exercise of  free expression by students or other members  of educational communities, and the use or threat  of Title VI investigations to coerce universities  into over-censoring, that is problematic.
Wrongly equating protected political speech with unprotected discrimination, the administration has alleged violations of Title VI to cut funding or threaten to cut funding at universities that were sites of student protests, because the administration deemed these universities to be failing in their obligation to protect Jewish students from harassment. While combating antisemitism is a worthy goal, the administration’s overbroad reading of what constitutes actionable harassment under Title VI instead violates the First Amendment, by forcing universities to censor political speech the administration cannot constitutionally restrict.
The schools subject to the cancellation of federal grants and contracts include Columbia University,
Harvard University, Brown University, the
University of Pennsylvania, Cornell University, Northwestern University, Princeton University, and UCLA.57 The federal government threatened to withhold billions of dollars in research funding from Columbia and Harvard if they did not adopt the government’s preferred ideological approach  to who they admit to study, who they employ to teach, and what classes and other programs they offer.58 When Harvard refused, the federal government decided to withhold billions of dollars in research funding.59 The president of Princeton University called the targeting of Columbia “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.”60
At Columbia University, the Trump administration preemptively cut $400 million of federal funding. In response, the university agreed to the administration’s demands rather than fighting back, even though those orders were likely to have been blocked by the courts. Columbia’s capitulation only emboldened the administration to keep up these kinds of attacks. A few weeks later, the administration sent a similar demand letter to Harvard University. The demands were so extreme that they would have effectively put the university’s governance in the hands of the federal government. Harvard sued, and in retaliation, the administration threatened their tax-exempt status and froze $2.2 billion in grants and a $60 million contract to Harvard for its refusal to comply.61 At other targeted universities, the task force made specific requests targeting professors, students, and speech, relying on Title VI to press for agreements far beyond the statute’s scope.
The Trump administration’s decision to withhold federal research grants from universities due to their refusal to conform to the government’s preferred ideological approach is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Because it is taking adverse action that is substantially motivated by the universities’ disfavored speech, it constitutes retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and constitutes impermissible government action by coercing a private party to censor its own speech and that of others. The government cannot condition federal funding on ideological conformity in ways that are unrelated to the purpose of the federal funding program, or to coerce ideological conformity outside the confines of the federally funded activities.
The Trump administration has violated broader
First Amendment principles as well. The First Amendment protects all private speakers and institutions from viewpoint-based discrimination, coercion, and retaliation, even as it specifically protects colleges, universities, and their professors from infringements on academic freedom.62  It prohibits the government from forcing any private actor to express the government’s preferred views,63 from leveraging federal funds in a viewpoint-based way, and from seeking to control speech outside of the scope of a government-funded program.64  The administration’s conduct has crossed each  of those lines.
The administration’s actions leverage huge sums of money to push the targeted universities into restricting speech by curtailing the independence of professors to fashion their own courses, and they seek to regulate speech far outside of the scope of the federal research grants that have been revoked. More than 600 college and university presidents signed a letter denouncing the Trump administration’s “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” with higher education, noting “we must reject the coercive  use of public research funding.”65
The threat of funding cuts could — and already has
— resulted in colleges and universities suppressing a wide variety of speech critical of the Israeli government or in support of Palestinian rights  in an effort to avoid Title VI investigations by the Department of Education and the potential loss of funding, even where such speech is protected and does not qualify as harassment. Fears of legal action against the school under Title VI and misinterpretations of Title VI standards have led some universities to suppress political speech that the First Amendment plainly protects. There have been numerous instances of university censorship of pro-Palestinian expression, examples of which are detailed in this report.
On August 18, 2026, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee launched an investigation into explosive whistleblower allegations from a former career Department of Justice Civil Rights Division lawyer of nearly a decade and several other experienced career Department of Justice civil rights attorneys temporarily assigned to the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to work on Title VI investigations undertaken by the Trump administration’s Task Force to Combat AntiSemitism.66 Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee released the whistleblowers’ complaint, which detailed their allegations that Trump administration political appointees manipulated federal antisemitism investigations to target certain American universities, punish protected speech, and coerce schools into settlements despite government investigators’ finding insufficient evidence to establish any Title VI violations.67  The whistleblowers said that “the investigations were not grounded in law or fact” and described political appointees overruling career investigators, pursuing investigations with “predetermined” outcomes and findings unsupported by the evidence, and targeting Muslim professors based on religion and ethnicity without allegations of wrongdoing.68 They also allege that senior Trump administration officials intended to use hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding as leverage against universities regardless of investigative findings.
The Trump Administration’s Campaign to Detain and Deport Students and Scholars
Involved in Palestinian Rights Advocacy
The Trump administration has crafted and carried out a policy of revoking the visas and green cards of noncitizen students and scholars who engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy, and of arresting, detaining, and deporting them. In March and April 2025, the Trump administration moved swiftly to detain and initiate deportation cases against noncitizen students and scholars who had advocated for Palestinian rights or criticized Israel. The administration has targeted these
to demand the release of Mahmoud Khalil.
students and scholars solely because of their political viewpoints and constitutionally protected expression. Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and prominent advocate for Palestinian rights at Columbia University, was the first to be targeted.
Other students and scholars, including Rümeysa
Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Dr. Badar Khan Suri, were arrested and detained, despite having valid immigration status and not being accused of breaking any law. The administration has attempted to detain and deport other students, including Yunseo Chung, Ranjani Srinivasan, and Momodou Taal, for their constitutionally protected pro-Palestinian advocacy. The administration is trying to use immigration laws to silence speech it disagrees with, while also claiming that no federal district court has authority to judge the constitutionality of its actions.
In a closed-door meeting with donors during his re-election campaign, President Trump explicitly stated his intent to deport students who protested the military campaign in Gaza. Referring to Palestine-related protests, President Trump told donors: “Any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to have to behave.”69 As a candidate, President Trump additionally pledged to “terminate the visas of all those Hamas sympathizers, and we’ll get them off our college campuses, out of our cities, and get them the hell out of our country.”70
Shortly after assuming office, President Trump signed two executive orders intended to fulfill his campaign promises to deport protesters.71 Executive Order 14161 articulates the administration’s desire to target individuals who
“advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security,” those who hold “hateful” views, and those who
“bear hostile attitudes toward [America’s] citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.”72 The order does not define “hostile attitudes,” leaving the term open to encompass any form of political dissent or criticism of government policies.
Executive Order 14188 and its accompanying fact sheet state the government’s intent to target postOctober 7, 2023, campus antisemitism, particularly on “leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.”73 The order’s definition of antisemitism encompasses constitutionally protected criticism of the Israeli government and its policies. The accompanying fact sheet frames the order as a promise to “deport Hamas sympathizers and revoke student visas,” to send a message to all “resident aliens who participated in pro-jihadist protests” that the federal government “will find you… and deport you.”74
In combination, these orders, the accompanying fact sheet, and other communications from the Trump administration were intended to enlist university officials in censoring and punishing noncitizen scholars and students for their speech and scholarship. The message is clear: Immigrant students, faculty, and staff on college and university campuses should think twice before they criticize the United States or the Trump administration, express support for Palestinians, or condemn Israeli government policies — or indeed anything else President Trump and other federal officials might possibly find objectionable — and colleges and universities that allow such speech, debate, and protest should think twice, too.
While it is important to address antisemitism, these executive orders failed to do so.75 Instead, they seem to target pro-Palestinian scholars and students who are exercising their rights to free expression and peaceful assembly, and set in motion the Trump administration’s subsequent targeting of international students and scholars  for arrest, detention, and deportation based on their political views.76
In March 2025, ICE’s Department of Homeland Security Investigations launched an operation to identify pro-Palestinian protesters on college campuses.77 This operation involved scouring lists  of suspected protesters and producing reports based on unverified allegations by third parties that the protesters are antisemitic or proHamas.78 Under a new expedited process, ICE forwarded these reports to the State Department for deportation without any further vetting. The State Department then revoked protesters’ visas or rendered them removable, also without conducting any meaningful vetting.79 The State Department’s review process proceeded with astonishing speed: Khalil was arrested only one day after ICE issued a referral letter to the State Department, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved the action memo on Mohsen Mahdawi’s deportation only one day after ICE issued the referral letter.80
The first individual to be arrested and detained by ICE under this policy was lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian born in Syria. On March 8, 2025, Khalil was returning home with his U.S.-citizen wife when he was detained by ICE agents.81 On March 10, 2025, President Trump issued a statement on Truth Social touting Khalil’s arrest as a blueprint for future government actions. He warned that Khalil’s arrest was “the first of many to come,” and stated that his administration would not tolerate “students at Columbia and other universities across the country who have engaged  in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.”82 The president promised to “find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country.”83
While the precise number of students and scholars targeted for deportation because of their proPalestinian speech and advocacy is unknown, potentially hundreds have been targeted. On March 27, 2025, Secretary Rubio announced that he had revoked the F-1 student visas of more than 300 noncitizen students who participated in proPalestinian activism, stating “Every time I find one of these lunatics I take away their visa…we do it every day.”84 Though he appears to have walked back this statement following public scrutiny, according to New York Times reporting, nearly 300 international students had their visas revoked in retaliation for their political expression.85 On March 28, 2025, Secretary Rubio was asked whether all of the Trump administration’s first 300 visa revocations were “related to pro-Palestinian protests,” and he responded that most were, explaining, “If you are in this country on a student visa and are a participant in those movements, we have a right to deny your visa.”86
The Trump administration’s arrests and threats to deport students and faculty solely because of their participation in pro-Palestine political protest is blatantly unconstitutional and is chilling student speech and advocacy across campuses, in violation of bedrock principles of international human rights law.
Immigration Enforcement Based  on Lawful Pro-Palestinian Advocacy  and Protected Speech
The Trump administration has carried out these detentions and deportations pursuant to a viewpoint-discriminatory policy of retaliation against noncitizens with pro-Palestinian views. The policy is effectuated by abusing immigration law to punish and silence noncitizen students and scholars engaged in pro-Palestinian expression. The government’s policy has characterized proPalestinian advocacy and speech critical of the Israeli government as antisemitic and “pro-Hamas,” without acknowledging that the speech it is targeting is lawful and constitutionally protected.
The Trump administration has claimed it has multiple pathways it believes it can take to deport pro-Palestinian protesters, including (1) revoking the visas or Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) status of students who engage in activities it claims are inconsistent with holding a student visa; (2) revoking the visas of students who endorse or espouse terrorist activity or terrorist organizations; and (3) revoking the visas or green cards of students whose presence or activities in the United States have serious foreign policy consequences. The administration has also attempted to rely on unfounded, pretextual, post-hoc allegations of immigration fraud or misrepresentation.87
Based on public statements by Secretary Rubio and trial testimony by State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, the agencies deem a broad spectrum of proPalestinian and anti-war statements, including constitutionally protected speech, to be “pro-Hamas” or antisemitic and therefore grounds for visa or green card revocation. In trial testimony, several ICE and State Department officials involved in executing the Trump administration’s ideological deportation policy admitted that essentially any criticism of Israel could merit immigration consequences.  
For instance, senior State Department official John Armstrong testified that statements critical of Israel or U.S. foreign policy with respect to Israel could subject a visa or green card holder to deportation, including statements such as the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” as well as statements calling for an arms embargo on Israel  or calling for limiting military aid to Israel.88
The Trump administration has explicitly argued that peaceful pro-Palestine advocacy is grounds for detention and deportation. For example, Khalil was never accused of breaking any laws, and the only evidence the government has cited in support of its foreign policy claims is lawful speech about Israel and Palestine. According to a memorandum from Secretary Rubio to then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem later disclosed via litigation, Secretary Rubio’s determination that Khalil is deportable under the foreign policy ground was based on Khalil’s participation in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities” that “undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States.”89
Similarly, Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national, saw her student visa revoked in retaliation for coauthoring an op-ed in the Tufts University student newspaper addressing the university’s response to a student government resolution regarding Gaza.
Secretary Rubio said this kind of advocacy was
“creating a ruckus” that justified her removal from the country. Unsealed documents and testimony at a trial in an unrelated case revealed that her visa revocation was based on her op-ed, and that the State Department recommended her deportation despite concluding that ICE “has not…provided any evidence showing that Öztürk has engaged in any antisemitic activity or made any public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization or antisemitism generally.”90
Abuse of the “Foreign Policy Ground”  of the Immigration and Nationality Act
In some cases, including the cases of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Dr. Badar Khan Suri, and Yunseo Chung, the Trump administration has been trying to deport individuals based on the Secretary of State’s claim that their presence or activities could have “adverse foreign policy consequences” and would “compromise a compelling foreign policy interest,” citing a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).91 Under the foreign policy provision, a noncitizen
is inadmissible, and therefore deportable, if the secretary of state “has reasonable ground to believe” that their “presence or activities” in the United States would have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”92 The provision also states that individuals may not be excluded based on “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations [that] would be lawful in the United States unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the [noncitizen]’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”93
Until March 2025, the foreign policy provision had never been used to target a lawful permanent resident for their constitutionally protected political speech in the United States. The law’s legislative history makes clear that Congress expected this authority to be used sparingly and  not merely because an individual might make critical remarks about the United States or its policies.94 Congress did not intend this obscure INA provision, which authorizes the government to exclude or remove noncitizens on extraordinary foreign policy grounds, to be used to deport noncitizens for exercising their First Amendment rights.95 In fact, the foreign policy ground is almost never invoked. In its court filings, the federal government has identified only four previous instances in which it has been used to remove noncitizens over the past three decades, none of which concerned domestic speech.96 In all that time, the law has never been cited to detain or deport any lawful permanent resident for their political beliefs — until it was used against Khalil.
Since then, the Trump administration has used it to argue that it has unlimited discretion to detain and deport any noncitizen whom the federal government considers a foreign policy risk for any reason — and that the federal courts are powerless to undertake timely review its decisions, even if they violate the First Amendment. Under this policy, Secretary Rubio would make determinations that the protesters’ presence or activities in the United States would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest. The Department of Homeland Security would effectuate these determinations  by seeking to deport the protesters and would also further the policy of punishing and censoring the protesters by detaining them. This weaponization of immigration law is part of the Trump administration’s clear policy to retaliate against and punish noncitizens for their participation in protests and expression of views concerning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and to deter future such protests and expression.
Social Media Vetting of Student  Visa Holders and Applicants
The Trump administration also significantly expanded its use of social media monitoring  as a tool for vetting student visa holders and applicants, raising concern that students may  be deported or barred from entering the country  for their political speech or views, potentially chilling or punishing protected speech.97 As part  of the State Department’s restart of foreign student visa interviews and processing, applicants are now required to make their social media accounts public for government scrutiny or face potential visa denial.98 This surveillance begins when  individuals file their visa applications and continues even after applications are granted, throughout  a person’s time in the United States. If DHS uncovers information it deems suspicious, it may initiate an investigation and take further steps such as in-person questioning, border searches, watchlisting, or visa revocation.
In a cable sent to diplomatic missions on March 25, 2025, Secretary Rubio ordered diplomats overseas to conduct a “mandatory social media check” of student and exchange visitor visa applicants (F, M, and J visas) for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States.”99 According to the cable, diplomats were to evaluate social media posts created between October 7, 2023 and August 31, 2024, suggesting that the objective was to reject visa applications of students who have criticized the war in Gaza or U.S. military aid to Israel.100 In July 2025, a senior State Department official whose office is tasked with vetting students’ social media posts and revoking student visas, testified that the State Department regularly took into account speech or actions that it saw as critical of Israel, and that statements criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza, calls for limiting military aid to Israel, or “denouncing Zionism” all could factor into the agency’s decisions.101 While the State Department maintains it is targeting those “who pose a threat to U.S. national security,” its criteria are in no way limited to national security threats, resulting in scrutiny and potential punishment of constitutionally protected political speech.
Intimidation and Chilling Effect on  
Free Speech and Association Rights
University students, student organizations,  faculty, and university staff have been deterred  from speaking and organizing on these issues. Activists are understandably hesitant to engage  in political expression criticizing Israel or advocating for Palestinian rights because they  have reason to believe the federal government will actively investigate such expression in connection with harassment complaints and investigations.
Following the violent suppression of student protests, demonstrations, and encampments during the 2023–2024 academic year, the fear of similar repression directly led to some protesters’ decisions to not reengage in public demonstrations on campus during the ensuing academic year.102 In the fall 2024 semester, the total number of protest actions dropped by more than 64 percent from the previous semester.103 Protest activity continued to decline into spring 2025 and into the following 2025–2026 academic year.104 This decline was not due to a lack of support for Palestinians: a March 2025 Gallup poll found that sympathy for Palestinians had reached a record high and support for Israel had reached its lowest level in at least 25 years in the United States.105

The decline in protests was the direct result of crackdowns on protesters, university policies restricting protests, and the Trump administration’s attacks on universities. Summer and fall 2024 saw a series of changes to university policies regarding protests; the disciplining of students and faculty, including expulsion and terminations; and the summoning of university presidents before congressional hearings on antisemitism on campus. The Trump administration took more direct action by rescinding federal funding and research grants and threatening and opening civil rights investigations, among other attempts to coerce university administrators to capitulate to the government’s demands. These actions led universities to suppress students’ and faculties’ rights to protest and free speech. The result has been a less visible protest movement on campuses across the country.106
According to one survey of Middle Eastern studies scholars conducted in early 2025, even before much of the Trump administration’s full-scale assault on academia materialized, the University of Maryland’s Critical Issues Poll found the overall environment on campus remains “oppressive and uncertain” as political pressure has increased, leading to rampant self-censorship and an increase in actual censorship. According to the poll, 57 percent say they felt a greater need to self-censor when discussing issues related to Israel and Palestine since President Trump took office, and 84 percent expected campus leadership to be more severe in responding to campus demonstrations. Furthermore, 78 percent of respondents claimed that this has been the worst period, or among the worst periods, of their professional careers when it came to facing pressure over issues related to Israel and Palestine.107
The Trump administration’s targeted attacks on international students and faculty has had a notable chilling effect on student protests and impact on academic freedom.108 International students and faculty from across the country say they continue to feel afraid to voice opinions or stand out on campus for fear of getting kicked out of the country. Many students stopped attending classes or events on campus.109 Some noncitizen students and faculty  
stopped attending public protests or withdrew from campus groups that engage in political advocacy. Others declined opportunities to publish commentary and scholarship, stopped contributing to classroom discussions, or deleted past work from online databases and websites. Many now hesitate to address political issues on social media, or even in private texts, out of fear that they might be arrested and deported for lawful expression and association.110
The Path Forward
The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, “because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.”111 “Quite to the contrary,” the court stated, “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.”112
Colleges and universities are supposed to encourage robust debate and difficult discussions — not threaten, punish, or arrest students for engaging in political advocacy. Instead of crushing speech and advocacy, schools should be exploring ways to help campus communities navigate conflict, foster dialogue and inquiry, and support — not suppress — students who engage in political expression and controversial debates. As colleges contend with the challenge of managing rising campus tensions while keeping students safe, it is essential that university leaders remain steadfast in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus.
Universities and colleges must take all possible measures to ensure that their campuses are spaces where students may exercise their rights without fear or intimidation. Universities and colleges must enforce university rules in a neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. They should ensure students are not punished for simply exercising their right to peacefully protest. University policies and procedures should also be applied fairly and neutrally to all students, faculty, and staff, with no viewpoint discrimination or political influence, and punishments must be necessary and proportionate to the violation.
We urge universities and colleges not to resort to police action to suppress student expression. Bringing more law enforcement onto campuses would limit student speech, increase campus tensions, and put students closer to police and into dangerous situations that could impact the rest of their lives. Instead, universities and colleges should fulfill their human rights responsibilities by facilitating protests and ensuring that all students’ rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, regardless of viewpoint, are respected.
Adopting overly broad Title VI and other antidiscrimination policies that suppress protected political speech broadly defined as antisemitism will stifle campus speech and threaten academic freedom. All students deserve equal access to education — free from harassment and discrimination on campus. Schools have a responsibility to address discrimination and harassment wherever it occurs. But the experience of our country’s universities during the McCarthy era demonstrates that ideologically motivated efforts to police speech on campus destroy the foundation on which academic communities are built. A college or university, whether public or private, cannot fulfill its mission as a forum for vigorous debate if its leaders initiate baseless investigations into those who express disfavored or even loathsome views. Such investigations chill speech, foster an atmosphere of mutual suspicion, and betray the spirit of free inquiry, which is based on the power to persuade rather than the power to punish.
The Trump administration must cease its relentless attacks on universities and their students, faculty, and staff. The federal government cannot mandate expulsion of students or use its regulatory power to threaten funding cuts to coerce universities to prohibit or punish speech they could lawfully allow (in the case of private universities) or must allow (in the case of constitutionally protected speech  
at public universities). While the administration can enforce Title VI to ensure a learning environment is free from harassment, it cannot force universities to adopt restrictive speech codes that silence the viewpoints the government disfavors.
Schools should resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions to advance partisan agendas. Universities must stand up to such intimidation and defend the principles of academic freedom so essential to their integrity and mission. We urge universities and college administrators to resist the temptation to silence students or faculty members because powerful voices deem their views offensive. Instead, we urge them to defend the university’s core mission of encouraging debate, fostering free-flowing inquiry, and preparing the future leaders of our pluralistic society to tolerate even profound differences of opinion.
Key Recommendations
To Universities and Colleges
• Ensure that campus policies on political speech and protest are viewpoint-neutral
• Uphold free speech protections for all students and scholars, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, and race.
• Enforce university rules in a neutral and nondiscriminatory manner and ensure students are not punished for engaging in lawful speech or expressive conduct.
◦ University policies and procedures must be applied fairly and neutrally to all students, faculty, and staff, with no viewpoint discrimination or political influence.
◦ Punishments must be proportionate to the violation.
◦ Recognize the importance of giving breathing space to the importance of free expression when interpreting any alleged rule violations, to ensure no student is disciplined or threatened with discipline on the basis of engaging in lawful protest activity.
◦ Universities should not use their policies to deprive students of their due process rights or to punish them for engaging in lawful speech or expressive conduct. Public universities may not punish students for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
• Ensure that students have ample channels for expression on campus.
◦ Universities and colleges should allow students to demonstrate in many areas of campus, especially in outdoor, high-traffic locations.
◦ If a school continues to impose some time restrictions on demonstrations, it should narrowly limit these restrictions such that demonstrations are allowed during a broad range of time that spans morning, afternoon, and evening hours.
◦ Universities and colleges should not unduly restrict the modes of expression available to students.
◦ Protect students’ ability to spontaneously protest in response to unanticipated events, when speech is often the most essential.
• Ensure that law enforcement is used only as a measure of last resort.
• Refrain from adopting policies against discrimination and harassment that rely on overly broad and vague definitions, including definitions of antisemitism, and have the effect of prohibiting protected political speech or silencing lawful political speech.
• Craft and implement anti-discrimination policies that prevent student discrimination and harassment and that appropriately balance principles of academic freedom, free speech, and educational equality.
• Protect the privacy of all students, including immigrant and international students, and resist unlawful government requests for personal information.
• Reject any federal pressure to surveil or punish noncitizen students and faculty for their lawful speech.
• Resist White House and federal agency demands that undermine academic freedom and students’ and faculty’s civil and human rights.
To the Trump Administration
• The Secretary of State and Department of Homeland Security must cease targeting noncitizens for exercising their constitutional right to free speech through arbitrary and discriminatory revocations of F-1 student visas and J-1 exchange visitor visas and by removal proceedings invoking Section 237(a)(3)(C) (i), known as the foreign policy ground, of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). End all pending removal proceedings against students and faculty targeted in retaliation for their lawful advocacy in support of Palestinian rights.
• Stop weaponizing Title VI to threaten funding cuts to punish lawful speech on campus; to coerce universities into allowing expression only of the federal government’s preferred views; and to impose ideological requirements on universities and colleges, and their professors and students.
• Rescind executive orders, including Executive Orders 14188 and 13899, and federal agency rules or policies codifying the use of the overly broad and vague International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and similar definitions. Federal agencies, including the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, should cease using this definition for enforcing civil rights laws and should not rely on or refer to IHRA in their rulemaking, policy guidance, or enforcement decisions.
• The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) should take steps to ensure that investigations and enforcement actions do not chill or encroach on the exercise of free expression by students or other members of educational communities.
To Congress
• Pass the Land of the Free Act (H.R. 4959), which would repeal Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).113 This existing provision grants the Secretary of State the authority to designate for deportation visa-holders and lawful permanent residents whose presence in the United States would have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” and has been abused to arbitrarily target noncitizens for exercising their constitutional rights to free speech.
• Vote no on the misleadingly titled “Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026,” if it is introduced in the Senate or re-introduced in the House next Congress. This legislation would prevent colleges and universities from receiving federal student aid if these institutions boycott Israel.
• Oppose the Antisemitism Awareness Act (S. 558/H.R. 1007) or any legislation that directs the government to adopt an overly broad definition of antisemitism that includes political speech critical of the Israeli government, including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism.
Research Methodology
This report is a joint initiative between the  American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)  and Amnesty International USA (AIUSA).
The International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO) provided research support. The report is primarily based upon extensive desk research examining university and college administration responses to protests in support of Palestinian rights that took place on campuses across the United States from 2024 to 2026.
Incident Reviews and Media,  Legal, and Policy Analysis
Our two-year investigation covered events at 46 public and 34 private university and college campuses nationwide, located in 28 states and the District of Columbia. The research included review and analysis of media articles, reports, university policies, court rulings and legal filings in lawsuits brought against universities, as well as expert statements and analysis. Researchers also reviewed actions undertaken by the U.S. Congress and actors within both the Biden and Trump administrations that have impacted students’ rights to protest on campuses across the United States. The report additionally includes analysis of photos, videos, and social media posts collected by Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps, which document law enforcement’s use of force and injuries sustained on campuses during spring 2024. In addition, the report is supplemented by questionnaires and interviews with those directly involved in campus protest actions.
In advance of the publication of this report, the ACLU and AIUSA wrote to each of the 21 private universities and colleges for which there are detailed findings included in the report, to seek their responses to the findings of this research.114 The responses received from universities and colleges by the time of publication are included  in Appendix III of this report.
Questionnaire
An online questionnaire was distributed to campus protesters known to our organizations, including students, faculty, staff or local community members, from October 2024–February 2025. The questionnaire was administered via Qualtrics survey software to student protest organizers and leaders  of student organizations involved in campus protests, including Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, as well as to Amnesty International university student chapters. The questionnaire included 83 closed- and open-ended questioned divided into seven sections: about participants’ experiences at protests and encampments on campus, including excessive use of force by law enforcement and campus security, use of crowd control weapons, and arrests, among other issues.
Ninety-six individuals completed the survey and consented to our privacy policy. These individuals included students who participated in multiple solidarity protests at 41 college campuses across 18 states: California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.115 All individuals who responded to the questionnaire provided written informed consent to participate. While the response rate was too small to draw definitive conclusions, researchers used these survey responses to help identify trends and universities for further in-depth research.  In addition, some responses were included  in this report as supplementary information.
Interviews
Furthermore, researchers conducted a limited number of interviews with students and faculty from campuses featured in six case studies in this report; interviewees had completed the questionnaire and agreed to be interviewed.  All individuals interviewed provided verbal informed consent to participate and did not receive any compensation for participating in interviews. Individuals interviewed were offered the option to use their real name in the report or remain anonymous. The authors developed a protocol for these interviews. The number of interviews was limited in part because questionnaire respondents expressed reluctance to speak with researchers due to various concerns, including ongoing litigation or disciplinary proceedings related to their protest activities. While the interviews were too few to draw definitive trends and conclusions, quotes and other anecdotal information were incorporated into the report where appropriate.
Case Studies
This report also contains detailed case studies of six universities: Columbia University, City College of New York, Tulane University, the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), the University of Michigan, and the University of Texas at Austin. These universities were selected because their responses to student speech and protest were particularly problematic. These universities exemplified the heavy-handed and excessive responses by universities and colleges to campus protests, as well as the ongoing suppression and retaliation against pro-Palestine speech and expression on campus. Case studies were also selected to feature a mix of public and private universities in different geographic areas of the United States. The case studies are based on all the available information from our research, including media, legal, and policy analysis; incident reviews; questionnaire responses; and interviews. 
University and Law Enforcement

Background
Since the Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, colleges and universities across the United States have been sites of mass demonstrations, encampments, and other types of peaceful protest actions as students, faculty, and campus staff have protested mass atrocities committed in the context of Israel’s war on the occupied Gaza Strip116 — atrocities which Amnesty International,117 other human rights organizations,118 and international bodies, including a United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry,119 have concluded amounted to war crimes and a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.120 Amnesty International and a United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry have concluded that Hamas’s military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades,  and other Palestinian armed groups committed  war crimes and crimes against humanity during their assault on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, and against hostages held in Gaza thereafter.121
The 2023–2024 academic year saw an expansive series of protests, demonstrations, and encampments on university and college campuses
— both large and small — across the country. The protesters’ demands include calls for a ceasefire and for their academic institutions to divest from weapons manufacturers and other companies that have profited from violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Gaza.122
In the United States, students across more than 100 universities organized, calling for educational institutions to end their financial ties to corporations linked to the war in Gaza.123 According to Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), more than 1,360 student demonstrations took place in the United States between October 7, 2023, and May 3, 2024, calling for university divestment from Israel and in support of Palestinian rights. ACLED determined that the overwhelming majority of those protests — 97 percent — remained peaceful.124
While these actions have been primarily led by students, they have been a part of a broader social movement of solidarity that garnered support from other members of the academic community, such as professor and staff associations, unions, parent groups, local community members, and civil society organizations. Before the end of 2024, over 60 countries had also witnessed these types  of actions.125
Several regional and international human rights bodies expressed concerns over the violent crackdown on students’ protests in support of Palestinian rights and called on universities to protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression, and association of all within their campuses, and “to stop misusing hate speech imposing undue restrictions on legitimate protests.”126
In April 2024, Columbia University President
Minouche Shafik was asked to testify before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to respond to concerns regarding university leadership’s response to Palestine solidarity activism and reports of antisemitism on campus.127 A few months prior, Harvard University President
Claudine Gay and University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill had faced similar interrogations from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, ending with them both stepping down from their positions.128 While the Columbia hearing took place, students took advantage of the heightened attention on their campus and established the Gaza Solidarity
Encampment on the main quad, which lasted
14 days. Within 24 hours of its establishment,
President Shafik requested that the New York City
Police Department (NYPD) clear the encampment. NYPD officers arrested more than 100 students, despite statements by NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell recognizing that students had been peaceful, did not resist arrest, and did not present a security threat.129 Even after the immediate crackdown, students reestablished the solidarity encampment and continued to organize protests, political education events, and walkouts.130
This incident became a watershed moment, after which more than 170 encampments were established in the first semester of 2024, and it set into motion a pattern of university leaders’ swift and punitive responses to pro-Palestine protests and encampments. Universities and colleges faced pressure from wealthy donors, trustees, and figures outside of university or college leadership, including members of Congress, to suppress proPalestinian protests and dismantle encampments.131 By restricting or banning protests outright, involving campus police and external law enforcement in the surveillance, intimidation, and repression of participants, and pursuing students with legal and administrative consequences, university and college administrators escalated tensions.
Universities and colleges suspended, expelled, and sometimes evicted student protesters from campus housing with very little notice; fired faculty; and suspended student chapters of organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).132 Institutions authorized and requested law enforcement intervention, which led to a combination of campus security and local, state, and federal law enforcement dispersing demonstrations, dismantling encampments, and arresting protesters — many times through disproportionate force and intimidating tactics. In 2024, protesters were detained at more than 70 schools in at least 30 states, according to data collected by The New York Times.133 According to media reports, more than 3,200 people were arrested by police on university campuses, including students, teachers, human rights observers, and journalists, in many instances  for trespassing.134 In some instances, prosecutors charged students with serious felonies, including assault of police officers, wearing disguises, mob violence, and attempted ethnic intimidation.135 Students and faculty who participated in Palestine solidarity actions were also subject to doxxing, profiling, and retaliatory attacks by third parties, with little to no protection from their universities and colleges.136
Since summer 2024, the number of protests and encampments has diminished, an indication of the chilling effect created by law enforcement’s dispersals of protests, universities’ and colleges’ suppression of Palestine solidarity protest and association, and the Trump administration’s actions to punish noncitizen student activists. Students who participated in or helped organize protests and encampments reported that they had been subject to other, less visible, punitive consequences: lengthy legal and administrative disciplinary processes, heightened surveillance, and restrictive school policies governing peaceful assemblies and free speech on campus. A subsequent section of this report, “Recent University Actions to Restrict Protest and Censor Pro-Palestinian Speech,” addresses restrictions on Palestine solidarity protest and association since late 2024 through  to publication of this report in fall 2026.
Law enforcement response  and deployment of  Less-Lethal Weapons
Repression of Palestine solidarity activism has existed in the United States since long before the October 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel.137 Academic events, student actions, and protests regarding Palestinian rights issues have often been subject to censorship and disciplinary action. However, the severity and scale of the violent and repressive response to the largely peaceful protest movement from fall 2023 to spring 2024
demonstrators after students occupied the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall at the University of California, Irvine, on May 15, 2025.
Bottom: New York City police officers guard a locked gate at an entrance to the Columbia University campus during pro-Palestinian demonstrations on April 22, 2024.
was remarkable. University and college leaders failed to adequately communicate with protest organizers and take deescalating actions before involving law enforcement. In many cases, law enforcement met protesters with heavy-handed and sometimes militarized police repression characterized by unnecessary or disproportionate use of force, including the deployment of lesslethal weapons. These actions caused unwarranted physical and mental harm to students, faculty, staff, and community members.138 Campus police, local police, state troopers,139 police in riot gear,140 SWAT officers,141 mounted police142 and tactical vehicles143 have been part of law enforcement interventions in response to student protests and encampments.
According to media reports, students reported witnessing “snipers” — law enforcement armed with weapons that appeared to be long-range firearms — positioned on campus rooftops, as  in Indiana University and Ohio University.144
Several international institutions, including the
Inter-American Commission for Human Rights (IACHR), criticized these abuses and noted that journalists and press workers were also reportedly subjected to violence and detentions while carrying out their work.145
Despite the documented unnecessary or excessive use of force leading to serious injuries inflicted by less-lethal weapons on student protesters, several public universities in California — including the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where the media and a UCLA Task Force reported a number of injuries — restocked their less-lethal weapons and increased budgets allocated for campus policing in preparation for the following academic year.146 The less-lethal weapons approved for purchase included kinetic energy and impact launchers and munitions, as well as chemical agents such as pepper spray and tear gas delivered either as sprays or through impact munitions.147
In general, less-lethal weapons and equipment,  such as chemical irritants, kinetic impact projectiles, batons, and tasers, are intended to allow law enforcement officials to use intermediate force according to circumstances and avoid using lethal force. Some less-lethal weapons and equipment can have a legitimate use in law enforcement if employed correctly and in line with domestic and international standards for law enforcement. Yet such equipment can have unintended dangerous and even lethal effects if not used in compliance with domestic and international human rights standards, and is also open to abuse.
Less-lethal weapons can inflict serious injuries  and even death, particularly when used in violation of international standards on the use of force, including the principles of legality, precaution, necessity, and proportionality.148 Less-lethal weapons also can escalate tensions between  law enforcement and protesters, and using these weapons to chill or punish peaceful protest  violates protesters’ freedom of expression.
Given the inherent risks surrounding their use, lesslethal weapons should only be used in protests as an absolute last resort, only when dealing with genuine and imminent threats to safety, and with extreme caution to contain or prevent violence.149 They may be used only if there is no less harmful alternative available to address a given situation and must only be deployed after appropriate de-escalation techniques have been exhausted and, where possible, clear warnings have been issued. Medical care must be promptly made available to anyone injured by less-lethal weapons.
Chemical Irritants
Chemical irritants, a type of less-lethal weapon intended to produce temporary sensory irritation and pain, including launched tear gas and handheld pepper spray, were the law enforcement weapons most prevalently used when dispersing student protests and breaking up student encampments. Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps analyzed verified photos, videos, and social media posts from 20 schools it monitored, 17 of which were the subject of online posts describing or showing chemical irritants being used against students.150 These universities were George Washington University, the University of Michigan, the University of California San Diego, the University of Arizona, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of California Los Angeles, the University of New Mexico, Portland State University, Emory University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Columbia University,
Virginia Commonwealth University, New York University, the University of Chicago, City College of New York, the University of South Florida, and the University of Virginia.
For instance, at the University of Texas at Austin, over 100 law enforcement officials, which included campus police, city police, and state troopers in riot gear, came together to disband an encampment and arrest participants in April 2024. Although there had been initial efforts to deescalate and communicate between demonstrators and law enforcement officers, these efforts reportedly broke down when police deployed pepper spray and flash-bangs against students.151 A volunteer medic organization, Austin Street Medic, reported treating more than 100 people with injuries that included at least one asthma attack triggered by the pepper spray.152 In April 2024, while forcibly dispersing an encampment at New York University (NYU)’s Gould Plaza, NYPD Strategic Response Group officers sprayed pepper spray at close range on student protesters and a photographer for Washington Square News, NYU’s student newspaper.153
Injuries to students from chemical irritants were identified at five of the 17 schools where the Digital Verification Corps documented their use by law enforcement. Chemical irritants pose serious risks due to their potentially harmful impact to health, which may be exacerbated depending on the deployment methods used and other tools used in conjunction with them. Tear gas, mace, and pepper spray are not only dangerous if used in confined spaces or in large concentrations; they can also pose serious health risks to individuals with respiratory issues or when medical treatment is absent or delayed. In April 2025, at City College of New York (CUNY), CUNY public safety officers indiscriminately sprayed students with pepper spray. A medic reported that a student suffered an asthma attack triggered by the pepper spray but he was blocked from providing medical assistance.154 At the University of Michigan, students reported that police used Deep Freeze, a mix of tear gas and pepper spray, while clearing an encampment in May 2024, which caused injuries including “excruciating burning.”155

The serious health impacts of chemical irritants are exacerbated when large quantities are used but individuals are not allowed to move away quickly or are restrained by police. During the disbandment of an encampment at the University of Virginia,156 a student reported that state police in riot gear “slammed into us with their shields and then doused us with so much pepper spray that it felt like taking a shower in the pepper spray. Once they had disabled us with pepper spray, the police grabbed me, slammed me to the ground, tied my arms behind my back and took me and others off to a processing location nearby where there were no medical personnel… I could not sleep for about a week because of injuries to my ribs and ongoing burning from the pepper spray.”157
Chemical irritants, when deployed using canisters or grenades, are inherently indiscriminate by nature, cause severe pain and injuries, and frequently escalate tensions. Law enforcement should not deploy such chemical irritants against protests and peaceful assemblies. When chemical irritants are deployed, extreme caution must be used, including the consideration of the presence of bystanders and the existence of areas of egress and airflow to minimize any risk of overexposure or serious injury.
Human rights standards require that the use of such agents be restricted to what is necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective. Hand-held pepper sprays are defensive weapons; they may be used against individuals only in self-defense or in the defense of others against physical violence. Tear gas may only be used for the purpose of dispersing a crowd in situations of generalized violence against persons; when people are able to safely disperse; and not when people are in a confined space or where roads or other routes of escape are blocked. Tear gas grenades, projectiles and canisters should never be fired directly at individuals. When fired, these canisters become dangerous projectiles and direct impact can result in penetrating trauma or blindness, especially when fired at close range or targeted at specific parts of the body. Nor should they be deployed skip-fire towards the ground as a rebound from the ground will pose the same risks as direct fire, but with greater unpredictability. People must be warned in advance that chemical irritants will be used, and they must be allowed sufficient time to disperse before their use. When deploying tear gas, police must always consider its indiscriminate nature and that it may affect bystanders who are not engaged in the violence or the surrounding community in dense urban areas.

weapons at a pro-Palestinian demonstration at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 25, 2024.
Kinetic Impact Projectiles
Kinetic impact projectiles are a wide-ranging category of solid projectiles of variable size and shape fired as single shots or in groups of multiple projectiles.158 Shot from shotguns or specialized launchers, these weapons have an abundance of common and trade names for what are often referred to as “baton rounds” or “rubber bullets” regardless of their composition. Kinetic impact projectiles are most commonly made of plastic (“foam-tipped plastic bullets,” “plastic baton rounds,” “sponge grenades,” “Flashball rounds”) or metal (“pellets,” “flexible baton rounds,” “bean bag rounds,” “Super-sock”).159 Some are designed to be fired as a single projectile, while others are fired as a group of small projectiles. The latter are sometimes known as “pellets,” “scattershot,” or “multiple projectile rounds,” wherein many small- to mediumsized spheres are fired at a broad target. “Bean bag rounds” also consist of small metal pellets that are stitched into a synthetic cloth bag designed to expand on impact and therefore behave as a single projectile. Newer weapons include projectiles with a hard outer shell encasing chemical irritants that explode upon impact, such as pepper balls.160 Kinetic impact projectiles are used in various law enforcement contexts to deter through the pain of impact. At short range, they can be lethal, compromise vital organs, and cause permanent injuries such as loss of eyesight. At long range, they become more imprecise, which can lead to injuries to unintended targets such as passersby.161 Multiple forms of kinetic impact projectiles are inherently inhumane due to their intrinsic inaccuracy and high risk of serious injury, including blinding.
Kinetic impact projectiles must be expressly prohibited for the sole purpose of crowd dispersal; they cannot be used effectively and safely in groups of people. Kinetic impact projectiles must never be fired at close range and should never be targeted at the head or other vital areas of the body, where impact typically causes serious injury and, in some instances, death. Any kinetic impact projectile that fires multiple projectiles is inherently indiscriminate and must be prohibited in the context of protests. It is not possible to deploy these weapons safely against crowds or individuals.
The use of kinetic impact projectiles must be strictly limited to situations of violent disorder posing a risk of harm to persons, where the projectiles are used in order to contain and stop the violence and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve this objective. They must not be fired randomly at the crowd and must be aimed exclusively at persons who are engaged in violence. They should never be skip fired (rebounding off the ground). They should only be fired at the lower extremities so as to minimize the risk of serious injury and, when possible, a warning should be issued before use. Kinetic impact projectiles should not be launched at or near groups of higher-risk individuals, such as older people, pregnant people, and children.
Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps documented 10 schools where officers appeared to have responded to protests armed with kinetic impact projectiles: Emory University, the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), the University of California San Diego, the University of Arizona, Portland State University, the University of  
Virginia, the University of New Mexico, the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,  the University of South Florida, and the  University of Texas at Austin.162
The U.N. Human Rights Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement explicitly states that kinetic impact projectiles should not be targeted at sensitive areas such as the head, face, or neck.163 However, documented injuries from kinetic impact projectiles used at several universities involved the head, face, and groin.164
Law enforcement deployed various forms of kinetic impact projectiles at universities. For instance, at Emory University, pepper balls were used in conjunction with tasers to disperse crowds gathered on the quad.165 Law enforcement also deployed flash-bang grenades at multiple universities. Flash-bang grenades are a form of disorientation device that uses a combination of light, sound, and solid projectiles to distract or confuse individuals. Their disorienting impact can be both risky to individuals trying to run away from other crowd-control weapons and to the officers deploying them. If thrown at close range, they can lead to serious burns and shrapnel can produce blunt and penetrating impact injuries.166 During the dispersal of an encampment at the University of Texas at Austin in April 2024, law enforcement deployed flash-bang grenades as well as pepper spray into a crowd of hundreds of demonstrators.167 Law enforcement should prohibit the use of stun grenades in protest settings. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly stated, “It is important that States not deploy overly harmful weapons in response to assemblies. Stun grenades, for instance, should never be used in the context of assemblies.”168
During the May 2, 2024, dismantling of the student encampment at UCLA, UCLA Police Department (UCPD) officers, in cooperation with officers from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), California Highway Patrol, and Los Angeles Sheriff’s
Department fired dozens of concussive flash-
bang bombs into the encampment and launched flares. California Highway Patrol reported that its officers shot protesters with nearly 60 less-lethal rounds, including 33 beanbag rounds fired from 12-gauge shotguns and two dozen 40mm “direct impact” rounds (typically sponge rounds fired from
40mm launchers), which the manufacturer calls
“pain compliance devices.”169 Officers injured 25 protesters — some so severely that they required hospitalization.170 Ten people sustained head injuries. The projectiles shattered bones in one student’s hand, requiring surgery and extensive rehabilitation. Another person, who was shot in the head by police, was diagnosed with internal bleeding. A UCLA Task Force later reported,  
“We have documented multiple injuries from  rubber bullets and police batons…. We have seen  the injuries to the face, head, legs, and chest.  
Some students were shot at close range.  
The police shot regular volleys of stun grenades.”171 Also at UCLA, on June 10, 2024, California Highway Patrol and UCPD officers deployed 40mm launchers with rubber or plastic projectiles and pepper balls on corralled protesters after issuing a dispersal order.172 According to a UCLA Task Force, a UCPD officer shot a student in the chest with a rubber bullet from a distance of about five feet, knocking them down and causing serious injuries: “The student suffered a contusion to the heart and a bruised lung and was taken by car to the ER at Ronald Reagan Hospital. They remained there for two days given the severity of the injury, which caused elevated cardiac enzymes.”173 Other  students suffered injuries as well.
Students have filed several lawsuits over the  injuries inflicted by kinetic impact projectiles used during campus protests and encampments. UCLA students and community members who were struck with rubber bullets, including several who were struck in the head, filed suit against

Palestinian encampment at the University of California, Irvine, on May 15, 2024.
California Highway Patrol and LAPD in May 2025 for their alleged use of excessive force during the encampment clearing.174 A University of Southern California student filed suit against the city of Los Angeles after being hit by a rubber bullet while filming police officers firing into a crowd of  student protests.175
Batons
Police batons are a ubiquitous tool of policing and are often found in crowd-control settings, where their misuse can lead to serious health consequences. They are striking devices that operate on the principle of pain compliance by delivering focused impacts to an individual or to push or restrain them. They should never be used against the head, neck, or torso, due to the risk of severe injuries, such as traumatic brain injury, or even death.176
Batons were used in many law enforcement responses to student protests and encampments, including at Columbia University, City College of New York (CUNY), the State University of New York (SUNY) at New Paltz, the University of Chicago, the University of Michigan, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Texas at Dallas, the University of Utah, the University of California Los
Angeles (UCLA), the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC), and the University of Virginia, among others.177 There were several injuries from batons documented during law enforcement responses to protests and encampments. For instance, a paramedic who was present during the shutdown of a CUNY encampment reported that one of the students who had been struck in the head with a baton was assessed to have a decreased score on  the Glasgow Coma Scale, a neurological tool used  to assess level of consciousness.178
Human rights standards require that any use of force may be used only when there are no other less harmful means available that are likely to achieve the legitimate objective.179 If use of force is unavoidable, it must be no more than is necessary and proportionate to achieve the objective and  used in a manner designed to minimize damage  or injury.180
Batons are often misused by law enforcement officials to inflict unnecessary or excessive force through, for example, beating, pushing, or jabbing, which may cause internal injuries or bleeding. Overarm strikes and strikes to the head or other sensitive areas of the body increase the risk of serious injury or death. Batons can be used to lever, apply force to, or crush body parts. Batons are also known to have been misused as a tool to apply dangerous restraint techniques, particularly neck holds that may restrict breathing.
Baton injuries can range from characteristic abrasions, bleeding, and bruising to more severe injuries including bone fractures, nerve/muscle damage, and internal injuries that may result in permanent disability or death. Injury patterns and severity are dependent on the location of the strike, the amount force used, and the type of baton. Therefore, where baton use is unavoidable, law enforcement officers must have clear orders to avoid causing serious injury and exclude vital parts of the body as target zones.
As a rule, batons should be used in ways that do  not cause considerable injury and, if used, should be aimed at parts of the body with larger muscles, such as the thighs. Anything more than a single baton strike may amount to excessive use of force. Law enforcement officials must assess (and be able to justify) the need for each single baton strike. Repeated baton strikes are likely to be punitive and amount to excessive use of force or even torture or other ill-treatment under international law. The use of batons in ways that are likely to cause considerable injury and excessive pain, such as strikes to the knees, elbows, wrists, and groin areas, must be avoided, unless the threat the person presents is at least equally serious and cannot be countered by less harmful use of the baton (or other means). Batons should not be used in a way that bears the inherent risk of serious, potentially life-threatening injury, such as strikes to the head or neck, or by resorting to a neck hold. Such use should, as a rule, be prohibited. Only situations in which another life is at risk may justify an exception to this rule, provided there is no less dangerous way of stopping the threat. As with other uses of force, batons may never be used for the purpose  of punishment.
Tasers
Electronic conduction devices, such as tasers and electric shields, are less common in protest settings as they are used primarily in arrest and carceral settings. The risks of cardiac arrhythmia, muscle damage, and electric burns (both on the skin and internally) are heightened if they are deployed when a person is restrained or unable to put distance between themselves and the device.181 Atlanta police deployed tasers while clearing a Gaza solidarity encampment at Emory University in April 2024.182 Video footage and photographs captured a Georgia State Patrol trooper deploying a taser via direct contact use on a restrained protester at Emory, an excessive use of force that amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and torture.183 Tasers or other electronic conduction devices were reportedly used at protests on other campuses, including City College of New York
(CUNY) and Brooklyn College.184
Tasers should never be used routinely in protest settings and should only be used as an alternative  to firearms when officers are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious (i.e. potentially life-threatening) injury which cannot be contained by less extreme options. They must never be used on a person who is already restrained, which would amount to torture, and must also never be used in direct contact, also known as drive-stun mode, due to the inherent risk of abuse.
unnecessary or  excessive use of Force
Even when less-lethal weapons were not deployed, there were many instances in which law enforcement used unnecessary or excessive force in unlawful acts leading to unwarranted and avoidable pain and injuries. In some instances, this force may have amounted to torture or other ill-treatment.
During the disbandment of encampments, law enforcement forcefully pushed and arrested demonstrators, leading to concussions, cuts, dislocations, and other severe injuries. In many instances, demonstrators posed no threat, did not resist arrest, and were sometimes attempting to deescalate or document the protest. A student from Columbia University reported, “I was sitting on the ground when a riot cop threw my friend on the ground. I touched her shoulder to ask her if she was ok and another cop threw me on the ground. I was unarmed and not resisting arrest. While on the ground, I was kicked in the head, unsure if it was purposeful or not. I watched another student be kicked in the head, intentionally.”185 Also at Columbia University, an undergraduate student reported that NYPD officers pulled on her so hard while arresting her that her shoulder was dislocated.186 A graduate theological student reported he suffered a fractured orbital bone and concussion when an NYPD law enforcement officer kicked him in the eye and slammed the left side of his forehead into the floor of Hamilton Hall.187 At NYU, when NYPD officers in riot gear disbanded an encampment on April 22, 2024, reports indicate at least two protesters were pepper sprayed, one student was pulled by her hair, and another was violently pushed to the ground.188
In several instances, the impact of being thrown into the ground or cement also led to documented head injuries. For instance, a student at Tulane University who believes they were targeted for filming police reported they suffered a concussion after being pushed to the ground by law enforcement.189 In the process of clearing protesters from Hamilton Hall in Columbia University, NYPD pushed multiple protesters down a flight of stairs, leaving one student apparently unconscious.190 Other reported injuries included a fractured eye socket, concussions, and an ankle sprain.191
 The manner in which students or faculty were arrested and detained also led to avoidable and unnecessary injuries. Flex or plastic cuffs and zip
Palestine solidarity encampment at UCLA on May 2, 2024.
ties used on those detained were excessively tight and left on for many hours, leading to hands turning purple, cuts, wrist injuries, and extreme pain. For instance, protesters at University of WisconsinMadison reported bleeding cuts caused by tight flex cuffs used when they were arrested.192 A faculty member from NYU recalled that he witnessed an older faculty member, whom he estimated to be in his 70s, “had his zip ties on so tight his hands went numb” after being arrested by NYPD’s Strategic Response Group at Gould Plaza, adding, “others were bruised from the restraints.”193
Particularly concerning is the targeting of student journalists and other media members, human right defenders, legal observers, or individuals using their phones to document law enforcement actions. At the University of Utah, nine journalists reported experiencing excessive use of force by police despite identifying themselves as journalists from local papers and stations. Four of them reported being hit by projectiles and one of them suffered a resulting knee injury that could require surgery. Two others had their work equipment broken when it was shoved to the ground.194 A Washington University student stated, “I was simply there taking photos when I was assaulted by the police and later beaten, causing nine fractured ribs and a broken finger. I was eventually hospitalized.”195 The same student recalled that although police might not have used regular crowd-control weapons, they used bicycles as battering rams and used enough force to cause multiple injuries.
Faculty were also targets of disproportionate uses of force by law enforcement. At Dartmouth College, the police reportedly body-slammed a professor and former chair of Jewish Studies while she tried to mediate between students and law enforcement. She was charged with criminal trespass and temporarily banned from portions of Dartmouth’s campus.196 A 65-year-old professor at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville sustained multiple broken ribs and a broken hand when he tried to intercede when police responded to a pro-Palestinian protest at Washington University in St. Louis.197 In April 2024, a University of Emory economics professor was aggressively pushed to the ground, cuffed with zip ties, and arrested by multiple Atlanta police officers when she asked why students were being arrested.198 She said she had not been participating in a protest but had emerged from her office due to her concern about the treatment of students on the quad.199 In a video of the incident captured by CNN, officers can be seen pushing the professor down after she did not immediately comply with an officer’s command to “get your ass…on the ground” and she can be heard telling officers, “You just hit my head on the concrete.”200 The professor was detained for 11 hours and charged with disorderly conduct and simple battery of a police officer.201 In April 2026, the economics professor and two other tenured professors also arrested during the protest who had defended themselves against misdemeanor charges that were later dismissed filed a lawsuit against Emory, alleging the university had failed to protect its staff after it called in Atlanta police and Georgia

state troopers.202  
Recent University Actions to  Restrict Protest and Silence  Pro-Palestinian Speech

Since the initial encampment movement, from late 2024 through to the publication of this report in fall 2026, universities across the country have continued to take action to restrict protest and association by students expressing Palestinian solidarity. Universities have initiated disciplinary actions against students; punished them with suspensions, expulsions, and other sanctions; conducted ongoing surveillance of their activities; and made changes to campus policies that chill speech. Universities’ internal disciplinary actions, including expulsion or termination of students’ enrollment status, and their requests for or authorization of law enforcement intervention to disperse demonstrations that resulted in arrests of students and faculty, have had downstream immigration consequences, placing noncitizen students’ immigration status at risk. In some cases, universities could have done more to protect their noncitizen students and faculty from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement activity.
Instead of targeting students who are exercising their rights to protest and association, higher education institutions have a responsibility to protect those rights. The First Amendment compels public universities and colleges to respect free speech rights,203 and some have failed to meet these obligations. While the Constitution does not bind private institutions, they should similarly be guided by their commitments to academic freedom and free inquiry. Moreover, adherence to constitutional standards and the body of caselaw interpreting the First Amendment mitigates the vagueness and lack of specificity inherent in campus codes
of conduct and provides guidance to school administrators called upon to enforce their terms. This section of the report details the implications that First Amendment rights have, as a matter of law, at public universities, and the lessons that private institutions should also follow if they are committed to the enterprises of free thought and open discourse.
First, university administrators must not single out particular viewpoints — however offensive they may be to some members of the community
— for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. Harassment directed at individuals because of their race, ethnicity, or religion is not permissible. But general calls for a Palestinian state
“from the river to the sea,” or defenses of Israel’s assault on Gaza, even if many listeners find these messages deeply offensive, cannot be prohibited  or punished by a university that respects free speech principles.
Second, while colleges and universities can enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on protest activity to ensure that essential college functions can continue, these rules should be content neutral on their face — and applied in a viewpoint- and content-neutral manner.204 If a university has routinely tolerated violations of its rules, and suddenly enforces them harshly in a specific context, singling out particular views for punishment, the fact that the policy is formally neutral on its face should not make viewpointbased enforcement permissible. For instance, if institutions allow certain activities and items at other campus events, such as voice amplification, tents, or blankets, they should not restrict those same activities or items for pro-Palestinian protesters simply because of the content of  their protest.
Under U.S. constitutional law, universities must distinguish between (1) protected speech and expressive conduct and (2) unprotected conduct. There is generally no First Amendment right, for example, to spray graffiti on a public building or to destroy someone else’s property, even if the
act is done to communicate a message. Similarly, prohibitions on sound amplification and trespass can be applied without violating the First Amendment, even if the encampment or occupation of a building that violates those rules is meant to convey a political position. Civil disobedience is the active refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of protest, and the First Amendment generally does not protect such acts when they involve illegal conduct. However, even when protest veers into unlawful civil disobedience, universities and colleges should not single out specific viewpoints for disproportionate punishment.205
International human rights law warrants a higher level of protection for civil disobedience. Under international law, “peaceful” assemblies are protected.206 A protest is considered peaceful as long as there is no violence against people or property. The term “peaceful” should be interpreted very broadly: minimal damage that can be quickly rectified does not mean that a protest is no longer peaceful. Acts of civil disobedience remain “peaceful” under international law if they do not result in serious damage to property or in physical violence likely to cause injuries.207 Graffiti and disruption of classes are thus protected by  the right to peaceful assembly under international law. Violation of a law or regulation does not in itself determine whether a protest is peaceful,  and blockades and other disruptive actions may also fall within the scope of the right to freedom  of peaceful assembly.208
Moreover, civil disobedience never justifies the excessive use of force by police. Under U.S. law, police must use, at most, proportional and reasonable force to specifically address any unlawful conduct at a protest; under international human rights law, dispersal may be permissible only in specific instances such as serious and sustained disruption. The use and threat of force against peaceful protesters, including the use of less-lethal weapons, is wholly inappropriate and dangerous. Bringing in local or state law enforcement in response to peaceful protest threatens student and community safety and has a chilling effect on expression.
Public universities’ punitive responses to students’ pro-Palestine protests raise serious concerns about unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Furthermore, applying exceptionally harsh penalties for pro-Palestine protesters, such as banishment and expulsion, is disproportionate and appears to be targeting students and faculty on the basis of their beliefs. Colleges should not punish protesters or student groups more harshly than other groups in similar circumstances because administrators found their message upsetting, offensive, or divisive, or because it demanded extra security or prompted counter-protest. Even in cases where punishment is warranted, students remain entitled to meaningful due process rights.
disciplinary Actions Against Students and Faculty resulting In
Suspensions and Other Sanctions
Universities have punitively enforced campus policies through internal disciplinary or code of conduct processes against students, faculty, and staff for campus-related Palestine advocacy. Hundreds of students have faced sanctions such as campus bans, suspensions, and expulsions for alleged code of conduct violations or disciplinary charges related to their participation in proPalestinian demonstrations. These punishments can impose severe and life-long consequences and profoundly disrupt students’ lives and academic careers.209 Suspension and expulsion can prevent students from completing their coursework and affect admission to graduate programs, scholarship eligibility, or employment. Students who were suspended or banned from campus lost access to their campus housing, campus meal plans, campus jobs, and school-provided healthcare.210 Banning students or faculty from campus or designating them “persona non grata” can amount to a de facto partial suspension. For example, banning a faculty member from the building their office is in, or banning faculty or students from classroom buildings, amounts to suspension with respect to their core activities even if they maintain active status. Universities have swiftly imposed interim suspensions and campus bans on students who have been merely arrested or charged with violating campus codes of conduct — before they have been convicted of any crime, the disciplinary process has concluded, or, in some cases, internal investigations have even begun. Some schools withheld or revoked degrees until their disciplinary proceedings were resolved.211 Students whose diplomas were withheld report having to delay graduate school and loss of scholarships or fellowships.212
Hundreds, if not thousands, of students at universities nationwide have faced campus disciplinary proceedings for alleged code of conduct violations carrying potential sanctions.213 (Due to lack of transparency concerning internal campus disciplinary processes it is not possible to determine the precise number.) Palestine Legal reported that, in 2025, it received 663 requests for legal assistance in cases in which university administrations had launched investigations or imposed sanctions for campus-related Palestine advocacy.214 According to Palestine Legal, the most common punishments students faced in 2025 were interim suspensions and campus bans.215 In 2024, the organization received reports of over 580 cases related to university administration investigations and sanctions.216
In some cases, public universities have expelled students for engaging in protected political speech. For instance, in May 2025, Ohio State University officials summarily disenrolled an undergraduate student without a hearing, following controversy surrounding a series of videos the student posted on his personal social media pages expressing opinions related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.217 The videos and speech do not incite or threaten unlawful violence. The videos and speech also do not amount to advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination nor incitement to violence under international law.218 In the posts, which reached millions of followers, the student also coarsely denounced U.S. Congressman Ritchie Torres for his support of Zionism. Senior Trump administration officials threatened to investigate the student, and the student’s critics urged the university to
take disciplinary action. The action taken by the university to single out a particular viewpoint for censorship and punishment is unconstitutional, and the ACLU of Ohio has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the expulsion for violating the student’s free speech and due process rights.219 In January 2026, the federal district court judge presiding over the student’s case found that the school’s decision to expel him likely violated his rights to free speech and due process protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.220 As a remedy, the court ordered Ohio State University to ensure that the student’s records no longer reflect that he was expelled.221
In other cases, some of the demonstrations, offcampus protests, and graduation speeches that led to disciplinary actions included violations of student conduct rules and/or laws or were not protected speech. In some instances where students were disciplined for student conduct rule violations, the discipline imposed was disproportionate to the misconduct or amounted to unusual punishment, suggesting viewpoint discrimination. Universities’ selective enforcement of campus policies in response to Palestine solidarity protests raises serious concerns about viewpoint discrimination. In numerous instances reviewed in the course of our investigation, the exceptionally harsh penalties applied to protesters and faculty, such as banishment and termination, were disproportionate and appeared to be targeting students and faculty on the basis of their beliefs. Moreover, the severe punishments, such as suspensions and expulsions, imposed on students for their conduct during demonstrations were far beyond what universities have historically imposed for similar acts of civil disobedience.
In some cases, students were treated more harshly than others who have engaged in similar conduct, ostensibly on the basis of their political views. According to an analysis by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of reported incidents and complaints received by CAIR, students who support Palestinian rights tend to face harsher disciplinary action, including disciplinary action for violating policies that students report have not typically been enforced against other students or punished in ways that such actions  have not been punished in the past.222
In some instances, universities explicitly changed their policies in ways that seemed to deliberately target pro-Palestine demonstrations. Many universities that had never objected when students camped out on campus to buy sports tickets or napped in libraries created policies prohibiting tents and sleeping on campus after pro-Palestine encampments were established at colleges and universities across the country in spring 2024. Many colleges and universities adopted new restrictions on campus speech and protest, especially at the outset of the 2024–2025 academic year, including rules that banned the installation of tents, prohibited protests in certain public parts of campus, restricted the use of amplified sound, banned chalking on campus sidewalks, mandated the university’s prior approval for demonstrations, and prohibited students from hanging banners or flags outside dorm windows.223 If institutions allow certain activities and items, such as voice amplification, tents, lawn chairs, or blankets, at other campus events, they should not impose restrictions these actions and items for proPalestinian protesters simply because of the  content of their protest.
For example, in an incident described in more detail later in this section of this report, on the second day of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus in April 2024, the University of Florida distributed flyers to student and faculty protesters detailing new restrictions on protests that included a list of prohibited activities and items prohibited at protests under threat of termination, suspension, and banishment from campus for three years (which appears tantamount to expulsion224).225 The prohibited activities were vague, such as “no disruption,” and appeared to be targeted only at the pro-Palestinian encampment.226 Banned items included chairs, despite students’ frequent use of chairs and hammocks at previous demonstrations.227 The rules stated on the flyers were substantially
at UCLA on April 26, 2024.
more restrictive than official University of Florida policy at the time. For instance, while existing policy required pre-approval for amplified sound and unmanned signs, the new protest rules banned amplified sound and unmanned signs altogether. Likewise, existing policy and practice did not restrict the use of chairs in outdoor spaces on campus at all, while the flyers banned “building structures,” including the mere use of chairs and tables, at protests. Four days after distributing the flyers, University of Florida police broke up a peaceful demonstration and arrested three individuals who were sitting in folding lawn chairs and playing a card game, apparently enforcing the flyers’ ban on chairs.228 Six students participating in the demonstration were suspended and banned from campus for three to four years for violating the student code of conduct, including a set of provisions restricting protest-related activities  and items.229
In other cases, universities selectively enforced their policies against students for their conduct during pro-Palestinian demonstrations, taking disciplinary action against students for violating policies regarding using amplified sound, not leaving when directed to, and gathering after allotted hours.230 In some cases, universities applied existing rules differently to students engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy. For example, Stanford University has a policy forbidding students from hanging flags, banners, or flyers in common areas or shared spaces in dorms outside their dorm windows; the university enforced this policy against students hanging Palestinian flags, despite long tolerating the display of other flags.231 The selective enforcement of university policies, apparently based on hostility to the content or viewpoint of the student’s speech or expressive conduct, raises serious concerns.
Numerous higher education institutions have continued to sanction and suspend students for participating in Palestinian solidarity protests from late 2024 through spring 2026, after the conclusion of the initial encampment movement. For example, at George Mason University, in November 2024, after more than 12 police officers conducted “a pre-dawn raid on the residence” of two PalestinianAmerican students who were leaders of the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP),232 the university suspended the chapter and punished the involved students with a four-year campus ban.233 In December 2024, the University of Minnesota imposed suspensions of up to two-and-a-half years on seven students who had been arrested at an on-campus protest during which students occupied a campus building.234 The students were not charged with a crime but the university had imposed indefinite interim suspensions following their arrests in October 2024.235 In March 2025, Tulane University’s administration charged seven students with violating the university’s student code of conduct for participating in an off-campus protest of Mahmoud Khalil’s unlawful detention and demanding that Tulane become a sanctuary campus.236
More Punitive Punishments  
Compared to Past Demonstrations
In some cases, universities’ responses to campusrelated Palestine advocacy and pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been more punitive in comparison with universities’ historical responses to other comparable demonstrations over decades.

Columbia University has imposed severe punishments, including expulsion, suspension from courses, and revocation of academic degrees, on more than 100 students who participated in Palestine solidarity protests. Students have been expelled or suspended for up to three years for their involvement in these protests.237 These extreme punishments are more punitive than those that historically have been meted out by the university, despite its history of student protest and civil disobedience. The expulsions of two Barnard College students in February 2025 for their participation in a protest disrupting a History of Modern Israel class238 mark the first official expulsions for nonviolent political protest on a Columbia University campus since 1936.239
“Nothing in Columbia’s earlier history of discipline” compares “to the extraordinary harshness of the penalties given to the students who participated in the 2024 takeover of Hamilton Hall or the protest in Butler Library in May 2025,” professor of history Kim Phillips-Fein wrote in a statement to the Columbia Daily Spectator.240
A week after the initial expulsions of these two students in February 2025, Barnard College reportedly expelled a third student for their involvement in the occupation of Hamilton Hall in April 2024 at which 109 protesters were arrested (in June 2024, the misdemeanor trespass charges brought against the arrested protesters were dismissed by the court on the motion of by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office).241 Weeks later, in March 2025, Columbia University announced that its University Judicial Board had issued sanctions to students “ranging from multiyear suspensions, temporary degree revocations, and expulsions” due to their alleged involvement in the occupation of Hamilton Hall.242 The internal hearing panel conducting the disciplinary proceedings held that 22 Columbia students had each committed eight of the 11 charged violations of the Rules of University Conduct.243 Based on those violation determinations, the panel imposed disciplinary sanctions that ranged from suspensions and expulsions to retroactive degree revocations.244 In February 2026, a New York state judge vacated the punishments imposed by Columbia University against these 22 current and former students, including expulsions, suspensions, and the revocation of their degrees.245 The judge ruled that Columbia University’s determinations regarding the alleged violations was “arbitrary and capricious,”  in violation of university rules and state law.246
In May 2025, Columbia University announced  it had placed 65 students on interim suspension and barred an additional 33 individuals from campus due to their alleged participation in a pro-Palestinian demonstration at the school’s Butler Library in May 2025 at which more than 80 protesters were arrested.247 In July 2025, Columbia University announced that its University Judicial Board had determined findings and issued sanctions against an unspecified number of students for their participation in the demonstration at Butler Library, including
“probation, suspensions (ranging from one year to three years), degree revocations, and expulsions.”248 According to the student group Columbia University Apartheid Divest, nearly 80 students reported they had been suspended for one to  three years or expelled for participating in the Butler Library demonstration.249
In December 2025, Columbia University’s Office of Rules Administration reported that formal charges had been filed with the University Judicial Board against 78 students in total for participating in demonstrations during the 2024–25 academic year, resulting in sanctions ranging from probation to suspension, expulsion, degree revocation, and campus access restrictions. Five of the 108 demonstrations that took place in the 2024–25 academic year resulted in formal charges being filed, while charges were not pursued for 13 demonstrations “because other disciplinary processes were deemed more appropriate.”250 Most of the 108 demonstrations were in protest of the war in Gaza, including the April 2024 Gaza Solidarity Encampment and the subsequent Hamilton Hall occupation.251
Analysis of historical records documenting Columbia University sanctions against student protesters involved in sit-ins, encampments, and blockades and occupations of university buildings shows that Columbia’s expulsions and suspensions of students over the Palestine solidarity protests were more severe than past disciplinary actions for similar protests and acts of civil disobedience. Columbia’s history of such protests includes protests of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1968, antiwar demonstrations in 1972, protests demanding that Columbia University divest from companies in apartheid-era South Africa in 1985, protests of the university’s response to racial tensions on campus in 1987, protests demanding the creation of an Ethnic Studies department in 1996, and protests calling for fossil fuel divestment in 2019. For instance, in 1968, following a sit-in of Hamilton Hall and occupation of four other Columbia buildings by more than 700 students protesting the Vietnam War, which included holding the acting dean of Columbia College hostage for over 24 hours, a total of 73 students were initially suspended, 43 of whom were reinstated.252 At the time, the acting president of Columbia asked the criminal court in New York for “maximum leniency” in the cases of students arrested on a charge of criminal trespass during the occupation, and through his “right of executive clemency,” the acting president reduced the disciplinary penalty of suspension to censure for the students who were arrested for criminal trespass.253

New York University (NYU) has imposed punishments including suspensions and campus bans on dozens of students who have participated in protest actions, despite campus policies that allow students to hold sit-ins, teach-ins, and vigils, provided they do not disrupt university activities.254 In May 2024, NYU suspended nine students who participated in a pro-Palestinian demonstration in the university’s Bobst Library’s atrium.255 In January 2025, NYU suspended at least 13 students who participated in a pro-Palestinian sit-in during the December 2024 finals week.256 Sanctioned students were suspended for the spring, summer, and fall semesters.257 An additional 20 students were placed on probation for at least a year. In March 2025, 28 law students alleged to have participated in a sit-in in Bobst Library were designated personae non gratae (PNG) on campus and banned from entering most NYU buildings except to attend their classes or return to their dorms.258 After a separate group of law students participated in a quiet sit-in in front of the law school dean’s office in April 2025, another three law students were designated PNG.259 All 31 students who had been declared PNG were then notified by NYU School of Law that their interim access restrictions would continue and they could not access the academic buildings where their final exams were held unless they signed a “use of space agreement” pledging not to participate in protests at the law school.260 NYU School of Law reportedly barred the students from campus while they were under investigation for failing to comply with public safety directives, including directives to leave the areas of their sit-ins, and for engaging in disruptive conduct.261 Days later, following criticism, NYU School of Law reversed course, permitting the 31 students with interim PNG designation to enter academic buildings to sit their exams even if they had not signed the pledge not to protest on law school property.262 However, the law school did not lift the students’ PNG designation. One student described how successive disciplinary proceedings at NYU “have been sham investigations — none of them have been professionally conducted.”263 By September 2025, NYU Law Students for Justice in Palestine announced that with pro bono legal assistance, the law students facing suspension and expulsion for the Bobst Library sit-in had ultimately avoided these punishments.264
NYU’s treatment of pro-Palestinian protesters stands in contrast with the university’s historical treatment of students engaged in sit-ins and similar protest actions. In 2015, for instance, a group of students staged a die-in inside Bobst Library as part of the Black Lives Matter protests but reportedly did not face disciplinary consequences.265 That same year, students staged a sit-in inside Bobst Library calling for the university to divest from fossil fuels. Instead of being punished, the students were granted a meeting with Board of Trustee members after the sit-in.266 In 1970, LGBTQ student activists who carried out a five-day occupation of a dormitory building reportedly were not punished.267
Harvard University placed students on probation268 and involuntary leave for their participation in the November 2023 pro-Palestine occupation of University Hall and the April–May 2024 proPalestine encampment.269 Nearly all of the 58 students placed on probation at the university that academic year were connected to these two events270 — marking the highest reported number of students placed on probation in a single academic year since at least 2017–18.271 Without providing any additional data, Harvard University clarified for the purposes of this report that “not all of the 58 students” identified in the College Administrative Board Report were specifically involved in these protests and that all discipline is administered on a content- viewpoint-neutral basis (see Appendix III). The Administrative Board also initially suspended five students for participating in the encampment, though these suspensions were later downgraded to probations, and 20 students were placed on involuntary leave during the encampment itself.272 The university also withheld the diplomas of 13 graduating seniors who were disciplined just days before Commencement.273 It was not until later that summer that the Harvard Corporation released diplomas to 11 of those students.274 The remaining students received their diplomas at a later date due to off-cycle status or prior disciplinary matters that extended their probationary periods and thus impacted the time required prior to diploma issuance.275 Students were charged with violating rules regarding the use of campus spaces and disrupting normal campus activity.276
Harvard’s response stood in stark contrast to its handling of prior activist campaigns. In a letter signed by over 350 university faculty, faculty members described the penalties as “unprecedented, disproportionate, and arbitrary.” 277 The letter called on Harvard to reverse the Administrative Board’s decision to sanction graduating seniors. In a series of op-eds published by the Harvard Crimson, 11 former student activists said that Harvard’s response to proPalestinian protesters had been more punitive than the treatment they had experienced for protesting against South African apartheid,278 in favor of fossil fuel divestment,279 and for university workers to be paid fair wages,280 despite having engaged in similar actions such as sit-ins, encampments, and building occupations.281 Over the past 50 years, student protesters at Harvard have employed the same methods as pro-Palestine protesters, including loud chants, controversial signs, and tents, and in the same places, but according to public reporting, only the proPalestine protesters have faced mass suspensions.282
For instance, while students who participated in the pro-Palestine encampment in Harvard Yard were placed on involuntary leave, participants in a 1985 anti-apartheid occupation of the Harvard Corporation’s headquarters reportedly faced no meaningful discipline.283 Harvard students who occupied Massachusetts Hall in 2001 for three weeks284 demanding a living wage, and who partook in “demonstrations… strikingly similar to the pro-Palestinian protests today”285 were officially reprimanded but reportedly faced either no disciplinary consequences or nothing more than a few weeks of disciplinary probation, and later received recognition for their efforts from the Harvard Kennedy School.286 In 2015, organizers of fossil fuel divestment protests who repeatedly engaged in unauthorized and disruptive activities on campus reportedly were never placed on probation, suspended, or subjected to involuntary leave. The university instead entered negotiations with the students and arranged a meeting with the Harvard Corporation.287 More recently, in 2016,
Harvard Law students occupied the Caspersen Student Center for weeks demanding improvement in diversity at the law school. Apparently, no disciplinary action was taken, and activists were ultimately granted their core demand: the retirement of Harvard Law School’s official seal, which honored a slaveholder who was an early donor to the school.288 In contrast, Harvard Law administrators reacted harshly to pro-Palestine students who set up a phone bank and silent vigil in the same Caspersen Student Center space, reportedly referring students to disciplinary hearings and calling in security and police officers  to shut down the events.289
Interim Suspensions and Campus Bans
Numerous universities, including Columbia; Harvard; the University of Southern California; the University of California, Irvine (UC Irvine); Illinois State University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the University of Michigan; and the University of Florida, have swiftly imposed interim suspensions or banned students from campus after they have been arrested or charged with code of conduct violations or crimes, but before the disciplinary process has concluded or the students have been convicted of a crime. By definition, interim suspensions are imposed before university administrators have completed full investigations into alleged student misconduct — or in some cases, before internal investigations have even begun.
These punishments can have severe consequences for students, including being removed from classes and temporarily denied the ability to continue to pursue their education. Interim suspensions or campus bans often include restrictions barring students from their own homes in university housing, preventing them from completing their coursework, and prohibiting them from attending their own graduations. Interim suspensions and campus bans also often carry restrictions that limit access to campus meal plans, campus jobs, and school-provided healthcare.290
But because of the speed at which interim suspensions and campus bans can be imposed, they can be based on erroneous early assessments made before all the evidence has been obtained and reviewed. In some cases, students ultimately were deemed innocent of violating university codes of conduct or were found responsible for only minor violations not meriting the harsh consequences resulting from these interim punishments imposed during the months-long disciplinary process.
Moreover, the sweeping nature of these suspensions and their lengthy or indefinite duration threaten to chill the First Amendment rights not only of the suspended students at public universities but also of their peers. In the absence of due process, many of these interim suspensions and campus bans appear arbitrary and can give rise to credible accusations that the university is targeting speech  it disfavors.

Five students UC Irvine filed a lawsuit alleging that their indefinite interim suspensions, which stemmed from their participation in a Gaza solidarity encampment in May 2024, violated the university’s own internal policies requiring due process, as well as state and federal due process protections.291 UC Irvine allegedly issued the indefinite interim suspensions for alleged violations of campus policies — including obstruction of university operations, failure to comply with administrative orders, and disruption of campus activities — before any evidence against the students was presented.292 The students were also not given an opportunity to have a hearing or present evidence in their defense before the suspensions went into effect.293 The students alleged they were told they could not attend  classes in person or online, access student housing,  or be on campus, effective immediately.294
The students alleged that the university targeted them with interim suspensions that were not applied consistently with university rules, imposed without prior notice or an opportunity to respond, and imposed without demonstrating that the students’ presence posed a safety risk.295 UC policy states that interim suspensions should be used minimally and when there is reasonable cause to believe a student’s presence on campus “will lead to physical abuse, threats of violence, or conduct that threatens the health or safety of any person on University property… or other disruptive activity incompatible with the orderly operation of the campus.”296 The students argued that the administration did not follow its own procedures before issuing these suspensions, singling students out in a way that violated due process.297 The ACLU filed an amicus brief arguing that the suspensions are likely to chill students’ ability to exercise their free speech rights and engage in protected speech because the lack of due process means that students can never know when a university administrator will decide that their protest activity has crossed an imperceptible line into serious misconduct, or whether or when they will have any real opportunity to defend themselves against false allegations.298 The lawsuit remains ongoing as of publication of this report, with trial set for early 2027.
The University of Florida suspended and banned six students from campus for three to four years following their arrests by University of Florida police at a peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstration. The students were banned before their criminal charges had been adjudicated.299 The students faced misdemeanor criminal charges of resisting arrest without violence, and one student was additionally charged with felony battery on a police officer.300 Immediately after these arrests, the University of Florida issued interim suspensions to all six students, claiming that the students had violated a set of restrictions prohibiting protest-related activities and items. At the protest, which took place at and around the Plaza of the Americas on campus, some students sat in lawn chairs playing card games. Lawn chairs were allowed and common in outdoor campus spaces at the University of Florida, but on the second day of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, University of Florida police officers distributed flyers overnight threatening a three-year banishment from campus for a list of vaguely defined prohibited activities and items, including chair-sitting.301 The students were charged with four violations of the student code of conduct for “disruptive conduct,” “violation of law,”
“failure to comply with directive,” and “violation of university policy.”302
The university’s Student Conduct Committee (SCC) held disciplinary hearings to review the evidence against the students and recommended sanctions that included academic probation and suspensions ranging in length from one to four years. The Dean of Students Office rejected the SCC’s recommendations, instead issuing a minimum suspension of three years for all six of the students.303 In one case, the Dean of Students found a student responsible for disruptive conduct and violation of law simply because she had been arrested, despite the fact that she had not been found guilty, concluding, “As you were arrested during this incident, it is clear your behavior was a substantial, sustained, and continuous disruption to UFPD’s administrative functions. Also, as charges were made through legal action, an alleged violation of law occurred.”304
The University of Michigan has banished many protesters from its main Ann Arbor campus —  and some protesters from all three of its Michigan campuses — for an entire year based on unproven suspicions and undisclosed evidence that student protesters violated university policies or criminal laws during on-campus protests.305 Some protesters were banned from all University of Michigan campuses statewide even when those protesters had never even visited those other campuses.306
Under University of Michigan policy, a campus police officer can issue a person a trespass ban — which they call a “warning” — without ever having to produce evidence that the recipient violated the law or university policies.307 In general, campus police officers issued trespass bans to pro-Palestine protesters like they were traffic tickets, based on a mere allegation by a single officer that an individual engaged in misconduct, without the need to seek approval from anyone else. These bans immediately prohibited protesters from stepping foot on the university’s campus for an entire year under threat of criminal prosecution for trespassing, solely because a police officer accused them of engaging in minor misconduct during the protest, such as using a megaphone or jaywalking. Students were never given any explanation or evidence supporting their full-campus ban, and they never had a meaningful chance to participate in a fair and impartial hearing to contest the ban. Students did participate in a hearing, but it was (1) only weeks after the ban went into effect, and (2) not fair or impartial because there was no evidence or explanation for the ban provided, and the adjudicator was the police chief (i.e., the issuing officer’s supervisor).
University of Michigan Police Department (UMPD) officers issued trespass bans to protesters during and after many pro-Palestine protests held on campus during the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 academic years.308 It appears that UMPD officers initially issued broad trespass bans exclusively to pro-Palestine protesters; they are not believed to have issued trespass bans of a similarly broad scope to any other protesters in approximately the first 18 months following the beginning of the fall 2023 on-campus protest movement in support of Palestinian human rights.309 Despite a long history of protest activity regarding countless issues at the University of Michigan, sometimes including acts of civil disobedience, it appears that past groups of protesters were not subjected to similarly broad trespass bans for the same or similar alleged activity under earlier university administrations.310
In February 2025, five University of Michigan students and alumni who had been banned from the university’s Ann Arbor campus after they participated in pro-Palestine protests on campus sued the University of Michigan, alleging it violated their constitutional rights by banning them from campus.311 The lawsuit, filed by the
ACLU of Michigan and the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, alleges that the bans unconstitutionally punish protesters and quell their First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, which includes the rights to travel through and remain  in public spaces.312 The lawsuit remains ongoing  as of publication of this report.
A University of Chicago student said they were banned from campus for two years, evicted from their dorm, and placed on indefinite involuntary leave from the university immediately following their release from jail after they were charged but before they were convicted of a crime.313 According to the student, they were arrested at their dorm in
December 2024, during which four University of
Chicago Police Department (UCPD) and Chicago Police Department (CPD) officers showed them a printed photo of themself at a pro-Palestinian campus protest in October at which UCPD and CPD officers had struck students with batons and sprayed them with pepper spray.314 The student was jailed for hours and charged with aggravated battery of a peace officer and causing an injury while resisting or obstructing a peace officer at the protest, which had taken place two months earlier.315 The student said that at the October protest, they had deflected a baton from hitting a fellow student and again when the officer attempted to strike them. One photo from the protest appears to show the student holding back the hand of a police officer who is swinging a baton, while another photo shows the student pulling away from an officer who grabs their wrist.316

The student said they were effectively evicted from their dorm, where they had served as a resident advisor for university housing, and lost access to their campus meal plans and their main source of income as a result of the campus ban imposed immediately after their release from jail.317 They were also placed on involuntary leave — effectively an indefinite suspension — and as a result they said they were unable to complete their exams, graduate school applications, and the remainder of the academic year.318 The student said they later pleaded guilty to criminal charges to have the charges expunged from their record in one year.319 Another University of Chicago student who was arrested at their dormitory and charged with aggravated battery of a peace officer in connection with the same protest was also placed on involuntary leave, banned from campus, and evicted from on-campus student housing.320  The student filed a civil rights lawsuit against  the university in January 2025.321
At Towson University (TU), a public university in
Maryland, students were penalized with deferred suspension after a small, 90-minute die-in demonstration in support of Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza.322 Fewer than 10 TU students initially gathered on Tiger Plaza, a large grass quad on the campus, and laid in the grass, surrounded by baby dolls wrapped in white shrouds that symbolized the death toll of children in Gaza.323 The protest grew to 16 students and one of the student protesters held a megaphone, recited a poem, and read the names of people killed in Gaza. The five students disciplined were charged and found guilty in the months following the die-in protest for violations of TU policy and the student code of conduct. All five students received deferred suspensions that will remain on their academic records for seven years. Under the terms of the deferred suspension, the students were required to abide by the code of conduct
and complete a research paper about how to form a student organization; otherwise, they would face immediate suspension.324 TU’s purported justifications for the punishments were that the students had not provided advance notice or not protested in TU-designated “free speech zones” located on the outskirts of campus, in violation of the university’s “time, place, and manner” rules for protests, which ban spontaneous protests on open public spaces such as the quad and only allow preregistered protests from groups that are recognized by the university.325 The students who organized the protest were unable to reserve the open public space in advance for their demonstration because they were part of an informal group not recognized as a formal university club.326 In August 2024, the ACLU of Maryland sent a letter to TU demanding that it expunge the disciplinary records of these five students.327 The letter argued that TU’s effort to silence these students violates their free speech rights guaranteed to them by the First Amendment and has chilled their ability to hold other demonstrations out of fear of retaliation from the university.328
Columbia University abruptly revoked funding for summer internships at the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) for students who had allegedly participated in campus protests.329 The revocation of stipends was done on the basis of interim suspensions and without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and the students were alerted one day before they were to begin their internships.330
Terminations and Suspensions of Faculty
Universities have reprimanded or formally sanctioned scores of professors and staff who have supported or participated in campus-related Palestine advocacy and demonstrations. Some faculty members who took part in demonstrations or were otherwise involved in Palestine activism have been terminated, suspended, denied tenure, or not had their contracts renewed by their universities.331 According to reporting by The Guardian, Palestine Legal has seen a marked increase in requests for legal assistance from U.S. faculty members seeking help after being disciplined for speech related to Palestine, from  
37 requests in 2022 to 150 in 2025.332
At Indiana University, a tenured associate professor of political science and faculty advisor to the Palestine Solidarity Committee student group was sanctioned for making a room reservation and other activities related to organizing an event featuring an

Columbia University campus on November 15, 2023.
Israeli-American, pro-Palestinian invited speaker.333 The professor was punished with removal from their teaching position for two semesters and removal from student advising responsibilities  for one year. The professor was accused of violating university policies regarding the responsibilities and conduct of academic appointees, specifically for allegedly misrepresenting an event organized by the Palestine Solidarity Committee as an academic event on a room reservation form.334
Texas Tech University investigated and suspended an assistant professor in March 2024 after a media outlet published an article documenting his social media activity, including posts critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.335 The university announced it was investigating whether any of the
“antisemitic sentiments” expressed by the professor had “found their way into the classroom.” The professor was reinstated after FIRE, a nonpartisan nonprofit that defends free speech, wrote a letter to the university outlining how the suspension violated the professor’s First Amendment rights.336
In July 2024, Northwestern University suspended a journalism professor and canceled his fall 2024 courses. He was first investigated and suspended for his social media use and views on journalistic integrity.337 In January 2025, an ad-hoc committee of three professors found no cause for his suspension, and he was cleared for reinstatement in April 2025. Although the professor had been cleared of university policy violations, he was later investigated for his conduct at a pro-Palestine encampment on campus, even after misdemeanor criminal charges against him for obstructing a police officer were dropped, to determine whether his alleged actions violated the faculty handbook.338 During an April 2024 encampment, the professor says he formed a line between police and protesters to protect student protesters from physical attack.339 In March 2025, Northwestern denied the professor tenure and said his position would not be renewed in August 2026.340
In December 2024, NYU declared at least four faculty members — as well as dozens of students — personae non gratae (PNG) due to their presence at student-led protests inside and outside the university’s Bobst Library.341 According to Washington Square News, NYU’s student newspaper, eight faculty members and graduate student teachers ultimately were designated PNG following the Bobst Library sit-in.342 The NYU chapter of the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP) condemned the PNG designation as “tantamount to a summary suspension” for which faculty were denied due process.343 Individuals assigned PNG status by NYU’s Office of the Provost had their ID cards deactivated, effectively preventing them from entering multiple campus buildings, including their offices, laboratories, and classrooms.344 NYU removed the faculty members’ PNG designations  by January 2026.345
In March 2025, Yale Law School suspended an international law scholar after a news site published an AI-powered story linking her to Samidoun, an organization focused on supporting Palestinian rights.346 The U.S. Treasury Department placed the scholar on the U.S. sanctions list last year after labeling the organization a “sham charity.”347 Within three days of the story’s publication, Yale
Law School placed the scholar on administrative leave and revoked her access to campus.348 Yale terminated her contract three weeks later, citing  her “refusal to cooperate.”349 However, she has argued that she made “repeated offers to answer Yale’s questions in writing.”350
In July 2025, City College of New York (CUNY) suspended a student activist leader for one year and fired four adjunct faculty members who were all engaged in Palestinian solidarity activism on campus. Other CUNY student activists have also faced disciplinary charges for speech and conduct connected to pro-Palestine demonstrations.351 The student activist, a leader of City College of New York (CCNY)’s SJP chapter, reported that she was suspended and barred from all 25 CUNY campuses for one year for allegedly violating two of CUNY’s Henderson Rules for the maintenance of public order and two of CCNY’s demonstration policies.352 According to the president of the Professional Staff Congress, the union that represents faculty and staff at CUNY, the adjunct professors were terminated without explanation, all at the same time, and what they “have in common is their public protest against Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights,” suggesting that their suspensions were in “retaliation against CUNY faculty members for constitutionally protected speech.”353 One of the fired faculty members stated that “organizations like Camera, Betar, and Canary Mission” have targeted her and other CUNY workers and students for their on-campus pro-Palestine organizing.354 In January 2026, the Professional Staff Congress union representing faculty and professional staff at CUNY announced that three of the four adjunct faculty members who had been fired from their jobs were eligible again for employment at CUNY and had been reinstated in positions at CUNY colleges.355
In February 2026, an environmental physics and complex systems professor at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), said they were notified that they had been charged with a single charge of violating the faculty code of conduct for allegedly participating in an encampment that disturbed university operations, an offense carrying a potential two-year suspension without pay.356 The alleged infraction occurred during a six-day student encampment in May 2024, where the professor and other faculty said they spent “the night shift” protecting students from potential violence.357 The professor was among two professors and 59 UCSD students arrested at the encampment, but following a months-long review all criminal charges were dropped. According to the professor, they became aware of the internal university investigation in June 2024, when they exchanged emails with UCSD officials and an outside law firm working for the university. However, they received no further information about the investigation until 20 months later, in February 2026.358 A disciplinary hearing before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure was scheduled for May 2026, after which the committee is expected to send a report to the chancellor, who would decide on the punishment to impose.359 A second professor faces possible suspension for one quarter without pay.360
In April 2026, a tenure-track philosophy professor filed a lawsuit against Texas State University in federal court, alleging the university terminated his contract because of his speech on Palestine, in violation of his First Amendment rights.361 The professor had delivered a talk entitled “Strategic Lessons of the Palestinian Resistance” in his personal capacity almost two years earlier, in June 2024, at a book fair in North Carolina unaffiliated with the university. That talk ended prematurely when a fight broke out between four audience members and three pro-Israel attendees who were livestreaming the event; the professor said he was swiftly escorted from the room, and he was never identified as a witness or suspect in the 44-page police report on the incident.362 According to the professor, the university was made aware of his talk a year later, following targeted social media postings against him and what his supervisor described as “strange calls” to the university in June 2025.363 A day after the first social media post appeared on Instagram, containing video from the talk and calling on the university to fire the professor, the university informed him he was being put on administrative leave, and the following month he was informed his contract would be terminated in May 2026. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the professor tried to appeal his termination internally, but his appeal was denied.364 In May 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered Texas State University to reinstate the professor for one year or until the case is resolved, noting that the university had put the professor’s “career in grave danger by violating his First Amendment rights.”365 In ruling from the bench, the federal district court judge stated,
“Given that the state really hasn’t made an effort to argue that the speech that the plaintiff gave [wasn’t] in some role or another a motivating factor [in the plaintiff’s firing] — I don’t know that they could, given the fact that he was suspended immediately after the speech and told that it was because he exercised his right to First Amendment.”366
In April 2026, a former professor of medicine filed a wrongful termination complaint with the California
Labor Commissioner’s Office against Stanford Medical School, alleging that the university had retaliated against her for protected expression.367 In January 2025, the professor participated in a healthcare worker event titled “Sick from Genocide” to raise awareness of genocide-related illness and trauma in global conflict zones and to express concerns about violence against healthcare workers and the destruction of healthcare facilities in Gaza.368 She said that the event, which took place at Stanford Medical School and outside her work hours, was described in a formal complaint alleging that she had engaged in activities Stanford deemed “political” or “controversial” because of its connection to pro-Palestine advocacy.369  
In June 2026, an arbitrator ruled that a tenured San Jose State University professor who had been fired for her involvement in three on-campus pro-Palestine demonstrations in early 2024 should be reinstated, ruling that the termination was “excessive and disproportionate” and should be reduced to a one-month unpaid suspension.370 The arbitrator imposed the brief suspension to punish the professor’s “interference with another faculty member’s delivery of a lecture” and her “misadvising students about a rule she could or should have known about,” and ruled that these actions did not merit firing.371 “The propriety of imposing the ultimate sanction of employment termination for free-speech activity, even if its exercise clashed with institutional restrictions, is questionable,” the arbitrator ruled.372 The full-time tenured professor of justice studies had been fired for allegedly “directing and encouraging” students to join encampments and violate university policies, which the professor and the California Faculty Association teacher’s union representing her disputes, and had served as faculty advisor for the school’s SJP chapter.373 In November 2025, a faculty hearing committee had previously determined that no disciplinary action was warranted. In June 2026, one week after she was ordered reinstated, the professor filed a civil rights lawsuit against California State University, alleging it had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the First Amendment.374
In August 2026, the University of Minnesota reached a settlement with Holocaust scholar Dr. Raz Segal, agreeing to pay $250,000 as compensation for rescinding its offer for him to direct the university’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and hold a tenured faculty position in the history department.375 The University of Minnesota had extended the job offer in June 2024, based on the near-unanimous recommendation of a committee of academics, but withdrew the offer five days later, citing “perspective” it had received from the community.376 The university rescinded its offer following backlash over Segal’s criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza, which he called “a textbook case of genocide” in an op-ed published in Jewish Currents in October 2023.377 Segal, who is Jewish, a dual Israeli-U.S. citizen, the grandchild of four Holocaust survivors, and a scholar of Jewish history and the Holocaust, directs a master’s program in Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Stockton University.378 The Center for Constitutional Rights represented Segal, arguing that the university’s actions were unconstitutional because they retaliated against him for constitutionally protected speech.379 Internal documents obtained through a public records request filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights revealed that the university’s revocation of the job offer was based on Segal’s constitutionally protected speech and pressure from donors who objected to his criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza.380 Segal told The Guardian that he hoped the university would restore the original job offer rather than agree to pay a settlement, but he was told that was “off the table,” and the position remains unfilled.381
Banning of Student  Organizations and censorship  of pro-palestinian Speech
There have been multiple instances of universities banning pro-Palestinian student organizations, retaliating against students who participate in student protests, and censoring pro-Palestinian expression. Examples of these instances are wideranging. Student chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) have faced backlash, increased scrutiny, and bans on college campuses nationwide. Students from Stanford University, Columbia University, Scripps
College, the University of Missouri, and Ohio State University have reported their universities’ efforts to prohibit hanging Palestinian flags, carrying or displaying banners, and displaying keffiyehs to symbolically express Palestinian solidarity and protest the war in Gaza.382
Campus student groups such as SJP and JVP chapters have been singled out for their activism by universities. In November 2024, Brandeis University became the first private university to ban its SJP chapter from campus.383 Brandeis stated it had banned SJP from campus because university administrators interpreted SJP national’s comments on the October 7 attacks as supporting Hamas, “which the United States has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.”384 That same month, Columbia University also banned its campus SJP and JVP chapters.385 The day before the ban was instituted, students had organized a peaceful Palestinian solidarity demonstration and a temporary art installation.386 While the demonstration and art installation had been organized by a broader coalition of student organizations, administrators singled out SJP  and JVP to be banned.387
On March 6, 2024, Harvard University placed the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC), the only recognized pro-Palestinian student organization at Harvard College, on probation (the University made this probation retroactive to March 1, 2024).388 The PSC was later suspended on April 22, 2024, for co-sponsoring a demonstration with unrecognized student organizations, failing to register the demonstration with the Office of Student Engagement, and violating the Responsible Use of Space Policy outlined in the Student Organization Resource Guide.389 Harvard’s cited grounds for the PSC’s probation did not include any assertions that the PSC had engaged in harassing or disruptive conduct toward other students or staff. The asserted grounds instead included hyper-technical allegations about the specific wording of social media postings relating to pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus, based on a co-sponsorship policy that was not clearly applicable and reportedly was not enforced against other student organizations that openly co-sponsored events with unrecognized student organizations without reprimand.390 For instance, the student organization Harvard Dems had openly co-sponsored events with the unrecognized organization Harvard for Harris and was not put on probation or suspended.391
The PSC was eventually reinstated in September
2024. In April 2025, Harvard again placed the PSC on probation and banned the organization from hosting public events, reportedly for actions at a protest hosted by Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine, which the PSC had publicized on its Instagram account but did not officially host or sponsor.392 The protest allegedly violated Harvard’s Campus Use Rules, which states that recognized student organizations are not permitted to cohost events with unrecognized groups (such as Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine), amplified sound at protests is not “permitted without prior approval,” and protests “must not impede or block ingress or egress to or movement within and around campus buildings.”393 The PSC was placed on probation before Palestine Solidarity Month, and Harvard College canceled all eight events that the PSC had scheduled for April 2025, including programming on Palestinian history and culture and an art installation.394 Harvard University clarified for the purposes of this report that the university suspended the PSC based on multiple rule violations and after the PSC violated both the terms of its probation letter and the rules set forth in the Student Organization Resource Manual, and stated that the university administered discipline in a content- and viewpoint-neutral manner (see Appendix III).
In March 2025, the University of Pittsburgh placed
SJP-Pitt, a registered student organization since 2009, on an indefinite, interim suspension.395 The club had organized, co-sponsored, promoted, and advertised numerous demonstrations and educational events on and off campus. Since there was no obvious violation of university policies, the university’s action appeared to be in retaliation for a letter that SJP-Pitt had organized with more than 70 other university-affiliated clubs and community organizations protesting the school’s repeated harassment of the club. The university also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the club in response to a silent study-in that club members had attended in the university library in December 2024. Other university-sponsored student organizations, notably sororities and fraternities, conduct similar study sessions, including one that overlapped with SJP’s, in which they display organizational messages. SJP students did not chant, picket, block passage, or disrupt library operations. The students quietly displayed keffiyehs and flags to express solidarity with the Palestinian people while studying for
finals. At no time did SJP students disrupt library operations or interfere with fellow students’ access to the library or study environment.396 The ACLU of Pennsylvania brought a lawsuit against the University of Pittsburgh, arguing that by suspending the club in retaliation for its speech, university officials violated the students’ right to free speech. The lawsuit accuses the university of violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.397 In August 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled that the University of Pittsburgh must lift the suspension of SJP-Pitt and reinstate the organization’s full privileges on campus. The court affirmed that the open advocacy letter sent by SJP-Pitt is protected free speech under the U.S. Constitution.398
In May 2025, DePaul University President Robert
Manuel testified at a congressional hearing of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, titled “Beyond the Ivy League: Stopping the Spread of Antisemitism on American Campuses,” stating that the university had suspended its SJP chapter.399 However, students involved with SJP were not informed that their group had been suspended; they were only told that their organization had been temporarily placed on probation.400 The group had been placed on probation for its Instagram post focused on the Israeli government’s theft of Palestinian skin and organs for research.401 Palestine Legal argues that this post should not have spurred an investigation into the student group, as it does not target anyone on the basis of protected identity, but instead critiques Israel’s policies.402 Instead, Palestine Legal argues that DePaul’s harsh disciplinary action is indicative of the university
“creating a hostile environment for Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students and students associated with them.”403
In February 2026, the SJP chapter at American University was placed on a nearly two-year suspension through November 2027.404 According to media reports, the SJP chapter was found have violated the school’s discrimination policy for a February 2025 event entitled “Debunking Zionist Lies” that administrators had cancelled, following claims that no safety assessment had been conducted and club advertisements for the event had not undergone review.405 In response to the cancellation of the February 2025 event, the AAUP chapter at American University wrote a letter criticizing the administration for its censorship of students and viewpoint discrimination.406 The American University administration had previously placed the SJP chapter on probation for a silent march it held in February 2024, which administrators found to be in violation of the school’s newly minted ban on protests inside university buildings,407 and issued a cease and  desist against the organization in March 2025.408    
There have been multiple instances of universities censoring students’ and faculty’s pro-Palestinian speech and expressive conduct. Students from Stanford, Columbia, and Scripps College have reported to Palestine Legal their universities’ discriminatory efforts to prohibit hanging Palestinian flags in dorms and coffee shops.409  
For instance, at Stanford University, the Stanford
Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Communities Committee noted that the university’s policies forbidding banners and flags in common areas or shared spaces of dorms were “routinely ignored, and then invoked and enforced for the first time in response to pro-Palestine expression.”410 The University of Pennsylvania denied a screening of a documentary by Jewish filmmakers exploring concerns some young Jewish Americans have  about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.411
In September 2024, after Harvard students wearing keffiyehs silently studied at a campus library with signs on their laptops promoting divestment, the university banned them from the library for two weeks.412 In emails notifying student participants that they had lost their library access, the stated explanation was that they were banned because
“participants assembled with the stated purpose of making their presence known by occupying the Loker Reading Room and displaying flyers provided by the event organizers. Demonstrations and protests are not permitted in libraries.”413
on May 12, 2024.
When Harvard faculty protested the punishments by silently reading in the same library with small signs promoting diversity of thought, the university suspended their library access as well.414  The university provided similar reasoning  for the faculty members’ suspensions.415
At Harvard Law School, in February 2024, a week after the Women’s Law Association hosted a
Valentine’s Day card-making event in the Belinda
Hall lounge of Wasserstein Hall, the Harvard Law Justice for Palestine group hosted a similar event in the same space the following week, calling it “Valentines for Palestine.” Law school deans arrived and called for an end to the latter event and ordered participants to disperse.416 The event announcement, which looked nearly identical to the Women’s Law Association event in format and design, invited participants to create Valentine’s Day cards and “write a message of love + solidarity by calling on Harvard to disclose + divest from Israeli apartheid and protect pro-Palestinian activism on campus.”417 According to reporting by the Harvard Law Record citing eyewitness accounts, the deans asserted that while both the Justice for Palestine and Women’s Law Association’s events had been unauthorized, they had received complaints about the Justice for Palestine event, which mandated their intervention.418 Following this intervention, law school administrators emailed other student groups telling them not to host “formal or informal” events in Belinda Hall.419
The SJP chapter at the University of Missouri and CAIR brought a lawsuit against the University of Missouri for preventing the chapter’s participation in the university’s 2024 homecoming parade and attempting to prevent its participation in the 2025 parade, alleging that the school was engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.420 In 2024, the chapter went through the application process to participate in the parade, hoping to march and display two banners, dance Dabke, and distribute Palestinian treats. Despite approval from the Alumni Association, university administrators stepped in and subjected the group to a separate approval process, during which administrators asked that the group not carry their “stop the genocide” banner.421 Ultimately, University of Missouri President Mun Y. Choi, who also serves as chancellor, prohibited the chapter from marching in the parade, pointing to actions of SJP chapters at other universities as his rationale.422 The SJP chapter’s complaint highlighted how other student groups, such as fraternities and sororities, had been permitted to carry banners with political slogans during the 2024 parade in contrast to the school’s treatment of SJP and its targeting of the club’s viewpoint.423 While litigation concerning the 2024 parade is ongoing, SJP secured a preliminary injunction requiring the university to permit SJP to march in the 2025 parade.424  
In October 2025, during a study-in convened by Palestinian students and allies at a library on the Ohio State University campus, administrators approached the students and told a Palestinian student that she had to remove her keffiyeh from the back of her chair, citing the library’s Bulletin Board Policy.425 The administrators claimed that, while she would be able to wear her keffiyeh over her shoulders, the Bulletin Board Policy, which stipulates that “designated public bulletin boards are the only places in or around University Libraries locations on which materials may be posted,” precluded her from draping the keffiyeh over her seat.426 The administrators, however, did not ask students to remove coats or other clothing from  the backs of their seats.427
In November 2025, a University of Arkansas professor was investigated by the university’s Equal Opportunity and Title IX Office and in December 2025 was found to be in violation of the school’s anti-discrimination and harassment policy for displaying two posters on her office door.428 One of the posters that prompted the investigation and finding simply read “from the river to sea” in English and Arabic, while the other, which had been displayed on the professor’s office door for more than a decade, was a political satire cartoon.429 The professor said she has since been directed to take the posters down.430  
In April 2026, Northwestern University removed a banner criticizing Israel and Hillel two hours after it was installed by the school’s JVP chapter, even though JVP had reserved the banner space.431 The banner read “Israel is committing Scholasticide” and “Hillel and Birthright lie,” referring to Birthright Israel trips.432 In response to JVP’s email inquiring why the banner had been removed, an official with Northwestern’s Division of Student Affairs reportedly wrote that the banner did not meet the
“posted requirements” for the arch’s banner spaces, explaining that the banner did not identify the sponsoring student organization and that the banner spaces in that location are intended for student organizations to promote activities “as described in their reservation.”433 In a statement to the campus newspaper, a university spokesperson wrote that the university had removed the banner because it “did not identify the sponsoring organization on its face and did not align with the specific event or activity described in the reservation.”434 Student members of the campus JVP chapter reported that other banners in that space that did not comply with the rules and regulations for banners had not been removed or otherwise disrupted.435

university retaliation  and censorship of  Graduating Students
University administrators have penalized students during their own graduation ceremonies, in some cases denying students the opportunity to participate in an important ceremony marking the accomplishments they have worked hard for several years to achieve. This has included withholding436 or rescinding437 diplomas from graduates, forbidding certain regalia from being worn,438 removing students from ceremonies,439 and more. For students who used their platforms during commencement ceremonies to speak in favor of Palestinian rights, university administrators have banned these graduates from campus,440 denying them the ability to participate in graduation festivities441 and be in community with their peers.
In the past year, students have been banned from delivering speeches that highlight their solidarity with Palestine and condemn their universities for their complicity and silence.442 In May 2025, at George Washington University, a graduating senior was banned after delivering a graduation speech in which she highlighted and criticized the university’s connections to Israel and urged the audience to withhold their future donations.443 In June 2025, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the class president was banned from her graduation commencement after she gave a speech at another event where she criticized MIT’s research ties with the Israeli army and condemned the university for
attend the following day’s undergraduate degree-
“aiding and abetting… the assault on the Palestinian people.”444 For the purposes of this report, MIT clarified, “The student attended and spoke at MIT’s Commencement ceremony, though she submitted a different script than the speech she delivered. As a result of her actions, she was not permitted to conferral ceremony” (see Appendix III). In some cases, students have been banned from speaking. In 2024, the University of Southern California barred the valedictorian from speaking at her graduation ceremony due to “safety concerns,” although the university did not make clear how a graduation speech would pose a safety risk.445
Other universities have withheld degrees from students for taking part in pro-Palestinian student protests. In May 2025, NYU withheld the diploma of a graduating student who used his platform during his graduation speech to speak about ongoing atrocities in Gaza.446 In response to NYU’s actions, the Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) sent a letter on May 21, 2025 to the president and Board of Trustees of NYU, defending the student for his graduation speech and asserting that the punishment for his breaking a university rule by speaking words that had not been preapproved by the administration is unjust and harsh,
“harming his capacity to seek employment and/or further educational opportunities.”447 During that same graduation cycle, Virginia Commonwealth University withheld two students’ diplomas after they had participated in an April 2025 gathering commemorating police arrests at the 2024 student encampment.448 During the gathering, students informally sat and chatted on the lawn to commemorate the one-year anniversary of when riot police attacked pro-Palestinian student protesters.449 There were no speeches, chants, or tents. One of the disciplined students described  the university’s actions as “bureaucratic methods  to scare other students.”450
During NYU’s May 2026 graduation ceremonies, administrators enforced a newly introduced ban on nonacademic regalia.451 Graduating students were prohibited from bringing items including
“banners, signs, posters, flyers and flags” to the ceremony, but were allowed to wear “official university academic regalia,” religious attire, and compliantly decorated graduation caps.452 Although NYU characterized the policy as “content-neutral” and applicable across NYU ceremonies, graduating students at four of NYU’s schools reported that administrators had ordered students wearing keffiyehs to remove them in order to participate in commencement festivities, but had not sought to remove other non-academic items.453
At NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, banner bearers wearing keffiyehs were pulled aside before crossing the stage and forced to remove their keffiyehs.454 Graduates reported they had previously been told they could wear unsanctioned clothing “so long as it’s not hate symbols or hate speech.”455 Yet, on the morning of the ceremony, a Tisch representative informed graduates that their keffiyehs violated the school’s “updated policy.”456 Students wearing other items around their necks, such as leis, stoles, and custom cords, were not asked to remove these items.457 One graduate reported that when a university administrator pulled him aside, the administrator sought only to remove his keffiyeh, leaving his other non-sanctioned accessories in place, stating that “it was just the keffiyeh that was the problem.”458
At NYU’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study, graduating students reported that security asked students to leave pro-Palestinian attire outside before the ceremony, then began physically checking students’ collars mid-ceremony after several graduates revealed keffiyehs hidden under their robes while they walked to receive their diplomas.459 A graduate reported that many students wore other non-university-regulated items without consequence, saying it was “very clear that anything related to Palestine was what was being targeted.”460
NYU Law School sent multiple emails to graduating students before the commencement ceremony, outlining security and attire policies that explicitly permitted attire “provided by official student groups” and “worn for religious practices.”461 Despite this, NYU Law School administrators and event security reportedly told some graduates to remove their keffiyehs and throw them in a trash can.462 This included students who informed security that their keffiyeh had been provided by Law Students for Justice in Palestine, an official student organization. Additionally, at least one student who said their keffiyeh was worn for religious practice was told to remove it.463 At NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering, a pro-Palestinian student group reported that one graduate’s keffiyeh was forcibly ripped off as she crossed the stage.464
Increased Surveillance on campus
Universities and colleges have heightened  on- and off-campus surveillance of students  and other community members to investigate their involvement in protests. Universities and colleges have been using surveillance videos; data from campus Wi-Fi; and search warrants for call records, phones, and entry to students’ apartments, to investigate students who have participated in protests. In November 2024, the president of Pomona College even invoked her “extraordinary authority” to use Wi-Fi signals to trace student participation in an October 7, 2024, campus demonstration and suspend 10 students for the academic year.465 Although there was no evidence linking specific students to alleged violations, the university claimed the Wi-Fi signals proved the students’ participation in the demonstration.466
After a pro-Palestine group claimed responsibility online for splattering red paint on a statue of Benjamin Franklin at the University of Pennsylvania in October 2024, campus police identified a student’s cellphone number using data from campus Wi-Fi.467 Shortly thereafter, campus police obtained a search warrant for the phone company’s call records and then obtained a warrant to seize the student’s phone.468 Next, armed campus and city police showed up at the student’s off-campus home. Still, that student has not been charged with any crimes.469 While a University of Pennsylvania committee review found that police had acted professionally, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) criticized these actions, noting that using surveillance and force against student protesters can chill free expression.470
Campuses often pursue warrants that do not result in any charges of wrongdoing. For instance, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, officers obtained a search warrant for the cell phone of a student who regularly participated in pro-Palestine protests.471 While the university said the search warrant was prompted by campus graffiti vandalism, no charges were brought against the student after the search.472
Other universities are also teaming up with police forces to surveil and crack down on student protest activity. At George Mason University, a dozen police officers searched the family home of two students who were involved in a campus graffiti incident in March 2025.473 While the two students were barred from campus, no charges were brought against them.474 After a coalition of over 100 faculty, students, politicians, and policy groups published an open letter decrying the treatment of the two students, George Mason University’s president wrote an email to faculty stating that he believed the students were involved with “something potentially more nefarious” and the university was collaborating with “a number of three-letter agencies aimed at keeping our campus and quite frankly our country safe.”475
Reports indicate that some universities are also using undercover investigators to surveil student protesters. At the University of Michigan, undercover investigators surveilled pro-Palestinian groups and followed them both on and off campus.476 In June 2025, students reported to The Guardian that their conversations had been eavesdropped on and recorded throughout the 2024–2025 year.477 In May 2026, a University of Michigan student sued the university, accusing it of hiring a private security contractor to conduct prolonged and intrusive undercover surveillance of him in 2024 and 2025.478 The student participated in campus advocacy in support of Palestinian rights at the university and was a board member of the student organization Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE), a campus group affiliated with Students for Justice in Palestine. According to the student’s lawsuit, private investigators contracted by the university recorded and tracked his participation in protests and demonstrations, followed and photographed him, recorded videos of him, tracked him as he traveled to and from class, and monitored his attendance at Muslim prayer services and religious gatherings.479 The lawsuit also alleges that the university and campus police allegedly sought and obtained multiple search warrants to conduct searches of his private digital communications and stored data.480
problematic Adoption of campus policies that Suppress protected political Speech Broadly defined as Antisemitism  
A number of universities have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s overly broad working definition of antisemitism, which declares that “denying the Jewish people their right to self- determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” and “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” are all examples of antisemitism.481
The IHRA framework — including both its definition of antisemitism and the accompanying contemporary examples — has been interpreted by some to equate criticism of Israel and its policies or opposition to Zionism with antisemitism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism encompasses protected political speech and is not limited to harassing speech or conduct that creates a hostile educational environment. Speech that is critical of Israel cannot, alone, constitute harassment.482 Moreover, the IHRA framework equates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination in a manner that could chill the exercise of First Amendment rights. Campus policies relying on the IHRA definition would likely chill free speech of students, faculty, and staff on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.483
For instance, Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s Executive Order GA-44, issued in March 2024, directed all Texas higher education institutions to update and enforce campus free speech policies to address antisemitic speech and use the IHRA definition of antisemitism. After several student groups at the University of Houston, the University of Texas (UT) Dallas, and UT-Austin filed a lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that the executive order likely violates the First Amendment. The judge ruled, “the incorporation of this specific definition of antisemitism [the IHRA definition] is viewpoint discrimination” because it makes the utterance of specific views punishable.484
Several universities have enacted campus policies adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism. In August 2024, George Mason University incorporated the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism into its campus nondiscrimination policy.485 In January 2025, Harvard University adopted the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism as part of a settlement of two Title VI lawsuits.486 In July 2025, Columbia University also incorporated the IHRA definition into its campus policies as part of a settlement agreement with the Trump administration to restore $400 million in federal government grants.487 In January 2026, as part of a settlement agreement with 10 student plaintiffs who had filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Title VI,488 Cooper Union said it would “implement all applicable guidance from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, including the OCR’s 2021 and 2024 guidance regarding the consideration of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) working definition of antisemitism and its accompanying examples” and recognize that, for Jewish students, Zionism is often a “core part of their Jewish identity” and “discriminatory or harassing conduct directed toward Jews or Zionists” violates the college’s nondiscrimination policies.489 Cooper Union’s statement clarifying this policy is included in Appendix III of this report.

In August 2024, New York University (NYU) amended its anti-discrimination and antiharassment guidance, adopting a new position prohibiting speech that criticizes Zionism and relying on the IHRA definition of antisemitism.490 While a majority of NYU’s revised anti-harassment guidance (NDAH) appropriately tracks language in Title VI and other applicable federal laws, one provision of the policy is excessively vague.491 The policy states that “[s]peech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed towards Zionists.”492 Whether a statement can be regarded as antisemitic under the policy depends on the context of the statement, including the nature of the criticism and/or the setting in which the statement is conveyed. The impact of proscribing potentially all “speech and conduct… directed toward Zionists” goes far beyond what is required and what a university is obligated to address under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The guidance also vaguely suggests that the term
“Zionist” may be interpreted by the university as a
“code word.”493 While context matters in any antidiscrimination analysis, this particular provision of the policy is so vague that it is hard to see how any student or faculty member could understand when use of the term “Zionism” or “Zionist” would be understood by the university as a code word or not.
In practice, the IHRA framework has been used to silence criticism of Israeli government policies and to suppress the speech and activism of university students, professors, and organizers in support of Palestinian rights. At colleges and universities across the country, numerous complaints and lawsuits based on the IHRA definition have been filed in an attempt to stop speech and to target faculty for what they have said, materials they have included in their courses, and speakers they have invited to campus.494 The IHRA definition has been deployed to try to cancel campus events, including at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst,495 Indiana University,496 Columbia University,497 the
University of California at Berkeley,498 Arizona State University,499 the University of New Mexico,500  and elsewhere.501
Columbia University in New York City on November 15, 2023.
Former Harvard President Larry Summers cited the IHRA definition of antisemitism to criticize a Harvard academic panel on the “past and present” of “Israel’s war in Lebanon,” arguing that the panel was “very likely” antisemitic under the IHRA definition.502 Since Harvard adopted the IHRA definition in January 2025, the school has cancelled a medical school panel featuring Gazans treated by local Boston doctors;503 forced out the directors of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies;504 suspended its Religion, Conflict, and Peace Program;505 cancelled a research partnership with Birzeit University (West Bank, Palestine); and cancelled an anti-Zionist Passover Seder organized by Jewish students.506 Regarding the Adams House Passover Seder, Harvard University clarified for the purposes of this report that the event was organized by an unrecognized student group, Harvard Jews for Palestine, in violation of Harvard College’s student handbook, and administered its policy in a content- and viewpoint-neutral manner (see appendix III).
Adoption of the IHRA definition has also led to reviews of course syllabi and reading lists, impacting university curricula. For instance, in August 2024, six weeks after the state of Florida had adopted the IHRA definition by law,507 the chancellor of the Board of Governors of the State University System of Florida required a review
of courses for “Antisemitism or Anti-Israel bias,” instructing universities to “conduct a keyword search on course descriptions and course syllabi” and flag for review any course that contains the keywords “Israel, Israeli, Palestine, Palestinian, Middle East, Zionism, Zionist, Judaism, Jewish, or Jews.”508
Campus policies incorporating the IHRA definition of antisemitism misconstrue anti-discrimination law to censor and stifle campus speech. Title VI already offers strong protections for students who are subject to discrimination and harassment.
These campus policies go far beyond what Title VI requires and could chill protected student and faculty speech that does not violate Title VI. The expansion of what constitutes discrimination is too broad and will inevitably infringe on lawful, important academic discussions and debates on campus about Palestine and Israel, putting academic freedom principles at risk. As written, these campus policies will likely chill speech critical of the Israeli government or of Zionism that does not rise to the level of a Title VI violation and impede important academic discussions and debates on campus about Palestine and Israel.
Under Title VI, universities are obligated to and should investigate allegations of “subjectively and objectively offensive” discrimination and harassment that is “so severe or pervasive that it limits or denies a person’s ability to participate  in or benefit from” an educational opportunity.509 Speech alone — particularly when it is political  and non-targeted — very rarely meets that standard.
Title VI must be interpreted and applied in a manner that comports with constitutional standards. The federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which enforces Title VI, has therefore long recognized that Title VI must be applied in conformance with the constitutional standards enshrined in the First Amendment.510 Accordingly, federal courts considering Title VI and university anti-discrimination policies have recognized that when schools attempt to restrict or punish speech made in the educational community on matters
of public concern, including Palestinian rights and criticism of the Israeli or U.S. governments, they risk violating free speech guarantees.511
While private universities may have greater flexibility to craft discrimination policies absent strict constitutional constraints under U.S. law, they should not misrepresent what Title VI requires and give it a broader reading than that which would be compatible with the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Public and private universities that receive federal funding alike are obligated to interpret and apply Title VI in a manner that comports with the constitutional standards embodied in the First Amendment, which requires strict scrutiny of any provisions attempting to limit speech.512 Moreover, under international human rights law and standards, private universities have the responsibility to protect the right to freedom of expression and the right to nondiscrimination.513
In recent rulings in cases examining the intersection of Title VI hostile educational environment claims and the First Amendment in the context of proPalestine protests on college campuses, federal courts have held that Title VI does not require a university to squash speech protected by the First Amendment.514 Evaluating speech in the form of rallies, flyers, speeches, sit-ins, and protests, courts have found that the speech at issue is protected by the First Amendment, including phrases such as
“from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “globalize the intifada.”515 Federal courts have found that speech on matters of public concern directed to the community at large is very different from targeted, personal harassment aimed at a particular person. In these cases, federal courts ruled that political speech will generally not meet the high standard for proving hostility or offensiveness required under Title VI. These cases are described in detail in the legal analysis section of this report, in the subsection titled “Title VI Must Be Read Consistently with Principles of Free Speech and
Academic Freedom on University Campuses.”
The IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism also is not consistent with international human rights law. Its vague and overbroad definition violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is a party, as it fails to meet the threshold for restrictions of language under Article 20(2) nor the permissible restrictions to freedom of expression under Article 19(3).516 This risks creating a chilling effect and suppressing freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
universities’ responsibility  to protect noncitizen Students  and Faculty From Ice  enforcement Activity
Since the Trump administration began targeting international students and scholars for arrest, detention, and deportation based on their political views, in some instances universities could have done more to protect their noncitizen students and faculty from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement activity. Some students fearing detention and deportation have also described a lack of moral and institutional support from their universities.
Universities’ internal disciplinary actions, including expulsion or termination of students’ enrollment status, and requests for or authorization of law enforcement intervention to disperse demonstrations, which have resulted in arrests of students and faculty, can have downstream immigration consequences that universities should be aware of when making such decisions. Punishing noncitizen students for engaging in protest actions can place them at risk of overbroad immigration enforcement activity. Suspending or expelling noncitizen students places their immigration status at risk, heightening their risk of ICE detention and deportation.
There are numerous protective actions that universities can and should take to protect noncitizen students.517 Universities should not take unwarranted internal disciplinary actions that would place students’ immigration status at risk. They should establish procedures for responding to immigration enforcement activity. Universities should institute and implement university policies preventing ICE from entering nonpublic campus areas without a judicial warrant, and they should not release student and faculty records to ICE without a judicial warrant or court order. Universities and colleges must do everything they can to protect their students from intimidation or targeting by ICE, and they have the legal right to do so.
The right of universities and colleges to limit their collaboration with federal immigration enforcement is further explained in the legal analysis section of this report.518
Responding to and Preparing for ICE Attempts to Enter Campus
In some cases, ICE has entered or attempted to enter private university-owned premises, such as off-campus university housing without a judicial warrant. Federal immigration enforcement officers can enter public areas without a warrant, but only a judicial warrant signed by a judge permits entry into nonpublic campus spaces, such as residence halls, offices, or other limited access spaces, without authorization from an appropriate campus official. Nonpublic campus spaces where ICE access is restricted include:
• university residence halls and dormitories
• spaces requiring university issued  identification cards, including locked  doors or monitored entryways
• faculty and administrator offices
• classrooms
• locker rooms and other operational facilities
In contrast to judicial warrants, administrative warrants, such as Forms I200 and I205, are signed by an immigration official rather than a judge and do not grant authority to enter nonpublic campus spaces without consent. Absent a judicial warrant
— even if ICE presents an order of removal or deportation for a campus community member — an institution is not legally required to grant ICE access to nonpublic campus spaces or assist in apprehending a person.519
Universities should institute and implement university policies denying ICE access or assistance to enter nonpublic campus areas without a judicial warrant. They should establish clear protocols and policies restricting ICE agents or other law enforcement agents from accessing nonpublic areas of the college campus, such as residential halls, campus libraries, classrooms, faculty and administrator offices, and academic and student resource centers, without a judicial warrant. Colleges and universities should ensure that their campus has appropriate signage indicating which spaces are not open to the public. They should train all staff to immediately inform a designated, trained contact person if immigration agents arrive and to not answer questions or otherwise assist the agents unless required by state or federal law. Campus police should also create a policy prohibiting the use of time, money, space, or personnel for immigration enforcement activity, except where required by state or federal law.

Amid the Trump administration’s retaliatory crackdown against noncitizen students for their First Amendment-protected speech and advocacy, the federal government appears to be advancing extreme claims that innocent conduct by colleges and  
universities may violate 8 U.S.C. § 1324. That statute prohibits concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection a noncitizen who is unlawfully present, when done with knowledge or reckless disregard of that person’s immigration status.520 In at least one documented case, ICE officials entered and searched Columbia University residence halls in March 2025 pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate judge to search for evidence of violations of Section 1324.521
However, under the case law, a college or university’s normal conduct in providing housing and services to students does not constitute a violation of Section 1324. Courts of appeals agree that merely providing housing or other services does not violate Section 1324.522 Colleges and universities therefore are not violating the law by providing housing or services to noncitizen students. A university that merely houses an undocumented student in campus housing on the same terms offered to other students also does not satisfy the elements of harboring.523Additionally, even noncitizens who the government seeks to deport often retain lawful status during the pendency of efforts to deport them, meaning Section 1324 cannot be triggered because that statute requires that the noncitizen be present “in violation of the law.” For example, lawful permanent residents remain lawfully present in the country until a judge issues a final order of removal.524 And for students whose student visas have been revoked by the government, visa revocation does not terminate lawful status as long as the student remains in compliance with the terms of their status (such as maintaining sufficient credit hours).525
Denial of consent for warrantless entry of ICE agents into campus residence halls or other areas closed to the public cannot constitute evidence  of harboring, because withholding of consent is  a right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.526
Responding to ICE Requests for Information
University officials are responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of student records. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) requires universities to protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable student information, including information about all noncitizen students (whether on immigrant or non-immigrant visas or otherwise), against unwarranted disclosure to the government or private parties.527
When a federally funded college or university collects information from students, FERPA requires the school to define what it designates as “directory information” — meaning information that can be subject to release without a student’s prior written consent528 — and inform students of their right to object to such designation.529 Only information that “would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed” may be deemed “directory information.”530 Releasing such information to outside sources, including to government officials and agencies in connection with immigration enforcement, will violate FERPA if public notice and other conditions are not met.531 Similarly, information that would “generally be considered harmful” if disclosed, such as a student’s sex, ethnicity, or race, may not be released as “directory information.”532
That includes disclosures to law enforcement. Unless a law enforcement officer has a valid court order or a lawfully issued subpoena, universities cannot release personally identifiable information without the student’s permission, absent another lawful exception to FERPA.533
of records sought may implicate serious privacy interests of students or faculty. For instance, while attempting to locate Yunseo Chung, a lawful permanent resident whom ICE was seeking to  arrest and deport based on Secretary of State  
ICE commonly relies on administrative subpoenas to request information, including from colleges and universities.534 Administrative subpoenas are signed by an ICE officer, not a judge, and the kinds Marco Rubio’s determination that she was deportable under the foreign policy ground of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (detailed later in this report), ICE issued two administrative subpoenas to Columbia, seeking “any and all video footage” from her residence hall over a threeand-a-half day period and “any and all Student Identification Swipe Card Access Data” for Chung over an eight-day period.535
Entities in receipt of ICE administrative subpoenas often respond reflexively, out of fear of repercussions. However, there are no consequences for an initial failure to respond to an administrative subpoena. For an ICE subpoena to become mandatory, the government must seek enforcement in court,536 where institutions can raise a number of possible legal objections, including objections related to overbreadth, relevance, burdensomeness, and privacy interests.537 Penalties can only be imposed if a court ultimately orders compliance and educational institutions then fail to comply.538 In consultation with legal counsel, in appropriate circumstances, universities should exercise their right to not respond to administrative subpoenas unless and until ICE obtains an enforcement order from a judge. Institutions should carefully scrutinize each administrative subpoena to assess whether it complies with the relevant subpoena statute, and whether it suffers other defects. Whether or not institutions believe the subpoena  is defective, they do not need to respond unless  and until a court orders compliance.
Additionally, ICE subpoenas often include requests that the recipient not notify anybody of the existence or details of the subpoena. However, such requests have no legal effect; the recipient of the subpoena is free to disclose the subpoena, including to the target of ICE’s investigation.539  The recipient of a subpoena can only be prohibited from disclosing it pursuant to a properly issued court order signed by a judge. In the absence of such a court order, universities have the right to publicize the subpoenas or alert students if their information has been targeted by an ICE subpoena. Colleges and universities should adopt clear policies under which they will disclose the subpoenas to the parties whose records have been requested unless they  are barred from doing so by a court order. They also should announce their policy of disclosure on the college or university webpage, law enforcement contact page, or other publicly accessible place  to dissuade casual or frivolous subpoenas.
Absent a court order, universities should decline to voluntarily provide ICE with data or records that implicate serious privacy interests of students or faculty or that could aid in the targeting of activists, including immigration status information or student disciplinary records related to protests and political activism. To prepare in advance, universities and colleges should institute the following best practices:
• Have a policy for responding to ICE subpoenas and connected communications. Institutions can safely decline to respond to administrative subpoenas absent a court order, but may prefer to provide a written response that explains their grounds for objecting to the subpoena, and that they will notify the person whose records are sought.
• Prepare to oppose any court motion to compel compliance. Whether institutions wait for a court order enforcing the subpoena, or actively contest the motion to compel, this may deter ICE from sending frivolous subpoenas.
• Ensure that an attorney reviews any requests from immigration authorities, including any warrant or subpoena, before complying.
• Limit the information colleges and universities collect and keep only what is necessary. Data minimization is the best way to protect members of a school’s community. If an institution does not have it, a subpoena cannot compel disclosure of it.


287(g) Agreements Deputizing Campus Police to Act as Immigration Agents
As of June 2026, at least 17 Florida public college and university police agencies have signed 287(g) agreements with ICE since 2025, effectively transforming campus police from community safety officers into federal immigration enforcement agents.540 287(g) agreements, named for a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), delegate federal authority to local police officers and sheriffs’ deputies for certain immigration enforcement activities. In doing so, 287(g) agreements deputize local law enforcement officers, such as university police, to act as federal immigration agents.541 When campus police enter into 287(g) agreements, they are vested with the “power and authority to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien” and to make warrantless arrests of any such individuals. Although we are not aware of reports of campus police conducting immigration enforcement work to date, these agreements are sowing distrust and a sense of betrayal among many students.542 Students and faculty have protested the 287(g) agreements, including multiple Florida faculty senates that have voted in favor of canceling the partnerships.543

Case Studies

Los Angeles (UCLA) on April 25, 2024.
university of california,  Los Angeles (ucLA)
In spring 2024, when students at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) launched the
Palestine Solidarity Encampment in protest of Israel’s war in Gaza and their university’s financial entanglements with those actions, they did so in the tradition of many thousands of UCLA students before them who campaigned in the same space against the Red Scare, Vietnam War, and apartheid in South Africa.544
On April 25, 2024, student activists set up an encampment on Dickson Court, deeming it the
“Liberated Zone,” to protest Israeli military actions and UCLA’s financial connections to those activities. The students made a series of demands of the university, and, in furtherance of those demands, hosted a wide range of political, social, cultural, and religious programming at the encampment.
The student protesters, with the support of some members of the faculty and staff, comprised a multiracial and multi-ethnic group of Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists, agnostics, and members of other faiths.545 Just as UCLA administrators have supported informal student encampments to queue overnight for tickets to UCLA basketball games, university leadership initially supported students’ right to establish the Palestine Solidarity Encampment, expending university resources to ensure that school facilities remained accessible while the encampment and its programming continued.
Despite being peaceful, the encampment drew harassment and violence from outsiders almost as soon as students created it. The first significant escalation occurred on April 28, 2024, when counter-protesters attacked the pro-Palestinian encampment, throwing traffic cones, deploying pepper spray and mace, tearing down barriers, threatening to slit protesters’ throats, and releasing vermin into the encampment.546
The situation escalated overnight from April 30 to May 1, 2024, when a mob of more than 100 masked assailants armed with toxic spray, fireworks, pipes, bottles, and other weapons attacked nonviolent protesters in the encampment. Individuals attempted to break encampment walls forcibly, reportedly threatened to slit protesters’ throats, and released vermin near the encampment.547 The mob attack continued unimpeded from approximately 10:00 p.m. on April 30 until 2:45 a.m. on May 1, during which time campus officials are reported to have hindered the arrival of emergency medical services by shutting down access roads nearby the encampment. Later reports confirmed that 25 proPalestine protesters were hospitalized because of injuries inflicted by mob violence.548
At around 1:00 a.m. on May 1, Mayor Karen Bass’s Deputy Mayor of Communication noted that “LAPD is responding immediately to Chancellor Gene Block’s request for support on campus,” indicating that campus administrators had contacted the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for assistance.549 While LAPD and California Highway Patrol officers assembled near the encampment following the support request, they did not intervene to stop the violence until three-and-a-half hours after a neighboring business owner’s first 911 call. The police response ultimately took over four hours, during which time counter-protesters continued their assault on protesters. When law enforcement and campus security eventually moved in after more than four hours, they made no arrests. The tepid response by campus authorities drew sharp criticism from Governor Gavin Newsom, UCLA alumni, and organizers, with UCLA officials subsequently pledging to conduct an independent investigation into the events.550
The next day, May 1, UCLA administration began notifying students and faculty of its plan to forcibly clear students from the encampment and to shut down their expressive activities.551 That afternoon, in a meeting with student demonstrators at the encampment, then-Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Darnell Hunt informed demonstrators that the university had decided to clear the encampment in the evening. Hunt told students that the reason for the decision was to protect student safety in the wake of the mob violence: “These police officers to my understanding were given the mandate to clear out the encampment because of security risks.” In Congressional testimony given to the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 23, 2024, then-Chancellor Block confirmed that UC administrators made the decision to end the encampment, justifying the decision by claiming a need to protect student safety. Even though members of the encampment had only engaged in nonviolent protest, Chancellor Block testified, “On April 28th, I decided to remove the encampment after violence broke out between opposing rallies and I asked for a security plan to safely do so.”
At 6:00 p.m. on May 1, 2024, the UCLA Police Department (UCPD) declared the encampment to be an unlawful assembly and issued a dispersal order, purportedly under the authority of California Penal Code sections 407 and 409.  This dispersal order came at the direction of UCLA leadership and the University of California Office of the President. Although the university administration declared the encampment unlawful, the encampment remained nonviolent throughout its existence. At the time UCPD issued the declaration of an unlawful assembly, reports indicate there was no discernible criminal activity in the encampment, nor did any university administrators cite criminal activity within the encampment as a reason for the dispersal order. There was also no discernible threat of immediate or imminent violence at the time  of the declaration and dispersal order.
In the early morning hours of May 2, 2024, law enforcement in full riot gear massed on the UCLA campus and ordered the large group of proPalestinian demonstrators inside the encampment to leave the area or face arrest.552 UCPD officers, in cooperation with officers from the LAPD, California Highway Patrol, and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, forcibly tore apart the encampment.553 The officers destroyed people’s sleeping tents and ripped down placards with pro-Palestine sentiments. They fired dozens of concussive flash-bang bombs into the encampment, launched flares, and shot protesters with less-lethal rounds. California Highway Patrol reported that its officers shot protesters with nearly 60 less-lethal rounds, including 33 beanbag rounds fired from 12-gauge shotguns and two dozen 40mm “direct impact” rounds (typically sponge rounds fired from
40mm launchers), which the manufacturer calls
“pain compliance devices.”554 Officers injured 25 protesters — some so severely that they required hospitalization.555 Ten people sustained head injuries. The projectiles shattered bones in one student’s hand, requiring surgery and extensive rehabilitation. Another person, who was shot in the head by police, was diagnosed with internal bleeding. A UCLA Task Force later reported, “We have documented multiple injuries from rubber bullets and police batons.… We have seen the injuries to the face, head, legs, and chest. Some students were shot at close range. The police shot regular volleys of stun grenades, beat protesters with batons.”556 The Task Force added, “Perhaps most shocking was the police command’s decision to block EMS from entering the encampment to aid the injured.”557
A graduate student who later filed suit against UCLA said, “I can still hear the relentless sound of the stun grenades. Trepidation still courses through my body when I think about police in riot gear shooting rubber bullets at and beating students and friends.”558 An associate professor of political science who is a plaintiff in the same lawsuit recalled, “Along with faculty and staff colleagues, I was arrested at the encampment while facing down state police officers in riot gear wielding weapons loaded with rubber-coated bullets, pointed at our students, while police flash bangs exploded over our heads. It is a scene I hope to never see again. The brutal chaos that ensued when students tossed through the air and were shot by rubber bullets at close range  —  was terrifying.”559
During the operation, officers arrested more than 200 students, faculty, and staff members. As UCPD and other officers entered the encampment and made these arrests, they apparently made no attempt to distinguish between individuals they suspected of committing violations of university policy and those who had been merely present inside the encampment engaged in protected expressive and associational activity. The president of the University of California issued a new policy one week later, on May 9, mandating that disciplinary proceedings be opened for anyone arrested for any reason, and the UCLA administration stated that this new policy would be retroactively applied to the May 2 arrestees. UCLA administrators subsequently opened disciplinary proceedings against every individual arrested during the encampment clearing, permanently marring their academic records. The May 9 policy also mandated disciplinary proceedings if an individual is “cited for a violation of university policy,” regardless of which policy it is, where the violation occurred, or the circumstances surrounding the violation.560
UCLA’s own advisory Task Force on AntiPalestinian, Anti-Muslim and Anti-Arab Racism
— created by UCLA to report to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Darnell Hunt and investigate discrimination and racism targeting Muslims, Arabs, and pro-Palestinian voices on campus — issued a scathing report on May 13, 2024, accusing the university of “failed leadership,”
“utter failure to protect students [in the Palestine Solidarity Encampment] under attack,” and
“consistent anti-Palestinian, anti-Muslim, and Arab racism and pro-Zionist bias.”561 The Task Force reported that, following the encampment clearance, UCLA became “akin to a police state, with a marked increase in police around the campus, many of whom carried rubber bullet guns, and some of whom carried assault rifles.”562 The Task Force noted that “[w]ith such a heavy police presence, students and faculty reported feeling unsafe and on high alert,” making UCLA “a militarized space, where peaceful protest and the right to free speech have become pervasively criminalized.”563
From May 2 to May 10, the UCLA administration closed in-person classes, moved coursework online, and shut down speech activity throughout campus. It positioned security personnel across sites that have historically been the homes of student expressive activity, including Royce Quad.
On May 6, 2024, UCPD officers arrested 44 people, including two journalists covering the events, who were inside a UCLA parking structure.564 The UC Divest Coalition and the UCLA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine had called for a pro-Palestine sit-in at Moore Hall at 7:00 a.m. that day.565 UCPD officers stated they were checking individuals for potentially violating a typically unenforced curfew of midnight to 6:00 a.m. that only applies to nonaffiliates of the university.566 However, 35 of those arrested were UCLA students, and the detentions occurred after 6:00 a.m.567 Of those arrested, 41 were booked for misdemeanor conspiracy to commit a crime, one was booked for obstructing a police officer, and the two journalists arrested were later released without charges after being taken to a LAPD jail.568 According to a statement from UCPD, an unspecified number of individuals in the group were discovered to have several metal pipes, a pair of bolt cutters, super glue, padlocks, and a long chain.569 Around 50 students gathered at Moore Hall to stage a sit-in that morning. UCPD announced that Moore Hall was closed as of 8:00 a.m. and the students then moved to Dodd Hall shortly before 8:30 a.m.570 Police and security personnel gathered outside Dodd Hall and students reported that police cleared the building.571 By later that morning, the protesters had moved outdoors to Bruin Plaza near the center of campus.572 Ultimately, charges were not filed against the arrested students, but UCPD held their cellphones as evidence for nearly a year, until April 2025, when the Los Angeles City Attorney announced that she was not filing charges.573
The administration continued to forcibly shut down pro-Palestine protests in subsequent weeks by issuing unlawful assembly declarations and dispersal orders. On the morning of May 23, student protesters launched another encampment,
UCLA on April 29, 2024.
this time in the patio of Kerckhoff Hall. The administration and UCPD moved quickly to shut it down, encircling students with a police line and raising weapons towards supporters of the encampment who had gathered outside of it. At around 1:00 p.m., UCPD issued an unlawful assembly declaration and a dispersal order, again based on purported violations of university policy. Just as with the encampment on May 1, students at the May 23 encampment had not committed any crimes and were nonviolently gathering in the Kerckhoff Hall patio when UCPD declared the unlawful assembly. UCPD eventually cleared that encampment the same day.574
On June 10, another student-led, pro-Palestine demonstration marched through campus. Students held a memorial to read aloud some of the names of the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces and to hold a symbolic funeral procession. According to a UCLA Task Force report,
“private security, backed by UCPD, surrounded the students and forced them to move to different parts of campus, declaring every location off-limits to protesters.”575 When the rally reached Royce Quad, the students set up an encampment. UCPD and
the UCLA administration issued a declaration that the encampment was an unlawful assembly and announced a dispersal order. This dispersal order was again based on alleged violations of university policy, not any suspicion of criminal activity or presence of violence. Once the on-site police began clearing the June 10 encampment shortly after the initial dispersal order was issued, the protesters continued to march on and arrived at Kerckhoff Hall, setting up a second encampment. Another unlawful dispersal order was issued, again without suspicion of criminal activity or indication of violence. The protesters then ended their march at Shapiro Courtyard (adjacent to the law school). At that point, UCPD and other police officers “kettled” protesters within the courtyard, blocking ingress and egress for those inside even though the officers commanded protesters to leave the premises. The police declared another unlawful assembly, again without any apparent suspicion of criminal violations or indication of violence.576
The UCLA Task Force on Anti-Palestinian, AntiMuslim and Anti-Arab Racism investigated these events and documented the use of less-lethal weapons and the injuries students sustained:
[T]he procession ended up near the law school, now confronted by the California Highway Patrol and more UCPD officers armed with batons, 40mm guns for rubber or plastic projectiles, pepper bullets, and various so-called ‘less lethal’ weapons. The police corralled the students and faculty allies into an area between the Law School and Dodd Hall surrounded by thick bushes, and then quickly issued a dispersal order – impossible to comply with — as they moved in. Police wielding batons kettled the students, beating them as they tried to push through the bushes and past carts holding supplies. Video footage shows students begging cops to retreat since they had nowhere to go, crowds squeezed tightly trying to avoid trampling one another, and officers literally pulled students out of the crowd by their legs, arms, backpack straps, just to beat them mercilessly with their batons. Then at one point a UCPD officer shot a student in the chest with a rubber bullet from a distance of about five feet away…. The force of the bullet knocked them down and two fellow students assisted them to safety through the bushes. The student suffered a contusion to the heart and a bruised lung and was taken by car to the ER at Ronald Reagan Hospital. They remained there for two days given the severity of the injury, which caused elevated cardiac enzymes. This situation could have ended with a permanent disability or death and is a stark reminder of why it is so dangerous to simply transfer control of campus to a militarized police force. Other students were injured as well, one suffering from a concussion, others from bruises and lacerations.577
Volunteer medics reported that they treated dozens of injuries to the head and face caused by rubber bullets shot by California Highway Patrol and UCPD officers that day. “[The projectiles] would pierce through skin and gouge deep into people’s bodies,” recalled a medical student who worked in the medic’s tent. “All of them were profusely bleeding… I couldn’t believe that this was allowed to be [done to] civilians  —  students  —  without protective gear.”578
The police eventually arrested 25 students, faculty, and community members; some of these individuals had been arrested before the unlawful assembly declaration was issued.579 Police alleged that the group had damaged a fountain, spraypainted brick walkways, tampered with fire safety equipment, damaged patio furniture, stripped wire from electrical fixtures, and vandalized vehicles.580 However, the protesters and some members of the faculty disputed these allegations.581 While holding the arrestees in adjacent Dodd Hall, police fired pepper-ball munitions at the crowds outside of the courtyard.
The UCLA Task Force on Anti-Palestinian, AntiMuslim and Anti-Arab Racism issued a second report on June 28, stating that since its May 13 report, “the situation at UCLA has actually worsened” with the university “now overrun with police and private security…making it far less safe for students and faculty exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest and criminalizing protest across the board.”582  
The Task Force stated, “We have concluded that the militarization of our campus, the persistent attacks on students, faculty, and staff for supporting ceasefire, divestment and disclosure, the punitive measures deployed by the administration toward anyone even mildly critical of Israeli policies, have made UCLA less safe than ever for Palestinian, Arab, Muslim students and faculty, and for those in solidarity with Palestinians.”583
On August 19, University of California President Michael Drake issued a letter directing UC campuses to “clarify” and “reinforc[e] policing impacting expressive activities, including policies that prohibit camping or encampments.” In response, UCLA formally outlawed encampments in an “interim policy” effective September 4, 2024. The new policy states that individuals “on UCLA Property may not . . . erect any Temporary Structure or encampment on UCLA Property” without approval from the Events Office.584 Thus, while encampments may have been prohibited on campus after September 4, university officials permitted encampments prior to August 19, making the dismantling and clearing of the Palestine Solidarity Encampment inconsistent with this practice, suggesting that it may have been a content-based policy targeting pro-Palestine speech.
An independent investigation commissioned by UCLA identified institutional failures that contributed to the events of spring 2024.585 The report, released in November 2024, recognized civil disobedience as part of a “long and proud history of student protest in the United States.”586 It acknowledged UC-wide efforts to protect this tradition. However, it noted that UCLA fell short in implementing and operationalizing policies that promote positive relationships between the university community and law enforcement, finding that “University leaders [were] ill-equipped to guide and gauge the level of police intervention, including by influencing the techniques used, timing the intervention to reduce the need for force and arrest,” and unable “to effectively respond and protect students from violence.”587 The report included a set of recommendations “to ensure that UCLA’s response to acts of civil disobedience aligns with its commitments to freedom of expression and the protection of the health, safety and well-being of the UCLA community.”588
In response to the events of spring 2024, two UCLA students and two UCLA faculty members filed a lawsuit against the UC Regents in October 2024 for violating their rights to free speech and expression and for unlawfully arresting students and faculty engaged in nonviolent demonstrations.589 The ACLU Foundation of Southern California and Walkup, Melodia, Kelly, and Schoenberger represent the plaintiffs.590 UCLA students and community members who suffered injuries from rubber bullets filed a second major lawsuit against California Highway Patrol and the LAPD in May 2025 for their alleged use of excessive force during the encampment clearing.591
In April 2025, Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto announced that, after reviewing more than 300 arrests from UCLA campus protests in April and May 2024, she had declined to file criminal charges against all but two individuals  
“for evidentiary reasons or due to a university’s failure or inability to assist in identification or  other information needed for prosecution.592  Two individuals were charged with misdemeanor crimes: one was charged with simple battery and brandishing a deadly weapon other than a firearm, and the other was charged with simple battery, false imprisonment, and resisting or obstructing a peace officer. Three other people were referred to City Attorney Hearings, diversion proceedings that  serve as an alternative to prosecution.593
On April 30, 2025, UCLA students gathered on campus at Wilson Plaza for a screening of the documentary film “The Encampments,” hosted by the school’s suspended Students for Justice in Palestine chapter. After a UCLA representative told the students that visuals were not allowed in the area, they moved to another campus location, Bruin Plaza, which is designated an “Area for Public Expression” where events do not have to be registered in advance with the university. There,
a UCPD officer informed the students that they could not hold the screening.594 According to faculty who attended the screening and witnessed the subsequent attack, about 200 people, most seated on the ground, watched the film quietly.
Videos posted on social media showed around 30 UCPD officers wearing full riot gear running into the crowd of students a half-hour into the film, at around 9:00 p.m., detaining two individuals, and confiscating the screening equipment (a sheet strung between two poles).595 One of the arrestees was taken to the emergency room to be examined for injuries.596 Four UCLA faculty who witnessed the attack at the film screening later wrote in an op-ed,
“[T]he constant and extreme police and security presence on campus since last April has made our campus nearly unrecognizable as a university. It has become a fortress.”597
university of Michigan
At the University of Michigan, campus police arrested pro-Palestine protesters, forcibly cleared a student encampment using batons and pepper spray, aggressively pursued criminal charges and disciplinary sanctions against protesters, and banned some protesters from the entire campus.
Since October 2023, the University of Michigan has seen a surge in on-campus protest activity related to Israel’s war in Gaza. Hundreds, if not thousands, of students and non-student community members have participated in on-campus protests organized to support Palestinians in Gaza, to denounce Israeli policy and military conduct, and to call for the University of Michigan to divest from companies and institutions with ties to Israel.
The university’s response to these protests has  been harsh. Many of the larger protests have resulted in the university deploying its police   
to arrest, detain, physically harm, and use chemical sprays against protesters; initiating a variety of disciplinary proceedings against protesters; ordering protesters not to appear on campus under threat of criminal trespass sanctions; permanently banning some protesters from working at university-affiliated institutions; and adopting a new, ill-defined policy broadly prohibiting “disruptions” anywhere on campus.
In late October 2023, medical students reported that the University of Michigan Medical School’s administration imposed strict moderation policies on the official student body listserv after students sent two pro-Palestine statements to their peers.598 Once those moderation policies were in place, school officials prevented further emails related to Palestine and Israel from being sent to the listserv. Further, in mid-November, law students reported that the Law School’s administration announced that it would shut down its school-wide listserv at the end of the year. The administration made this announcement during a time when students were exchanging impassioned emails about Palestine and
Israel.599
Students faced an unnecessarily outsized police response to a pro-Palestine protest and sit-in organized on November 17, 2023.600 Based on video footage and news reports, over 50 police cars from over 10 police departments appear to have been dispatched to respond to the protest. Multiple individuals reported being physically harmed by police officers on the scene, with one student reporting that a police officer ripped off her hijab.601
By the end of the November 17 protest, over 40 student protesters were notified that they were barred from entering the Ruthven administrative building for one year.602 When some of those students requested an exemption for the sole purpose of attending the December 5 public meeting of the University Regents in Ruthven, the University of Michigan Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS) confirmed that they would not be allowed to attend — arguably a violation of the Open Meetings Act, M.C.L. § 15.263(6) (“A person must not be excluded from a meeting otherwise open to the public except for a breach of the peace committed at the meeting.”)603
Graduate students at the Biological Sciences Building reported that, in late November, the university directed custodial staff to remove signs that students had posted in their office windows. The signs included pro-labor messages and images of Che Guevara as well as statements such as “Stop the Genocide, Free Palestine” and “Killing People Is Bad.”604 Students reported that they had hung signs in these windows since well before October 7, and the university had not sought to remove them.605
The protests continued in 2024, but against a newly proposed university policy designed to regulate campus demonstrations.606 On April 3, 2024, the
University of Michigan published its proposed Disruptive Activity Policy, whose stated purpose is “to address disruption to University Operations so that all members of the University Community and guests may exercise their rights, including their right to hear from speakers; attend classes, activities, and open meetings; and participate as guests at University ceremonies.”607 The proposed policy stated that no person may “disrupt” university operations “by obstructing lines of sight, making loud or amplified noises, projecting light or images, or otherwise creating substantive distractions.”608
In failing to define the key terms “disrupt” and
“substantive distractions,” the proposed policy threatened to chill an unspecified but substantial amount of expressive activity that had long been accepted and even embraced in the campus environment but could be regarded by some as “disruptive” or “distracting.” After widespread backlash from the university community, the university abandoned its efforts to adopt the policy. However, during the 2024 summer break, the university quietly adopted the same restrictions on
“disruptive activity” in a new policy purporting to regulate on-campus facilities.609

On April 22, 2024, a coalition of University of Michigan students established an encampment on campus in connection with their ongoing protests demanding that the university divest its endowment from companies supporting Israel’s military operations in Gaza.610 The encampment persisted without significant police interference for nearly one month. But the university’s response to the encampment escalated significantly on May 21, 2024, when law enforcement and security personnel moved to clear the protest site. University officials provided written notices and issued three warnings over 15 minutes, instructing participants to leave voluntarily or face arrest. This included multiple warnings stating that the students were blocking pedestrian traffic. Students reported that they were in the middle of a religious service when they noticed police in full riot gear charging at them with batons, pepper spray, and other less-lethal weapons.611
On May 21, 2024, DPSS officers employed pepper spray during arrest operations, detaining four protesters.612 At least three protesters required hospitalization due to injuries sustained during the confrontation,613 including one student who was seriously injured when their head was slammed against concrete by police, and two students who were sent to the emergency room.614
Following these arrests, the Michigan attorney general’s office brought charges against 11 proPalestine protesters, nine of whom were arrested when police cleared the encampment.615 Some participants faced felony counts, including destruction of property and resisting or obstructing a police officer, with potential sentences ranging from one to four years in prison, and some were charged with misdemeanor trespassing for “failing to vacate the encampment.”616 Among those charged were undergraduate students, graduate researchers, and faculty members who had participated in what organizers characterized as a peaceful civil disobedience action involving the establishment of protest encampments on university property. In May 2025, the Michigan attorney general’s office dropped felony charges against  seven of the encampment protesters.617
The aggressive response to the protests continued after the encampment was cleared. Police made arrests at multiple peaceful pro-Palestine protests throughout 2024, including an August 28, 2024,
“die-in” demonstration near a student activity fair and an October 7, 2024, march through campus.618 In contrast, during the same academic year, no arrests were made and no criminal charges were filed against students who staged demonstrations related to different political issues, some of which disrupted campus events, including protests of university climate policies, demonstrations in support of university workers’ unions, and protests demanding that the university fund diversity,  equity, and inclusion initiatives.619
Throughout this span of protests, the University of Michigan also contracted with a private security firm to deploy undercover security guards and investigators across campus in an apparent attempt to conduct surveillance of pro-Palestinian campus groups. Tactics used by this private security force included following students both on and off campus, recording their activities, and monitoring their conversations.620 According to reported accounts from students, investigators cursed at students, made threats, and, in one documented incident, drove a vehicle toward a student who was forced to jump away to avoid injury.621 Public outcry over the private security force’s actions eventually caused the university to end its contract with the firm.622 In May 2026, a University of Michigan student sued the university, accusing it of hiring a private security contractor to conduct prolonged and intrusive undercover surveillance of him in
2024 and 2025.623
The university rules adopted in summer 2024 allow for campus surveillance and overreach by law enforcement, with policies that ban encampments while restricting the time, place, and shape of protests.624 Students and staff participating in peaceful demonstrations face surveillance and disciplinary action, including suspension and expulsion. In December 2024, students and alumni filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan, alleging it had violated the free speech and other constitutional rights of students protesting the Gaza war.625 They allege the school has specifically targeted pro-Palestinian demonstrators, subjecting them to disciplinary processes and suspensions.
In January 2025, University of Michigan administrators suspended Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE), a pro-Palestinian student organization, for two years. Administrators revoked the organization’s institutional funding due to members’ participation in divestment protests.626
The University of Michigan has banished many protesters from its main Ann Arbor campus —  and some protesters from all three of its Michigan campuses — for an entire year based on unproven suspicions and undisclosed evidence that student protesters violated university policies or criminal laws during on-campus protests.627 The University of Michigan DPSS authorizes University of Michigan Police Department (UMPD) officers to prohibit individuals from entering or remaining at locations on campus, including the entire Ann Arbor campus or even all three of the university’s campuses across Michigan, via a process it calls “trespass warnings.”628
An undergraduate student who was banned from all three campuses after participating in a proPalestine march on campus said, “For the simple act of using a megaphone to direct participants in a recent on-campus protest, campus police issued me a trespass ban that barred me from attending classes and stepping foot on any property within the entire UM system. While my ban has recently been amended to allow me to return to class finally, I’m still forbidden from participating in protests and student organizing meetings, attending lectures and events, and meeting professors, classmates, and friends in person.”629 In February 2025, five students and alumni who had been banned from the university’s Ann Arbor campus after they participated in pro-Palestine protests on campus sued the University of Michigan, alleging it had violated their constitutional rights by banning them from campus. The lawsuit, filed by the
ACLU of Michigan and the Sugar Law Center
for Economic and Social Justice, alleges that the bans, which prohibit the plaintiffs and others from stepping foot virtually anywhere on campus under threat of criminal prosecution for trespassing, unconstitutionally punish protesters and quell their First Amendment right to free speech and their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, which includes the right to travel through and remain in public spaces.630
University of Michigan administrators have also punished student and staff who have participated  in pro-Palestinian activism with other consequences, such as termination of campus employment. For instance, four student workers were terminated from campus employment in April 2025 due to their participation in the Gaza solidarity encampment, eliminating their primary source of income and, for those in work-study programs or scholarship-related employment, jeopardizing their ability to continue their education.631 In May 2025, eight University of Michigan employees filed suit against the university, alleging they had been fired and barred from ever working on campus in the future because of their participation in protests  in November 2023 and May 2024.632
On April 23, 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies conducted raids on several student organizers who were connected to the Gaza protests at the University of Michigan.633 In August 2025, the Michigan attorney general’s office began to subpoena students for grand jury testimony in new investigations into unspecific criminal activity by protesters — a move that student organizers and some faculty members called a politically motivated intimidation tactic.634
In August 2025, 11 students and alumni who participated in the encampment and other protests, including four against whom criminal charges were later dismissed, reported that they had been charged with violations of the university’s statement of student rights and responsibilities and were facing disciplinary probation, suspension, and reenrollment bans.635 The students and alumni,  who include leaders from Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, the Muslim Student
Association, the Arab Students Association, Jewish
Voice for Peace, and the Graduate Employees Organization, are facing disciplinary proceedings through the Office of Student Conflict Resolution.636 In September 2025, seven more students and alumni reported they had been charged with disciplinary violations by the Office of Student
Conflict Resolution and the new Office of  
Student Accountability.637
Faculty members have raised the alarm over these events, saying they threaten academic freedom and free speech, with some faculty facing potential discipline for their speech despite traditional academic freedom protections.638
columbia university
demonstrations calling for academic institutions to divest from what organizers and Amnesty
International characterize as Israeli apartheid.640

Columbia University is deemed “the activist Ivy” due to its historical identity as an Ivy League university with a highly politically active student culture known for engaging in protests in favor of racial justice, often at odds with its own institution.639 Since the mid-20th century,  Columbia students and student organizations across disciplines have engaged in large-scale protests demanding the university sever its institutional contributions to human rights violations and systemic oppression both within New York City and internationally. In keeping with this tradition, student activism in support of Palestinian rights began in October 2023 at Columbia University, sparking a multi-year, nationwide movement of campus anti-war  
History: 1968 Student Protests
Columbia students led large-scale protests throughout the late 20th century. In April 1968, over 300 Columbia students barricaded themselves inside five university buildings as part of two separate eight-day protests led by the student groups Society of Afro-American Students (SAS) and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).641 SDS’s occupation was in protest of Columbia’s ties to war strategy research and military recruitment for the Vietnam War while SAS’s occupation was in protest of Columbia’s continued gentrification of Harlem.642 After a week of occupation, Columbia President Grayson Kirk infamously called 1,000 New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers to remove protesters by force.643 NYPD officers brutalized student protesters through violent actions such as punching, trampling, kicking, and dragging them down the stairs.644 NYPD arrested 712 students during the protests; 148 students reported injuries sustained from the arrests.
In response to the 1968 protests and demands to protect student academic freedom, Columbia established the Student Governing Board (SGB) in January 1969,645 through which elected students oversee student organizations’ budgets and campus recognition, establish organization rules, and host and/or advertise on-campus events.646
Following the 1968 protests, Columbia students continued to demonstrate against what they claimed was the institution’s complicity in global human rights violations. Unlike in 1968, however, NYPD remained off campus. Their protests included the 1972 occupation of Hamilton Hall, where 60 students demanded an end to the Vietnam War and an examination of U.S. government business interests with apartheid South Africa.647 The 1972 protests ended with 48 students being charged with disciplinary suspension; only three were subjected to disciplinary hearings and were later pardoned by the university the following year.648 Columbia’s Hamilton Hall was once again the center of student protests in 1985, when more than 300 students blockaded the building for three weeks demanding that the university divest from companies doing business in apartheid South Africa and renaming the building “Mandela Hall.”649 The 1985 protests ended with 44 students receiving a one-semester disciplinary warning and Columbia fully divesting from South African companies.650
Another protest occurred at Hamilton Hall in  1987, when 40 students blockaded the building to protest the university’s response to racial tensions on campus.651 In 1996, Hamilton Hall was occupied for the last time in the 20th century, when 100 students occupied the building and Columbia’s  Low Library for four days, demanding the creation of the university’s Ethnic Studies Department, which is now 26 years old.652
2023: Special Committee on Campus  
Safety, CUAD Statement, and Suspensions
According to a Columbia University Senate report,653 following the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, in Israel and the beginning of Israel’s airstrikes on the Gaza Strip,654 Columbia senior leadership formed the Special Committee on Campus Safety, an ad-hoc committee consisting of departmental representatives from the offices of the president, provost, and general counsel.655 Its membership  was not made public until December 2023.
On October 9, 2023, Columbia University President Minouche Shafik issued a public statement addressing the “horrific attack on Israel this weekend and the ensuing violence that is affecting so many people.” 656 In response, the Columbia University chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) published an open letter to the university,657 calling for President Shafik to “divest from companies profiting from Israeli apartheid,” end partnerships with Israeli institutions, and “start verbally acknowledging Palestinian existence and suffering.”658
Eight days later, a diverse coalition of Columbia student groups including SJP and JVP held
a peaceful demonstration and temporary art installation on campus advocating for an end to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.659 President
Shafik and members of the Special Committee on Campus Safety suspended the student groups SJP and JVP for the remainder of the fall term. University leadership issued a statement on the suspensions that same day,660 citing that these groups “repeatedly violated University policies related to holding campus events, culminating in an unauthorized event [on November 9] that proceeded despite warnings and included threatening rhetoric and intimidation.” Under the conditions of these suspensions, SJP and JVP could not receive university funding and were prohibited from holding on-campus events.
Vice President Gerald Rosberg confirmed on November 12, 2023, that senior administrators implemented these suspensions through revision of campus event policies without input from the University Student Senate.661 The suspensions of these groups also were the result of university leadership bypassing the governing rules of the Student Governing Board (SGB), which require a rigorous multi-step procedure for discipline and includes the opportunity for groups to appeal against a sanction. Hundreds of students and faculty signed open letters in opposition to SJP and JVP’s suspension.662 The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) issued a letter to the Columbia administration in February 2024 calling on the university to reinstate both SJP and JVP chapters immediately.663 In March 2024, NYCLU and Palestine Legal filed a lawsuit against Columbia University challenging the unlawful summary suspensions of its SJP and JVP chapters for engaging in peaceful protest.664 The lawsuit argued that the university had violated its own policies and procedures to suppress student free speech, that its imposition of the serious penalty of suspension was plainly disproportionate to the minor violation of procedural rules the university invoked, and that SJP and JVP were targeted for punishment not because of the claimed rules infractions but because of the content of their advocacy.665 In November 2024, the New York State
Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit.666
protest outside Columbia University on February 2, 2024.
On November 14, 2023, a coalition of student groups called Columbia University Apartheid Divest Coalition (CUAD) was reactivated. The coalition stated this reversal was due to the university’s suppression of student demonstrations. CUAD noted in their statement, “The Columbia administration has set a dangerous precedent by erasing the Palestinian struggle through one-sided decisions and emails that threaten and suppress the voices of students who support justice for Palestine, enabling a violent, repressive environment that puts Palestinian students, as well as all their Arab, Muslim, Jewish, and BIPOC peers, at risk through surveillance and policing.”667  
In December 2023, the University Senate passed a resolution updating the university events policy to protect student protest and free speech;668 President Shafik and interim Provost Dennis Mitchell announced their collaboration on implementing  this resolution.669
2024: Chemical Substance and Task Force Report
In January 2024, 18 students attending a
“divestment now” rally on campus reported a putridsmelling substance that had permeated the crowd, which students described as “a really strong smell of poop mixed with decaying animal.”670 A 2024 Al-Jazeera documentary report noted that over half of the student protesters at the rally began experiencing physical symptoms such as nausea and headaches from the substance, requiring them to seek medical care.671 Student protesters told some media outlets that they believed this substance was likely “Skunk,”672 a chemical weapon used by the Israeli military to disperse crowds, often against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.673An eight-month investigation by Columbia concluded that the substance was a non-toxic novelty item;674 a former Israeli military soldier was charged with spraying the substance, for which he received a two-month interim suspension.675
In March 2024, the Columbia Task Force on
Antisemitism published its first report.676  The report concluded that the student protests prompted discomfort and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students. It also recommended greater enforcement of university protest policies to ensure Israeli and Jewish student safety.
2024: Student Encampments
On April 17, 2024, in response to President Shafik’s testimony at a House of Representatives hearing on antisemitism at Columbia,677 hundreds of students occupied Columbia’s South Lawn, beginning what would become a 14-day campus encampment protest.678 One student organizer noted in a recorded statement posted to the New York chapter of the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM)’s Instagram, “We set up this encampment today because Columbia University has continually refused to listen to the student body when we demand that they divest from the ongoing genocide
in Gaza.”679
On day two of the protest, President Shafik called in NYPD officers to sweep the encampment, marking the first time the NYPD was called to disperse student protesters since 1968.680 They did so in full riot gear, arresting over 100 students.681 NYPD Chief John Chell stated in a press conference that day, “To put this in perspective, the students that were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner.” 682 All protesters were released from police custody the same evening.683
Among the encampment spokespeople were Jewish students who affirmed their sense of interfaith solidarity within the encampment.684 During the encampment, students engaged in peaceful demonstrations, such as student-led cultural dances,685 guest speeches,686 art installations,687  and interfaith community spaces, including a large Kabbalat Shabbat service led by Jewish student protesters.688 In a statement to The New York Times, one of the Jewish student protesters stated, “To say that it is unsafe for Jewish people, to me, indicates that you’re only speaking about a certain portion  of Jewish people…We are totally opposed to any sort of antisemitic speech…we are here to, you know, stand in solidarity with Palestine. And we refuse  —  our Jewish members refuse  —  to equate that with antisemitism.”689
During the 14-day encampments, the Columbia and Barnard administrations began negotiating with the student protesters while also issuing disciplinary suspensions against them. Columbia allowed suspended protesters to stay in university housing690 while Barnard College evicted 53 suspended protesters from on-campus housing, giving them only 15 minutes to gather their belongings.691 Exactly one week into the protest, President Shafik suspended negotiations and announced a midnight deadline, threatening the protesters that if the deadline to come to an agreement with administration is not met, the university will consider “alternative options for clearing the West Lawn and restoring calm to campus so that students can complete the term  and graduate.”692
On day nine of the encampment, following visits from elected officials and students re-pitching their tents, hundreds of counter-protesters attended a “United for Israel” march on the sidewalk outside the Columbia campus gates. This counter-protest ended with reports of numerous pro-Israel protesters harassing proPalestine protesters, with Black and Jewish students reportedly especially being the target of this harassment. For example, in a report from the Columbia Daily Spectator, Jewish student protesters reported pro-Israel counter-protesters attempted to take off their masks while they were called “traitor[s]”, “fake jew[s]”, and “Nazi[s]”  while NYPD stood by.693 Thirty NYPD officers were called to line the pro-Israel march of hundreds of people, while even more officers lined up next to the pro-Palestine protesters.694  NYPD did not confirm any arrests during this counter-protest.
During the last few days of the encampment Columbia denied claims of lockdowns or evictions despite reports of student protesters being forced to leave their housing. On day 13 of the encampment, President Shafik issued a statement that Columbia will not divest from Israel.695 With the interim suspensions of students expiring that day, Columbia began to officially suspend student protesters as hundreds of students rallied against the suspensions on the South Lawn.696
On the final day of the encampment, Columbia locked down campus, threatening student protesters with expulsion if they did not cease their encampment.697 Later that evening saw the most direct parallel of the protests to the 1968 occupation of Hamilton Hall. Demonstrators once again occupied Hamilton Hall, demanding university divestment from Israel and renaming the building “Hind’s Hall” after Hind Rajab, a five-yearold Palestinian child killed by the Israeli military on January 29, 2024.698 Demonstrators occupied the building for 24 hours, locking the doors and barricading themselves inside. Students outside the building locked arms and stood in solidarity. In response, President Shafik once again notified the NYPD to forcibly remove the students. NYPD officers arrived that evening with drones and in full riot gear699 to surround the building along with members of its militarized unit, the Strategic Response Group, which has a documented history of using violence against protesters.700
Officers barricaded outside press from entering campus and threatened student journalists with arrest if they were to leave the journalism building to report on the events unfolding.701 Once they gained access to the building, officers proceeded to use force against the demonstrators, hitting them with batons and denying student press access to the area. NYPD arrested 300 demonstrators on charges of trespassing, criminal mischief, and burglary. NYPD proceeded to arrest students on Columbia’s campus and students who marched to other campuses such as City College, hitting, pushing, and shoving them away from Hamilton Hall and grabbing them by their arms and legs.702 Afterwards, New York City Mayor Eric Adams praised the NYPD’s work with the arrests.703 President Shafik also published her letter to the NYPD requesting their presence through May 2024, claiming the Hamilton Hall occupation was “led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University.”704
On August 14, 2024, President Shafik conceded to Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson’s demands and issued a statement announcing her resignation as university president.705
2025
In March 2025, President Donald Trump presented an ultimatum to Columbia, threatening to pull $400 million in university funding due to what his administration claimed was the university’s failure to protect Jewish students.706 That same month, former Columbia graduate student and lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in plain clothes and transported from New York City to an ICE detention center in Louisiana. The Trump administration sought to deport Khalil,707 stating he took part in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities,” due to his alleged participation in the 2024 Columbia student protests. Khalil remained in ICE custody for 104 days, missing the birth of his first child.708 With assistance from his legal team709 and an order for release from a federal judge, Khalil was finally released from ICE custody on June 20, 2025.710 Khalil’s case is described in more detail in the section of this report on the Trump administration’s campaign to deport students and scholars involved in Palestinian rights advocacy.
In a March 2025 letter to the Trump administration, Columbia University pledged to add 36 “special patrol officers” with arrest powers. Just weeks later, campus public safety officers cut or untangled students who had chained themselves to the campus’ wrought-iron gates, physically picked them up, and removed them from campus.711
In July 2025, Columbia University confirmed that its University Judicial Board (UJB) had punished over 70 students with sanctions for participating in two student protests, including a protest at the school’s Butler Library in May 2025 at which more than 80 protesters were detained.712 Columbia announced that “sanctions from Butler Library include probation, suspensions (ranging from one year to three years), degree revocations, and expulsions.”713 One student subject to these sanctions said that the charging documents issued by Columbia’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) against some of these students stated that “merely ‘discussing’ flyers regarding Hamas, armed resistance, or the intifadas constituted discriminatory harassment.”714 A Columbia student who was suspended for engaging in expressive activities in support of Palestinian rights said, “In the past two years, many of us have been suspended or expelled, with our futures hanging in the balance as a result of discriminatory disciplinary mechanisms across the University, such as the UJB, OIE, and [Center for Student Success and
Intervention, CSSI], that exist only to police pro-
Palestine behavior.”715

of the State University of New York (SUNY), in New York City on May 7, 2024. (CCNY)’s North Campus Quad in Harlem, New York, on April 25, 2024.  

city college of new York (ccnY)
Since October 2023, college students across New
York State have engaged in large-scale protests in support of Palestinian rights and demanding their universities’ divestment from Israel. Beginning with the student encampment at Columbia University, these protests quickly spread to other institutions, including City University of New York (CUNY) schools such as the City College of New York (CCNY).
Historically, CCNY has seen its fair share of student protests. On April 22, 1969, a Black- and Puerto Rican-led cohort of CCNY students effectively shut down campus for 17 days,716 with five demands related to racial justice, representation, and access for students of color.717 What began as a student strike escalated into a takeover of several campus buildings, effectively shutting down operations.
Then-President Buel Gallagher initially seemed open to negotiation,718 but as tensions rose, the Board of Higher Education — under pressure from Governor Nelson Rockefeller — intervened, pressuring Gallagher to resign. His successor, Joseph Copeland, immediately halted negotiations and threatened to use police force to remove protesters, effectively ending the occupation after 17 days.719 After the occupation ended, tensions remained high and led to clashes between white students who opposed the strike and the students who occupied Klapper Hall. The NYPD was deployed to campus, and while the occupation ended, the broader strike continued. Ultimately, students won several demands, including securing an open admissions policy and establishing ethnic studies departments across the CUNY system.720  
CUNY campuses have also been home to decades of organizing in support of Palestinian rights. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has been active at CUNY schools since the 1990s. Faculty members have often stood alongside students as vocal supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
(BDS) movement.721
As pro-Palestine protests gained momentum in spring 2024, students at CCNY held rallies and vigils on and off campus in support of Palestinian rights and demanding the university’s divestment from Israel. Throughout late 2023 and early 2024, these demonstrations were largely tolerated by the administration, with no major incidents or crackdowns on protest activity on campus.
That changed on April 25, 2024, when approximately 120 CUNY students and faculty members established an encampment on the CCNY quad with five demands: “disclose and divest,” “academic boycott,” “solidarity with Palestine,” “demilitarization of CUNY campuses,” and “free tuition.”722 On the first day of the encampment, reports indicate that the mood was calm, with a sparse presence of CUNY public safety officers. Notably, CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodriguez ordered CCNY security to leave the quad for the night.723 In the early days, there was some level of communication between protesters and the administration, with CCNY representatives meeting with student organizers.724
By April 27, reports indicate that the atmosphere began to shift. CUNY Public Safety erected metal barricades and began closing certain entrances to campus. CCNY administrators told reporters that there were no plans to restrict access entirely,725 but students reported otherwise. At around 9:00 p.m., several campus buildings were locked, including Marshak Hall, which encampment participants had been using for restroom access. By the end of the night, students’ calls for a meeting with Chancellor Rodriguez had gone unanswered.726
On April 29, CCNY Vice President Vince Boudreau released a memo informing the campus community of ongoing discussions between CCNY leadership and encampment representatives.727 In the memo, he stated that the administration was “working to minimize risks to people within the encampment” while also limiting disruption to college operations. This memo also claimed that protesters on campus were “falsely presenting themselves as City College Students.”728
The next morning, in response to Chancellor Rodriguez’s refusal to meet with representatives, student protesters attempted to bring their demands directly to an administrative building on campus.729 In response, CUNY police forcibly cleared the building, pepper spraying students and journalists.730 Later that day, CCNY administrators issued an email informing students that they had until 6:00 a.m. on May 1 to disperse. That night, the encampment held a public vote, unanimously deciding to remain.731
As night fell, dozens of community members arrived at the campus gates in anticipation of potential police action. According to a 1992 memorandum regarding CCNY collaboration with the NYPD,732 only a few high-ranking administrative officials are able to authorize a campus raid. By 6:30 p.m., police vehicles and arrest buses had surrounded CCNY, and all campus entrances were barricaded. Late that night, CCNY President Boudreau signed off on allowing the NYPD to enter campus.733
While students braced for a police crackdown, news broke that the NYPD was raiding the encampment at Columbia University just 20 blocks south. By 8:00 p.m., convoys of NYPD vehicles and officers arrived uptown at CCNY on foot.734 Among those officers were members of the Strategic Response Group, a militarized unit of the NYPD known for its abuse of protesters.735
Police began using force as hundreds of helmeted police officers descended on protesters who had linked arms outside the campus gates in support of protesters inside.736 Over the next hour, police tackled, pepper sprayed, and tased demonstrators.737 Many people were grabbed at random, as NYPD indiscriminately tackled and arrested protesters, trapping people on the sidewalk. Protesters, legal observers, and faculty were pushed further from campus amid the chaos.  
Despite the previously stated 6:00 a.m. dispersal deadline, NYPD officers breached the gates of CCNY around midnight. Students reportedly received no warning and were not given an opportunity to leave before the NYPD descended onto campus. NYPD officers barred press and legal observers from campus leading up to the raid, resulting in sparse documentation of the raid itself. According to a press release issued by CUNY for Palestine the following day, “Police broke the ankle of an undergraduate student, broke the teeth of two protesters, attacked and burned many students, faculty and at least one journalist with pepper spray at close range, and beat many more with batons.”738
By the end of the NYPD’s raid, 173 people were arrested.739 Despite the scale and intensity of  the crackdown, national media coverage largely  focused on Columbia, where 109 people were arrested.740 While the City College encampment  and surrounding protests were smaller in scale  than those at Columbia, they were met with an equal, if not more, aggressive police response.741  City College students, already fewer in number, were vastly outnumbered by the NYPD’s immense  show of force.
This disparity extended beyond the media narrative. City College protesters faced harsher legal consequences than their Columbia counterparts. Columbia arrestees were largely released with low-level misdemeanors, with the most severe charge against Columbia University protesters being criminal trespass,742 a Class B misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 90 days. In contrast, 28 protesters at City College were charged with burglary in the third degree, a Class D felony with a potential seven-year prison sentence.743 The vast majority of students arrested at Columbia were released within 24 hours, in compliance with caselaw. Some protesters were held for more than 48 hours.744 The majority of those arrestees were from CUNY. The contrast in treatment was stark. CCNY’s student body is predominantly working-class, Black, Brown, and immigrant. City College students faced significantly harsher legal consequences than their Columbia counterparts while simultaneously being largely excluded from the media narrative.
Over 500 CUNY faculty signed an open letter condemning the administration’s handling of the situation.745 They demanded that all charges against students be dropped and denounced the “disparate and exceedingly harsh use of force the NYPD unleashed upon the CCNY and other CUNY students.”746
More recently, on April 24, 2025, CUNY public safety officers and the NYPD quashed an attempt by students to establish a “Liberated Zone” on the campus quad. A group of several dozen proPalestinian protesters on the campus announced they had set up this protest zone around 2:00 p.m., but CUNY public safety officers and NYPD officers swiftly confronted the protesters and forced them out of the area, dousing some in pepper spray.747  At least one student was arrested. One video posted by a photojournalist showed a CUNY officer waving
the pepper spray at the crowd.748
tulane university
Shortly after the events of October 7, 2023, protests erupted on the campuses of Tulane University and Loyola University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Due to their close proximity to one another, students from both Tulane and Loyola would often collaborate and participate in demonstrations on each other’s campuses. While the protests that occurred throughout the school year were predominantly peaceful, instances of violence and confrontations with counter-protesters sometimes occurred. For instance, dueling protests on October 26, 2023, led to injuries and arrests of several protesters.749
Leading up to the events on October 26, the initial protest began when Tulane’s Students for Palestine group reportedly posted an open letter on its social media page calling out the Tulane administration’s response to the war in Gaza; the group also published a separate post promoting a rally set to take place two days later, on October 26, 2023, in a public space on the 6800 block of Freret Street and McAlister Drive, just off the university’s campus. According to media reports, more than 100 protesters responding to the call were met by 70–100 counter-protesters as several dozen
Tulane University Police Department (TUPD) and New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) officers observed the protests. The protesters and counter protesters largely chanted while holding signs on public sidewalks across from each other on Freret Street. Violence erupted when a pick-up truck drove down the middle of the street between the two groups; individuals in the bed of the truck waved a Palestinian flag while trying to light an Israeli flag on fire.750 Several members of TUPD, NOPD and Tulane faculty quickly intervened to break up a fight that began when at least one counter-protester tried to prevent the flag burning. According to Tulane University, several Tulane students suffered minor injuries and two members of the public who were not affiliated with the university were arrested.751 The demonstrations continued after this action and dissipated several hours later without
further incident.752
The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights opened an investigation into Tulane University in December 2023 for possible civil rights violations related to the incident, allegedly  for failing to protect Jewish students.753 In response to that complaint, Tulane immediately implemented policies such as mandatory antisemitism training for all incoming students  to ensure the protection of Jewish students.754  A second investigation was initiated by the same office in 2025 for “relentless antisemitic eruptions” and not upholding protections for Jewish students.755 Both investigations are ongoing  at the time of publication of this report.
According to one Loyola University student who was active in organizing and attending protests on both campuses, and whom the ACLU and AIUSA spoke with, many protests and direct actions prior to October 7, 2023, took place without any issue or requiring prior university administration approval. However, he noted that this changed on both campuses following the events of October 2023. According to students, both university administrations reportedly required prior approval of any protests; rescinded authorization for previously approved protests or events, often on the day of the event and without notice; required payment for law enforcement overtime to police events; or sanctioned individuals for unapproved events.756
Students from both schools held a walkout from classes on April 26, 2024, closing down parts of St. Charles Avenue near the campuses, demanding both institutions cut ties with companies linked to Israel or any businesses making money from the war in Gaza.757 This walkout took place several days prior to the erection of an encampment on Tulane’s campus, which lasted from April 29 until the early morning hours of May 1, 2024.  
On the evening of April 29, 2024, the Tulane and
Loyola chapters of Students for a Democratic Society along with other students held a rally and march between the two campuses and then formed an encampment outside of Gibson Hall at Tulane University, calling for a ceasefire and divestment  by the university, among other demands. According to a student involved in the encampment, there was a large NOPD police presence throughout the area, including some mounted police, along with campus police from both universities. An initial confrontation ensued when students attempted to create the encampment as several officers grabbed protesters and their tents, attempting to destroy them.758 TUPD officers then used unnecessary and excessive force to arrest six individuals who intervened to prevent the confiscation of their property.759 During the arrests of students and other protesters, the police allegedly threw individuals to the ground and one student was kicked in the head by a police horse.760 After the initial scuffle with law enforcement, students were able to erect 10 tents, along with food and water stations, while 300 people, including students from both schools and community members, held a line by linking arms throughout the night in order to keep university police from breaking up the encampment. NOPD and TUPD officers stood down and maintained a perimeter around the encampment.761 By the end of the night, everyone was released from police custody. The student who was kicked in the head by the horse was later charged with resisting arrest and banned from her dormitory as a result.762
The next morning, Tulane University President Michael Fitts characterized those arrested as people unaffiliated with the school and closed several buildings on campus near the encampment, moving classes online.763 The university also suspended seven students along with the school’s chapter of Students for a Democratic Society. According to a Loyola University student protester, a handful of students involved in the encampment started receiving emails saying they were suspended without any hearing. The students were subsequently banned from campus and removed from campus housing. This left them immediately unhoused and they had to move into short-term rental apartments once the encampment was destroyed.764

On April 30, the size of the crowd of protesters fluctuated throughout the day. The protesters reinforced the encampment with wooden pallets while TUPD officers maintained their perimeter around the encampment to prevent it from expanding; otherwise, TUPD did not engage with the protesters. Tulane University security set up an electronic billboard warning protesters that they were trespassing and had to leave immediately. A group of counter-protesters assembled on the sidewalk nearby. Encampment organizers claimed that several counter-protesters entered the crowd around the encampment, then called police claiming they were being “surrounded” and felt
“unsafe.” Police then entered the area to remove the counter-protesters, but otherwise took no action.765 The protest continued throughout the day with protesters holding discussions and prayers, chanting, singing, playing instruments, and dancing in solidarity with Palestinians. That afternoon, Tulane University security began playing music on a loop, reportedly at 120 decibels in violation of the 60-decibel limit under city ordinance.766  The music was played from speakers near the electronic billboard in an apparent attempt to drown out the protesters’ chants.767 The music was played all through the day and night. According to a Loyola student protester, “This was psychological torture. They were trying to get people to leave and keep them from resting or sleeping. I still hear it in my head to this day, almost a year later. This just shows steps they were willing to go [to end the protest].”768
The encampment continued peacefully for approximately 30 hours before local law enforcement violently dispersed it and arrested students and protesters in the early morning of May 1. Just after 3:00 a.m. that morning, while nearly 30–35 students remained in the encampment, law enforcement monitoring the protest seemed to pull back and disappear from the view of the encampment. Just a few minutes later, police from TUPD, NOPD and Louisiana State Police (LSP), including SWAT officers in full riot gear, re-emerged and surrounded the encampment.769 Two armored vehicles drove on to the university lawn on either side of the encampment, shining spotlights on
the area while officers with rifles stood in turrets on top of the vehicles and aimed their weapons at the students. As the heavily armed officers began to close the circle around the encampment, they informed protesters to move to a neutral area  on public land and they would not be arrested.770  Once the students realized a mass arrest was about to occur, most of the group moved to a median in front of the university along a streetcar line on St. Charles Avenue. Eleven protesters remained and sat down on the public sidewalk to await arrest.771
According to one witness, approximately 100 officers in full riot gear descended on the encampment and destroyed everything — the medical tent, library, barricades, and food and water supplies — and then cleared the encampment while shooting pepper balls and tear gas into tents to ensure no one was inside. LSP officers then formed a line and pushed towards the group on the median off campus. They proceeded to push students back while NOPD officers formed a line in front of the students seated on the sidewalk, blocking the view of the media who were posted in Ottoman Park across the street. TUPD officers then made arrests. According to one witness, some of the arrests involved excessive force, such as pinning people’s arms back in uncomfortable positions, restraining them in overly tight zip ties, and holding people against fences. The protesters were arrested in small groups; some of the students on the sidewalk had rifles pointed in their faces by NOPD and LSP. Police then turned towards those on the median as the officers pushed and aimed their weapons at the protesters, firing non-lethal rounds towards the ground near their feet.772 Several more people on the median were then violently arrested. One person was pushed on to the street, hitting their head on the streetcar line and reportedly suffering a concussion. Another student who was not involved in the encampment or protests was working on their final art project and went outside, not realizing they had walked into the violent breakup of a protest. While the student was watching what was happening from the sidewalk on St. Charles Avenue, police reportedly tackled them to the ground and threw them into the police van.773
The police made 14 arrests in total, including two students.774 After the area around Gibson Hall was cleared, police erected fences around the area with signs warning of trespassing.775 All of those arrested that morning were released later that same afternoon without bail or bond.776 The 14 individuals were charged with misdemeanor trespassing and were later acquitted following a one-day trial on September 20, 2024.777 Similarly, the six individuals who were arrested during the first night of the encampment faced charges, including trespassing; one individual was charged with resisting arrest and battery of an officer. All had their charges either dropped, dismissed, or resolved with an acquittal at trial after an extended period of time, in some cases as long as a year following the incident.778 The week following the raid, several groups spoke out against Tulane University’s actions to dismantle the encampment. For instance, on May 2, 2024, nearly 300 Tulane University faculty wrote a letter to the university president, opposing the summoning of law enforcement to dismantle the encampment, the suspensions and charges against student protesters, and the threats of retaliatory action against students who engage in peaceful protests.779 Similarly, on May 10, 2024, approximately 250 Jewish community members signed a letter condemning the university’s forceful response to the encampment.780
Seven Tulane students faced university disciplinary charges for their involvement in the encampment. Two students had their interim suspensions from school for the remainder of the semester upheld and appealed the decision in September 2024. They were ultimately suspended for a full semester. Of the remaining five students, one graduated, another transferred, two ultimately received lesser sanctions, and one deferred their case until the resolution of their criminal charge; their case was eventually dropped by Tulane University in July 2025. The Tulane student group Students for a Democratic Society was also suspended until mid-2025.781
Since the establishment of the encampment, there have been several protests, but the university has attempted to suppress them from happening
or punish students afterward. For instance, the suspended Students for a Democratic Society, reformed as the off-campus group Together United Students for a Democratic Society, held a protest on a public street near the campus on March 11, 2025. Approximately 40 people attended to protest the Trump administration’s executive orders against student protests, Tulane’s recent renaming of the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, and the arrest of Mahmoud Kalil. On March 19, 2025, Tulane University charged seven students with misconduct for allegedly attending the off-campus protest because the off-campus student group is
“not in good standing with the University and is prohibited from operating on campus.”782 On June 9, 2025, Tulane ultimately dismissed the disciplinary charges against the seven students.783 Due to the actions of the university against protesters in support of Palestinians and against the war in Gaza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) designated Tulane University a “Hostile Campus” for Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and allied students.784
The Louisiana state government moved to restrict the right to protest on campuses following the encampments of spring 2024. Shortly after the protests, in June 2024 the Louisiana legislature passed Senate Bill 294, and in October 2024 Governor Jeff Landry signed it into law as Act 584. The law specifically prevents any campus free speech policies from protecting any act that carries a criminal penalty, such as acts of civil disobedience.785

Lawsuits were filed against Tulane University by at least two groups since the protests took place. In May 2025, a Tulane graduate student sued the university and a former member of its police force, alleging that the police officer misrepresented the student’s actions when he was arrested after the demolition of the encampment protest in May 2024. Although the student was found not guilty at trial, the university determined that he had violated its conduct standards, and he has not been able to complete his doctoral studies.786 In July 2024, Tulane’s Arabic Club and four members of the suspended chapter of Students for a Democratic Society filed a federal civil-rights complaint saying they faced anti-Palestinian discrimination, including during the protests against Israel that took place in 2023 and 2024. The complaint alleges that Tulane violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and that the university responded to the demonstrations with “disproportionate aggression,” adding that at least two Tulane students were injured when police cleared the encampment. It also says the university failed to protect Palestinian students from harassment as tensions on campus escalated during the Israel-Hamas war, and that school leaders have done little to combat or even acknowledge mistreatment of Palestinian students.787 The case is still ongoing at the time  of publication.
university of texas at Austin
faculty, staff, and local community members.  
Following the events of October 7, 2023, University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) student groups, staff, and faculty, in conjunction with community members, engaged in a series of peaceful protests, walk outs, and teach-ins on campus throughout the remaining school year.788 However, as multiple universities across the country began to crack down on these protests and actions and following the dismantling of Columbia University’s encampment and its mass arrests on April 18, 2024, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and then UT-Austin President Jay Hartzell took action to prevent further demonstrations or occupations from occurring on UT campuses, suppressing the rights to free speech and peaceful protest of students,
On April 23, 2024, the Palestine Solidarity Committee, a student group at UT-Austin, called on students to walk out of class and occupy the South Lawn on campus in protest of the university and its investment in companies that support Israel’s government.789 The protest was scheduled for the next day. The university’s Office of the Dean of Students emailed the student group’s leaders that evening prohibiting them from holding the event and stating that the university “will not allow this campus to be ‘taken’ and protesters to derail our mission in ways that groups affiliated with your national organization have accomplished elsewhere.”790
On the morning of April 24, 2024, the university provost sent an email to the Dean’s Council preemptively stating the protest violated university policies and would not be allowed to occur. More than 500 students walked out of their classes that morning to protest and to demand that the university divest from manufacturers supplying Israel weapons for its strikes on Gaza. Law enforcement officers from the UT-Austin campus police, Austin Police Department (APD), and Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) were already present and visible on campus. DPS officers were lined up along the campus’ Speedway Mall on horseback and motorcycles while other DPS troopers in full riot gear, armed with batons and less-lethal crowd control weapons, separated crowds that formed. Students who arrived at the scene began protesting shortly before noon, chanting “Free, Free Palestine,” banging drums, and waving Palestinian flags. After negotiations between the protest organizers and campus police stalled, DPS troopers began making individual arrests among the crowd of protesters.791 Students were accused of moving into the roadways. The first to be arrested was one of the protest organizers. After that, police handcuffed more students using plastic zip ties. Officers armed with batons formed a line and proceeded to push protesters back, with many tumbling to the ground.792 As more arrests were made, law enforcement officers were seen kneeling on individuals’ backs and necks, pulling their hair and in one case punching
a protester in the face.793 Other protesters were violently pushed to the ground and detained.794
Shortly thereafter, DPS issued a dispersal order because the roadway was blocked. Protesters were surrounded and kettled before being given a chance to leave the area. As the protesters moved towards the South Mall for the latter part of the demonstration, set up tents with food, and began peacefully protesting, DPS, APD, and campus police continued to push the crowd further through the quad. They used their shields, deployed officers on horseback, and carried batons, violently detaining and arresting students along the way. Students were then cordoned off to one side of the South Mall. Individual arrests were made periodically until approximately 5:20 p.m. when the university issued a dispersal order, claiming that students were engaged in disorderly conduct, creating a “riot,” and blocking a roadway. However, observers, including university professors, described the protest as a peaceful chanting of slogans. By 6:00 p.m., the protesters had largely dispersed and most of the law enforcement personnel left the campus. The protest resumed once law enforcement left the area and continued until approximately 7:00 p.m. without incident, according to observers.795
At least 57 people were arrested throughout the day on charges of criminal trespass, according to the Travis County Sheriff’s Office, including a photojournalist who was covering the events.796 DPS claimed the photojournalist struck an officer with his camera while covering the protest when he was caught between protesters and police.797 He was originally charged with a felony for assaulting an officer; the charge was later dropped and reduced to two misdemeanor counts of assault and interference with public duties.798 Charges against all of the protesters were dismissed by the Travis County District Attorney’s Office within the next 48 hours.799 Responding to the day’s events, Governor Abbott claimed that the protesters “belong in jail” and that any students taking part in “hate-filled, antisemitic protests” at public colleges should be
expelled.800
Similar protests occurred at the Main Building on the UT-Austin campus, known as the UT Tower, on April 25 and 26 with hundreds of students, faculty, and staff gathering, and concluded without incident or arrests.801
A protest similar to the one on April 24 was planned to take place on April 29, 2024. Again, the administration made it clear that the protest was not authorized and summoned law enforcement to break up the demonstration.802 Shortly before 1:00 p.m. that afternoon, 50–60 protesters carrying tables, tents, and other materials attempted to set up an encampment in the center of the South Mall on campus, chanting “Free Palestine.”803 One person whom the ACLU and AIUSA spoke with described the scene as a “war zone” with all of the different law enforcement agencies and officers on campus.804 Despite the protest being peaceful, UT-Austin campus police issued its first dispersal order, claiming that the protesters were violating the Texas Penal Code on disorderly conduct and that individuals would be arrested if they did not leave. DPS officers began to circle the encampment, while more DPS officers assembled near the Mall. State troopers wore face shields and carried batons and zip ties. They stood arm in arm to create a physical barrier between the UT Tower and the lawn. APD officers were also present on campus and were involved in controlling the crowds. As the encampment swelled to about 100 people, approximately an hour after the protest began, officers began arresting protesters, dragging some away by their arms and legs.805 A community member who was involved in the protests said he never planned on being arrested that day, and would have left if he had heard an audible order to disperse, but claimed he never heard one, nor did he hear a warning that force would be used before arrests started:
I would have decided to leave because I didn’t prepare to be arrested. They didn’t give us a choice, they just rushed in and grabbed people one after another and I was trying to help my colleagues and pull back the people getting arrested. Police saw me prevent arrests and they pointed at me and took me next. They were super violent. When they grabbed me, I grabbed the person next to me and an officer pried my fingers backwards and told me to ‘let go or I am going to break your fingers.’ I was not hurt at all, but they were super violent and I saw some of my comrades getting injured.806
Two hours after the protest began, law enforcement began to remove the last remaining protesters and tents following a third order to disperse. As the arrested protesters were led onto buses to be taken to Travis County Jail for processing, approximately two dozen protesters formed a chain across Inner Campus Drive in order to block the buses from leaving. Law enforcement gave a warning, telling protesters they had “two minutes” to clear the roadway before officers on motorcycles drove into the chain of people. Officers also deployed pepper spray and flash bangs to clear the roadway.807 Authorities arrested 79 people in total: 78 were charged with criminal trespassing, including one who was additionally charged with obstructing a highway or passageway, and the 79th person was charged with interfering with public duties. People were released the following day, but some were held for as long as 40 hours after arrest.808 All of the charges were dropped nearly two months later by the Travis County District Attorney’s Office.809 Despite the nonviolent nature of the protests, reviews through body cameras and litigation raise questions about the lawfulness of the arrests and the use of force that was deployed against protesters on those two days.810
The university stated that 60 students in total were arrested at the protests on April 24 and 29.811 Those arrested were immediately banned from campus except for “academic reasons.”812 UT-Austin issued disciplinary punishments against the students who were arrested, including probations and suspensions. In July 2024, the university formally informed at least three students arrested during the protests that they would be placed on deferred suspension if they accepted responsibility for their actions and agreed to follow the school’s policies in the future.813 A fourth student was notified that they were suspended for two years for allegedly damaging property by hanging up signs on UT property that reportedly “necessitate(d) further clean-up and restoration.”814 Several students filed lawsuits against the university and the governor, alleging violations of their rights to free speech and challenging their disciplinary punishments.815 One of the students is a protest organizer who initially acted as a mediator between law enforcement and the protesters. He was one of the first people arrested at the April 24 protests — before he could even encourage the protesters to disperse, as there were no exit points for students to leave. He sued the school in August 2024, claiming that the university violated his First Amendment rights when he was arrested. He was suspended from the university for three semesters, barring him from entering the campus and completing any academic work.816 In April 2025, four students sued the university and Governor Abbott, accusing UTAustin President Jay Hartzell, the governor, and law enforcement officers of intentionally suppressing pro-Palestinian speech at the April 24, 2024, campus protest.817
The Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, a UT-Austin committee of professors of history, law, and education that provides advice to the university administration and investigates possible policy violations, issued a report in August 2024, finding that university leaders violated their own institutional rules when calling police to respond to the April 2024 protests.818 The Committee found that the university failed to follow its own rules in response to the protests, specifically rules enshrining the right to free speech. The report states the university did not make enough of an effort to find a “cooperative resolution” before calling police to respond to demonstrations.819
The university alleged protesters violated approximately 10 institutional rules, including  the use of unauthorized amplified sound, using masks to conceal their identities, and attempting  to set up an encampment.820 The university also cited additional rule violations, including disrupting learning, when disciplining students.821 The report analyzed each rule the university alleged had been broken, and ultimately determined that protesters had not violated them. The Committee called on the university administration “1) to uphold the Institutional Rules as they are written, and to apply them in a way that preserves the greatest latitude for the freedoms those rules, as well as state and federal law, are intended to provide; 2) to act in a way that de-escalates rather than escalates conflict; 3) to avoid criminalizing legal actions of students and UT community members, such as calling law enforcement against them and using restraining measures against them, and to use citation rather than arrest as a first response, if warranted.”822 The Committee also provided six specific recommendations for the university administration, including:
• no proactive prior restraint of free speech and active engagement with protest organizers;
• withdrawal of its rule on face coverings in light of COVID-19 and doxxing of protesters;
• clarification of its rules on “weapons” at  protests in light of Texas’ law on firearms;
• adoption of a policy of using criminal charges only as a last resort and only against persons who can be shown to have individually engaged in specific criminal acts, and to provide citations for failure to disperse, rather than criminal charges;
• establishment of a nonviolent conflict resolution process to address citations issued for nonviolent protest violations; and
• review of the university’s disciplinary procedures, especially when freedom of  speech and expression issues are involved.823 In summer 2024, UT-Austin updated several of  its free speech policies on campus. Among several changes, UT-Austin adopted the working definition and examples of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) into its free speech policies, and expanded on policies around “disruption” on campus, such as allowing university staff to search containers to look for prohibited items. If the owner refused the search, the new rules would allow the university to remove them from the vicinity. The university expanded the preexisting preclusion of “expressive activities” beyond 10 feet from any university building and added a paragraph mandating compliance with orders to disperse from university officials or  law enforcement. Lastly, the university updated  its “amplified sound” policies, prohibiting the use  of amplified sound in common outdoor areas during the week of or before final exams and limiting its use from 8 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. daily,  with exemptions for university-related activities.824
In 2025, in response to the protests, Texas state lawmakers passed, and Governor Abbott signed, bills that severely limit the right to protest on UT-system campuses. For instance, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 2972, which restricts anyone who participates in a protest on campus from using microphones or other amplification devices during class hours if those devices intimidate others or interfere with campus operations or police work.825 The law strikes a key provision of a 2019 Texas bill, Senate Bill 18, that established all common outdoor spaces on public campuses as traditional public forums where anyone can engage in expressive activity — instead leaving it to individual college administrators to determine which areas are considered public forums. It also restricts language from Senate Bill 18 allowing all persons, including people not affiliated with the university, to engage in expressive activities on campus and instead covers only “students enrolled at and employees of an institution of higher education.”826 Under Senate Bill 2972, university administrators will determine whether members of the public are permitted to protest on campus.827 Protesters will also be prohibited from wearing disguises and erecting tents and will have to identify themselves when asked by a university official or the police. Lastly, and most concerningly, the bill prohibits
all “expressive activities” on public campuses from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. “Expressive activity” is defined so broadly that it could include many non-protest activities, such as wearing a shirt with an expressive message or engaging in individual political discussions.828 The ACLU of Texas commented  on the bill’s passage, stating:
S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs. This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus — undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public.829
The legislature also enacted Senate Bill 37, which weakens the opportunity for shared governance on UT campuses.830 Under this law, faculty senates at public universities and colleges can exist only if permitted by the institutions’ governing boards — the oversight bodies whose members are politically appointed by the state governor. Administrators can remove faculty for failing to conduct their duties within vague “senate parameters,” limiting faculty members’ roles in academia on campus. The law also installs a governor-appointed “ombudsman,” with sweeping enforcement powers, charged with monitoring compliance with state laws and provided with the authority to recommend that a public university or college lose all state funding unless it comes into compliance.831 Lastly, the legislature passed, and Governor Abbott signed, Senate Bill 326, which requires schools to use the working definition and examples of antisemitism  by the IHRA when considering disciplinary actions for a student.832 As discussed earlier in this report, the IHRA definition has come under intense scrutiny for conflating criticism of the state of Israel and Israeli government actions with antisemitism, stifling free speech.
The Trump Administration’s Crackdowns on Pro-Palestine Speech and Universities
That Were Sites of Student Activism
In fall 2023, students from diverse racial, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds began to mobilize on their campuses, many staging protests criticizing what they characterized as their universities’ and the U.S. government’s unwavering support for Israel’s policies. Protesters included Jewish students who sought to convey the message that such policies were “not in our name.” In response, opponents of these students’ messages — including President Donald Trump
— have frequently characterized peaceful protest and any speech in favor of Palestinian rights as inherently supportive of Hamas and antisemitic.
The Trump administration has leveraged several federal agencies and departments in its escalating campaign against pro-Palestine speech and activism on campus. With the stated goal of combating antisemitism, the administration has deployed the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Education, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, and General Services Administration to suppress free speech on campus.
The Trump administration created a three-agency task force aimed at ending antisemitism on college campuses. Armed with an executive order that redefines antisemitism to include critiques of the state of Israel, the task force has targeted at least 60 colleges and universities, cutting or threatening to cut funding at these institutions.833
The Trump administration has weaponized Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in any activity or program receiving federal financial assistance, using the civil rights law as a tool to undermine free speech, suppress criticism of Israel, and defund higher education. The administration has encouraged the Department of Education to consider protected speech in determining whether any actionable harassment under Title VI, including allegations that the school is responsible for a “hostile environment,” was motivated by antisemitism.834
Wrongly equating protected political speech with unprotected discrimination, the administration has alleged violations of Title VI to cut funding or threaten to cut funding from universities that have been sites of student protests, because the administration deemed these universities to have failed in their obligation to protect Jewish students from harassment. While combating antisemitism is a worthy goal, the administration’s overbroad reading of what constitutes actionable harassment under Title VI instead violates the First Amendment by forcing universities to censor political speech the administration cannot constitutionally restrict.
At Columbia University, the Trump administration preemptively cut $400 million of federal funding. In response, the university agreed to the administration’s demands rather than fighting back, even though those orders were likely to have been blocked by the courts. Columbia’s capitulation only emboldened the administration to keep up these kinds of attacks. A few weeks later, the administration sent a similar demand letter to Harvard University. The demands were so extreme that they would have effectively put the university’s governance in the hands of the federal government. Harvard sued, and in retaliation, the administration threatened the university’s tax-exempt status and froze $2.2 billion in grants as well as a $60 million contract to Harvard for its refusal to comply.835  At other universities, the task force made specific requests targeting professors, students, and speech, detailed below, relying on Title VI to press for agreements far beyond the statute’s scope.
The Trump administration’s decision to withhold federal research grants from universities due to their refusal to conform to the government’s preferred ideological approach is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Because the administration is taking adverse actions that are substantially motivated by the universities’ disfavored speech, these actions constitute retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and impermissible government action by coercing private parties to censor their own speech and that of others. The government cannot condition federal funding on ideological conformity in ways that are unrelated to the purpose of the federal funding program, or to coerce ideological conformity outside the confines of the federally funded activities.
The government’s use of federal funding to intrude upon a private university’s academic governance and to dictate scholarly discourse directly conflicts with the basic understanding of academic freedom. Federal officials violate foundational academic freedom principles and First Amendment rights when, as here, they coerce a university to forfeit its institutional autonomy “to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.”836 Equally, federal officials violate academic freedom principles and the First Amendment when they force scholars to “better manifest the government’s favored worldview,” whether the government regulates their research and teaching directly or instead bullies their university into doing its academic-freedominfringing dirty work.837
The Trump administration has violated broader
First Amendment principles as well. The First Amendment protects all private speakers and institutions from viewpoint-based discrimination, coercion, and retaliation, even as it specifically protects colleges, universities, and their professors from infringements on academic freedom.838 It prohibits the government from forcing any private actor to express the government’s preferred views,839 from leveraging federal funds in a viewpoint-based way, and from seeking to control speech outside of the scope of a governmentfunded program.840 The administration’s conduct has crossed each of those lines.
The withdrawal or limitation of funds is governed by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “The Government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected…freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit,” including by attempting to “regulate speech outside the contours of the federal program itself.”841 It follows that “ideologically driven attempts to suppress a particular point of view are presumptively unconstitutional in funding, as in other contexts.”842 Thus, “even in the provision of subsidies, the Government ‘may not aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas’” or “disfavored viewpoints,”843 much less “‘manipulate[]’ [a subsidy] to have a ‘coercive effect.”844
The administration’s actions violate each of these rules: They leverage huge sums of money to push the targeted universities into restricting speech by curtailing the independence of professors to fashion their own courses; they deny a private university the benefit of federal research funding because the university does not align with the administration’s vision of what “innovative research,” “academic excellence,” and “viewpoint diversity” should look like on a college campus;  and they seek to regulate speech far outside of  the scope of the federal research grants that  have been revoked.

More than 600 college and university presidents signed a letter denouncing the Trump administration’s “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” with higher education, noting “we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.”845 The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), a 50,000-member organization representing faculty across the United States, stated, “These escalating threats and actions are a concerted effort to shut down the ability of students and faculty to teach, research, and advocate for issues of grave concern. The cumulative effect is to coerce colleges and universities to censor themselves and to only advocate perspectives preferred by those with access to the levers of power…. This authoritarian strategy of weaponizing accusations of antisemitism is being used to silence campus speech and corrupt academic freedom.”846
On August 18, 2026, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee released explosive whistleblower allegations from a former career DOJ Civil Rights Division lawyer of nearly a decade and several other experienced career DOJ civil rights attorneys temporarily assigned to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to work on Title VI investigations undertaken by the Trump administration’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.847 The whistleblowers’ complaint detailed their allegations that Trump administration political appointees manipulated federal antisemitism investigations to target certain American universities, punish protected speech, and coerce schools into settlements despite government investigators’ findings that there was insufficient evidence to establish any Title VI violations.848 The whistleblowers described political appointees overruling career investigators and pursuing investigations with “predetermined” outcomes and findings unsupported by the evidence. They alleged that senior Trump administration officials intended to use hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding as leverage against universities regardless of investigative findings, as detailed below in the section titled,
“Withdrawal of Federal Funding and Attempted
Hostile Ideological Takeovers of Universities.”849  
executive Orders targeting  non-u.S. citizen Scholars and Students for exercising their  
First Amendment rights
Through executive orders issued on President Trump’s first day in office and other communications from the White House, the Trump administration has attempted to pressure university officials to target non-U.S. citizen students, faculty, and staff for their political speech and protest activity, in violation of the First Amendment. These non-U.S. citizens include holders of non-immigrant visas as well as lawful permanent residents or others on a path to U.S. citizenship.
Executive Order 14161, titled “Protecting the
United States from Foreign Terrorists and other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” signed on January 20, 2025, states that it is the United States’ policy to “protect its citizens” from noncitizens who “espouse hateful ideology,” and to ensure that noncitizens “do not bear hostile attitudes toward [America’s] citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.”850 The order directs the Secretary of State to “[r]ecommend any actions necessary to protect the American people from” noncitizens who, among other things, “preach or call for…the overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands.”851
Executive Order 14188, titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” signed on January 29, 2025, requests from the Attorney General “an inventory and analysis of all court cases…involving institutions of higher education alleging civil-rights violations related to or arising from post-October 7, 2023 campus anti-Semitism” and directs the
Secretaries of State, Education, and Homeland Security to recommend ways to “familiariz[e] institutions of higher education with the grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities” by noncitizen students and staff and ensure that such reports lead “to investigations  and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens.”852 In an accompanying fact sheet explaining Executive Order 14188, the White House described the order as “forceful and unprecedented,” made clear its purpose of targeting “leftist, anti-American colleges and universities,” and described it as a “promise” to “quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have  been infested with radicalism like never before.”853
In combination, these orders, the accompanying fact sheet, and other communications from the Trump administration were intended to enlist university officials in censoring and punishing noncitizen scholars and students for their speech and scholarship. The message is clear, regardless of whether the force of law will ultimately follow: Immigrant students, faculty, and staff on college and university campuses should think twice before they criticize the United States or the Trump administration, express support for Palestinians, or condemn Israeli government policies — or indeed anything else President Trump and other federal officials might possibly find objectionable — and colleges and universities that allow such speech, debate, and protest should think twice, too.
While it is important to address antisemitism, these executive orders have failed to do so.854 Instead, they seem to target pro-Palestinian scholars and students who are exercising their rights to free expression and peaceful assembly, and set in motion the Trump administration’s subsequent targeting of international students and scholars for arrest, detention, and deportation based on their political views, as detailed later in this report.855
campus Visits by the Federal task Force to combat Anti-Semitism
On February 28, 2025, the Trump administration announced that the Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism would be making visits to 10 campuses that had experienced “antisemitic incidents” since October 2023.856 Created pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14188,
“Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” the multi-agency Task Force set as its first priority
“to eradicate antisemitic harassment in schools and on college campuses.”857 U.S. officials said the Task Force had notified leaders in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston that it wanted to meet and discuss incidents in which colleges in their cities may have failed to protect Jewish students from discrimination.858 The 10 universities identified by the Task Force were Columbia University; George Washington University; Harvard
University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern University; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California.859
At the same time, Leo Terrell, Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and the head of the Task Force, threatened to file federal hate crime indictments against pro-Palestinian campus activists for “supporting Hamas and trying to intimidate Jews.”860 In a statement to Israel’s Channel 12 News, Terrell said, “You see all these disorderly demonstrations, supporting Hamas and trying to intimidate Jews? We are going to put these people in jail — not for 24 hours, but for years.”861
Abuse of title VI Investigations and consideration of constitutionally protected Speech in determining Whether Schools have Violated title VI
Wrongly equating constitutionally protected political speech with unprotected discrimination, the Trump administration has alleged violations of Title VI to cut funding or threaten to cut funding at universities that have been sites of student protests, because the administration deems these universities to be failing in their obligation to protect Jewish students from harassment.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education have opened or threatened to open numerous Title VI investigations into universities for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.862 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance, including programs in elementary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of higher education. The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Title VI by investigating and resolving complaints that students or others are being subjected to hostile environments or otherwise being discriminated against on campus because of their race, national origin, or other traits protected under civil rights laws. While Title VI does not apply to discrimination based solely on religion, OCR has interpreted it to extend to discrimination against individuals who are members of a “discrete religious group that shares, or is perceived to share, ancestry or ethnic characteristics.”863 The federal government has long interpreted and applied Title VI — through both Republican and Democratic administrations — to prohibit harassment or discrimination against Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs, as well as others, when that discrimination is based on the group’s actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.864
Title VI plays an important role in protecting students from discrimination because of their race, color, national origin, or other traits protected under civil rights laws. OCR may hold an educational institution responsible for a “hostile environment” based on student-on-student harassment if such harassment “is subjectively and objectively offensive and is so severe or pervasive that it limits or denies a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from” an educational opportunity and the institution received actual or constructive notice of the hostile environment and
“failed to take prompt and effective steps” to combat it.865 Whether student-on-student harassment amounts to a hostile environment depends on the totality of the circumstances, which includes the
age of the persons involved.866 OCR and federal courts have long recognized that Title VI must be applied in conformance with the constitutional standards enshrined in the First Amendment.867 These constitutional limitations apply to Title VI actions pertaining to both public and private educational institutions.
In total, OCR has opened more than 100 investigations into allegations of a hostile educational environment based on antisemitism at colleges and universities since October 7, 2023 (24 such investigations were opened in all previous years combined).868 There were incidents that likely merited Title VI investigations. Jewish students expressed fear and concern for their safety and wellbeing related to antisemitism, including antisemitic harassment on their campuses.869 Likewise, Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian students reported fears for their personal safety and concerns related to antiMuslim and anti-Arab bias and harassment on their campuses.870 Moreover, on its face, the executive order requiring a focus on actual Title VI violations with a priority for antisemitic incidents does not itself raise legal problems and simply reflects administration priorities. However, it is the Trump administration’s use of Title VI investigations and enforcement actions to suppress protected speech and chill or encroach on the exercise of free expression by students or other members of educational communities, and the use or threat of Title VI investigations to coerce universities into over-censoring, that is problematic.
In February 2025, OCR announced it had directly initiated and opened investigations into “widespread antisemitic harassment” at five universities, pursuant to Title VI and “in furtherance of President Trump’s Executive Order on Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism.”871 The universities under Title VI investigations were Columbia University; Northwestern University; Portland State University; the University of California, Berkeley; and the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.872
In March 2025, OCR warned 60 universities that if they did not fulfill their Title VI obligations to protect Jewish students on campus, they could face “potential legal enforcement actions.”873 Many universities said they did not know why they were on the list of universities under investigation.874 Nearly one-third of the listed universities had never received complaints from the Trump administration or had resolved any earlier complaints.875
President Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order
14188, “Additional Measures to Combat AntiSemitism,” 876 reaffirmed his 2019 Executive Order 13899, “Combating Anti-Semitism,” which directed all federal agencies to address “discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism” as vigorously as other forms of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.877 President Trump’s 2019 executive order mandated that in enforcing Title
VI, federal agencies must consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s “nonlegally binding” working definition of antisemitism.
The Trump administration adopted the use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism during Trump’s first term. Executive Order 13899 requires federal agencies to consider the IHRA working definition of antisemitism when enforcing Title VI. Moreover, Congress is making efforts to codify the use of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism through the Antisemitism Awareness Act (S. 558/ HR 1007). If passed, this legislation would require the Department of Education to take the IHRA definition of antisemitism into account when determining whether Title VI has been violated.878  
By considering protected speech in determining whether any actionable harassment under Title VI, including allegations that the school is responsible for a “hostile environment,” was motivated by antisemitism, the Department of Education would be equating protected political speech with unprotected discrimination. As discussed in more detail earlier in this report, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism defines core political speech — namely, criticism of the state  or government of Israel — as per se antisemitic.
A determination of a violation may ultimately lead to cuts to school funding. Yet until the Trump administration’s recent actions in 2025 and 2026, it was highly unusual for the Department of Education to take such action as part of OCR’s Title
VI enforcement process: A 2019 Congressional Research Service analysis could not find any OCR orders to terminate federal funding under Title VI in the previous 25 years.879
The threat of funding cuts could — and already has
— resulted in colleges and universities suppressing a wide variety of speech critical of Israel or in support of Palestinian rights in an effort to avoid Title VI investigations by the Department of Education  and the potential loss of funding, even where  such speech is protected and does not qualify  as harassment.
Advocacy groups have already filed or threatened to file numerous Title VI complaints and lawsuits, alleging that colleges have violated Title VI merely by condoning Palestinian rights groups, events, and advocacy.880 For example, in September 2023, the pro-Israel group Santa Fe Middle East Watch claimed that the University of New Mexico’s
Anthropology Department would violate the New Mexico governor’s executive order using this same IHRA definition of antisemitism if they hosted
Mohammed El-Kurd, a Palestinian poet and writer serving as the Nation’s Palestine correspondent.881 Moreover, in February 2020, the David Horowitz Freedom Center sent a letter to Pomona and Pitzer College officials citing the IHRA definition and alleging “the colleges’ liability under Title VI” for, among other things, co-sponsoring a Students for Justice in Palestine event featuring a screening of the film “Gaza Fights for Freedom,” and funding a panel on “Perspectives on Colleges and the IsraeliPalestinian Conflict.”882
Of the 102 publicly available Title VI complaints filed with OCR against colleges and universities alleging a hostile educational environment based on antisemitism since October 7, 2023, at least 92 led to the opening of investigations.883 Recent research by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) concluded that the vast majority of allegations in these complaints focused on speech and expression that was critical of Israel or Zionism. In at least 78 percent of the complaints analyzed by the AAUP and MESA, pro-Israel and right-wing advocacy groups either represented complainants or acted as complainants themselves.884 At least 24 percent of investigations were opened based on complaints filed by individuals or organizations with no relation to the schools being investigated.885 In addition to investigations by executive branch agencies, such as the Department of Education’s OCR, Title VI can also be enforced through private lawsuits filed in federal court. Recent research by the AAUP and MESA also found that the number of private lawsuits alleging Title VI violations based on antisemitism increased dramatically after October 7, 2023; 25 were filed after October 7, 2023, and only two were filed before that date.886
Fears of legal action against schools under Title VI and misinterpretations of Title VI standards have led some universities to suppress political speech that the First Amendment plainly protects. There have been multiple instances of university censorship of pro-Palestinian expression after the October 7, 2024, Hamas attack on Israel. Some examples are detailed in the previous section of this report, which covers the banning of student organizations and silencing of pro-Palestinian speech. The section includes the University of Pennsylvania denial of a screening of a documentary that explores concerns some young Jewish Americans have about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians,887 as well as multiple universities, including Brandeis University, Columbia University, and George Washington University, banning student chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine.888
Equating First Amendment-protected criticism of Israel with unprotected antisemitism by law under a threat of investigation by the Department of Education will only create more fear in schools, prompting university and college administrators  to silence this speech regardless of whether it  is protected.
Withdrawal of Federal Funding and Attempted hostile Ideological
takeovers of universities
The Trump administration has withdrawn or taken steps to withdraw federal funding from universities that have been sites of pro-Palestine student activism, ostensibly because the administration perceives these universities as having failed to protect Jewish students from harassment.889 The schools subject to the cancellation of federal grants and contracts include Columbia University, Harvard University, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell University, Northwestern University, Princeton University, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA).890 The federal government threatened to withhold billions of dollars in research funding from Columbia and Harvard if they did not adopt the government’s preferred ideological approach to whom they admit to study, whom they employ to teach, and what classes and other programs they offer.891 When Harvard refused, the federal government decided to withhold billions of dollars in research funding.892 The president of Princeton University called the targeting of Columbia “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.”893
The administration may undertake legitimate Title VI investigations and there were incidents at universities that likely constituted unlawful harassment or discrimination and merited investigation. Even so, the remedy for such violations is limited. Any termination of funding must be limited to the specific program that has been found to have failed to comply with the statute. Therefore, even in cases where actual violations of Title VI have occurred, universities should not face such broad consequences.
Title VI regulations also impose specific procedural requirements that must be satisfied before funds can be withdrawn from a university for a failure to comply with the statute.894 The termination of federal funds can only occur if (1) the U.S. Department of Education has advised the recipient of funding that the Department has concluded
that “compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means”; (2) there is an “express finding” on the record, after the recipient has been given an opportunity for a hearing on the issue of the recipient’s failure to comply with Title VI; (3) the requirements of a hearing and an “express finding” of noncompliance are followed by a report issued by the Secretary of Education which must be filed with the appropriate House and Senate committees and must set forth the “circumstances and grounds” for the termination of funding; and (4) the Department of Education waits 30 days after the filing of the secretary’s report with Congress before terminating any funding.895 Based on the public record, the Trump administration did not comply fully with these requirements prior to the termination of Columbia and Harvard’s funding.896
What the Trump administration did instead was use extremely coercive threats to withhold massive amounts of federal funding that have no relationship to remedying Title VI violations, in order to force ideological conformity. The Trump administration’s decision to withhold federal research grants from universities due to their refusal to conform to the government’s preferred ideological approach is a violation of the First Amendment. An attempt by the administration to leverage federal funds to impose an ideological takeover of any private institution would violate the First Amendment, and its attempt to do so against private universities is all the more egregious because academic freedom protects a university’s expressive decisions. Academic freedom is a cornerstone of a free society, and universities must remain independent spaces for inquiry, debate, and dissent — even when dissent runs counter to the government’s views. Trump administration officials’ use of funding as a weapon to silence institutions that refuse to shut down disfavored political expression sets a dangerous precedent.
On February 28, 2025, the Department of
Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) warned more than 60 additional universities of potential penalties from pending Title VI investigations.897  
As explained above, Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act prohibits recipients of federal funds from engaging in racial or national origin discrimination. Its anti-discrimination provisions have been interpreted to proscribe antisemitic discrimination as well as other forms of religious discrimination, such as anti-Muslim and antiCatholic bigotry. A failure to comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of the statute can result in a loss of federal funding. However, the obligations the Trump administration has dictated to universities, including Columbia University and Harvard University, exceed the authority endowed to the administration under Title VI and also violate principles of academic freedom under the First Amendment.898
On March 7, 2025, the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism canceled $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University, accusing the university of not doing enough to counter antisemitism on campus.899 A press release announced that the funding “cancellation” had already been undertaken under Title VI, and it asserted that such a drastic measure was necessary because Columbia had been unresponsive  
“in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.”900 Trump administration officials from the General Services Administration, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) demanded in a letter that Columbia comply with its list of nine specific demands before it would consider reinstating the federal grants and contracts.901 These demands included, among other things,
(1) placing the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) department “under academic receivership for a minimum of five years,” (2) ensuring that the university’s governing definition of antisemitism includes
“[a]nti-‘Zionist’ discrimination,” and (3) “[i] mplement[ing] permanent, comprehensive” new rules regarding speech and protest on campus, including a ban on wearing masks to preserve anonymity.902 One week after issuing this demand letter, the Trump administration gave Columbia University an ultimatum to either change its student and admissions policies
or lose the opportunity to discuss lifting the federal grant and contract cancellations.903
The university gave in to the Trump administration’s demands. It committed to banning masks, hired 36 campus police with broader powers, and appointed a senior vice provost with the authority to oversee regional area programs, starting with the Middle
East.904 In addition to the Middle Eastern, South
Asian, and African Studies departments, the Center for Palestine Studies was also placed under review.905 As part of its plan, Columbia also pledged to expand the “intellectual diversity among faculty” by appointing faculty members with joint positions
“in both the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and the departments of Economics, Political Science, and School for International and Public Affairs (SIPA).”906 The university also committed to advancing its Tel Aviv Center and developing and distributing free K-12 materials related to holding difficult conversations about antisemitism.907
Columbia University announced in July 2025 that, after months of negotiation, it had reached an agreement with the Trump administration to resolve investigations into alleged violations of Title VI.908 The settlement provides that Columbia will pay fines of $221 million over three years. In exchange for these payments and other concessions — including formalizing earlier agreements to change Columbia’s academic programming and code of conduct and discipline, which Columbia conceded to as a precondition to the negotiations — the Trump administration will reinstate $400 million in federal grants that the federal government paused or canceled in March 2025 and close pending Title VI and Title VII investigations or compliance reviews.909 Under the agreement, Columbia also must adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its accompanying examples; provide regular reports and extensive data on its obligations to an external monitor not from Columbia’s academic community; decrease international student enrollment; and share disciplinary data concerning international students with the federal government.910 Pursuant to the settlement, Columbia will review and restructure programs and hiring in regional area studies
“starting with the Middle East,” and including the Center for Palestine Studies, the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, MESAAS, the Middle East Institute, its Middle East Policy major, “and other University programs focused on the Middle East” to “ensure the educational offerings are comprehensive and balanced.”911 Columbia will also appoint new faculty members in “the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies” to “contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment.” In addition, Columbia will prohibit “protest activities…inside academic buildings” and require “[a]ll individuals who engage in protests or demonstrations, including those who wear face masks…[to] present their University identification” when asked.912
At the core of the First Amendment lies the principle that the government cannot impose  its preferred ideological vision on private actors  or institutions.913 Yet imposing its preferred  ideological vision is precisely what the government has done in this case, for example by requiring that Columbia’s course offerings regarding the Middle East be “comprehensive and balanced” —  as verified by a government-selected monitor
— and that the university appoint new faculty members specifically in the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies. The intrusion by the federal government into the academic governance of Columbia is unlawful. The settlement is an agreement that Columbia was coerced into accepting, and one that bullies the university  into curtailing the free speech rights of its  students and faculty.
A group of Columbia law professors pointed out that the terms of the settlement “not only exceed the power of the agencies under Title VI; they also raise serious constitutional concerns,” noting that any permissible remedy would have to be tailored to address the instance of unlawful discrimination, but “the agencies’ demands exhibit no such tailoring and on the contrary, effectively tell Columbia to rewrite its policies on free speech, student discipline, public safety, undergraduate admissions, and more.”914
The Trump administration used the same tactics against Harvard University. On March 31, 2025, the HHS, the Department of Education, and the General Services Administration announced they were reviewing around $9 billion in federal grants and contracts to Harvard, citing the school’s failure to curb what they consider antisemitism on campus.915 On April 3, 2025, the Trump administration sent a list of demands that, if not met, would lead to the withdrawal of $9 billion of federal funding.916 On April 11, 2025, the federal government threatened to revoke federal research funding from Harvard unless the university agreed to fulfill further demands, including requirements that the school alter its admissions, hiring, and programmatic decisions to better reflect the Trump administration’s preferred ideological approach.917
On April 14, 2025, the Trump administration announced it would freeze $2.2 billion in grants and a $60 million contract to Harvard for its refusal to comply with its demands.918 Harvard had refused to vet its students, faculty, and course offerings for
“ideological diversity” or place certain departments and centers that were at odds with the government’s preferred viewpoint — such as the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures — under a third-party audit. Harvard filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Massachusetts, arguing that the government’s decision infringed upon its First
Amendment rights and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.919 In June 2025, the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and six other legal advocacy organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Harvard’s motion for summary judgment, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to block the Trump administration’s attempted hostile ideological takeover of Harvard University.920

In September 2025, a federal court blocked the government’s attacks on Harvard, ruling that the Trump administration’s termination of grant funding to Harvard in retaliation for political speech violated the First Amendment and Title VI, finding that “the government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else, including fighting antisemitism.”921 The court noted that the Trump administration tried to “force Harvard to better manifest the government’s favored worldview,” in direct violation of the university’s right to free speech, and added it was “difficult to conclude anything other than that [the Trump administration] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”922 The court also ruled that the administration had “taken Executive Orders targeted at antisemitism, which already incorporated a definition of antisemitism encompassing protected speech, and implemented them in a way that systematically centered that latent focus on protected speech.”923
arbitrary and jeopardize national innovation  
In December 2025, the Trump administration appealed the September 2025 federal court ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.924 Universities, alumni, former federal officials, state attorneys general, hospitals, national Jewish advocacy organizations, and civil liberties organizations filed numerous amicus briefs in support of Harvard in July 2026.925 The ACLU, five ACLU state affiliates, and six other legal advocacy organizations filed an amicus brief asking the appellate court to affirm the lower court’s ruling that the administration’s actions are unconstitutional, arguing that the Trump administration violated Harvard’s rights to free speech and academic freedom by unlawfully revoking federal funding.926 A group of 35 universities filed an amicus brief arguing that the administration’s extensive funding cuts are and economic growth.927 The universities objected to the sweeping terminations of all funding “based on ideological objections” or “arbitrary judgments that are unrelated to either the goals of the funded research or legitimate government fiscal constraints.”928 More than 10,000 Harvard alumni from every graduating class since 1950 also filed an amicus brief, arguing that “universities like Harvard can only manifest their missions, values, and foundational principles if they can operate with academic freedom.”929 The Trump administration’s appeal is pending as of publication of this report.
On March 20, 2026, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Harvard University, alleging that Harvard tolerated and/or was deliberately indifferent to antisemitism following October 7, 2023.930 The Trump administration requested a cancellation of all current grants and restitution for any grant given to the university after October 7, 2023. Specifically, the administration asked the court to declare that Harvard unlawfully discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students, allow the federal government to cease payment to Harvard as required by existing grants, and award the federal government restitution from Harvard for all grant payments given to Harvard during the period of the university’s alleged noncompliance with Title VI.931 This lawsuit is a new strategy after a court struck down the Trump administration’s attempt to immediately freeze Harvard’s grants outright.
In May 2026, Harvard filed a motion seeking  to dismiss the lawsuit, alleging, among other  things, that the government failed to allege any ongoing Title VI violation, and raising a First Amendment retaliation defense, arguing that  the lawsuit is part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to punish Harvard for refusing to accede to government demands.932  On August 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the government failed to allege any ongoing Title VI violation.933 Noting that the government’s complaint focused almost entirely on incidents from the 2023–2024 school year and cited just three incidents from March 2025, the court held it “finds them, singly and collectively, to be too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized noncompliance with Title VI persists at Harvard to this day.”934 The court did not address Harvard’s First Amendment retaliation claims.
The Trump administration canceled or paused federal grants and contracts to other elite private universities, which President Trump has criticized as housing left-wing thoughts and beliefs.935 The administration announced a pause of $175 million in funding to the University of Pennsylvania and suspended over $200 million in federal research grants to Princeton University.936 On March 20, 2025, Brown University’s president published a letter stating that the university would defend academic freedom after the Trump administration threatened to withdraw federal funds from Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania.937 On April 3, 2025, the Trump administration announced it would block $510 million in federal contracts and grants for Brown University.938 On April 8, 2025, the Trump administration also announced it had frozen more than $1 billion in funding for Cornell University and $790 million for Northwestern University.939 On May 9, 2025, the Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the University of California system, and on July 29, 2025, issued preliminary findings that UCLA had violated Title VI.  
Since Columbia University’s July 2025 settlement, several universities, including Northwestern University,940 Brown University,941 Cornell University,942 the University of Pennsylvania,943 and the University of Virginia,944 have reached settlements with the Trump administration to restore federal funding in exchange for university agreements to make institutional changes in programs, curricula, admissions, and hiring.945 As with the Columbia University settlement agreement, these settlements include measures that could not have been ordered by a court as remedies for a Title VI violation; such remedies must be narrowly tailored to address the instance of unlawful discrimination.946
Announced on November 28, 2025, the Trump administration and Northwestern University reached an agreement,947 which required Northwestern to, among other things, pay $75 million to the federal government over the next three years948 and revoke the “Deering Meadow” agreement, signed in April 2024 to end the tent encampment of pro-Palestinian protesters on its campus.949 The settlement ended a series of federal investigations into Northwestern,950 and restored hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding.951 Although Northwestern’s interim president stated that he refused to cede control over hiring, admissions, or curriculum decisions in the negotiations,952 the agreement mandated that Northwestern “socialize international students to the norms of a campus dedicated to free inquiry and open debate,” and placed numerous requirements on what characteristics Northwestern may base its admission and hiring decisions on.953 Further, Northwestern was required to commit to Title IX protections for women, “defined on the basis of sex,”954 and, similar to the Brown settlement agreement, was banned from performing hormonal interventions and transgender surgeries.955
Under the terms of a settlement agreement reached between Brown University and the Trump administration on July 30, 2025,956 the administration agreed to reinstate nearly $50 million957 in research funding958 and end all pending federal investigations into the institution.959  In return, Brown University pledged compliance to nondiscrimination requirements, specifically abstaining from the promotion of “unlawful DEI goals” in its admissions and campus programs960 and granted federal officials access to its admissions data.961 Further, the deal prevents Brown from administering gender-affirming surgeries and prescribing puberty blockers, and mandates that Brown implement the Trump administration’s gender definitions for various university sports and programs.962 In contrast to the deal brokered between the federal government and Columbia University, Brown was not required to admit to  any wrongdoing963 or pay a financial penalty to  the federal government.964
Under a $60 million settlement agreement announced on November 7, 2025,965 Cornell University agreed to pay $30 million to the federal government and $30 million to fund agricultural research programs.966 In exchange, the federal government agreed to reinstate all federal grants, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, to Cornell and close all pending Title VI and Title
IX investigations.967 Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff released a statement summarizing the settlement, explicitly stating that “Cornell has  not been found in violation of Title VI of the  Civil Rights Act of 1964.”968
Although the Trump administration and Princeton University have not reported reaching a settlement deal, roughly half of the university’s $200 million in federal research grants that had been suspended in April 2025969 were reinstated as of August 2025.970 Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgruber stated that he did not know the rationale for the restoration, and that the reasons for the original suspension of funding had similarly not been communicated to the university.971
Pursuant to court order, UCLA released to the public the proposed settlement agreement972 sent to the university by the DOJ on August 8, 2025.973 The 27-page document would have required UCLA to pay the United States $1 billion and contribute $172 million to a claims fund that would compensate victims of civil rights violations,974 revise hiring and admissions policies to remove any reference or consideration of diversity factors,975 impose strict prohibitions on demonstrations, protests, and other expressive activities,976 eliminate and/or discontinue any race- and ethnicity-based scholarships and faculty diversity hiring incentive programs,977 and issue a public statement emphasizing the university’s adherence to the Trump administration’s views on gender in relation to athletic programs,978 among other requirements. Had UCLA acceded to the proposed settlement, it would have represented the largest payout extracted from any university in the administration’s campaign.979 On November
14, 2025, however, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in response to a complaint brought by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), barring all of the Trump administration’s actual and threatened attacks on the University of California, including the nearly $1.2 billion total payment demand directed at UCLA.980
Almost three months after the injunction was issued, the Trump administration sued the University of California, alleging that UCLA’s administration had “turned a blind eye to — and at times facilitated — grossly antisemitic acts and systematically ignored cries for help from its own terrified Jewish and Israeli employees.”981 Less than four months later, on May 26, 2026, the Trump administration filed a second antisemitism lawsuit against UCLA, accusing the university of taking “no serious action whatsoever” to prevent to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students.982 Both lawsuits remain in early stages, although several DOJ lawyers notably left the department over the UCLA investigation, calling the case
“fraudulent” and a “sham” driven by pressure to manufacture evidence against the university.983
Reporting by ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education in December 2025 revealed that, early in President Trump’s second term, the DOJ created a group to investigate the University of California system and gave the group one month to rapidly “find” evidence of antisemitism and bring charges of workplace discrimination in the 10-campus university system.984 Ultimately, DOJ attorneys recommended a lawsuit against only UCLA, but in an internal memo obtained by ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education, the DOJ career lawyers on the University of California team warned that the case was weak, stating, “We simply do not have strong evidence that the types of harassing acts that happened through spring 2024 are ongoing.”985 The memo detailed that some of the harassment complaints involved protected First Amendment speech and noted that, because the investigation had been
“truncated,” there had not been time to review some of the documents the University of California produced.986 A veteran DOJ Civil Rights Division lawyer who was investigating the University of California later told The New York Times that he and his team had been instructed to open investigations into more than a dozen universities, and the group was “only told to investigate cases that were in blue states, and cases or investigations involving red states or that didn’t involve perceived political enemies of the administration never moved forward.”987 He added, “There was no interest in antisemitism unless it involved protests of Israel or the war in Gaza.”988 Within months, he and 17 of his team’s lawyers quit.989
In a broader legal challenge to the Trump administration’s actions against the entire University of California system, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), alongside a coalition of labor unions and faculty associations representing University of California employees, filed suit against the Trump administration on September 16, 2025, alleging that it had weaponized civil rights investigations and federal funding cuts in an effort to coerce the University of California into suppressing free speech and academic freedom.990 On November
14, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in response to the suit, finding that the plaintiffs had submitted “overwhelming evidence” that the Trump administration was “engaged in a concerted campaign to purge ‘woke,’ ‘left,’ and
‘socialist’ viewpoints from our country’s leading universities.”991 The 76-page opinion barred the administration from withholding funds based on the University of California’s compliance with the administration’s ideological agenda, and specifically prohibited the use of civil rights investigations as a pretext for coercing policy changes unrelated to discrimination.992 On February 11, 2026, the Trump administration dropped its appeal of the November 2025 preliminary injunction.993
On August 18, 2026, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee launched an investigation into explosive whistleblower allegations from a former career DOJ Civil Rights Division lawyer of nearly
a decade and several other experienced career DOJ civil rights attorneys temporarily assigned to the HHS OCR to work on Title VI investigations undertaken by the Trump administration’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.994 Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee released the whistleblowers’ complaint, which detailed their allegations that Trump administration political appointees had manipulated federal antisemitism investigations to target certain American universities, punish protected speech, and coerce schools into settlements, despite government investigators finding insufficient evidence to establish any Title VI violations.995 The whistleblowers said that “the investigations were not grounded in law or fact” and described political appointees overruling career investigators, pursuing investigations with “predetermined” outcomes and findings unsupported by the evidence, and targeting Muslim professors based on religion and ethnicity without allegations of wrongdoing.996 They also alleged that senior Trump administration officials intended to use hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding as leverage against universities regardless of investigative findings.
The whistleblowers’ complaint details how Trump administration officials had “a predetermined, outcomedriven approach to enforcement rather than a factbased investigative process” and when the whistleblowers “raised issues with the lack of a factual basis” to establish that the schools had broken the law, “their disagreements were sidelined or they faced reprimands.”997 According to the whistleblowers, “there was little to no factual predicate justifying opening” at least some of the investigations and “staff were encouraged to invert the standard sequence of investigation, compliance review, and legal analysis and instead work backward from desired settlement terms, including provisions not directly tied to substantiated Title VI antiharassment or antisemitism violations, to generate proposed findings that would support those terms.”998 They were asked to complete their investigations in just 45 days, a timeline they said was “wholly insufficient.”999
The whistleblowers’ complaint also contained detailed allegations concerning the Trump administration’s investigations of Brown, Harvard, and Columbia Universities. The whistleblowers detailed how the Trump administration cut funding to Brown University before any investigation could even begin in earnest. A DOJ whistleblower
“became increasingly concerned that HHS had a political motivation to manufacture facts in the Brown investigation and that the investigation was not based on complaints grounded in documented evidence of violations.”1000 When the investigation was completed, investigators found “that the evidence did not support a Title VI violation.”1001 A Trump administration official, HHS OCR Associate
Deputy Director Daniel Shieh, admitted there was
“not a Title VI violation” at Brown but said “there’s no way we’re going to get a letter of no violation cleared,” indicating that the Trump administration was using antisemitism as a pretext to cut federal funding and punish the university.1002 According to the whistleblowers’ disclosure, administration leadership “instead sought some form of settlement or resolution despite acknowledging the absence of a legal basis for doing so.”1003
Moreover, investigators were instructed to
“systematically interview Middle East studies professors, particularly Muslim faculty,” to see if they would say anything that could be labeled antisemitic, and an official explained that the interview was not to “get information” but to see
“what he will say.”1004 In the whistleblower’s view, the mandate to conduct these interviews “seemed like an attempt to intimidate those professors” and “was rooted in Islamophobic assumptions that Middle East Studies professors would harbor antisemitic viewpoints rather than any actual evidence of complaints about antisemitism.”1005
Regarding the Harvard University investigation, according to the whistleblowers’ complaint, Shieh
“explained that the initial plan was for Harvard to be the first example, but when negotiations broke down, officials tried to make Columbia the example.”1006 A DOJ attorney warned that the proposed Harvard settlement demands were unrelated to remedying antisemitism and likely violated the First Amendment. DOJ attorneys
“raised concerns that extraordinary funding freezes and sweeping proposed settlement terms…were being pursued before any completed investigation had established Title VI violations and without a demonstrated connection between the proposed remedies and substantiated findings of unlawful discrimination.”1007
With respect to the Columbia University investigation, the whistleblowers “observed findings of discrimination and related funding actions advancing on an accelerated timetable before adequate factual development and legal review were completed.”1008 Investigators identified false statements and protected First Amendment activity that were improperly cited as evidence  of Title VI violations.1009
using claimed civil rights enforcement Authority to Investigate and Seek Information About Students and Faculty
The Trump administration’s political appointees have also taken steps to use the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to investigate student activists.1010 After a protest at Barnard College’s Milbank Hall in late February 2025, Emil Bove
III, then Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and a Trump political appointee, initiated an investigation into Columbia University, with a particular focus on the student group Columbia University Apartheid Divest, to determine if those involved in the campus protests violated civil rights and antiterrorism laws.1011 According to reporting by The New York Times, prosecutors in the Civil Rights Division were ordered to obtain a group membership list so that the information could be shared with immigration agents and were directed to obtain a search warrant for the nonpublic data associated with the group’s Instagram account.1012 Dissenting lawyers in the Civil Rights Division told The New York Times that they saw the investigation as politically motivated and lacking legal merit.1013 One magistrate judge believed some of the measures being sought were unjustified and might violate the First Amendment.1014 Although the investigation largely tapered off by early April 2025, others could revive it.1015
The Trump administration has also deployed the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) to seek sensitive information from Barnard College faculty and staff.1016 In 2024, the EEOC began investigating whether Barnard was discriminating against its Jewish employees.1017  In April 2025, most professors at Barnard College received text messages to their personal cell phones requesting that they fill out a survey about the college’s employment practices. The survey included questions asking whether the professor was Jewish or Israeli, had shared Jewish/Israeli ancestry, practiced Judaism, or identified as “other.” Other questions focused on whether the professor had experienced antisemitism, been pressured to change their beliefs or practices, or been subjected to “unwelcome discussions.”1018 Professors have reported that students were receiving these messages as well. Barnard professors have reported that they worry the Trump administration was using federal civil rights agencies and civil rights laws, such as Title VII, to further target faculty and staff’s freedom of expression.1019 Barnard was not informed that employees would be receiving the text messages.
In July 2025, as part of the EEOC’s investigation into allegations of a hostile, antisemitic work environment at the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) potentially in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC issued a subpoena to the Trustees of UPenn demanding that UPenn create and turn over membership rosters for the Jewish Studies Program as well as Jewish and Jewish-affiliated campus organizations, along with personal contact information and addresses of Jewish members.1020 In November 2025, after UPenn refused to turn over the requested information, the EEOC sued the university, asking a judge to enforce the subpoena.1021 In January 2026, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Democracy Defenders Fund, and Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller filed a motion to intervene in the EEOC lawsuit on behalf of five organizations affiliated with UPenn.1022 The groups petitioning the court to join the proceedings represent Jewish faculty and student employees who oppose the non-consensual release of organizational membership rosters and members’ personal information based on the First Amendment right to associate confidentially, which directly impacts the freedoms of speech, association, privacy, and religious liberty. In March 2026, a federal judge ordered UPenn to comply with the federal government subpoena demanding information on Jewish faculty, including names and phone numbers of employees who were members of Jewish groups on campus.1023 UPenn appealed the judge’s order to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in April 2026. In July
2026, the EEOC decided not to continue pursuing a subpoena and the parties stipulated to dismiss the case.1024 The five intervenor organizations did not sign the settlement agreement between UPenn and the EEOC and filed a motion asking the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the lower court opinion.1025 The intervenors’ appeal is docketed separately and remains ongoing as of publication  of this report.
In response to a request from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR)’s to produce comprehensive documents as part of OCR’s Title VI investigation into “alleged antisemitic incidents” at the University of California at Berkeley (Berkeley), either the
University of California or Berkeley gave the Trump administration the names and information of 160 faculty members, students, and staff. In September 2025, Berkeley sent a letter to those named, disclosing that university lawyers had named them in reports to OCR in August 2025, stating that OCR’s investigation into “allegations of antisemitic harassment and discrimination… required production of comprehensive documents, including files and reports related to alleged antisemitic incidents.”1026 These documents included the personal identities of people and their
“potential connection” to allegations of antisemitism, some of which had been dismissed or not yet investigated.1027 One named scholar likened the disclosure to a “practice from the McCarthy era.”1028  
The Trump Administration’s Campaign to

The Trump administration has crafted and carried out a policy of revoking the visas and green cards of noncitizen students and scholars who engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy, and of arresting, detaining, and deporting them. In March and April 2025, the Trump administration moved swiftly to detain and initiate deportation cases against noncitizen students and scholars who had advocated for Palestinian rights or criticized Israel. The administration has targeted these students and scholars solely because of their political viewpoints and constitutionally protected expression. Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and prominent advocate for Palestinian rights at Columbia University, was the first to be targeted.
Other students and scholars, including Rümeysa
Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Dr. Badar Khan Suri, were arrested and detained, despite having valid immigration status and not being accused of breaking any law. The administration has attempted to detain and deport other students, including Yunseo Chung, Ranjani Srinivasan, and Momodou Taal, for their constitutionally protected pro-Palestinian advocacy. The administration is trying to use immigration laws to silence speech it disagrees with, while also claiming that no federal district court has authority to judge the constitutionality of its actions.
In a closed-door meeting with donors during his re-election campaign, President Trump explicitly stated his intent to deport students who protested the military campaign in Gaza. Speaking in reference to Palestine-related protests, President Trump told donors: “Any student that protests,  I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to have to behave.”1029
As a candidate, President Trump additionally pledged to “terminate the visas of all those Hamas sympathizers, and we’ll get them off our college campuses, out of our cities, and get them the hell out of our country.”1030 In fall 2023, then-Senator Marco Rubio repeated these sentiments, stating on social media that “people marching at universities” were “supporters of Hamas” and that the U.S. should “cancel the visa of every foreign national out there supporting Hamas and get them out of America.”1031
Shortly after assuming office, President Trump signed two executive orders intended to fulfill his campaign promises to deport protesters: Executive Order 14161, “Protecting the United States from
Foreign Terrorists and other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” signed on January 20, 2025, and Executive Order 14188, “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” signed on January 29, 2025. Executive Order 14161 states that its purpose is to “protect [United States] citizens” from aliens who “espouse hateful ideology” and “bear hostile attitudes towards [United States] citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.”1032 The order does not define “hostile attitudes,” leaving the term open to encompass any form of political dissent or criticism of government policies.
Executive Order 14188 and its accompanying fact sheet state the government’s intent to target post-October 7, 2023, campus antisemitism, particularly at “leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.”1033 The order’s definition of antisemitism encompasses constitutionally protected criticism of the Israeli government and its policies. The accompanying fact sheet frames  the order as a promise to “deport Hamas sympathizers and revoke student visas” in order to send a message to all “resident aliens who participated in pro-jihadist protests” that the federal government “will find you… and deport you.”1034
In March 2025, ICE’s Department of Homeland Security Investigations launched an operation to identify pro-Palestinian protesters on college campuses.1035 This operation involved scouring lists of suspected protesters and producing reports based on unvetted allegations by third parties that the protesters are antisemitic or pro-Hamas, as described in further detail later in this report.1036 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s Homeland Security Investigations leadership provided its Office of Intelligence with lists of individuals to investigate, including over 5,000 people listed on the Canary Mission website and names listed on Betar USA’s website, with instructions to focus only on those engaged in protests.1037 To expedite the process and manage the volume of names, the Office of Intelligence formed a specialized “Tiger Team,” which quickly produced reports on 100–200 protesters, documenting protest activity and including unverified allegations.1038 Under a new expedited process, ICE forwarded these reports to the State Department for deportation without any further vetting, and the State Department then revoked protesters’ visas or rendered them removable, also without conducting any meaningful vetting.1039 Trial testimony from senior State Department and ICE officials has revealed that the State Department’s review process proceeded with astonishing speed. For instance, Khalil was arrested only one day after ICE issued a referral letter to the State Department, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved the action memo on Mohsen Mahdawi’s deportation
only one day after ICE issued the referral letter.1040
The first individual to be arrested and detained by ICE under this policy was lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian born in Syria. On March 8, 2025, Khalil was returning home with his U.S.-citizen wife when he was detained by ICE agents. Although the agents initially stated that they were revoking Khalil’s “visa,” upon learning that Khalil was a green card holder, they stated that they would be revoking that, too.1041
On March 10, 2025, President Trump issued a statement on Truth Social touting Khalil’s arrest as a blueprint for future government actions. He warned that Khalil’s arrest was “the first of many to come,” and stated that his administration would not tolerate “students at Columbia and other universities across the country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.”1042 The president promised to “find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country.”1043
On the social media site X, Secretary Rubio wrote that the Trump administration “will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”1044 Following these statements, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that Khalil’s arrest by ICE was carried out “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting antisemitism, and in coordination with the Department of State.”1045
In a statement to The Free Press on March 10, 2025, a White House official stated that the federal government would use its basis for targeting Khalil as a “blueprint” for investigations against other students.1046 In a press conference on March 12, 2025, Secretary Rubio stated, “If you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this [Hamas], and if you tell us…I intend to come to your country as a student, and rile up all kind of anti-Jewish, antiSemitic activities…we will revoke [your visa]. And if you end up having a green card…we’re going to kick you out.”1047 On March 14, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem stated in a press release published to the Department of Homeland Security’s website, “It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America. When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country.”1048
While the precise number of students and scholars targeted for deportation because of their proPalestinian speech and advocacy is unknown, potentially hundreds have been targeted. On March 27, 2025, Secretary Rubio announced that he had revoked the F-1 student visas of more than 300 noncitizen students who participated in pro-
Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Columbia University  on February 5, 2026.
Palestinian activism, stating “Every time I find one of these lunatics I take away their visa… we do it every day.”1049 Though he appears to have walked back this statement following public scrutiny, according to New York Times reporting, nearly 300 international students had their visas revoked in retaliation for their political expression.1050 On March 28, 2025, Secretary Rubio was asked whether all of the Trump administration’s first 300 visa revocations were “related to pro-Palestinian protests,” and he responded that most were, explaining, “What we have seen on campuses across the country where students literally cannot go to school, you cannot — buildings are being taken over, activities going on — this is clearly an organized movement. And if you are in this country on a student visa and are a participant in those movements, we have a right to deny your visa.”1051 He added, “We are not going to be importing activists into the United States. They’re here to study. They’re here to go to class. They’re not here to lead activist movements that are disruptive and undermine the — our universities.”1052
Immigration enforcement  Based on Lawful pro-palestinian Advocacy and protected Speech
The Trump administration has carried out these detentions and deportations pursuant to a viewpoint-discriminatory policy of retaliation against noncitizens with pro-Palestinian views. The policy is effectuated by abusing immigration law to punish and silence noncitizen students and scholars engaged in pro-Palestinian expression. The government’s policy has characterized pro-Palestinian advocacy and speech critical of Israel as antisemitic and “pro-Hamas,” without acknowledging that the speech it is targeting is lawful and constitutionally protected.
The Trump administration has claimed it has multiple pathways it believes it can take to deport pro-Palestinian protesters, including (1) revoking the visas or Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) status of students who engage in activities it claims are inconsistent with holding a student visa; (2) revoking the visas of students who endorse or espouse terrorist activity or terrorist organizations; and (3) revoking the visas or green cards of students whose presence or activities in the United States have serious foreign policy consequences (explained in detail in the next section of this report). The administration has also attempted to rely on unfounded, pretextual, post-hoc allegations of immigration fraud or misrepresentation.1053
Based on public statements by Secretary Rubio and trial testimony by State Department and Department of Homeland Security officials, the agencies deem a broad spectrum of pro-Palestinian and anti-war statements, including constitutionally protected speech, to be “pro-Hamas” or antisemitic and therefore grounds for visa or green card revocation. In trial testimony, several ICE and State Department officials involved in executing the Trump administration’s ideological deportation policy admitted that essentially any criticism of Israel could merit immigration consequences. For instance, a senior State Department official, John Armstrong, testified that statements critical of Israel or U.S. foreign policy with respect to Israel could subject a visa or green card holder to deportation, including statements such as the phrase, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” as well as statements calling for an arms embargo on Israel  or calling for limiting military aid to Israel.1054
The Trump administration has explicitly argued that peaceful pro-Palestine advocacy is grounds for detention and deportation. For example, Mahmoud Khalil was never accused of breaking any laws, and the only evidence the government has cited in support of its foreign policy claims is lawful speech about Israel and Palestine. According to a memorandum from Secretary Rubio to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem later disclosed via litigation, Secretary Rubio’s determination that Khalil is deportable under the foreign policy ground was based on Khalil’s participation in
“antisemitic protests and disruptive activities” that
“undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States.”1055
According to remarks by Deputy Department of Homeland Security Secretary Troy Edgar on NPR’s
“Morning Edition” show, Khalil was targeted for
“putting himself in the middle of the process of basically pro-Palestinian activity.”1056 When asked if “any criticism of the Israeli government,” “any criticism of the United States,” “any criticism of the government” or “protesting” are deportable offenses, Edgar did not provide a direct answer.1057 Instead, he stated if Khalil admitted an intention  to “go and protest” when he had initially applied  for a student visa, “we would have never let him into  the country.”1058
Similarly, Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national, saw her student visa revoked in retaliation for coauthoring an op-ed in the Tufts University student newspaper addressing the university’s response to a student government resolution regarding Gaza. Secretary Rubio said this kind of advocacy was “creating a ruckus” that justified Öztürk’s removal from the country. Unsealed documents and testimony at a trial in an unrelated case challenging the Trump administration’s policy of deportation to punish lawful political expression before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts revealed that Öztürk’s visa revocation was based on her op-ed and its mention of a pro-Palestinian student group that was later banned from campus, and that the State Department recommended her deportation despite concluding that ICE “has not… provided any evidence showing that Öztürk has engaged in any antisemitic activity or made any public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization or antisemitism generally.”1059
Abuse of the “Foreign policy Ground” of the Immigration and nationality Act
In some cases, including the cases of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Dr. Badar Khan Suri, and Yunseo Chung, the Trump administration has been trying to deport individuals based on the Secretary of State’s claim that their presence or activities could have “adverse foreign policy consequences” and would “compromise a compelling foreign policy interest,” citing a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).1060 Under the foreign policy provision, a noncitizen is inadmissible, and therefore deportable, if the Secretary of State “has reasonable ground to believe” that their “presence or activities” in the United States would have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”1061 The provision also states that individuals may not be excluded based on “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations [that] would be lawful in the United States unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the [noncitizen]’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”1062
Before March 2025, the foreign policy provision had never been used to target a lawful permanent resident for their constitutionally protected political speech in the United States. The law’s legislative history makes clear that Congress expected this authority to be used sparingly and  not merely because an individual might make critical remarks about the United States or its policies.1063 Congress did not intend for this obscure INA provision, which authorizes the government to exclude or remove noncitizens on extraordinary foreign policy grounds, to be used to deport noncitizens for exercising their First Amendment rights. To the contrary, after the predecessor provision had been abused for years
— including to stop foreign celebrated writers like
Gabriel García Márquez, Graham Greene, Doris Lessing, and Pablo Neruda from entering the
United States because of their political beliefs — Congress amended the statute. The amendment prohibits excluding or deporting noncitizens on the grounds of their constitutionally protected
“beliefs, statements, or associations,” except where
“the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”1064
The House Conference Report on the amendment conveyed Congress’ expectation that “this authority would be used sparingly and not merely because there is a likelihood that an alien will make critical remarks about the United States or its policies.”1065 It suggested, for example, that exclusion or removal might be appropriate if the noncitizen is a former leader of a foreign state, such as the former Shah of Iran, or when their presence in the country “would violate a treaty or international agreement to which the United States is party.”1066
In fact, the foreign policy ground is almost never invoked. In its court filings, the federal government has identified only four previous instances in which it has been used to remove noncitizens over the past three decades, none of which concerned domestic speech.1067 In all that time, the law had never been cited to detain or deport any lawful permanent resident for their political beliefs — until it was used against Khalil.
Since then, the Trump administration has used the foreign policy ground to argue that it has unlimited discretion to detain and deport any noncitizen whom the federal government considers a foreign policy risk for any reason — and that the federal courts are powerless to undertake timely review of its decisions, even if those decisions violate the First Amendment. Under this policy, Secretary of State Marco Rubio would make determinations that the protesters’ presence or activities in the United States would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest. The Department of Homeland Security would effectuate these determinations by seeking to deport the protesters and would also further the policy of punishing and censoring the protesters by detaining them. This weaponization of immigration law is part of the Trump administration’s clear policy to retaliate against and punish noncitizens for their participation in protests and expression of views concerning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and to deter future such protests and expression.
Government reliance on  private third parties to Identify and target Students and  Scholars for deportation
Following the passage of President Trump’s executive orders, prominent private groups aiming to deter pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel advocacy began publicly sharing the names of outspoken individuals they believed to be noncitizens and wanted the government to deport. These groups explicitly singled out these individuals for their Palestine-related advocacy. These groups have submitted these individuals’ names to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s tip line and ICE has admitted to relying on such lists to target students and scholars for its immigration actions.1068  The government should not base its immigration enforcement on lists generated by advocacy groups on the basis of their distaste for certain political views.
ICE has used the pro-Israel blacklisting website Canary Mission to target students for investigation and deportation. Canary Mission posts photos and information about students engaged in proPalestinian activism on its website, essentially creating digital wanted posters.1069 The group has said its objective is to document “hatred of the
U.S.A., Israel and Jews.”1070
In trial proceedings in a case challenging the Trump administration’s policy of deportation to punish lawful political expression before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a senior ICE official testified that the agency had assembled a team — referred to internally as the “Tiger Team”
— in early 2025 to investigate student protesters.1071 The team had quickly compiled 100–200 reports based on a list of 5,000 people whose names and identities had been published on the Canary Mission website.1072 The senior ICE official, Peter
Hatch, is assistant director of the Homeland Security Investigations department within ICE that compiles background reports on targets of the agency’s investigations. Hatch testified that the agency formed the “Tiger Team” in response to orders he received to rush analysis of thousands  of people identified on the Canary Mission website. He testified, “It was a list that made accusations or asserted a lot of information like, these protesters are involved in violent activities, or are condoning or supporting violence, possibly even terrorist organizations.”1073
Canary Mission’s website included profiles on
Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Rümeysa
Öztürk.1074 Canary Mission published a profile on Öztürk in February 2025, including her photograph, claiming she “engaged in anti-Israel activism in March 2024.”1075 The profile described Öztürk as  
“a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.” Canary Mission’s contention that Öztürk “engaged in anti-Israel activism” was solely based on a link and screenshots of the March
2024 op-ed she coauthored for publication in the Tufts University student newspaper.1076
Betar USA — a 100-year-old organization revived in 2024, which describes itself as “loud, proud, aggressive, and unapologetically Zionist”1077 — publicly stated that it had distributed a “deport list” of 3,000 noncitizens and “provided thousands of names of jihadis to the Trump administration.”1078 In March 2025, a Betar USA spokesperson told The Guardian that the organization submitted
“thousands of names” of students and faculty they believe to be on visas from institutions including Columbia University; the University of Pennsylvania; the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA); and Syracuse University, to representatives of the Trump administration.1079 Earlier, in January 2025, Betar USA said it had “already submitted names of hundreds of terror supporters to the Trump administration.”1080 On its website, Betar USA advocates for “military preparedness” in supporting Israel and “demands that its members understand force and weapons.”1081 The group has been labeled “extremist” by the Anti-Defamation League.1082 In January 2026, the New York attorney general announced a settlement agreement permanently barring Betar USA, a New York-based organization, from instigating or encouraging violence or harassing protesters, after an extensive investigation by the Office of the Attorney General found that Betar USA had repeatedly targeted individuals based on religion and national origin and used its public platform to threaten individuals with deportation in an attempt to suppress protected speech, in violation of New York’s  civil rights laws.1083
Among Betar USA’s targets was lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil. On January 29, 2025, the organization posted on social media that ICE is
“aware of his home address and whereabouts” and confirmed that they “have provided his information to multiple contacts.”1084 The following day, on January 30, 2025, Betar USA posted on social media platform X that “visa holder Mohsen Mahdawi is on our deport list.”1085 On March 8, 2025, Khalil was detained by Department of Homeland Security agents. Following the arrest of Khalil, Betar USA revived its public calls for the deportation of Mahdawi. On March 14, 2025, Betar USA posted  on X that “Mohsen Mahdawi is next and also on  the deport list.”1086 A week later, on March 20, 2025, Betar USA again posted, “Mohsen Mahdawi is next and also on the deport list.”1087 Mahdawi was arrested by ICE agents at his citizenship interview on April 14, 2025. On March 13, 2025, Betar USA posted a “deport alert” targeting Momodou Taal,  a graduate student at Cornell University. The State Department said it revoked his student visa on March 14, the day after the alert was posted.1088
The federal government’s reliance on these private organizations to target noncitizens for deportation raises serious concerns about due process and free speech. The government did not conduct any independent review or investigation and essentially delegated consequential decisions to third parties who explicitly wanted to punish people for their lawful speech. Immigration consequences should not be based on lists generated by private groups targeting students whose political views they oppose. Instead of delegating governmental authority to private parties to identify people to subject to immigration consequences, the government should be applying politically neutral criteria, as delineated in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), to guide their immigration actions and identify people to investigate. The Trump administration has also been directly asking universities to identify students involved in pro-Palestinian activism, putting pressure on educational institutions to become informants against their own students.1089
Attempts to evade Federal court review of constitutional challenges to detention and deportation
Federal courts have ordered the release on bail of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Dr. Badar Khan Suri while their cases proceed. While Öztürk has achieved a settlement in her case and returned to Turkey, Khalil, Mahdawi, and Suri are still fighting against deportation as of publication of this report. The government has appealed the decisions releasing each individual from detention, arguing that federal courts must let deportation proceedings play out in the immigration courts before they can get involved, even if it is just to order release from claimed unlawful detention.
In each of the cases, after federal habeas corpus lawsuits were filed by the students and scholars challenging the retaliatory immigration actions taken against them, the Trump administration has made extreme arguments about federal court jurisdiction, arguing that federal courts are powerless to review the students’ and scholars’ habeas claims and that the executive therefore  has unreviewable power to detain noncitizens,  even for purposes of chilling and censoring political speech protected by the First Amendment, until  the executive’s administrative immigration process is complete.
However, unlike federal courts, the immigration court system is housed under the executive branch and beholden to the Department of Justice. This lack of independence has become even more pronounced under the Trump administration: Since taking office, the Trump administration has dismissed more than 100 immigration judges out of 750, announced the appointments of 143 permanent and temporary immigration judges, and cut the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) nearly in half.1090 It has transformed the immigration court system into a tool for accelerating deportations. Nearly all BIA decisions in recent months have resulted in a negative outcome for the noncitizens facing removal.1091 Moreover, case law holds that immigration judges do not have the power to hear constitutional claims like those made by the students and scholars about being targeted for their First Amendment protected speech, and immigration courts can take months or even years to finally decide a deportation case.
the Ideological deportation  policy Is unconstitutional and Violates International Law
The Trump administration’s arrests and threats to deport students and faculty solely because of their participation in pro-Palestine protests or expression of pro-Palestine or anti-Israel viewpoints are blatantly unconstitutional and are chilling student speech and advocacy across campuses and throughout the country at large. It is brazenly viewpoint discriminatory, in breach of international law obligations, resulting in the suppression of Palestinian voices and pro-Palestinian messages. Comparing Mohsen Mahdawi’s case to cases from the previous eras of political repression, such as the Palmer Raids and the McCarthy era, the Vermont federal court recognized, when it ordered Mahdawi’s release, that it is “extraordinary” that “[l]egal residents — not charged with crimes or misconduct — are being arrested and threatened with deportation for stating their views on the political issues of the day.”1092
The Trump administration has tried to undermine the Constitution in these cases by arguing that the First Amendment does not apply to noncitizens, but the Supreme Court recognized 80 years ago in Bridges v. Wixon — a case that involved the deportation of individuals suspected to be members of the Communist Party — that “freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”1093 That freedom protects citizens and noncitizens alike from government officials who would abuse their power to suppress criticism or disfavored messages.
Moreover, international law recognizes the right of everyone to freedom of expression, without discrimination. The only permissible limits to the exercise of this right must be provided by law, necessary and proportional to protect the rights of others, national security or public order, or public health or morals. Limitation to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression cannot jeopardize the right itself. Crucially, any limitation must respect the obligation of nondiscrimination. Under international law, revocation of visas for protesting or expressing support for Palestinians’ rights is discriminatory and arbitrary. While states have some discretion to decide who can enter into their territory and to expel individuals, due process must always be guaranteed in any visa revocation
— regardless of whether the individual is a lawful permanent resident or a student with a temporary visa. Under international law, visa revocation requires a procedure with minimal safeguards, should not be discriminatory, and should not be a reprisal for activities or expressions protected under international law.
In March 2025, the Knight First Amendment
Institute at Columbia University and Sher Tremonte
LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP), AAUP’s Harvard, NYU, and Rutgers campus chapters, and the Middle East Studies Association, challenging the Trump administration’s policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty who participate in proPalestinian activism.1094 After a two-week trial, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in September 2025 that the defendant Trump administration officials had pursued a
policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty who engaged in pro-Palestinian protest, that the purpose of the policy was to chill pro-Palestinian speech and speech critical of Israel, and that the policy is unlawful viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).1095 In the landmark ruling, U.S. District Judge William Young wrote, “This case — perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court — squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence.”1096 He also wrote, “If ‘terrorist’ is interpreted to mean ‘pro-Palestine’ or ‘antiIsrael,’ and ‘support’ encompasses pure political speech, then core free speech rights have been imperiled.”1097
The court held that “The intent of the Secretaries
[of State and the Department of Homeland Security] was…to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated noncitizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.” The court also ruled that “The Plaintiffs have shown that Secretaries Noem and Rubio are engaged in a  mode of enforcement leading to detaining, deporting, and revoking noncitizens’ visas solely on the basis of political speech, and with the intent of chilling such speech and that of others similarly situated. Such conduct is not only unconstitutional, but a thing virtually unknown to our constitutional tradition.”1098
In January 2026, Judge Young issued an order formally declaring that the Trump administration’s policy of arresting, detaining, and threatening to deport noncitizen students and faculty for their political speech violates the First Amendment and the APA.1099 The order also restricts the Trump administration’s ability to deport noncitizen students and faculty members for their proPalestinian advocacy. The district court stopped short of granting the full injunctive relief plaintiffs sought, instead providing that any noncitizen who was an AAUP or MESA member during the litigation has the ability to challenge an adverse change to their immigration status in federal district court and in such litigation that adverse immigration action will be presumed to have been taken in retribution for that individual’s constitutionally protected speech, unless the government demonstrates otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. As of publication of this report, crossappeals filed by both parties remain pending.1100
Broader revocations of  Student Visas, terminations  of International Students’ Status, and Social Media Vetting
The Trump administration also implemented the
“Student Criminal Alien Initiative” beginning in March 2025, resulting in the abrupt termination of legal status for thousands of international students across the United States.1101 Through automated cross-referencing of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) database that stores international student data with FBI criminal records, immigration officials terminated the status of thousands of student visa holders, with many terminations based on minor infractions, including years-old DUIs, misdemeanor charges, and traffic violations.1102 SEVIS is an electronic system administered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and used to administer foreign students’ status, including those with F-1 student status, and an active SEVIS record is necessary for international students studying in the United States to be able to fully participate in educational opportunities.1103 By abruptly terminating
university students’ status records in the SEVIS database, ICE made it difficult or impossible for those students to continue their educational pursuits.1104 The termination of a student’s SEVIS record prevents students from being employed and has significant consequences for their ability to engage fully in academic life. Although this initiative is separate from the Trump administration’s campaign to deport pro-Palestinian protesters, a senior Justice Department official explicitly stated that universities “not doing anything to stop these demonstrations in support of Hamas” would face consequences through student visa revocations, describing international students as “one of their biggest cash cows” and “a meaningful source of revenue.”1105
In August 2025, the State Department announced it had revoked the visas of 6,000 international students, including about 4,000 for alleged violations of the law and between 200 and 300 for unspecified “support for terrorism.”1106 By January 2026, the State Department said that it had revoked 8,000 student visas in 2025 for
“encounters with law enforcement for criminal activity.”1107 Many students had their SEVIS records terminated for minor infractions, including traffic offenses, or cases in which charges were later dropped or dismissed by police or courts.1108 The Student Criminal Alien Initiative policy, which was implemented without a proper legal and administrative framework or due process, created widespread panic among affected students who faced potential immediate deportation. Following extensive legal challenges and judicial intervention, including a federal court injunction that blocked the terminations, the Trump administration was forced to reverse course in late April 2025, acknowledging that the policy was implemented improperly and agreeing to reactivate terminated SEVIS records while developing a proper policy framework for future cases.1109
The Trump administration also significantly expanded its use of social media monitoring as a tool for vetting student visa holders and applicants, raising concerns that students may be deported
or barred from entering the country for their political speech or views, potentially chilling or punishing protected speech.1110 As part of the State Department’s resumption of foreign student visa interviews and processing, applicants are now required to make their social media accounts public for government scrutiny or face potential visa denial.1111 This surveillance begins when individuals file their visa applications and continues even after applications are granted, throughout a person’s time in the United States. If the Department of Homeland Security uncovers information it deems suspicious, it may initiate an investigation and take further steps, such as in-person questioning, border searches, watchlisting, or visa revocation.
In a cable sent to diplomatic missions on March 25, 2025, Secretary of State Rubio ordered diplomats overseas to conduct a “mandatory social media check” of student and exchange visitor visa applicants (F, M, and J visas) for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States.”1112 According to the cable, diplomats were to evaluate social media posts created between October 7, 2023 and August 31, 2024, suggesting that the objective was to reject visa applications of students who have criticized the war in Gaza or U.S. military aid to Israel.1113 In July 2025, a senior State Department official whose office is tasked with vetting students’ social media posts and revoking student visas, testified that the State Department regularly took into account speech or actions that it saw as critical of Israel, and that statements criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza, calls for limiting military aid to Israel, or “denouncing Zionism” all could factor into the agency’s decisions.1114 While the State Department maintains it is targeting those “who pose a threat to U.S. national security,” its criteria are in no way limited to national security threats, resulting in scrutiny and potential punishment of constitutionally protected political speech.

and professors gather in front of the university’s gates   on March 9, 2026, at a rally marking the one-year anniversary of Khail’s arrest and detention.
case Studies: Ice Arrests, detentions, and Attempts to deport Students and Scholars
Mahmoud Khalil
On March 8, 2025, federal immigration enforcement agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian recent graduate of Columbia University who was formerly one of the lead negotiators between pro-Palestine protesters on the Columbia University campus and the Columbia administration in spring 2024.1115 A lawful permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen, Khalil was taken from his home, unlawfully detained far from his family for 104 days, and forced to miss the birth of his first child, solely because of his political beliefs.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who arrested Khalil had no warrant and arrested him in the lobby of his Columbia University student housing apartment building as he and his wife were returning home from an iftar dinner during Ramadan.1116 When the arresting agents initially indicated that the federal government had revoked Khalil’s student visa, his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, retrieved his green card to show he was a permanent resident.1117 She said the agents appeared surprised and confused, with one saying, “He has a green card,” before consulting someone by phone and then claiming they would revoke his permanent residency as well — even though permanent residents are entitled to due process before any revocation of their status.1118
For nearly 48 hours, Khalil was held incommunicado. On the night he was arrested, he was presented with a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings in Jena, Louisiana, stating he was charged as removable under the foreign policy ground of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) based on a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Khalil’s expressive activity — which was “otherwise lawful” — would
“compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.”1119 According to a two-page memorandum from Secretary Rubio to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem later disclosed via litigation, Secretary Rubio’s determination that Khalil is deportable under the foreign policy ground was based on Khalil’s participation in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities” that “undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States.”1120 Khalil was never accused of breaking any laws, and the only evidence the government has cited in support of its foreign policy claims is constitutionally protected speech about Israel and Palestine.
In the early morning hours after Khalil’s arrest, his attorney filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that Khalil’s arrest and detention on the basis of his speech and protest activity violates the
Due Process Clause and the First Amendment.1121 Hours after his habeas petition was filed, Khalil  was transferred more than 1,000 miles away under ICE custody to a remote facility in Louisiana, separating him from his wife and legal counsel.1122  
A federal judge in the Southern District of New York issued an order the following day blocking Khalil’s deportation in the absence of a court order and scheduled a hearing for March 12, 2025.
In his first public statement after his arrest, Khalil said from ICE detention in Louisiana, “My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza,”1123 He added, “The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa-holders, green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs.”1124
One week after Khalil’s arrest, in the midst of nationwide criticism of the grounds for his arrest and after the filing of his habeas petition challenging the retaliatory use of the foreign policy ground charge, the government filed a second immigration charge, alleging supposed omissions and misrepresentations on Khalil’s green card application.1125 The government sought to transfer Khalil’s habeas case to Louisiana, but a federal judge in the Southern District of New York transferred Khalil’s habeas case to the District of New Jersey because Khalil had been physically detained in an ICE detention facility in New Jersey at the time his attorney filed the habeas petition.
Khalil has two different cases: his immigration case before an immigration judge in Louisiana that has been subject to appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a federal case before a District Court judge in New Jersey that has been subject to appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite the government’s arguments to the contrary, the federal district court has held in multiple lengthy opinions in Khalil’s case that it has jurisdiction over Khalil’s case, that the government’s use of the foreign policy ground charge to detain and deport Khalil likely violates the Constitution, and that he should be released on bail pending the litigation of his habeas petition.
In Khalil’s federal case, on June 11, 2025, a federal judge in New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, granted a preliminary injunction against the government using the foreign policy ground to detain or seek to remove Khalil, after concluding that he would continue to suffer irreparable harm if he remained detained.1126 This injunction came shortly after the court held that Khalil was likely to succeed on the merits of his constitutional challenge to his detention and attempted deportation on foreign policy grounds, concluding that the foreign policy ground, as applied to Khalil, was likely unconstitutionally vague.1127 While the court did not rule on First Amendment grounds, the court found that “it is overwhelmingly likely that the Petitioner would not be detained based solely on the lawfulpermanent-resident-application charge. Rather, the Court finds, the Petitioner’s detention almost surely flows from the charge that is based on the Secretary of State’s determination.”1128 The court ruled that it was likely unconstitutional to detain and seek to deport someone purely for their advocacy on behalf of Palestinian human rights.
The preliminary injunction blocked the Trump administration from using the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provision that Secretary Rubio had invoked to detain and attempt to deport Khalil, and other students and scholars, for their speech. This was the first federal court to enjoin the use of the INA’s so-called foreign policy ground to deport Khalil and other noncitizens who expressed pro-Palestine views. The next day, the federal government then informed the court it would continue to detain Khalil in Louisiana over the afterthe-fact allegations related to supposed omissions on his green card application.1129 The government’s new, post-hoc reliance on the “misrepresentation” allegations came after the judge ruled the government could not keep detaining Khalil on the grounds that his speech had adverse foreign policy consequences.1130
On June 20, 2025, the District Court judge in New Jersey, Judge Farbiarz, ordered Khalil’s release on bail, determining that his habeas petition raised substantial constitutional claims.1131 The court found his detention likely violated both the First
on March 12, 2025, calling for the release of student activist Mahmoud Khalil.
Amendment’s protection against retaliation and the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on punitive detention. Judge Farbiarz emphasized that the uncontested evidence showed Khalil posed neither a flight risk nor a public danger, making his prolonged detention potentially punitive.1132 The judge also noted, “it is overwhelmingly likely that the Petitioner would not be detained based solely on the lawful-permanent-residentapplication charge. Rather, the Court finds, the Petitioner’s detention almost surely flows from the charge that is based on the Secretary of State’s determination.”1133
After more than three months in detention, Khalil was finally released, allowing him to return to New York to be with his wife and newborn son while his case proceeds. During his detention, Khalil missed the birth of his first child and his graduation from Columbia. On July 10, 2025, Khalil filed an administrative claim detailing the irreparable harm he suffered as a result of his politically motivated and retaliatory arrest and detention. The claim is a precursor to a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, citing a range of abuses, including malicious prosecution and abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.1134
On July 9, 2025, Khalil’s legal team also filed a preliminary injunction motion in federal court in New Jersey challenging as unconstitutional the government’s attempts to detain and deport him based on the second immigration charge regarding alleged misrepresentations on his green card application.1135 The new motion argued that the government’s post-hoc charge, which it levied one week after Khalil filed his habeas petition, was retaliatory and violated Khalil’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights.1136 This preliminary injunction motion was denied.1137
An immigration judge in Louisiana issued a decision on September 12, 2025, denying Khalil a waiver of removability, bringing him one step closer to a final order of removal, based on the pretextual and baseless “misrepresentation” charges the government added after his detention.1138 Khalil said afterwards, “It is no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech. Their latest attempt, through a kangaroo immigration court, exposes their true colors once again. When their first effort to deport me was set to fail, they resorted to fabricating baseless and ridiculous allegations in a bid to silence me for speaking out and standing firmly with Palestine, demanding an end to the ongoing genocide.”1139
Khalil and his legal team appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).1140 They argued on appeal that the immigration judge rushed to a decision without considering relevant evidence, refused to consider Khalil’s constitutional challenges to his removal, improperly sustained false, after-the-fact charges, and engaged in multiple procedural irregularities, including denying him a hearing on his waiver request.1141 The brief also explained why the secondary charges are factually inaccurate and meritless, how rare it is for an immigration judge to deny a waiver of removability on a charge like Khalil’s — particularly against a lawful permanent resident with no criminal record and a U.S. spouse and child — and ultimately how the immigration judge’s decision is further evidence of retaliation.1142
On April 9, 2026, the BIA issued a final administrative removal order.1143 The first part of the BIA’s order relies on the so-called “Rubio determination” under the foreign policy ground of the INA, despite the fact that a federal district court in New Jersey had ruled it was likely an unconstitutional basis for Khalil’s deportation and enjoined it from being used as a basis for a removal order.1144 The BIA also upheld the meritless second charge, which was added only after Khalil challenged the foreign policy ground.1145 A tranche of internal government documents from the AAUP v. Rubio trial in August 2025 showed the government itself had found no basis for the second charge before detaining him.1146
In August 2026, Khalil’s legal team filed a brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to reverse the BIA’s removal order and terminate the proceedings entirely.1147 They argued that the government’s purpose in bringing immigration charges against Khalil was to censor and suppress constitutionally protected speech in violation of the Constitution; they also raised numerous other legal issues, including procedural errors committed by the immigration judge and the BIA.1148 This Fifth Circuit petition for review is proceeding as  of publication of this report.
In addition, Khalil’s legal team submitted new evidence of potential misconduct by the Trump administration to the BIA in May 2026, asking the BIA to re-open his immigration case and terminate proceedings.1149 The new evidence suggests that  the Trump administration secretly engineered  the outcome of the immigration case to make  an example of Khalil.1150 Khalil’s motion includes declarations from former immigration judges,  
as well as former members of the BIA, testifying to the weaponization of the immigration court system to achieve the Trump administration’s political goals and the apparent procedural abnormalities in Khalil’s case.1151 The filing argues that the BIA, which is controlled by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, improperly influenced the lower immigration court’s decision, fast-tracked Khalil’s proceedings, bypassed the normal channels through which immigration appeals are docketed and adjudicated, and ultimately reached a decision in an unheard-of nine days. The administration pressed this forward in open defiance of a federal district court order barring the government from using the foreign policy ground — the original pretext for Khalil’s arrest — to detain or remove him. The new evidence also includes reports that at least three judges on the BIA recused themselves from voting on the decision in this case, a highly unusual move that suggests the judges may have played a role in the immigration judge’s rulings from behind the scenes — despite the judge being legally obligated to exercise her own independent judgment.1152
In January 2026, a divided panel of the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Farbiarz’s June 20, 2025, decision, holding that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Khalil’s claims challenging the constitutionality of his detention pursuant to the INA.1153 This decision from the Third Circuit did not address Khalil’s substantive First Amendment claims.1154 One member of the three-judge panel, Judge
Arianna Freeman dissented, concluding that under Third Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, a federal court can hear Khalil’s “now-or-never claims” because without immediate federal review, Khalil will suffer irreparable harm from detention that cannot be remedied after the executive branch’s own administrative immigration process runs its course.1155
In response to the decision, Khalil said, “The door may have been opened for potential redetainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”1156 Crucially, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals opinion does not go into effect immediately and the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Khalil until the order takes formal effect, which will not happen while he has the opportunity to seek immediate review.
In March 2026, Khalil’s legal team1157 petitioned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for rehearing en banc, which would have allowed all judges from the
Third Circuit to weigh in on the split panel’s January 2026 decision,1158 but the appellate court denied that request in May 2026, in a split 6-5 decision with five judges voting to rehear the case en banc.1159 In their dissenting opinion, three judges jointly wrote that the majority “imperils the civil liberties of [Khalil] and similarly situated noncitizens,” accused the majority of “abdicating [its] duty to meaningfully review Khalil’s constitutional claims,” and warned that the judiciary “cannot fulfill [its] role as a check on the other branches of government…if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.”1160
On May 26, 2026, the Third Circuit granted Khalil’s request for an immediate stay of the mandate that protects Khalil from detention until his deadline for filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.1161
Rümeysa Öztürk
On March 25, 2025, Rümeysa Öztürk, then a Tufts University Ph.D. student,1162 former Fulbright scholar, and Turkish citizen with valid student status, was seized and arrested by six masked, plainclothes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers driving unmarked cars outside her off-campus residence while she was walking to an iftar meal during Ramadan. Öztürk described how she was “suddenly surrounded and grabbed by a swarm of masked individuals,” handcuffed, and shoved into an unmarked car.1163 The arrest was captured on surveillance video, and the disturbing images from the video footage quickly triggered a national and international outcry.1164
Öztürk was arrested and detained after her student visa had been secretly revoked in retaliation for co-authoring a single op-ed in the Tufts University student newspaper addressing the university’s response to a student government resolution regarding Gaza. The op-ed, published in March
2024, criticized university leaders for their response to demands that Tufts “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide” and divest from companies with ties to Israel.1165 One year after co-writing the op-ed, the
Canary Mission website published a profile on Öztürk, citing her co-authored Tufts Daily oped. The U.S. government later admitted that ICE used Canary Mission’s lists to gather information to identify students for potential deportation, including Öztürk. Hours after her arrest, ICE terminated her SEVIS record.1166
Documents disclosed in January 2026 as part of litigation in a separate case, AAUP v. Rubio, made clear that the government had targeted Öztürk for detention solely for her constitutionally protected speech. On March 17, 2025, the Office of Intelligence of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations created a report on Öztürk. It included in its “Analysis Findings” section the allegation that Öztürk co-authored “an Op-Ed calling for divestment from Israel” and that she “associates with Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, which was suspended for calls for student intifada.”1167 Öztürk’s op-ed and entire Canary Mission profile were appended to the report.1168
On March 21, the Assistant Director of the National Security Division of ICE sent a letter referring
Öztürk to the State Department, relying only on the Office of Intelligence’s report of analysis.1169 That same day, an official with the State Department’s
Visa Office wrote an action memo for a senior State Department official, who reviewed the action memo and approved it the same day.1170 Also that same day, the senior State Department official notified the National Security Division of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations that the Bureau of Consular Affairs had revoked Öztürk’s student visa “effective immediately,” based on her “associations…including co-authoring an op-ed that found common cause with an organization that was later temporarily banned from campus.”1171 The memo also stated that the revocation would be “silent” and that the State Department would not notify Öztürk that her visa had been revoked.
All this was done despite the fact that, in its action memo, the State Department explicitly stated it had determined that the Trump administration had not produced any evidence showing that Öztürk engaged in antisemitic activities or made public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization.1172 The State Department action memo explicitly noted that “DHS/ICE/HSI has not, however, provided any evidence showing that OZTURK has engaged in any antisemitic activity or made any public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization or antisemitism generally.”1173 As for Öztürk’s claimed associations, the memo noted, “While the [DHS] report implies a connection between OZTURK and the now-banned Tufts Student for Justice in Palestine (TJSP), the report presents no evidence other than OZTURK’s membership in Graduate Students for Palestine which supported proposals to Tufts which were also supported by TSJP. Nor has DHS/ICE/HSI shown any evidence that OZTURK was involved in any of the activities which resulted in TJSP being suspended from Tufts.”1174
These internal government documents show that the government knew it had no evidence that Öztürk had engaged in antisemitic conduct or activities, and found no grounds to revoke her visa, detain her, or seek to deport her, other than the fact that she had co-authored an op-ed in a student newspaper. The government’s case against
Öztürk was baseless, with the Department of Homeland Security claiming she had “engaged in activities in support of Hamas” but never specifying what these activities were beyond the single oped.1175 In removal proceedings against Öztürk, the Department of Homeland Security submitted the State Department action memo, which laid out the reasoning for targeting her, specifically due to her associations and co-authorship of the op-ed.1176 During the August 2025 trial in the AAUP v. Rubio case, the assistant special agent in charge in Boston who oversaw Öztürk’s arrest testified, “I didn’t see anything in the op-ed that suggested she’d committed a crime.”1177
In remarks to the press three days after Öztürk’s arrest, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in response to a question about Öztürk, “The activities presented to me meet the standard of what I’ve just described to you: people that are supportive of movements that run counter to the foreign policy of the United States.” Secretary Rubio further indicated that Öztürk’s confinement was part of a larger effort of the government “basically asking them [protesters] to leave the country.” He explicitly noted “that’s why they’ve been detained.”1178
Emergency filings immediately after Öztürk’s arrest led to a court order that Öztürk must not be removed from Massachusetts without prior notice. Unbeknownst to the court and Öztürk’s counsel, ICE had already driven Öztürk into Vermont at the time that order was issued. ICE did not notify the court that Öztürk was no longer in Massachusetts; to the contrary, ICE further transferred Öztürk to a for-profit ICE detention facility in Louisiana — over 1,300 miles from her home in Boston — without notifying the court or Öztürk’s counsel, who did not learn about her whereabouts until nearly 24 hours after her arrest. Ultimately, Öztürk was held in that ICE detention facility for over six weeks.
On March 28, 2025, Öztürk’s legal team filed an amended habeas petition and complaint, challenging her unconstitutional detention by ICE as a violation of her free speech and due process rights.1179 In May 2025, a Vermont federal judge ordered Öztürk’s immediate release on bail, more than six weeks after her arrest.1180 At the threehour bail hearing, the government presented no witnesses and, despite repeated invitations from the court, submitted no evidence justifying Öztürk’s detention. The judge found that Öztürk had presented “very substantial claims of both due process and First Amendment violations,” ruling that her detention constituted “an infringement on her First Amendment rights” and “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens.”1181 In the ruling from the bench, the judge explained, “There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed. I mean, that literally is the case.”1182
In September 2025, Öztürk’s habeas case challenging her detention was heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, after the government had appealed the district court’s initial order requiring Öztürk to be transferred to Vermont. During the proceedings, Öztürk contested the Trump administration’s broad interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). That interpretation, if accepted by the court, would have the effect of depriving Öztürk and others similarly situated of access to a federal district court to review the constitutionality of retaliatory immigration detention that is intended to censor speech, during the pendency of immigration proceedings.1183
On December 5, 2025, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that Öztürk’s SEVIS record was wrongfully terminated and must be reinstated, allowing her to fully participate in her educational and training program once more.1184 The court held that Öztürk was likely to succeed on her claim that the termination was arbitrary and capricious, and therefore violated the Administrative Procedure Act.1185 On September 30, 2025, another federal judge in Massachusetts determined in AAUP v. Rubio that the government’s policy of arresting and detaining scholars such as Öztürk violated the First Amendment, and documents released as part of the case confirmed that the government had targeted her solely on the basis of the op-ed.1186 On January 22, 2026, the same federal judge issued a remedial order formally declaring the government’s deportation policy to be unconstitutional.1187 On January 29, 2026, an immigration judge held that the Department of Homeland Security had not
met its burden of proving removability, and the immigration court thereby terminated removal proceedings against Öztürk.1188 The government appealed that decision soon after to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
In April 2026, Öztürk returned to her home in Turkey following the successful completion of her Ph.D. program in child study and human development in February 2026, with a focus on young people’s positive behaviors on social media.1189 Over one year after ICE unlawfully detained Öztürk, the parties reached a settlement to resolve outstanding legal issues in federal court and to jointly move to dismiss her immigration proceedings. The BIA subsequently dismissed the government’s appeal, ensuring there would be no final administrative order of removal against her. Under the settlement agreement, Öztürk was free to return to Turkey without further interference by the Department of Homeland Security.1190 The government also expressly acknowledged that her SEVIS status has been reinstated and that she had been in lawful status at all times that she was in the United States.1191
Mohsen Mahdawi
Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident who has been a resident of Vermont for 10 years, was at his citizenship interview on April 14, 2025, when masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested and detained him for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights.
Mahdawi was born and raised in the West Bank and has been a lawful permanent resident for more than 10 years. At the time of his arrest and detention, he was an undergraduate student at Columbia University majoring in philosophy and planning to start a master’s degree program at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. Mahdawi said he dedicated himself “to understanding how to achieve a lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis, particularly through the study of conflict resolution.”1192 As a student at Columbia, Mahdawi was an outspoken critic of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and an activist and organizer in student protests on Columbia’s campus until March 2024, after which he took a step back and was not involved in organizing.1193 Mahdawi attended protests opposing military escalations in the region and gave speeches at several of these protests advocating for Palestinian human rights and a permanent ceasefire.1194 Mahdawi appeared in numerous televised interviews and print news articles regarding the military campaign in Gaza and related protests.
Mahdawi was set to graduate from Columbia in May 2025 and had been scheduled to attend his naturalization interview at an immigration field office in Colchester, Vermont, as one of the final steps in his application to become a U.S. citizen. After completing his citizenship examination on April 14, 2025 — where he signed a document affirming his intent to take the oath to “defend the Constitution” — plainclothes ICE agents unlawfully arrested him and placed him in an unmarked vehicle.1195
After his arrest, ICE agents transported Mahdawi to another United States Citizenship and Immigration Services office and placed a Notice to Appear in his jacket. The Notice to Appear ordered Mahdawi to appear before an immigration judge in Louisiana and stated that he was removable based on a determination by the Secretary of State that his
“presence and activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.”1196
Unbeknownst to Mahdawi, one month earlier, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had issued a memorandum declaring Mahdawi deportable for his lawful speech and associations. The process leading to Secretary Rubio’s determination proceeded with astonishing speed. On March 12, 2025, the Office of Intelligence of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations issued a report on Mahdawi, attaching news articles and social media posts claiming that he was co-president of the Palestinian Student Union and “organizer of pro-Hamas rallies.”1197 On March 14, the State Department received a referral from Assistant Director of the National Security Division of ICE, recommending that Mahdawi be found removable under the foreign policy provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).1198 The Department of Homeland Security referral letter states Mahdawi’s
“involvement in disruptive protests at Columbia University align with the executive orders’ focus on deporting ‘Hamas sympathizers,’” and mentions
“his leadership and involvement in these disruptive protests.”1199
Trial testimony in an unrelated case, AAUP v. Rubio, revealed that upon receipt, the Bureau of Consular Affairs reviewed the referral, compiled an action memo recommending that Mahdawi be found removable, collected approvals from nine offices or individuals, submitted the cleared action memo to Secretary Rubio, and obtained Secretary Rubio’s signoff in approximately 24 hours.1200
On March 15, 2025, a senior State Department official sent an action memo to Secretary Rubio recommending that he determine Mahdawi to be removable under the foreign policy provision of the INA, because of his “participation and roles in anti-Semitic protests,” admitting that “a court may consider his actions inextricably tied to speech protected under the First Amendment.”1201 The memo also noted that the Department of Homeland Security had not identified any alternative grounds to deport Mahdawi, as he had no link to terrorism.1202 That same day, Secretary Rubio approved the recommendation and sent a memo to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, in which Secretary Rubio asserted that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Mahdawi’s continued presence “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States,” and determined Mahdawi to be removable under the foreign policy ground of the INA.1203 The State Department decision letter, which was later disclosed via unrelated litigation in the AAUP v. Rubio case, attributes Secretary Rubio’s determination to information that Mahdawi, “through his leadership and involvement in disruptive protests at Columbia University, has engaged in anti-Semitic conduct through leading pro-Palestinian protests.”1204
Prior to his arrest by ICE, according to emails reviewed by The Intercept, Mahdawi had contacted university administrators asking for help in finding safe housing, stating that he feared abduction by ICE agents.1205 According to Mahdawi, Columbia  did nothing in response to his request.1206
After his arrest, the government attempted to put Mahdawi on a plane to transfer him thousands of miles away to an ICE detention center in Louisiana, but the ICE agents escorting him narrowly missed the flight.1207 Immediately following his arrest, Mahdawi’s attorneys1208 filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that ICE’s arrest and detention of Mahdawi on the basis of his speech and advocacy violated his constitutional rights, including free speech and due process.1209
That same day, a federal judge in the District of Vermont granted a temporary restraining order blocking Mahdawi’s deportation or removal from Vermont in the absence of a further court order, and a week later the court extended the temporary restraining order for another ninety days.1210 On April 30, 2025, the Vermont federal court ordered the Trump administration to release Mahdawi on bail pending resolution of his habeas petition, marking the first court order mandating the release of a noncitizen student arrested by the Trump administration in apparent retaliation for their speech.1211 The court concluded that it could reach the question of the constitutionality of Mahdawi’s detention because it was distinct from the institution of removal proceedings against him and that his detention amounted to retaliation against him for his protected speech and was a violation of his right to due process.1212 When the government requested a seven-day stay of the release order, the judge denied it. Mahdawi was released after 16 days in ICE detention.1213 The government appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion to keep Mahdawi detained pending its appeal of the district court’s release order.1214
In September 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard the Trump administration’s appeal of Mahdawi’s April 2025 release from ICE detention.1215 More specifically, Mahdawi and his legal team asked the court to reject the administration’s argument, which is based on an expansive reading of the INA that would have the effect of precluding individuals like Mahdawi from challenging retaliatory immigration detention in federal courts until their immigration proceedings have finished.1216 Mahdawi’s legal team argued that the government’s dangerous interpretation of the INA means it could punitively detain any noncitizen in retaliation for their speech for many months or years, so long as it simultaneously institutes removal proceedings, no matter how unmeritorious, all without any federal court review of the lawfulness of the detention.
On July 21, 2026, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a ruling that determined federal courts have jurisdiction when immigration authorities detain noncitizens in retaliation for their protected speech. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court lacked the authority to release Mahdawi on bail in April 2025.1217 The decision does not go into effect immediately and as of the publication of this report, the government has no lawful basis to re-detain or deport Mahdawi as the appeals process proceeds. On September 3, 2026, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted Mahdawi’s petition for rehearing en banc, ordering that all of the judges on that court will reconsider the panel’s decision in his case.1218
In February 2026, the immigration judge presiding over Mahdawi’s case, Nina Froes, terminated removal proceedings against him, citing the Trump administration’s failure to authenticate its sole piece of evidence purportedly proving removability: a memorandum attributed to Secretary Rubio claiming that Mahdawi’s protected political speech constituted a threat to U.S. foreign policy.1219 That same month, the government appealed this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), asking the BIA to resume deportation proceedings.1220 Mahdawi and his legal team filed a cross-appeal with the BIA.1221 Immigration Judge Froes was subsequently fired from her position.1222 In April 2026, the BIA held that Mahdawi was removable and remanded proceedings to a new immigration judge, who issued an order of removal in June 2026.1223 Mahdawi appealed the BIA’s remand and the immigration judge’s removal order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where the appeal is pending as of publication of this report. In July 2026, the BIA called for supplemental briefing in Mahdawi’s case regarding the scope of the BIA’s authority to consider constitutional issues.
Following the cross-appeal, Mahdawi remarked,  
“This appeal is not about me. It is about whether the Trump administration can weaponize immigration law to silence dissent and punish those who dare to speak against Israel’s genocide and aggression. I stand not only for the freedom of Palestinians or for my own constitutional rights, but for the sacred promise that in America no human being should fear losing their liberty for exercising their First Amendment rights, including speaking for human rights and against wars.”1224
Dr. Badar Khan Suri
On March 17, 2025, Dr. Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral scholar of religion and peace at Georgetown University and an Indian national, was taken into custody by masked, plainclothes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as he was returning to his Virginia home after breaking fast at a Georgetown campus iftar. Suri had moved from India to Northern Virginia with his wife and their three young children in 2022 on a valid J-1 research scholar and professor visa so that he could pursue his postdoctoral research at Georgetown University’s Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for MuslimChristian Understanding.1225 On the basis of a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Suri posed a threat to U.S. foreign policy, the government canceled Suri’s visa and arrested him.
After his arrest, Suri was taken to the Washington, D.C. ICE office, where an arresting officer told him that someone at a high level in the Secretary of State’s office “does not want you here.”1226 Over the next four days, ICE transported Suri between five different detention facilities in Virginia, Louisiana, and, ultimately, Texas, over 1,000 miles away from his wife and children. While he was shuttled between detention facilities, he was shackled at the hands, waist, and ankles.1227 His wife and lawyers frantically tried to locate him, while the agents refused to tell him where he was going.1228
Following Suri’s arrest, and after a series of emergency filings by his counsel, including a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Virginia,1229  a federal judge ordered that he not be removed from the United States.1230 Suri challenged his arrest, bringing constitutional claims under the First
Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.1231 In early May 2025, a Virginia federal court rejected the Trump administration’s request to dismiss Suri’s habeas case or move it to Texas. On May 14, 2025, the court ordered Suri released from detention on bond after eight weeks in ICE custody, after finding that it could rule on the question of the lawfulness of his detention because the detention was “independent of, and collateral
to, [his] removal process,” and finding that the government had detained Suri in violation of his First Amendment rights.1232
The administration argued that Suri’s presence in the United States “compromise[d] a compelling foreign policy interest” and therefore it had the right to deport him. Suri’s legal team argued that he was arrested in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights and was also targeted because of his U.S. citizen wife’s similar speech, Palestinian origins, and father’s former employment as a political advisor to the prime minister of Gaza in the early 2010s. Suri says he was not involved in campus activism; instead, he used social media to criticize U.S. support of Israel’s military action in Gaza in October 2023, motivated by the time he spent in Gaza for his master’s degree and by fear for his wife’s family members who still lived in Gaza with no way to flee during the war. Weeks before Suri’s detention, he and his wife were targeted by Canary Mission, a blacklisting website known to target people critical of Israel.1233
The federal government has explicitly cited Suri’s political views and family associations as reasons to target him, despite the fact that he was not personally active in campus protests. According to court filings, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin alleged that Suri was “actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media” and had
“close connections to a known or suspected terrorist, who is a senior advisor to Hamas.”1234 Suri denies these claims and argues that his detention is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to suppress Palestine-related speech.
In July 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s request for a stay of the lower court’s decision to release Suri, pending the government’s appeal of that decision.1235 The Trump administration asked the court to permit it to re-detain Suri because, it said, the district court had no jurisdiction to consider his case in the first place. In its appeal, the administration took a narrow view of the courts’ habeas jurisdiction, arguing that because ICE quickly swept Suri out of Virginia without notice to his family or lawyers, the Virginia court did not have jurisdiction to hear his habeas petition, and that his petition should be handled by a court in Texas. The administration also argued that no federal district court has authority to review the constitutionality of Suri’s detention until the executive branch finishes its own administrative immigration process, which can take months or years.
In March 2026, Suri’s habeas case was heard before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Suri asked the court to affirm previous lower court rulings ordering the government to release him on bail and to refute the government’s unfounded claims that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear Suri’s habeas petition prior to the conclusion of his immigration proceedings, an argument that the government has advanced in other cases discussed in this report.1236 Suri’s legal team1237 argued that the federal court in Virginia has jurisdiction over Suri’s habeas petition, and that he must remain free while his case is considered.1238
On July 23, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to re-detain Suri and affirmed a lower court order that required the government to release him on bail as his case proceeds.1239 The court also rejected the government’s request to move the case from Virginia to Texas. The court wrote, “In our view, denying judicial review of detention claims like Suri’s misreads Congress’ statutes and undermines the protections guaranteed all persons on American soil by the writ of habeas corpus.”1240 The court explained, an “unbroken line of caselaw also accords with common sense: if a noncitizen is challenging their detention pending removal, then waiting for their removal proceedings does them no good. They have already been detained, allegedly in violation of the Constitution. This ‘absurd’ reading of the INA would make such detention claims
‘effectively unreviewable,’ and the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to embrace it.”1241 Litigation remains ongoing as of publication of this report.1242 In March 2026, Suri said, “When I came to America to study how governments descend into authoritarianism, I could never have expected to be living the very research I came here to do, and yet today marks exactly one year since I was brutally taken from my family and unjustly imprisoned by the U.S. government for voicing my opposition to Israel’s atrocities in Gaza,” adding “I’m grateful to be standing here a free man, but terrified it could be taken away from me at any moment.”1243
Yunseo Chung
Yunseo Chung, an undergraduate student at Columbia University and lawful permanent resident from South Korea who has been in the United States since she was seven years old, became a target of the Trump administration in March 2025. A high school valedictorian, she was a 21-year-old junior majoring in English and gender studies at the time.
Chung had participated in some pro-Palestinian student protests and demonstrations on Columbia’s campus but did not have a high-profile role in those protests.1244 According to Chung’s lawyers, she had visited the April 2024 encampment on numerous occasions and had faced a school disciplinary hearing in May 2024, during which she was accused of posting flyers around campus featuring photos of members of the Columbia University Board of Trustees with the text “Wanted for Complicity in Genocide.”1245 The university found that she had not violated any university policies.1246
Later, media reports identified Chung as one of the students arrested by New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers on March 5, 2025, at a protest outside a Barnard College academic building, the Milstein Center for Teaching and Learning.1247 Students and other protesters had staged a sit-in inside the academic building to demand that Barnard reverse the expulsions of three students.1248 Chung said she was protesting outside the building on that day and did not organize the protest, speak to the media about
it, or otherwise play a leading role.1249 Rather, she was one participant among many protesting the university’s handling of student discipline over Palestine-related speech. Chung was given a desk appearance ticket on charges of disorderly conduct, trespass, and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, and released.1250 All charges were subsequently dismissed on April 14, 2025, and Chung remained in good standing at Columbia University.1251
The day after Chung’s arrest at Barnard, on March 6, 2025, the Office of Intelligence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s Homeland Security Investigations prepared a report on Chung, which included discussion of news articles referring to Chung as “being part of the protests.”1252 The report also included a list of the three charges that were later dismissed. Mere days later, the Trump administration sought to arrest, detain, and deport Chung from the country.
The following day, after the Office of Intelligence prepared its report on Chung, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations sent a letter referring Chung to the State Department. The day after, a senior State Department official sent an action memo to Secretary of State Marco Rubio recommending that he determine Chung and Mahmoud Khalil to be removable under the foreign policy ground of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). That same day, on March 8, 2025, Secretary Rubio approved the recommendations and sent a memo to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, in which Secretary Rubio asserted that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Chung’s continued presence “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest,” determining Chung to be removable under the foreign policy ground of the INA.1253 The State Department decision letter, which was later disclosed via unrelated litigation in the AAUP v. Rubio case, attributed Secretary Rubio’s determination to her “participation and roles” in
“antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which foster[] a hostile environment  
for Jewish students in the United States.”1254 The State Department decision letter for Chung added that her removability determination was based on her “citations for unlawful activity during these protests” but omitted that the charges for which she was cited could not independently support a removability determination under the crime-related grounds of deportability.1255 The charges related to the demonstration at Barnard College that occurred on March 5, 2025 were later dismissed.
ICE sought to arrest and deport Chung based on
Secretary Rubio’s designation and on March 8, 2025, ICE issued an administrative immigration warrant for Chung’s arrest.1256 According to Chung’s attorneys, on March 9, 2025, ICE showed up at her parents’ residence looking for her and an ICE agent advised Chung’s lawyer that “due to the situation with the protesting,” the Department of State could revoke her lawful permanent resident status.1257
On March 10, a lawyer in the federal prosecutor’s office for the Southern District of New York told Chung’s lawyer that Secretary Rubio had revoked Chung’s visa. Chung’s lawyer said that when she stated that Chung was a lawful permanent resident with a green card and was not in the country on a visa, the federal prosecutor said that Secretary Rubio had “revoked that” as well.1258
On March 13, 2025, ICE obtained a judicial search warrant to enter Columbia University residence halls.1259 That same day, federal law enforcement agents executed the search warrant at two Columbia student residences, Chung’s dormitory and Ranjani Srinivasan’s off-campus student housing, seeking documents, travel records, and immigration records (Srinivasan’s case is described in more detail later in this section of this report).1260
On March 24, 2025, Chung’s legal team filed an emergency habeas corpus petition to block ICE’s attempts to unlawfully detain her.1261 Her legal team argued that she was likely to prevail in showing that the government had unconstitutionally targeted her for her speech, and that she would suffer irreparable harm if she were forced to wait in detention to have a court hear her arguments. On March 25, 2025, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York issued a temporary restraining order barring her detention and deportation until after full briefing and argument on the legality of the government’s actions.1262 After Chung filed suit, the government submitted documentation in her case confirming that they were looking to detain and deport her because of her “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations.”1263 On June 5, 2025, the court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from arresting and detaining Chung while the case is pending.1264 The federal government has since appealed the preliminary injunction.1265
Leqaa Kordia
Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian woman who participated in protests at Columbia University, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents for allegedly overstaying her student visa.1266 Kordia came to the United States on a visitor visa in 2016 to see her mother from whom she had been separated as a child.  She then obtained a student visa in order to study English. Her mother also filed a family-based visa petition that was approved by immigration authorities in 2021. Based on incorrect advice, Kordia terminated her student visa, believing that the approval of her petition meant that she had lawful immigration status while she awaited her green card. Although Kordia was in the process of obtaining legal permanent residency in the United States, she was left without legal immigration status once the student visa was terminated in January 2022.1267
Kordia has lost approximately 175 family members during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Since 2023, she attended multiple pro-Palestinian protests in New Jersey and the surrounding area where she lived. On April 30, 2024, she attended a protest on a public street outside the gates of Columbia University. New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers ordered the demonstrators to disperse. Officers arrested Kordia and others, releasing her the following day. The charges, for failure to disperse, were later dismissed, and she has never been convicted of a crime.1268
According to Kordia’s legal team, as a result of her association with this protest, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began surveilling and investigating Kordia in early March 2025 as part of its implementation of President Trump’s executive orders intended to crack down on speech and expression supportive of Palestinian rights.1269 On March 6, 2025, immigration agents visited Kordia’s home to question her mother, who called Kordia in the agents’ presence. They informed Kordia that there was an issue with her immigration status and that they needed to speak with her. On March 13, 2025, Kordia and her attorney voluntarily met with DHS agents at the Newark ICE Field Office in New Jersey. Kordia was immediately detained, despite being found by ICE to present a low risk to public safety and having no criminal history. She was transferred overnight to Prairieland Detention Facility in Texas, far from her attorney and family, a facility that has a history of documented human rights violations.
The day after Kordia’s detention, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem publicly announced her arrest, accusing her, without evidence, of “support[ing] Hamas” and adding that she “was arrested for her involvement in proHamas protests at Columbia University in New York City.”1270 In an April 2025 press release, DHS stated it had detained Kordia because she advocated for Palestinian rights on Columbia’s campus, describing Kordia as “another Columbia Student who actively participated in anti-American, pro-terrorist activities on campus.”1271 Although Kordia was never a student at Columbia, the same day, in a post on social media site X, DHS again described Kordia as a “Columbia student who actively participated in anti-American, pro-terrorist activities on campus.”1272
Kordia was detained at the ICE detention facility in Texas for more than one year, despite an immigration judge twice ordering her release at two bond hearings in immigration court.1273 Both times, DHS had invoked an automatic stay — and later a discretionary stay — to keep her detained without providing evidence that justified her continued detention. At her third bond hearing, the immigration judge described the government’s arguments against release on bond as “disingenuous” and ordered Ms. Kordia’s release on $100,000 bond.1274 Kordia was finally released on March 16, 2026.1275
While in detention, Kordia’s health deteriorated and she was hospitalized.1276 She also reported suffering repeated violations of her religious rights in detention, including being denied access to halal food, clean space to pray, and clothing that adequately covers the body for prayer.1277
In addition to her family-based petition for lawful permanent residency, Kordia filed claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In late 2025, an immigration judge granted her withholding of removal. As a Palestinian from the West Bank, there is no prospect for Kordia’s lawful removal to Palestine, and Kordia could be deported to Israel if her removal proceeds. She has argued that this poses a severe risk to her life and that therefore her removal is unlawful under U.S. and international law. Kordia filed a habeas petition in April 2025,1278 and on March 19, 2026, the district court dismissed her habeas petition as moot, holding that it could not grant her the relief she sought.1279 Judgment was entered the following day, denying all pending motions and dismissing the action without prejudice.1280
Additional Cases
Ranjani Srinivasan, a Ph.D. student from India and F-1 student visa holder at Columbia University, was expected to graduate in May 2025 with a doctoral degree in urban planning from the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation.
Srinivasan had been arrested at an entrance
to Columbia’s campus in April 2024, the night students took over Hamilton Hall. According to their lawyer, Srinivasan did not actually participate in that protest and was trying to return home after a departmental picnic when they were caught between protesters and the police barricades.1281 Srinivasan was detained briefly and received two summonses; the charges were quickly dismissed.1282 Srinivasan said they never faced disciplinary action from the university and they were in good academic standing. Srinivasan had signed several open letters related to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and said their activity on social media was limited to liking or sharing posts that highlighted human rights violations in the war in Gaza. Srinivasan also said they had attended only “a handful of low-level protests” and had not been in the country from
August 2023 to April 2024, when a majority of proPalestinian campus protests took place.1283
On March 5, 2025, the U.S. Consulate in Chennai, India, informed Srinivasan that their F-1 student visa had been revoked because new information had “come to light,” without further explanation.1284 On March 7, 2025, while Srinivasan was on a Zoom call with an advisor from Columbia’s International Students and Scholars Office, three U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents knocked on the door of their off-campus apartment operated by Columbia.1285 The ICE agents refused to identify themselves and did not present a warrant, and Srinivasan’s roommate refused to open the door to let them in. The agents returned the following evening, but Srinivasan had left the apartment the night before.
On March 8, 2025, ICE issued an administrative warrant for Srinivasan’s arrest.1286 According to Srinivasan, on March 9, 2025, Columbia personnel informed Srinivasan via email that ICE had terminated their SEVIS record, effectively rendering it impossible for them to continue their education program, and Columbia had disenrolled them, requiring them to vacate student housing or face “appropriate proceedings.”1287 Fearing that ICE would target them for detention and deportation,1288
Srinivasan left for Canada on  
March 11, 2025.1289 On March 13, ICE agents returned to Srinivasan’s apartment a third time and entered their apartment with a judicial warrant issued that day, but Srinivasan had already left the country.1290 On March 14, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem issued a post on X, accompanied by a video of Srinivasan, stating “I’m glad to see one of the Columbia University terrorist sympathizers use the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Home app to self deport.”1291 That same day, the Department of Homeland Security issued a press release describing Srinivasan as having “advocat[ed] for violence and terrorism”  and “involved in activities supporting Hamas,” without providing any description or information  to support such claims.1292
In a statement later describing the sequence of events leading to their leaving the United States, Srinivasan wrote, “I never expected Columbia to let me down” after being erroneously labeled a
“terrorist sympathizer.” 1293 Srinivasan said that their ordeal “demonstrates not only the absolute power the Department of State has over F-1 visa holders and the few legal options before us, but also the extent to which Columbia has been cooperating with ICE, instead of protecting its students.”1294 Srinivasan said they were in contact with Columbia University from the moment they received word from the Department of State that their visa was revoked and that, although Columbia initially seemed supportive, once ICE became involved, the university ceased to provide assistance.1295 Srinivasan added that they “spent five years at Columbia, working 100-hour weeks,” and “never expected the institution to let me down. But it did.”1296
Momodou Taal, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Africana Studies at Cornell University who is a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and The Gambia, came to the United States as an F-1 student visa holder to pursue his Ph.D. studies. As a graduate student, Taal was active in student protests of U.S. foreign policy, particularly its military and financial support for the Israeli government.1297 Taal faced university disciplinary measures for his participation in student protests and was temporarily suspended twice, in April and September 2024, for joining demonstrations calling on Cornell to divest from Israel.1298 According to Taal, the university reversed his second suspension after two appeals but barred him from campus.1299 An alternative resolution agreement finalized in January 2025 by the university contained no allegations of violence and allowed Taal to continue his studies remotely until regaining full campus access at the end of the spring 2025 semester.1300
As Taal became more prominent in his advocacy, private groups and organizations aiming to deter pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel advocacy began calling on ICE to arrest and deport Taal for his participation in protests.1301 On March 13, 2025, for example, Betar USA posted on social media site X a “Deport Alert” that specifically named Taal as a target.1302 Fearful of ICE arrest and deportation, on March 15, 2025, Taal and two U.S. citizens filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, seeking an injunction against implementation of the Trump administration’s two executive orders and against the application of the administration’s ideological removal policy to Taal.1303 The court issued an order setting a hearing on March 25, 2025, to address the merits of the legal claims, but it also denied Taal’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order preemptively blocking the government from detaining or deporting him  until the court could fully review the legal merits  
of the case.1304
On March 19, 2025, two unidentified law enforcement officers appeared in the parking lot  of Taal’s residence; the same day, his attorneys filed an emergency motion, again seeking protection from the court via an injunction.1305 Two days later, attorneys from the Department of Justice emailed Taal’s lawyers, informing them that ICE intended to arrest and detain Taal and inviting Taal to surrender himself to ICE.1306 Nearly 20 hours later, Taal received notice that his F-1 student visa had been revoked. In a legal filing, a State Department official said that Taal’s visa had been revoked on March 14, 2025, the day before he filed his lawsuit.1307 In other legal filings, government officials conceded that Department of Homeland Security agents had identified Taal by conducting a review of publicly available information.1308
Taal ultimately decided to leave the U.S. rather than face detention and deportation,1309 stating, “Given what we have seen across the United States, I have lost faith that a favourable ruling from the courts would guarantee my personal safety and ability to express my beliefs,” and “I have lost faith I could walk the streets without being abducted. Weighing up these options, I took the decision to leave on my own terms.”1310 Taal told Democracy Now that Cornell’s disciplining of him facilitated the Trump administration’s attempts to deport him, stating,

“Cornell University has placed a target on my back.”1311 University students, student organizations, faculty, and university staff have been deterred from speaking and organizing in support of Palestinian rights. Activists are understandably hesitant to engage in political expression criticizing Israel or advocating for Palestinian rights because they have reason to believe the federal government will actively investigate such expression in connection with harassment complaints and investigations.
The 2023–2024 academic year saw an expansive series of protests, demonstrations and encampments on university and college campuses — both large and small — all across the country.
According to the organization Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), more than 1,360 student demonstrations took place in the United States between October 7, 2023, and May 3, 2024, calling for university divestment from Israel and in support of Palestinian rights. ACLED determined that the overwhelming majority of those protests
— 97 percent — remained peaceful.1312 Despite this, as discussed previously, these protests were violently suppressed by university administrations’ summoning of law enforcement on campuses.
The fear of similar repression directly led to some protesters’ decisions to not reengage in public demonstrations on campus during the ensuing academic year.1313 In the fall 2024 semester, the total number of protest actions dropped by more than 64 percent from the previous semester.1314 Protest activity continued to decline through spring 2025 and into the following 2025–2026 academic year.1315 This decline was not due to a lack of support for Palestinians: a March 2025 Gallup poll found that sympathy for Palestinians had reached a record high and support for Israel had reached its lowest level in at least 25 years in the United States.1316
The decline in protests was the direct result of crackdowns on protesters, university policies restricting protests, and the Trump administration’s attacks on universities. As outlined earlier in this report, summer and fall 2024 saw a series of changes to university policies regarding protests; the disciplining of students and faculty, including expulsion and terminations; and the summoning of university presidents before Congressional hearings on antisemitism on campus. The Trump administration took more direct action by rescinding federal funding and research grants and threatening and opening civil rights investigations by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, among other attempts to get university administrations to capitulate to the government’s demands. These actions led universities to suppress students’ and faculty members’ rights to protest and free speech. The result has been a less visible protest movement on campuses across the country.1317
Individual protest actions continued to occur on a periodic basis. For instance, in New York City alone, students at Columbia, Barnard, and Brooklyn College engaged in protests and shortterm occupations, sometimes leading to arrests and disciplinary actions against students during the spring 2025 term.1318 However, the sustained and ongoing assemblies seen in 2024 notably subsided.
According to one survey of Middle Eastern studies scholars conducted in early 2025, even before much of the Trump administration’s full-scale assault on academia materialized, the University of Maryland’s Critical Issues Poll found the overall environment on campus remained “oppressive and uncertain” as political pressure had increased, leading to rampant self-censorship and an increase in actual censorship. According to the poll, 57 percent of Middle Eastern studies scholars said they felt a greater need to selfcensor when discussing issues related to Israel and Palestine since President Trump took office, and 84 percent expected campus leadership to be more severe in responding to campus demonstrations. Furthermore, 78 percent of respondents claimed that this had been the worst period, or among the worst periods, of their professional careers when it came to facing pressure over issues related to Israel and Palestine.1319
The decrease in assemblies may have also occurred due to other reasons, such as yearly changes in the student body due to attrition and graduation of protest organizers, the suspension of certain student groups that had organized the previous protests, and protest fatigue, as well as a change  of tactics by student groups and faculty.1320
However, possibly acting as a tipping point, the targeted attacks on international students and faculty by the Trump administration has had a notable chilling effect on student protests and impact on academic freedom. International students and faculty from across the country say they continue to feel afraid to voice opinions or stand out on campus for fear of getting kicked out of the country. Many students stopped attending classes or events on campus.1321
Shortly following the initial detentions under the U.S. government’s program of targeting international students and faculty, a group of U.N. experts called on the U.S. government to cease the repression of international student protesters, claiming the “disproportionate, unnecessary, and discriminatory” actions “create a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and of association.”1322 They went on to state that, “[t] he principle of academic freedom is fundamental for the maintenance of faculties and student bodies that can tackle critical issues for discussion without penalisation.” The experts noted that “expulsion, deportation, and denial of the right to complete education courses/programmes and receive an academic degree are devastating for students, preventing them the right to a life’s project and from pursuing their future academic or professional aspirations” and such actions are more attributable to “authoritarian institutions.”1323
Several higher education groups sued the Trump administration in March 2025 in order to stop the deportation of college students and faculty protesting Israel’s war on Gaza, claiming such actions have chilled speech and impacted academic freedom on campus.1324 The groups claimed in their complaint that the Trump administration’s targeting of student protesters is “terrorizing” university students and faculty merely for exercising their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that some noncitizen students and faculty had stopped attending public protests or withdrew from campus groups that engage in political advocacy. Others declined opportunities to publish commentary and scholarship, stopped contributing to classroom discussions, or deleted past work from online databases and websites. Many now hesitate to address political issues on social media, or even in private texts, out of fear that they might be arrested and deported for lawful expression and association.1325
As the trial took place in July 2025, several college professors and researchers testified that the arrests of lawful permanent resident students like Mahmoud Khalil at Columbia and international students such as Tufts University’s Rümeysa Öztürk have chilled free speech on campus. Nadje Al-Ali, a German anthropologist and former international studies professor at Brown University, testified that she canceled plans to travel abroad and stopped pursuing research related to Palestine out of fear of being arrested. She went on to testify how Khalil’s arrest made her rethink attending a “No Kings Day” protest in Providence, Rhode Island, against the Trump administration and its policies. “I would have liked to participate…but I was worried that my identity would be captured as part of the protest and that I would be risking increasing my vulnerability in terms of being targeted,” she said.1326 Megan Hyska, a Canadian philosophy professor at Northwestern University, testified that she decided not to publish an op-ed she wrote about organizing resistance to the Trump administration’s policies out of a similar fear of being targeted for arrest.1327 Students and faculty must worry not only about university administrations, law enforcement, and the federal government when engaging in protestrelated activities regarding Israel and Palestine. One of the key revelations from the trial was how the federal government relied upon third-party actors to identify student and faculty protesters. These third-party actors included Canary Mission, a largely anonymous group dedicated to the support of Israel and Israeli policies and known for creating dossiers and doxing thousands of Palestine-supporting students, faculty, and activists; and the group Betar USA, which the Anti-Defamation League lists as an “extremist organization.” It was well-known through selfpublicity that Canary Mission and Betar USA compiled “deportation lists” and sent names to government officials. However, for the first time, testimony of senior U.S. immigration officials revealed the extensive reliance of the government on these lists to identify and target international and foreign students through the U.S. State Department’s “catch and revoke” program.1328 In
January 2026, the court issued an order formally declaring that the Trump administration’s policy of arresting, detaining, and threatening to deport noncitizen students and faculty for their political speech violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act.1329
Legal Analysis
u.S. constitutional Law
All Academic Institutions Must Ensure Freedom of Speech and Free Association
The ability to criticize governments and their policies is a critical component of democracy.  In fact, the Supreme Court has held that political speech is “at the core of what the First Amendment  is designed to protect.”1330 Promoting discussion and debate on issues of public interest is critical  for “the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.”1331 Likewise the principles of academic freedom require higher education institutions to safeguard protected speech and political debate in order to help students pursue knowledge.
The United States has a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open[.]”1332 That commitment extends to college and university campuses, where the First Amendment safeguards free speech and free association.
Free speech and free association are central to all academic institutions, and students should not be penalized for their political speech or associations. In Healy v. James, the Supreme Court affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of student groups to associate and speak out on matters of public concern, free from censorship by public university officials, even when the student groups may be aligned with political viewpoints considered radical and unpopular.1333 The Court forcefully rejected the premise that, “because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.”1334
“Quite to the contrary,” the Court stated, “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.”1335
In that case, the president of a public college in Connecticut denied recognition to a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, based on its perceived association with the national organization and the national organization’s radical philosophy and actions. Reiterating that “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools,”1336 the Court held that the college’s refusal of recognition to the student group amounted to a prior restraint, imposing a “heavy burden” on the college to justify the propriety of its action under the First Amendment.1337 The Court explained that a student group’s mere affiliation with an “unpopular organization” like the national Students for a Democratic Society could not satisfy the college’s
“burden of establishing a knowing affiliation with an organization possessing unlawful aims and goals, and a specific intent to further those illegal aims.”1338
The First Amendment compels public universities and colleges to respect free speech rights. While the Constitution does not apply directly to private institutions because it applies only to government entities and actors, principles of academic freedom and free inquiry nonetheless demand protection of free speech and association on private as well as public campuses.
Schools Must Not Single Out Particular
Viewpoints for Censorship, Discipline, or
Disproportionate Punishment
University administrators must not single out particular viewpoints — however offensive they may be to some members of the community — for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. Viewpoint neutrality is essential. Harassment directed at individuals because of their race, ethnicity, or religion is impermissible. General calls for a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea,” or defenses of Israel’s assault on Gaza, even if many listeners find these messages deeply offensive, cannot be prohibited or punished by a university that respects free speech principles.
These protections extend to both students and faculty, and to speech that supports either side of the conflict. Inside and outside the classroom, including on social media, students and professors must be free to express even the most controversial political opinions without fear of discipline or censure, provided it is not targeted, harassing speech. Preserving physical safety on campuses is necessary, but “safety” from ideas or views that one finds offensive is anathema to the very enterprise of the university.
Schools Must Protect Students From
Discriminatory Harassment and Violence
Both public and private universities are bound by civil rights laws that guarantee all students equal access to education, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This means that schools can, and indeed must, protect students from discriminatory harassment on the basis of race or national origin, which has been interpreted to include discrimination on the basis of “shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” or “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity.”1339
So, while offensive and even racist speech is constitutionally protected, shouting an epithet at a particular student or pinning an offensive sign to their dorm room door can constitute impermissible harassment, not free speech. Antisemitic or antiPalestinian speech targeted at individuals because of their ethnicity or national origin constitutes invidious discrimination, and cannot be tolerated. Physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively
is unprotected conduct, not protected speech. It should go without saying that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic.
Speech that is not targeted at an individual or individuals because of their ethnicity or national origin but merely expresses impassioned views about Israel or Palestine is not discrimination and should be protected. The only exception for such untargeted speech is where it is so severe or pervasive that it denies students equal access to an education — an extremely demanding standard that has almost never been met by pure speech. One can criticize Israel’s actions, even in vituperative terms, without being antisemitic. And by the same token, one can support Israel’s actions in Gaza and condemn Hamas without being anti-Muslim. Administrators must resist the tendency to equate criticism with discrimination. Speech condoning violence can be condemned, to be sure. But it cannot be the basis for punishment, without more.
Schools Can Announce and Enforce
Reasonable Content-Neutral Protest Policies,
But They Must Leave Ample Room for
Students to Express Themselves
Universities can announce and enforce reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on protest activity to ensure that essential college functions can continue. Such restrictions must be content neutral, meaning that they do not depend on the substance of what is being communicated, but rather where, when, or how it is being communicated. Protests can be limited to certain areas of campus and certain times of the day, for example, where justified by the need for people to move about campus, use those areas for other activities, or have noise restrictions to enable sleep or studying. These policies must, however, leave ample room for students to speak to and to be heard by other members of the community. The rules must not only be content neutral on their face; they must also be applied in a content-neutral manner. If a university has routinely tolerated violations of its rules, and suddenly enforces those rules harshly in a specific context, singling out particular views for punishment, the fact that the policy is formally neutral on its face does not make viewpoint-based enforcement permissible.
Colleges and Universities Should Encourage Robust Discussion and Exploration of Ideas by Students, Faculty, and Staff, Regardless  of Their Nationality or Immigration Status
Institutions of higher learning play a key role in democratic societies. As spaces committed to academic freedom and open discourse — and which are often home to a diverse group of people with a range of different backgrounds, bringing together scholars and students from throughout the United States and all over the world — college and university campuses have been central to political expression and the development of ideas throughout the history of the United States. American campuses also enable noncitizen students and faculty to more freely express themselves
— including by expressing views that might be subject to heightened repression and censorship in their countries of origin — through political demonstrations,1340 academic debate, or research and writing.1341
President Trump’s Executive Orders 14161 and 14188, detailed earlier in this report, are at odds with the foundations of academic freedom. Ideologically motivated efforts to police speech on campus — including speech critical of America’s
“citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles,”1342 or of the acts of the U.S. government or foreign governments — undermine the foundation on which academic communities are built, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of speakers who are censored.
For public universities and colleges, the orders could require campus officials to violate the First Amendment, which obligates government entities to respect free speech rights, including those of its students, faculty, and staff who are not U.S. citizens.
As detailed above, schools are also obligated under federal law to protect students from discrimination, harassment, threats, and violence. But protected political speech and association alone — no matter how offensive to members of the campus community — cannot be the basis for discipline, nor should they lead to immigration consequences. Private universities, though not bound directly by the First Amendment, are also guided by similar commitments to academic freedom and free inquiry, and they have a responsibility to protect freedom of expression under international human rights law and standards. In addition, the First Amendment safeguards against government efforts to pressure private universities to stifle their community members’ disfavored speech.1343
The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
Equates Protected Political Speech  With Discrimination
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of antisemitism is overbroad.1344 It equates constitutionally protected political speech with unprotected discrimination. Criticism of Israel and its policies is political speech, squarely protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring or penalizing such core political speech. But the IHRA working definition declares that “denying the Jewish people their right to selfdetermination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” and “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” are all examples of antisemitism.1345
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is not rooted in the legal protections against hostile environments and instead seeks to prohibit speech based on viewpoint alone. Harassment of Jewish students is wrong and illegal. But speech that is critical of Israel or any other government cannot, alone, constitute harassment. Speech that is not targeted at an individual or individuals because
of their ethnicity or national origin but merely expresses impassioned views about Israel, Palestine, immigration policy, or any other subject the White House may find objectionable is not discrimination and should be protected. The only exception for such untargeted speech is where it is so severe or pervasive that it denies students equal access to an education  —  an extremely demanding standard that is rarely, if ever, met by pure speech. Federal government officials cannot coerce university officials into taking actions inconsistent with this settled First Amendment law.
The lead author of the original IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has himself opposed the application of this definition to campus speech, noting that codifying this definition would lead campus administrators to “fear lawsuits when outside groups complain about anti-Israel expression,  and the University doesn’t punish, stop or denounce it.”1346
Speech that is censored today will set the stage for what is censored tomorrow. And as Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in a concurrence in the case Matal v. Tam, “a law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”1347
As discussed earlier in this report, if the Department of Education continues to use the
IHRA working definition of antisemitism in its investigations of Title VI complaints, protected speech will inevitably be chilled.1348 This could result in colleges and universities suppressing a wide variety of speech critical of Israel or in support of Palestinian rights in an effort to avoid investigations by the department and the potential loss of funding, even where such speech is protected and does not qualify as harassment.

Equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism by law under a threat of investigation will only create more fear in schools, prompting administrators to silence this speech regardless of whether it is protected. It will inspire an increasing number of complaints focused on constitutionally protected criticism of Israel. These complaints will not only cause schools to limit speech out of fear, but will also force both the Department of Education and covered universities to devote time and resources to addressing complaints about constitutionally protected speech, instead of meritorious harassment complaints. Even if lawsuits and complaints are dismissed, merely bringing them would likely be sufficient motivation for schools  to censor their communities, fearing recourse  from donors, faculty, political leaders, and prospective students.
Even where administrators do not take formal action, students and their organizations, faculty, and university staff may be deterred from speaking and organizing on these issues. Activists would be understandably hesitant to engage in any expression criticizing Israel or advocating for Palestinian rights if they have reason to believe the federal government will actively investigate such expression in connection with harassment complaints and investigations.
While the ACLU and AIUSA wholly support efforts to fight discrimination and harassment through Title VI complaints and investigations, the organizations strongly oppose use of the IHRA definition, or any definition of discrimination that threatens to censor or penalize speech protected by the First Amendment.
Title VI Must Be Read Consistently With Principles of Free Speech and Academic
Freedom on University Campuses
University and college policies interpreting and applying Title VI that have the effect of prohibiting speech related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, such as campus policies that rely on the IHRA’s overly broad and vague definition of antisemitism, will infringe upon and chill campus speech and academic freedom. Universities should not conflate political criticism with hate or use isolated incidents as a pretext to silence political or other views they oppose.
In the university environment, the First Amendment guarantees the constitutional rights of free expression and association at public universities. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act1349 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin and promotes equal educational opportunity at both public and private universities that receive federal funding. In prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin, Title VI has been interpreted to forbid discrimination grounded in “actual or perceived national origin,” including “shared ancestry.” The statute, therefore, reaches forms of bigotry that include antisemitism, Islamophobia, and anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and anti-Israeli discrimination.
An educational institution may be responsible under Title VI for creating a “hostile environment” based on harassment if such harassment “is subjectively and objectively offensive and is so severe or pervasive that it limits or denies a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from” an educational opportunity, and the institution received actual or constructive notice of the hostile environment and “failed to take prompt and effective steps” to combat it.1350 Courts have held, for example, that epithets directed towards a particular student, racist or antisemitic slurs, offensive symbols being posted or graffitied on school grounds, bullying, and threats of violence could contribute to impermissible harassment.1351 Universities must take seriously and vigorously investigate any such “subjectively and objectively offensive” harassment that is pervasive and gives rise to an antisemitic, anti-Israeli, anti-Muslim, anti-
Palestinian, and/or anti-Arab hostile environment.1352
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil
Rights (OCR), which enforces Title VI, is clear that
“[t]he fact that harassment may involve conduct that includes speech in a public setting or speech that is also motivated by political or religious beliefs… does not relieve a school of its obligation to respond under Title VI…if the harassment creates a hostile environment in school for a student or students.”1353
At the same time, Title VI must be interpreted and applied in a manner that comports with constitutional standards. OCR has therefore long recognized that Title VI must be applied in conformance with the constitutional standards enshrined in the First Amendment.1354 Under those standards, efforts made pursuant to Title VI to regulate expression or association on the basis of the content of speech can only be sustained if such efforts advance “compelling interests” and do so in a manner that is “narrowly tailored.”1355 Prohibiting “severe or pervasive” harassment that deprives a student of an educational opportunity clearly serves “compelling state interests,” and the application of Title VI prohibitions on harassment must be applied in a “narrowly tailored” fashion.
OCR issued a Dear Colleague letter in 2021, with the goal of helping schools correctly interpret and apply President Trump’s Executive Order requiring agencies to “consider” the IHRA working definition without running afoul of the First Amendment.1356 In the letter, OCR stated:
An anti-Semitic incident does not violate Title VI merely because it is anti-Semitic, or because it involves an example of anti-Semitism contemplated by the IHRA. Rather, the Executive Order states that a “detailed analysis” is required to determine if a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI, as is true “with all other Title VI complaints.” Nor does the Executive Order “alter the evidentiary requirements” for agencies for determining whether a recipient’s conduct amounts to actionable discrimination.1357

  
In other words, the determination of whether protected communications are legally sufficient to obligate a university to take action under Title VI must be based on careful consideration of numerous factors, on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether the hostile environment threshold has been satisfied.
 Accordingly, federal courts considering Title VI and university anti-discrimination policies have recognized that when schools attempt to restrict or punish speech made in the educational community on matters of public concern, including Palestinian rights and criticism of the Israeli or U.S. government, they risk violating free speech guarantees. For instance, a California district court concluded that a Title VI claim alleging an antisemitic hostile environment at the University of California at Berkeley could not be applied to stifle student speech that was pro-Palestinian and opposed to the government of Israel because “a substantial portion of the conduct” at issue in the case “represent[ed] pure political speech and expressive conduct, in a public setting, on matters of public concern, which is entitled special protection under the First Amendment.”1358
Although that case concerned a public university, this reasoning is no less true in a private university context because any school that receives public funding must interpret and apply Title VI in a manner consistent with the First Amendment. OCR is clear that it “enforces the laws within our jurisdiction consistent with the First Amendment,” and “[n]othing in Title VI or regulations implementing it requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”1359
While private universities may have greater flexibility to craft discrimination policies absent strict constitutional constraints, they should not misrepresent what Title VI requires and give it a broader reading than that which would be compatible with the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Public and private universities that receive federal funding alike are obligated
to interpret and apply Title VI in a manner that comports with the constitutional standards embodied in the First Amendment, which would strictly scrutinize any provisions attempting to limit speech.1360 Moreover, under international human rights law and standards, private universities have the responsibility to protect the right to freedom of expression as well as the right to nondiscrimination.1361
In recent rulings in cases examining the intersection of Title VI hostile educational environment claims and the First Amendment in the context of proPalestine protests on college campuses, federal courts have held that Title VI does not require a university to squash speech protected by the First Amendment.1362 Evaluating speech in the form of rallies, flyers, speeches, sit-ins, and protests, courts have found that the speech at issue is protected by the First Amendment, including phrases such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “globalize the intifada.”1363 Finding that speech on matters of public concern directed to the community at large is very different from targeted, personal harassment aimed at a particular person, courts ruled that political speech will generally not meet the high standard for proving hostility or offensiveness required under Title VI.
For instance, in October 2025, the First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a Title VI case against Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), holding that the First Amendment “erects safeguards that limit the ability of the government or private plaintiffs to punish MIT for not restricting more severely the student protesters’ protected speech,” noting that “speech made in public that is related to matters of public concern has been given ‘special protection under the First Amendment’ and thus ‘cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.’”1364
The court found that die-ins, disruptive walkouts during class, and other protests that violated campus rules were protected by the First Amendment and did not violate Jewish students’ civil rights, stating, “By gathering together in groups on campus, disrupting campus tranquility, and impeding travel for many students, the protesters did not render their speech antisemitic, much less unprotected.” 1365 The court found as a threshold matter that “most of the conduct about which plaintiffs complain is speech protected by the First Amendment, and [the court does] not construe Title VI as requiring a university to quash protected speech.”1366
Declining to hold MIT liable for violating Title VI in its handling of the protests, the court held that the pro-Palestinian, “anti-Zionist” protesters’ chants and signs constituted political speech criticizing Israel and that there was no showing by the plaintiffs that this criticism was motivated by antisemitism. The court refused to characterize pro-Palestine protests at MIT as antisemitic, ruling,
“We therefore reject plaintiffs’ claimed right to stifle anti-Zionist speech by labeling it inherently antisemitic.”1367 The court declined to equate antiZionism with antisemitism and “interpret Title VI as arming either side of that debate with the powers of a censor,” noting that “Plaintiffs are entitled to their own interpretive lens equating anti-Zionism (as they define it) and antisemitism. But it is another matter altogether to insist that others  must be bound by plaintiffs’ view.”1368  
Federal district courts have similarly ruled that  Title VI does not and cannot require that universities punish and silence protected political speech. For example, in June 2025, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege intentional discrimination under Title VI.1369 The lawsuit was filed by three Jewish students alleging that the University of Pennsylvania had tolerated antisemitic incidents on campus that had created a hostile educational environment for Jewish students in violation of Title VI. “I could find no allegations that Penn or its administration has itself taken any actions or positions which, even when read in the most favorable light, could be interpreted as antisemitic with the intention of causing harm to the plaintiffs,” the judge wrote, adding, “At worst, plaintiffs accuse Penn of tolerating and permitting the expression of viewpoints which differ from their own.”1370 The alleged incidents described in the complaint include students chanting common pro-Palestinian slogans such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” chants with the word
“intifada,” a sit-in and study-in, and a Palestinian literature festival. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in August 2025 and as of publication of this report, the appeal is pending before the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals following oral argument in May 2026.1371

University of Pittsburgh, April 29 2024.
In January and June 2025 rulings by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing Title VI claims brought by a group of Jewish students against Haverford College, the court found that the evidence presented did not establish that the alleged antisemitic incidents were severe or pervasive enough to meet the legal standards for creating a hostile educational environment under Title VI.1372
“However noble the objective of nondiscrimination, institutions cannot be threatened with civil liability for declining to censor First Amendment protected speech,” the court noted in rejecting the Title VI claims, adding, “Title VI is not a portal for students… to advance their view of how contentious issues should be handled on campus.”1373 The court described pro-Palestinian student expression, such as keffiyehs, as a “classic example of protected First Amendment expression,” refuting allegation that keffiyehs, which it described as “attire that signified [] support for Palestinians,” created a hostile antisemitic environment.1374
In a February 2025 ruling permitting some Title VI claims against Cooper Union to go forward, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Title VI must be applied consistently with First Amendment principles, even when the defendant college is a private institution.1375 The court ruled, “A statute that burdens protected speech must comport with the First Amendment,”1376 cautioning that “interpreting Title VI to impose liability for a hostile environment created in part by pure speech on matters of public concern would cast significant doubt on the statute’s constitutionality.”1377 The court noted that
“speech ‘on a matter of public concern, directed to the college community,’ will generally fail to ‘constitute unlawful harassment.’”1378
The court concluded that speech that is reasonably designed or intended to contribute to debate on matters of public concern, and that is expressed through generally accepted methods of communication, does not constitute unlawful harassment under Title VI. As a result, the court explicitly refused to treat a sidewalk demonstration, chanting slogans, flyers, speeches, protest art, and student newspaper articles as actionable harassment merely because Jewish students experienced them as hostile or antisemitic. The court also noted the complaint “offers no factual support for its assertion that any of these messages were intended to target particular Jewish students, as opposed to efforts to communicate a political message to the [college] community at large.”1379 Lastly, the court ruled that “requiring schools to censor or punish political speech to avoid liability for a hostile environment would burden not only their students’ freedom of expression, but the academic freedom of the institution itself to create an educational environment centered around the free exchange of ideas.”1380
The lawsuit was filed by 10 Jewish students and alleged violations of Title VI, asserting that Cooper Union permitted a hostile educational environment based on the students’ national origin and that the college was deliberately indifferent to antisemitic national-origin harassment under Title VI.1381 The complaint described an incident that took place during a pro-Palestinian demonstration in December 2023, in which a group of Jewish students hid in a campus library while pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered outside and chanted and banged on doors and windows of the library for 20 minutes.1382 The court held that some of the speech and conduct described in the students’ lawsuit, such as the library incident and other campus vandalism and harassment, created a plausible claim of “hostile or abusive…discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the] educational environment” and thus was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The court distinguished these from “many of the alleged instances of harassment detailed in” the complaint that are “examples of pure speech on matters of public concern.”1383 In January 2026, Cooper Union reached a settlement with the 10 student plaintiffs, agreeing to monetary compensation for the students and a set of changes to its anti-discrimination and protest policies.1384
The requisite “narrowly tailored” and restrictive reading of Title VI will undoubtedly leave some offensive speech unpunished by governmental entities. This is not to say that such offensive speech will remain unaddressed. The Supreme Court has observed that the answer to offensive speech in many, if not most, circumstances lies not in imposing punishment but in generating and uplifting “more speech” to correct the errors of the misstatement and to explain why the offensive speech is truly offensive. Justice Louis Brandeis eloquently conveyed this point, observing that “[i] f there be time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence…. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such…is the command of the Constitution.”1385 This “more speech” approach is one that universities are particularly wellpositioned to pursue.
Academic freedom is fundamental to any university’s healthy functioning because the purpose of universities is to encourage critical thought, experimentation, and cultural and social evolution.1386 As a vital “marketplace of ideas,”1387 the university environment exposes students and faculty to new ideas and viewpoints. Students learn to question, formulate, and express their own views and to think for themselves. In this environment, students thus become better prepared to participate in a democratic society.1388 To uphold academic freedom, universities must maintain a protected space for academic discourse free from state intrusion. It is in this protected space where the academic community can best exercise its established right to determine, monitor, and correct the content of lectures and academic discussion.1389 This is particularly important when academic discourse involves political speech, dissenting views, or criticism of government action.1390
Nothing Obligates Universities to Act as Deputies in Immigration Law Enforcement
The federal government cannot force state or local institutions, including universities and colleges, to participate in certain types of immigration enforcement. Federal courts have consistently upheld the right of state and local authorities to limit their collaboration with federal immigration enforcement.1391 The federal government additionally cannot coerce state and local authorities into enforcing federal immigration laws by improperly withholding funding.1392 Public universities and colleges are thus not obligated to act as deputies in immigration enforcement.
If university officials acquiesced to such demands to participate in immigration enforcement, there would be harmful consequences for the primary mission of the university. Students and faculty from other countries are crucial members of university communities. If universities were to participate in viewpoint-based immigration enforcement against students and faculty, and the curtailment of their constitutional rights, it could lead to dire consequences for them personally. Such enforcement could also damage institutions of higher learning by sowing distrust, reducing the major contributions immigrants provide to universities,1393 and undermining recruitment efforts. Engaging in such enforcement would represent a breakdown of the principles upon which our higher education systems are built.
Moreover, if universities were to fulfill immigration law enforcement requests that single out immigrant students or faculty for punishment for their exercise of free speech, they would run the risk of creating an environment that discriminates against students and faculty based on national origin or that substantially impairs their ability to participate equally in university programming — both of which are illegal under Title VI.
Schools Must Protect the Privacy  of All Students, Including Immigrant  and International Students
University officials are responsible for ensuring the integrity and the confidentiality of student records. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) requires universities to protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable student information, including that of all noncitizen students (whether on immigrant or non-immigrant visas or otherwise), against unwarranted disclosure to the government or private parties.1394
When federally funded colleges and universities collect information from students, FERPA requires the school to define what it designates as “directory information” — meaning it can be subject to release without a student’s prior written consent1395 — and inform students of their right to object to such designation.1396 Only information that “would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed” may be deemed “directory information.”1397 Releasing such information to outside sources, including to government officials and agencies in connection with immigration enforcement, will violate FERPA if public notice and other conditions are not met.1398 Similarly, information that would “generally be considered harmful” if disclosed, such as a student’s sex, ethnicity, or race, may not be released as “directory information.”1399
That includes disclosures to law enforcement. Unless a law enforcement officer has a valid court order or a lawfully issued subpoena, universities cannot release personally identifiable information without the student’s permission, absent another lawful exception to FERPA.1400 Mere requests do not qualify. Likewise, administrative warrants, which are commonly used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), are not enforceable on their own, absent a separate judicial order or legal proceeding to enforce the subpoena.1401 Any subpoena presented by immigration agents should be reviewed carefully by legal counsel before any information is produced. Further, a reasonable effort must generally be made to alert students to the subpoena before information is produced.1402
International Law and Standards
The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression, and association are enshrined in international law. States are under an obligation to facilitate the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, actively encouraging people to engage in assemblies. States must respect, protect, and fulfill the right to peaceful assembly without discrimination of any kind. Peaceful assemblies should be protected, and they do not lose their peaceful character if there are isolated acts of violence or unlawful behavior by some individuals. The exercise of this right should not be dependent on the authorization of the state; states may request notice (although not for spontaneous assemblies) — but not authorization.
International human rights law protects the right to protest through a number of provisions enshrined in various international and regional treaties which, taken together, provide protesters with comprehensive protection. Even though the right to protest is not given as a separate right in human rights treaties, when people engage in protests, whether individually or collectively, they are exercising a variety of rights, which can include the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Other rights are also essential in enabling people to protest peacefully, including the rights to life, privacy, freedom of association, freedom from torture and other ill-treatment or punishment, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, for example. Other key enabling rights may also include the right to be free from discrimination, the respect of labor rights, and other economic, social, and cultural rights. In particular, protests are protected by the interaction of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of expression. Protesting is one common way for people to express their views and opinions, and it can contribute to the protection of many other rights. Without the ability to freely express opinions, public assemblies are simply mass gatherings without a message. Without the ability to freely assemble, people’s opinions may lack the force of numbers to have their message properly heard.
peacefully settling any conflicts that may occur.
Based on the protections that international human rights law affords to protests, particularly the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, state authorities have a duty to respect, protect and facilitate peaceful protest. This means refraining from unduly interfering with the exercise of this right, protecting protesters from violence, providing services (such as traffic management or toilets, if necessary), and communicating with those organizing or participating in a protest to ensure its peaceful conduct. Generally, authorities should presume protests to be peaceful — in the sense that they are nonviolent — and the authorities’ overall approach should be driven by communication, with the aim of preventing conflicts from occurring through dialogue and mediation, as well as de-escalating and Human rights law allows states to impose restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in limited circumstances. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), any restrictions on this right are only permissible if they meet all elements of the “threepart test”: legality, necessity and proportionality, and pursuance of a legitimate aim.1403
The right to freedom of peaceful assembly applies to peaceful (that is, nonviolent) protests. According to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, “a ‘peaceful’ assembly stands in contradistinction to one characterized by widespread and serious violence.” As proposed by the Committee, the terms “peaceful” and “nonviolent” can thus be used interchangeably. The Committee also explains that “violence” in the context of the right to peaceful assembly typically entails “the use by participants of physical force against others that is likely to result in injury or death, or serious damage to property.” As clarified by the Committee, mere pushing and shoving or the disruption of vehicular or pedestrian movement or daily activities does not amount to violence.1404 The U.N. Human Rights Committee and other human rights mechanisms have called on states to ensure that the definition of conduct that constitutes or causes violence in the context of demonstrations is narrowly construed, and they have set a high threshold for considering pursuing cases of damage to property only when these are “serious.”1405
If a small group of participants engages in violent acts during a protest, those protesters who continue to behave peacefully still have a right to go about their protest.1406 Sporadic acts of violence or crimes committed by some participants in a protest must not be attributed to others whose behavior is peaceful. This means that any person who is protesting peacefully does not cease to enjoy their right to protest when some other participant engages in violence. In this case, authorities should ensure that those who are protesting peacefully are able to continue to do so, and not use the violent acts of a few as a pretext to restrict or impede the rights of others. For a protest to be considered outside of the protection of the right to peaceful assembly under international law, there must  be compelling and demonstrable evidence that  a significant number of the participants resorted  to violence or to incitement to violence, hostility,  or discrimination.
The police have the primary responsibility to protect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and also to ensure that public order is maintained in a reasonable manner during an assembly. The policing of public assemblies is a particular activity that requires different skills and abilities from routine policing. In particular, it requires the balancing of competing interests and rights, and it is, therefore, important that police officers are well trained in both human rights and crowd management principles and practices, and that they are appropriately equipped both to provide protection and maintain order. When a (lawful) decision has been taken to disperse an assembly, the order to disperse must be clearly communicated and explained to obtain, as far as possible, the understanding and compliance of the demonstrators. Sufficient time must be given to disperse. The enforced dispersal of a public assembly should only take place as a measure of last resort, when violence occurs or there is an imminent threat of violence. The police should not intervene aggressively in response to the actions of a small number of participants. Assemblies are always diverse gatherings, and participants do not lose their individual rights simply because a small number of people are behaving violently. Representatives of civil society organizations and other types of monitors have a right to be present at public assemblies and can have a positive role to play in observing compliance with human rights. Similarly, the media have a right to attend and report on peaceful assemblies, and law enforcement officials have a responsibility not to prevent or obstruct their work.
On the use of force during the policing of assemblies, Article 3 of the U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials states, “[l]aw enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.”1407 If the use of force is unavoidable, law enforcement officials must exercise restraint in its use. In addition, the U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials states that law enforcement officials shall “not use firearms against persons except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury.”1408 Force should not be used to punish (presumed or alleged) noncompliance with an order nor simply for participation in an assembly. Arrest and detention should be carried out only in accordance with procedures established by law. They should not be used as means to prevent peaceful participation in a public assembly nor as a means of punishment for participation. The type of equipment used to disperse an assembly must be carefully considered and used only when necessary, proportional, and lawful.
Any government action, such as a decision to restrict or disperse a demonstration, must not be carried out in a discriminatory manner. The International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), to which the United States is a party, defines racial discrimination to cover not only direct discrimination but also instances of indirect racial discrimination, which also constitute manifestations of systemic racism. Policies and laws may not be aimed or intended to affect a certain group but may inadvertently do so: They may have an “unjustified disparate impact on a group” and thereby constitute discrimination.1409 Indirect racial discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral provision, criterion, or practice entails a particular disadvantage for persons belonging to a specific group based on a prohibited ground or puts them at a disadvantage, unless that provision, criterion, or practice has some legitimate objective or justification and is proportional under international law.1410 The Committee on CERD clarifies that “the potential indirect discriminatory effects of certain domestic legislation, particularly legislation on terrorism, immigration, nationality, banning or deportation of non-citizens from a country, as well as legislation that has the effect
of penalizing without legitimate grounds certain groups or membership of certain communities” are indicators of racial discrimination.1411 The Committee on CERD further calls for states to ensure that the implementation of any legislation does not have discriminatory effects on noncitizens.1412 This includes immigration and visa policies, laws and practices.1413 In the case of visas, distinctions, restrictions, exclusions, or preferences based on nationality “must be construed so as to avoid undermining the basic prohibition of discrimination.”1414
Criticism of summoning law enforcement to disperse peaceful protests has been widespread, including from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,1415 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,1416 and a number of U.N. human rights experts,1417such as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to education,  who said on an official visit to the United States  in May 2024:
I am deeply troubled by the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators, arrests, detentions, police violence, surveillance and disciplinary measures and sanctions against members of the educational community exercising their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression… These attacks signal a concerning erosion of intellectual freedom and democratic principles within educational settings.1418
The U.N. Special Rapporteur urged the U.S. government to reaffirm its fundamental commitment to freedom of speech and ensure that every student has unfettered access to a wide range of ideas and perspectives.1419 On October 4, 2024, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association released her research findings and a set of concrete recommendations for universities worldwide on how to safeguard assembly and association rights on campus in the context of solidarity with the Palestinian people.1420 She had previously condemned the conflation of criticism of the policies of Israel and Zionism more broadly with antisemitism.1421
Regarding the Trump administration’s repressive tactics against international student protesters, in a statement in March 2025, several U.N. experts called on the U.S. government to “cease repression and retaliation, including in the form of arbitrary detention of U.S. lawful permanent residents, and removal of international students who have participated in university protests in solidarity with Palestine.”1422 They declared the government’s actions unnecessary, disproportionate, and discriminatory, creating a chilling effect on the rights of freedom of expression, assembly, and association, and stated unequivocally that, “the principle of academic freedom is fundamental for the maintenance of faculties and student bodies that can tackle critical issues for discussion without penalisation.”1423 The experts called on universities to “refrain from surveillance against students for participating in peaceful assemblies, and from sharing personal data of students with external actors, including the police and other law enforcement officials, and should review their internal regulations to align them to international human rights law standards” and called for dialogue to “create sustainable, peaceful campuses for all students and faculty.”1424
All universities and colleges have human rights responsibilities to protect students’ right to express themselves and peaceably protest on campus. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has stressed that universities play a key role in protecting and promoting the human rights of members of their communities.1425 To this end, both the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)1426 and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression have outlined a range of human rights responsibilities that universities and higher education institutions should fulfill in accordance with international law and statements of intergovernmental bodies.1427 Moreover, the Inter-American Principles on Academic Freedom and University Autonomy require states to foster an environment conducive to participation in higher education, as well as research, debate, and the dissemination of academic knowledge.1428
While public universities have the duty to protect the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, privately owned universities do not have the same obligations. However, all universities have a responsibility to respect human rights.1429 Though not bound by the First Amendment, private universities are bound by their policy commitments to freedom of expression and academic freedom. Private universities have, at a minimum, the responsibility to respect the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, which means avoiding causing adverse impacts on those rights, mitigating adverse impacts associated with their operations, and providing remedies when adverse impact has occurred. Private universities also have a responsibility to respect human rights consistent with the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.1430 These principles emphasize that such entities should engage in ongoing due diligence efforts to “prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services… even if they have not contributed to those impacts.”1431 Within this context, universities should be periodically reviewing their policies and practices to ensure that they are in line with international human rights standards. This responsibility is independent of a state’s own human rights obligations and exists
“over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights.”1432 In reality, the responsibility of private universities to respect the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly overlaps with the state’s duty, especially in the instances described in this report, where private universities have caused an adverse impact.
International law makes clear that “gatherings in private spaces fall within the scope of the right of peaceful assembly, [but] the interests of others with rights in the property must be given due weight.”1433 The restrictions that may be imposed on gatherings on private property depend on various factors, including “whether the space is routinely publicly accessible, the nature and extent of the potential interference… with the interests of others…, and whether participants have other reasonable means to achieve the purpose of the assembly, in accordance with the sight and sound principle.”1434 The right to freedom of peaceful assembly thus extends to protests in private universities. In all cases, any restrictions on place must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Moreover, according to the Inter-American
Principles on Academic Freedom and University Autonomy, state interference in academic institutions’ budgets — when intended to punish, discriminate against, or privilege them — as well as closing or refusing to renew accreditation in retaliation for disagreement with the government’s
“ideological vision” undermine academic freedom.1435  
Recommendations
Universities and colleges must take all possible measures to ensure that their campuses are spaces where students may exercise their rights without fear or intimidation. We urge universities and colleges not to resort to police action to suppress student expression, especially through the use of force, including less-lethal weapons, which greatly heightens the risk of serious injuries. Instead, universities and colleges should fulfill their human rights responsibilities by facilitating protests and protecting students exercising their freedom of expression and right of peaceful assembly from violence and intimidation, and take a more active role in ensuring that all students’ rights to freedom  of expression and peaceful assembly, regardless  of viewpoint, are respected.
Given their important role in respecting the rights of students to peacefully protest and counterprotest on their campuses, universities should  not call upon law enforcement to disperse peaceful protests. Police presence on campus may increase tensions, endanger students, and seriously undermine the potential for any resolution grounded in respect for human rights. Inviting armed police into a campus protest environment, even a volatile one, can create unacceptable risks for all students and staff. Universities should only request law enforcement presence if protesters on campus engage in physical violence against others, and only as a last resort, after all other efforts have been exhausted. Moreover, arresting peaceful protesters is also likely to escalate, not calm, the tensions on campus — as the events documented in this report have made abundantly clear.
Universities and colleges must enforce university rules in a neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. They should ensure students are not punished for simply exercising their right to peacefully protest.
University policies and procedures should also  be applied fairly and neutrally to all students, faculty, and staff, with no viewpoint discrimination or political influence, and punishments must be necessary and proportionate to the violation.
The Trump administration must cease its relentless attacks on universities and their students, faculty, and staff in order to preserve academic freedom and ensure protection for the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. The federal government cannot mandate expulsion of students or use its regulatory power to threaten funding cuts to coerce universities to prohibit or punish speech they could lawfully allow (in the case of private universities) or must allow (in the case of constitutionally protected speech at public universities). While the administration can enforce Title VI to ensure a learning environment is free from harassment, it cannot force universities to adopt restrictive speech codes that silence the viewpoints the government disfavors.
Schools should resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions  to advance partisan agendas. Congressional hearings have featured attacks by members of Congress on academic freedom and freedom of speech. Universities must stand up to such intimidation and defend the principles of academic freedom so essential to their integrity and mission. We urge universities and college administrators to resist the temptation to silence students or faculty members because powerful voices deem their views offensive. Instead, we urge them to defend the university’s core mission of encouraging debate, fostering free-flowing inquiry, and preparing the future leaders of our pluralistic society to tolerate even profound differences of opinion.

To Universities and Colleges
• Engage in negotiations and dialogue  with protesters and deploy associated  de-escalation techniques.
◦ Engage with protest leaders and open lines of communication to ensure that protests remain safe and peaceful.
◦ Take de-escalating action against any individuals who engage in acts of violence.
• Ensure that law enforcement is used only  as a measure of last resort.
◦ Ensure that coercive police power is used only as a last resort, after all other efforts have been exhausted, or the perverse effect will be to suppress protest and exacerbate safety risks.
◦ Universities should be even-handed and viewpoint-neutral in all their actions regarding campus protests, including in the deployment of police. Police should not be summoned simply to disperse peaceful protesters  whose presence has become undesirable  to university administrators.
• Ensure that campus policies on political speech and protest are viewpoint-neutral.
• Uphold free speech protections for  all students and scholars, regardless  of nationality, ethnicity, and race.
• Enforce university rules in a neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. Ensure students are not punished for engaging in lawful speech or expressive conduct.
◦ Ensure that students are not forced  into disciplinary proceedings for simply peacefully protesting.
◦ University policies and procedures must  also be applied fairly and neutrally to  all students, faculty, and staff, with no viewpoint discrimination or political influence. Punishments must be proportionate to the violation.
Ensure that investigations and any disciplinary actions are based on individualized facts about each student, and recognize the importance of giving breathing space to the importance of free expression when interpreting any alleged rule violations, to ensure no student is disciplined or threatened with discipline on the basis of engaging in lawful protest activity.
◦ Universities should not use their policies to deprive students of their due process rights or to punish them for engaging in lawful speech or expressive conduct. Public universities may not punish students for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
• Protect students’ ability to spontaneously protest in response to unanticipated events, when speech is often the most essential.
◦ Universities and colleges should  make advance registration optional for demonstrations. Under such policies,  the school can encourage, but not require, students to notify the school of an upcoming demonstration so that the school can help coordinate and provide logistical support; or
◦ If a school continues to impose a general rule of advance registration, it should make the advance registration window as short as possible and it should create an explicit exception to that general rule for demonstrations that arise in response to unanticipated or newsworthy events.
• Ensure that students have ample  channels for expression on campus.
◦ Universities and colleges should allow students to demonstrate in many areas  of campus, especially in outdoor,  high-traffic locations.
◦ If a school continues to impose some time restrictions on demonstrations, it should narrowly limit those restrictions such that demonstrations are allowed during a broad range of times that spans morning, afternoon, and evening hours.
◦ Universities and colleges should not unduly restrict the modes of expression available  to students.
• Prohibit suspicionless identification  checks of student demonstrators.
◦ Universities and colleges should narrowly limit the circumstances under which school officials are permitted to request that individuals present their IDs to situations in which an individual on campus is suspected  of having violated a specific campus rule or state law.
◦ Universities and colleges should clearly notify enforcing officials and students about the narrow circumstances under which school officials are permitted to request ID.
◦ Universities and colleges should ensure that enforcing officials apply such policies in a nondiscriminatory manner that is viewpoint neutral.
• Refrain from adopting policies against discrimination and harassment that rely on overly broad and vague definitions, including definitions of antisemitism, and have the effect of prohibiting protected political speech or silencing lawful political speech.
◦ Refrain from adopting policies against discrimination and harassment that have the effect of prohibiting lawful political speech, such as policies that rely on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s overly broad and vague definition of antisemitism (and similar definitions).
◦ Revise such existing policies in a manner that respects the rights of students and faculty to speak up and speak out about important issues of the day.
• Craft and implement anti-discrimination policies that prevent student discrimination and harassment and that appropriately balance principles of academic freedom,  free speech, and educational equality.
Protect against and respond equally to harassment of all students experiencing discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic, whether they are Jewish,  Israeli, Palestinian, Muslim, or Arab.
◦ Craft and implement anti-discrimination policies in ways that comport with Title VI as well as principles of free speech and academic freedom, which permit a wide array of faculty and student speech and expression, including speech that some may find offensive.
• Reject any federal pressure to surveil or punish noncitizen students and faculty  for their lawful speech.
• Protect the privacy of all students, including immigrant and international students, and resist unlawful government requests for personal information.
◦ University and college presidents should employ their authority to prohibit employees of the university or college from voluntarily providing information or assistance in response to requests from federal authorities or out-of-state authorities that seek:
(a) to identify or impose civil or criminal liability or other penalties, including termination or reduction of grant funding, upon a person or entity based on their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including assembly, petitioning, expression of viewpoints, and speech;
(b) to identify or apprehend a person in order to subject them to immigration detention, removal, or deportation proceedings; or to prosecute a person or persons for offenses related to immigration status based on their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including assembly, petitioning, expression of viewpoints, and speech; and
(c) to investigate the sex or gender of  a student, faculty, or staff member.
• Resist White House and federal agency demands that undermine academic freedom and students’ and faculty’s civil and human rights.
◦ University and college presidents and Boards of Trustees should resist White House and federal agency demands that undermine academic freedom and students’ and faculty’s civil and human rights in exchange for a promise of continued federal grantmaking.
◦ Reject the Department of Education’s proposed Compact for Higher Education.

To Campus Police and State  and Local Law Enforcement
• Impose strict limits on the use of less-lethal / crowd-control weapons in the context of protests.
◦ The use of less-lethal weapons in protests should be an absolute last resort when dealing with genuine and imminent threats to physical safety, and only after all other means have been exhausted.
◦ Kinetic impact projectiles must be expressly prohibited for the sole purpose of crowd dispersal; they cannot be used effectively and safely in groups of people. Kinetic impact projectiles must never be fired at close range and should never be targeted at the head or other vital areas of the body, where impact typically causes serious injury and, in some instances, death.
◦ Any kinetic impact projectile that fires multiple projectiles is inherently indiscriminate and must be prohibited in the context of protests. It is not possible to deploy these weapons safely against crowds or individuals.
Chemical irritants, when deployed using canisters or grenades, are inherently indiscriminate by nature, cause severe pain and injuries, and frequently escalate tensions. Law enforcement should not deploy such chemical irritants against protests and peaceful assemblies.
◦ If chemical irritants are deployed, extreme caution must be used, including considerations of the presence of bystanders and the existence of areas of egress and airflow, to minimize any risk of overexposure and due to serious risk of injury.

To the Trump Administration
• Cease the campaign to deport students and faculty involved in Palestinian rights advocacy and end all pending removal proceedings against students and faculty targeted in retaliation for their lawful advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. The Secretary of State and Department of Homeland Security must cease targeting noncitizens for exercising their constitutional right to free speech through arbitrary and discriminatory revocations of F-1 student visas and J-1 exchange visitor visas and by removal proceedings invoking Section 237(a) (3)(C)(i), known as the foreign policy ground, of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
• Stop weaponizing Title VI to threaten funding cuts to punish lawful speech on campus; to coerce universities into allowing expression only of the federal government’s preferred views; and to impose ideological requirements on universities and colleges, and their professors and students.

• Rescind executive orders, including Executive Orders 14188 and 13899, and federal agency rules or policies codifying the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s overly broad and vague definition of antisemitism and similar definitions. Federal agencies, including the Department of
Education, the Department of Justice, and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), should cease using this definition for enforcing civil rights laws, and should not rely on or refer to IHRA in their rulemaking, policy guidance, or enforcement decisions.
• The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) should take steps to ensure that investigations and enforcement actions do not chill or encroach on the exercise of free expression by students or other members  of educational communities.
◦ Make clear to the public and to the colleges and universities subject to Title VI investigations that these investigations are  not intended to and will not be used to suppress political speech.
◦ Do not take or encourage steps that lead  to the suppression or chilling of core  political speech.
◦ Do not encourage or allow schools to deny or rescind recognition of student groups on the grounds that such groups organized lawful demonstrations, or on the basis of the political speech expressed.
◦ Complete investigations as expeditiously as possible, lest the pendency of such investigations unduly chill speech. To Congress
• Pass the Land of the Free Act (H.R. 4959), which would repeal Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).1436 This existing provision grants the Secretary of State the authority to designate for deportation visa-holders and lawful permanent residents whose presence in the United States would
have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” and has been abused to arbitrarily target noncitizens  for exercising their constitutional rights to  free speech.
• Vote no on the misleadingly titled “Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026,” if it is introduced in the Senate or re-introduced in the House next Congress. This legislation would prevent colleges and universities from receiving federal student aid if these institutions boycott Israel. This legislation would enable the government to punish colleges and universities based on their First Amendment protected political expression.
• Oppose the Antisemitism Awareness Act  (S. 558/H.R. 1007) or any bill that threatens  free expression and academic freedom, including those proposed under the guise of combating antisemitism. Refrain from passing any legislation that directs the government to adopt an overly broad definition of antisemitism that includes political speech critical of the Israeli government — such as policies that rely on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s overly broad and vague definition of antisemitism (and similar definitions) — when enforcing federal civil rights law on college campuses. Such legislation would put pressure on schools to silence lawful political speech because the government disapproves of the message, violating the core promise of the First Amendment.
• Oppose any bill that would punish noncitizens for exercising their First Amendment rights. Condemn the Trump administration’s attacks on the First Amendment, introduce legislation to protect students from arrests and detentions on the basis of their speech, and defend our constitutional right to dissent.
Appendix I: Your Rights on Campus
Your right to protest
Protest is a powerful way to speak truth to power. Throughout history, student-led protests have driven major change, exposing injustice, demanding accountability, and inspiring hope for a better future. You have the right to peacefully protest, and the government has a duty to respect, protect, and facilitate that right — not suppress it. Unless a protest violates content-neutral and reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, obstructs traffic or access to buildings, or poses a threat to the safety or rights of others, interference by the government is not justified. If you attend a private school, keep in mind that, as a legal matter, the school is not a government actor and is not constrained by the First Amendment, so it may impose additional restrictions.
• Learn more about your rights to protest under U.S. law: Know Your Protest Rights (ACLU)1437
• Take Amnesty’s Human Rights Course to learn why the right to protest is protected by human rights law and standards.1438
• If you’re an Amnesty International student group, learn more about protesting as Amnesty: Protest Q&A1439
• Read and share the ACLU Open Letter to College and University Presidents on  
Student Protests1440
Your right to Speech  and Association
You have the right to freely express your beliefs — and not only can the government not infringe on that right, it has to ensure you are able to exercise that right. The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and protected by a raft of international and regional treaties and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the right to protest is part of this umbrella of rights.
Freedom of expression also underpins other  human rights such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion  — and allows  them to flourish.
• Take Amnesty’s Human Rights Course to learn more about freedom of expression.1441
• Read and share the ACLU Open Letter to Colleges and University Leaders: Reject Efforts to Restrict Constitutionally Protected Speech on Campus1442
• Read and share the ACLU Open Letter to
Colleges and Universities: Protect Campus
Speech1443
Your right to protest as an Immigrant under u.S. Law
(Source: National Immigration Law Center)1444
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from restricting your right to free speech. This means that you have a right to participate in political protests, marches, and demonstrations. The First Amendment also protects freedom of the press (among other rights). These rights apply to everyone in the United States, regardless of immigration status. At the same time, your risks may vary depending on your individual circumstances, including immigration status, and you should take those into account. Individuals should consider their own level of safety, comfort and visibility in these situations.
For example:
• Consider leaving immediately if it appears that the situation is escalating.
• If you choose to take your mobile phone with you, use a passcode instead of facial recognition or Touch ID, and be aware that your phone can be seized by authorities.
• Know your rights and know your risks. If you are concerned about being identified or retaliated against for holding certain views, consider  using a pseudonym when signing petitions,  and review your digital hygiene practices and privacy settings
More Resources Around Safety and Your Rights:
• AIUSA Know Your Rights:  
How to Stay Safe Around ICE1445
• National Immigration Law Center’s Know Your
Rights: Immigrants’ Participation in Protests 1446
• ACLU Know Your Rights1447
ACLU Resources on Students’ Rights:
• ACLU Know Your Rights: Students’ Rights1448
• ACLU Know Your Rights: Students’ Free  Speech on Campus – Graphics1449
Your right to Learn and  express Viewpoints
Freedom of expression protects our right to read, learn, and share ideas free from viewpointbased censorship, including in curricular and extracurricular settings. No government actor should be able to suppress that right by banning books, restricting classroom learning, and prohibiting discussions, debates, and student activities and clubs solely because of viewpoints, including those related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Moreover, on college and university campuses, the First Amendment’s protection of academic freedom extends to protect professors’ speech, research, and publications.
More Resources Around Your Right to Learn:
• ACLU Right to Learn Campaign1450


AcLu Letter to college and university General counsels on Ice Investigations and enforcement Actions
The ACLU shared an open letter to general counsels at colleges and universities across the nation outlining their responsibilities and rights when dealing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations and  enforcement actions.
Amid the growing retaliatory crackdown against noncitizen students for their First Amendmentprotected speech and advocacy, the open letter explains that colleges and universities are not violating the law by providing housing or services to noncitizen students, including students whose visas have been revoked by the government. It further advises institutions that they are legally able to refuse to comply with warrantless searches of nonpublic areas, like dorm rooms, by ICE agents.
The letter also outlines a legal framework for responding to administrative subpoenas from ICE. In consultation with legal counsel, universities generally maintain the right to not respond to administrative subpoenas unless and until ICE obtains an enforcement order from a judge. Universities also have the right to publicize the subpoenas or alert students if their information  has been targeted by an ICE subpoena.
You can read and download the full letter here  to share with your campus administration.1451
AcLu Guidance for States, Schools, and universities  on privacy Obligations
The Trump administration has made various  efforts focused on students, families, and educational institutions. Those efforts have included requests for student records by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Department of Education (USED), and Congressional committees; data sharing with ICE  by campus law enforcement; and efforts by USED to use student privacy law to displace state and local policies protecting transgender students. Those efforts to obtain student records raise concerns that they conflict with schools’ obligations under existing student privacy laws, especially the federal Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
The ACLU has drafted guidance outlining educational institutions’ responsibilities under FERPA and how FERPA may apply to various administration and congressional efforts.
You can read and download  the full guidance here.1452
AcLu Guidance for colleges and universities to resist Federal pressure to Surveil or punish International Students and Faculty
The ACLU has drafted a letter to U.S. college and university presidents urging them to reject any federal pressure to surveil or punish international students and faculty based on constitutionally protected speech. The White House is attempting to pressure university officials to target immigrant and international students, faculty, and staff, including holders of non-immigrant visas and lawful permanent residents or others on a path to U.S. citizenship, for exercising their First Amendment rights.
This letter was prompted by two executive  orders — Executive Order 14161, titled,  
“Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and other National Security  and Public Safety Threats,” signed on  January 20, 2025, and Executive Order 14188,  titled, “Additional Measures to Combat AntiSemitism,” signed on January 29, 2025 —  and related communications from the White House. The letter shares a legal framework for considering these executive orders and

outlines four key principles universities should adhere to when addressing campus speech.
You can read and download the full letter here  to share with your campus administration.1453
Appendix II: Campus Resolution Toolkit

Across the country, students are speaking out on urgent human rights issues, including war, refugee and migrant rights, trans rights, racial justice, and reproductive rights.
At the same time, the Trump administration is cutting or threatening to cut college and university funding if schools do not capitulate to the administration’s demands about multiple facets of college and university life. The Trump administration has tried to dictate what colleges and universities can teach; undermined efforts to create inclusive environments for LGBTQ+ youth; attempted to ban programs to promote racial justice, equity, inclusion, and belonging; and  sought to limit what speech colleges and universities allow from students.
As detailed in this report, some colleges have curtailed freedom of expression and peaceful protest, suspended or expelled students, censored speech, and canceled events. Others have ended programs focused on promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion; rescinded policies that support LGBTQ+ students; or limited student participation in extracurricular activities. Our rights are under attack. Our school leaders need to hear from us.
No one should be punished for peaceful protest;  no one should be threatened for exercising free speech; and no one should be deported for speaking out for human rights. All students should feel like they belong on their campus and are free to be themselves without being harassed or singled out. Our schools must fight to protect our rights
– and refuse to collaborate in the government’s attacks on our campuses.
Your voice matters, and you matter.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) have teamed up to help students defend their campuses from the Trump administration. Together, we are working to create a “firewall” for students against these attacks on our rights. We are working with students across the country to introduce and pass campus resolutions that call on their campus administrations to defend the rights of students  and refuse to voluntarily collaborate with the Trump administration’s attacks on free speech, academic freedom, and inclusive learning environments.
Our campus resolutions toolkit includes a model resolution, organizing guidance, and resources  to help students mobilize quickly to hit the ground running in the fall semester.1454 The ACLU has also issued guidance to universities outlining what legal demands they do and don’t have to comply with.1455 This toolkit, combined with support from AIUSA and ACLU, provides you with tools and resources  to advance a resolution on your campus.


Firewall for Freedom resolutions
What Is a Firewall for Freedom Resolution?
A resolution is a motion adopted by an official body, such as a student council, and is a formal expression of an opinion. A Firewall for Freedom resolution is a declaration of support for students, faculty, and staff who are under attack by the  Trump administration for exercising their rights  to freedom of expression, association, and  assembly, passed through your student council  or student government.
Right now, the White House and federal agencies are engaged in a brazen attempt to intimidate schools into compromising on free speech and academic freedom and into abandoning their lawful efforts to create inclusive learning environments. But in higher education, academic freedom protects schools from government interference in decisions about what professors teach, including with regard to racial justice, equity, inclusion, and belonging. Schools should continue to support students by maintaining a safe and equitable learning environment for all students.
The resolution calls on schools to establish a firewall for freedom. Establishing a firewall means that schools will not voluntarily share their resources — including their staff’s time or the data they collect on students and faculty — with federal law enforcement who are seeking to violate our human rights or target members of our school communities based on  their exercise of human rights.
There is a draft resolution in this Appendix.
Why You Should Pass  
a Resolution on Campus
• To show support for students, faculty, and staff who are being targeted or punished for the lawful exercise of their right to freedom  of expression, including the right to protest.
• To protect all of our rights to peaceful expression of our beliefs.
• To show that your student body supports the rights of all people regardless of immigration status, country of origin, refugee status, race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or religious affiliation to live with dignity, safety, and full enjoyment of their human rights without discrimination, including the rights to life, freedom, education, and security.
• To provide accurate information about civil liberties and human rights, including the  rights to freedom of expression, association,  and assembly.
• To pressure your campus officials to take concrete action to protect the rights of all students, including the rights to free speech  and assembly, and to not proactively work  with government agencies to infringe on  these rights or to target students, no matter  their immigration status.
Steps to Passing a Resolution
1. Find out how your student government works.
◦ Who sits on the student government body? Are there both student and staff roles?
◦ What is the process for submitting a resolution? Can you submit a resolution as a student? If not, what is the alternative?
◦ Is there a certain time of the school year when resolutions can be submitted? What is the timeline for your student government ending business this year?
◦ How long might the resolution process take? And can you speed that up?
2. Identify allies and others who can help you pass this resolution.
◦ Think about any individual students or other student organizations who might care about this issue and want to help. Consider bringing in faculty who teach ethnic studies, law, international relations, or public policy, as well as representatives from local civil rights organizations, legal clinics, and alumni networks.
◦ Reach out individually to those likely to support your goal and ask if they would be willing to join you.
◦ Ask them to join the sign on letter or sign the petition (see below) and ask if they can help get other signatures.
◦ When asking people for their support, consider what resources or relationships they or their group have that could help you publicize the resolution or gain more supporters.
◦ You might also consider how enthusiastic they seem. If they agree to support you but don’t seem too excited, you might want to start by asking them to do something small, like post on social media or sign onto a joint letter announcing the resolution.
◦ In addition to allies, identify likely opposition to this resolution. Consider what your school leadership has said or done related to speech and protest (and other student rights) in the past year, as well as other groups that might oppose your efforts.
3. Find a student government member who  is likely to support the resolution.
◦ Approach them and be ready to make your case. Why is this resolution important to you? Why should they support it? Ask if they will support your resolution within student government.
◦ Before your meeting, brainstorm answers  to possible questions that they might ask before deciding whether or not to support.
◦ Depending on how your school government works, you may ask them to introduce the resolution at an upcoming student government meeting.
◦ Ask whether they know of other student leaders who would also be likely to support  the resolution and approach them, too,  to build as much support as possible.
4. Rally your campus! Amplify your  message and build support.
◦ Collect signatures from students to support the resolution (draft petition below). Set a goal and aim for a number that shows broad student backing — like 25% of the student body.
◦ Consider producing a letter signed by  various student organizations supporting  the resolution (sample sign-on letter below).  A broad coalition will show the power of  the student body.
◦ Use your networks: Ask your faculty advisor  or other professors and staff for ways to  speak in classrooms, make presentations,  or lead discussions.
◦ Make your case in campus media:  Pitch a column or letter to the editor explaining why your resolution matters  and should be adopted (sample letter  to the editor below). Here are some  tips for writing a letter to the editor.1456
◦ Organize a teach-in, storytelling circle, or vigil to engage people emotionally and intellectually. You can also host a demonstration or protest about this  issue to show support.
◦ Build a strong social media presence,  and ask partner groups and individuals  to amplify your message.
5. Attend any public student government meetings about the resolution.
◦ Mobilize large groups to attend in order to demonstrate broad support for the resolution.
◦ Have spokespersons from your group ready to speak on behalf of the resolution.
◦ Take pictures! Tweet and tag @amnestyusa
@ACLU using #FirewallForFreedom and #HumanRightsCampus, and be sure to send pictures and updates to firewall@aiusa.org.
6. Celebrate!
◦ Share your pictures! Use the
Hashtag #FireWallForFreedom and #HumanRightsCampus and tag  @amnestyusa @ACLU on all social  media platforms. This helps other  students see your victory!
◦ Send “thank you” notes to everyone  who supported the resolution.
◦ Write a letter to the editor of your  local paper or university newspaper.


How to Get Support
Staff at ACLU and AIUSA are available to support in planning and carrying out your resolution campaign, and can ensure you’re familiar with  your legal, constitutional rights along the way.
• Let us know what’s happening on your campus, especially if you’re seeing your campus leadership acting in cooperation with unlawful actions by the Trump administration. This helps us keep an eye on trends and actions nationwide, and we can follow up with you if you need specific support. Fill out the form here.1457
• When you kick off your resolution work, let us know by emailing firewall@aiusa.org and we’ll add you to a WhatsApp group with other students working on resolutions. You can  share ideas, ask for feedback, and collaborate.
• Review the Know Your Rights resources in this Appendix, including those for immigrants.

draft resolution
A resolution calling for a firewall for freedom  to protect against the federal government’s attacks  on our constitutional, civil, and human rights.
The [University Student Senate] Enacts:
WHEREAS, [University/College Name] prides  itself on being a campus that supports the civil  and human rights of all members of our  community, including students, staff, and faculty;
WHEREAS, the ability to criticize our government, its policies, and even its foundational philosophies is critical to the exercise of all our civil and human rights — and is protected against government interference by the First Amendment;
WHEREAS, the White House is pressuring
university officials to assist it in targeting students, faculty, and staff who are not U.S. citizens, including holders of non-immigrant visas and lawful permanent residents, as punishment for the lawful exercise of their right to freedom of expression under the Constitution and international law;
WHEREAS, across the country, students are increasingly afraid of being accosted and taken from their communities by federal law enforcement agents, including those who conceal their identity and refuse to provide basic information, and who abuse immigration laws to target students for what they believe and who they are;
WHEREAS, protected political speech and association alone — no matter how offensive to members of the campus community — should
never be the basis for discipline, nor should it lead to an individual’s arrest, detention or deportation;
WHEREAS, the White House and federal agencies are threatening to deprive universities across the country of federal grant money and other sources of support, in order to gain their cooperation and capitulation in efforts to punish dissent; attack noncitizens, students of color, and LGBTQ+ youth; and dictate educational programs;
WHEREAS, this includes brazen attempts to intimidate schools into abandoning lawful efforts  to create inclusive learning environments;
WHEREAS, schools are obligated under federal law to protect students from discrimination, harassment, threats, and violence;
WHEREAS, schools are also obligated under federal law to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of student records, including against unwarranted disclosure to the government or private parties;
BE IT RESOLVED, the student body of  [university/college] declares its support for  the protection of civil and human rights of all members of our campus community and calls  upon the [university/college] president to take  all possible measures to ensure that our campus  is a safe space, where students may exercise their rights without fear or intimidation;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the student body encourages the [University/College] President and Board of Trustees to resist White House and federal agency demands that undermine academic freedom and our civil and human rights in exchange for an illusory promise of continued federal grantmaking;
BE IT RESOLVED, the student body of [university/ college] calls on the [university/college] President to employ their authority to establish a firewall for freedom, prohibiting employees of the [university/ college] from voluntarily providing information or assistance in response to a request from federal authorities or out-of-state authorities that seeks:
a. to identify or impose civil or criminal liability or other penalties, including termination or reduction of grant funding, upon a person or entity based on their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including assembly, petitioning, expression of viewpoints, and speech;
b. to identify or apprehend a person in order to subject them to immigration detention, removal, or deportation proceedings; or to prosecute a person or persons for offenses related to immigration status based on their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including assembly, petitioning, expression of viewpoints, and speech; and
c. to investigate the sex or gender of  
a student, faculty, or staff member.

Talking Points on Resolution
• Right now, the Trump administration is pressuring colleges and universities to crack down on students, faculty, and staff for speaking their minds about issues impacting people of color, religious minorities, LGBTQ+, and immigrant communities.
But that’s not how free speech works.
• We all have a right to read, teach, discuss, and learn. Period. Censoring academic work by and about people of color, religious minorities, and LGBTQ+ people because the government doesn’t like the messages and viewpoints expressed is discriminatory and clearly  violates our free speech rights.
• Students, faculty, and staff do not give up their rights by entering colleges or universities. Students also have rights under U.S. federal  law to keep certain information private and  not to have that information revealed without their consent.
• While new executive orders and statements from the White House are pushing schools to monitor and report noncitizen students for their political views, universities and colleges have a responsibility to defend their students, faculty, and staff who are under attack.
• Antisemitism, Islamophobia, and targeting individuals and communities for their religion, ethnicity, or nationality are all forms of hatred and must be condemned.
• Universities should be places where individuals can lean into their passions, share ideas, and discover themselves, not where students and faculty fear surveillance or punishment for being themselves. By passing a Firewall For Freedom resolution, university leaders can remain firm in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus.
• Amid the slew of attacks on LGBTQ +rights, universities and colleges should continue to support students by maintaining a safe and equitable learning environment for LGBTQ+ youth and other students.
• More than ever, it is imperative to create frameworks that can truly protect the civil rights of communities on campus, their personal data, and their overall safety.
Sample Petition / Sign-on Letter
All people have the right to say what they think, share information, and demand a better world.  No one should be punished for peaceful protest;  no one should be threatened for exercising free speech; and no one should be deported for speaking out for human rights. All students should feel like they belong on their campus, are free to be themselves without being harassed or singled out, and can participate in the extracurriculars of their choice. The leadership of [INSERT SCHOOL NAME] must fight to protect our rights — and refuse to collaborate in attacks on our human rights.
We, the undersigned, call on our leaders to establish a firewall for freedom. We support the resolution calling on school leadership to not voluntarily share their resources — including their personnel and our data — with federal law enforcement seeking to violate our human rights or target members of our school community based on their exercise of human rights.
Sample Letter to the Editor  of Your Campus Paper
Note: Personalize your letter as much as  possible. Here are some tips for writing  a letter to the editor.1458
The Trump administration is attacking universities across the country, trying to dictate what they can teach, attempting to ban programs that promote equity, and trying to limit protest and free speech. Federal agencies are demanding access to student data, scrutinizing syllabi, and threatening to withhold money to campuses that don’t cooperate
<speak to example from your campus if applicable>.
What’s worse, we’ve seen university leaders who have chosen compliance over courage: shutting down programs, limiting free speech and protest, not protecting students. This must not happen at < University Name >.
That’s why our student government must pass the Firewall for Freedom Resolution, which urges <campus President NAME> and university leadership to protect our rights — and refuse to collaborate in attacks on our human rights.
We can either be a university that caves under political pressure and betrays its principles,  or one that stands firm in protecting its students  and defending academic freedom, free speech,  and all our rights.
Sample Video Script for Social Media
The Trump administration is attacking our rights as students to speech, protest, and an inclusive education — and [university name] is not immune. One of the most important ways we can fight back is by passing a campus resolution demanding our school administrators refuse to coordinate with  the federal government’s crackdown on our rights.
As the [role] of [name of student organization],  and as a student concerned with universities  across the country capitulating to Trump’s demands, I hope you join me in keeping [university name]  a place where academic freedom thrives by signing our petition urging student government to pass  this resolution.
Together, we have the power to pass a resolution and send a strong message to our school officials:
We demand they protect their students.

Additionally, Barnard allows for peaceful demonstrations on campus even as we factor in the realities of having just a four-acre campus in the middle of bustling Manhattan. On a campus of our size, with limited pathways and means of entry, it is critical that we are thoughtful about preserving access to all our buildings and making sure that classes and other activities that are part of the daily ecosystem and life of the College can proceed. Barnard’s demonstration policy therefore allows community members to demonstrate on campus — regardless of their point of view — so long as they follow content-neutral time, place, and manner rules designed to ensure that demonstrations are conducted safely and do not interfere with the rights of others to speak, study, teach, learn, work, and live on our small campus.
As with all activity on our campus, Barnard’s policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment continue to apply. Our commitment to learning and student growth is reflected in our conduct process, which is designed to make room for students to reflect, learn, and grow. Additionally, our commitment to freedom of expression and inquiry means we must protect the classroom and the importance of not shutting down a class because a small set of individuals want to impose their own views and will over a class in which they are not enrolled.
While federal law precludes us from sharing the details of individual student disciplinary matters, expulsion is a rare and extraordinary outcome reserved for the most serious circumstances. In considering all conduct matters, Barnard engages in an individualized analysis that factors in the nature and severity of the conduct at issue , a student’s prior conduct history, whether there is a pattern of repeated violations, and whether the student is willing to take accountability and follow College policies going forward.  Students who are found responsible for any violation may appeal the decision.  
We have worked intentionally and deliberately to make our process clearer, more educational, and more responsive to our community. Following 15 months of consultation with students, faculty, and staff, the tripartite Student Conduct Committee helped develop a new, unified student conduct pilot that created a Peer Educator program and, for cases potentially involving separation from the College established a Student Conduct Board made up of students, faculty and staff, and requires a four-fifths majority for decisions that would result in permanent separation from Barnard.
That pilot program is still in effect. Conduct violations are a rarity at Barnard, but when issues do arise, we approach the process in a way that demonstrates care for our students. Since launching the pilot, there has not been a single conduct matter causing the Student Conduct Board to convene. In the rare event that students are temporarily restricted from campus or required to leave College housing, we will always work directly with them on arrangements to retrieve their belongings, including offering flexibility and providing additional time when needed.
We strive to support all members of our community and share both of your organizations’ concerns about doxxing and coordinated online attacks targeting individual students or faculty members. If community members report being doxxed, we provide support, including anti-doxxing resources and information for requesting the removal of personal information from websites. We also remove identifying personal information from the College’s website as appropriate and continue to publicly condemn the doxxing trucks that have intermittently appeared around the perimeter of our campus.
We regularly meet with stakeholders across our community, and as our campus evolves, their feedback helps shape certain operational decisions. For example, while Barnard is legally required to comply with lawful information requests from government agencies, we understand the concerns about how the EEOC conducted its outreach to members of our community and have since updated our internal procedures to make sure employees are notified when the College receives requests that require us to provide employee information.
At Barnard, we teach our students to engage across differences, explore new ways of thinking, and embrace the nuance that is so fundamental to the Barnard experience.
We are proud of our commitment to supporting community members and making our campus welcoming to people across differences, and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to your letter prior to the publication of your report.
Please let us know if you have any further questions. Best,

Dr. Akilah Rosado
Interim Dean of the College and
Vice President of Inclusion and Belonging




3

cornell university



[ REDACTED],
I apologize for the delay in responding.  Here is our official statement in response to your request to include in your report.
Cornell University remains deeply committed to helping international students continue making academic progress when they encounter visa or travel-related challenges.
Cornell’s approach to graduate student funding is longstanding, and there has been no change in, or deviation from, university policy. Doctoral students conducting required fieldwork abroad are routinely funded for the duration of that work, often through university or external fellowships. Students outside the United States for personal, legal, or visa-related reasons may also receive fellowship support when such funding is available. However, Cornell is not permitted to extend assistantship appointments to students residing outside the United States.  Inclusion in your report implies this is a discretionary decision, which it is not.
Because of student privacy obligations, Cornell will not discuss the personal circumstances or educational records of individual students.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Kyle
________________
Kyle Kimball
[ REDACTED ]






Sept. 11, 2026

Dear and ,

Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in ahead of your report. DePaul University is committed to freedom of speech by fostering an environment where knowledge flourishes through inquiry, open dialogue, and mutual respect. As a Catholic and Vincentian institution, we are also devoted to uplifting the dignity of every person. It is central to our mission and our daily work in teaching and learning together.  
Regarding the suspension of the Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, I would like to provide additional context. As an academic and mission-based institution, DePaul is invested in the safety and wellbeing of our students. All students and student groups agree to abide by the standards instituted by the university. The Code of Student Responsibility is central to ensuring that all students at DePaul understand their rights and responsibilities.  
 SJP was found in violation of various policies in recent years. As a result, the student organization was restricted from engaging in any activities in May 2025 and currently remains suspended.
We are clear and open in our communications about our policies and practices.    
In my recent welcome message to the university community, I reshared DePaul’s Guiding Principles for Speech and Free Expression, which reaffirms free and open expression as essential to intellectual inquiry. I also shared our Demonstration Guidelines, which support the right of members of our community to engage in civil discourse on campus. I have also reaffirmed my commitment to uphold our faculty’s rights to academic freedom, as has our new provost, Russ Ivy.
In a time of deep division, we must ensure every student can fully engage in the life of the university without fear for their wellbeing. As a community, we are dedicated to providing all our students with a safe learning environment, while also protecting individuals’ rights to free speech and self-expression. At its core, the purpose of higher education is to prepare students to become thoughtful, engaged members of society who are ready to address the most pressing questions of our time.  
To be sure, protest and dissent are alive and well in Chicago. There have been more than a dozen protests and demonstrations held on or near campus on public property since fall of 2024. Most peaceful protests by students, faculty, staff and community members have taken place on the ample city streets and sidewalks that weave through our campus.  

OF(617) 495-1SeptemICE OF TH02ber 16, 2026  PRESID NT HARV D UNIVERSITY CAMBRIDGE, S CHUS TMAS CHUSETL S 02 I38
Dear and :
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to AIUSA and the ACLU’s forthcoming report, which we understand to be based on publicly available information.  
Harvard is committed to fostering an environment that protects and promotes free speech, including the right to engage in protest and dissent. These commitments are set forth in the University-Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities. Harvard also condemns discrimination, bias, and hate and is committed to ensuring that all members of the Harvard
community can learn and participate fully in campus life free from harassment. In the wake of October 7, 2023, Harvard—like many universities across the country—confronted significant challenges.  
In the nearly three years since October 7, Harvard has engaged in sustained, institution-wide efforts to identify and address discrimination, bias, and hate on campus, including:  
• In October 2023, Harvard issued comprehensive guidance on doxxing, online harassment, and personal online security, including resources available to community members experiencing these issues. The University also developed and distributed a guide—Protecting Against Online Abuse and Harassment—to help community members recognize and report online harassment. Harvard clarified a year later that doxxing, as defined and described in the clarifying guidance, violates the University-Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities’ prohibition against “intense personal harassment” and constitutes “bullying” under the University’s Non-Discrimination and Anti- Bullying policies.
• In January 2024, President Garber announced the creation of a Presidential Task Force devoted to combating Islamophobia, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian bias. The Task Force was charged with examining recent history and current manifestations of bias, identifying the root cause and contributing factors, evaluating evidence regarding the characteristics and frequency of these behaviors, and recommending approaches to combat bias and mitigate its impact on campus. The Task Force issued a more than 200-page report, including recommendations, which the University and its Schools have since been focused on implementing. We would encourage you to review the University’s Task Force website, which contains a comprehensive description of the many efforts already implemented and is updated regularly.
• In January 2024, Harvard issued new “Guidance on Protest and Dissent,” which set forth content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on demonstrations. The guidance made plain that demonstrations may not take place in locations where they would interfere with the normal activities of the University, including classrooms, libraries, dormitories, dining halls, and offices. It also stated that protesters may not prevent invited speakers from speaking or audience members from hearing them. The guidance identified outdoor spaces and properly reserved venues as locations where demonstrations may generally occur, subject to University policies and procedures.
• In July 2024, President Garber announced that Harvard would standardize fact-finding procedures for disciplinary cases following concerns about inconsistent processes across schools. The new framework established an 11-step investigation process, including the use of an independent investigator. In April 2025, President Garber announced that the Committee would also be empowered to impose discipline in cross-school cases.  
• In August 2024, Harvard announced updates to the University’s Campus Use Rules to clarify and reiterate content- and viewpoint-neutral expectations for appropriate use of campus space and community safety. The updated rules ban unapproved tents, overnight camping, and amplified sound without prior approval; require pre-approval of requests to use spaces; prohibit tampering with approved exhibits or displays; and authorize the removal of unapproved exhibits or displays. The Campus Use Rules also require that all Harvard affiliates present a valid HUID when requested by a University official.  
• In November 2024, Harvard issued specific guidance on how protest rules apply in libraries, clarifying that even silent demonstrations violate policy because they interfere with a library’s function as a place of study and research. The guidance document further describes potential consequences for policy violations, including two-week revocations of library access, and expressly states that identification checks are conducted based on participation in a demonstration rather than the viewpoints expressed.  
The University has also taken significant actions to strengthen academic excellence and civil discourse, including:  
• Many of Harvard’s Schools have revised their admissions processes to ensure that appropriate value is placed on candidates’ demonstrated abilities to engage constructively with different perspectives, show empathy, and participate in civil discourse.  
• Schools have also added orientation programming related to values, inclusion, civil discourse, and constructive dialogue skills.  
• Most Schools have adopted the Chatham House Rule, which provides that information shared during class cannot be attributed to any one person or organization outside the
classroom. The Rule seeks to encourage constructive dialogue and the airing of diverse views in the classroom, without pressure to conform to a particular stance.
• Many of the Schools have updated their course evaluation processes to ensure evaluations appropriately elicit feedback from students on an instructor’s ability to encourage competing viewpoints and create a classroom environment broadly conducive to learning.
• The Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning launched a faculty lunch series on
“Civil Discourse and Teaching,” open to all Faculty of Arts and Sciences faculty in fall
2025. The series opened in November 2025, with a session on “Competing Viewpoints,
Contested Facts.” It continued in 2026 with a discussion on “Norm-Setting for Rich
Classroom Conversations.” Its most recent event, “Training TFs [Teaching Fellows] for
Successful Sections,” was held in February 2026. As part of its inaugural Fall Teaching
Week, the Bok Center also launched Pedagogy-in-Practice, a mandatory training for new TFs/TAs, where, among other skills, new FAS instructors learned how to ensure the classroom is a place to explore different and competing views on complex questions. The Bok Center’s Fall Teaching Week included a range of new sessions such as Teaching Controversial Topics, Navigating Teaching Team Dynamics, and Inclusive Teaching (with an emphasis on Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying), among others.
These efforts have been recognized by independent organizations. For example, in its 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) ranked Harvard significantly higher than in prior years based in large part on student surveys reflecting students’ increased confidence that university leaders would protect their speech rights.[1] In fact, FIRE’s chief researcher stated that “since [President Garber] has taken over the leadership, the stance and the climate, the way they’ve approached free speech has shifted in a positive direction.” As described in a recent Boston Globe article, “Harvard leaders have told students to stiffen their spines and expect to encounter viewpoints that discomfort or even offend them. They have nudged teaching fellows and professors to keep their personal politics out of the classroom. And they have sought to foster campus events that help students bridge ideological and cultural divides.” The result, according to Harvard community members, “is significantly less tension and fear over speech controversies as students regained the muscle memory to engage in difficult discussions and debate.”  
While we do not attempt to address every assertion in your letter, we write below to correct several significant factual inaccuracies that we believe warrant attention.
I. Protests  
Turning first to your statements about discipline for students involved in the occupation of
University Hall and the encampment, your letter indicates that “[n]early all of the 58 students

[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/09/13/metro/harvard-northeastern-different-approaches-speech-withdifferent-results
placed on probation at the university in the [2023-2024] academic year were connected to [the protests at University Hall and the encampment].” This is incorrect. Not all 58 of the students identified in the College Ad Board Report as having been put on probation during the 2023-2024 academic year received probation because of their involvement in the occupation of University Hall or the encampment. In all instances described in your letter where students were disciplined based on protest activity, Harvard applied its policies and rules in a content-neutral manner.  
Your letter cites a number of “prior activist campaigns” and suggests that Harvard’s handling of the encampment differed significantly. However, the most recent of the comparator protests your letter cites occurred approximately eight years before the encampment, and others are from decades ago. Regardless of how those earlier events were handled, in this case, the University applied its content-neutral time, place, and manner policies to the encampment. We are not aware of a comparable protest in the same period that received different treatment. Moreover, Harvard made community members involved in the encampment aware of these rules and issued several warnings before imposing discipline.[2] Ultimately, the encampment ended peacefully after 20 days, avoiding escalation, violence, and arrests.  
II. Library Demonstrations
Your letter also cites a September 2024 protest in the Loker Reading Room of the Widener Library and an October 2024 faculty protest, which featured materials on free speech and dissent, seemingly as examples of how Harvard punished pro-Palestine activity, including by suspending participants’ library access. As noted above, in January 2024, Harvard issued new “Guidance on Protest and Dissent,” which clarified that demonstrations may not take place in locations where they would interfere with the normal activities of the University, including in libraries. When the demonstrators at the September 2024 Widener event entered the library, staff provided them with a handout reminding them of this prohibition and that they must comply with instructions from staff as required by the Harvard Library Patron Agreement. The group organizing the protest also received a warning prior to the event that the planned activity, as described, “is a violation of Harvard’s policies and participants may be subject to follow-up as appropriate.”[3] The University’s decision to suspend library privileges following these demonstrations was a neutral application of time, place, and manner restrictions that were clearly and repeatedly communicated to community members in advance of their activity.  
III. HLS Event
With respect to the “Valentines for Palestine” event at the law school, your letter does not indicate that any HLS administrators were aware of the Women’s Law Association event held a week prior, nor does it mention that Justice for Palestine was offered the option of holding
“Valentines for Palestine” at a different venue, including at a table or in a classroom, even though

[2] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/5/10/harvard-palestine-encampment-involuntary-leave/  [3] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/23/widener-library-harvard-palestine-protest/
the deadline for registering the event had passed. As your letter acknowledges, following this event, HLS emailed other student organizations to reiterate expectations for events.  
IV. Palestine Solidarity Committee
With respect to the portions of your letter relating to the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) and the disciplinary sanctions it faced, it is important to note that PSC was disciplined on content- and viewpoint-neutral grounds, consistent with the same policies and procedures that apply to all Harvard student organizations.
In August 2023, Harvard issued an updated Student Organization Resource Manual. The manual provides clear rules and expectations for how all student organizations must operate. These expectations include requirements for reserving and using campus spaces, requirements for organizing events, and restrictions on event collaborations. When the Harvard College Dean of Students Office receives a report that a student organization has violated any of these requirements, it follows the process laid out in the Student Organization Resource Manual, which also specifies the range of potential consequences for student groups, including warning, probation, suspension, and disbandment.
The decision to place PSC on probation was not made on the basis of a single rule violation. Rather, it followed numerous complaints and discussions between the College and PSC, during which the College warned PSC multiple times about the potential consequences of continued rule violations. PSC was subsequently suspended after violating both the terms of its probation letter and the rules set forth in the Student Organization Resource Manual. In each instance, PSC was disciplined according to the same reasonable content- and viewpoint-neutral standards and procedures set forth in the manual, which apply to every recognized student organization. Unlike PSC, the Harvard Dems event mentioned on page four of your letter was not the subject of a complaint to the Dean of Students Office. Your letter does not otherwise provide any examples of student group activities that were the subject of a complaint to the College and were treated differently in terms of discipline or sanctions.  
V. IHRA Definition  
Your letter also suggests that Harvard has used the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which it incorporated into its Non-Discrimination policies and procedures in January 2025, as a tool to suppress pro-Palestinian speech and activism. This is not the case. To the contrary, publicly available information demonstrates that numerous such events have taken place since that time.[4] While the University does not agree with the framing of the issues in this section of your letter, we focus our attention on straightforward inaccuracies below.  

[4] See, e.g., https://www.jns.org/u.s.-news/harvard-med-school-to-host-series-on-genocide-racism-and-health-insudan-and-palestine; https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/news-announcements/announcingspring-2026-israelpalestine-event-series; https://cmes.fas.harvard.edu/event/new-approaches-palestinian-history.  

MIt



Dear [REDACTED],
I’m responding on President Kornbluth’s behalf. Thank you for the opportunity  to provide a comment.
The student attended and spoke at MIT’s Commencement ceremony, though she  submitted a different script than the speech she delivered. As a result of her actions,  she was not permitted to attend the following day’s undergraduate degree-conferral ceremony. MIT addressed the situation with a statement at the time. You may read  the statement here: https://web.mit.edu/statement-events-commencement-2025/.
Regards,
Aaron Weinberger
~~~~
Aaron R Weinberger
Chief of Staff
Office of the President, MIT
[REDACTED]
[ REDACTED ]

PATRICK DUNKLEY  
Vice Provost for Ins:tu:onal  
Equity, Access, and Community  


September 16, 2026



Amnesty International USA  
311 W. 43rd St, 7th floor  
New York, NY 10036  
Email:  



American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th floor
New York, NY 10004
Email:

 Dear and

 Thank you so much for giving Stanford the opportunity to respond to the ACLU and Amnesty International report on the university’s practices and policies surrounding speech and demonstrations.  This response is on behalf of the Stanford University Administration.

I would like to begin by noting that our administration and faculty senate place the highest value on freedom of expression. Since President Levin and Provost Martinez assumed their positions, they spearheaded a new Freedom of Expression website (https://freespeech.stanford.edu) that launched late in the summer of 2024. This website simplified and outlined Stanford’s policies and procedures related to speech around the university, and is regularly updated to incorporate any subsequent changes. The faculty has likewise been committed to protect speech. An Ad Hoc Committee on University Speech proposed a new “Statement on Freedom of Expression”
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GBTIN1XzSbFHJAGlseo3lo7iECugAXpA/edit) that was unanimously adopted by the Faculty Senate in 2024, and also aeirmed by the Board of Trustees.

In order to ensure that a focus on speech remained central to our administration, the position of Special Advisor to the Provost on University Speech was created in 2024. Among the tasks of the person in that position, currently occupied by Stanford Law Professor Bernadette Meyler, is to implement the Freedom of Expression Statement in more specific ways throughout all the schools on campus, to ensure that the manner in which policies are administered across campus are sueiciently speech protective, and to address concerns from students, faculty, and stae around campus about how their speech has been treated.

As a way to encourage student involvement in protecting and promulgating freedom of expression, we have recently sponsored a campus freedom of expression design contest to encourage students to come up with proposals for promoting speech on campus and making our guidelines more easily accessible (https://freespeech.stanford.edu/prize). The winner and runner up are designing a speech guide for students on campus as well as organizing speech-related events and working on a larger project in White Plaza, which has traditionally been the area where even non-campus members can exercise speech rights under Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.1  

One of the guiding principles of our approach to speech is avoiding viewpoint discrimination. As the Statement on Freedom of Expression announces, “Freedom of expression is a fundamental value for the university’s knowledge-bearing mission, alongside the inclusion of all viewpoints and the promotion of rigorous and reasoned academic debates.”  Whenever the implementation of policies on campus has seemed to fall particularly heavily on one group or another, we have examined the causes and acted on those examinations. For example, your letter cites a finding from “Rupture and Repair: A Report by the Stanford Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Communities Committee.” This report was produced by a committee tasked with understanding anti-Muslim bias at Stanford, and a similar committee was simultaneously established to understand antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias
(https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2023/11/stanford-announces-next-steps-support-campuscommunities).  Incidents described in both of the resulting reports were examined and steps were taken to ensure equity going forward.  

We have also been aware that confusion surrounding time, place, and manner restrictions could chill protest; as a result, we have outlined protest activities that are protected by California’s Leonard Law as well as university policy as clearly as possible on the Freedom of Expression website (https://freespeech.stanford.edu/policies-and-guidance/events-and-spaces). To enhance the opportunities for peaceful assembly we have additionally established more outdoor venues for all kinds of speech-related activities and events (https://freespeech.stanford.edu/policies-and-guidance/eventsand-spaces/white-plaza-and-other-designated-outdoor-event-spaces).  

Since 2024, we have also simplified many of the guidelines that impact speech in order to minimize the likelihood of disparate enforcement. Hence, recognizing that policies related to banners and flags were not always historically enforced the same way throughout the residences, we changed the policy to allow for individual students to display materials in their own windows.2 Similarly, we abandoned restrictions on sidewalk chalking that had proven dieicult to enforce.3

We have focused on faculty and stae speech as well. In particular, we have made clear that faculty members enjoy the full range of academic freedom with respect to political expression if they are speaking in their individual capacities (https://freespeech.stanford.edu/policies-and-guidance/corepolicies/political-activities). We also respect the California Labor Code’s protection of employee political activity outside of the workplace.4 That said, for reasons of employee privacy, we cannot comment regarding specific claims made by particular present or former employees.  

Finally, student organizations are an important part of student life at Stanford.  The university has a robust array of nearly 700 recognized student organizations that includes Stanford Students for Justice in
1 447 U.S. 74 (1980).  
2 https://freespeech.stanford.edu/policies-and-guidance/events-and-spaces/posters-banners-and-chalking (“Residents may display signage, including political signage, inside a window of their unit or on their unit’s door.
Individual resident doors are the purview of the resident(s) of that room or apartment.”).  
3 https://freespeech.stanford.edu/policies-and-guidance/events-and-spaces/posters-banners-and-chalking 4   CA Labor Code § 1101 and 1102 (2025).

Palestine, Stanford Jewish Voice for Peace, Stanford Students Palestinian Association, and SLS Law Students for Justice in Palestine.

In conclusion, Stanford is proud to have devoted many resources to ensuring freedom of expression and peaceable assembly on campus over the past several years. The progress that has been made is partially reflected through the change in the campus’s ranking in the FIRE College Free Speech Rankings from 207 in 2023 to 55 in 2027. While more work remains to be done, we are confident that we have the will and capacity to protect our community members’ freedom of expression, and this will remain an ongoing priority.

If have any questions or are interested in any further information, please feel free to contact me at
.  
Regards,

Patrick Dunkley

Vice Provost for Institutional Equity, Access, and Community


university of Southern california



Dear [REDACTED],
Thank you for your September 3 letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim. I’m responding on his behalf.
As you may know, President Kim served as Interim President starting in July 2025 and was subsequently elected President this past February. Fostering a vibrant free expression culture on campus is one of his top priorities, and his leadership in this area has already resulted in significant institutional changes. These have included new mandatory free speech training that all students are required to complete, a faculty task force on academic freedom and free expression, a comprehensive review of university policies impacting free speech, and a signature presidential initiative — the Open Dialogue Project.
I’d appreciate it if we could discuss the specific references to USC that are slated for inclusion in your report. Would a call be the best way to start? I’m happy to walk you through how USC’s expressive activity and student conduct processes work, as well as the progress described above. I’d also be grateful if you could share the specific references to USC that will be included in addition to the reporting about the 2024 commencement speaker and the reference to interim suspensions—I’ll be glad to look into them in advance of our conversation so that I can speak knowledgeably about any concerns you have.
I am copying my assistant, Sean, who can help with scheduling a call ASAP, as I am sensitive to your September 16 deadline. I look forward to meeting you.
Regards,
Andreas
Andreas J. Meyer
Special Counsel
University of Southern California
3551 Trousdale Parkway, ADM 352
Los Angeles, California  90089-5013
[REDACTED]
[ REDACTED ]

See original document for Endnotes

23.09.26

Editorial Note

The Council for Higher Education in Israel published data on students enrolled in higher education institutions. Arab students amount to 63,140 in the upcoming academic year.

Earlier this month, Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, published a harsh report accusing Israeli higher education institutions of apartheid, titled “Apartheid in Israeli Academia: Palestinian Students After 7 October 2023.” 

Adalah received 132 inquiries from Palestinian students at around 40 institutions and provided legal representation or advice in 100 cases after universities began taking action over social media posts following the 7 October 2023 attacks. Out of the 132 inquiries, 20 students were either permanently expelled or suspended for between one and five years. Of 78 disciplinary cases examined, 52 resulted in convictions. 

The report provides examples. Here are two. At Ben-Gurion University, a student faced disciplinary proceedings for sharing a video on her Instagram account on December 20, 2023. The video contained three reports on the October 7, 2023 attacks, including “the alleged beheading of forty children, systematic sexual violence, and the mass killings at the Nova festival.” According to Adalah, the video presented these reports as “narrative parts of a broad strategy of atrocity propaganda and an information war, intended to dehumanize the Palestinians, and thereby to justify Israel’s violence and atrocities against them.” The university’s administration rejected the student’s version, and the disciplinary committee convicted the student of conduct unbecoming.

Tel Aviv University initiated disciplinary proceedings against a student for posting on October 10, 2023, a set of images titled, “8 Things about What’s Happening in Palestine.” Adalah explained that the post “included a series of images of an explanatory and political character with respect to the events of 7 October and their context.” The university’s disciplinary prosecutor argued that the images constituted a booklet “that praises Hamas… in these acts the accused committed an offense of conduct unbecoming the dignity of the university,” the various slides present “a distorted picture of the events of 7 October,” in which Israel “is presented as a satanic regime to justify the ‘liberation operation’.” Adalah explained that “The student and his defense team emphasized that the post’s purpose was to raise awareness of the other context of the war at a time when the voices in Israel called for revenge. The defense argued that the post does not support terror, nor does it encourage violence. The terminology, even if perceived as problematic by the university, is lawful and legitimate in its historical context, and is informative, and nothing more.” In the end, the Tel Aviv University committee convicted the student of an offense under the disciplinary code, and on 8 May 2024 imposed a penalty of a suspended sentence of expulsion.

The Adalah report attracted media attention. The New Arab, a Qatari-owned anti-Israel media outlet based in London, used the Adalah report to attack Israel. It reported that Palestinian citizens of Israel studying at Israeli universities are “being punished for expressions of Palestinian identity and opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.” The New Arab spoke to Lubna Tuma, the attorney with Adalah who represented many of the students in the Adalah report, who said that “universities had subjected Palestinian students to disciplinary proceedings in which they were effectively treated as supporters of ‘terrorism’ unless they could prove otherwise, while similar restrictions were not imposed on Jewish-Israeli students.” She said, in Israeli academia, “institutions have turned themselves into bodies policing private political expression, deciding which expressions of identity, religion, solidarity, and criticism are legitimate, and which are not.”

Tuma told the New Arab, “What that produces isn’t just individual punishment, it’s a chilling effect across the whole Palestinian student population.” Tuma described the hearings as “humiliation by design,” saying that the students were treated as if they were “a traitor or enemy from the outset… The committees’ starting assumption was often that the student supported terrorism and required the student to actively disprove it.”

Tuma also told the New Arab that the Palestinian students were “forced to demonstrate that their speech did not amount to support for ‘terror’.” Tuma described the proceedings as “sham processes from start to finish.” 

The New Arab stated that “The crackdown was encouraged by the Israeli government. Days after the 7 October attacks, the education minister demanded universities suspend students, report them to the Council for Higher Education and police, and expedite disciplinary proceedings. Jewish-Israeli student unions, campus political groups and outside organizations also monitored Palestinian students’ social media posts and reported them to university administrations.”

The New Arab also added that “Adalah found a starkly different approach towards Jewish-Israeli students. Universities largely preserved protections for their political expression, including in cases involving extreme speech, while the report said institutions ignored widespread calls for the annihilation and genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and racist posts targeting Palestinian citizens and students. For Palestinian students, by contrast, universities expanded their disciplinary reach beyond campus and into private political expression.”

Tuma told the New Arab, “This is why we speak of apartheid. It is a completely different set of rules, applied on the basis of students’ ethno-national identity… This can’t be addressed case by case. Freedom of speech is an absolute precondition of academic life, not a privilege granted to some students and withheld from others.”

Adalah even told the New Arab “the crackdown has consequences beyond those formally disciplined, creating a ‘chilling effect’ in which Palestinian students increasingly censor themselves and feel less secure or welcome on Israeli campuses.”

Other media outlets also reported on the Adalah report. The Times Higher Education reported that “Harsh disciplinary sanctions against Palestinian students in Israeli universities amount to ‘apartheid’ in the country’s higher education system.” 

According to The Times Higher Education, “Palestinian students at Israeli universities have been suspended from their studies for merely ‘liking’ social media content that relates to Palestine.”

The Times Higher Education report also alleges that “Israeli universities are imposing increasingly harsh sanctions on Palestinian students, while Israeli Jewish students go without punishment for similar actions.”

The Times Higher Education received a response from The Technion. It said that the report was “part of a broader attempt to discredit Israeli academia and institutions”. The Technion “has more than 3,000 Israeli Arab students and that there have been six disciplinary cases involving them over the past decade, three of which resulted in guilty verdicts. Another two students chose to discontinue their studies before the proceedings were completed.“ The Technion also said, these were “Baseless accusations of discrimination undermine these efforts and risk damaging the delicate fabric of shared academic life that we strive to preserve on our campus every day.”

The Jerusalem Post also reported, stating that Adalah “clashed with Israeli universities.” It added that international supporters contributed nearly NIS 1 million to provide legal representation and assistance to dozens of students following the proceedings. The British NGO, the Galilee Foundation, provided support that enabled Adalah to write and publish. 

Worth noting that official data show that Israeli higher education institutions are hosting over sixty thousand Arab students. In the end, according to the Adalah report, of the 132 cases Adalah highlighted, only a small number were sanctioned by the universities for expressing support for Hamas.

Surely, at least 60,000 Arab students did not express support for Hamas. Arab students have also benefited from Israeli government grants since 2013, when it launched the Irteka scholarship programs to increase the number of Arab students in higher education institutions.

The claim that Israeli institutions of higher education “practice apartheid” against Palestinian students is false. Disciplinary action against particular students does not, by itself, establish the existence of an apartheid system. A careful analysis should distinguish between restrictions on political expression, alleged violations of university disciplinary rules, and systematic institutional discrimination based on ethnicity or nationality.

For many years, segments of the social sciences and liberal arts have increasingly framed a wide range of controversies involving Israel through the conceptual lens of “apartheid,” and, more recently, “genocide.” The Adalah report illustrates this tendency: rather than establishing the specific conditions required to substantiate either designation, it employs the terminology as a generalized description of Israeli policies and institutional practices. The result is a methodological problem in which highly specific legal and historical concepts become interchangeable political labels. 

As can be seen, The New Arab provided the harshest reporting against Israel, and The Times Higher Education has followed suit. None questioned Adalah’s apartheid accusations.

REFERENCES:

https://www.newarab.com/news/inside-academic-apartheid-silencing-palestinians-israel

Inside the ‘academic apartheid’ silencing Palestinian students in Israel

Israeli universities are imposing academic apartheid on Palestinian students over Gaza and Palestinian expression, Adalah has found.

By Anam Alam

07 September, 2026

Palestinian citizens of Israel studying at Israeli universities are being pushed to self-censor and, in some cases, abandon their studies after being punished for expressions of Palestinian identity and opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a lawyer who represented many of the students has told The New Arab.

Lubna Tuma, an attorney with Palestinian rights group Adalah, said universities had subjected Palestinian students to disciplinary proceedings in which they were effectively treated as supporters of “terrorism” unless they could prove otherwise, while similar restrictions were not imposed on Jewish-Israeli students.

“Freedom of expression is supposed to be a foundational, universal principle of academic life, for all students,” Tuma, who co-authored a new report on the crackdown, told The New Arab.

“In Israeli academia, it plays quite the opposite role: institutions have turned themselves into bodies policing private political expression, deciding which expressions of identity, religion, solidarity, and criticism are legitimate, and which are not.”

Adalah’s report, Apartheid in Israeli Academia: Palestinian Students After 7 October 2023, found that Israeli universities and colleges had effectively established two disciplinary systems based on students’ ethno-national identity, which the rights group says amounts to apartheid within higher education.

The group received 132 inquiries from Palestinian students at around 40 institutions and provided legal representation or advice in 100 cases after universities began taking action over social media posts following the 7 October 2023 attacks and the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

More than 60% of those who approached Adalah were suspended before any determination of wrongdoing, while 20 students were either permanently expelled or suspended for between one and five years. Of 78 disciplinary cases examined, 52 resulted in convictions.

The posts targeted were not limited to statements about the 7 October attacks. Criticism of Israel’s government, military or war on Gaza, prayers and Quranic verses, images of Palestinian identity and expressions of concern about Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe all triggered proceedings.

In some cases, merely “liking” a post, displaying the Palestinian flag or the word “Palestine”, sharing a news report or posting a prayer for Palestinians in Gaza was enough to prompt a complaint.

“What that produces isn’t just individual punishment, it’s a chilling effect across the whole Palestinian student population,” Tuma said.

‘Humiliation by design’

Tuma, who represented many of the students before disciplinary committees, described the hearings as “humiliation by design”, saying students entered them treated as if they were “a traitor or enemy from the outset”.

“These processes carried a deep personal, emotional, and psychological cost,” Tuma said. “The committees’ starting assumption was often that the student supported terrorism and required the student to actively disprove it.”

The report documented cases in which students were not shown the posts behind complaints, universities relied on automatic translations of Arabic prayers and Quranic verses, and students were required to defend themselves against content they had not published.

Adalah said the result was a reversal of the usual burden of proof, with Palestinian students forced to demonstrate that their speech did not amount to support for “terror”. In some cases, university proceedings continued and ended in convictions even when law enforcement authorities found no basis to pursue criminal charges.

Tuma described the proceedings as “sham processes from start to finish”, saying some students chose not to appeal because of the anxiety caused by the process, while others abandoned their studies in Israel and pursued education abroad.

Some universities also reported their own Palestinian students to Israeli police, leading in certain cases to criminal investigations and arrests. Tuma said the University of Haifa was the first to suspend at least one Palestinian student after 7 October and filed a criminal complaint against one student.

The crackdown was encouraged by the Israeli government. Days after the 7 October attacks, the education minister demanded universities suspend students, report them to the Council for Higher Education and police, and expedite disciplinary proceedings. Jewish-Israeli student unions, campus political groups and outside organisations also monitored Palestinian students’ social media posts and reported them to university administrations.

‘A completely different set of rules’

Adalah found a starkly different approach towards Jewish-Israeli students. Universities largely preserved protections for their political expression, including in cases involving extreme speech, while the report said institutions ignored widespread calls for the annihilation and genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and racist posts targeting Palestinian citizens and students.

For Palestinian students, by contrast, universities expanded their disciplinary reach beyond campus and into private political expression, according to the report.

“This is why we speak of apartheid. It is a completely different set of rules, applied on the basis of students’ ethno-national identity,” Tuma said.

“This can’t be addressed case by case. Freedom of speech is an absolute precondition of academic life, not a privilege granted to some students and withheld from others.”

Adalah said the crackdown has consequences beyond those formally disciplined, creating a “chilling effect” in which Palestinian students increasingly censor themselves and feel less secure or welcome on Israeli campuses.

==========================================================

https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/11693

New Report by Adalah: “Apartheid in Israeli Academia: Palestinian Students After 7 October 2023”

07/09/2026

Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel publishes a new report today examining the discriminatory disciplinary policies pursued since 7 October 2023 by Israeli universities and colleges toward Palestinian students, predominantly citizens of Israel. Based on an analysis of the dozens of disciplinary proceedings opened against Palestinian students at around 40 academic institutions in response to the students’ social media posts, the report finds that Israeli academia has created a two-track disciplinary system, amounting to apartheid within higher education between Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian students.

The report was co-authored by Adalah Attorneys Lubna Tuma, Adi Mansour, and Attorney Mai Diab, and edited by Dr. Fady Khoury.

To read the full report

To read the executive summary
 

Israeli academic institutions began suspending Palestinian students in the days immediately following 7 October, opening disciplinary proceedings against them, and classifying their posts as “support for terror.” These actions occurred amid political pressure from state officials, including the Minister of Education, to suspend students and conduct expedited disciplinary proceedings against them. In some cases, academic institutions even reported their own students to the police, leading to arrests.
 

The consequences of this institutional policy were severe: Adalah received 132 inquiries from students at close to 40 academic institutions, most of which (76.5%) came from female students. Adalah legally represented or offered legal counsel to 100 students. In more than 80 cases, academic institutions imposed an interim suspension before any hearing took place, and in 20 cases permanently expelled students or suspended them for one-to-five years. In a number of cases, Adalah’s appeals led to the reversal of convictions or a significant reduction of penalties.
 

According to the report, a wide range of expressions triggered disciplinary proceedings, including criticism of Israeli government policy, the Israeli military, or the war in Gaza; content related to the 7 October attacks; the dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip; religious expressions including verses from the Qur’an; and visual symbols of Palestinian identity. In some cases, a mere “like” of a post, the display of a Palestinian flag or the word “Palestine” on a profile, sharing a news report, or posting a prayer for the residents of Gaza was enough to trigger a complaint or disciplinary proceeding.
 

The report points to structural, recurring flaws in the manner in which academic institutions handled these proceedings, finding that the burden of proof shifted: instead of institutions having to prove that an offense had occurred, students had to prove that their posts did not amount to support for terror. Institutions also expanded their disciplinary authority into private posts unrelated to academic studies almost exclusively by Palestinian students, while refraining from doing so for Jewish-Israeli students, even in cases involving extreme, inciting, and racist speech.
 

As a result, the report argues, Israeli academia has been transformed from a body regulating students’ conduct in connection with their studies into a body policing private expression of their students and determining which expressions of Palestinian identity, religion, solidarity, and criticism are legitimate.
 

The report concludes that, after October 2023, Israeli academic institutions established two distinct tracks of disciplinary law de facto: an administrative track and a constitutional track. For Palestinian students, the institutions established an emergency “administrative track”, characterized by the expansion of academic institutions’ authority, the curtailment of procedural protections, the use of vague tests, and the examination of statements within a securitized discourse predicated on concepts of loyalty and “enemy”. Alongside this track, the institutions applied a “constitutional track” for Jewish-Israeli students, in which the boundaries of authority and freedom of expression were largely preserved, even in relation to extreme expression. Notably, Israeli academic institutions ignored students’ widespread calls for the annihilation and genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza and racist posts directed against Palestinian citizens of Israel in general, and their fellow Palestinian students in particular.
 

The report warns that this policy creates a “chilling effect” among Palestinian students, encourages self-censorship, and undermines their sense of security and belonging on campus.

To watch an explanatory video about the report

To view an infographic by Visualizing Palestine which visualizes the findings of the report.

===============================================================================

https://www.ioehighereducation.com/News/IT/4202

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/palestinian-students-victims-two-track-discipline-israel

Palestinian students ‘victims of two-track discipline’ in Israel

Legal centre says Israeli universities have suspended students for simply ‘liking’ Palestinian flags

Published on 

September 8, 2026

Last updated 

September 8, 2026

Juliette Rowsell

Harsh disciplinary sanctions against Palestinian students in Israeli universities amount to “apartheid” in the country’s higher education system, a legal and human rights centre claims.

In a report, Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, says that Palestinians studying at Israeli universities have been suspended from their studies for merely “liking” social media content that relates to Palestine.

A “two-track” disciplinary route is opening up in the country, the report alleges, saying that Israeli universities are imposing increasingly harsh sanctions on Palestinian students, while Israeli Jewish students go without punishment for similar actions.

Apartheid in Israeli Academia is based on 132 enquiries that Adalah received from Palestinian students relating to disciplinary proceedings tied to social media posts on private accounts. In 61.3 per cent of all the enquiries received, institutions imposed interim suspensions, barring individuals from their studies before any determination of culpability had been made, the report says.

Law enforcement authorities became involved in 20 cases, some entailing arrests, with institutions at times directly reporting their own students to the police.

About 24 per cent of the posts reviewed contained criticism of Israeli government policy or of the war in Gaza; 23 per cent contained content related to the Hamas attacks of 7 October; 22 per cent addressed events in Gaza and civilian suffering; 21 per cent featured religious expressions, including prayers and verses from the Koran; and 16 per cent contained visual symbols of Palestinian identity.

Some students were suspended for displaying a Palestinian flag in their social media biographies, the report claims. In one case, Adalah says, a university allegedly took action against a student for a post made in 2022 about the football World Cup in Qatar. The post read: “The World Cup is in Qatar, while the cup of manhood, resistance, and pride is being played here in Palestine.”

One student who had been suspended, and who wished to remain anonymous, told Times Higher Education that they felt “lost and anxious” after being investigated by their university, adding that “the hearings themselves were extremely humiliating”.

The incident, which also involved them being arrested, put them off further study in Israel. They have since applied to institutions in Europe for postgraduate studies.

The most common form of discipline for students was suspension for one academic year, which 25 per cent of the students in the report received. This was followed by educational sanctions (including reprimands, obligatory educational courses and the revocation of academic credits), at 21.67 per cent; permanent suspension (18.33 per cent); and suspension for one to five years (16.67 per cent).

Adalah says there was a “relatively high volume” of disciplinary proceedings from some institutions, including the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem (nine), the University of Haifa (nine) and Technion Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa (six).

In its report, Adalah warns that there are “two separate disciplinary tracks”, one for Palestinian students and one for Israeli Jewish students.

The paper says: “To the best of our knowledge, there is not a single case of a disciplinary prosecution of an Israeli Jewish student for having published a social media post, for example, showing support for genocide, for the ‘flattening’ of Gaza, or a racist statement against the Arab public in Israel.”

This discrepancy “created a reality of apartheid in the disciplinary law of Israeli academia”, says Adalah, which describes it as a “racist policy” that sees higher education institutions “violate international law”.

“This policy produces collective harm, in which religious, political, or identity-based expression by Palestinian students may result in sanctions and academic penalties,” the report says.

“It creates a ‘chilling effect’ within the Palestinian student body in Israeli academia, fostering fear, incentivising self-censorship, and discouraging legitimate expression. By contrast, such fears do not exist for the Jewish Israeli student.”

THE approached the universities named for comment. Technion said the report was “part of a broader attempt to discredit Israeli academia and institutions”.

It said that it has more than 3,000 Israeli Arab students and that there have been six disciplinary cases involving them over the past decade, three of which resulted in guilty verdicts. Another two students chose to discontinue their studies before the proceedings were completed.

“The reality is that the Technion has worked diligently to support all of its students, including its Arab students, during an exceptionally difficult and emotionally charged period,” the institution said.

“Baseless accusations of discrimination undermine these efforts and risk damaging the delicate fabric of shared academic life that we strive to preserve on our campus every day.”

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com

===============================================================================

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-908378

Adalah clashes with Israeli universities over alleged discrimination against Arabs after Oct. 7

The report reviews proceedings against Arab students at around 40 academic institutions, primarily over posts published on their private social media accounts.

ByYOAV ETIEL, AVIHAI CHIIMSEPTEMBER 11, 2026 11:41

The Adalah organization, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, clashed with Israeli universities after it published a harsh report on Monday titled “Apartheid in Israeli Academia: Arab Students After October 7, 2023,” which claims that Israeli higher education institutions have implemented discriminatory disciplinary policies since the start of the war.

Adalah claimed that the universities effectively created two separate tracks: a stricter track for Arab students, referred to as “Palestinian” students in the report, most of whom are Israeli citizens, and a more lenient track for Jewish students.

The report, authored by Adalah attorneys Lubna Touma, Adi Mansour, and Mai Diab, and edited by Dr. Fadi Khoury with assistance from Tom Mahager and Dr. Hassan Jabareen, reviews proceedings against Arab students at around 40 academic institutions, primarily over posts published on their private social media accounts.

Adalah said that international supporters contributed nearly NIS 1 million to provide legal representation and assistance to dozens of students following the proceedings. According to the report, the Galilee Foundation provided support that enabled its writing and publication.

According to the report, on October 8, 2023, less than 24 hours after the massacre carried out by Hamas and other armed groups in the Gaza border communities and the start of what the report calls the “war of extermination of the nation over the Gaza Strip,” the University of Haifa issued its first decision to suspend Arab students from their studies.

====================================

https://www.adalah.org/uploads/uploads/4297aea7c5ee9689d89809c3415c14b0.pdf

APARTHEID IN ISRAELI ACADEMIA: PALESTINIAN STUDENTS AFTER

7 OCTOBER 2023

_{September 2026}

             w w w . a d a l a h . o r g

Authors: Lubna Tuma, Adi Mansour, Mai Diab Main Editor: Dr. Fady Khoury

Contributing Editors: Dr. Hassan Jabareen, Tom Mehager

Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel

Cover & Report Design: Underground Studio

September 2026

Table of Contents

5                  Acknowledgments

6                  Introduction 

14 Chapter 1:_{An Overview}  

21 Chapter 2:Due Process Rights Violations

31 Chapter 3:Expanding the Boundaries of Surveillance and _Enforcement

40 Chapter 4:Narrowing the Scope of Freedom of Expression  

77 Summary and Conclusions

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Adalah wishes to express its appreciation and gratitude to the attorneys and legal interns who accompanied, assisted, and devoted significant professional and personal effort to the legal representation of over 100 Palestinian students, citizens of Israel and residents of Jerusalem, against whom disciplinary proceedings were brought by academic institutions in Israel over their social media posts published after 7 October 2023. This work was carried out under enormous pressure, over many long months, and included legal representation, research, the preparation of pleadings, and appearances before disciplinary committees, as well as personal support. Special thanks go to Ismail Sarsour, as well as to the volunteer attorneys Omar Khamaisi, Rawan Aghbaria, and Wisam Yazbak.

Finally, we wish to express deep gratitude and appreciation to the members of our community and international supporters, who mobilized in an extraordinary way and contributed close to one million shekels toward the representation of the Palestinian students. This support made it possible to provide legal assistance to the students during an unprecedented period. Adalah also wishes to thank the Galilee Foundation for its generous support toward the writing and publication of this report.

Introduction

On 8 October 2023, less than twenty-four hours after the deadly assaults carried out by Hamas and other militant groups in the communities surrounding Gaza and the opening of the war on the Gaza Strip, the University of Haifa issued its first decision to suspend Palestinian students. The decision was made by the university’s rector, with no preliminary procedure and no hearing, based on social media posts by the students on their private social media accounts in the hours before the decision.^[1] Within a few days, other academic institutions followed suit and by mid-October 2023, a pattern was already discernible: the immediate suspension of Palestinian students from their courses. The opening of disciplinary proceedings against them and the characterization of their posts as constituting support for terror or identification with the Hamas attack.

Adalah received 132 inquiries from students,^[2] 131 of whom are Palestinian students against whom disciplinary proceedings were opened, by approximately 40 Israeli universities, regional colleges, and private colleges. The phenomenon also continued through 2024 and 2025.^[3] This report examines those disciplinary proceedings, focusing on the cases that Adalah handled, and continues to handle, on behalf of these students.^[4]

The facts presented in this report reveal a wide-ranging suppression of the freedom of expression of Palestinian students in Israel. The affected students are mostly young Palestinian women (76.5% of the inquiries). The social media posts for which they were disciplined included verses from the Qur’an, prayers for the safety of the residents of Gaza, expressions of solidarity with Palestinians, shares of news reports, and expressions of national identity such as the Palestinian flag or the word “Palestine” in a profile. Many of the posts were published from private accounts with a limited audience, outside the academic space, and in some cases even in periods that preceded 7 October. The sanctions imposed in 20 cases included permanent expulsion or prolonged suspension from studies. This pattern, in its scope and its features, was unprecedented in the disciplinary mechanisms of academic institutions.

The Israeli institutions of higher education did not act in a vacuum. They operated within a wider policy of persecution pursued in workplaces, hospitals, the Israel Bar Association, and elsewhere. This policy treated Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCI) as an “enemy from within,” one whose every identification with Palestinians in Gaza was perceived as an illegitimate expression that justified silencing. A clear illustration came on 18 October 2023, when the Police Commissioner, Yaakov Shabtai, announced a sweeping ban on Arab demonstrations in support of the residents of Gaza, alongside a policy of “zero tolerance for any incident. Anyone who wants to be a citizen of Israel, ahlan wa sahlan (welcome). Anyone  who wishes to identify with Gaza, is welcome to — I will put him on the buses that are heading there now.”⁵ This rhetoric did not emerge on 7 October; it is part of a long-standing perception of PCI as an internal threat to the state. After 7 October, however, with the ongoing genocide in Gaza and massive violence in the West Bank, it acquired an unprecedented official and public legitimacy, one that enabled the political persecution with which this report is concerned.

The same was true at institutions of higher education. On 12 October 2023, only five days after the war began, the Minister of Education, Yoav Kisch, sent a letter to the heads of higher education institutions titled “Handling Cases of Incitement to Terror by Students and Employees at Academic Institutions.”⁶ The letter demanded that the universities take immediate steps, including the immediate suspension of students, reporting every case to the Council for Higher Education and to the Israel Police, and conducting expedited disciplinary proceedings. A few days later, on 18 October, the Council for Higher Education approved a decision requiring the institutions to report on their treatment of complaints received. In response, the heads of the universities expressed collective and public opposition to these requirements, arguing that the decision “could create an atmosphere of McCarthyism and mutual informing on campuses.”⁷ This rhetorical opposition, however, did not translate into a refusal to conduct the proceedings.

Organized public pressure accompanied the political pressure. Student unions, right-wing student cells, and extra-institutional organizations worked to locate social media posts by Palestinian students, transfer them to the universities’ administrations, and apply public pressure for stricter measures. At several institutions, the complaints that reached the disciplinary committees did not originate with a faculty member or a student who had been directly harmed, but

5         Ran Shimoni, Diaa Hajj Yahya, and Adi Hashmonai, “Israel Police Commissioner: ‘Those Who Identify with Gaza can be Escorted There on Buses,’” Ha’aretz English Edition, 19 October 2023.

6         Letter of the Minister of Education, Yoav Kisch, to the heads of higher education institutions, dated 12 October 2023, “Handling Cases of Incitement to Terror by Students and Employees at Academic Institutions.”

7         Letter of response sent by the heads of higher education institutions to the Minister of Education, dated 18  October  2023.

with external organizations that monitored students’ posts, or with students who followed the accounts of Palestinian students and forwarded screenshots.⁸

These developments drew international criticism from human rights organizations, groups that work to protect academic freedom, and human rights experts. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, determined that the violations in question constitute breaches of international human rights law, including the right to hold opinions, freedom of expression, and the right to education. The Commission further determined that the targeted harm to Palestinian women faculty members and students, through disciplinary proceedings and dismissals that deterred them from activity in the public sphere, constitutes a violation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).⁹ In a formal communication to the Government of Israel in 2024, eight UN special rapporteurs expressed concern over “increased criminalization, surveillance, harassment and attacks,”¹⁰ and also addressed the disciplinary proceedings taken against Palestinian students at academic institutions as part of what they described as “the suppression of freedom of expression since 7 October.”¹¹

The practices described in this report began with the universities’ expansion of their  disciplinary powers. Article 17 of the Students’ Rights Law, 2007 provides that an academic institution may set rules “relating to the conduct of candidates

8         These actions included demands on the part of student movements, national student unions, and extrainstitutional organizations. See, for example, the actions of organizations such as Im Tirtzu and Btsalmo, which set up independent mechanisms for monitoring students’ social media posts and transferred lists of names to the administrations of academic institutions. This pattern of action did not previously exist within Israeli academia, and it was documented for the first time after 7 October.

9         UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, report under the resolution of the Human Rights Council, UN document A/ HRC/59/26 (June 2025), paras. 35-39 and 85.

10      Formal communication of special rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council to the Government of Israel, AL ARE 2/2024, 18 April 2024, p. 1. The communication was submitted on behalf of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression; the Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and association; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; the Special Rapporteur on minority issues; the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy; the Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism; and the Working Group on transnational corporations.

11      Ibid., pp. 2-4.

and students in connection with their studies at the institution.” The law circumscribes the universities’ disciplinary powers and limits them to a connection to the institution or to the student’s studies there. The law was never intended to serve as an institutionalized enforcement mechanism for speech offenses or for conduct off campus that has no direct connection with what takes place on it.^[5]

Despite this, since October 2023, Israeli academic institutions have assumed new powers, beyond those granted to them under the law. They defined what constitutes an expression offense. They decided what evidence is required for a conviction. They developed, at their own initiative, new legal tests, such as the test of “the reasonable person entrusted with the foundational principles of the state,” the “reasonable listener” test, and the “reasonable reader” test. They decided, as they saw fit, which interpretations of Qur’anic verses, religious expressions, or national symbols would receive protection, and which would be defined as reflecting support for terror. In doing so, they significantly expanded the boundaries of what is proscribed by Israel’s penal laws.

These proceedings created a reality of apartheid in the disciplinary law of Israeli academia. The assumption of this power, and its expansion, was directed exclusively against Palestinian students and against expressions with proPalestinian content or affiliation. To the best of our knowledge, there is not a single case of a disciplinary prosecution of an Israeli Jewish student for having published a social media post, for example, showing support for genocide, for the “flattening” of Gaza, or a racist statement against the Arab public in Israel. On the contrary, disciplinary committees did not see these targeted sanctions as selective enforcement and justified the distinction between filing a disciplinary indictment against Palestinian students over an expression that, in their view, was tainted by “support for terror,” and the cases of calls for annihilation, genocide, and racist expressions against Palestinians.

The report points to numerous procedural failures in the way the institutions conducted the proceedings. Many of the proceedings, for example, took place without the presentation of any proper evidentiary basis or witnesses, afforded no right to cross-examine prosecution experts, and at times, did not  even present the social media post of the accused student at issue. In a considerable number of cases, the universities imposed an immediate interim suspension before the student’s account was even heard, and the burden of proof was reversed, so that the students themselves were required to prove their innocence rather than the institution being required to establish their guilt. Beyond the harm to freedom of expression, the universities violated the students’ right to education, among other rights.¹³

As noted, the students against whom disciplinary proceedings were opened are overwhelmingly Palestinian citizens or residents of Israel. For the most part, the posts in question were written in Arabic, and many of them are routine, everyday posts with religious and cultural meanings and contained no direct call to terror or direct support for the 7 October attacks.¹⁴

By contrast, the people in whose name the universities exercised their disciplinary power, those whose feelings and sense of security were allegedly the basis for disciplinary committees’ decisions, are Jewish Israeli students, Jewish Israeli faculty members, or “the Israeli public” as an abstract collective. The category of “the academic community” or “the student body” of which many decisions spoke did not include the Palestinian students themselves. They, in effect, became a threat to the community rather than part of it. The universities defined their expressions as harming “the fabric of shared life,” a fabric defined by the comfort zone of the ethno-national majority and its sensibilities.

13     Notably, in several cases, the disciplinary proceedings took place in parallel with criminal investigations that the institutions themselves initiated or took an active position to advance. In addition, in cases where the police decided not to prosecute, some of the institutions continued with the disciplinary proceedings, while applying prohibitions on expressions that the state itself did not regard as a criminal offense.

14      As noted, most of the posts at issue were published by the students from their private social media accounts, outside the academic space. In some cases, these posts were meant for small groups, posts that had already been deleted, or posts that were not written by the student at all but only shared by them (a “story,” a “like” mark, passive participation in a public group). Some posts were published long before the events of 7 October.

The report contains four chapters. Chapter 1 presents a quantitative overview of the 132 cases received by Adalah following measures taken against Palestinian students after 7 October,¹⁵ including 100 cases in which legal consultation or representation was provided. The chapter examines the timing of the inquiries, the institutional distribution, the gender breakdown, the interim suspensions imposed, arrests, general features of the posts, and the outcomes of the proceedings. Chapter 2 examines the structural failures in the disciplinary proceedings themselves: the initiation of proceedings without an evidentiary basis, reliance on automatic translations, the attribution of posts to students who did not publish them, the reversal of the burden of proof, the absence of reasoning, and the widespread use of interim suspensions. Chapter 3 addresses the question of authority, and the way in which academic institutions expanded the boundaries of their disciplinary powers to apply it to posts that were published with no connection to studies or to the institution. Chapter 4 examines the outcomes: the definition of expressions of concern, solidarity, identity, and religion as speech offenses warranting sanctions, and the new legal tests formulated in these proceedings.

The report is based on cases in which Adalah directly represented students, as well as on information from additional sources. The full scope of the phenomenon is broader than what appears in this report.¹⁶ The report does not address disciplinary proceedings taken against academic faculty members, which form part of the same broad dynamic of narrowing the institutional space for expression.¹⁷

The report illuminates the way in which Israeli academia created a system of enforcement and punishment that rests de facto on ethnic distinctions, advancing a policy with apartheid characteristics toward Palestinian students while using administrative tools drawn from the field of counter-terrorism. In so doing, it

15      See footnote 2.

16      For example, the website Arab48 reported on about 160 cases of persecution and silencing in academia in Israel since October 2023. See: Amir Ali Buirat, “Israeli universities summoned 160 Arab students during the war in Gaza,” Arab48, 15 November 2023 [Arabic].

17      These phenomena are part of that broader pattern of narrowing the space of expression at institutions of higher education after 7 October. Academia for Equality details these proceedings in its report “Silencing, Censorship, and Free Speech Violations in Israeli Academia,” 16 June 2025.

produced a reality in which Palestinian students at academic institutions in Israel are not categorically excluded but are conditionally included: they are admitted as students, yet they are subject to a Foucauldian disciplinary apparatus that polices their political subjectivity, monitors their activity and their expressions off campus, and punishes their political expressions and protests in ways that are not applied to Israeli Jewish students. The institutional form of the disciplinary proceeding is indeed universal, but its application is split along ethno-national lines. Further, it reinforces the ethno-national supremacy that lies at the foundation of the Israeli constitutional order, in that it devotes its full resources to policing the minority while systematically ignoring calls for the annihilation and genocide of the Palestinian people and racist posts directed against the Palestinian population in Israel in general, and Palestinian students in particular.

Chapter 1: An Overview

This chapter presents an overview of the phenomenon covered by the report, drawing on data gathered by Adalah. The analyses presented in this chapter are mostly based on the 100 cases in which Adalah provided legal advice or representation.^[6]

The timing of the academic institutions’ initial actions against students: The first inquiries from students to Adalah came immediately after 7 October and from those at the University of Haifa, as early as 8 October 2023. In the weeks that followed, there was a rapid spread of disciplinary actions initiated by additional institutions. Even after the initial “peak,” academic institutions continued to target Palestinian students’ expressions during November and December 2023, as well as in 2024 and 2025.

Institutional distribution: Inquiries from students to Adalah came from close to 40 different academic institutions, of a total of 61 operating in the country.^[7] Adalah documented several institutions with a relatively high volume of disciplinary proceedings, including Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem (nine cases),^[8] the University of Haifa (nine cases), the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa (six cases – although, according to the disciplinary committee’s database, there were seven), and the various branches of the College of Management Academic Studies (COLMAN) (eight cases). Adalah also documented several cases from institutions such as Shenkar College of Engineering, Design and Art in Ramat Gan and WIZO Haifa Academy of Design and Education.

Gender breakdown: Of the 132 students who turned to Adalah, 101 were women (76.5%)  and 31 were men (23.5% ).

Chart 1: Gender distribution of students in the inquiries received by Adalah

Initial inquiry and additional measures: In 30 cases, the institutions approached the students after receiving the complaint and conveyed its content to them, together with a demand for a response as part of an initial inquiry, before deciding whether to undertake additional measures. Of these 30 cases, the institutions decided in 22 to dismiss the complaint and take no further measures, and in eight decided to continue with disciplinary proceedings. In 70 cases, no distinct stage of initial inquiry was documented, and the handling of the complaint advanced directly to the disciplinary proceeding or to other formal measures, without the student being given an opportunity to present his/her account before the decision to proceed with disciplinary action was taken.

The use of interim suspension in handling the complaints: Most academic institutions took immediate measures at the early stages of considering a complaint. In 61.3% of the cases (involving the 132 students who approached Adalah), the institutions ordered an interim suspension, and therefore many students were suspended before any adjudication. The University of Haifa was the first institution at which Adalah documented cases of interim suspension, as early as 8 October 2023.

Arrests of students: Of the 132 students who approached Adalah, law enforcement authorities engaged with 20, including by arresting them over alleged offenses of “support for terror” or “identification with a “terrorist organization” as defined under Israeli law. At times, the criminal proceeding began at the initiative of the institutions themselves, through representatives, faculty members, or security officers filing complaints with the police.^[9]

These data fit within the broader context in which the academic institutions operated during this period. In a letter sent by the Minister of Education, Yoav Kisch, as noted above, the institutions were called upon to take immediate steps, including the immediate suspension of students and the submission of reports on every such case both to the Council for Higher Education and to the Israel Police.^[10] Subsequently, in a further letter dated 26 October 2023, the Governmental Institute for Technological Education and Training at the Ministry of Labor instructed institutions that whenever college staff encountered posts that might prove to be unlawful, a complaint should be filed to the police in order to ensure that the matter was also examined through the criminal process.^[11]

Features of the posts on which complaints and disciplinary proceedings were based: The complaints filed against the students were based on various types of social media posts.^[12] Approximately 24% of the posts criticized the State of Israel, the army, and the commission of alleged war crimes in Gaza, and included references to terms such as “decolonization,” “occupation,” “ethnic cleansing,” or “genocide.” About 23% of the posts concerned the events of 7 October and included photographs or videos from the events, direct references to the attack, or content contesting the prevailing interpretations or portrayals of them in Israel. Around 22% of the posts referred to events in Gaza and included the sharing of content documenting conditions on the ground, descriptions of destruction and harm to civilians, and expressions of solidarity with the people of Gaza. Approximately 21% of the posts were religious in nature and included prayers for Gaza, verses from the Qur’an, and other forms of religious expression. Around 16% involved the use of visual symbols, such as the Palestinian flag, maps of historic Palestine, the figure of Handala, and photographs of the separation wall. In several cases, the mere act of “liking” social media posts was itself cited as a basis for filing complaints and opening disciplinary proceedings.

Outcomes of the disciplinary proceedings: The analysis below relates to 78 cases in which proceedings were conducted before disciplinary committees and does not include cases in which complaints were closed after an initial inquiry. The proceedings resulted in a range of outcomes, from disciplinary convictions to acquittals.^[13] In 52 cases, the proceeding ended in the student’s disciplinary conviction. In 14 cases, the students were  acquitted, most often on the basis of reasonable doubt. In these cases, the disciplinary committees found that the posts at issue were open to differing interpretations. The decisions generally reflected a divergence between the interpretation advanced by the student represented by Adalah and that of the prosecution. The committees determined that the interpretation presented by the defense was plausible and reasonable, and that, given the existence of differing interpretations, disciplinary responsibility had not been established to the required standard. In three cases, the proceedings were discontinued after the students’ chose to end their studies. Six cases were resolved through mediation, according to agreements under which the students would perform community service, chosen by the defense and approved by the prosecution. Five of these agreements were given the force of a decision by the disciplinary committee. In the sixth case, at the University of Haifa, the committee declined to approve the agreement and instead acquitted the student on the basis of reasonable doubt (see Chapter 4, below). In three other cases, the prosecution withdrew the disciplinary indictment after it became apparent that the posts could not be attributed to the accused students.

Types of penalties imposed upon disciplinary conviction: The institutions imposed a range of penalties on the students. The most common penalty was suspension for varying periods: for one semester (five cases); for two semesters or one academic year (15 cases);^[14] for a period of between one and five years (nine cases); and permanent expulsion (11 cases).^[15] Other penalties included an obligation to perform community service (two cases), educational sanctions, including reprimands, warnings, and obligatory educational courses (13 cases) and the revocation of academic credits (one case). In three cases, the disciplinary committees accepted the initial temporary suspension imposed by the institutions as sufficient.^[16]

Suspension for one semester

Suspension for 2 semesters/1 year

Suspension for 1-5 years

Suspension permanently

Community service

Educational Sanctions

Temporary Suspension Deemed Sufficient

Deprivation of academic rights

Chart 2: Distribution of disciplinary sanctions imposed

Appeals: Adalah filed 17 appeals, some of which resulted in a change in the outcome. In one case, the appeal was accepted in full and the student was acquitted. This decision reversed a conviction and a sentence of a one-year suspension. In two cases, a penalty of permanent expulsion was commuted to a suspension for one year; in three cases, penalties of prolonged suspension were reduced, including one of suspension for five years and two cases of permanent expulsion, to shorter periods of suspension; and in a further case a permanent expulsion, combined with the revocation of their academic credit, was reduced to suspension for a period of ten years, while maintaining the penalty of revoked credit. In four cases, the appeals were rejected, and in four other cases, the students decided to withdraw the appeal. In one further case, the penalty was commuted to an educational penalty. In one case, a decision is still pending. The disciplinary prosecution filed three appeals against sentences it regarded as lenient. Two appeals submitted by the prosecution were accepted and led to a significant increase in the penalty, and in a further case, the student decided to discontinue his studies.

Chapter 2: Due Process Rights Violations

The disciplinary committees’ proceedings were marred by numerous procedural flaws that violated the students’ due process rights and impaired their ability to defend themselves against the charges leveled at them.

Opening a proceeding without identifying the post at issue: At several institutions, students were summoned to inquiries or to disciplinary committee hearings without being informed about the social media post at issue. At the Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College (formerly Hadassah Academic College), for example, a student was required to submit a written response to the accusations without being informed about the specific post in question. On 18 October 2023, she received a letter from the college president ordering her immediate expulsion “in light of information that has reached us regarding an offensive post that constitutes support for terror and the murder of innocents.” When Adalah requested information about the post, the institution replied that “the request to receive the ‘evidentiary material’ at this stage is somewhat puzzling, since your client should have information about posts that were published, or not […] and it is unclear what the difficulty is in providing an initial response.”^[17]

Failure to verify the identity of the publisher: A further procedural flaw that arose in several cases was the absence of any verification of the identity of the posts’ publishers, in a way that led to the attribution of posts to students who had not published them. ORT College Jerusalem opened a disciplinary proceeding against a student over a profile picture showing a person holding a pistol. The profile, however, did not belong to the student.^[18] Adalah documented similar patterns at other institutions.^[19] In some of the proceedings, institutions relied on the mere existence of a complaint or with an indirect and tenuous connection between a student and the content in question, without conducting even a minimal check before initiating a proceeding, imposing a suspension, or summoning the student before a disciplinary committee. In this way, the suspicion preceded the inquiry, and the accusation preceded the factual examination.

Failure to check the date of the social media post and retroactive attribution: A further defect was the institutions’ failure to check the date of the post and its context, in a way that led to the attribution of support for the 7 October attack on the basis of posts that preceded it. The Peres Academic Center in Rehovot initiated a proceeding against a student over a post from 2022, from the period of the World Cup in Qatar, that read “The World Cup is in Qatar, while the cup of manhood, resistance, and pride is being played here in Palestine.” Despite the clear reference to the sporting event, the Center argued in the proceeding that this post constituted support for the attack. Only after Adalah’s intervention did the institution reverse course.^[20] Similarly, the Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College opened a proceeding over a post from January 2023; there, too, the institution amended the indictment after the fact and tried to link the post to a different security-related event.^[21] Instead of examining posts in their original context, institutions ascribed new meanings to them in line with the post-7 October climate.

Attributing to students content from others’ accounts: In certain cases, the mere existence of an indirect connection between a student and a social media page or account that the institution viewed as “problematic” was enough to arouse suspicion. At the ORT Braude College in Karmiel, for instance, a student posted a Qur’anic verse against a blue-sky background: “O you who have believed, persevere and endure and remain stationed and fear Allah that you may be successful.”^[22] Although the post contained no mention of the war, the attack, or the Palestinian issue, the college required the student to explain its meaning and to prove that he did not support terror. The institution later argued that the student had not “met the burden of proof” because the page from which the verse was shared also contained other posts that allegedly supported terror, even though the page did not belong to him. In this way, the college required the student to defend himself with respect to posts made by others. Adalah documented a similar pattern at additional institutions, including the Achva Academic College in Be’er Tuvia.^[23]

Automatic translations and erroneous interpretation of Arabic posts: The question of translations from Arabic was key in many proceedings. In most cases, institutions relied on automatic translation software (such as Google Translate or built-in translation features on social media platforms), even when verses from the Qur’an, religious expressions, or texts with complex cultural meanings were involved. The Kaye Academic College of Education in Beer’ Sheva, for example, opened a proceeding against a student who posted the Qur’anic verse إذا جاء نصر الله والفتح (“When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest”).^[24] The verse was translated using Google Translate as “if Nasrallah comes and conquers,” reading the words نصر الله (Naṣr Allāh, “the victory of Allah”) as the name of the former Hezbollah secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah. In this way, the translation created the erroneous impression that the post referred to him. ORT College Tel Aviv initiated a proceeding following the sharing of a scene from a Turkish historical drama series tracing the reign of Ottoman Sultan Abdülhamid and the land purchases made by Herzl and the Zionist movement in Mandatory Palestine, and on the basis of the translation, it was argued that the scene contained a call “to conquer Israel.”^[25]

Opening disciplinary proceedings without specifying the offense: Another flaw involved summoning students to inquiries and disciplinary committee hearings without specifying the offense with which they were charged. In some cases, the institutions did not even refer to the catch-all offenses set out in their regulations, and sufficed with general statements that there was a concern that the student “supports terror” or “identifies with the acts of 7 October.”^[26] The absence of any reference to concrete disciplinary offenses undermined the students’ ability to understand the legal claims against them and to defend themselves. In these situations, the proceeding became a vague and general discussion of what is “fitting” and “unfitting,” rather than a disciplinary and legal inquiry grounded in objective standards.

In several proceedings, expert opinions were submitted after it emerged that the dispute turned on the interpretation of the post and its context. Yet, although these questions stood at the heart of the decision, they were often decided without professional inquiry. Sometimes committees relied on the prosecution’s expert opinion without giving the defense a real opportunity to cross-examine the expert, and at other times, the committees refused to hear from experts.

In one of the cases examined in this report, the translation and interpretation of an Arabic-language post lay at the heart of the disciplinary proceedings. Because the proceedings were conducted in Hebrew, the defense submitted an expert linguistic opinion addressing the translation of the publication, its linguistic and cultural meanings, and its interpretation in context. The prosecution submitted a competing expert opinion attributing a different meaning to the publication and relying on that interpretation to argue that it constituted support for the attack.^[27] The disciplinary committee favored the prosecution expert’s opinion, and did not give the defense the opportunity to cross-examine the expert, to examine his expertise or the methodology on which he relied, or the interpretive assumptions underlying his opinion and conclusions. In this way, the committees decided professional questions central to the proceeding without the defense being given an effective opportunity to examine the key piece of evidence on which the conviction rested.

At Zefat Academic College, the disciplinary committee, and later the appeals committee, were called upon to decide the case of a student who posted a du’a (religious supplication) for the residents of Gaza.^[28] The defense submitted an opinion by an expert in Arabic translation and literature, which explained the religious and cultural meaning of the text. However, the committee rejected the opinion, in favor of a translation produced by Google Translate, asserting that there was no need for a “convoluted interpretation,”⁴¹ and that the post should be examined under the “reasonable listener” test, drawn from defamation law, and not based on “a professional inquiry by experts in linguistics.” In the words of the decision: “how an ordinary person would have received, interpreted, and understood the post in question. That is the only test.”^[29]

At the College of Management Academic Studies, on the morning of 7 October, a student posted a du’a that, according to the defense expert’s translation, asked that this day be “a day of salvation and victory” and “a day of empowerment and resolve.” The du’a contained no symbol or image linking it to the attack. The only connection between the post and the events of 7 October was its timing.^[30]

The prosecution submitted an expert opinion arguing that the very use of the same du’a by figures associated, in his view, with support for terror demonstrated that any use of it constituted support for terror. The disciplinary committee rejected this position and argued that the opinion had tried to “impose a context on the du’a,” and that the use of the prayer by certain figures does not turn the prayer itself into an expression of support for terror. The committee stressed that most of the examples presented by the expert included images or additional text connected to 7 October, which was not the case in the student’s post. On this basis, the student was acquitted. However, the appeals committee reversed the decision and held that it was enough that one of the post’s possible interpretations was support for terror, and that the student’s mere awareness of the security events was sufficient grounds for a disciplinary conviction.

These cases illustrate how, rather than carefully examining the meaning and context of Arabic posts, disciplinary committees at times relied on intuitive and incriminating interpretations. Among the interpretative tools used was the aforementioned “reasonable listener” test, even when this listener neither spoke Arabic nor had familiarity with the cultural and religious contexts of the post, and even when experts contradicted these interpretations. As a result, disciplinary responsibility was repeatedly determined according to the institution’s preferred reading of the post, rather than its actual meaning.

In many cases, institutions did not explain, let alone prove, how the post attributed to the student in fact constituted a disciplinary offense; they sufficed with populist rhetoric of “support for terror,” “incitement,” or “identification with the enemy.” Within this framework, the students themselves were required to explain, and even to prove, that the post had a different meaning protected by the right to freedom of expression. Thus, in the case of a student at the College of Law and Business, Ramat Gan, content was posted describing the bombing of residential complexes and harm inflicted on civilians in Gaza during the war, alongside expressions of distress and fear.^[31] Although the post was explicitly related to the civilian population, a disciplinary committee member argued that the post could nonetheless be interpreted as support for terrorists. When asked, “Where does it say that this is about terrorists?,” he replied: “It also doesn’t say that it isn’t about terrorists.”^[32] In this way, the committee required the student to explain an interpretation that did not even appear in the post.

A similar approach arose with respect to expressions of Palestinian national identity. The College of Management Academic Studies initiated a disciplinary proceeding against a student over the use of a Palestinian flag symbol in his Instagram bio.^[33] Kaye College convicted another student because she “liked” a post that read: “Al-Quds [Jerusalem] is in our eyes, it has never lost its dignity and never will.”^[34] Zefat College opened a proceeding against a student over the words “Palestine, Sakhnin” in her bio on a social media platform.^[35] In its decision, the disciplinary committee added interpretations and slogans that did not appear in the post, including a reference to the slogan “from the river to the sea,” even though this matter had not been raised during the hearing.^[36] The conviction thus rested on meanings that the committee itself assigned to the post.

The expansion of the boundaries of suspicion did not end with political, religious, or identity-related posts. The Technion initiated a disciplinary proceeding against a student because she was arrested for a social media post, and was later released from detention as part of a prisoner-and-hostage exchange deal with Hamas. The Technion argued that her very release offended the feelings of other students and constituted “unfitting conduct,” even though she had no control over the release deal and had been detained only for a social media post.^[37] In another case, a student studying at Meir Hospital was summoned to a disciplinary conversation over the posting of a photograph of a cake on the evening of 7 October, on the grounds that the post offended her classmates.^[38]

These cases illustrate how, in some of the proceedings, almost any post by a Palestinian student, whether routine, everyday, or naive, could become a basis for suspicion and accusation. Instead of limiting prohibited posts to those containing a direct call to violence, the posts were assumed suspect until proven otherwise.

In many cases, the disciplinary committees’ decisions contained no factual or legal analysis of the elements of the offenses, nor did they set out the evidence on which the decisions rested, or explain how the post constituted a disciplinary offense. At some institutions, among them the College of Management Academic Studies and the Western Galilee College, the decisions consisted only of an acquittal or conviction, without any accompanying explanation.^[39]

At some institutions, disciplinary decisions were not made public. In most proceedings, no full and orderly record was kept, and in some cases, the records were not transferred to the students or to their legal representatives. At one institution, the entire proceeding was kept confidential, and students were barred from disclosing what had transpired during the disciplinary hearing. The absence of reasoning, documentation, and transparency is not merely a procedural defect; when a decision fails to explain what facts were established, how a post was interpreted, and on what basis the conviction was determined, students cannot understand the grounds for their conviction. They cannot challenge the proceeding or file an effective appeal, especially in cases involving vague, catch-all offenses and expression offenses based on interpretation and contextualization. In such cases, the disciplinary committees became an institutional “black hole” that shielded the reasoning behind their decisions from scrutiny.

One of the clearest structural flaws of the disciplinary proceedings after 7 October was the institutions’ widespread and hasty use of interim suspensions, before any factual inquiry had taken place. In many cases, the institutions suspended the students immediately after initiating a disciplinary proceeding. As noted above, the University of Haifa was the first institution to make extensive use of this measure, immediately after 7 October. The university argued that without the suspensions, “the campus would have been on fire,” that “a post went out telling students not to publish anything on social media,” and that this “stopped a deterioration on campus.”^[40] In some cases, suspension was an almost immediate punitive response. The university’s letters to the students were worded in firm language and attributed to them support for terror, incitement, or encouraging violence, before any hearing was held, any evidence was presented, or their arguments were heard.^[41] This phenomenon continued into 2024 and 2025. Adalah documented similar cases of disciplinary proceedings, raising the same fundamental questions about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.^[42] Temporary suspension without a preliminary inquiry violates the right to due process. The entire proceeding begins from a presumption of guilt, while the disciplinary hearings become an attempt by students to extricate themselves from these presumptions.

The severity of the harm is greater in light of the outcomes of some of the proceedings. In several cases in which the institutions imposed immediate temporary suspensions using the rhetoric of “support for terror” and “incitement to terror,” the proceedings ultimately ended with no conviction at all, or in mediation, or in educational measures. These outcomes illustrate the wide gap between the severity of the initial steps taken and the actual outcomes, and raise questions about the arbitrary application of temporary suspensions.

Chapter 3: Expanding the Boundaries of Surveillance and Enforcement

The authority of Israeli academic institutions to set and apply disciplinary regulations derives from their status as bodies recognized by the Council for Higher Education.^[43] The Students’ Rights Law, 2007 establishes the normative framework for the exercise of this authority. Article 17 of the Law empowers institutions of higher education to set and publish rules of conduct and a disciplinary code:

An institution shall set and publish, subject to the provisions of this Law, rules of conduct relating to the conduct of applicants and students in connection with their studies at the institution, including during the course of studies and within the institution’s grounds, and including in the student dormitories, among them a disciplinary code and the penalties anticipated for breach of the rules established in it [emphasis added].

In all of the disciplinary proceedings, Adalah argued that the institutions had no authority to address the social media posts, as they had been made from private social media accounts, with no connection whatsoever to the students’ studies, to other students, to faculty members, or to the institutions themselves.^[44] Adalah further argued that the provisions of the regulations refer expressly to the relationships between students, faculty members, and employees, and to the relationship between the student and the institution, and not to expressions in the public sphere. This interpretation is also necessary given the significant violation of the right to freedom of expression entailed in the institutions’ expansion of their own authority. The disciplinary committees rejected these arguments.

Thus, the academic institutions established a novel legal framework, within which they have disciplinary authority over the students even outside boundaries of the academic relationship. This step turned Israeli academia into an actor that redraws and limits the boundaries of freedom of expression for Palestinian students.

Creating a connection through “exposure” to the post: According to the institutions, it was enough for a post to have come to the knowledge of the academic community in order to establish a connection. A private post, made outside the academic framework and with no attribution to the institution, became a disciplinary matter from the moment it was viewed, forwarded, or reported within the academic community. The institutions thus replaced the test of academic connection with a test of “exposure” to the content. The disciplinary committee of the College of Management Academic Studies decided, for example, that “there is no need for the expression to be connected to the studies. It is enough that students were exposed to the expression.”^[45] Similarly, the disciplinary committee at the Technion noted that a student was identified as a Technion student on his Instagram page; that some of the account’s followers were Technion students; and that the person who contacted the disciplinary enforcement authorities was a student at the institution.^[46] Under this logic, a student can be held accountable for an expression based not only on the content of the post or on its academic context, but also from the conduct of others: whoever saw the post, whoever disseminated it, and whoever filed a complaint.

Establishing a connection through “harm to feelings”: The institutions also replaced the academic connection test with a test of “harm to the feelings” of the public associated with the institution. A disciplinary committee at Tel Aviv University decided as follows regarding a student who posted as an Instagram story a slide from a presentation titled “8 Things about What’s Happening in Palestine”:

The text has the potential to cause grave harm to students who, together with their families, were the target of the attack on 7 October. We saw that the text was brought to the attention of many students. There were those who argued that the text harmed them greatly. The university is entrusted not only with the instruction of its students but also with maintaining a protective academic environment and with the welfare of its students.^[47]

In other proceedings, the disciplinary committees emphasized a “sense of security” as the basis for the connection. The disciplinary committee of the Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College, for example, held that, “It is impossible to require a student, or faculty members, to be on or off campus in the company of a person who has expressed support for an indiscriminate, murderous act of terror against a group that includes faculty members and students.”^[48] Shenkar College adopted a similar approach, finding in one case that there was “certainty that the public interest was harmed in a real and substantial manner as a result of the posts […] both in light of the complaints received regarding the posts, which included the expression of real apprehension about returning to the classroom together with you, and even the expression of objection and revulsion on the part of students at returning to shared studies.”⁶² At the College of Management Academic Studies, the “harm” referred to by the disciplinary committee was harm to a general national identity. A decision by the disciplinary committee emphasized that the student is an Israeli citizen studying at an Israeli academic institution, and that her fellow students and the faculty members are also Israelis. The committee further held that the events of 7 October were directed against “the State of Israel and its residents,” and that many members of the academic community were directly or indirectly affected by them. In this way, mere national affiliation, and not an academic connection to the campus or to academic activity, creates a disciplinary issue.⁶³ The connection to the institution was not examined via the relationship between the post and the students’ studies, nor via a direct connection to the college campus, but via the feelings of those who claim to have been harmed, in a manner that deviates from any established standard of safeguarding freedom of expression.

An expansive interpretation of Article 17 of the Students’ Rights Law: Prior to 7 October, academic institutions tended to apply disciplinary law only where there was a direct and clear academic connection between the conduct at issue and the studies or the academic community. Thus, for example, Tel Aviv University initiated  disciplinary action against a Jewish Israeli student who had sent a private message to a classmate that read, “Ashkenazi behavior, I heard it’s like that at TAU, no talent, only elbows and connections. People like you shouldn’t be alive at all.” He was charged with violating a fellow student’s dignity. The disciplinary committee conducted the proceeding under Article 29.8 of the university’s disciplinary regulations, and relied on a direct academic connection: the exchange took place between students in the same class, and in response to an academic interaction. The university imposed a relatively mild penalty: a reprimand, community service, and a suspension. The institution did not argue “harm to the feelings of the public” or damage “to the name of the university.”⁶⁴

62      Disciplinary proceedings at Shenkar College, legal submission on behalf of the prosecution, November 2023 ( on file with Adalah ).

63      See footnote 43, decision of the appeals committee at the College of Management Academic Studies ( on file with Adalah ).

64      D-2023-35, judgment of Dr. Yofi Tirosh, the disciplinary officer at Tel Aviv University, 26 November 2023.

Beyond that, even when serious public incidents occurred off the campus of Tel Aviv University, including a violent demonstration staged outside the university dormitories in May 2022, during which chants of “death to Arabs” were directed at Palestinian students, the university emphasized that this event had taken place outside the walls of the campus and took no disciplinary action. The university’s response in that case was that, “The demonstration in question took place in an urban area outside the university’s grounds and was handled on site by a reinforced police team,” and that “no unusual incident was recorded within the university’s grounds.”^[49]

After 7 October, with respect to Palestinian students, the manner of the application of the law changed and the academic connection requirement was broadened. Most institutions that gave reasoned decisions, often by adjudicators with legal expertise, did not see the law as a limitation on their authority, but as a far broader starting point, relying on an interpretation of the term “including.” Instead of seeing “including” as a supplementary clarification of a defined framework, the institutions interpreted it as an invitation to expand the boundaries of their authority. Thus, for example, the Technion held that Article 17 of the Students’ Rights Law does not limit its authority solely to conduct connected to students’ academic studies, but also permits the application of disciplinary regulations to conduct and posts beyond the academic setting.^[50] However, this approach was applied selectively. In 2025, Palestinian students filed a disciplinary complaint against the head of the Technion’s student union, following his public social media post showing that during his reserve service in Gaza, he drew the symbol of the Technion student union on the wall of a building destroyed by the Israeli military. The complaint argued that this post gravely offended the feelings of the Palestinian students, and that the very use of the student union’s symbols created a direct and clear connection to the academic institution. Nonetheless, the disciplinary prosecution at the Technion rejected the complaint, holding that, “It is not within our authority to enter the jurisdiction of the army,” and that their authority was limited to disciplinary offenses or offenses under the Military Justice Law and the Penal Law.^[51] This position shows that, even where there was a clear connection to the Technion, through the use of the student union’s symbols and the public identity of the head of the student union, the institution chose to emphasize the limits of its authority and to refrain from taking disciplinary measures.

At the Hebrew University, too, two separate tracks of enforcement emerged: after 7 October, the university adopted an expansive interpretation of Article 17 against private posts made by Palestinian students without any relation to their academic studies, but did not apply this interpretation in other cases.^[52] On 7 May 2026, the university sent a notice to all students following the conviction of a student for serious sex offenses committed against his former partner off campus and without relation to his studies.^[53] In the notice, the university clarified unequivocally that since the offenses “were not committed at the university or in the framework of university activity, the university’s regulations do not allow for barring the student from attending campus.” The university did not consider the feelings of the female students on campus, as it had in cases of social media posts made by Palestinian students.

The significance of context; time alters the law: Academic institutions also relied on the exceptional context in which the proceedings were opened – the 7 October attack and the state of war – as a basis for exercising authority. Authority was presented in these cases as a necessity stemming from the time, the situation, and the exceptional state of affairs. In the case of the student who posted the “8 Things” slide, the disciplinary committee at Tel Aviv University presented the expansion of the boundaries of surveillance as a direct outcome of the events. The committee expressly distinguished between past and present: “In the past, the institution adhered to the position that what happens on social media is not connected to [the university], adhering to the formal reasoning that this is not a platform the institution established and supervises.” Further, in the words of the committee, “the intense feelings of the students as a result of the terror attack require a response,” and “the new situation requires a new interpretation and a different application […] the attack of 7 October constituted an abrupt change.”^[54]

In response to the defense’s argument concerning the principle of legality, the committee held: “To argue that the law in general, and the disciplinary regulations of Tel Aviv University in particular, cannot respond to the new situation, and that if they do respond this will harm the principle of legality […] is a very thin, conservative, and mistaken conception of the role of law in society.”^[55] The role of the principle of legality is to set a limit on the exercise of power by the authorities; yet, in this decision, the committee turned this principle on its head: instead of this principle dictating restraint, it was used to justify the broadened interpretation. The “new situation” was not examined in light of this principle, but rather served as a ground for departing from it. Similarly, a disciplinary committee at the College of Management Academic Studies held that “the character, severity, and dimensions of the event are such as to affect the definition of the expression ‘their status as a student.’”^[56]

The disciplinary committee at Tel Aviv University also used its authority in a highly selective manner. For instance, the committee held that “an expression by students on social media as to how Israel ought to act with respect to Gaza and its residents during the war and afterward is not, on its face, connected to the student community at Tel Aviv University, and the question whether it amounts to incitement to terror or to racism is a matter for the general criminal law.”^[57] In this sense, according to the committee, posts that could rise to the level of incitement to genocide in Gaza, even though they constitute a criminal offense and a violation of international law, are not regarded as connected to the student community at the university. Through this proceeding, the institution redefined “the student community” and those who form part of it, with its values, its boundaries, and its prohibitions, as limited to the definition of an “Israeli,” even where a large number of the students studying at the institution are Palestinian citizens of Israel.

From Militant Democracy to the Militant Academy

Several academic institutions argued that the authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings derived from an inherent power vested in the institution to “protect its very existence” against those who seek “to undermine it.”^[58] The argument rested on the Israeli Supreme Court’s 1965 Yardor ruling, which barred the Arab al-Ard movement from running in the Knesset elections even though no law prevented it from running. According to this decision, a state institution may suspend the rule of law in order to safeguard the institution’s existence and the state’s existence against those who seek “to challenge its existence.” The Hebrew University of Jerusalem was the first institution to make this argument, after which it was adopted by other institutions. The Hebrew University’s decision opens with a determination intended to import the sovereign power established in Yardor into the academic institution: “The foundational principles of Israeli law recognize, in extreme and exceptional cases, the inherent authority of state institutions (and by implication every institution in the state) to protect their very existence and proper functioning against those who seek to undermine them.”^[59]

The decision continued by quoting the Yardor ruling: “no other authority of the state, either, should serve as an instrument in the hands of one who has set the elimination of the state as their goal,” and by drawing the conclusion that “in those extreme cases in which students’ expressions stand contrary to the foundational principles of the state and constitute an offense under the CounterTerrorism Law, the university is not required to stand aside; rather, it is within its authority, and even duty, to use disciplinary mechanisms in order to prevent such expressions and to ensure the proper continuation of the life of the university and of studies within it.”^[60]

This move cast Palestinian students as “enemies.” A discourse of “militant democracy,” intended to justify the suspension of the rule of law in order to confront “existential threats to the state,” thus became a basis for exercising academic disciplinary authority against Palestinian students, who were characterized as those who challenge the existence of the institution itself, and as enemies to be confronted by means of an inherent “sovereign” authority that exists even beyond the law.

The interpretive moves and the reasoning described above did not appear in a vacuum. Reliance on the position of the Education Minister, who requested that academic institutions adopt a “zero tolerance” policy, served as a substitute for an independent and legal examination of the limits of their authority. For example, the disciplinary committee of the WIZO Academy noted that at all academic institutions in the State of Israel, discussions of expressions of a similar character had been held from 7 October onward, subject to and in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Education, the Council for Higher Education, and the Minister of Education.^[61] Similarly, the disciplinary committee of Yezreel Valley Academic College stated that “the college is subject to the Council for Higher Education, which issued clear guidelines in light of the very difficult hour in the country,” and that “the college bears the duty to address and handle these cases.”^[62] The disciplinary committee of Ramat Gan Academic College applied similar reasoning: “it was clarified that, according to the directive of the chair of the Council for Higher Education, Education Minister Kisch, institutions of higher education are required to place students on disciplinary trial.”^[63] In these cases, the very existence of external guidelines, or the fact that other institutions had acted in a similar manner, served as the source of authority itself.

Chapter 4: Narrowing the Scope of Freedom of Expression

Israeli institutions of higher education redrew the boundaries of political discourse and defined new prohibitions and restrictions on the freedom of expression rights of Palestinian students specifically.

As detailed below, the tightening of control and the narrowing of the scope of freedom of expression took place on two interconnected levels. Firstly, and directly, the institutions classified a wide range of these social media expressions as “incitement to terror” and as “identification with an act of terror,” and as such, they were prohibited and required sanctions. Secondly, the institutions relied on vague disciplinary provisions, including “conduct that may breach public peace,” “conduct unbecoming of the status of a student,” and “harm to the dignity of the institution,” for the purpose of imposing a disciplinary conviction, while establishing new elements of these offenses that do not align with the criminal law. To this end, the institutions applied various legal tests, drawn from diverse legal frameworks, including the “reasonable person” test, the “reasonable listener” test, the “reasonable reader” test, and the test of offending the feelings of the public.^[64]

The use of terminology borrowed from the Counter-Terrorism Law allowed the institutions to file disciplinary charges and secure disciplinary convictions that were detached from the provisions governing expression-related offenses. By combining the language of “counter-terrorism” in the factual description of the alleged conduct with disciplinary offenses in the legal classification of the charge, the institutions effectively created a new disciplinary regime grounded in securitization and the exclusion of Palestinian students from the academic space.

First, by framing the charges and convictions through the rhetoric of terror, and particularly by using the language of supporting the enemy in wartime, the institutions framed the Palestinian students and their social media posts as threatening the security of other students and the institutions, and as offending students’ feelings and the institutions’ dignity. In doing so, the committees positioned the Palestinian students as “others” to be removed as far as possible from the academic community.

Second, the use of the rhetoric of “terror” reshaped the meaning of the disciplinary provisions by interpreting them as prohibiting certain expressions, particularly speech deemed threatening the security and feelings of other students. In this way, the academic institutions effectively assumed the role of enforcing expression-related offenses even in cases where law enforcement authorities had not opened criminal proceedings against the students. They did so not according to the definitions and standards established in the criminal law, but based on the institutions’ own interpretations and classifications.

In this chapter, we present examples of disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the prohibition of social media posts and punishment of students for their posts. These cases illustrate broader structural processes through which academic institutions examined the lawfulness of the students’ social media posts by relying on novel factual and legal tests. These tests narrow the boundaries of freedom of expression and expand the interpretation of disciplinary provisions written in the institutions’ internal regulations. As a result, they create a framework that enables the institutions to subject students to disciplinary actions for a wide range of posts and other statements.

SOLIDARITY WITH THE POPULATION OF GAZA

With the onset of the war on Gaza, many students posted news reports, data, and testimony about the killing of civilians and whole families, among them children and women. They also posted documentation of the vast and wide-ranging destruction that struck every aspect of life in the Strip, accompanied by residents’ calls for help and their grief over the loss of their loved ones.

In many cases, these social media posts led to the institutions initiating disciplinary proceedings against the students for “supporting the enemy,” “anti-Israeli” content, “Gazan propaganda,” and making a comparison between Israel, which “fights terror,” and “dark regimes.” During the proceedings, the disciplinary prosecutors questioned the students about their personal views: why they had posted content supporting the residents of Gaza and not Israelis, and why they posted content intended to harm Israel. In some cases, the committees decided to acquit the students, while in others, they decided to convict them of disciplinary offenses, and even to expel them. Below we present examples in which the disciplinary committees decided to convict the students over such posts.

The College of Law and Business, Ramat Gan initiated disciplinary action against a student over four social media posts that she shared as Instagram “stories” from other people’s accounts.

Figure 1: First post. Screenshot of a video posted on 10 October 2023. In Arabic and English: “The occupation takes advantage of the night to burn entire residential blocks without mercy by bombing it with warplanes without allowing anyone to enter or leave the area.”

Figure 2: Second post. Screenshot of a video posted on 10 October 2023. In

Arabic and English: “At night, we die without anyone hearing or seeing us. We get injured and bleed to death without anyone helping us.”

Figure 3: Third post. Screenshot of a post from 8 October 2023, containing a prayer in Arabic for the residents of Gaza: “O God, protect Gaza and its residents from every harm and evil / We place Gaza and its residents in Your hands / its land, its sky, its men, its women, and its children, O Lord of the worlds / O God, watch over them with Your eyes that never sleep / and make the circle of evil fall upon Your enemy and theirs / O God, cover their vulnerabilities and calm their fears.”

Figure 4: Fourth post. Screenshot of a video from 15 October 2023, sharing a video by an activist named Haley Rothschild on the gap in media coverage between Palestinians and Israelis: “Why is it a problem only when Israelis die?

Why is it not a problem when Palestinians die too? Tell me why? In the media they only talk about the death of Israelis.”

The disciplinary charges alleged that the student posted “a call to violence and/ or support for a terror organization and/or incitement to terror and to violence and/or posts whose publication constitute a criminal offense and/or conduct unbecoming of a student at an institution of higher education,” according to disciplinary offense in Article 13.16 of the Center’s internal regulations, “conduct unbecoming an institution of higher education,” and Article 13.17, “conduct that constitutes a criminal offense when committed in connection with the academic center.”^[65]

During the hearings, the disciplinary prosecutor stated that the first post “attributes to the State of Israel harm caused to innocent people.” The second post constitutes, in his view, “false propaganda, attributing to Israel harm caused to innocent people, an absolute lie.” As for the third post, the disciplinary prosecutor noted that the student wishes “that the circle of evil fall upon the enemies of Gaza, at a time when a war is taking place in Gaza with Hamas, thereby expressing support for the enemy. In the post, there is not a single word about innocent people in Gaza.” The fourth post is “again enemy propaganda.” The prosecutor sought to convict the student and to suspend her for at least four years.

By contrast, the defense emphasized that there was nothing improper in the posts, and that they did not constitute a disciplinary offense or a criminal offense under Israeli law. Rather, the posts shared reports from the war in Gaza and calls by civilians under desperate conditions of war. The defense stressed that there was nothing illegal in criticizing the conduct of the media, and likewise a prayer is a customary way of conveying  support and solidarity with the population of Gaza.

The disciplinary committee delivered its decision on 28 January 2024, convicting the student of breaching the center’s disciplinary regulations, suspending her for two years and three months, and imposing a suspended punishment of permanent expulsion for the remainder of her studies in case of a further disciplinary offense. In addition, the committee recorded the conviction on the student’s academic record. In its decision, which adopted the disciplinary prosecutor’s interpretation, the committee detailed that the disciplinary rules “are intended to maintain a

framework of proper rules of conduct at the academic institution,” and that:

The norm of “unfitting conduct” refers to the values, principles, and interests that shape the academic institution from time to time in accordance with the foundational principles accepted in the society in which it operates, among other things with respect to public peace and the fabric of shared life at the academic institution […] the examination of whether this or that conduct by a student at an academic institution is unfitting will be carried out according to the foundational value-based principles of the enlightened public in Israel concerning the proper conduct of a student at an academic institution, from the perspective of a reasonable person entrusted with the foundational principles of the regime in Israel.^[66]

Relying on this interpretation, the committee placed the “reasonable person” test at the center of its analysis, replacing the legal elements of expressionrelated offenses. The “reasonable person” was defined as someone who is “entrusted with the foundational principles of the regime in Israel.” On this basis, the committee concluded that the third post, which became the focus of the conviction, constituted “a call to violence against the State of Israel […] especially in light of the fact that many students at institutions of higher education were murdered or wounded in the cruel massacre of “Black Saturday”; many others lost people close to them, and some have friends or relatives among the hostages.”⁸³

With respect to the other posts, the committee members held that they echo “Gazan propaganda against the State of Israel.” As for the first post, the committee noted that:

83

The publication of these false statements against the state in which the student studies at an institution of higher education […] support the conclusion that the student committed a conduct offense unbecoming of a student at an institution of higher education. This is especially so in light of the fact that many students and faculty members were called up for reserve duty and are risking their lives in the war against the terror organizations in the Gaza Strip.⁸⁴

In this way, the disciplinary authorities redefined the law of freedom of expression in wartime in a manner that, in practice, applies exclusively to Palestinian students. For, in their view:

The principle of freedom of expression does not grant legitimacy to an Israeli citizen studying at an institution of higher education in the State of Israel to publish and echo false Gazan propaganda against the State of Israel at a time when a war is taking place between the State of Israel and the entity in Gaza, and only three days after the cruel massacre that those terror organizations that came from the Gazan entity carried out against the citizens of Israel on “Black Saturday.” These posts offend the feelings of other students and academic faculty at the academic institution, undermine proper discourse between students and academic faculty at the academic institution, undermine order and security at the academic institution, endanger public peace and the fabric of shared life at the academic institution, undermine the stability of the academic institution and its proper management, and undermine the students’ trust in the academic institution, its image, and its good name. And in particular, these posts

84

of hers […] undermine proper discourse between students at an academic center, undermine the students’ trust in the academic center, in the image of the academic center, and in its good name, undermine respect for the feelings of other students at the academic center, and undermine the fabric of shared life at the academic center. Likewise, the student’s posts undermine the stability of the academic center and its proper management, undermine order and security at the academic center, undermine public peace at the academic center, and undermine the reasonable expectations of the general public from the academic center.⁸⁵

Thus, the committee classified the posts of the Palestinian student as supporting the enemy in wartime. The committee perceived someone who opposes the war as someone who opposes the state, and therefore as someone who commits a disciplinary offense. The very existence of students who were wounded or murdered on 7 October, a fact unconnected to the posts themselves, became in itself proof of the existence of the offense. The disciplinary proceeding became an examination of the student’s loyalty in wartime. The committee conducted the hearing and decided her case in complete disregard of the boundaries of the law on freedom of expression and of judicial caselaw in expression-related offenses.

Following an appeal by Adalah on behalf of the student, the parties signed an agreement that reduced the penalty to a suspension for one semester. However, the disciplinary conviction stood, as well as a compulsory letter of apology to be addressed to the College of Law and Business. The college required that the student express regret for the post, condemn the deadly attacks on Israeli citizens on 7 October 2023, and call for the calming of tensions, as well as refrain from posting any statements that may offend others’ feelings.

85

In another case, the Ruppin Academic Center opened disciplinary proceedings against a student for two Instagram “story” posts, on two different dates in October.

Figure 5: First post. A quotation of a verse from the Qur’an: “And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient” (Qur’an 2:155, Sahih International translation).

Figure 6: Post no. 2.

On October 30, 2023, the student received a letter of suspension from the center for “suspected identification with a terror organization.”^[67] Before the disciplinary committee convened, the center argued that his posts:

give rise to suspected identification with a terror organization, in especially grave circumstances in which the State of Israel is at war following a murderous terror attack on its citizens […] the posts may constitute both a criminal offense under the Counter-Terrorism Law, 2016, and a disciplinary offense under the college’s regulations […] among other things, but without limitation, these posts may be considered an offense under Chapter 7 of the college’s regulations, and may constitute improper conduct; non-student-like conduct; verbal violence in a manner that may threaten the safety of other students and college employees; and conduct that does not respect the lecturers, the college employees, and the other students.^[68]

The student explained the intention behind his posts, namely, his empathy for the suffering of children during the war. In response, he was asked why he saw the need to post the photograph of Gaza, and why it was important to him to post an illustration of a dead Palestinian infant, without expressing sympathy for the suffering of Israeli children. On 17 December 2023, the disciplinary committee issued a decision rejecting the student’s arguments while finding the temporary suspension to be a sufficient and appropriate penalty:

The members of the committee listened attentively to your arguments raised at the hearing, and after considering your explanations and arguments, decided to end your suspension and allow your return to studies […] the members of the committee support the existence of the freedom to express oneself on any subject, but view gravely any expression that may be interpreted as offensive. We expect all the college’s students to act with sensitivity and restraint in order to enable a pleasant and protective learning environment, particularly in these difficult days. As part of the desire to instill this policy, and in light of your posts, you are requested to arrange a meeting with the personal coordinator, Ms. [redacted], after your return.^[69]

The college rejected the student’s arguments and held that his “identification with” children in Gaza constituted, at the very least, “an expression that may be interpreted as offensive.” Thus, the expression of empathy with the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza by a Palestinian student constitutes a breach of disciplinary regulations and is prohibited, even though it does not constitute a criminal offense. These definitions expand the boundaries of permitted and prohibited speech under the criminal law, and the “educational” penalty imposed on the student amounts to a form of compulsory political loyalty in the Israeli academic space.

POSTS CRITICAL OF ISRAEL, THE ISRAELI MILITARY, AND WAR CRIMES IN GAZA

Content describing the war as involving war crimes, characterizing it as genocidal, or comparing it to past and present campaigns of ethnic cleansing also led to disciplinary convictions and sanctions at several academic institutions. These institutions regarded such expressions as harmful to students’ sense of trust and security and, in some cases, as offending Israeli society more broadly. An example is the WIZO Haifa Academy of Design and Education Academic Center, where a student posted the following Instagram “stories” several days after the outbreak of the war:

Figure 8: Post no. 2: “Trakh trakh trakh [the sound of gunfire], they were all murdered” (translated from Arabic). A screenshot from a video showing a clip from the documentary film about the Tantura massacre by Alon Schwarz (2020).

Figure 9: Post no. 3: “Exterminated” (translation of the word in yellow, from Arabic). “We are being bombed”.

On 16 October 2023, the student received a letter from WIZO informing her of her suspension “in light of your expression on social media and your implied support, as support for terror, against the State of Israel.”^[70] After a brief hearing in her case on 31 October 2023, in which she explained her political position and her intentions in publishing the posts, the committee decided on 6 November 2023 to convict her and to record a reprimand in her academic record. The committee reasoned in its decision:

The harsh posts that you disseminated / identified with on social media at the present time, and that compared the State of Israel, which is fighting a terror organization, to dark regimes in which the ethnic cleansing of innocent people was carried out, fundamentally undermine our sense of trust and security as a society, in which each person bears responsibility both in their private space and as a student at an academic institution in the State of Israel.

The committee views gravely any expression of this kind, especially at this time, and decided that this constitutes a breach of the disciplinary code and a disciplinary offense (‘conduct unbecoming of the status of a student, whether within the academic center or outside it’) for which a severe reprimand and a warning will be added to your academic record [emphasis in original].^[71]

CONTENT ON PALESTINIAN IDENTITY, THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION, AND THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THE EVENTS

Posts that framed the events of 7 October within the broader context of the Occupation also led to disciplinary convictions and sanctions. The WIZO Academy, for example, initiated disciplinary proceedings against a student for an Instagram post sharing a post by the Palestinian American comedian Amer Zahr: “75 years of ethnic cleansing / 15 years of siege / dispossession of Palestinian lands / pogroms against Palestinian towns / desecration of Palestinian holy sites / daily invasion of Palestinian homes / prolonged humiliation of an entire people / nothing from today is ‘unprovoked’.” During the hearing, the student explained the post’s meaning and the intention behind it: that, without justifying the 7 October deadly assaults, the attack did not occur in a vacuum. The committee convicted the student and suspended her for one academic year. It held, in a short and unreasoned decision, that the post “amounts to a justification […] and attests to your identification with, and support for, the events of the horrific massacre,” and that the committee views “the post very gravely, and in particular the timing of its publication.”^[72] On 22 November 2023, Adalah filed an appeal on behalf of the student that detailed the lawful and legitimate nature of her views, and the flaws in the conviction without a substantive discussion of the post’s content. In its decision of 25 December 2023, the appeals committee rejected the appeal against the conviction but shortened the penalty, allowing her to return to studies after half a year, at the start of the new academic year, subject to conditions. The appeals committee reasoned that, “The theoreticalphilosophical discussion of the difference between justification and explanation is not material to our case, since the essence of the harm lies in the way the readers interpreted the post and not in the intention behind it, and this especially in light of the timing of the post in view of the atrocities that took place on the same day.”^[73]

Thus, the appeals committee introduced new elements into the disciplinary offense framework governing the examination of expressions and their lawfulness at the WIZO Academy. These elements disconnect the post and its publisher, while placing the way in which readers interpreted the post at the center of the legal-disciplinary examination. The date of the post was also treated as a central factor in establishing the student’s guilt. All of these considerations became incriminating findings despite the absence of supporting evidence, even though neither a prohibition relating to the timing of the post nor a prohibition based on the way others might interpret it had been defined in any applicable rule or standard.

At the Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College, a notable case involved a Palestinian student who posted a series of photographs from the West Bank, including images of the separation wall and graffiti artwork, accompanied by the hashtag “May we all rest in Palestine,” together with the Palestinian flag emoji, on Facebook on 13 October 2023. Unlike the proceedings at WIZO, the disciplinary committee’s deliberations in this case included theoretical discussions, which were used to justify the student’s disciplinary conviction. The committee relied on theories from the philosophy of language concerning the broader context of the statements, as well as concepts relating to how works of art express the views and identity of their creators, to support the decision.

The institution decided to suspend the student even before scheduling a hearing, after receiving a complaint from the college president. The president alleged that the posts supported terror in wartime, and that “harm to the feelings of those studying alongside him and of the faculty teaching him and providing him with services is unacceptable, and we will not show tolerance toward such conduct on the part of students at the college.”^[74]

The disciplinary committee convicted the student on 12 December 2023 under Articles 8.13 and 9.16 of the college’s internal disciplinary code, according to which “the publication of messages or posts of any kind and in any media that may offend the feelings of the public or harm the college’s reputation or the good name of its students, teachers, and employees,” and “conduct unbecoming of a student of the college.” In its decision, the disciplinary committee did not explain how the posts amounted to a breach of the disciplinary rules. Although the student did not seek to express support for any act or an organization designated as a terror organization, the disciplinary committee relied on what it described as “conflicts in his identity,” as well as his broader desire to emphasize his belonging to the Palestinian people, as considerations that found expression in the photographs he posted, and as factors establishing his support for terror. On this basis, the committee held that his conduct should be regarded as intending to harm the feelings of others, reasoning that the student should have taken into account the full range of possible interpretations that viewers might attribute to his posts. The committee stated:

The question of examining contexts is, in the case before us, a double-edged sword. Just as we accept the accused’s argument that a photograph included in a series of photographs cannot be taken out of context, so, too, must the post be viewed in its contexts, including the date of the post and the hashtag with the range of its meanings, which are known even to the accused […] since the question of the contexts of the concrete statement is relevant to the decision, we will make do with an insight relevant to our case from the thought of Mikhail Bakhtin […] “no utterance can be either the first or the last. It is only a link in a chain.” Everything that is said and written is only “up to this point,” and its end is always open. Following Bakhtin’s words, and following thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, it can be argued that a person making a post must take into account the system of contexts that gives their statement its overall context and the meaning perceived by the addressee. […] In making the post, he takes upon himself responsibility for the entire probable range of possibilities for the ways of understanding the discourse he arouses […] in the case before us, a very thin line is crossed between that “cute” and nonviolent way, in the accused’s words, of expressing his position, and the conveying of clear messages in support of terror.⁹⁴

As for the penalty, the committee held that “the system of contexts and circumstances described above dims the degree of clarity of the content of the post,” and therefore “he should be judged leniently, and a penalty at the lowest level of punishment available in the circumstances should be imposed on him.” The committee decided to issue a warning, to proceed with a temporary suspension, and to impose a suspended penalty until the end of his studies, according to which a further offense would lead to permanent expulsion from the college.

In effect, the student’s Palestinian identity, as well as the temporal proximity of the post to the events of 7 October, led to his conviction. In other words, the student’s artistic posts, which sought to express his identity, engage with the Palestinian question, and visualize the realities of the occupation and the separation wall in

94 Ibid., judgment, December 2023 (on file with Adalah).

the West Bank, were effectively reduced to the interpretations attributed to them by other students and the college administration. The college thereby adopted the view that the lawfulness of the posts was determined solely by the manner in which they were understood by a specific audience. By contrast, no weight was given to the interpretations of Palestinian students, in whose language the texts were written and who constituted another relevant audience for the posts in question.

In another case, Zefat Academic College opened disciplinary proceedings against a Palestinian student over posts and descriptions of an identity-based and cultural character, including writing “Palestine” in her TikTok bio and attaching a famous song by Fairuz titled “Jerusalem Is Ours.”

Figure 10: The student’s bio on her TikTok profile, in which the word “Palestine” appears together with the Palestine emoji and the word “Sakhnin”, an Arab town in Israel.

Figure 11: The first post. A screenshot of the student’s story, to which the song “al-Quds Lana” (Jerusalem Is Ours) by the Lebanese singer Fairuz was attached.

Figure 12: The second post. A story that the student shared: “A holiday marked by resilience/ Eid comes as Palestine continues to bleed. Our people are dispersed, and the occupation has left little space for celebration. Yet, despite it all, our hearts still carry hope—hope for return and for a victory that draws near. May we remain steadfast and resilient, standing our ground year after year.”

Figure 13: The third post. A Hebrew translation of the post as presented by the committee.

The disciplinary prosecutor charged the student with “incitement and the expression of support for the enemy in a war against terror organizations, until the imminent victory, directed against the state.” This accusation was conveyed to the student, together with notification of her immediate suspension, based on a decision by the college’s president.^[75]

With respect to the first post, the student emphasized that it represents how she defines herself. The second post contained a well-known song by the Lebanese singer Fairuz. “Jerusalem is ours” is a statement that numerous religious groups make, and that the student posted it because the al-Aqsa Mosque, a holy place for her, is located there. As for the third post, the student noted that it is a prayer expressing the hardships of the period, when there are people who are weakened, poor, and hungry, and that the victory referred to is a spiritual victory for the Palestinians. The defense also submitted an expert opinion, which emphasized that the terms used in the three posts are customary within Arab society in Israel, reflect their national, cultural, and social identity, and form part of the broader cultural and political discourse.

The committee convicted the student of an offense under the disciplinary rules and decided to suspend her for five years, revoke her eligibility to sit for examinations at the end of the second semester, and revoke her academic credits. The decision distorted the facts of the case, for example, as it claimed that she posted a photograph of Sakhnin next to the Palestinian flag, which she did not, and that she wished for peace to come to Palestine “from the river to the sea,” which she did not, in addition to an erroneous translation of one of the posts. Moreover, the committee applied the “reasonable reader” test, represented in practice by the “community in Zefat,” which it described as “a unique, fragile, and sensitive community.” Consequently, the committee held that the student’s posts constitute “text that disturbs the peace” and that she paints herself “in a political color that cries out from afar.”^[76] Following an appeal, the suspension order was reduced from five to three years.

NEWS, FALSE REPORTS, INFORMATION, AND NARRATIVES

The disciplinary proceedings were marked by the role academic institutions assumed for themselves as arbiters of “the truth,” whether in defining the nature of the war, the events that led to its outbreak, or the mass killings that took place during it. In doing so, they restricted the ability of Palestinian students to bear witness to the events of the war and to its broader context, and to recount or describe their own experiences or those of others within their community.

At Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, for example, a student was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for sharing part of a video on her Instagram account through the “story” feature.^[77]

indictment on 20 December 2023.

The video contained three reports on the events of 7 October: the alleged beheading of forty children, systematic sexual violence, and the mass killings at the Nova festival. The video presented these reports as narrative parts of a broad strategy of atrocity propaganda and an information war, intended to dehumanize the Palestinians, and thereby to justify Israel’s violence and atrocities against them.

In the disciplinary proceedings, the student testified that she had shared only the first part of the video, without being aware of its other parts, and that her intention had been to raise awareness of false reports. The university’s administration rejected her version. Even when the student brought various reports verifying her claims with respect to the beheadings, her fellow students, who testified against her during the hearing, argued that they “know what happened” without presenting any proof of their claims.

The disciplinary committee decided to convict the student of conduct unbecoming of a student, “whether it occurred within the walls of the university or outside them, that harmed or could have harmed, intentionally or negligently, the dignity of the university or the dignity of any of its teachers, employees, students, or guests,” under Articles 8.1 and 8.1.2 of the university’s academic code of student discipline. The committee imposed a penalty of a severe reprimand, a one-year suspended expulsion from the university in the event of a similar offense, and 40 hours of community service. Following an appeal filed by the university’s disciplinary prosecution, the appeals committee decided on 1 February 2024 to increase the penalty and to expel the student for one semester. The appeals committee held in its decision that:

Such harm, in the sensitive days in which we are all immersed, when the nerves are exposed, when sensitivity is at its peak, when, as the student’s fellow students testified: sitting with her in class are survivors of the [Nova] festival at Re’im, survivors of the massacre, and students whose family members were murdered, tortured, and abducted, is a harm that the mind cannot bear […] and [the students] are unable to tolerate her presence.^[78]

In this way, the disciplinary committee assumed for itself the authority to determine what constitutes “the truth”, even in the absence of any evidence to support its conclusions. This conception of “truth” is grounded on the reactions and feelings of the students and of the broader Jewish Israeli public, which, according to the university’s approach, become measures of the lawfulness of the posts, and more broadly, of the boundaries of permissible expression by students. In effect, the university privileges the Jewish-Israeli narrative of the war as “the truth”, while treating the Palestinian narrative as grounds for disciplinary sanction.

RELIGIOUS MATTERS, PRAYERS, AND VERSES FROM THE QUR’AN

The Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa initiated a disciplinary proceeding against a Palestinian student for posting a verse from the Qur’an on 7 October 2023, إن موعدهم الصبح أليس الصبح بقريب, the translation of which is: “Indeed, their appointment is the morning. Is not the morning near?” The verse, which the student posted as an Instagram story, reflected his feelings of uncertainty, alarm, and fear on that day, according to his testimony. He viewed the wait for tomorrow and the morning as a source of clarity, symbolizing the hope that the prevailing darkness would end.

The university’s disciplinary prosecutor described the post as supporting and as connected to acts of terror and attacks against Israel and its citizens, including the events of 7 October 2023. The prosecutor also submitted an expert opinion, according to which this verse is “firmly embedded within Islamist discourse, and is currently on the lips of Hamas leaders, in their references to the imminent end of the criminals, the declared enemies of the community.”^[79]

The secular student testified that he is not an “Islamist” and does not consume “Islamist” content, and that he is unfamiliar with the use of the verse to which the prosecution referred. The expert opinion submitted by the defense emphasized the various interpretations of the verse, and that the student’s interpretation is reasonable. The defense also warned against Islamophobia and the inquisitorial nature of the disciplinary proceeding, which attempted to interpret verses of the Qur’an.

The committee adopted the prosecution’s interpretation and its expert opinion, and convicted the student of an offense under the university’s disciplinary rules. As a sentence, the committee imposed a penalty of suspension until the end of the academic year, a suspended sentence of expulsion, as well as an obligation to take a course in ethics in the department of humanistic studies and the arts. In its decision, the committee held that:

The post therefore speaks for itself, and the burden passes to the student to show that he did not intend the prevalent and implied meaning of the text. The argument that this is a positive expression is feigned innocence that does not accord with the language of the text. The combination of these things together, the date of the post, its content, the source of the verse, its prevalent interpretation, the context in which it frequently appears on social media, the student’s admission that he was familiar with the verse and that he encountered it that very morning on social media, his testimony, which contained contradictions and did not provide satisfactory explanations, and his claim that he did not remember the source of the post, all lead us to the clear conclusion that this post contains identification with the acts of the Hamas terror organization. Accordingly, the post constitutes a conduct offense unbecoming of a student, in an act carried out in connection with his being a student at the Technion.¹⁰⁰

The committee convicted the student on the basis of several interconnected determinations: first, that the content of the verse was violent; second, that its

100 Ibid., judgment and sentence, January and February 2024 (on file with Adalah).

publication in the context of 7 October necessarily conveyed a violent message; and third, that the student’s intentions in posting the verse were of no significance when weighed against against the intentions attributed to others who had used the same expression. In this way, the decision adopts a collective mode of analysis, under which the student’s identity and perceived affiliations within the digital sphere in the aftermath of 7 October become the decisive indicators of intent. As a result, greater weight is assigned to these factors than the content of the post or to the evidentiary strength of the prosecution’s version of the circumstances.

At the Ruppin Academic Center, a disciplinary committee issued a similar decision, convicting a Palestinian student who posted a verse from the Qur’an.

Figure 15: The student’s post from 8 October 2023. Translation of the verse: “Those who were certain that they would meet Allah said, ‘How many a small company has overcome a large company by permission of Allah. And Allah is with the patient.’ And when they went forth to [face] Goliath and his soldiers, they said, ‘Our Lord, pour upon us patience and plant firmly our feet and give us victory over the disbelieving people’” (Qur’an 2:249-250, Sahih International translation).

This image shows that the student posted the verse, highlighting parts and adding heart emojis. The student argued before the committee that she published the post on her birthday, and with it, she wished for peace to prevail and for all to be well, especially in those difficult days. For, in her view, the meaning of the verse is that those who believe in God and in justice are the ones who will prevail. The committee members argued that the student sought to incite against Israel. One of their arguments was that the use of the word “disbelievers,” in the circumstances of 7 October, means that the student is calling for victory over the Jews and over Israel, because organizations such as Hezbollah use this term to describe Israel and the Israelis as enemies to be fought. The committee members also sought to emphasize that the Qur’an, including this verse, can have an especially violent connotation in the context of 7 October, since “a sample check conducted by the committee shows that the verse was posted on social media shortly after 7 October in the context of supporting the acts of terror against Israel.”^[80] The disciplinary committee decided on 1 February 2024 to convict the student of breaching the college’s disciplinary rules and to determine that the period of temporary suspension imposed up to the date of the decision was the appropriate penalty for the disciplinary offense.

In this way, the committee concluded that the post had offended the feelings of students, lecturers and college employees, and had undermined their sense of security. On that basis, it found that the post violated the college’s disciplinary rules. The committee afforded no meaningful weight to the student’s version of events, nor to the alternative interpretations of the verse presented by the defense team. Instead, the committee held that the unlawfulness of the post derived solely from the context attributed to it by others, and from comparisons drawn between the student and unidentified publishers who had used similar expressions. Neither the identities of those publishers nor the content of their publications was disclosed to the student or to the defense team.

Zefat Academic College initiated a disciplinary case against a student for posting a video of a religious preacher, Mustafa Hosny, who prays for the safety of Palestinians and particularly for the population of Gaza. Part of the video appears in the screenshot shown to the committee, together with text added by the student, “Amen, O God,” with a sad/worried emoji.

Figure 16: A screenshot of the student’s post as presented to the committee.^[81]

At the end of a short hearing, without conducting a factual or legal analysis, the disciplinary committee found the student guilty of breaching the college’s disciplinary rules and decided to expel her permanently and revoke all her accumulated academic credits. While the student maintained that the post was a prayer for the peace of her people as part of her faith, and that she does not support terror, the disciplinary authorities regarded the post as one with “racist content […] it meets the definition of ‘hate speech’ and it clearly constitutes an expression that may harm the college, its employees, its students, Israeli society, and Israeli public peace.”^[82]

An examination of the committee’s reasoning shows that its members regarded the post as one that expresses support for the residents of Gaza, who are perceived collectively as the enemy, and as against Israel or the Israelis. Their interpretation was detached from the meaning of the post and the student’s intention in posting it. They reached this conclusion based on the words “grant them victory over their enemy and our enemy,” which the committee members inferred amounted to incitement to victory over Israel in connection with the events of 7 October. Further, the committee pointed to the student’s lack of understanding of the word “compassion” during the hearing, in their view, in a manner that raises doubts as to her capacity to comprehend the moral values required in her field of future work.

Further, the committee grounded its decision on defamation case law, relying on the “reasonable listener” test as the interpretative framework for examining the content of the post. This approach rests on vague understandings of the context. It excludes consideration of the bombardment of Gaza that began immediately after the events of 7 October, privileges Israeli perspectives over other relevant contexts, and treats the other parts of the post as irrelevant to understanding its broader meaning. As a result, the committee imported expansive interpretative tests from the field of civil law into the disciplinary sphere and determined what constitutes “truth” and “facts” through the prism of the distinctions between “us” and “them,” even when the student sought to present a broader, deeper, and more complex account of reality.

On appeal, the appeals committee members confirmed the disciplinary authorities’ decision and found the student guilty, justifying a severe penalty of suspension for ten years (but more lenient than the permanent expulsion imposed by the disciplinary committee). The members of the appeals committee considered the police’s decision not to press criminal charges against the student. This action led to her acquittal of the disciplinary offense detailed in Article 31(13) of the college’s disciplinary regulations, which requires the commission of a criminal offense. In reaching their decision, the committee members applied an expansive interpretation of expression-related offenses in the criminal law, and in practice treated disciplinary rules as extending beyond the limits of criminal law in assessing the lawfulness of expressions.^[83]

Despite these expansive interpretations of the disciplinary law and the narrowing of freedom of expression, disciplinary committees also occasionally acquitted students for posts containing religious expression. At the University of Haifa, for example, the disciplinary committee accepted the defense’s arguments and acquitted a student for posting a du’a (religious supplication) on 8 October 2023 expressing fears about the end of days:

The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said that the building of Jerusalem will occur when Yathrib [the former name of the city of Medina in Saudi Arabia] is destroyed, and the destruction of Yathrib will happen with the outbreak of the great war, and the great war will break out with the conquest of Constantinople [the former name of Istanbul], and the conquest of Constantinople will happen with the rise of the false messiah [who will appear at the end of days]. Among the signs heralding the coming of the Day of Judgment are the liberation of Jerusalem, the war of the Muslims against the Jews, the return of the al-Aqsa Mosque to the Muslims, and the prayer of our lord Jesus behind the Mahdi [a messianic figure]. O God, be good to us, forgive our sins, and seal us in the book of paradise through Your abundant mercy and not only on the basis of our deeds. Raise a prayer to God that He grant us a good end.^[84]

Adalah argued that the student’s intention in posting this du’a was to express a sense of fear and apprehension at the approaching Day of Judgment, in accordance with her religious faith, as in her view, the state of war contained signs of the end of days. The defense submitted an expert opinion, which stated that there is nothing in the post expressing joy over the events of 7 October, but that it is rather a prayer for “a good end.”

In its decision, the committee explained why it chose to depart from an agreement reached between the defense and the prosecution at the conclusion of mediation proceedings in a number of cases. It adopted the student’s account, which was supported by the translations and analysis of the defense expert, as a more reasonable interpretation than that advanced by the prosecution, which had failed to meet the burden of proof beyond any reasonable doubt. The committee further held that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and accordingly relied on the principle established in Article 34X(a) of the Penal Law, 1977, according to which, where competing interpretations are available, the interpretation more favorable to the student should apply.^[85]

Thus, this rare decision illustrates the application of procedural protections and interpretative principles drawn from criminal law by a disciplinary committee in adjudicating expression-related offenses. In doing so, the committee treated the interpretation of the post itself, and not its alleged offensiveness to the feelings of others, the dignity of the university, or other similar considerations, as the central basis for its assessment.

POSTS FROM THE 7 OCTOBER EVENTS

Academic institutions also initiated disciplinary actions against Palestinian students for posts that included photographs, videos, or other content discussing the 7 October events. The students posted most of this content on the morning of 7 October. A considerable amount of this content contained photographs that went viral, such as a crowd of young people on top of an Israeli military jeep taken into Gaza, a person standing on top of a military tank waving a Palestinian flag, and a bulldozer that broke through the border wall. Other such posts sought to present the broader context of the 7 October events as part of the Palestinian issue, in referring, for example, to Palestinian prisoners incarcerated by Israel or the ongoing Nakba since 1948.

All of these disciplinary indictments accused the students of incitement to terror and/or identification with acts of terror. In these cases, the disciplinary committees found the students guilty of breaching disciplinary regulations, while overwhelmingly disregarding the post’s purpose, the publisher’s purpose, and the context of the post. As for penalties, the academic institutions mostly suspended the students for varying periods of time or expelled them permanently.

In one case, Netanya Academic College opened a disciplinary proceeding against a student for posting an Instagram story on 7 October that contained a photograph of an Israeli military jeep and many young Palestinians gathered around it. Below the photograph, the student added the following text: “A photograph that will not be forgotten by history… 07.10.2023,” with the date colored in green, red, white, and black—the colors of the Palestinian flag. In the description of the photograph, the student added the date again, together with the Palestinian flag emoji. The college accused the student of “incitement-filled posts … which create support for terror,” in a letter dated 15 October 2023, which announced her suspension from the college.^[86] During the committee hearing, the student testified that she posted the story because it was a viral post, and that she deleted it about two hours later when she learned of the full scale of the events.

Notwithstanding her arguments, the committee convicted the student and expelled her from the college permanently, even though the police—which were pursuing a policy of discriminatory, selective enforcement of the criminal law against posts by Palestinians on social media—did not open a criminal case against her. In its decision, the committee stated:

As for the argument that the photograph does not express support for Hamas and for the terror attack it perpetrated, and does not express identification with the acts of terror, it cannot be accepted. There is in the photograph itself, combined with the text and the highlighting of the date through the colors of the Palestinian flag, which also appear above the photograph, an implicit identification with the terror operations of Hamas. Some would even say that the photograph cannot be interpreted other than as identification with the terrible acts of 7 October 2023 […] there is no doubt that the student undermined the dignity of the college, the values it promotes, the dignity of the students studying at it, and the faculty teaching at it. There is also no doubt that the student’s post undermined the public morality of Israeli society. We will add that the student expressed, during the hearing in her case, a laconic apology for posting the photograph. This conduct also reinforces the conclusion that the posting of the photograph constitutes harm to public morality.^[87]

In another case, Tel Aviv University initiated disciplinary proceedings against a student for posting a set of images under the title, “8 Things about What’s Happening in Palestine”, as discussed above. The images, which contain analysis of the Hamas attack and its context, were posted on 10 October 2023, with a note: “This post is an explanation of what happened and proves context. This page does not officially endorse any political party or faction.”

the disciplinary committee. The post included a series of images of an explanatory and political character with respect to the events of 7 October and their context.

The university’s disciplinary prosecutor argued that this set of images constituted a booklet “that praises Hamas,” and that “in these acts the accused committed an offense of conduct unbecoming the dignity of the university.”^[88] It added that the various slides present “a distorted picture of the events of 7 October,” in which Israel “is presented as a satanic regime to justify the ‘liberation operation [against it].’”^[89] The student and his defense team emphasized that the post’s purpose was to raise awareness of the other context of the war at a time when the voices in Israel called for revenge. The defense argued that the post does not support terror, nor does it encourage violence. The terminology, even if perceived as problematic by the university, is lawful and legitimate in its historical context, and is informative, and nothing more.

The committee convicted the student of an offense under the disciplinary code, and on 8 May 2024 imposed a penalty of a suspended sentence of expulsion. In the decision, the committee held that:

Even if the accused had succeeded in convincing us of a coherent and credible alternative interpretation, it is doubtful whether it would have had significance for the conviction of the offense, since the latter also rests on the possible manner of understanding the things by reasonable readers who are students, faculty members, and employees at Tel Aviv University living in the State of Israel […] there is a space of expressions that do not constitute incitement to terror or incitement to racism in their criminal sense, and that are protected by freedom of expression, but may constitute conduct unbecoming of the status of the student at Tel Aviv University, in particular when this expression comes to the knowledge of his fellow students.^[90]

The importance of the decision lies, in fact, in what was said as an obiter dictum ( a non-binding comment ):

I will add as an obiter dictum that had this been an expression in the framework of a discussion in class or an exchange of academic, and even political, ideas and positions, and had the accused made proposals, for example to improve the situation of the Palestinian people, or expressed identification with the suffering of civilian residents of Gaza, the considerations that would have operated would have been different. The space of expression that does not constitute conduct unbecoming a student would have been larger than in an expression that does not truly advance an academic discussion and may harm other students directly.

A racist expression, too, in the networks and groups of Jewish students against specific Arab students or the group of Arab students at the university, which came to the knowledge of the Arab students, whether directly or indirectly, can be a basis for filing a disciplinary indictment and even for a conviction. By contrast, an expression by students on social media as to how Israel ought to act with respect to Gaza and its residents during the war and afterward is not, on its face, connected to the student community at Tel Aviv University, and the question whether it amounts to incitement to terror or to racism is a matter for the general criminal law. In other words, the fact that the expression was on social media and not in class does not teach that no disciplinary offense was committed, but may, in certain circumstances, lead to the opposite result [emphasis added].

For the avoidance of doubt, the post that formed the basis of the conviction was not directed at specific Jewish students or at the group of Jewish students at the university. Rather, it constituted a general political characterization of the Hamas attack of 7 October. Yet, the standards applied by the disciplinary committees appear to differ depending on the identity of the speaker. Whereas expression by an Israeli Jewish student must bear a direct connection to Palestinian students as a group in order to constitute a disciplinary offense, a general post by a Palestinian student, even when not specifically directed at Israeli Jewish students at the university, may be deemed sufficient to constitute a disciplinary offense. This distinction is not technical; rather, it points to asymmetries in the drawing of the boundaries of permissible expression under a framework grounded in the protection of feelings from potential offense.

Summary and Conclusions

institutions adopted an even more extreme and punitive approach, imposing severe disciplinary sanctions on Palestinian students, including permanent expulsion.

Academic institutions systematically violated the foundational principles of fair due process with respect to Palestinian students. For example, the institutions summoned Palestinian students to disciplinary committees without showing them the post at issue. Institutions translated social media posts from Arabic to Hebrew using automatic translation software, even when it was clear that the original linguistic and cultural meaning was entirely different. The committees rejected expert opinions provided by the defense, at times with derision, while accepting expert opinions proffered by the prosecution, at times without providing an opportunity for the defense to cross-examine the experts. Institutions also imposed interim suspensions on students before giving them a chance to be heard, and amended disciplinary indictments in the course of the proceedings in line with the desired outcomes. The institutions also shifted the burden of proof to the students, who were required to prove their innocence before committees that had already formed an adverse impression of them in many instances.

Since 7 October 2023, a new framework of surveillance, disciplinary rules enforcement, and punishment has developed at Israel’s academic institutions, one that is directed exclusively against Palestinian students. The institutions adopted this new framework rapidly, within a few hours and days from the start of the war. The academic institutions assembled, almost overnight, a wideranging enforcement mechanism that classified Qur’anic verses, prayers, and expressions of solidarity with the residents of Gaza as offenses warranting the suspension or expulsion of Palestinian students from universities and colleges throughout the country.

Israeli academic institutions acted contrary to the rule of law. Article 17 of the Students’ Rights Law limits the disciplinary authority of academic institutions to activities with some connection to students’ studies, and until 7 October, this boundary was respected. After 7 October, however, these institutions systematically overstepped this boundary, but did so exclusively in cases against Palestinian students. Disciplinary committees held that the connection required for the exercise of authority exists even for a private post by a student, published before the start of the academic year, for example; a post with no connection to studies, the campus, or other students; and even a post to which most of the academic community was not exposed. By contrast, with respect to Israeli Jewish students, the academic institutions were careful to emphasize the limits of their authority and they refrained from applying disciplinary regulations.^[91] In this way, Jewish Israeli students were afforded the protections of the rule of law, while Palestinian students were not.

In several cases, academic institutions continued to pursue disciplinary proceedings against students even after the police – which has pursued discriminatory, selective enforcement of the criminal law in expression-related offenses against Palestinians in Israel, particularly after 7 October – had decided not to initiate criminal prosecutions, and ultimately found that the students had committed disciplinary offenses. In these cases, the academic By contrast, the institutions did not open disciplinary actions against Israeli Jewish students for posts that included racial incitement, such as calls for revenge or for the bombing of the civilian population in Gaza, or for the expulsion or forced transfer of Palestinians. In this context, the constitutional principle that fundamental rights may not be infringed in the absence of explicit legislation applied only to Israeli Jewish students.

Thus the universities and colleges in Israel created two separate disciplinary tracks: a prerogative (administrative) track for Palestinian students and a normative (constitutional) track for Israeli Jewish students. The administrative track, applied to the Palestinian students, operates in a state of exception, suspending the rule of law and dispensing with procedural protections. It gives little weight to the principles of natural justice, in particular the presumption of innocence, and proceeds without clear definitions of the offenses in question. By contrast, the constitutional  track, applied to Jewish Israeli students, is grounded in the rule of law, including adherence to the limits of authority and constitutional standards of freedom of expression. Within this framework, Israeli Jewish students were effectively shielded from disciplinary proceedings for speech that had no direct connection to their academic studies, even when that speech was racist, advocates for genocide, or calls for the total destruction of Gaza.¹¹³

In the administrative track, expressions by Palestinian students, even when written in Arabic for the Arab public and sometimes consisting of a prayer, are judged through the lens of the “reasonable reader” or the “reasonable listener.”

113 On the distinction between the two tracks, the prerogative (administrative) and the normative (constitutional), see the pioneering work of Ernst Fraenkel, The Dual State (OUP 2017). On the contribution of Fraenkel’s book, recently published in Hebrew, see: Barak Medina, “The Myth of the Rule of Law: In the Wake of the Legal System in Nazi Germany,” Makor Rishon, 26 February 2020 [Hebrew]. David Dyzenhaus makes use of Fraenkel’s work for the purpose of the distinction between the Israeli regime and the apartheid of South Africa: David Dyzenhaus, “Dugardian Legal Theory in The Pursuit of a Brave New World,” in International Law 3 (Tiyanjana Maluwa, Max du Plessis, Dire Tladi, eds, Brill Nijhoff 2017). See also Shinar’s work on the application of the administrative law track in place of the constitutional track to the occupied territories. He argues that the Palestinian population in the OPTs is classified in Israeli eyes as an enemy, and administrative law is intended for the treatment and management of a population under a colonial regime, whereas the constitutional law track applies to Israelis as the sovereign granted constitutional protections: Adam Shinar, “Israel’s External Constitution:

Friends, Enemies, and the Constitutional/Administrative Law Distinction,” 57 VA. J. INT’L L. 735 (2017).

This standard is shaped, in practice, by the perspective of the student or lecturer who is a soldier facing the enemy in Gaza. The language used by the institutions in their decisions, including references to the “feelings of the community,” in which “students and faculty members are fighting in Gaza,” reveals the content of the category of “the student”. The Palestinian student is not treated as a civic subject with constitutional rights, but as a figure cast as an “enemy,” required to repeatedly prove his/her loyalty and conformity to the Zionist national ethos.

These features point to an apartheid-like policy in disciplinary proceedings within Israeli academia after 7 October. This policy rests on ethno-racial separation between disciplinary tracks and on different standards in determining who is deemed fit to be a student. This separation, which relies heavily on the broad and flexible use of terms such as “support for terror” and similar terminology, helps construct the underlying distinctions that structure the policy. In practice, these categories are applied to  Palestinian students and form the basis of the administrative track, activated as needed. The result is the positioning of the Palestinian student within a framework of “separate and unequal.”

This racial separation resulted in persecution on national grounds. Expressions by Palestinian students, including identification with the suffering experienced by members of their people; wishes of hope for a better future for them; condemnations of the Israeli military’s aggressive actions against civilians in Gaza; photographs of victims; and Qur’anic verses used as prayers for the safety of Gaza’s residents were frequently interpreted as identification with the enemy or as support for terror. In this way, the Palestinian students were required to suppress expressions of their national identity under the rhetoric of security, Israeli Jewish community sentiment, and the preservation of public order. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings addressed not only questions of prohibited expression, but also the broader redrawing of the boundaries of the legitimacy of Palestinian presence and subjectivity in the Israeli academic space.

This policy of racial discrimination, even aside from its material consequences, violates the right to dignity. Accordingly, although most Palestinian students who have faced disciplinary proceedings will continue with their lives, the damage created in the course of these processes – personal, academic, professional, and emotional – will accompany many of them, as well as the broader community of Palestinian students at Israeli institutions of higher education, for a long time. This policy produces collective harm, in which religious, political, or identitybased expression by Palestinian students may result in sanctions and academic penalties. It creates a “chilling effect” within the Palestinian student body in Israeli academia, fostering fear, incentivizing self-censorship, and discouraging legitimate expression. By contrast, such fears do not exist for the Jewish-Israeli student.

This two-track policy sets a dangerous precedent. It exposes the fragility of constitutional protections in Israeli society when subjected to a state of emergency, public anger, collective trauma, intense emotions, or political pressure, conditions that tend to facilitate the oppression of the Palestinian population, citizens of Israel. This fragility has long characterized the conduct of the security authorities, including the police, and it has also not spared the academic space, particularly in relation to restrictions on campus protests during wartime. However, its manifestation within academia after 7 October, and at the scale described in this report, further illustrates the erosion of standards at institutions that otherwise pride themselves on their openness and on their opposition to political attempts to further narrow the space of individual liberties and the mechanisms that protect them.

These racially segregated tracks are reminiscent of those imposed during the period of military rule on Palestinians in Israel (1948-1966). Then, the administrative track was applied exclusively to the Arab population that was placed under military rule. They were prevented from expressing their national identity, while the legal system operated to suppress their freedom of political expression. A prominent example is the Yardor case, in which Israel’s Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of the Arab al-Ard movement from running in the Knesset elections, invoking the doctrine of “militant democracy,” “state security,” and the state’s identity as a “Jewish state” against an enemy from within, while suspending the rule of law. It is therefore not surprising that the Yardor case was cited as a source of authority in the decision of a disciplinary committee at the Hebrew University in order to justify deviations from the rule of law in the disciplinary track applied to Palestinian students.^[92]

This racist policy of the Israeli academic institutions violates international law, most notably the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); and Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which affirms the protection of the collective rights of ethnic minorities. In light of these violations, UN human rights bodies have criticized the treatment of Palestinian students by Israel’s academic institutions, as highlighted above.

The proceedings described in the report have, in most cases, ended, but their consequences persist. These consequences are likely to continue shaping Palestinian students’ relationship with the academic space, affecting their sense of security and belonging, narrowing the boundaries of perceived legitimate expression, and entrenching a reality in which full participation in the academic life becomes conditional.

Academic institutions should therefore reconsider the use of disciplinary mechanisms as tools for selectively policing political expressions, and redefine the limits of their authority in a way that guarantees freedom of expression as a foundational principle of academic life for all students, even for expressions that diverge from the state’s official narrative or the prevailing views of the majority.

w w w . a d a l a h . o r g

---

^[1] Prof. Gur Alroey, Rector of Haifa University, “Suspension from Studies,” letter dated 9 October 2023. On the initial suspensions issued beyond the rector’s authority, see: Academia for Equality, “Academia for Equality’s Report on the State of War and Political Persecution in Academia,” 13 November 2023.

^[2] Of the 132 inquiries, Adalah received one from a foreign student studying at the Technion, against whom disciplinary measures were taken following political posts that included criticism of settler violence and of the destruction in Gaza.

^[3] This figure is based on Adalah files, to date. It does not exhaust the scope of the phenomenon. The organization “Academia for Equality” separately documented more than 120 disciplinary proceedings opened against students since the beginning of the war. See report by Academia for Equality, footnote 1.

^[4] To protect the students’ privacy and anonymity and out of concern for causing them further harm, Adalah did not include identifying details such as names, file numbers, or additional personal data in the report. Accordingly, Adalah used general references, including the type of document, the name of the institution, and its date. All the primary documents are on file with Adalah. In cases where even the combination of partial details could lead to identification, Adalah omitted details not material to the analysis.

^[5] On this subject, see: Barak Medina, Ilan Saban, Michal Saliternik, and Alexander (Sandy) Kedar, “The Powers of Institutions of Higher Education in Israel to Restrict Students’ Freedom of Expression,” ICONS-IL Blog (7 November 2023) [Hebrew]. The authors take an explicitly critical position on the measures taken, according to which the connection to studies required under Article 17 of the Students’ Rights Law, 2007, must be significant and clear, while a loose or vague connection does not suffice.

^[6] The other inquiries included cases in which Adalah gave only initial legal advice, cases in which the students were represented by other attorneys, and cases in which students discontinued their studies during the handling of the complaint or did not continue with the proceeding.

^[7] According to the data of the Council for Higher Education. The list of institutions is available on the website of the Council for Higher Education.

^[8] Due to a confidentiality decision, it is not possible to detail beyond this in these cases. See reports in the press, e.g., Yishai Almakayis-Elram, “Minister of Education: Students who expressed support for Hamas will be expelled immediately,” Makor Rishon, 12 October 2023 [Hebrew]. Shahar Ilan, “Bezalel takes disciplinary measures against 11 students who expressed support for the massacre in the Gaza envelope,” Calcalist, 12 October 2023 [Hebrew].

^[9] For example, in the case of the University of Haifa, investigative materials in criminal proceedings reveal that the university itself was the complainant, and that the then-rector of the university (today the university’s president), Prof. Gur Alroey, himself testified at the police station. See an interview with Prof. Gur Alroey, president of the University of Haifa and former rector: Doron Solomon, “The tension on campus is volatile and a provocation could lead to an explosion” (mynet Haifa, 8 November 2024) [Hebrew]. In other cases, this involvement even appeared in formal institutional decisions. At Ruppin Academic Center, the disciplinary committee ordered the school’s director to file a police complaint following the post that was the subject of the proceeding (decision of a disciplinary committee ordering the filing of a police complaint, in the framework of a disciplinary proceeding at Ruppin Academic Center, December 2023; on file with Adalah).

^[10] See footnote 6.

^[11] Letter of the Governmental Institute of Technological Training at the Ministry of Labor dated 26 October 2023.

^[12] The analysis is based on 100 cases in which Adalah provided legal support or representation. In many cases, several different posts were documented with respect to the same student, so that the distribution below indicates the features of the posts themselves and not the number of students in each category.

^[13] The terminology used by academic institutions was not uniform. In some cases, terms such as “determination of disciplinary responsibility” or “absence of disciplinary responsibility” were used, and in other cases sanctions were imposed or proceedings were closed without explicit use of the terms “conviction” or “acquittal.” For the purposes of this report, cases in which responsibility was determined or a sanction was imposed were classified as a conviction, and cases in which responsibility was not determined were classified as an acquittal.

^[14] Of these 15 cases, two included students who were at the final stages of receiving their degrees, including one doctoral degree, and the suspension resulted in a delay in finalizing the technical requirements for the awarding of the degree certificate by at least a year.

^[15] In one of the cases, in addition to permanent expulsion, the student was denied recognition of the academic credit she had accumulated during her studies.

^[16] In a number of cases several sanctions were imposed cumulatively on the same student, such as reprimands accompanied by an additional penalty.

^[17] Letter on behalf of the disciplinary prosecution in response to the request of the student’s counsel to receive the post at issue, in the framework of a disciplinary proceeding at the Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College, October 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[18] Adalah’s letter demanding the closure of the case against the student owing to misidentification, in the framework of a disciplinary proceeding at ORT College Jerusalem, November 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[19] In another case, Yezreel Valley Academic College opened a disciplinary proceeding against a student because she was one of the administrators of an open Telegram group in which other users posted content interpreted by the institution as supporting terror. The group was opened before 7 October for the purpose of sharing literary content in Arabic, and any user could post in it without the approval of the group administrator. The institution withdrew the charge (on file with Adalah).

^[20] Decision to accept the defense’s argument concerning the timing of the post, in the framework of a disciplinary proceeding at the Peres Academic Center, November 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[21] Disciplinary proceeding against a student at the Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College, December 2023, over a post from January 2023 that included words of religious prayer, among them a request to God to bring sadness upon “people,” without the post specifying to whom the words were directed. Although the student presented evidence that the post was published months before 7 October and was unconnected to it, the disciplinary committee did not dismiss the disciplinary indictment. The institution amended the disciplinary indictment and argued, after the fact, that the post constituted support for another attack that took place in Jerusalem on that same day, without presenting any evidence of the connection. Only after the defense presented metadata and additional evidence that there was no connection between the post and the security event did the institution withdraw the charge (on file with Adalah).

^[22] Qur’an 3:200, Sahih International translation.

^[23] Disciplinary proceeding at Achva Academic College, November 2023, following a religious post on the importance of prayer in Islam, without any connection to the war. After other students traced the source of the post, it emerged that it had been shared from an Instagram page that also included another post with the hashtag “death to Israel.” Although the student was not the owner of the page and did not even follow it, he was required to apologize to his classmates and to undertake not to share posts from that page in the future, regardless of the content of the post itself. The student changed representation, and Adalah is not aware of the final outcome of the proceeding (on file with Adalah).

^[24] Disciplinary proceeding at Kaye College, response of Adalah, October 2023 (on file with Adalah). In the framework of the proceeding, the student was attributed to “liking” a post concerning Jerusalem. The College convicted the student over the “like” mark, and for this, the College imposed a penalty of preventing her from enrolling in a course.

^[25] Disciplinary proceeding against a student at ORT College Tel Aviv, January 2024 (on file with Adalah), following the sharing of a clip from a historical drama series in the Turkish language with subtitles in Arabic. According to a student’s testimony, the scene was translated by an Israeli army officer in the West Bank, and according to this translation, ORT argued that one of the characters calls “to conquer Israel.” The institution relied on a complaint by students and on an unprofessional translation in opening the disciplinary proceeding.

^[26] Adalah documented this pattern at the WIZO Academic Center and the College of Management Academic Studies, as well as at ORT College Jerusalem, ORT College Tel Aviv, Ono, Tel Hai, Sami Shamoon, Seminar HaKibbutzim, Achva, and the Kinneret Technological College. In some cases, the reference to the Counter-Terrorism Law was made only at an advanced stage of the proceeding.

^[27] Disciplinary proceeding at the Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College, decision of conviction and sentence, January 2024, appeal by Adalah against the decision, February 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[28] Disciplinary proceeding at Zefat College, October 2023 (on file with Adalah). 41 Ibid., the judgment (on file with Adalah).

^[29] Ibid.

^[30] Disciplinary proceeding at the College of Management Academic Studies, January 2024, following the publication of the text: قريب فرج صبــاحكم وثبــات، وتمكين ونصر فتــح يوم اليوم هذا اجــعل اللــهم. In the prosecution’s translation it was written: “May God make this day a day of victory, empowerment, and stability, may you have a morning of imminent relief,” whereas the defense expert translated: “O God, make this day a day of salvation and victory [also possible: a day of conquest and victory], a day of empowerment and resolve, may your morning [be one of] imminent salvation” (on file with Adalah).

^[31] Disciplinary proceeding at the College of Law and Business, Ramat Gan, December 2023; the first post: “The occupation exploits the night to burn whole residential compounds, without mercy it bombs from the air, without giving anyone the possibility of entering or leaving the area (the compound)”; the second post: “At night we die without anyone hearing or seeing us, we are wounded and bleed to death without anyone saving us” (on file with Adalah).

^[32] Ibid., hearing record (on file with Adalah).

^[33] Disciplinary proceeding at the College of Management Academic Studies, summons to a disciplinary committee and complaint, November 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[34] See footnote 36, the committee’s decision (on file with Adalah).

^[35] Disciplinary proceeding at Zefat College, disciplinary indictment, May 2025 (on file with Adalah).

^[36] Ibid., the judgment (on file with Adalah).

^[37] Disciplinary proceeding against a student at the Technion, following her release from detention as part of a prisoner-and-detainee exchange deal, based on the argument that the very release as part of the deal offended the feelings of other students and constituted “unfitting conduct.” The student left the institution before the disciplinary committee in her case convened (on file with Adalah).

^[38] Inquiry proceeding at Meir Medical Center, summary of a conversation in the framework of complaints filed, October 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[39] Disciplinary proceedings at the College of Management Academic Studies and the Western Galilee College, decisions (on file with Adalah).

^[40] Disciplinary proceeding at the University of Haifa, hearing record, November 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[41] For example, ORT College Jerusalem and the Ono Academic College sent letters asserting that the students “supported the terror attack” and “encouraged the killing of innocents” based on their social media posts, and that they were suspended pending the clarification of the matter. In one case at Ono, the proceeding was ultimately closed without disciplinary measures, even though the posts attributed to the student included a prayer for the residents of Gaza and a call to refrain from posting celebratory content during the war.

^[42] See footnote 48, decision on Adalah’s request to cancel an interim suspension; the student was suspended immediately on the basis of a “free translation” and an interpretation of her posts, without her position being heard and without a concrete factual basis being presented. When she argued that her presumption of innocence had been denied, the committee replied that “the fact that she made the post was not denied” (on file with Adalah).

^[43] The Council for Higher Education Law, 1958.

^[44] In this context, Adalah pointed to a similar position expressed by several senior law lecturers shortly after the beginning of the war. In their view, the connection to studies must be significant and clear, while a loose or vague connection does not suffice. See footnote 12.

^[45] Disciplinary proceedings at the College of Management Academic Studies, decision of the disciplinary committee, January 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[46] Disciplinary proceeding at the Technion, judgment, January 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[47] Disciplinary proceeding at Tel Aviv University, judgment, March 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[48] Disciplinary proceeding at the Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College, decision, December 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[49] Einav Halabi and Tamar Trabelsi Hadad, “Singing ‘death to Arabs’ outside the dormitories: racist calls near TAU | documentation,” Ynet, 18 May 2022 [Hebrew].

^[50] Disciplinary proceeding at the Technion, judgment, January 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[51] Disciplinary complaint against the chair of the Technion student union following a public post from Gaza in which the symbol of the student union appeared; response of the Technion disciplinary prosecution according to which “it is not within our authority to enter the boundaries of the army,” 2025 (on file with Adalah).

^[52] Disciplinary proceeding at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, decision of the special disciplinary committee for the period of the “Swords of Iron War,” November 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[53] Email notice on behalf of the president of the Hebrew University and the rector to all students, concerning the conviction of a student of serious sex offenses, 7 May 2026 (on file with Adalah).

^[54] See footnote 60, the Tel Aviv University judgment (on file with Adalah).

^[55] Ibid. (on file with Adalah).

^[56] See footnote 43 (on file with Adalah).

^[57] See footnote 60, the Tel Aviv University judgment (on file with Adalah).

^[58] See footnote 68, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (on file with Adalah).

^[59] Ibid. (on file with Adalah); for the source of the doctrine, see EA 1/65 Yardor v. Chairman of the Central Elections Committee for the Sixth Knesset, PD 19(3) 365 (1965).

^[60] Ibid. (on file with Adalah).

^[61] Disciplinary proceeding at WIZO College, decision of the disciplinary committee, November 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[62] Disciplinary proceeding at the Yezreel Valley Academic College, judgment, January 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[63] Disciplinary proceeding at Ramat Gan Academic College, decision of the disciplinary committee, October 2023 ( on file with Adalah ).

^[64] The disciplinary charges and their wording differed from institution to institution, in accordance with the internal regulations of each institution.

^[65] See footnote 79 (on file with Adalah).

^[66] Ibid., judgment (on file with Adalah).

^[67] Disciplinary proceeding at Ruppin Academic Center, letter of suspension from studies, October 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[68] Ibid., summons to a hearing before the disciplinary committee, December 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[69] Ibid., decision, December 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[70] Disciplinary proceeding at WIZO College, letter of suspension from studies, October 2023 (on file with Adalah). The letter is similar in content to all letters sent to students at the college who were subject to disciplinary measures over social media posts.

^[71] Ibid., decision, November 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[72] Ibid. (on file with Adalah).

^[73] Ibid., decision of the superior appeals committee, December 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[74] Disciplinary proceeding at the Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College, decision on suspension from studies in the framework of a disciplinary proceeding, October 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[75] Disciplinary proceeding at Zefat College, notice of the opening of a disciplinary proceeding and immediate suspension from studies, April 2025 (on file with Adalah). For the disciplinary indictment, see footnote 47.

^[76] Ibid., judgment, July 2025 (on file with Adalah).

^[77] The original video, which was shared from the Instagram account of Eye on Palestine, was not located by the authors of this report.

^[78] Disciplinary proceeding at Ben-Gurion University, decision on appeal in the framework of a disciplinary proceeding, February 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[79] Disciplinary proceeding at the Technion, expert opinion on behalf of the prosecution (on file with Adalah).

^[80] Disciplinary proceeding at Ruppin Academic Center, hearing record of the disciplinary committee, January 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[81] The full content of the prayer as it appears in the video is as follows (in Arabic): انصــر اهــل فلســطين/ م هداء/ الله ازل الش ى من ي اعل دك ف هداءهم عن ل ش م تقب ر/ الله ون فانتص م مغلوب م انه اء/ الله م ضعف م انه الله ا ا الله ي ا ي ل دعاءن تر/ واقب ة والس ام العافي ي تم ن ف ا رب العالمي م ي ظ حيه ن/ واحف ا رب العالمي م ي في جرحه اش لم ه وس م علي اللهلّ ن/ ص ا رب العالمي ا ي م وبلادن ظ بلاده م احف ا/ الله ا مولان ا ي م وعدون ى عدوه م عل الله/ انصره يدنا محمد وبرك على س. In translation: “Grant victory to the people of Palestine / O God, they are weak / O God, they are defeated, so grant victory / O God, accept their fallen with You in the highest stations of the martyrs / O God, heal their wounds, O Lord of the worlds / and protect their living, O Lord of the worlds, in complete well-being and shelter / and accept our prayer, O God, O God / grant them victory over their enemy and our enemy, O our Lord / O God, protect their land and our land, O Lord of the worlds / may

God bless our master Muhammad and grant him peace and blessing.”

^[82] Disciplinary proceeding at Zefat Academic College, judgment in the framework of a disciplinary proceeding from October 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[83] Ibid., decision on appeal, March 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[84] Disciplinary proceeding at the University of Haifa, translated by an expert on behalf of the defense, April 2024 ( on file with Adalah ).

^[85] Ibid., judgment April 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[86] Disciplinary proceeding at Netanya Academic College, email, October 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[87] Disciplinary proceeding at Netanya Academic College, judgment, November 2023 (on file with Adalah).

^[88] Disciplinary proceeding at Tel Aviv University, disciplinary indictment, November 2023 (on file with Adalah). For the judgment, see footnote 60.

^[89] Ibid., summations on behalf of the prosecution, February 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[90] Ibid., judgment and sentence, March and May 2024 (on file with Adalah).

^[91] For cases in which academic institutions refrained from applying the disciplinary law and emphasized the limits of their authority, see chapter 3 on “Expanding the Boundaries of Surveillance and Enforcement.”

^[92] On apartheid based on the distinction between the administrative track and the constitutional track during the period of the military government on the matter of freedom of expression, see: Hassan Jabareen, “Kol Ha’am of Agranat! The Voice of Which People?,” Iyunei Mishpat 44 (2021) 627-660 [ Hebrew ]. 

16.09.26

Editorial Note

George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, Washington, DC, will host an event on 25 Years of the War on Terror, on September 17–18, 2026. It will “examine lessons from the War on Terror, explore what resistance to this framework of state violence has looked like,” and shall ask “how we can imagine a future where infrastructure of the War on Terror is finally abolished.” The conference will also “hold space to mourn and remember survivors and the millions of victims of the War on Terror, as we continue to demand accountability, justice and reparations.”

This event, titled “When Will This War End: Lessons and Legacies of the War on Terror,” is organized by the Muslim Counterpublics Lab (MCL), a grassroots organization based in Washington, D.C., dedicated to dismantling Islamophobia and challenging state-sponsored oppression. Founded in 2022 by Dr. Maha Hilal, MCL focuses on “empowering Muslim communities to reclaim their narratives and confront systemic injustice.” Hilal is a Muslim Arab American and an expert on institutionalized Islamophobia.

Thirty additional organizations have joined the MCL in sponsoring the event, which plans to examine both “25 years of the Global War on Terror and 250 years of the American empire.” It will analyze “how racialized narratives, Islamophobia, and xenophobia have shaped surveillance, militarization, and national security policies.” The conference is also showing a special exhibition titled “Shattering Justice & Re-Making the Muslim Threat.”

The conference explicitly connects the historical framework of the U.S. Global War on Terror to current geopolitics involving Israel and the Palestinian territories. Organizers and speakers argue that the domestic and international counterterrorism infrastructures developed over the last 25 years are being deployed to justify state violence and suppress advocacy.

Panels and discussions focusing on Israel include: 

• “Palestine and the War on Terror: State Repression and (Dis)arming Genocidaires,” a session focusing on the legal, academic, and organizing perspectives regarding the domestic crackdowns faced by individuals speaking out for Palestine, as well as resisting U.S. military and financial aid to Israel.
• “Tracing the Global War on Terror from Past to Present,” an opening plenary connecting historical U.S. post-9/11 military campaigns (such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan) to what organizers describe as the U.S.-Israeli military actions in Gaza and broader escalation toward Iran.
• “Manufacturing Consent for State Violence,” an analysis of corporate media narratives, critiquing how “counterterrorism” frameworks and terminology have been weaponized by states—including the U.S. and Israel—to build public support for military occupations and violence.

The conference organizers note that after 9/11, President George W. Bush spoke to Congress and announced the launch of the War on Terror. He stated: “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The conference leaders found much wrong with the War on Terror, describing the President’s definition as a “dangerously expansive one.” For them, it “quickly evolved into a framework of warfare, draconian immigration policies, mass surveillance, terrorism prosecutions, and detention and torture that has not only endured, but expanded with US wars devastating Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria among other countries. Some estimates calculate 1 million killed directly from war, with millions more killed from sanctions, starvation, disease, the destruction of sovereign state institutions, and displacement.”  

According to the organizers, for twenty-five years, “the architecture of the War on Terror has profoundly reshaped the lives of Muslims, Arabs and other targeted communities in the United States and across the globe.”

Because of these alleged consequences, the conference will “analyze the impacts of the global War on Terror and how the United States and its allies continue to deploy War on Terror frameworks, particularly Islamophobia and xenophobia, to manufacture consent for draconian surveillance and immigration policies, and exorbitant military spending for campaigns of ethnic cleansing, genocide, occupation, and extractivism.”

The goal of the conference is to “confront the quarter-century of structural violence that has operated under problematic, violent policies that claim to battle ‘terrorism’.”  

The conference would explore “what resistance to this framework of state violence has looked like, and ask how we can imagine a future where infrastructure of the War on Terror is finally abolished.”

This conference “will hold space to mourn and remember survivors and the millions of victims of the War on Terror, as we continue to demand accountability, justice and reparations.”

The sessions of the conference include: “From Iraq and Afghanistan to Palestine and Iran”, “The Global War on Terror’s Blueprint (domestically and globally)”, “Immigration and the Carceral State”, “Exposing and Targeting War Profiteers”, “Journalistic Responsibility: Countering State Propaganda”, and “Shattering Justice and Remaking the Muslim Threat,” among others. 

The Conference is going to “Interrogate the War on Terror as an enduring system of power that has evolved into a permanent global infrastructure of state violence, shaping law, policy, and public discourse”; “Expose the role of Islamophobia + xenophobia and analyze how racialized narratives have justified surveillance, detention, militarization, and national security policies”; “Center the experiences of impacted communities and highlight the human costs of the War on Terror on Muslim and marginalized communities”; “Critically examine legal and political frameworks that has facilitated ongoing state violence under the guise of ‘counterterrorism’”; “Highlight and learn from resistance movements from grassroots organizing to narrative interventions to policy change”; and “Envision abolitionist futures by fostering collective imagination around dismantling this infrastructure and build systems rooted in justice, care, and collective liberation.”

The overall goal is to “confront the quarter-century of structural violence that has operated under problematic, violent policies that claim to battle ‘terrorism’,”  and “what resistance to this framework of state violence has looked like, and ask how we can imagine a future where infrastructure of the War on Terror is finally abolished.”  The conference would explore “what resistance to this framework of state violence has looked like, and ask how we can imagine a future where infrastructure of the War on Terror is finally abolished.”

Finally, the conference “will hold space to mourn and remember survivors and the millions of victims of the War on Terror, as we continue to demand accountability, justice and reparations.”

Those who follow our work in Israel Academia Monitor would notice that the pattern is clear, instead of accusing the radical Islamist terrorists of perpetuating a global terrorist network, these American Muslim scholars and intellectuals use their academic platform to put the blame on the US, Israel, and the West – the terror-stricken countries.  

But even by the standards of Israel Academia Monitor case studies, the claims of the MCL activists are egregious.  First, they represent a total moral inversion, meaning, they reverse the moral roles of victim and perpetrator. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were clear aggressors on 9/11, killing some 3000 people in the Twin Towers. Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murdered some 1,200, mostly civilians, on October 7, 2023, were also clear aggressors.

The empirical inversion of facts is equally glaring, most notably with regard to the claims that the “millions of people” died in “Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria among other countries,” because of the United States or the “West.”  Civilians died in many countries, especially in the Middle East, when al-Qaeda, which morphed into ISIS, launched attacks in Iraq and Syria before moving to Africa. All this without mentioning that Iran – through its Axis of Resistance: Hezbollah, Popular Mobilization Forces, and the Houthis – killed thousands of people, on top of the Hamas massacre. 

Already in April 2024, George Washington University was accused of failing to address antisemitism, when numerous events were recorded, including calls to destroy Israel outside an event with Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The anti-Israel activists protested outside and shouted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and called Thomas-Greenfield a “Zionist Imperial Puppet.” They handed out pamphlets with the writing “Amerikkka” to describe the U.S. 

Universities must not allow anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-West, terror apologists among their midst. The war on terror is not over.

REFERENCES:

ABOUT

“The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

— Milan Kundera

On September 20th, 2001 – nine days after the 9/11 attacks – President George W. Bush gave a speech to Congress announcing the launch of the War on Terror.  His definition was a dangerously expansive one:  “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The War on Terror quickly evolved into a framework of warfare, draconian immigration policies, mass surveillance, terrorism prosecutions, and detention and torture that has not only endured, but expanded with US wars devastating Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria among other countries. Some estimates calculate 1 million killed directly from war, with millions more killed from sanctions, starvation, disease, the destruction of sovereign state institutions, and displacement.  For twenty five years, the architecture of the War on Terror has profoundly reshaped the lives of Muslims, Arabs and other targeted communities in the United States and across the globe.

This conference will analyze the impacts of the global War on Terror and how the United States and its allies continue to deploy War on Terror frameworks, particularly Islamophobia and xenophobia, to manufacture consent for draconian surveillance and immigration policies, and exorbitant military spending for campaigns of ethnic cleansing, genocide, occupation, and extractivism. 

The goal of this conference is to confront the quarter-century of structural violence that has operated under problematic, violent policies that claim to battle “terrorism” by bringing together scholars, organizers, advocates, survivors, journalists, and community members to examine lessons from the War on Terror, explore what resistance to this framework of state violence has looked like, and ask how we can imagine a future where infrastructure of the War on Terror is finally abolished. Finally, this conference will hold space to mourn and remember survivors and the millions of victims of the War on Terror, as we continue to demand accountability, justice and reparations.

What You Can Expect

• Connecting with Conference Speakers and Participants from Diverse Fields: Scholars, Organizers, Advocates, Survivors, Journalists
• 8+ Planeries (ex: Past to Present, From Iraq and Afghanistan to Palestine and Iran, The Global War on Terror’s Blueprint (domestically and globally), Immigration and the Carceral State)
• 4+ Workshops: (ex: Exposing and Targeting War Profiteers, Journalistic Responsibility: Countering State Propaganda)
• Gallery Exhibit for War on Terror Timeline: Shattering Justice and Remaking the Muslim Threat

Conference Goals

• Interrogate the War on Terror as an enduring system of power that has evolved into a permanent global infrastructure of state violence, shaping law, policy, and public discourse.
• Expose the role of Islamophobia + xenophobia and analyze how racialized narratives have justified surveillance, detention, militarization, and national security policies
• Center the experiences of impacted communities and highlight the human costs of the War on Terror on Muslim and marginalized communities.
• Critically examine legal and political frameworks that has facilitated ongoing state violence under the guise of “counterterrorism.”
• Highlight and learn from resistance movements from grassroots organizing to narrative interventions to policy change.
• Envision abolitionist futures by fostering collective imagination around dismantling this infrastructure and build systems rooted in justice, care, and collective liberation.

=======================================================

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

Muslim Counterpublics Lab

25 Years of the War on TerrorAbout the event Scholars, organizers, advocates, survivors, journalists, and community members will examine lessons from the War on Terror, explore what resistance to this framework of state violence has looked like, and ask how we can imagine a future where infrastructure of the War on Terror is finally abolished. This conference will hold space to mourn and remember survivors and the millions of victims of the War on Terror, as we continue to demand accountability, justice and reparations.

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

Thursday Sep 17th

Elliott School of International Affairs
1957 E St NW, Washington, DC 20052

Light Breakfast and Registration

8:30 AM – 9:30 AM

Reception Area between City View and State Room (7th Floor)

Introductory Remarks

9:30 AM – 9:45 AM

City View Room

Speakers:

Dr. Melani McAlister, Professor of American Studies & International Affairs; Director of the Institute for Middle East Studies

Dr. Maha Hilal, Muslim Counterpublics Lab

Grounding Plenary

TRACING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR FROM PAST TO PRESENT

9:45 AM – 10:45 AM

City View Room

Speakers: Nazia Kazi·Baher Azmy·Alka Pradhan

Moderator: Dr. Mariam Durrani

Block I for Simultaneous Sessions

Presentation and Discussion:

THE “WORST OF THE WORST”: THE POST 9/11 CARCERAL STATE FROM ENEMY COMBATANTS TO MIGRANT DETAINEES

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM

City View Room

Speakers: Aliya Hussain·Hassan Ahmad·Yumna Rizvi·Fahad Mahamud

Moderator: Mikki Charles

Case Study Workshop:

MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES AND THE INTERNAL ADOPTION OF COUNTERTERRORISM FRAMEWORKS

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM

State Room

Speakers: Suad Abdel Aziz·Niala Mohammad·Habib Battah·Yasmine Taeb

Moderator: Sanaa Ansari Khan

Luncheon Fireside Chat

STATE VIOLENCE BY DESIGN: ANTI-INDIGENOUS RACISM, ANTI-BLACKNESS AND THE HISTORICAL LEGACY OF AMERIKKKA

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM

City View Room

Speakers: Margari Hill·Jen Deerinwater

Moderator: Dr. Irene Calis

Block II for Simultaneous Sessions

Workshop and Discussion:

MANUFACTURING CONSENT FOR STATE VIOLENCE: MEDIA COMPLICITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR

1:30 PM – 3:00 PM

State Room

Speakers: Nausheen Husain·Dr. Assal Rad·Sana Saeed

Moderator: Nima Shirazi

Presentation and Discussion:

WHO’S THE TERRORIST? THE DOMESTIC LEGAL BLUEPRINT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE

1:30 PM – 3:00 PM

City View Room

Speakers: Fatema Ahmad·Arjun Sethi·Steve Downs

Moderator: Fahd Ahmed

Closing Day 1 Panel + Workshop

PALESTINE AND THE WAR ON TERROR: (DIS)ARMING GENOCIDAIRES AND STATE REPRESSION

3:15 PM – 4:45 PM

City View Room

Speakers: Sara Arman·Dr. Irene Calis·Dylan Saba· Shelly Cohen Fudge

Moderator: Tina Al-Khersan

Conference Mixer Onsite

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM

Friday
Sep 18th

Elliott School of International Affairs
1957 E St NW, Washington, DC 20052

Light Breakfast and Registration

8:30 AM – 9:30 AM

Reception Area between City View and State Room (7th Floor)

Introduction + Plenary

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN MUSLIM: ISLAMOPHOBIA IN THE WAR ON TERROR

9:30 AM – 10:00 AM

City View Room

Speaker: Dr. Maha Hilal

WE REFUSE TO BE SILENT: TESTIMONIES OF SURVIVORS AND POLITICAL PRISONERS POST 9/11

10:00 AM – 11:00 AM

City View Room

Speakers: Mansoor Adayfi·Nida Abu Baker· Mariam Abu-Ali · Fadya Risheq

Moderator: Dr. Maha Hilal

Lunch

11:30 AM – 1:00 PM

Block III for Simultaneous Sessions

Workshop and Discussion:

CONFRONTING STATE AND CORPORATE VIOLENCE: FROM ACCOUNTABILITY TO REPARATIONS

1:00 PM – 2:30 PM

City View Room

Speakers: Arash Azizzada ·Ramah Kudaimi·Gabi Schubiner

Moderator: Roshni Ahmed

Case Study Workshop:

WHO CAN SAY WHAT? THE TERRORISM PARADIGM AND CRIMINALIZATION OF DISSENT

1:00 PM – 2:30 PM

Lindner Family Commons Room 602 (6th Floor)

Speakers: Sufia Khalid·Nicole Nguyen

Moderator: Sanaa Ansari Khan

Conference Closing Plenary

CONNECTED STRUGGLES, COLLECTIVE FUTURES: BUILDING A WORLD BEYOND STATE VIOLENCE

3:00 PM – 4:00 PM

City View Room

Speakers: Rashida James-Saadiya·Kairi Al-Amin·Kali Rubaii·Roshni Ahmed·Maryam Kashani

Moderator: Loan Tran

Conference Mixer Offsite (Location TBD)

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM

Institute for Middle East Studies The Institute for Middle East Studies (IMES) was founded in 2007 as part of a broad, university-wide initiative to support academic work on the Middle East. IMES faculty represent a breadth of disciplines from political science to media and public affairs to religion to international business. IMES also sponsors outstanding visiting scholars focused on the Middle East, enriching the institute’s scholarship and academic programs. The Institute hosts both academic and policy-oriented event series that are open to the public, in addition to flagship events such as the IMES Annual Conference and the Annual Kuwait Chair Lecture. IMES also hosts a variety of workshops and professional development events for K-14 teachers on both teaching the Arabic language and on teaching about the Middle East.

IMES is also dedicated to supporting educational programs that focus on the modern Middle East, such as the Elliott School’s B.A. and M.A. programs in Middle East Studies. The Institute serves as the administrative home of these programs, and offers funding to support student research. IMES encourages intellectual collaboration among members of the George Washington University (GWU) community interested in the Middle East, between GWU research institutes, and with other organizations in the Washington area. In promoting and publicizing new work on the Middle East, the IMES aims to deepen understanding of this critical region among scholars, students, and the broader public.

Muslim Counterpublics Lab 

Muslim Counterpublics Lab (MCL) is a grassroots, community-building organization that uses the tools of research, writing, and organizing as well as direct, victim-centered support and advocacy campaign programming to challenge systems of oppression rooted in Islamophobia. These structures include state and state-sanctioned violence ranging from widespread surveillance and persecution of Muslim communities by law enforcement and immigration authorities to indefinite detention and torture. We believe that in order to be effective in this work, we must confront the pervasive dehumanization of Muslims head-on and offer support to historically marginalized and oppressed communities.

Visit the IMES website >>>

Visit the MCL website >>>

=======================================================

25 Years Later, WoT has the “War on Terror” achieved?

4 Sep 2026

25 Years Later, WoT has the “War on Terror” achieved?

Imtiaz Muqbil

Bangkok — In a few days, the world will mark the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The “War on Terror” which followed had a profound impact on Travel & Tourism — increased security measures, visa restrictions, racial profiling, travel disruptions, warfare, draconian immigration policies, mass surveillance, terrorism prosecutions, and detention and torture.

Arguably the worst affected business sector, Travel & Tourism has paid both the price and the costs.

Worse, it is continuing to do so, with no end in sight.

Yet, the topic has never been discussed at any travel industry forum. That gap is now set to be plugged.

Between Sep 17 – 18, 2026 the Institute of Middle East Studies, George Washington University in Washington DC, is co-sponsoring a conference to “analyse the impacts of the global War on Terror and how the United States and its allies continue to deploy War on Terror frameworks, particularly Islamophobia and xenophobia, to manufacture consent for draconian surveillance and immigration policies, and exorbitant military spending for campaigns of ethnic cleansing, genocide, occupation, and extractivism.”

Says the introductory preamble, “Scholars, organizers, advocates, survivors, journalists, and community members will examine lessons from the War on Terror, explore what resistance to this framework of state violence has looked like, and ask how we can imagine a future where infrastructure of the War on Terror is finally abolished. This conference will hold space to mourn and remember survivors and the millions of victims of the War on Terror, as we continue to demand accountability, justice and reparations.”

The conference is being organised by Muslim Counterpublics Lab (MCL), a grassroots, community-building organization whose mission is to “disrupt and subvert dehumanizing narratives that are designed and deployed to justify state violence against Muslims. Its vision is to create a world where Muslims and all marginalized communities have political, social, and economic power to build societies rooted in liberation instead of oppression.”

Travel & Tourism forums will be encouraged to note that the event has attracted a high level of sponsorship support from multiple organisations with shared values. This opens up a clear window of opportunity to build on the conference subject matter and more comprehensively analyse its impact on Travel & Tourism.

The rationale for the conferences notes that the right after 9/11, the “War on Terror quickly evolved into a framework of warfare, draconian immigration policies, mass surveillance, terrorism prosecutions, and detention and torture that has not only endured, but expanded with US wars devastating Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria among other countries. Some estimates calculate 1 million killed directly from war, with millions more killed from sanctions, starvation, disease, the destruction of sovereign state institutions, and displacement. For twenty five years, the architecture of the War on Terror has profoundly reshaped the lives of Muslims, Arabs and other targeted communities in the United States and across the globe.”

The organisers say they “know that this anniversary – like many anniversaries past will be used to narrate events that justifies the multiple wars and systemic violence of the War on Terror, while also legitimizing the ongoing criminalization and demonization of our communities domestically and across the globe.

“At the twenty-five-year juncture of the catastrophic War on Terror and the infrastructure of state violence it has institutionalized, it is imperative that we hold space for our communities to reflect on this history, our resistance, and how we can pave the path toward our collective liberation.””

The conference will include a striking physical and digital exhibition headlined, “Shattering Justice & Re-Making the Muslim Threat”. Through a meticulous excavation of key events, policies, and laws enacted in the wake of the attacks and the launch of the War on Terror, the exhibit exposes the deep-rooted system of Islamophobia that has shaped U.S. national security policy and normalized the criminalization, surveillance, and dehumanization of Muslim communities.

“A series of bold, visceral poster panels are designed to unsettle, disrupt, and compel critical reflection of what justice and reckoning could and should look like and encourage viewers to look beyond the damage done and commit to the urgent work of solidarity, transformation, and abolition.”

Register for the GWOT Conference https://waronterror25.org/

The full schedule can be found here: https://waronterror25.org/schedule/

The exhibits can be found here: www.shatteringjustice.org

====================================================

View this post on Instagram

zinneducationproject36w

How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism? — Howard Zinn, HowardZinn.org

#HandsOffVenezuela

Check out the lesson, Whose “Terrorism”? https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/whose-terrorism/

About the Zinn Education Project

The Zinn Education Project promotes and supports the teaching of people’s history in classrooms across the country. The Zinn Education Project is coordinated by two non-profit organizations, Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change, that have spent decades developing and providing social justice resources for teachers.

We offer free people’s history lessons and books for middle and high school classrooms; curriculum workshops; online classes with people’s historians; teacher-led study groups; a teacher leader fellowship, and campaigns on Reconstruction, climate justice, and defending the right to teach truthfully.

Since 2008, the Zinn Education Project has introduced students to a more accurate, complex, and engaging understanding of history than is found in traditional textbooks and curricula. With more than 177,000 people registered, and growing by more than 10,000 new registrants every year, the Zinn Education Project has become a leading resource for teachers and teacher educators.

The empowering potential of studying history is often lost in a textbook-driven trivial pursuit of names and dates. We believe that through taking a more engaging and more honest look at the past, we can help equip students — and all of us — with the analytical tools to make sense of and improve the world today. For a more complete description of our approach, read why teach people’s history.

Our website offers free, downloadable lessons and articles organized by theme, time period, and grade level. Based on the approach to history highlighted in Howard Zinn’s best-selling book A People’s History of the United States, our teaching materials emphasize the role of working people, women, people of color, and organized social movements in shaping history.

Our daily This Day in History posts highlight stories ignored in most textbooks and are shared on social media where we have more than 500,000 followers.

We also produce a regular If We Knew Our History column that features articles by teachers, journalists, and scholars that expose the myths told in corporate curricula and offer ideas for teaching outside the textbook.

We offer professional development workshops in collaboration with school districts, teacher unions, and at teacher conferences. To support teacher leaders, we host the Prentiss Charney Fellowship.

We have several campaigns including Teach Reconstruction, Teach Climate Justice, Teaching for Black Lives, and Abolish Columbus Day. In the spring of 2021, we launched a Teach Truth pledge and we have been active in campaigns to defend teaching honestly in the face of anti-CRT laws and book bans.

=========================================================

Failure to address antisemitism at George Washington University is a betrayal to students

Failure to address antisemitism at George Washington University is a betrayal to students

 by Sabrina Soffer, opinion contributor – 04/14/24 4:00 PM

Calls to destroy Israel throbbed outside the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs last Thursday. Members of GW Student Coalition for Palestine (GWSCP) protested an event with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield, shouting militant chants such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and calling Thomas-Greenfield a “Zionist Imperial Puppet.” They even hung a dozen-foot-long Palestinian flag over the building and handed out pamphlets that used the spelling “Amerikkka” to describe the U.S. amid claiming that “imperialism in blackface is not progress,” referencing zionism.

With campus culture increasingly toxic in the wake of Hamas’s massacre of 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, the school administration promised to take steps to “strengthen our community in challenging times.” Receiving a generous “C” grade according to the new Anti-Defamation League (ADF) campus antisemitism report card, GW is failing to live up to its commitments.

Strains on GW’s community became evident on Oct. 25, when members of GW’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJPGWU) projected slogans lauding violence, such as “glory to our martyrs,” on the exterior of Gelman Library. GW’s administration enacted a 90-day suspension of SJPGWU for violating university policy to which the group responded by reconstituting itself as GWSCP, detached from formal university affiliation.

Following continued anti-Israel disruptions that violated policy and pressure from donors, parents, alumni, students and beyond, the school administration created a three-pronged plan to “foster productive dialogue,” “strengthen partnerships and support,” and “renew policies and procedures” to protect Jewish students and pave the path toward a more harmonious community. The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities also began disciplinary proceedings for specific students engaging in severe, frequent and pervasive breaches of the student code of conduct, including but not limited to tearing down posters from the inside of GW’s Hillel building. Around three months later, GW has failed to enforce its new plan and policies while emboldening a loud, fringe minority.

While imperfect, the plan did institute new clear policies and reinforce existing ones. Such policies would ensure that students engaging in “community disturbance,” making “excessive noise either inside or outside a building, including but not limited to shouting, pounding objects or surfaces, or playing music or other electronics at a loud volume in a manner that disturbs others,” are prohibited from occurring in the first place. 

GW has a long history of antisemitism and has been under fire before for allowing it to fester. Last April, the U.S. Department of Education opened an investigation into GW after the university failed to address Jewish-Israeli students’ concerns over alleged antisemitic harassment by psychology professor Lara Sheehi — who recently left GW and now teaches in Doha, Qatar. 

Thursday’s protest violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance — which, as of 2019, includes antisemitism by executive order. 

Amid the demonstrations, students complained that they were “unable to focus” on their studies and even quizzes due to the raucous and sheer shock. This clearly violates GW’s discriminatory harassment policies, whereby behaviors “in any context” even without the “intent to harm” that “unreasonably interfere with, limit, or deprive an individual of participating or benefiting from the university’s educational…experience” breach the code.  

GW’s administration certainly seeks to avoid another Title VI investigation and the prospect of a lawsuit as many other universities, like The Ohio State University, have recently incurred. An easy first step to averting this would be addressing issues of student organizations masterfully skirting around accountability. If the same behaviors are occurring on the same premises, with the same students, and leading to the same breaches of the student code of conduct, there should be no reason that school policy does not apply. 

Abiding by policy is a duty. Eradicating the hypocrisy and moral rot occurring inside our institution is imperative. If GW seeks to regain the trust of its Jewish and Israeli students and remain true to its values of diversity, equity and inclusion, it must enforce its new plan and add deterrence measures.

In a disappointing move, GW’s Fall 2023-Spring 2024 Student Association administration decided to discontinue the antisemitism task force instituted by former Student Association President Christian Zidouemba last March. The university administration has failed to institute a task force linked to the school administration even after various requests from parents and students in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks. While task forces’ efficacy is contested due to concerns of mere performativity, one could have helped address antisemitic behaviors from the onset, before they escalated. Failing to form an antisemitism task force demonstrates GW’s lack of seriousness when it comes to protecting all students.

Jewish students not only deal with hostility in the campus public square, but they frequently contend with professors propagating distortions about Israel and anti-Zionism. Teaching with bias is even more problematic due to the inherent power imbalance in the student-professor relationship, where the student often regards the professor as an expert intellectual authority. Students with limited knowledge of the Middle East are thus inclined to join in the inflammatory activism of their GWSCP peers. 

Inside the esteemed Elliott School of International Affairs sits the Institute of Middle East Studies (IMES), whose many scholars are professors at GW. IMES also hosts the DC Arabic Teacher’s Council, which is sponsored by Qatari Foundation International (QFI). QFI’s mark on IMES has been clear in the programming biased against Israel that it has presented before, and most notably, after Oct. 7.  

On Oct. 16, IMES facilitated a panel of Middle East experts who did not have not a single firmly pro-Israel perspective; on Oct. 18, IMES hosted the screening of “Israelism,” a film containing distorted facts and anti-Israel propaganda; and on Dec. 4, three IMES professors spoke at a GW Medical School panel that ignored Hamas atrocities and defended its attack on Israel as a “right of resistance.”

Fast forward to this week: On April 19, IMES will hold its annual conference titled “Middle East Knowledge Production In the Aftermath of October 7.” The array of scholars chairing the panels—many of whom spoke at the panel on Oct. 1—and language of “decoloniz[ing] academic knowledge production in Middle East Studies,” “Palestine/Israel Studies in the shadow of a genocide,” and “knowledge-production amidst dehumanization” with zero reference to the hostages or condemnation of Hamas on their website, paired with IMES’s past programming, make clear the conference will not be balanced. 

According to GW’s Faculty Code of Conduct, academics must defend “intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction, and the free expression of ideas.” 

If GW is truly committed to values of diversity and the principle that “academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society” where “free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals,” it must also review the integrity of the curriculum and institute hiring practices that include pro-Israel Jewish faculty members and ideally, those who can present all narratives of conflict with historical fact. Enrollment in an institution as prestigious as GW must guarantee that all students are afforded true academic freedom—that of academic diversity, the inclusion of all perspectives in their learning, and the equal opportunity to learn in peace alongside their peers. 

Shallow excuses for failing to enforce school policy do not suffice. Above all, GW and all academic institutions have the fiduciary duty to protect all its students—including Jewish-Israeli and Zionist students. With lawsuits looming, and reputational damage imminent, the failure to do so may result in serious penalties for GW and its community.

Sabrina Soffer is the former commissioner of GW’s Antisemitism Task Force and a 2023-2024 fellow at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA)

09.09.26

Editorial Note

On September 3, 2026, the US House of Representatives approved a bill penalizing universities that align with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. 

The bill, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, calls for the Department of Education to publicly list all the universities that do not abide by the Act’s provisions. To become law, it must pass the Senate and receive a presidential signature. 

The bill was first introduced on July 29, 2025, and would withhold federal funding from a university that participates in a boycott of Israel. According to the bill initiators, a boycott does not serve “the security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States.”

The HR 4795 bill, co-sponsored by North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx and New Jersey Democrat Rep. Josh Gottheimer, passed in a 237-to-169 vote, with 203 Republicans, 33 Democrats and one Independent in favor. Whether Democrats will grant sufficient support to pass the legislation in the Senate remains unclear. 

If the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act goes on to become law, it would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require universities to refrain from “participating in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel” in order to remain qualified for certain funds. Expressive conduct is “symbolic speech” designed to relay a message, like picketing, marching, flag desecration, and draft-card burnings. 

In addition to forbidding boycotts, the bill also stipulates that institutions receiving such funds would need to “certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel.”

Gottheimer, who is Jewish, said in a statement, “This bill is an important step forward in ensuring academic freedom for all students… I will push the Senate to take up the bill shortly so it can become law.” Foxx stressed that the Act “takes a strong stand against the BDS movement on college campuses across the nation… This legislation has true teeth and completely severs any possible taxpayer support of these concrete campaigns of antisemitism in the form of BDS and academic boycotts of Israel,” Foxx said.   

The wording of the Act includes the following:

“An Act to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that Act, to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that Act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel, and for other purposes.” And that, “The institution will not engage in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of a major strategic partner of the United States.“

Another issue is eligibility for Title VI funds. Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end the following new sections: “Annual requirement for institutional eligibility.—Not later than July 31 of each calendar year beginning on or after the date of enactment of the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, an institution of higher education participating or applying to participate in any program under this title shall submit to the Secretary the certification required under subsection (b). An institution that does not submit such certification by July 31 of a calendar year shall be ineligible to receive any funds under this title in the first fiscal year that begins after such July 31, including any funds under this title that would otherwise have been available to the institution in such fiscal year for a grant awarded during a previous fiscal year.“ 

The Act includes a certification stating that “An institution shall certify to the Secretary that, for the period beginning on the date of such certification and ending on July 31 of the following year.” The institution will “permit students and faculty of the certifying institution to participate in academic programs, including conferences, teaching exchanges, cultural exchanges, study abroad programs, joint research, and other collaborative educational activities, in a major strategic partner… of the United States in the same manner, and under the same terms and conditions, as students and faculty of the institution are permitted to participate in academic programs in other foreign countries”; and “permit students and faculty of postsecondary educational institutions in such a major strategic partner to participate in academic programs offered by the certifying institution, including conferences, teaching exchanges, cultural exchanges, study abroad programs, joint research, and other collaborative educational activities, in the same manner, and under the same terms and conditions, as students and faculty of other foreign postsecondary educational institutions that are not in such a major strategic partner.“

Specifically stating, “It is the sense of Congress that limitations on cooperative efforts by institutions of higher education, consortia of such institutions, or partnerships between nonprofit educational organizations and institutions of higher education with a major strategic partner… of the United States do not serve the security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States.”  

The bill has been sent to the Senate for consideration, but the leadership has not yet set a date for the floor to debate or vote. The exact timeline and ultimate prospects in the Senate remain uncertain.  

Since 2002, Israel has been facing academic boycott attempts from pro-Palestinian / anti-Israel activists, a trend that has intensified after October 7, 2023.

But the proposed legislation extends beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At present, Jews—and their collective embodiment in the State of Israel—are among the most harshly targeted groups in this ideological campaign. But Jews may be the proverbial canary in the coal mine. The model developed to delegitimize Israel and subject it to BDS, and other forms of institutional exclusion, need not remain confined to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once such methods become accepted as legitimate instruments for advancing political causes, they can be applied to other countries, institutions, professions, corporations, and groups deemed ideologically unacceptable. What begins as a campaign against Israel can therefore establish a broader precedent for using academic, economic, and institutional power to punish those who fall outside an increasingly politicized consensus.

However, there is little evidence that the universities themselves are either able or willing to reverse this growing politicization. The question, therefore, is whether the government can simply stand aside while publicly supported institutions become increasingly politicized and while ideological campaigns acquire the authority of academic legitimacy. Government intervention should not aim at dictating what scholars may think or teach. Instead, it should ensure that universities remain committed to viewpoint diversity, intellectual freedom, and equal treatment. 

In this respect, legislation restricting institutional participation in the BDS campaign represents a step in the right direction—not because the government should determine the political conclusions universities or their faculty must reach, but because it can limit the use of public institutions and public resources to advance discriminatory political campaigns.

Approving the law will deal the BDS movement a serious blow.

Israel Academia Monitor will continue to provide updates on the issue. 

REFERENCES

US House passes bill stripping federal funds from universities that boycott Israel

US House passes bill stripping federal funds from universities that boycott Israel

The measure had the support of 203 Republicans, 33 Democrats and one Independent. But not all Jewish representatives voted in favor.

By Sharon Udasin September 3, 2026 6:46 pm

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved a bill that would prevent federal funds from going to academic institutions that participate in commercial boycotts of Israel.

The HR 4795 bill, co-sponsored by North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx and New Jersey Democrat Rep. Josh Gottheimer, passed in a 237 to 169 vote, with 203 Republicans, 33 Democrats and one Independent in favor. Whether Democrats will grant sufficient support to pass the legislation in the Senate remains unclear. 

If the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act goes on to become law, it would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require universities to refrain from “participating in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel” in order to remain qualified for certain funds. 

Expressive conduct is “symbolic speech” designed to relay a message, like picketing, marching, flag desecration and draft-card burnings. A 2022 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling deemed economic boycotts nonexpressive commercial conduct as opposed to independent expression. 

In addition to forbidding boycotts, the legislation also stipulates that institutions receiving such funds would need to “certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel.”

“This bill is an important step forward in ensuring academic freedom for all students,” Gottheimer, who is Jewish, said in a statement. “I will push the Senate to take up the bill shortly so it can become law.”

Foxx, meanwhile, stressed that the act “takes a strong stand against the BDS movement on college campuses across the nation,” referring to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign that aims to put economic pressure on Israel by barring the purchase of Israeli products and suspending trade agreements. 

“This legislation has true teeth and completely severs any possible taxpayer support of these concrete campaigns of antisemitism in the form of BDS and academic boycotts of Israel,” Foxx added.  

The Anti-Defamation League welcomed the bill’s passage on Thursday, deriding BDS activities as a tool used “to delegitimize Israel and demonize Jews and other students for their connection to the Jewish state.”

The Combat Antisemitism Movement, an interfaith advocacy group that aims to fight “Jew hatred,” echoed these sentiments. A Thursday statement from the coalition noted that ahead of the vote, the group had sent a letter to all U.S. House members conveying its support for the bill. 

“Academic boycotts of Israel harm American students and scholars, weaken vital U.S.-Israel research collaboration, and lend the credibility of American universities to a discriminatory campaign that singles out the only Jewish state,” the letter stated. 

Among the 32 Democrats to join Gottheimer in supporting the bill were many prominent Jewish lawmakers, such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lois Frankel and Jared Moskowitz of Florida; Greg Landsman of Ohio; Brad Schneider of Illinois; Eugene Vindman of Virginia and Kim Schrier of Washington. 

Yet not all Jewish legislators, even those who are against BDS, voted in favor of the bill. Ahead of the vote, Rep. Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, vowed in a statement that he would vote against the bill and urged his colleagues to do the same. 

While Nadler voiced his antipathy to BDS and acknowledged that proponents of the movement “can veer into antisemitism,” he stressed that “those who engage in BDS have a First Amendment right to do so.”

The liberal pro-Israel lobby J Street offered similar opposition, arguing that this bill would mean “infringing on constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom.” Noting a distinction between Israel proper and the West Bank, J Street stated that “penalizing universities for expressing their opposition to activities that further annexation sets a dangerous precedent.”

Nadler, meanwhile, described the measure as both “a direct and gross violation of the First Amendment” and “the latest assault by the Trump Administration” on the nation’s academic institutions. 

“No matter how much I may disagree with BDS, and find it strategically stupid and morally repugnant, I will always fight to protect Americans’ right to speech with which I disagree,” he added. “It is the only way to ensure speech I do agree with is equally protected.

================================================================================

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4795/text

Engrossed in House (09/03/2026)

119th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. R. 4795

---

AN ACT

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that Act, to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that Act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026”.

SEC. 2. Ineligibility of institutions of higher education participating in certain nonexpressive commercial boycotts.

Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(30) (A) The institution will not engage in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of a major strategic partner of the United States.

“(B) For purposes of this paragraph:

“(i) The term ‘major strategic partner’ means, with respect to the United States—

“(I) a country described in section 4 of Public Law 113–296; or

“(II) an entity licensed or regulated by, or organized under the laws of, such a country.

“(ii) The term ‘nonexpressive commercial boycott of a major strategic partner’—

“(I) means a commercial action (including engaging in refusals to deal and terminating business activities) that—

“(aa) is intended to limit commercial relations with a major strategic partner; and

“(bb) is not based on a valid business reason; and

“(II) does not include actions described in regulations issued to provide for the exceptions described in section 1773(a)(2) of the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4842(a)(2)).”.

SEC. 3. Eligibility for title VI funds.

Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new sections:

“SEC. 639. Institutional certifications.

“(a) Annual requirement for institutional eligibility.—Not later than July 31 of each calendar year beginning on or after the date of enactment of the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, an institution of higher education participating or applying to participate in any program under this title shall submit to the Secretary the certification required under subsection (b). An institution that does not submit such certification by July 31 of a calendar year shall be ineligible to receive any funds under this title in the first fiscal year that begins after such July 31, including any funds under this title that would otherwise have been available to the institution in such fiscal year for a grant awarded during a previous fiscal year.

“(b) Certification.—An institution shall certify to the Secretary that, for the period beginning on the date of such certification and ending on July 31 of the following year, the institution will—

“(1) permit students and faculty of the certifying institution to participate in academic programs, including conferences, teaching exchanges, cultural exchanges, study abroad programs, joint research, and other collaborative educational activities, in a major strategic partner (as defined in section 487(a)(30)) of the United States in the same manner, and under the same terms and conditions, as students and faculty of the institution are permitted to participate in academic programs in other foreign countries; and

“(2) permit students and faculty of postsecondary educational institutions in such a major strategic partner to participate in academic programs offered by the certifying institution, including conferences, teaching exchanges, cultural exchanges, study abroad programs, joint research, and other collaborative educational activities, in the same manner, and under the same terms and conditions, as students and faculty of other foreign postsecondary educational institutions that are not in such a major strategic partner.

“SEC. 639A. Sense of Congress.

“It is the sense of Congress that limitations on cooperative efforts by institutions of higher education, consortia of such institutions, or partnerships between nonprofit educational organizations and institutions of higher education with a major strategic partner (as defined in section 487(a)(30)) of the United States do not serve the security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States.”.

Passed the House of Representatives September 3, 2026.Attest:

Clerk.  

119th CONGRESS      2d SessionH. R. 4795

AN ACT

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that Act, to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that Act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel, and for other purposes.

02.09.26

Editorial Note

The Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology (ESC) brings together criminologists and professionals in related fields. It provides a platform for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers globally to discuss and share their work on various aspects of criminology, criminal justice, and related social sciences.

In 2026, the annual Eurocrim Conference, under the theme “Frontiers of Criminology,” will take place in Warsaw, Poland, on 9–12 September 2026.

A highly polarized activist campaign is targeting the ESC. The boycott calls are organized by the group Criminologists for Palestine, alongside broader Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) networks.

Boycott activists are calling for an academic boycott of the Conference due to the ESC’s refusal to sever ties with Israeli academic institutions, specifically targeting scholars affiliated with Ariel University (located in a West Bank settlement). The pressure began intensifying during the Eurocrim 2025 Conference in Athens, where local Greek institutions and student unions successfully pressured Panteion University to withdraw its local sponsorship of the event. When activists tried to force an official institutional boycott vote during the 2025 General Assembly, the ESC Executive Board blocked the motion.

The Boycott organizers argue that the ESC is “whitewashing” and “normalizing war crimes by failing to implement ethical due diligence or exclude complicit state-affiliated institutions.” Boycott organizers urged keynote speakers, panelists, and attendees to boycott the Eurocrim events. The ESC Executive Board maintains that institutional boycotts violate the Society’s constitution and its core mission of academic freedom. The board stated that the ESC does not exclude individual participants based on nationality, religion, or institutional affiliation, though they have condemned international human rights violations. 

However, despite all the friction, online petitions, and pushback from activist members, Eurocrim 2026 is moving forward. The ESC Board has engaged in membership consultations regarding its ethical policies, but has firmly rejected calls to cancel or institutionally restrict the upcoming event.

Still, Criminologists for Palestine recently published a statement on August 28, 2026, attacking the board and stating that in 2025, the board “subverted the democratic workings of the Society by preventing a vote on our Motion – which won overwhelming support at the general assembly – and instead chose to provide impunity to complicity in Israeli atrocity crimes. This controversial decision continues to reverberate today.”  

Criminologists for Palestine claims that the number of participants in this year’s Eurocrim has declined by hundreds. According to them, “This decrease in the number of participants illustrates the harm done by the ESC Board to the Society itself, and to the capacity of our discipline to critically and publicly engage in our scientific field of expertise more broadly. The events since the denial of a formal vote last September suggest that the ESC board has not changed its ways.” 

Criminologists for Palestine protest the fact that during the ESC Presidential Address, the President revealed traveling to Israel to attend a conference at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “To travel to a country currently committing a genocide, which the UN has observed takes place through ‘deliberately targeting Palestinian children’ is not a matter of balance. To visit an institute deeply embedded in the training soldiers, developing weapons, and silencing dissent towards such a genocide is sign of unwavering support. It is unfortunate that this bears repeating: opposition to a genocide and support to a genocide are not equal opinions that require balancing.”

Criminologists for Palestine declare they will continue to “advocate for a Society, and a Criminological discipline more broadly, that does not willfully ignore crime and harm when the perpetrators are in a position of power. We will continue to work to make use of the specific expertise found in our discipline to challenge the perpetrators of atrocity crimes and the structures that enable them.”

To recall, IAM reported on “‘Criminologists for Palestine’ Mounts Pressure on the European Society of Criminology to Boycott Israel” in January 2025, and earlier, in September 2024, IAM reported that “The European Society of Criminology Conference in Athens Targeted by BDS.” Our posts noted that the Conference topics were diverse, including panels on crimes committed during times of war, the psychological impact of the October 7 Hamas attack, and others. Many panels were critical of Israel. For example, a roundtable titled “Types of Offending/Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes” discussed how “Israel’s war on Gaza has continued unabated for many months, killing over 60,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom are women and children,” among others. 

However, a total of 16 Israeli academics took part in the Conference, of whom at least 7 were affiliated with Ariel University.

At the time, during the General Assembly, the ESC Board declared that an academic boycott of Israel was unconstitutional and could not be put to a vote. Yet, BDS activists were given a vast space to operate inside and outside the Conference halls. Israeli scholars were targeted by attempts to interrupt their presentations.

IAM noted that during the Conference, Criminologists for Palestine tried to push for a resolution to boycott Israel, without success. 

After the Conference, the Criminologists for Palestine held a conference titled “Criminological Perspectives on Palestine: Legal Responses and Academic Complicity in Times of Genocide,” in Ljubljana, stating that this conference “seeks to explore the ways in which criminologists can, and should, address state criminality; to consider how criminological scholarship may contribute critical analyses of violations committed by Israel in Palestine, including genocide; and to examine how the discipline might engage with ongoing debates concerning academic complicity and calls to boycott institutions implicated in such violations.”

In response to boycott calls, the ESC Executive Board (EB) published a report in January 2025, saying that the ESC “views this debate as a manifestation of a more general discussion about the role of social sciences. A considerable portion of our membership believes imposing a particular normative or moral perspective on scholarly activity is inherently unscientific, censorial and political; while another substantial contingent is uncomfortable with a criminology that does not proclaim and condemn injustices—not only within scientific discourse but also in the public domain. Social science is by nature pluralistic and thrives on controversy rather than consensus. The role of the EB, therefore, is not to serve as final arbiter in these debates, but rather to guide the Society through current events in a manner that allows both camps to continue feeling at home within the ESC.” 

The pressure mounted by Criminologists for Palestine included a petition titled “Petition Against Complicity,” urging, “The only possibility of legal compliance for the ESC is therefore to exclude participants willingly partaking in a war crime, including those from Ariel University.” 

IAM noted that an Israeli academic is a key activist with the group Criminologists for Palestine, pushing for BDS. His name is Dr. Lior Volinz, a researcher at the Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana. Volinz is a longtime anti-Israel activist.  As reported in 2006, at the age of 18, Volinz was a member of a group of persons refusing to enlist in the Israeli army. Dr. Ishai Menuchin, spokesperson for Yesh Gvul, a movement of army refusers, supported Volinz’s refusal to enlist in 2006. He said in an interview that he is convinced that 18-year-old Lior Volinz and his friend, who announced that they are refusing to enlist in the IDF, are heroes.

In 2019, Volinz was among the signatories of an “[Open Letter] Criticizing Israeli policy is not anti-Semitism!” Claiming “This is part of a broader trend of silencing voices critical of Israeli policy. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular, is often labeled antisemitic. This is a worrying development.”

In August 2025, Volinz participated in a conference where he spoke about “how Israel uses privatization and digitization of surveillance to deepen its occupation and control over the lives of Palestinians.”

At the upcoming Eurocrim 2026, the organizers expect over 2,200 participants. Only some eight presenters are from Israel, and none are from Ariel University – in striking contrast to last year. The Ariel boycott has taken effect.

Eurocrim 2026 is a typical example of the so-called “activist capture” of a large organization – where a dedicated group of anti-Israel advocates manages to marginalize Israeli scholars and, more to the point, misrepresent the terms of genocide, war crimes, and other concepts related to International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The same dynamics were at play when Israel was accused of all sorts of crimes, genocide, starving the population of Gaza, and bombing hospitals and residential facilities. In reality, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad had brought the disaster on the Palestinian population by embedding in public sites – hospitals, mosques, schools, and turning them into human shields. Such practices are IHL, but bound by its anti-Israel animus, the Association would never discuss Hamas’s crimes. The Conference exemplified the selective application of human-rights standards: egregious violations elsewhere are largely ignored, while Israel has been singled out for sustained condemnation.

Israel Academia Monitor will continue to report on this issue.

REFERENCES:

Criminologists for Palestine

Towards Eurocrim 2026

Statement by Criminologists for Palestine, 28.8.2026

Last year, the board of the European Society of Criminology (ESC) subverted the democratic workings of the Society by preventing a vote on our Motion – which won overwhelming support at the general assembly – and instead chose to provide impunity to complicity in Israeli atrocity crimes. This controversial decision continues to reverberate today.  The number of participants in this year’s Eurocrim – the major annual event of the Society – has declined by hundreds, far above seasonal variation. This is not coincidental. A large number of participants chose to boycott the Eurocrim conference in a sign of protest – and demand for change – after the board gave precedence to complicity in atrocity crimes over the democratic wishes of its membership. Many other criminologists do not plan to attend due to consternation, disappointment, and lack of trust in a board which denies its members their legal rights. This decrease in the number of participants illustrates the harm done by the ESC Board to the Society itself, and to the capacity of our discipline to critically and publicly engage in our scientific field of expertise more broadly. 

The events since the denial of a formal vote last September suggest that the ESC board has not changed its ways. In this spring, the Board has released a set of questions of its own writing to informally consult the membership. Among other questions, the board asked whether the Society should issue a statement on atrocity crimes committed in Gaza. The membership responded clearly in the positive. The Board then released a unilateral statement on Gaza, one that mentions Israelis only as victims and Palestinians only as perpetrators. Any mention of the atrocity crimes reported in Gaza, including genocide, is made without a culprit and without a victim. This is not what the membership voted for, and this is not what democracy looks like. 

At the same time, the ESC Presidential Address revealed that the ESC President has recently travelled to Israel to attend a conference at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. To travel to a country currently committing a genocide, which the UN has observed takes place through ‘deliberately targeting Palestinian children’ is not a matter of balance. To visit an institute deeply embedded in the training soldiers, developing weapons, and silencing dissent towards such a genocide is sign of unwavering support. It is unfortunate that this bears repeating: opposition to a genocide and support to a genocide are not equal opinions that require balancing. 

The Board of the ESC continues to block a democratic vote on the motion proposed by Criminologists for Palestine. The ESC secretary has recently asserted that the motion is unconstitutional since it calls for ‘exclusionary measures such as denying membership or conference participation on the basis of a person’s nationality or their link to a particular state, territory, or institution’. This is false. The motion does not target individuals, or calls for an exclusion of members. Instead, it calls upon members to follow the recommendations triggered by ICJ decision not to enter into institutional arrangements with institutions involved in atrocity crimes. This position has won overwhelming support among the 700 members of the ESC who attended the last general assembly.  

Criminologists for Palestine will continue to advocate for a Society, and a Criminological discipline more broadly, that does not willfully ignore crime and harm when the perpetrators are in a position of power. We will continue to work to make use of the specific expertise found in our discipline to challenge the perpetrators of atrocity crimes and the structures that enable them.

Response to the ESC’s Call for Vote – 30.1.2026

The Board of the European Society of Criminology has published, with a delay of many months, a set of questions to the ESC membership on the Society’s response to Israel’s atrocity crimes. This set of questions seeks to replace the democratic will of the ESC membership, including their right to vote on a motion against complicity in atrocity crimes – a motion that won overwhelming support at the ESC 2025 General Assembly. We acknowledge that the set of questions does put to a vote one of the motion’s demands – that the ESC makes a statement on Israel’s atrocity crimes. However, we are alarmed that this set of questions continues to prevent a vote on our main demand – that the ESC should call on members not to provide material support to academic institutions complicit in Israel’s crimes. We extend further on the violations of members’ rights by the ESC Board at the end of this statement.

We call on ESC members to vote on the questions posed by the ESC Board while continuing to act for the ESC to fullfil its democratic mission by enabling a vote on complicity in atrocity crimes. We support colleagues who choose to boycott the ESC, who publish on the topic, who organize activities on complicity at ESC events and who convey their concerns to the ESC Board.

We call on ESC members to vote, using their personal invitation link, as following:

Section A:
1a. Yes (for the ESC to issue statements on atrocity crimes in Europe)
1b. Yes (for the ESC to issue statements on atrocity crimes outside Europe)
1c. Yes (for the ESC to issue statements on atrocity crimes committed by Israel in Gaza)
2. Yes (for the ESC to correctly register conference participants from illegal Israeli institutions based in the Occupied Palestinian territories).

Why we believe the ESC Board continues to provide impunity to complicity in Israeli atrocity crimes

1. The European Society of Criminology is a Society of its members; the Executive Board is appointed to execute the will of the membership, represented under Swiss law by the General Assembly. To deny a vote on an agenda item placed in front of the membership, to which overwhelming support was shown, is a subversion of the democratic workings of the Society. This violation has been post-factum explained by the Board’s recent request for a ‘legal opinion’: however, the Board continues to block information on the content of the legal advice it sought on the Society’s expense, whom it was sought from, or what were the parameters of its request. Specifically, the continuous choice to prevent the membership from exercising their right to a vote on the Motion’s central demand – accountability for the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in atrocity crimes – is a violation of the rights of the membership. No legal reasoning was given to explain this violation; instead, the Board falsely claims that our motion targets individual scholars. To make it clear – for the ESC to call on its members not to provide material support for legal entities found by UNHRC to be complicit in grave atrocity crimes is matter of compliance with international law, not an unconstitutional act nor a violation of academic freedom.
   
   The ESC Board subversion of the democratic workings of the Society is not unique to the ESC. It is a part of a wider assault on academic freedom, centred in Trump’s America where a number of scholarly associations similarly blocked a democratic vote on Israel’s atrocity crimes.
2. We are appalled by the message of the ESC President, a message that opposes action on complicity in atrocity crimes and decrying our work for accountability and transparency as a violation of academic freedom. We do not agree with this assertion: we believe that as a discipline studying crime we are professionally and morally obliged to address atrocity crimes, and speak publicly even when those crimes are supported, facilitated, funded or tolerated through silence by European governments and institutions. The message by the ESC President further asserts that the true victims are Israeli scholars, who are confronted with legitimate discussions on the role of their institutions in advancing atrocity crimes. In this discussion there is no space foreseen to our Palestinian colleagues, whose universities have been bombed to rubble by Israeli forces; whose families have been killed, maimed, tortured or held in illegal detention; or who’ve lost their livelihood for speaking out on Israel’s crimes. The choice of words by prof. Anna-Maria Getoš Kalac is significant in explaining not only her own, but also the ESC Board lack of moral order and its continuous support for normalization of and complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes.
   
   Criminologists for Palestine, 30.1.2026
   —————————

---

What happened at the Eurocrim 2025 conference in Athens? The issue of the response by the European Society of Criminology (ESC) to the genocide and atrocity crimes in Palestine overshadowed the annual conference. Our motion won overwhelming support, but the ESC Board denied the membership a democratic vote. Read our full report here.

Vote of support for Criminologists for Palestine’s motion, ESC General Assembly 2025

---

Motion of the European Society of Criminology concerning collaborations with Israeli academic institutions in light of the ongoing genocide committed by Israel in Gaza and other systematic human rights violations in Palestine

Considering that the European Society of Criminology has on numerous occasions manifested its commitment to academic freedom and human rights;

Considering that international intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, have documented and verified Israel’s systematic annexation and colonization of Palestinian territories, massive violations of the human rights of Palestinians, including the right to self-determination,  a 18-year blockade of the Gaza strip, segregationist and discriminating policies and laws, the ongoing massacres and deliberate starvation of civilians in Gaza which all major international, Palestinian and Israeli human rights organisations consider a genocide, and the International Court of Justice consider plausible a genocide; and the International Criminal Court Prosecutor acknowledges Israel’s responsibility in war crimes and crimes against humanity; and the International Court of Justice ruling that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal, amounts to annexation and violates the prohibition against apartheid;

considering the systematic violations reported, which include the relentless killing of teachers, students, researchers, journalists, and cultural workers, and its systematic destruction of schools, universities, libraries, archives, heritage sites, and cultural institutions, which effectively have obliterated the entire sector of education and research in Gaza, also characterized as ‘scholasticide’; 

Considering that these systematic violations also include restricting freedom of movement for Palestinians; isolating, undermining, or otherwise attacking Palestinian educational institutions; harassing Palestinian professors, teachers, and students; harassing Israeli professors and students criticizing Israeli policies; destroying, confiscating, or otherwise rendering Palestinian archival material inaccessible; and maintaining inequality in educational resources between Palestinians and Israelis; 

Considering that Israeli academic institutions are reported to be imbricated in these systematic violations through their provision of direct assistance to the Israeli military and intelligence establishments, that they (among others – Technion, Hebrew University, Ben Gurion University, Tel Aviv University) are reported to hold joint programs with arms industries,  and conduct specialized training program for soldiers; and that some Israeli academic institutions are located in the Occupied Palestinian territories,  in violation of international law;

Considering that European governments and public institutions have systematically shielded successive Israeli governments from being held accountable for the aforementioned violations and facilitated them through unprecedented diplomatic, military, and economic support; and considering that complicit Israeli academic institutions continue to enjoy access to European Union research funds and resources;

Considering that in order for UN member states to meet their obligations as triggered by the International Court of Justice ruling, they must “[c]ancel or suspend economic relationships, trade agreements and academic relations with Israel that may contribute to its unlawful presence and apartheid regime in the occupied Palestinian territory”;

Considering that the European Society of Criminology is committed to academic freedom, including by continuing to welcome to its conferences and any activities all scholars, irrespective of their nationality or background, who accept the values the Society ascribes to, as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and other key Council of Europe Conventions and Recommendations; and that the need for immediate action using peaceful means has never been greater; be it

Resolved, that the ESC:

1. Does not and will not collaborate with complicit Israeli institutions, as identified by the UN HRC, UN OHCHR, or other relevant UN bodies, until Israel complies with International Law and International Humanitarian Law; does not publicise, promote, or encourage such collaborations or any related activities.
   
2. Calls on ESC members not to enter into institutional arrangements, e.g. through common research projects and grants, with such complicit Israeli academic institutions, until Israel complies with International Law and International Humanitarian Law.
   
3. Recognizes and condemns the genocidal acts committed by Israel in Gaza, and the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel in all parts of Palestine, as found by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s office.
   
4. Supports the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court in tackling, without fear of retaliation, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and the work of all human rights organisations and of researchers to uncover, examine and report these crimes, and resists any attempts to stigmatise or silence staff and students at European universities engaged in research, speech, and actions on Palestine.
   
5. Builds academic links with Palestinian universities and academics; speaks out against the destruction of the educational sector and restrictions on academic freedom in Palestine; demand an end to limitations on travel, research, and expression for Palestinian scholars and students; advocates for the removal of barriers, such as checkpoints and travel restrictions, that impede academics’ and students’ ability to attend classes, participate in research, and engage in academic activities.
   
6. Directs the ESC Executive Board to work to give effect to the spirit and intent of this motion, including through the publication of implementation guidelines, in a manner consistent with ESC’s bylaws as well as the relevant national laws.

==============================================================

Disproportionate Killings of Civilians in the Gaza Genocide: The Rules of Engagement, Artificial Intelligence, and the Disregard for the Principle of Proportionality

Thu, September 10, 3:45 to 5:00pm, Faculty of Applied Languages – 55 Dobra Street., Floor: 3, Room 3.150

Abstract

This paper examines the normalization of disproportionate killings of civilians as an integral part of genocidal violence in Gaza. Based on Israeli government statements, news media reports, and UN reports, it provides an interpretive analysis of the various elements of the target selection process – for example, the use of over-broad rules of engagement, the employment of artificial intelligence (AI) for determining alleged military targets, and the reinterpretation of key aspects of proportionality assessments – to demonstrate how the Israeli military deliberately disregarded the principle of proportionality, thus enabling disproportionate violence against Palestinian civilians.
The paper is divided into two parts. First, it discusses how the use of an AI-based tool that was unable to see all civilians trapped on the battlefield resulted in an inability to determine “expected civilian losses,” a key element of proportionality assessments. Second, the paper examines how the Israeli military reinterpreted key aspects of proportionality assessments to ignore the constraints of the proportionality rule. For example, the military adopted various civilian fatality cut-off values in proportionality assessments, thereby quantifying civilian losses. Additionally, the military used an overly broad definition of “military advantage,” which led to a misinterpretation of the proportionality rule.
The paper demonstrates how the Israeli military deliberately created conditions for disproportionate killings of civilians, thus enabling genocidal violence in Gaza. The human-machine assemblage in the target selection process significantly expanded the scope of the unlawful use of armed force and decreased the protection of civilians.

Author: Vasja Badalič, Institute of Criminology

Anti-Semitism and Criticism of Israel’s Policy – Empirical Insights into Differences and Overlaps

Sat, September 12, 9:00 to 10:15am, Faculty of Applied Languages – 55 Dobra Street., Floor: 2, Room 2.136

Abstract

In light of developments in the Middle-East, particularly escalting military conflicts in Gaza, Libanon and Iran a nationally representative survey was conducted in spring 2025, involving approximately 4 000 adult residents of Germany. The survey explored their attitudes towards the policies of the State of Israel, as well as the prevalence of various forms of anti-Semitic sentiment. Specifically, it examined the extent to which: (a) traditional, prejudice-driven anti-Semitism directed against Jews can be distinguished from (b) anti-Semitism that is associated with Israel’s policies but also directed at Jews more broadly, and (c) critique of Israeli policies, which is non-anti-Semitic in nature. Employing latent class analysis, the study aims to identify whether distinct patterns of these attitudes can be discerned. The characterised groups are described based on their core attributes and analysed with regard to potential factors of differentiation.

Authors

Peter Wetzels, Universität Hamburg

Katrin Brettfeld, Universität Hamburg

Janosch Kleinschnittger, Universität Hamburg

26.08.26

Editorial Note

The Olam, launched in May 2026 by Ronn Torossian, a veteran digital entrepreneur, is a new publication focused on Israel, Jewish affairs, and the global Jewish economic community. It published two new studies recently.

The first is on US university faculty in Jewish Studies, Israel Studies, Hebrew language, and Holocaust and Genocide Studies. The results, summarized in an article in the Jerusalem Post (JP), stated that “over half of the faculty records linked to anti-Israel positions.”  

The Olam analyzed 2,499 faculty members and institutional entries across 313 American universities, cross-referencing names and program listings against nine documented public petitions spanning from May 2021 through spring 2026. The audit alleges that 1,298 of the analyzed entries, or 51.9%, featured documented anti-Israel public positions as defined by the study’s criteria.  Among the scholars who identified as teaching subjects in Jewish, Israel, Hebrew, or Holocaust studies, the audit found that 401 out of 1,014, or 39.5%, held such positions. It noted high numbers at Ivy League universities, where 72.3 percent of audited faculty records have documented anti-Israel positions. The study classified an anti-Israel stance based on public actions of groups such as Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) or Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), alongside petitions that endorsed academic boycotts, characterized Zionism as “settler colonialism,” labeled Israel an apartheid state, or defined its military actions as genocide. 

The Olam researchers excluded mainstream political criticisms – such as opposing specific government policies, advocating for a two-state solution, or demanding accountability for civilian casualties – that reflect ongoing debates within Israeli society itself. 

The study’s methodology involved compiling rosters from publicly available university websites between July and August 2026, including every institutional member program of the Association for Jewish Studies and every US center or chair listed by the Association for Israel Studies. The Olam researchers said that they matched faculty names to petition signatories using university affiliation, department, academic title, and full name.

The Olam acknowledged limitations, noting that their audit captured only publicly available positions and did not account for faculty who may have held private views.

The report emphasized that these professors were “hired to teach the next generation about Judaism, the Hebrew language, the State of Israel, and the history of the Holocaust.” It argued that the documented positions fell outside the consensus of mainstream Zionism. The audit also identified 14 holders of endowed chairs, positions funded by donors intended to strengthen Jewish scholarship. 

The evaluated petitions also encompassed broader advocacy activities including protests against administrative discipline targeting pro-Palestinian organizers and pushback against the alleged weaponization of antisemitism. The Olam also noted a significant escalation in petition activity. For example, the March 2025 “Not in Our Name” petition, initiated by Boston area Jewish faculty and staff to protest campus crackdowns and the alleged weaponization of antisemitism, garnered over 3,450 academic signatures.

The second audit conducted by The Olam, and reported by JP, was titled “Half of faculty at Israeli universities signed petitions accusing IDF of Gaza war crimes – study,” and was published on August 23, 2026. This report examined political petition endorsements among 2,844 faculty across eight Israeli universities. The analysis found that 1,434 faculty, representing 50.4% of those included in the study, publicly signed at least one petition calling the Israeli army’s Gaza campaign following the October 7 massacre – a war crime. The study covered universities such as the Technion, Hebrew University (HUJ), the Weizmann Institute, the Open University, Tel Aviv University (TAU), Ben-Gurion University (BGU), the University of Haifa, and Bar-Ilan University. 

According to their findings, the signatures were taken from a document issued by the Black Flag Action Group (BFAG) on May 31, 2025. Titled “An Urgent Call to the Heads of Academia in Israel,” it was signed by more than 1400 signatures. The document described the military campaign in Gaza as “a horrifying litany of war crimes and even crimes against humanity.” It urged the Association of University Heads in Israel (VERA) to mobilize Israeli academia to stop the war.  BFAG held various meetings on the issue.

This study noted that the vast majority of faculty signed only once, with just 18 individuals across the dataset signing multiple petitions.

The study finds that Israeli humanities professors are at least three times more likely to sign Gaza war crimes petitions. Humanities faculty members were roughly three and a half to five times more likely to sign than their colleagues in STEM fields. Middle Eastern studies faculty signed at an 82% rate, sociology at 70%, philosophy at 66%, and political science at 59%, compared with lower engagement in fields such as physics at 27%, chemistry at 23%, biology at 19%, and engineering at 15%.

Israel Academia Monitor (IAM) has been following anti-Israel Israeli and Jewish activist faculty for over two decades. The vast majority of individuals and groups identified by IAM teach in Middle East Studies, political science, sociology/anthropology, etc.  The Olam study is much more sobering. As Torossian pointed out, many departments and faculty were endowed by Jewish donors who sought to strengthen Jewish scholarship, Jewish education, and the connection between American Jewry and Israel. But the findings indicate a profound disconnect between the philanthropic purposes for which Jewish Studies programs were created and the political positions adopted by some of their faculty.

For Torossian, documenting this disconnect is only the first step; the larger challenge is to consider what Jewish donors and institutions can do to address this problem.

REFERENCES:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-906348

Half of faculty at Israeli universities signed petitions accusing IDF of Gaza war crimes – study

According to the report, 96.9% of the identified signatures traced back to a single document issued by the Black Flag initiative in May 2025.

ByALEX CARSONAUGUST 23, 2026 19:20Updated: AUGUST 23, 2026 19:37

A new report published by research and business-intelligence outlet The Olam on August 17 examined political petition participation among 2,844 faculty members across eight leading Israeli universities. The audit found that 1,434 faculty members, representing 50.4% of those included in the study, publicly signed at least one political petition calling the Gaza campaign launched following the October 7 massacre a war crime.

The study covered universities such as the Haifa Technion, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HU), the Weizmann Institute, the Open University, Tel Aviv University (TAU), Ben-Gurion University (BGU), the University of Haifa, and Bar-Ilan University. Researchers cross-referenced public rosters of political petitions circulated between 2024 and 2026 with official university faculty directories.

According to the report, 96.9% of the identified signatures traced back to a single document issued by the Black Flag initiative in May 2025.

Titled “An Urgent Call to the Heads of Academia in Israel,” the letter explicitly described the military campaign in Gaza as “a horrifying litany of war crimes and even crimes against humanity,” and urged the Association of University Heads in Israel and other academic leaders to mobilize the full weight of Israeli academia to stop the war.

The researchers noted that the numbers were driven by widespread single-issue participation rather than a small cadre of habitual activists, pointing out that the vast majority of participating faculty signed only once, with just 18 individuals across the dataset signing multiple petitions.

Participation rates varied notably across institutions, highlighting how institutional character shapes faculty activism. At the Technion, 77% of audited faculty signed, and HU recorded 67%, while Bar-Ilan sat at the opposite end of the spectrum with a 30% signing rate.

Study finds that Israeli humanities professors at least three times more likely to sign Gaza war crimes petitions

The findings also underscored a structural divide between academic disciplines. Humanities faculty members were roughly three and a half to five times more likely to sign than their colleagues in STEM fields. Middle Eastern studies faculty signed at an 82% rate, sociology at 70%, philosophy at 66%, and political science at 59%, compared with lower engagement in fields such as physics at 27%, chemistry at 23%, biology at 19%, and engineering at 15%.

The Olam noted several methodological limitations, stating that petition-signing does not directly establish an individual’s broader political ideology, and that the sample of eight universities likely does not capture the entirety of Israeli academia.

The researchers placed these findings in a broader comparative context by looking at a previous study they conducted on American academia.

That earlier audit examined 2,499 American Jewish Studies faculty members across 313 US universities and found that 51.9% of them had publicly signed political petitions targeting Israel, such as calls to sever institutional ties with Israeli academic centers, endorse academic boycotts, or condemn Israeli military policies. By comparing the two datasets, the authors noted that elite American academia and flagship Israeli universities exhibited nearly identical overall rates of public political petitioning.

Ronn Torossian, publisher of The Olam, said in a statement, “These are not fringe figures – these are core faculties at Israel’s flagship research universities, during a war that began with the single deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Parents sending their children to study at these institutions, donors writing checks, and the boards of governors who set policy for them are entitled to know exactly what they’re funding. Now they can.”

Torossian told The Jerusalem Post that “after completing studies on both American and Israeli academia, students seeking Zionist and pro-Jewish values should thoroughly explore enrolling at institutions which don’t permit views opposed to their worldview,” noting that “in both Israel and the US, there are entire schools and departments which have been completely infected with radical extreme viewpoints.”

Torossian commented on the report, saying, “What is extraordinary about this study is the sheer scale of professors in Israel who operate well outside the country’s political mainstream and Zionist consensus. There is not a single major Israeli political party that would endorse the positions represented in these petitions.”

Torossian added that “when political activism reaches this level inside institutions entrusted with scholarship and intellectual independence, Israelis, parents, students and donors have every right to ask difficult questions.”

‘How deeply anti-Israel have these institutions become?’ researcher asks

“Do Israel’s universities reflect the society whose taxpayers and philanthropists sustain them? How deeply anti-Israel have these institutions become?” He asked, warning: “The concentration of this political activism is bewildering. Israeli universities should not be places where radical viewpoints become the mainstream. It is alarming to see how deeply entrenched these extreme viewpoints appear to be in academia.”

He urged “donors to the Technion, Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, and other Israeli universities to demand answers from university leadership and ask what these institutions are doing to protect Zionist interests and values.”

“Donors have every right to ask whether the institutions they support remain places of genuine intellectual pluralism. The numbers make that question impossible to ignore,” Torossian said.

============================================================

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-906022

Over half of US Jewish studies faculty records linked to anti-Israel positions

The study was conducted by the Olam, an institutional intelligence platform for Israel and the global Jewish economy, and published in early August.

ByALEX CARSONAUGUST 19, 2026 18:32Updated: AUGUST 19, 2026 19:54

A new national faculty audit claimed that over 50 percent of audited university faculty members and related program files in Jewish Studies, Israel Studies, Hebrew language, and Holocaust and Genocide Studies were associated with documented anti-Israel public positions.

The study was conducted by The Olam, an institutional intelligence platform for Israel and the global Jewish economy, and published in early August. According to the report, the research analyzed 2,499 faculty members and institutional entries across 313 American universities, cross-referencing names and program listings against nine documented public petition campaigns and organizational records spanning from May 2021 through the spring of 2026.

Introducing the scope of the project, Ronn Torossian, publisher of The Olam, told The Jerusalem Post that the audit represents “the largest audit ever undertaken of Jewish Studies and Israel Studies faculties in the United States,” and said the report reveals that “more than half the professors in America teaching about Judaism, the Hebrew language, the State of Israel, and the history of the Holocaust have publicly positioned themselves against the Jewish state.”

Audit finds anti-Israel positions among faculty records

The research alleged that 1,298 of the analyzed entries, or 51.9%, featured documented anti-Israel public positions as defined by the study’s criteria. Among individual educators specifically identified as teaching in the relevant fields of Jewish, Israel, Hebrew, or Holocaust studies, the audit claimed that 401 out of 1,014, or 39.5%, held such positions

It reported particularly high concentrations at Ivy League universities, where Torossian noted that “72.3 percent of audited faculty records have documented anti-Israel positions.”

To establish these metrics, the study classified an anti-Israel stance based on specific public actions, such as leadership roles in groups like Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) or Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), alongside signing petitions that endorsed academic boycotts, characterized Zionism as “settler colonialism,” labeled Israel an apartheid state, or defined its military actions as genocide.

The researchers noted that they deliberately excluded mainstream political criticisms – such as opposing specific government policies, advocating for a two-state solution, or demanding accountability for civilian casualties – that reflect ongoing debates within Israeli society itself.

“These professors are the people hired to teach the next generation about Judaism, the Hebrew language, the State of Israel, and the history of the Holocaust,” the report stated, arguing that the documented positions fell outside the consensus of mainstream Zionism.

Endowed chairs appear among petition signatories

The audit identified 14 holders of endowed chairs, positions funded by donors often intended to strengthen Jewish scholarship, who appeared among the signatories of these examined campaigns. Highlighting this aspect, Torossian pointed out that “14 endowed chairs – positions funded by Jewish philanthropists specifically to strengthen Jewish scholarship – are held by faculty openly opposed to Israel,” adding that donors established these funds to strengthen Jewish education. “Instead, many now fund scholars who describe Zionism as ‘settler colonialism,’ endorse academic boycotts of Israeli universities, and use language like ‘Jewish supremacy’ to describe the Jewish state.”

Beyond academic boycotts and political definitions, the evaluated petitions also encompassed broader advocacy, including protests against administrative discipline targeting pro-Palestinian organizers and pushback against the alleged weaponization of antisemitism claims

Furthermore, the report noted a significant escalation in petition activity. The March 2025 “Not in Our Name” letter, initiated by New England faculty and staff to protest campus crackdowns and the alleged weaponization of antisemitism claims, gathered over 3,400 academic signatures, becoming the largest single petition in the documented record.

How the faculty audit was conducted

The study’s methodology involved compiling rosters from publicly available university websites between July and August 2026, including every institutional member program of the Association for Jewish Studies and every US center or chair listed by the Association for Israel Studies. The researchers said that they matched faculty names to petition signatories using university affiliation, department, academic title, and full name.

They acknowledged limitations, noting that their audit captured only publicly available positions and did not account for faculty who may have held private views, nor did it capture Hebrew language instructors, who, they said, rarely signed political letters.

Addressing the implications of the data, Torossian said, “The question before Jewish families, donors, and institutional leaders is straightforward: Will we demand transparency about who teaches these subjects and what they publicly believe? Will endowments established to strengthen Jewish education actually accomplish that mission? The Olam created this study to answer these questions with data. The findings are now public. What institutions, families, and donors choose to do with this information is their decision.”

==================================================

https://ronntorossian.medium.com/why-i-built-the-olam-for-the-ai-answer-era-a95105a6879a

Why I Built The Olam for the AI Answer Era 

Ronn Torossian 

Jun 22, 2026

Two decades in communications. Two best-selling editions of For Immediate Release. Guest lectures on crisis at Harvard. A lot of time studying how institutions get remembered — and how they disappear. The pattern I kept seeing: the institutions that survive disruption are the ones that control the authoritative source. The ones that don’t lose the narrative — slowly at first, then all at once.

In 2026, the authoritative source isn’t a newspaper. It’s what ChatGPT returns when someone asks the question that should belong to you.

The gap in the data

The global Jewish business economy is one of the least-mapped commercial networks on earth — despite its scale, capital density, and influence. An estimated $9 trillion in annual activity: Israeli defense exports, sovereign capital flows, family offices relocating, venture infrastructure, AI companies going public on NASDAQ. (That estimate covers Jewish-owned, Israeli-linked, and diaspora-connected business activity across public companies, private capital, real estate, defense, venture, and family offices.)

And it was effectively invisible inside the AI engines that now answer the world’s questions.

We documented this across three separate Everything-PR research projects. The Israel AI Visibility Index 2026 found Israel ranking first globally in AI usage intensity — meaning the people most active in this economy are doing first-pass research inside ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and Google AI Overviews more than almost anywhere else. The Israeli-Jewish Media AI Visibility Study found that English-language retrieval for this category concentrates inside just three general newsrooms.

The goal is not advocacy. The goal is retrievability: making a fragmented economy legible to the systems now shaping institutional research.

What the classroom taught me

When I lectured on crisis communications at Harvard, the question I kept returning to: who defines you when you’re not in the room?

In a crisis, it’s the reporter who got there first. In a market, it’s the publication that established the record before you did. In 2026, it’s the AI engine — and whatever source it retrieves when someone asks the question that should have been yours.

The global Jewish business economy had no one in the room. No institutional English-language publisher building the knowledge base, naming the entities, producing the data products that turn a category into a retrievable fact base.

So we built it

That’s The Olam. A Financial Times-style institutional layer for a category that has never had one — built from the first commit for AI engine retrieval. Pillars, not posts. An entity index that routes every company and regulator to a canonical page. Data products built to be cited: the Israeli Brand AI-Visibility Index, the Israeli Defense Export Index, the Global Jewish Venture Capital Map.

Six months from now, when someone asks an AI engine about Israeli sovereign capital — I want The Olam to be the answer.

Ronn Torossian writes about communications, AI visibility, reputation, and retrieval-first publishing. He is the founder and chairman of 5W AI Communications, the AI Communications Firm, and publisher of Everything-PR and The Olam. Author of two best-selling editions of For Immediate Release.

*******

About Ronn Torossian: PR advisor. Founder & Chairman, 5WPR. Entrepreneur. CNBC contributor, Forbes contributor. Author, “For Immediate Release.” Investor.

======================================

https://olam.business/who-teaches-judaism-in-america-full-audit

Half of US Jewish Studies Faculty Have Stood Against Israel

Ronn Torossian

Publisher · The Olam

Aug 3, 2026

1,298 of 2,499 professors teaching Judaism, Israel Studies, and Hebrew in America have signed petitions against Israel since 2021.

OLAM RESEARCH · THE FACULTY AUDIT

This audit was covered by The Jerusalem Post (“Audit finds anti-Israel positions across US Jewish, Israel studies programs,” August 19, 2026) and JNS (“More than half of professors teaching on Judaism, Israel at US colleges attack Jewish state publicly,” August 4, 2026).

How Many Faculty Have Documented Anti-Israel Positions?

This study examined 2,499 faculty and institutional records across Jewish Studies, Israel Studies, Hebrew language, and Holocaust and Genocide Studies programs at American universities. Jewish Studies is also commonly called Judaic Studies; this audit treats the two terms as interchangeable throughout. Each record was cross-referenced against nine publicly documented petition campaigns, organizational membership records, and documented public statements spanning from May 2021 through Spring 2026.

The study found:

1. 1,298 records, 51.9 percent of the total audited, have documented anti-Israel public positions as defined by this study’s methodology.

2. Among 1,014 faculty specifically identified as teaching in Jewish Studies, Israel Studies, Hebrew, or Holocaust Studies, 401, or 39.5 percent, have documented positions.

3. At Ivy League universities, 240 of 332 records, 72.3 percent, are on the record against Israel.

4. Every Ivy League university has multiple faculty members meeting the study criteria. Columbia leads with 41, followed by Princeton (35), Yale (30), Brown (27), Penn (19), Harvard (18), Cornell (13), and Dartmouth (multiple).

5. Fourteen holders of endowed chairs, positions funded by donors who intended to strengthen Jewish scholarship, appear among the signatories.

6. The petition activity is accelerating. The March 2025 “Not in Our Name” letter has gathered 3,400+ signatures, making it the largest single petition in the documented record. Each successive campaign has been larger than the last.

Companion study: Olam ran the same audit on Israeli faculty. 50% of Israeli Professors Signed a Letter Calling Gaza a War Crime found a nearly identical 50.4% participation rate across eight Israeli universities, despite covering a different country and a narrower petition set.

Why Does This Audit Matter for Jewish Families?

The professors audited in this study are the people hired to teach the next generation about Judaism, the Hebrew language, the State of Israel, and the history of the Holocaust. Their public positions on Israel shape the scholarly environment in which Jewish students study their own civilization.

On the core questions at issue, the legitimacy of Zionism, the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, the use of economic boycotts against Israeli academic institutions, the positions documented in this study are not held by any mainstream political party in Israel. Those who call Zionism “settler colonialism,” endorse academic boycotts of Israeli universities, or use the phrase “Jewish supremacy” to describe the Jewish state are well outside the consensus of mainstream Zionism.

Which Programs and Universities Were Audited?

Jewish Studies, Israel Studies, Hebrew language instruction, and Holocaust and Genocide Studies are taught across hundreds of American universities. The field is anchored by professional associations, endowed chairs, and dedicated centers at the country’s most prestigious research universities.

The 2,499 records audited in this study exceed the estimated faculty universe because the database includes multiple categories: named faculty in dedicated Jewish Studies programs, faculty in adjacent departments who signed the petitions documented in this study, institutional-level entries representing programs where individual names could not be confirmed, FSJP chapter-level entries, and petition-level aggregate records. These broader entries are included as scope indicators and are identified as such in the database.

This audit covers American faculty. For the parallel data on Israeli faculty, see Olam’s discipline breakdown of Israeli faculty petition participation, which found Middle Eastern Studies professors signing at 82% versus 15% in Engineering.

How Were Faculty Records Identified and Verified?

How Were Faculty Rosters Compiled?

Faculty rosters were compiled from publicly available university websites during July and August 2026. Sources included every institutional member program of the Association for Jewish Studies (70+), every US center and chair listed by the Association for Israel Studies (~30), and additional degree-granting programs identified through College Factual, IPEDS, and university academic catalogs.

Individual faculty names, academic titles, departmental affiliations, and institutional roles were recorded. The study includes tenured and tenure-track faculty, clinical and visiting professors, professors emeriti, senior lecturers, and postdoctoral fellows. Graduate students are excluded unless they hold a formal teaching appointment. Joint appointments are counted once at their primary institution. Faculty who have moved between institutions are listed at their most recent confirmed institution.

What Counts as a Documented Anti-Israel Position?

A faculty member is classified as having a documented anti-Israel public position if they have performed one or more of the actions listed below. Every position is publicly verifiable, based on open-source records, and documented with the specific petition, letter, or statement signed.

Included in the classification:

Endorsing the academic boycott of Israeli institutions. Describing Israel as an apartheid state in a signed petition or public statement. Describing Zionism as settler colonialism in a signed petition or public statement. Signing petitions that characterize Israel’s military conduct as genocide. Calling for the end of all US military aid to Israel. Leadership or membership in FSJP. Leadership or membership in JVP. Signing the May 2021 “Statement on Israel/Palestine by Scholars of Jewish Studies and Israel Studies.” Signing any AcademicsForPeace petition (August 2023 through March 2024). Signing the Jewish Studies Ceasefire Letter (October 2023). Signing the “Not in Our Name” letter (March 2025). Other publicly documented statements meeting the above criteria.

Not included in the classification:

Supporting Palestinian human rights within the framework of Israel’s continued existence. Supporting a two-state solution. Criticizing specific Israeli government policies. Criticizing the current Israeli prime minister. Opposing settlement expansion. Criticizing IDF conduct in specific operations. Calling for accountability regarding civilian casualties. These positions have robust representation in Israeli politics and civil society and are not classified as anti-Israel in this study.

How Were Petition Signatures Verified?

Each faculty member was matched to petition signatories using university affiliation, department, academic title, and full name as listed on the petition. Where multiple individuals shared a name, institutional affiliation was used to confirm identity. Signatory lists were accessed directly from their publicly available sources: the AcademicsForPeace website, the “Not in Our Name” Google Document, the May 2021 declaration website, and published reporting on other campaigns.

What Are the Study’s Limitations?

This study documents publicly available positions only. Faculty who hold private views but have not signed public letters or joined public organizations are not captured. Absence from any signatory list does not indicate a pro-Israel position. FSJP membership lists are not fully public. Hebrew language instructors rarely sign political letters and are underrepresented. The “Not in Our Name” letter includes students and staff alongside faculty; this study extracted faculty signatories only.

Which Nine Petitions Drove the Faculty Signatures?

Campaign	Date	Total Signatories	DB Records
May 2021 JS/IS Declaration	May 2021	~100 JS/IS faculty	298
Palestine and Praxis	May 2021	7,500+ academics	Sampled
AcademicsForPeace (4 petitions)	Aug 2023-Mar 2024	700-1,300+ each	586
JS Ceasefire Letter	Oct 2023	100+	27
240 Scholars BDS Letter	Various	240+	Sampled
60 Holocaust Scholars Letter	Dec 2023	60	Sampled
1,200 Jewish Professors vs IHRA	May 2024	1,200+	Sampled
“Not in Our Name”	March 2025	3,400+	242
U Michigan Jewish Faculty Letter	March 2025	297	Sampled

What Did the May 2021 Declaration Say?

Published on a dedicated website and explicitly authored by self-identified scholars of Jewish Studies and Israel Studies. The statement characterized the Zionist movement as “shaped by settler colonial paradigms.” It stated that Zionism and the State of Israel have contributed to “unjust, enduring, and unsustainable systems of Jewish supremacy, ethnonational segregation, discrimination, and violence against Palestinians.” It endorsed “boycott or other organized economic pressure on Israel” as a legitimate form of faculty protest.

Who Signed the AcademicsForPeace Petitions?

Four petitions, each gathering 700 to 1,300+ signatures. The March 2024 petition, titled “Genocide Is Plausible; Stop Arms to Israel,” was authored by Lior Sternfeld, Associate Professor of History and Jewish Studies at Penn State University. Signatories included two Nobel laureates, multiple National Jewish Book Award winners, Guggenheim Fellows, and MacArthur Fellows.

What Is the “Not in Our Name” Letter?

Drafted by Concerned Jewish Faculty & Staff, Boston Area. The letter has gathered 3,400+ signatures from Jewish professors, staff, and students at universities across the United States. It denounced “anyone who invokes our name, and cynical claims of antisemitism, to harass, expel, arrest, or deport members of our campus communities.”

How Widespread Is FSJP on Campus?

FSJP operates 130+ campus chapters. Research has documented that schools with five or more faculty BDS supporters are 7.2 times more likely to experience antisemitic incidents, and that FSJP presence on campus increases the likelihood of physical assaults on Jewish students by more than seven times. New chapters continued to form through 2024 and 2025.

Which Campuses Have the Most Faculty on the Record?

Rank	Institution	On Record	Key Findings
1	Columbia University	41	77 faculty boycotters per national barometer; Yerushalmi Chair holder signed 4 petitions; 5 departments on record
2	Princeton University	35	Judaic Studies fellow signed; 8 AcademicsForPeace signatories; multiple endowed chairs
3	Penn State University	32	AcademicsForPeace national spokesperson; 11 NION signatories
4	New York University	31	148 faculty boycotters (#1 nationally); Prof Emerita of Jewish History signed all petitions
5	Yale University	30	Professor of Jewish History signed NION; Judaic Studies Assoc Prof signed 2 petitions
6	University of Chicago	28	Professor of Jewish History signed NION; Hebrew lit professor signed May 2021
7	Brown University	27	3 Judaic Studies faculty signed; first endowed Palestinian Studies chair
8	University of Michigan	26	Frankel Center director signed NION; 297 Jewish faculty signed campus letter
9	UC Berkeley	25	Hebrew lit professor emerita signed NION; FSJP chapter active
10	UCLA	24	Israel Studies chair holder wrote “genocide”; center director signed NION
10	Stanford University	24	Former MESA president authored petitions; Talmud specialist signed May 2021
10	University of Washington	24	$5M endowment pulled after Israel Studies chair signed

What Did Olam Find at Columbia University?

Yinon Cohen holds the Yosef H. Yerushalmi Chair of Israel and Jewish Studies. He signed the May 2021 declaration, AcademicsForPeace, the 240 Scholars BDS letter, and the “Not in Our Name” letter. A national barometer documented 77 faculty boycotters at Columbia, 27 FSJP events and statements, and five academic departments with anti-Israel institutional positions.

Beth Berkowitz (Rennert Chair in Jewish Studies, Barnard) signed the May 2021 declaration. Marianne Hirsch (William Peterfield Trent Professor Emerita) signed “Not in Our Name.” At the same institution, a Business School professor was suspended for criticizing the university’s response to antisemitism. No comparable professional defense was mounted on his behalf.

What Did Olam Find at Penn State University?

Lior Sternfeld (Associate Professor of History and Jewish Studies) authored all four AcademicsForPeace petitions and serves as the campaign’s national spokesperson. Benjamin Schreier (Mitrani Family Professor of English and Jewish Studies) signed the May 2021 declaration and “Not in Our Name.” Tamir Sorek signed AcademicsForPeace and “Not in Our Name.” Eleven faculty associated with Penn State signed the “Not in Our Name” letter.

What Did Olam Find at Brown University?

Omer Bartov (Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, National Jewish Book Award winner) signed every major AcademicsForPeace petition and “Not in Our Name.” Katharina Galor (Hirschfeld Senior Lecturer in Judaic Studies) supports BDS and signed multiple petitions and “Not in Our Name.” Ariella Azoulay described Palestinian violence as “a legitimate revolt against colonial occupation” and signed “Not in Our Name.” Brown also hosts the first endowed chair in Palestinian Studies at any American university.

What Did Olam Find at Harvard University?

Shaul Magid was hired in 2025 as Professor of Modern Jewish Studies in Residence. He openly identifies as a “counter-Zionist.” Saul Zaritt (Associate Professor, CJS Executive Committee) signed the May 2021 declaration and “Not in Our Name.” Sara Feldman (Yiddish Preceptor at CJS) signed “Not in Our Name.” Steven Levitsky (Professor of Government, author of “How Democracies Die”) signed “Not in Our Name.”

What Did Olam Find at Oberlin College?

Matthew Berkman (Assistant Professor of Jewish Studies) is a JVP steering committee member and BDS supporter who teaches “Jews and Power.” Six leaders of the Association for Jewish Studies wrote defending him. Shari Rabin and Sheera Talpaz (both Jewish Studies faculty) signed the May 2021 declaration. With approximately three core Jewish Studies faculty and three documented as signatories, the rate at Oberlin approaches 100 percent.

What Did Olam Find at the University of Washington?

Liora Halperin held the Jack and Rebecca Benaroya Endowed Chair in Israel Studies. She signed the May 2021 declaration and “Not in Our Name.” The donor pulled the entire $5 million endowment. The university stripped her chair title. Then 700+ Jewish and Israel Studies scholars signed a letter defending Halperin. She was subsequently promoted to full professor. The entire Jewish Studies research faculty at UW appears in the signatory lists.

Which Other Top Campuses Made the List?

NYU: Ranked #1 worst nationally on a faculty barometer, with 148 documented faculty boycotters. Hasia Diner (Professor Emerita of History and Hebrew & Judaic Studies, National Jewish Book Award winner, Guggenheim Fellow) signed all major petitions. Marion Kaplan (Professor of Modern Jewish History Emerita) signed “Not in Our Name.”

UCLA: David N. Myers (Distinguished Professor, Leve Center Director) signed AcademicsForPeace and “Not in Our Name.” Dov Waxman (Gilbert Foundation Chair of Israel Studies, Nazarian Center Director) signed “Not in Our Name.” Sarah Stein (Distinguished Professor of History) signed “Not in Our Name.”

Yale: David Sorkin (Lucy G Moses Professor of Jewish History) signed “Not in Our Name.” Saul Zaritt signed both the May 2021 declaration and “Not in Our Name.” Ra’anan Boustan (Presidential Fellow, Judaic Studies) signed AcademicsForPeace and “Not in Our Name.”

University of Michigan: Deborah Dash Moore (Distinguished University Professor of History and Judaic Studies) signed “Not in Our Name.” Rachel Rafael Neis (Professor of Judaic Studies) signed the May 2021 declaration and “Not in Our Name.” In March 2025, 297 Jewish faculty and staff signed a campus letter.

Brandeis: Nine faculty from or affiliated with NEJS signed one or more petitions, including ChaeRan Y. Freeze (Professor), Bernadette J. Brooten (Kraft-Hiatt Professor Emerita, MacArthur Fellow), and Eva Bellin (Professor).

Penn: David Ruderman (Joseph Meyerhoff Professor Emeritus of Jewish History) signed “Not in Our Name.” Talya Fishman (Associate Professor of Jewish History) signed “Not in Our Name.” Kathryn Hellerstein (Professor of Yiddish), previously documented as having signed against an academic boycott, signed “Not in Our Name.”

Do Endowed Jewish Studies Chairs Appear on the Lists?

Endowed chairs represent the most prestigious positions in academic life. They are funded by permanent endowments, typically established by Jewish philanthropists who intended to strengthen Jewish scholarship and education. Read the full endowed chair investigation.

Chair	Holder	Institution	Petitions Signed
Yerushalmi Chair of Israel & Jewish Studies	Yinon Cohen	Columbia	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace + BDS letter + NION
Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History	Barry Trachtenberg	Wake Forest	Multiple petitions + NION
Meyerhoff Professor Emeritus of Jewish History	David Ruderman	Penn	NION
Gilbert Foundation Chair of Israel Studies	Dov Waxman	UCLA	NION
PenTishkach Chair of Holocaust Studies	Alon Confino	UMass Amherst	May 2021
Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies	Nitzan Lebovic	Lehigh	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace + NION
Ticktin Professor of Israel Studies	Arie Dubnov	GW	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace
Kraft-Hiatt Professor Emerita (NEJS)	Bernadette Brooten	Brandeis	AcademicsForPeace
Rose Professor of Holocaust Studies	Frances Tanzer	Clark	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace + NION
Endowed Chair of Jewish Studies	Ranen Omer-Sherman	U Louisville	May 2021
Benaroya Chair of Israel Studies (stripped)	Liora Halperin	U Washington	$5M endowment pulled + NION
Swig Professor of Jewish Studies	Aaron Hahn Tapper	U San Francisco	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace
Endowed Prof of Holocaust/Genocide Studies	Raz Segal	Stockton	“Textbook genocide” + NION
Mitrani Family Professor of English & Jewish Studies	Benjamin Schreier	Penn State	May 2021 + NION

How Are Holocaust Scholars Divided Over Israel?

Raz Segal (Stockton University) published an article on October 13, 2023 titled “A Textbook Case of Genocide.” He organized a letter signed by 60 Holocaust and genocide scholars. An 800-scholar statement followed. The University of Minnesota offered him a directorship, then rescinded it. In August 2026, Minnesota paid Segal $250,000 to settle. He signed “Not in Our Name” as signatory number 8.

Amos Goldberg and Daniel Blatman (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) published an essay calling Israel’s war “genocide,” writing that “most acts of genocide are perceived by their perpetrators as acts of self-defense.”

In August 2025, the International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution stating that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. A 2026 article in the Journal of Genocide Research documented “the growing rift between Holocaust scholars over Israel/Palestine.”

Is Petition Activity Against Israel Accelerating?

Year	Campaign	Scale
May 2021	JS/IS Declaration + Palestine and Praxis	~100 JS/IS faculty + 7,500 academics
Aug-Oct 2023	AcademicsForPeace + JS Ceasefire Letter	700-1,300 per petition
Dec 2023-Mar 2024	AcademicsForPeace (continued) + 60 Holocaust scholars	1,300+ per petition
May 2024	1,200 Jewish Professors vs IHRA	1,200+
March 2025	“Not in Our Name”	3,400+
March 2025	U Michigan Jewish Faculty Letter	297 (campus-specific)
Spring 2026	U Michigan Commencement	1,488 (campus-specific)

Frequently Asked Questions

Who teaches Jewish studies in America?

Jewish Studies (also called Judaic Studies) is taught at 313+ American universities, anchored by the Association for Jewish Studies (70+ member programs) and the Association for Israel Studies (~30 centers and chairs). Olam’s audit identified 2,499 faculty and program records nationally, with the largest concentrations at Columbia, Princeton, Penn State, NYU, and Yale.

How was the audit conducted?

Researchers built faculty rosters from public university websites (July-August 2026), then cross-referenced every name against nine documented petition campaigns spanning May 2021 to Spring 2026, plus organizational membership records and public statements. Each match was confirmed against the original public signatory lists by name, institution, department, and title. The full dataset accompanies this report as a separate searchable database.

Is this the largest study of its kind?

Yes. At 2,499 records across 313 institutions and nine petition campaigns, it is the broadest publicly documented audit of Jewish Studies and Israel Studies faculty ever conducted in the United States.

What are the headline findings?

1,298 of 2,499 records (51.9%) are on the record against Israel. Among 1,014 faculty specifically teaching Jewish Studies, Israel Studies, Hebrew, or Holocaust Studies, 401 (39.5%) are on the record. At Ivy League institutions, 240 of 332 records (72.3%) are on the record. Fourteen endowed chair holders appear on signatory lists. Petition activity is accelerating: the “Not in Our Name” letter (March 2025) has 3,400+ signatures.

What exactly counts as an anti-Israel position in this study?

Signing the academic boycott of Israeli institutions; describing Israel as apartheid, settler colonialism, or committing genocide in a signed petition; joining FSJP or JVP leadership; signing AcademicsForPeace, the “Not in Our Name” letter, or other major campaigns since May 2021. Positions explicitly excluded: supporting Palestinian rights within a two-state framework, criticizing specific Israeli policies, opposing settlement expansion, or criticizing the current Israeli government, since these are mainstream in Israeli politics and civil society.

Which institutions have the highest concentration?

Columbia (41), Princeton (35), Penn State (32), NYU (31), Yale (30), University of Chicago (28), Brown (27), University of Michigan (26), UC Berkeley (25), UCLA (24), Stanford (24), and University of Washington (24). National barometers documented 77 faculty boycotters at Columbia, 148 at NYU, and multiple FSJP chapters at each.

What are the study’s main limitations?

It captures public acts only; private views without a public statement are not counted. Absence from any list is not evidence of a pro-Israel position. FSJP membership lists are incomplete, Hebrew-language instructors rarely sign and are underrepresented, and the “Not in Our Name” letter mixed students and staff (only faculty were extracted). Classroom conduct is not assessed.

Does the study call for any professor to be fired or disciplined?

No. It makes no recommendation on employment, tenure, or academic standing. It documents publicly available information so that families, donors, endowments, and communal organizations can see what faculty teaching Judaism and Israel are saying publicly about Israel.

How do the documented positions compare to Israeli politics?

They sit outside mainstream Israeli political discourse. No mainstream Israeli political party endorses academic boycotts of Israeli universities, calls Zionism settler colonialism, or uses Jewish supremacy as a frame. The study deliberately excluded positions that ARE mainstream in Israel: two-state support, criticism of specific government policies, opposition to settlement expansion, to make clear that the documented positions fall outside Israeli consensus.

What does this mean for Jewish families considering university enrollment?

Families now have institution-by-institution data on faculty teaching Jewish Studies and Israel Studies who have signed anti-Israel campaigns. This is information that donors and endowments intended to strengthen Jewish education can use when making funding and enrollment decisions.

How will the database be maintained going forward?

The database will be updated annually. Corrections, additions, and verification requests are invited. The methodology is public and transparent. Future updates will track whether new faculty join campaigns and whether any faculty retract or distance themselves from previous signatures.

What Are the Study’s Full Numbers at a Glance?

Metric	Value
Total records audited	2,499
Records on the record against Israel	1,298 (51.9%)
Jewish Studies-related faculty identified	1,014
JS-related faculty on the record	401 (39.5%)
Ivy League records	332
Ivy League records on the record	240 (72.3%)
Institutions covered	313
Petition campaigns cross-referenced	9
FSJP chapters documented	130+
Endowed chair holders on the record	14
Faculty who signed multiple petitions	50+
Largest single petition (“Not in Our Name”)	3,400+ signatories
Largest institutional concentration (Columbia)	41
Highest faculty boycotter count (NYU)	148

The Full Series: Olam’s Faculty and Philanthropy Coverage

• The Full Faculty Database: 2,499 records across 313 universities, searchable by institution, petition, and category
• 50% of Israeli Professors Signed a Letter Calling Gaza a War Crime: the companion audit of 2,844 Israeli faculty at eight universities
• Who Signed: How Israeli and American Academic Petition Participation Compare: a side-by-side breakdown of both audits, 5,343 faculty combined
• Fourteen Endowed Chairs Funded by Jewish Donors Are Held by Faculty on the Record Against Israel: every chair, every donor, every petition
• Bend the Arc’s Money Map: The Funders Behind the Mamdani Machine: $50M funder network behind progressive Jewish advocacy
• The Other Spielberg Foundation: How $26.7M Amplifies Anti-Israel Infrastructure
• Streisand Foundation’s $597K Network: Anti-Israel Advocacy and the Iran Deal
• 82% of Middle Eastern Studies Professors Signed the Gaza War Crimes Letter: Israeli faculty petition participation broken down by academic discipline
• More Olam coverage: Universities & Research
• More Olam coverage: Global Jewish Philanthropy

The full database, names, titles, institutions, and the specific documents each faculty member signed, accompanies this report as a separate searchable database.

A study by olam.business and the Ronn Torossian Foundation. The methodology is public. The data is sourced. Corrections, additions, and verification requests: contact olam.business.

Glossary of Terms

BDS: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, an international campaign promoting economic and academic pressure on Israel.

FSJP: Faculty for Justice in Palestine, a network of 130+ faculty chapters on US campuses that promotes the academic boycott of Israeli institutions.

JVP: Jewish Voice for Peace, a US-based organization that supports BDS and identifies as anti-Zionist.

AJS: Association for Jewish Studies, the primary professional body for Jewish Studies scholars in the United States.

AIS: Association for Israel Studies, the professional body for Israel Studies scholars.

IAGS: International Association of Genocide Scholars, the world’s largest academic association for genocide studies.

IHRA Definition: The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.

Endowed Chair: A prestigious faculty position funded by a permanent endowment, typically named after the donor.

===========================================

https://olam.business/the-repeat-signers-faculty-who-signed-multiple-anti-israel-petition-campaigns

Fifteen Professors Sign Anti-Israel Petitions Repeatedly

The Olam Editorial Team

Editorial Team

Aug 21, 2026

Most faculty on the record signed one petition. These fifteen signed two, three, or four, across years and escalating campaigns. Eight hold endowed chairs.

OLAM RESEARCH · THE FACULTY AUDIT

Most faculty on the record signed one petition. These fifteen signed two, three, or four, across years and escalating campaigns. The repeat signers are the spine of the petition machine.

The Olam faculty audit documents nine petition campaigns spanning May 2021 through Spring 2026. Most of the 1,298 faculty on the record signed a single letter. But a subset, documented below, signed multiple campaigns: separate petitions, organized by different groups, circulated months or years apart. These are not one-time expressions. They are sustained, repeated, documented public commitments against Israel from some of the most senior scholars in the field.

Signing once could be a moment. Signing repeatedly is a position.

Yinon Cohen Signed 4 Campaigns: More Than Any Other Faculty Member in the Audit

Yerushalmi Professor of Israel & Jewish Studies, Columbia University

Cohen signed the May 2021 declaration, an AcademicsForPeace petition, a BDS letter calling on Germany to reject a resolution equating BDS with antisemitism, and the March 2025 “Not in Our Name” letter. Four separate campaigns across four years. He holds the Yerushalmi Chair, the most prestigious Israel Studies position at Columbia. The search committee that appointed him included Palestinian activist professors Rashid Khalidi and Lila Abu-Lughod. His research field is sociology and labor markets, not Jewish history or Israel Studies.

Lior Sternfeld Authored All 4 AcademicsForPeace Petitions: 4,000+ Combined Signatures

Associate Professor of History & Jewish Studies, Penn State University

Sternfeld is the national spokesperson for AcademicsForPeace and the author of all four petitions: August 2023, October 2023, December 2023, and March 2024. The March 2024 petition was titled “Genocide Is Plausible; Stop Arms to Israel.” Combined, the four petitions gathered 4,000+ signatures. He also signed the Jewish Studies Ceasefire Letter. He is not an endowed chair holder; he is an associate professor at a taxpayer-funded land-grant university. But he is arguably the single most consequential individual in the dataset, the person who built the petition infrastructure the rest of the field signed.

Omer Bartov Signed Every Round of AcademicsForPeace at Brown

Professor of Holocaust & Genocide Studies, Brown University

Bartov signed all three rounds of AcademicsForPeace (October 2023, December 2023, March 2024). National Jewish Book Award winner. Brown has 27 faculty on the record and hosts the first endowed Palestinian Studies chair at any American university.

Barry Trachtenberg Signed 3 Campaigns From Wake Forest’s Rubin Chair

Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History, Wake Forest University

Trachtenberg signed the Ceasefire Letter (October 2023), AcademicsForPeace (March 2024), and “Not in Our Name” (March 2025). Three campaigns, three organizing groups, 18 months. Rubin Presidential Chair.

Nitzan Lebovic Signed 3 Campaigns From Lehigh’s Apter Holocaust Chair

Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies & Ethical Values, Lehigh University

Lebovic signed the May 2021 declaration, AcademicsForPeace, and “Not in Our Name.” Three campaigns across four years, beginning before October 7. Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies.

Frances Tanzer Signed 3 Campaigns From Clark’s Rose Holocaust Chair

Rose Professor of Holocaust History, Clark University

Tanzer signed the May 2021 declaration, AcademicsForPeace, and “Not in Our Name.” Same pattern as Lebovic. Three campaigns, beginning before October 7. Rose Chair at one of the oldest Holocaust history programs in the country.

Katharina Galor Signed 3 Anti-Israel Letters at Brown

Hirschfeld Senior Lecturer, Judaic Studies, Brown University

Galor signed AcademicsForPeace (October 2023), the 240 Jewish and Israeli Scholars BDS letter, and a separate letter on “systematic oppression.” Archaeologist specializing in the Levant. One of the most active scholars in Brown’s Judaic Studies program.

Shira Klein Signed All 3 AcademicsForPeace Petitions at Chapman

Associate Professor of History, Chapman University

Klein signed all three rounds of AcademicsForPeace. National Jewish Book Award finalist and a statement author, not just a signatory. Alongside Sternfeld and Bartov, she is an architect of the campaign, not merely a participant.

Tamir Sorek Signed the BDS Letter and AcademicsForPeace, and Authored a Statement

Professor of History, University of Florida

Sorek signed the 240 Scholars BDS letter and AcademicsForPeace, where he was a statement author. Dual role as BDS endorser and petition architect. Previously held a joint appointment in Sociology and Jewish Studies.

Mark LeVine Signed the Ceasefire Letter and AcademicsForPeace at UC Irvine

Professor of History, UC Irvine

LeVine signed the Ceasefire Letter (October 2023) and AcademicsForPeace (March 2024). Two campaigns, two organizing groups. Middle East history specialist.

Atalia Omer Signed the Ceasefire Letter and AcademicsForPeace: Carnegie Fellow

Professor of Religion, Conflict & Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

Omer signed the Ceasefire Letter (October 2023) and AcademicsForPeace (March 2024). Carnegie Fellow. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

David N. Myers Signed AcademicsForPeace and the UCLA Faculty Letter

Sady & Ludwig Kahn Professor; Director, Leve Center for Jewish Studies, UCLA

Myers signed AcademicsForPeace in August 2023, the earliest round, and a UCLA Jewish faculty/staff letter. He holds the Kahn Chair and directs the Leve Center for Jewish Studies. At UCLA, Myers runs Jewish Studies while Dov Waxman (until December 2024) ran Israel Studies. Both directors are on the record.

Benjamin Schreier Signed the May 2021 Declaration and “Not in Our Name” at Penn State

Mitrani Family Professor of English & Jewish Studies, Penn State University

Schreier signed the May 2021 declaration and “Not in Our Name” in March 2025, four years apart. He holds the Mitrani Family Chair and shares a department with Lior Sternfeld, the AcademicsForPeace spokesperson.

Arie Dubnov Signed the May 2021 Declaration and AcademicsForPeace From GW’s Israel Studies Chair

Max Ticktin Professor of Israel Studies, George Washington University

Dubnov signed the May 2021 declaration and AcademicsForPeace. Max Ticktin Chair, a position funded to promote scholarship on the modern State of Israel.

Liora Halperin Signed Twice, and Lost a $5M Endowment After the First Signature

Associate Professor, University of Washington

Halperin signed the May 2021 declaration, the signature that cost her university $5 million when donor Becky Benaroya pulled the entire endowment, and “Not in Our Name” in March 2025. The first signature triggered the only documented case of donor action in the audit. The second came three years later, after Halperin had been stripped of the Benaroya Chair, promoted to full professor, and given a new unnamed chair. Two campaigns. One endowment lost. Zero deterrent effect.

---

Fifteen Repeat Signers, Eight Endowed Chairs, One Direction: Escalation

Fifteen faculty signed two or more petition campaigns. Eight of the fifteen hold endowed chairs funded by Jewish philanthropists. The pattern runs in one direction: no repeat signer is documented reversing course. The positions harden, the campaigns get larger, and the language escalates from “settler colonialism” (2021) to “genocide is plausible” (2024) to a $250,000 settlement (2026).

The repeat signers are disproportionately concentrated at the top-12 campuses that produce the next generation of Jewish Studies scholars. They are not outliers. They are the core.

The full dataset is in The Olam’s faculty database. The complete audit documents the methodology and lists every individually named professor.

A study by olam.business and the Ronn Torossian Foundation. The methodology is public. The data is sourced.

==============================

https://olam.business/the-repeat-signers-faculty-who-signed-multiple-anti-israel-petition-campaigns

See Every U.S. Professor Who Signed Against Israel

Ronn Torossian

Publisher · The Olam

Aug 3, 2026

The full database: 2,499 American faculty records cross-checked against nine anti-Israel petition campaigns, searchable by institution and petition.

OLAM RESEARCH · THE DATABASE

2,499 records. 313 universities. Nine petition campaigns. The institutional and campaign-level data behind The Olam’s national faculty audit: every institution, every endowed chair, every source.

The dataset behind this page covers 2,499 faculty records across 313 U.S. universities, cross-checked against nine documented petition campaigns from 2021 to 2025. Each record is tied to a public institutional roster and a specific, named public document. The full record-level file is not published; the institutional and campaign-level findings are below.

This page is the on-site home of the dataset behind The Olam’s national faculty audit: Half Are on the Record Against Israel: methodology, institutional analysis, and complete findings.

Top Institutions by Faculty on the Record

Ranked by number of faculty publicly on the record against Israel.

Rank	Institution	On record
1	Columbia University	41
2	Princeton University	35
3	Penn State University	32
4	New York University	31
5	Yale University	30
6	University of Chicago	28
7	Brown University	27
8	University of Michigan	26
9	UC Berkeley	25
10	UCLA	24
10	Stanford University	24
10	University of Washington	24

Separately, a national faculty barometer records NYU as the single highest-count campus, with 148 documented faculty boycotters.

Endowed Chairs on the Record

Fourteen endowed chairs established to strengthen Jewish scholarship are currently held by faculty who have signed public statements critical of Israeli state policy. Chairs are identified by title and institution; this is a record of documented institutional funding, not a claim about any individual’s character or private beliefs.

Chair	Institution	Documented act
Yerushalmi Chair of Israel & Jewish Studies	Columbia	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace + BDS letter + NION
Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History	Wake Forest	Multiple petitions + NION
Meyerhoff Professor Emeritus of Jewish History	Penn	NION
Gilbert Foundation Chair of Israel Studies	UCLA	NION
PenTishkach Chair of Holocaust Studies	UMass Amherst	May 2021
Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies	Lehigh	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace + NION
Ticktin Professor of Israel Studies	GW	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace
Kraft-Hiatt Professor Emerita (NEJS)	Brandeis	AcademicsForPeace
Rose Professor of Holocaust Studies	Clark	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace + NION
Endowed Chair of Jewish Studies	U Louisville	May 2021
Benaroya Chair of Israel Studies (stripped)	U Washington	$5M endowment pulled + NION
Swig Professor of Jewish Studies	U San Francisco	May 2021 + AcademicsForPeace
Endowed Prof of Holocaust/Genocide Studies	Stockton	“Textbook genocide” + NION
Mitrani Family Professor of English & Jewish Studies	Penn State	May 2021 + NION

The Nine Petition Campaigns

The evidentiary backbone: each record tied to a specific, named public document.

Campaign	Date	Total signatories	DB records
May 2021 JS/IS Declaration	May 2021	~100 JS/IS faculty	298
Palestine and Praxis	May 2021	7,500+ academics	Sampled
AcademicsForPeace (4 petitions)	Aug 2023-Mar 2024	700-1,300+ each	586
JS Ceasefire Letter	Oct 2023	100+	27
240 Scholars BDS Letter	Various	240+	Sampled
60 Holocaust Scholars Letter	Dec 2023	60	Sampled
1,200 Jewish Professors vs IHRA	May 2024	1,200+	Sampled
“Not in Our Name”	March 2025	3,400+	242
U Michigan Jewish Faculty Letter	March 2025	297	Sampled

Selected Programs & Centers Audited

A sample of the programs in the audit universe. The complete institution-by-institution roster sits in The Olam’s research archive.

Institution	Program / Center	Field	State
Columbia University	Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies	Judaic / Israel Studies	NY
New York University	Skirball Dept of Hebrew and Judaic Studies	Judaic Studies / Hebrew	NY
Harvard University	Center for Jewish Studies	Judaic Studies	MA
Yale University	Program in Judaic Studies	Judaic Studies	CT
Brandeis University	Schusterman Center for Israel Studies	Israel / Judaic Studies	MA
Brown University	Program in Judaic Studies	Judaic Studies	RI
Stanford University	Taube Center for Jewish Studies	Judaic Studies	CA
UCLA	Alan D. Leve Center for Jewish Studies	Judaic Studies	CA
UC Berkeley	Diller Institute for Jewish Law and Israel Studies	Israel / Judaic Studies	CA
University of Michigan	Frankel Center for Judaic Studies	Judaic Studies	MI
University of Pennsylvania	Jewish Studies Program / Katz Center	Judaic Studies	PA
Emory University	Institute for the Study of Modern Israel	Israel Studies	GA
University of Maryland	Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies	Israel Studies	MD
Northwestern University	Crown Family Center for Jewish and Israel Studies	Judaic / Israel Studies	IL
Rutgers University	Dept of Jewish Studies / Bildner Center	Judaic Studies	NJ

By the Numbers

The whole dataset, in one table.

Metric	Value
Total records audited	2,499
Records of faculty publicly against Israel	1,298 (51.9%)
Jewish Studies-related faculty identified	1,014
JS-related faculty on the record	401 (39.5%)
Ivy League records	332
Ivy League records against Israel	240 (72.3%)
Institutions covered	1,136
Institutions with at least one flagged professor	313
Petition campaigns cross-referenced	9
FSJP chapters documented	130+
Endowed chair holders on the record	14
Largest single petition (“Not in Our Name”)	3,400+ signatories

How the Data Was Built

Faculty rosters were compiled from publicly available university websites during July and August 2026, covering every institutional member of the Association for Jewish Studies (70+), every US center listed by the Association for Israel Studies (~30), and additional degree-granting programs. Each faculty member was cross-referenced against nine documented petition campaigns using university affiliation, department, academic title, and full name. The study explicitly excludes support for a two-state solution, criticism of specific Israeli government policies, opposition to settlement expansion, and calls for accountability regarding civilian casualties. Read the full methodology.

19.08.26

Editorial Note

Recently, the Government of Canada published a report titled “Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE)” by the Department of Canadian Heritage. Deborah Lyons, the former Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism, requested the report.  The Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute conducted and produced the report. 

The survey included approximately 900 Jewish students across Canada and was conducted in November and December 2025. A high number (95.7%) of the Jewish students reported experiencing or witnessing at least one antisemitic incident on campus over the prior year. (84%) of them indicated that antisemitism is a serious problem at their institution, and (70%) stated that their university or college does not take the issue seriously. A substantial number of respondents reported hiding indicators of their identity or limiting classroom discourse due to safety concerns.  More than (60%) have lost friendships due to antisemitism. (41%) avoid certain classes or events.  About (40%) claimed that their academic performance has suffered, and more than seven in ten say that their mental health is harmed.  Roughly one-quarter have even considered dropping out. The antisemitic incidents affected all aspects of campus life: online spaces (34%), student organizations and campus events (33%), classrooms and lecture halls (25%), nearby off-campus areas (23%), and even student residences (9%).

The report noted that university faculty, teaching assistants, and administrative staff were directly responsible for a significant portion of antisemitic incidents, with faculty involved in (18%) of cases, and Teaching Assistants and administrators accounting for (7%) each.  Furthermore, (36%) of students encountered biased course content or classroom discussion portraying Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Zionism in an antisemitic way, and 34% reported professors introducing unrelated topics concerning Jews or Israel. Only one-third of Jewish respondents reported the incidents they experienced, and among those who did (63%) were dissatisfied with how authorities handled their reports. Most non-reporters (52%) said they did not believe reporting would help, one-quarter did not know how to report, and 16% feared retaliation. Jewish students who did report were far more likely to turn to Jewish organizations (62%) than to campus security (40%) or deans and administrators (37%).

Some of the experiences reported by the students were far-fetched. For example, of the 1,200 written accounts submitted, one student said:  “I heard a professor say that Hitler was a hero.” A second student said, “Professor wrote that we should kill all Zionists, that she’s worked with them and sees how evil they are.” A third student said, “I cannot speak Hebrew with my parents on the phone on campus. I have stopped wearing Jewish symbols. I cannot talk about my holiday plans because they are Jewish. I have to hide who I am and where I come from.” Others said, “Professors sharing links to Holocaust denial websites as mandatory reading material.” Or that, “Professor assigned us to listen to a podcast that discussed how Zionism was similar to Nazism, which was unrelated to the course.”

Overall, some (45%) of the respondents stated that they were exposed to Holocaust denial or distortion, and 81% reported hateful or discriminatory treatment of Zionists. Other incidents, such as antisemitic vandalism (71%), discriminatory treatment of Jews (56%), intimidation or threats directed at Jews (54%), and physical violence (22%), were also reported. 

The report concluded that academic leadership must take greater responsibility and that leadership in higher education institutions should use the findings immediately to examine policies and practices. 

Universities Canada, a group dedicated to advancing Canada’s universities at home and abroad, and advancing education, research and innovation for the benefit of all Canadians, published a statement online on the CASE report, stating, “Universities Canada is deeply concerned by the findings in the Government of Canada’s Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences report. Antisemitism has no place on our campuses or in our communities. Jewish students, faculty and staff must be able to learn, teach, work and participate fully in university life without discrimination, harassment, intimidation or fear for their safety. Universities are taking action. Institutions across the country are strengthening policies and working with their communities to improve campus safety and inclusion. Antisemitism is not confined to campuses. It is a national concern that requires coordinated action from universities, governments, law enforcement and communities. Universities Canada is reviewing the report and its recommendations. We will work with our members, the federal government and community partners to identify where further action and support are needed and to share effective approaches across the sector.” 

Michael Geist, Professor of Law at the Center for Law, Technology and Society at the University of Ottawa, who served as a member of the advisory board for the report, wrote an analysis of the report, titled “Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere.” Geist explained that for two years he has written about antisemitism on Canadian university campuses from a personal perspective. He also noted that when the government eliminated the role of Deborah Lyons, it made the situation worse. 

In response to Geist, an anonymous reader using the pseudonym “Stoparabhate” wrote an antisemitic comment: “Are you not an author of the report? Sounds like your bigoted bias is creeping in to what you do. There is no crisis of antisemitism but there is a genocide in Gaza and overall Jewish Canadians don’t seem that concerned about it. Their Zionist orgs tell them it is kosher and they believe it. Your BS is not selling like it once did. Too many dead Arab kids.”

In 2019, Canada adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism which states: “Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews,” and “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” or “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel,” are identifiable acts of antisemitism. 

The experience of antisemitism in higher education is part of a larger and alarming trend in Canada. There has been a significant increase in violent antisemitic incidents, ranging from online harassment to physical assault, vandalism of synagogues and Jewish schools, and desecration of Holocaust memorials and Jewish property. 

But nothing has been done to implement the IHRA Definition. The government needs to enact legal measures against the perpetrators to clear its name of the shameful antisemitism phenomenon.

REFERENCES:

Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere

Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere 

August 6, 2026

For the better part of two years, I have written about antisemitism on Canadian university campuses from the vantage point of personal experience: a post I never thought I would need to write on the right of Jewish students to feel safe on campus, the normalization of antisemitism at encampments including at my own university, the trepidation that accompanied a new academic year, and the chilling effect on expression that I described to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Those accounts, alongside those of many students who shared their experiences, were often downplayed by some as exaggerated or unrepresentative. Yet this week, the release of the Canadian Heritage-backed Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) report, conducted through the Office of the former Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism and produced by the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute, puts that claim to rest. The report, for which I served as a member of the advisory board, provides the most comprehensive national data to date on the experiences of Jewish students at Canadian post-secondary institutions. The report makes for difficult reading as it confirms that Canada is facing an antisemitism crisis on campus, with the overwhelming majority of the Jewish students surveyed stating that they had experienced or witnessed at least one instance of antisemitism over the prior year.

The survey itself was conducted in November and December 2025 with participation from about 900 Jewish students and recent graduates. Most of the national coverage focused on the topline results: 95.7% of respondents experienced or witnessed at least one instance of antisemitism over the previous 12 months, 84% view antisemitism as a serious problem on their campus, and 70% say their university does not take antisemitism seriously. Culture Minister Marc Miller called the findings “alarming”. He was right, but a deeper dive into the data reveals how the cumulative effect of a hostile climate changes the way that Jewish students study, speak, and participate.

The effects on daily campus life are unmistakable. Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72%) limit what they say in class about being Jewish and two-thirds (66%) do the same online. A majority (57%) avoid wearing or displaying Jewish symbols due to safety concerns, while students who do wear visible markers of Jewish identity report notably higher exposure to intimidation and physical violence than those who do not. And more than 60% have lost friendships because of antisemitism, 41% avoid certain classes or events altogether, 40% say their academic performance has suffered, and more than seven in ten say the experience has harmed their mental health. Roughly one-quarter have even considered dropping out.

This affects every aspect of campus life as respondents identified online spaces (34%), student organizations and campus events (33%), classrooms and lecture halls (25%), nearby off-campus areas (23%), and even student residences (9%) as sites of antisemitic conduct. Fellow students were the most commonly identified source at 51%, yet the conduct is by no means limited to peers. Faculty members were cited in 18% of incidents and teaching assistants and administrators or staff each accounted for a further 7%. For anyone who cares about the academic mission, the classroom data is particularly troubling: 36% of respondents encountered course content or classroom discussion portraying Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Zionism in an antisemitic or biased manner and 34% said a professor raised those topics in ways unrelated to the course subject. Exposure to Holocaust denial or distortion was encountered often or sometimes by 45% of respondents. And 81% of respondents reported hateful or discriminatory treatment of Zionists as occurring often or occasionally, alongside antisemitic vandalism (71%), discriminatory treatment of Jews (56%), intimidation or threats directed at Jews (54%), and physical violence directed at Jews (22%). The more than 1,200 open-ended accounts of antisemitism are stunning in their breadth and include a student whose friend was chased from a campus building by a group shouting “there’s a Jew…let’s get him” and a professor telling a class that “Jews belong in Poland and need to go back.”

The report devotes an entire section to what it calls “institutional betrayal.” Only one-third of respondents reported the incidents they experienced, and among those who did, 63% were dissatisfied with how the report was handled. The majority of non-reporters (52%) said they did not believe reporting would help, one-quarter did not know how to report, and 16% feared retaliation. Perhaps most indicative of the trust deficit, Jewish students who did report were far more likely to turn to Jewish organizations (62%) than to campus security (40%) or deans and administrators (37%).

The report itself stops short of formal recommendations, concluding instead that academic leadership must take greater responsibility and that the findings should be used immediately by leadership in higher education institutions to examine their policies and practices. The recommendations came separately from the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (NECA), a non-partisan group of more than 400 Jewish and non-Jewish academics from 54 institutions of which I am a member, which released ten recommendations alongside the report. The list will sound familiar to anyone who has followed this issue: applying existing policies to protect students targeted for any aspect of their Jewish identity including Zionism, institutional neutrality policies that apply across the institution, adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism together with the Canadian Handbook, a centralized and transparent incident reporting system with annual campus climate assessments, and a special advisor on antisemitism on every campus.

What has been missing is not knowledge of what to do, but the will to do it. Indeed, the release carries its own illustration of the problem: the survey was commissioned by former Special Envoy Deborah Lyons before the government eliminated her role, leaving the government to release the most comprehensive evidence yet of a systemic antisemitism problem on campus just months after creating a leadership void that has yet to be filled and a new anti-hate council that has yet to act.

I have been an academic for nearly 30 years, working in an environment where inclusion and safe spaces for all students to be their best were unquestioned priorities. Backed by a supportive University president, dean, and advisor on antisemitism, I still believe that to be the case. But this survey confirms that the vast majority of Jewish students encounter antisemitism on campus. If this were any other group — 95% of Indigenous students reporting discrimination or 70% of BIPOC students reporting mental health harm — this would be viewed as a major crisis requiring immediate action. But when 95% of Jewish students report encountering antisemitism, 70% report harm to their mental health, a majority hide their identity, and students report threats of violence and Holocaust denial, the response from some quarters is to ignore or take issue with the survey data.

The bottom line is that hundreds of Jewish students from campuses across the country report antisemitic conduct on campus that is stunning in scope and harm. Every university president in Canada should be investigating how much of the data reflects their own campus experience and committing to change through the NECA recommendations. Every faculty member should be examining whether the discriminatory conduct occurs in their class. And every faculty and student union should be working to fully protect their Jewish members. Years of willingness to tolerate or excuse the antisemitic reality – a Jewish exception – suggests this is unlikely to happen. But now no one can say they didn’t know what was happening.

Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere

August 6, 2026 at 9:00 am

Are you not an author of the report? Sounds like your bigoted bias is creeping in to what you do.

There is no crisis of antisemitism but there is a genocide in Gaza and overall Jewish Canadians don’t seem that concerned about it. Their Zionist orgs tell them it is kosher and they believe it.

Your BS is not selling like it once did. Too many dead Arab kids.

=======================================================

https://univcan.ca/news/universities-canada-statement-on-the-case-report/

Universities Canada statement on the CASE report

August 06, 2026

Universities Canada is deeply concerned by the findings in the Government of Canada’s Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences report.

Antisemitism has no place on our campuses or in our communities. Jewish students, faculty and staff must be able to learn, teach, work and participate fully in university life without discrimination, harassment, intimidation or fear for their safety.

Universities are taking action. Institutions across the country are strengthening policies and working with their communities to improve campus safety and inclusion.

Antisemitism is not confined to campuses. It is a national concern that requires coordinated action from universities, governments, law enforcement and communities.

Universities Canada is reviewing the report and its recommendations. We will work with our members, the federal government and community partners to identify where further action and support are needed and to share effective approaches across the sector.

About Universities Canada

Universities Canada is the voice of Canada’s universities at home and abroad, advancing higher education, research and innovation for the benefit of all Canadians.

Media contact

Stéphanie Montreuil
Director, Communications
Universities Canada
communications@univcan.ca

============================================================

https://thehub.ca/2026/08/06/antisemitism-normalized-on-canadian-campuses-government-survey-finds-professors-blamed-in-1-in-5-incidents/Antisemitism ‘normalized’ at Canadian universities, government survey finds—professors blamed in 1 in 5 incidents

Analysis 

6 August 2026

A national survey of Jewish post-secondary students has found that antisemitism at Canadian universities is not an isolated problem but a pervasive feature of campus life, with the overwhelming majority reporting they have experienced or witnessed it in the past year.

The Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) report, commissioned by the federal government and produced by the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute, surveyed roughly 900 Jewish postsecondary students. It found that 95.7 percent had experienced or witnessed at least one antisemitic incident in the previous year, and that 84 percent said antisemitism is now a serious problem on their campus.

The report, released Wednesday and initially requested by the now defunct Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, described the findings as pointing to “a troubling and urgent conclusion: antisemitism on Canadian campuses is not episodic or peripheral—it is persistent and proliferating, and on some campuses has become a normalized and systemic feature of campus life.”

The authors concluded that, “These accounts reveal a university culture that is both not welcoming to Jewish students and actively and systematically trying to exclude and vilify them.”

Seventy percent of respondents said their university does not take antisemitism seriously, and 68 percent said their campus is not a safe and inclusive place for Jewish students. More than 70 percent said they limit what they say in class about being Jewish, and 57 percent now avoid wearing or displaying Jewish symbols out of safety concerns.

Graphic Credit: Janice Nelson.

Cary Kogan, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s School of Psychology, who sat on the report’s advisory board, said in an interview with The Hub that places of learning have failed the students they are meant to protect.

“You have these institutions that don’t know how or are unwilling to respond, and that’s what we call institutional betrayal,” Kogan said. “It’s essentially that nobody has your back. It’s not EDI [Equity Diversity and Inclusion] offices, it’s not human rights offices, it’s not leadership, etc.”

Kogan, also co-founder of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics, explained that Canadian universities have a long history of antisemitism, demonstrated through enrollment quotas that lasted until the 1960s. While the immediate aftermath of October 7, 2023 was the starting gun for a new round of hatred towards Jews, he said, the last few years have been a “quiet burn” of antisemitism that has become institutionalized in Canada’s postsecondary schools.

This week, news broke that a group of Jewish students was suing McGill University for more than $5 million, alleging they experienced assault and intimidation at pro-Palestinian encampments and protests two years ago.

Sources of hate

According to the report, antisemitism against students came in the form of “Holocaust denial and distortion; harassment and threats; normalization of antisemitic climate; pressure to disclose political views; academic/classroom bias; social exclusion; fear and emotional trauma; and a lack of institutional response.”

More than half (54 percent) reported intimidation or threats directed at Jews often or occasionally. For 22 percent of students, words escalated to physical violence directed towards Jews.

“My friend was walking through [redacted] Hall. He also wears a kippah, and a group of students shouted, ‘There’s a Jew…let’s get him.’ They then chased him out of the building,” described one student.

The report found that 18 percent of incidents cited faculty members as the source of antisemitism, with another 7 percent involving teaching assistants and 7 percent involving administrators or staff. Thirty-six percent of respondents said they had encountered course content or classroom discussion they viewed as antisemitic or biased, while 34 percent said a professor had introduced the subject of Israel or Zionism in a way that felt unrelated to the course.

Graphic Credit: Janice Nelson.

One student recounted being told by a professor, “in the middle of the lecture, that Jews belong in Poland and need to go back.”

Students under threat checking out

In response, Canadian Jewish students reported limiting what they say in class and avoiding wearing Jewish symbols to ensure their safety. Thirty-two percent reported considering dropping a class or program due to what they deem to be a professor or student’s antisemitic views.

Graphic Credit: Janice Nelson.

Kogan described it as a sense that Jews on campus now have to “self-silence a part of their identity.”

Still others are choosing to check out from campus entirely.

“There are students who are leaving programs, there are students who are leaving universities, there are [Jewish] faculty members choosing to retire earlier than planned because it’s just unpleasant,” described Kogan.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion

Kogan traced elements of this hatred back to the proliferation of EDI, critical race theory, and decolonization—narratives preached by the progressive Left at universities. He called this way of thinking an “incubator” for antisemitism and one that became a moral imperative for many students, aided by student and faculty unions.

“It’s like a perfect storm because you’ve got these well-intentioned [EDI] movements that are trying to negotiate serious inequalities in society,” said Kogan. “But it gets so easily co-opted because it essentially simplifies the world into those who are oppressed and those who are oppressors. It flattens everything into the good group and the bad group, and then becomes very quick, very easy to say, ‘Jews are privileged.’”

With various classrooms politicized—from the social sciences to increasingly medicine—Jewish students reported feeling pressure from their educators, who adopt this mode of thinking but also grade their work, to publicly signal that they agree.

“My class was forced to answer exam questions according to my professor’s biases,” detailed one student. “We were forced to draw positive connections between BLM and Hamas.”

“[A] professor wrote that we should kill all Zionists, that she’s worked with them and sees how evil they are,” said another.

One in five Jewish students responded that they felt pressure to join an anti-Israel protest.

The university response

The report also pointed to a major gap between antisemitism and institutional accountability.

It quoted the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2024, which found that, “Universities are failing to enforce their own policies to protect Jewish students on campus.”

Only 33 percent of students who experienced or witnessed an antisemitic incident reported it, and of those who did, 63 percent said they were dissatisfied with how it was handled. More than half of respondents said they didn’t report because they believed it wouldn’t make a difference.

But, Kogan said universities may not understand the problem they are solving for, thinking they are addressing a political issue. While he believes most university leadership want to do the right thing and are no longer denying the problem exists, he said they remain undereducated around the issue of antisemitism.

“It’s very hard for leadership to react and understand that what they’re reacting to is not a geopolitical issue,” he said. “It’s an identity issue, like any other identity-based hate.”

“Universities Canada is deeply concerned by the findings in the Government of Canada’s Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences report. Antisemitism has no place on our campuses or in our communities. Jewish students, faculty and staff must be able to learn, teach, work and participate fully in university life without discrimination, harassment, intimidation or fear for their safety,” said the national association representing Canada’s universities in a statement to The Hub. “Universities Canada is reviewing the report and its recommendations. We will work with our members, the federal government and community partners to identify where further action and support are needed and to share effective approaches across the sector.”

While countries like Canada and the U.K. have left management of antisemitism to universities internally, other nations like the U.S. and Australia are resorting to direct government intervention—threatening and, in some cases, withholding public funds from post-secondary schools until the government believes the issues have been addressed.

Regardless of the approach, the current situation on Canadian campuses remains dire for many Jewish students. The report’s authors state that if the situation does not change, Canadian universities “risk becoming the breeding ground for anti-Jewish hate to spread across generations and communities.”

“We’ve got to put an end to it. [There’s] a culture change. To come back to the three pillars of the university: academic freedom, institutional neutrality, and open debate and dialogue,” explained Kogan. “Those are the three pillars, and we’ve lost all three of them.”

The national survey was conducted last November and December with respondents recruited through Jewish university groups.

Fault Lines examines the pressures pulling Canadian society apart and the principles that can hold it together. We look beyond headlines to understand how institutions, communities, and democratic norms are fraying. Our mission is to show how better choices can repair what is broken.

Harrison Lowman

Harrison Lowman is The Hub’s Managing Editor. He has worked for more than a decade in journalism

======================================================================================

Jewish students speak out after landmark campus antisemitism report

Jewish students speak out after landmark campus antisemitism report

‘I have to hide who I am and where I come from,’ one student said.

• North Star

• August 14, 2026

On Aug. 5, a new national study of antisemitism on Canadian university campuses revealed a startling reality: 95.7 per cent of Jewish students surveyed said they had experienced or witnessed antisemitism in the past year.

The report received wide coverage, including in The CJN, but there’s more to this story than that disturbing number. The 1,200 anecdotes submitted by students paint a vivid picture of being targeted by peers and professors for their faith and identities.

The research was originally commissioned by the office of Canada’s Special Envoy on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism, Deborah Lyons, before Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government scrapped both her office and the Islamophobia czar’s in February 2026. When Carney announced the makeup of a new federal Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion in June, he told the members to tackle antisemitism first, especially on campus. That’s when the study’s authors reminded the government it already had the research sitting there, which it had paid for.

But what else does this report tell us? What do Jewish university, college and CEGEP students actually say happened to them? And now that we have the research, what happens next?

On today’s episode of The CJN’s North Star podcast with Ellin Bessner, you’ll hear several of the students who spoke out, along with Cary Kogan, a University of Ottawa professor who was an advisor on the report and helped make it public last week, who spoke with The CJN’s Zenith Wolfe.

Transcript

Student 1: I heard a professor say that Hitler was a hero.

Student 2: Professor wrote that we should kill all Zionists, that she’s worked with them and sees how evil they are.

Student 3: I cannot speak Hebrew with my parents on the phone on campus. I have stopped wearing Jewish symbols. I cannot talk about my holiday plans because they are Jewish. I have to hide who I am and where I come from.

Ellin Bessner: Those are just three of the 1,200 written accounts submitted by Jewish students as part of that new national study on antisemitism on Canadian campuses that came out last week. I asked some friends and colleagues to read them for this podcast.

The report’s main findings already made headlines that 95.7% of Jewish students surveyed said they’d experienced or witnessed antisemitism in the past year. But there’s much more to this report than that number.

What else did the Jewish students tell the researchers? How did the study come to be? Why was it made public now? Did a mysterious bot attempt to hack the survey and skew the data?

And now that we have the research, what happens next?

The students’ accounts are hard to read, even though we at The CJN and many of you have been hearing stories like these since October 7 coming out of universities, colleges, and CEGEPPs, and about antisemitism happening not just in classrooms, but in washrooms, gyms, and even off campus. So much so that some students say they’ve considered withdrawing from a course or leaving university altogether. They’ve stopped wearing their Stars of David.

Some have stopped answering questions in class. And many say they don’t bother reporting what happens to them to the authorities because they’ve seen very little has happened when other Jewish students have complained before them.

Cary Kogan: Unfortunately, you know, that also comes across in the data is the invalidation of people’s experience. It’s not just the incidents themselves, which are terrible. 96% are saying in the last year they’ve witnessed or experienced an incident, at least an incident, and nine out of 10 are saying on a pretty regular basis, but it’s that there’s been no response.

Ellin Bessner: I’m Ellin Bessner, and this is what Jewish Canada sounds like for Friday, August the 14th, 2026.

Welcome to North Star, the flagship podcast of The Canadian Jewish News. And made possible thanks to the generous support of the Ira Gluskin and Maxine Granofsky Gluskin Charitable Foundation.

The report came out August 5th and it received wide coverage, including here at The CJN, but there’s a story behind the study itself because it was commissioned by the former Federal Special Envoy on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism, Deborah Lyons, who had said on this program after she was appointed in October 2023 that she wanted hard numbers, bulletproof numbers that she could then show to the government and the country on what exactly was going on campuses.

A contract was signed, the research was paid for by the Canadian government, the Association for Canadian Studies – Metropolis Institute was hired, and the 38 questions in the survey covered everything from campus climate and classroom experiences to threats, violence, mental health, and academic consequences. It went out through Jewish campus clubs and online, and it went live November 2025 for a month.

More than 1,000 responses came in, but then one day something strange happened. Study co-author Jack Jedwab told me another 1,000 more survey answers came in all at once, overnight in December, all from Queen’s University, all with the same answers saying antisemitism was not a problem.

He said they couldn’t track the answers to real people and determined it was an attempt to skew the data, so those answers got thrown out.

Two months later, Canada scrapped the Special Envoy’s Office and the Islamophobia Office, too, and said a new advisory council on rights, equity and inclusion was going to take over. But this study got to see the light of day: A press conference in Ottawa at the National Press Theatre. Two Jewish students came and shared their stories.

Carleton University graduate student Alexa Barrett-Taller and Rachel Seguin from B.C., (who Zoomed in).

Alexa Barrett-Taller: What does it feel like to question whether it’s safe to tell someone that you’re Jewish? To walk across campus and wonder whether wearing a Star of David, a Jewish necklace, or a Kippah will change the way that people see you. To hear your parents say, “Maybe don’t wear that today,” not because they want you to hide who you are, but because they’re worried of you making it home. These questions, no student should be able to ask themselves here in Canada.

My name is Alexa Barrett -aller, and I’m a proud Jewish and Dominican graduate of Carleton University. I emphasize the word proud because my Jewish identity is my family, my history, my traditions, and the values who have shaped who I am today. Yet during university, it became something that I felt that I had to hide.

When I started university, I thought my biggest challenges would be exams and deadlines. I never imagined that one of the hardest parts would be navigating what it meant to be openly Jewish on campus.

After October 7th, I returned to class hoping difficult conversations could happen with care, nuance, and respect. Instead, I sat in a classroom where a professor said that the Jewish people were responsible for what had happened. After class, I spoke with my professor privately.

I wasn’t asking to shut down conversations. I was asking for fairness, context, and humanity. My story is not unique. I have spoken with countless Jewish students who hesitate before wearing a Jewish symbol, attending a Hillel or Chabad event, or simply telling other classmates that they’re Jewish, not because they’re ashamed, but because they’re afraid.

No student should have to calculate whether being honest about who they are will make them a target. Universities should challenge our ideas, not our right to exist. that no student has to hide a necklace, avoid a conversation, or stay silent about their identity just to make it through their school day. Every student deserves to feel safe, every student deserves to belong, and every student deserves to know that they never have to choose between their education and their identity. Thank you.

Rachel Seguin: Good morning. My name is Rachel Seguin, and I’m a fourth-year student at the University of British Columbia. Thank you for the opportunity to share one personal experience that changed how I viewed my place on campus as a Jewish student.

In February 2024, I attended a general meeting of the Social Justice Center and Alma Mater Student Society Resource Group at UBC because I wanted to engage in dialogue.

I wear a Star of David necklace every day and during the meeting it became visible. I wasn’t wearing it to make a statement or provoke anyone. It’s simply a part of who I am. After the meeting, I respectfully asked the group to cite the sources for the information it shared publicly and acknowledge the October 7th attacks alongside its discussion of the conflict.

Instead of addressing my questions, the conversation shifted away from what I had asked. While I was trying to explain why this mattered to me, the co-chair interrupted me and said, “Look, I’m a Muslim. I don’t hate you just because you’re Jewish.”

I’d never accused anyone of hating me. I came to the meeting to discuss ideas, but I left feeling that who I was had become more important than what I was saying…

I was advised that if I wished to pursue the matter further, I could file a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. As a student, I wasn’t looking to begin legal proceedings. I was looking for support, accountability, and a meaningful process within my own university community.

Instead, I was left wondering where a Jewish student is supposed to turn when they believe they have experienced discrimination. Universities and student societies have a responsibility to ensure that every student can participate in campus life, express their identity openly, and trust that concerns about discrimination will be taken seriously.

Ellin Bessner: Those were two students speaking publicly about their experiences. The researchers had heard though from hundreds more. The report includes written accounts. Here are some friends and colleagues of ours reading the accounts:

Student 4: In a course titled Canadian Law and Violence, the professor spent an entire semester discussing Israel’s occupation of Palestine while encouraging students to miss class to attend protests, showing Al Jazeera videos, and wearing pro-Palestine shirts and earrings every week.

Student 5: Working in my labs I’ve had people refuse to work with me due to my Jewish identity. And purposely try to mess up my data.”

Student 6: I and many other members of a Jewish organization unrelated to Israel received phone calls containing death threats after October 7th.

Student 7: Three minutes after the start of our presentation on breast cancer, my professor interrupted us to slander Israel, saying it was a sea of savages and barbarians. and that every second three babies in Gaza were being killed.

Student 8: I was spat on. Someone revved their car engine toward me in a crosswalk while I was wearing a kippah. I saw a Jewish student get punched. I heard a Jewish friend being called a “Zionist whore” and spat on because she was wearing a visible Magen David, a Star of David.I saw antisemitic graffiti in bathroom stalls and all over campus.

Student 9: When I was at the campus gym while wearing a kippah that made me visibly Jewish, a student came up to me and said he wished all Israelis would die because we’re a bunch of colonizers from Europe.

Student 10: I went to the bathroom. Someone saw my Star of David and said, “Welcome to your gas chamber” while people were vaping.

Student 11: Behind me in the study room, a group of students were talking about Hitler and the Holocaust, how it was supposedly false, how Hitler could have never killed Jews, and how the Holocaust was simply invented by Jews to obtain more money and remorse.

---

Ellin Bessner: Since the report came out, there has been some criticism that the study did not adequately represent the diversity of Jews, Jewish opinion, particularly when it comes to Jewish groups or students who oppose Israel. The authors tell me they did include students with those views in the data.

57 respondents identified themselves as anti-Zionist.

Another 44 said they didn’t consider anti-Semitism to be a problem.

The full report is publicly available on the government’s website, and we put a link to it in our show notes. The published report doesn’t include comments from any of those students.

So, what do the report’s authors and advisors want to happen now?

The CJN’s Zenith Wolfe covered the press conference in Ottawa and then interviewed Cary Kogan. He was one of the advisors on this report. He’s co-president of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics. They have 10 recommendations.

Zenith Wolfe: I know that the collections process for the survey took place between November and December 2025, but I imagine there was work that was being done before that. Can you tell me how long this has been in the works?

Cary Kogan: This was commissioned by the former Special Envoy’s office, right? It was probably six months before that we got it got started. I was on the advisory committee for the development of the survey, for the dissemination of the survey, and for the interpretation of the results. But once it went out, I mean, the data collection was pretty quick, actually.

And it’s a sizable survey. I think it’s probably the largest per capita survey of students, arguably in the world, actually, if we do it on a per capita basis.

Zenith Wolfe: I’m wondering if you know why Canadian Heritage agreed to do this survey now?

Cary Kogan: The intention was to do it, but there was a K through 12 report that was done, led by Bob Brim. And then this was the follow-up study. And so, we knew anecdotally, certainly what was going on campus. We said we need to do the university piece and that a priority to then follow up.

It’s a little bit more complex in a university environment. You know, you’re dealing with different issues. And I think probably maybe we’ll talk about this, but the issues of academic freedom, and the way that universities are governed, that’s different from K through 12. So, they were looking for data, and this study had already been done.

And so, it became clear to, I think, to Heritage that, well, we’ve already got this study that we’ve essentially completed. We should really make use of that because the data is there, the report is ready, and it helps us in the work that we’re trying to do to understand this problem. So, Jack Jedwab and Paul Hawley are the two main co-authors. Then that became the task of that Advisory Council.

One of the priorities is antisemitism, as the Prime Minister mentioned when he spoke at Holy Blossom in Toronto, and specifically singled out universities. I can’t speak on behalf of the minister, so I don’t know, you know, who within Canadian Heritage would have said, let’s use that survey that exists. But clearly, this is an important issue for them. Clearly, they knew the survey existed and then it was commissioned by the Special Envoy’s Office.

And so, they supported the release of the report.

Zenith Wolfe: I mean, I think we both already recognize 96% is a vast majority of the surveyed students. I’m wondering from your perspective why it’s so common on university campuses?

Cary Kogan: I mean, that’s a complex question, right? We have to look at it as an evolution over time. Certainly, antisemitism existed before October 7th, but it accelerated precipitously post-October 7th. And I think, there’s a bit of a snowball effect because you’ve got, there was, I think, fair to say, not a lot of consequences to bad behaviour. If we look at the encampments, if we look at some of the types of vandalism. the kinds of things that were said about Jewish students and two Jewish students and very few consequences.

So that has an impact when there aren’t consequences to these kinds of incidents, they become normalized.

I think it’s also fair to say that like when there are these geopolitical conflicts, when you’ve got a war going on in the Middle East, we know that’s correlated with increased rates of antisemitism. And so,it comes out of the woodwork, unfortunately, and in this case, in a very coordinated way. So, you had situations in classrooms where it had nothing to do with the Middle East conflict, you know, whether it’s a physics class or a chemistry class or whatever, with no connection with the conflict that where professors …and [the] report supports this.

One in five of the participants reporting in the survey reported that antisemitism was coming from professors and a lot of that was the kind of rhetoric that is anti-Zionist. abusive rhetoric, really, that traffics in all sorts of tropes that are essentially a repetition of the kinds of things that we see in other forms of antisemitism. So essentially, Jews have excessive control, excessive power, and are essentially malevolent. And so, we saw a lot of that going on in classrooms. People felt liberated, so to speak, to use their platform to kind of spew this kind of rhetoric that that I think is very damaging.

And then student unions, there are a number of Boycott, Divest and Sanction motions that were passed. Faculty unions, it’s legitimate to criticize Israel. It’s legitimate to criticize the way that the war is being conducted. It’s legitimate to have these discussions. This was well beyond the pale when it comes to this kind of discourse.

It was targeted. Jewish students were called out. I think there was some coordination. Organizations like ISGAP have investigated that kind of potential foreign interference, for example, that the university is a good place to kind of promote these ideas that we are seeing on campus and the protection around speech that is vitally important, but in this case, I think just really crossed the line.

Zenith Wolfe: The discussion on Zionism brings me to another point. The report takes pains to differentiate between antisemitism, Zionism, and anti-Zionism. And I’m wondering how the people who were going through the answers were differentiating between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism that bled into antisemitism and how that influenced the percentages or the numbers in the report.

Cary Kogan: Right. I mean, I think we have to, it’s interesting that the sort of questioning about legitimacy of what is and what is not antisemitism, and in this case, I think when you read the report, when you read the statements, I think, we certainly, with other minoritized groups, we listen to what they say. And I think if you look at the fact that 50% of Jewish students are telling us that they feel a need to hide their Jewish identity, that they can’t talk about their Jewish identity, 70% of them can’t talk about it during class, you know, where they are literally punished by people who are there, who are supposed to care for their career, you know, advancement and education, professors, literally punishing them if they have an opinion that differentiates from the professor’s opinion and, told things like, and there’s one story in there about a student who talked about talking about sexual violence on October 7th and was told, well, you’re getting a zero on this assignment and you should really talk about, you know, sexual assault by Israeli police officers. I think we need to trust these students to know what is antisemitism?

I don’t see in those comments, and I’ve read all 1,200 comments, anything that indicates to me that we’re talking about legitimate criticism of Israel. We’re talking about totally inappropriate comments, somebody saying we should kill all Zionists. When we know from Bob Brym’s work, 94% of Canadian Jews believe that Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, ie., they’re Zionists, so that’s why we really were careful with the definitions, and we wanted to make sure that people weren’t, and people project all sorts of definitions onto Zionism. They’re simply incorrect, and… when you just explain it very straight in a straightforward way, I think we can understand that. I think most of the students, I mean, I can’t guarantee that 100%, but reading the narratives tells us that they do understand and are feeling, and look, 75% of them are explaining that they have mental health impact because of antisemitism on campus.

So, I think they know.

Zenith Wolfe: The report considered 900 of the students who reached out, but I believe it was a total of 1,038 who had sent in survey responses. How come? And that’s over 10% of respondents who had been left out.

Cary Kogan: Right, so you have a phenomenon of data confirmation, like you want to look at the quality of the data. Quality control. You may have incomplete data, like if somebody fills out one-tenth of the survey, can you use that data, right? So, for example, somebody just choosing all the same response option across a series of questions, that would be a problem.

Ellin Bessner: The Association for Canadian Studies told The CJN there were other more alarming problems.

They told us that on the final day of the survey being open in December, they received 1,000 exactly the same submissions overnight from an e-mail address involved with Queen’s University, all declaring they had no problem with any antisemitism. The researchers haven’t been able to trace the persons who sent them in, but they discounted these extra 1,000.

Here’s Professor Kogan again.

Cary Kogan: But basically, there were bots that were sending in, unsurprisingly, the same, like the same exact responses to the survey. And then this just goes to show you like that there are bad actors out there. Their responses were clearly trying to minimize antisemitism on campus and to present themselves as Jewish and anti-Zionist, if I can put it that way. And so, luckily, they picked that up.

Zenith Wolfe: How do you believe that this report will inform policy that is made around addressing antisemitism on university campuses?

Cary Kogan: I can tell you what we hope will be the case. What we hope will be the case is NECA, the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics, which I’m the co-president of., we’ve come up with 10 recommendations that you may see on our website. We plan to disseminate the report to all the university presidents and provide them with those recommendations.

I think what we’re hoping for now is action, right? We’ve talked a lot about the problem. It’s been three years almost now that we’ve known about this problem. I mean, as I said, it didn’t start on October 7th, but it certainly got worse.

And so, we’re hoping that, you know, I think the first recommendation we make is: enforce your policies. Like if you look at a student code of conduct policy, you know, the kinds of things that we’re talking about are unacceptable behaviors. And so, we, for a woman to walk on campus and threatened with rape is not acceptable. It’s in the sexual harassment policy, right?

So, being excluded from a student club because you’re Jewish is not acceptable. So, we do hope that this is a wake-up call for action. and not just further policy development but actually enforcing those policies that do exist. And if there are other policies that need to be implemented, and certainly as Martha Piper mentioned at the press conference, we need, we can do this. Like we can have clearly accountability mechanisms put in place to ensure that not just Jewish students, because this is not just a Jewish student problem, like it actually reveals a bigger problem.

If you can target a minoritized group like Jews, then you can target any group for any reason. And so, it speaks to, it’s a canary in a coal mine, I think is the expression.

Zenith Wolfe: You said that there are 10 recommendations. Of these recommendations, which do you think should be highlighted the most?

Cary Kogan: The implementation of institutional neutrality or institutional impartiality policies is really important. And we’re starting to see some universities, I think, you know, Carleton has just passed an institutional impartiality policy because what we’ve seen is we’ve seen the whole departments declare that they’re essentially anti-Zionist departments. whole departments basically say that we subscribe to anti-normalization. We won’t even talk about the issue because there’s such a clear moral stance here that Israel is, you know, is essentially made-up of moral monsters who are irredeemable and the Jewish state needs to be simply destroyed, that we shouldn’t even have this discussion. So that, to me, that is a clear violation of what the university is supposed to be about.

And I would also say the other big one is the third one around academic freedom. We need to strengthen academic freedom. The academic freedom of professors is under threat. The freedom of expression of students is under threat, significant threat. when you’ve got professors telling you what to think and not how to think, we have a real problem.

Zenith Wolfe: And then lastly, I wanted to know a bit more about the follow-up study that’s going to be done. The, I believe, 755 non-Jewish students were surveyed. Sorry.

Cary Kogan: It is done. The survey is done. The report is in progress.

Zenith Wolfe: 90 days until it’s done, correct?

Cary Kogan: Yeah, we hope it’s released within 90 days. So, it’s working its way through. And that’s the general population and their perception of antisemitism on campus.

Zenith Wolfe: It was split into two parts.

Cary Kogan: I think, you know, Jewish students are suffering. Like they’re really having a difficult time. We hear it. We hear the data speak to that.

We wanted the focus initially to be on what is the experience of the people who are the targets of antisemitism. Let’s start with that, right? Because these are the people who are, and by the way, like, I mean, just anecdotally, like, I’ve received all sorts of text messages after the press gallery conference.

And what people are saying is, “I cried”.

That was the response. I mean, several people have said that, and I think it’s because their voices haven’t been heard. And I think, unfortunately, that also comes across in the data is the invalidation of people’s experience. It’s not just the incidents themselves, which are terrible, but it’s that there’s been no response and the invalidation of that. So, we really felt this was a priority to make sure that we were honouring the Jewish students who took their time to complete this and to share their voice first and then follow up with how people who are not Jewish perceived the problem.

Ellin Bessner: The minister, Mark Miller, didn’t attend the press conference in person, but former Senator Marc Gold did and read a statement from the minister which called the study’s results alarming.

Miller’s office later told The CJN the findings will be an important resource for the advisory council.

But some students aren’t waiting for the government to act. There are ongoing legal actions and human rights complaints, including a class action lawsuit involving McGill University to hold institutions accountable.

=============================================================

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/canada-holocaust/antisemitism/campus-antisemitism-student-experiences.html

Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE)

On this page

• Authors of the report
• Background
• Executive Summary
• Terminology
• 1. Antisemitism is a Campus-Climate Issue
• 2. The Lived Experience of Jewish Students
• 3. Institutional Betrayal
• Conclusion
• Appendix A | Methodology and interpretation notes
• Appendix B | Why this should be understood as a Canada problem, not only a Jewish problem.
• Appendix C | Additional student comments
• Appendix D | Broader Campus survey provides critical insights into antisemitism
• Appendix E | Survey Instrument

A national report on the state of antisemitism at Canadian postsecondary institutions

Commissioned by the Government of Canada, this report was produced by the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute, August 2026

Authors of the report

Campus Antisemitism and Student Experience (CASE)

The Case Report was prepared byFootnote 1:Jack JedwabPresident & CEO, Association for Canadian Studies & Metropolis InstitutePaul HolleyResearch & Evaluation Director, Association for Canadian Studies & Metropolis Institute

Name	Title, Affiliation
Dr. Jean-Philippe Warren	Professor, Fellow Royal Society of Canada, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Concordia University
Dr. Howard Ramos	Professor, Western University
Dr. Jason Brown	Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Dalhousie University
Robert Levy	President, BrandSpark International
Dr. Jonathan Calof	Professor Emiratus, Special Advisor on Antisemitism, University of Ottawa
Dr. Matthew Flisfeder	Professor of Rhetoric and Communications, University of Winnipeg
Dr. Barbary Perry	Professor and Director, Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism, Ontario Tech University
Naomi Rosenfeld	Healthcare Entrepreneur | Former Non-Profit Executive
Seth Goren	Chief Executive Officer, Hillel Ontario
Dr. Michael Geist	Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-Commerce Law, University of Ottawa
Dr. Jacob A. Burack	Professor, McGill University Faculty of Education
Maxyne Finkelstein	President, Morris and Rosalind Goodman Family Foundation
Dr. Morton Weinfeld	Emeritus Professor of Sociology, McGill University
Dr. Cary Kogan	Professor, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa
Dr. Eran Shor	Professor, Department of Sociology, McGill University
Dr. Robert Brym	Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
Dr. Yolande Cohen	Full Professor, UQAM, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Knight of the Legion of Honour, Knight of the National Order of Quebec

Background

Over the past few years, Canada has seen a dramatic rise in antisemitism. Despite only being 1% of the Canadian population, Jewish Canadians made up 68% of reported religiously motivated hate crimes and 18.8% of overall reported hate crimes in 2024—the largest in either category.Footnote 2 The Government response has included the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report on Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It (House of Commons report) tabled on December 10, 2024 and the Standing Senate committee on Human Rights report titled Standing United Against Antisemitism: Protecting Communities and Strengthening Canadian Democracy [PDF document] tabled on April 21, 2026 (Senate report). Both reports included recommendations for combatting antisemitism with the Justice Committee report specifically highlighting recommendations for combatting antisemitism on campuses.Footnote 3 The Department of Canadian Heritage, which housed the former Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, has a mandate to foster and promote Canadian identity and values, cultural development, and heritage. To achieve this, it works with a range of partners that serves Canadians to enrich cultural experiences, promote multiculturalism and strengthen identity. The rise of antisemitism on postsecondary campuses stands in direct opposition to Canada-wide efforts to protect the human rights, security and dignity of everyone, including racialized and ethnoreligious minority communities.” Along with 45 countries and numerous jurisdictions, the Government of Canada adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition including the illustrative examples in 2019 through Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy. This defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews, the rhetorical and physical manifestations of which are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”Footnote 4 Addressing antisemitism in this context is therefore not a niche issue, but a core test of Canada’s broader anti-racism commitments. Ultimately, if Jewish students are not safe on campus, it signals a broader failure of institutional safeguards, because a campus that is unsafe for one group is unsafe for all.

To respond to the growing crisis and the recommendations of the two committees, the former Special Envoy commissioned the Association for Canadian Studies to survey Jewish students on their lived experiences of antisemitism on campus, as well as to survey the broader student population on attitudes toward Jews and antisemitism. The resulting CASE project, which comprises this report and a future report of the general student population’s views on antisemitism, specifically support Recommendation 3 of the House of Commons report, which called for expanded quantitative and qualitative data collection on Jewish experiences on university campuses. Additionally, they support Recommendation 6 of the Senate report, which calls for the Government of Canada to support improved research and disaggregated data collection relating to hate, bias, and antisemitism in Canada. This includes the monitoring of trends across sectors such as education, workplaces, and digital platforms.Footnote 5

Executive Summary

“My friend was walking through [REDACTED] Hall. He also wears a kippah, and a group of students shouted, ‘there’s a Jew…let’s get him.’ They then chased him out of the building.”Student voice

This report presents the findings of a comprehensive Canada-wide survey of Jewish postsecondary students on their experiences of all forms of antisemitism. A separate report will be released with the findings from the survey of the general higher education student population.

In response to increasing accounts of antisemitism on Canadian campuses, the former Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism commissioned the Association for Canadian Studies to survey Jewish students on their lived experiences of antisemitism on campus, as well as to survey the broader student population on attitudes toward Jews and antisemitism.Footnote 6 The resulting Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) project provides the most comprehensive national evidence to date on antisemitism in Canadian postsecondary institutions. Drawing on parallel surveys of approximately 900 Jewish students and 755 students from the broader campus population, the findings point to a troubling and urgent conclusion: antisemitism on Canadian campuses is not episodic or peripheral—it is persistent and proliferating, and on some campuses has become a normalized and systemic feature of campus life.

By documenting the experiences of Jewish students on Canadian campuses, the CASE project responds directly to recent calls for stronger Canadian evidence on campus antisemitism. In December 2024, for example, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released an important report on Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It.Footnote 7 The findings reported in this report should be used immediately by leadership in higher education institutions to examine their policies and practices and determine how best to restore a truly inclusive campus climate.

The results of this survey reveal an alarming prevalence of campus antisemitism, along with a troubling institutional failure to respond to serious concerns about campus climate and student safety. The findings indicate that many Jewish students experience widespread and persistent antisemitism on Canadian campuses as a defining feature of postsecondary life that shapes their behaviour, their ability to fully participate in campus life, their safety, and their wellbeing.

Key findings of the CASE survey of Jewish students include the following:

• 84% of Jewish respondents said antisemitism is a serious problem on campus.
• 95.7% said they had experienced or witnessed at least one instance of antisemitism over the previous 12 months
• 70% said their university does not take antisemitism seriously, and 68%said their campus is not a safe and inclusive place for Jewish students.
• 72% limit what they say in class about being Jewish, and 57% avoid wearing or displaying Jewish symbols because of safety concerns.
• 18% of incidents cited faculty members, 7% involved teaching assistants, and 7% involved administrators or staff.
• 36% encountered course content or classroom discussion they experienced as antisemitic or biased, while 34% said a professor introduced Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Zionism when unrelated to the course subject.
• 45% encountered Holocaust denial or distortion often or sometimes, and 65% encountered it “at least rarely.”
• 81% reported hateful or discriminatory treatment of Zionists on campus often or occasionally; 71%reported antisemitic vandalism; 54%reported intimidation or threats directed at Jews; and 22% reported physical violence directed at Jews.
• 34% identified online or social media spaces as a location where incidents occurred, 33% identified student organizations or campus events, 25%classrooms or lecture halls, 23%nearby off-campus spaces, and 9% in student residences and housing.
• 33% reported the incident they described. Among those who reported, 63% were dissatisfied with how it was handled, and 52% of non-reporters said they did not think reporting would help.

Source: CASE Jewish student survey. See Part II and Appendix A for exact item wording, bases, and methodology.

In addition to the structured data, participants provided over 1200 accounts of antisemitic incidents through open ended questions. A select few, representative of broad themes, are highlighted in the “student voice”. These accounts reveal a university culture that is both not welcoming to Jewish students and actively and systematically trying to exclude and vilify them. The most prevalent themes of antisemitic incidents cited by Jewish students can be grouped into the following themes: holocaust denial and distortion; harassment and threats; normalization of antisemitic climate; pressure to disclose political views; academic/classroom bias; social exclusion; fear and emotional trauma; and a lack of institutional response.Footnote 8

“Have been spat on and had someone rev car engine at me in crosswalk while wearing kippah. Have seen a Jewish student punched, have heard a Jewish friend … called a Zionist whore and spat on for having a Magen David [Star of David] visible. Have seen antisemitic graffiti in bathroom stalls and all over campus.”Student voice

Terminology

“Professor wrote that we should kill all Zionists, that she’s worked with them and sees how evil they are.”Student voice

Antisemitism: This report uses the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism including its illustrative examples, which was adopted by the Government of Canada in 2019:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews, the rhetorical and physical manifestations of which are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.Footnote 9

Zionism: Zionism refers to the belief that Jewish people have the right to self-determination in part of their ancestral homeland.Footnote 10

Antizionism: Antizionism refers to a movement that calls for the erasure of Israel and denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination in part of their ancestral homeland.

Scholarship defines antizionism as relying on “libel and distortion to claim that the Jewish collective, Israel, rather than the individual Jew, is uniquely evil. It further asserts that Jews, who have thousands of years of history in this place, are fabricating a legitimate claim to their ancestral homeland. Antizionism claims that Israel, exceptionally, is the one state that must be eradicated. Footnote 11

“I heard a professor say that “Hitler was a hero”Student voice

1. Antisemitism is a Campus-Climate Issue

When it comes to the rise of antisemitism on university campuses, the Canadian evidence base remains underdeveloped relative to that of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. It continues to rely heavily on institutional reviews, parliamentary deliberations, community reporting, journalism, and adjacent educational research, rather than on national, comparative survey research. This gap is especially notable given related Canadian findings at the primary and secondary school levels, including Robert Brym’s Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools,Footnote 12 which was commissioned by the former Special Envoy and points to antisemitism as a broader educational and societal issue rather than one confined to universities alone. The CASE design—a Canada-wide survey of Jewish students paired with a comparison survey of the general student population, and with a combination of fixed-response and open-ended questions—therefore responds directly to a clear gap in the documentation and to recent calls for stronger Canadian evidence on campus antisemitism.

In the CASE survey of Jewish students, antisemitism appears across much of campus life, with faculty, peer interactions, and online spaces playing a central role in its spread. Jewish students report a range of incidents, from Holocaust denial to swastikas graffitied on bathroom walls to physical threats or intimidation. They also describe numerous classroom incidents, with Jewish students singled out for their opinions about Israel and professors assigning blatantly biased and antisemitic or antizionist literature while omitting any scholarship that reflects the Jewish connection to their ancestral homeland. The accounts of classroom incidents are an especially troubling indicator of the pervasiveness of antisemitism on Canadian campuses, where even the classroom is not a safe space.

The evidence points to a reframing of campus antisemitism. It cannot be understood as a matter of discrete acts or individual prejudice, but must be seen as a broader campus-climate issue with systemic characteristics in certain contexts. The data makes it clear that its impact is cumulative and pervasive, shaping whether Jewish students feel able to participate fully in academic and social life and express their identity. Treating antisemitism as isolated and episodic obscures its broader effects and allows harmful conditions to persist. The deeper point is that antisemitism on campus is not a private problem for Jewish students to manage on their own. It is a campus-governance problem, a classroom-culture problem, and a Canadian problem that is especially virulent across postsecondary campuses.

Terminology note: Zionism

Zionism refers to the belief that Jewish people have the right to self-determination in part of their ancestral homeland.

2. The Lived Experience of Jewish Students

“Residents at my on-campus residence started rumors about me that I am a child killer, white supremacist, racist, and Zionist all because these people found out that I was Jewish.”Student voice

84%

said antisemitism is a serious problem on campus

71%

reported antisemitic vandalism

96%

said they had experienced at least one instance of antisemitism over the previous 12 months

68%

said their campus is not a safe and inclusive place for Jewish students

72%

limit what they say in class about being Jewish

70%

said their university does not take antisemitism seriously

18%

of antisemitic incidents cited faculty members

57%

avoid displaying Jewish symbols because of safety concerns

The CASE survey documents a campus climate that many Jewish students experience as exclusionary, coercive, and unsafe. Moreover, the survey’s open-ended responses show what sits behind the topline numbers: fear, humiliation, coercion, isolation, and in some cases withdrawal from campus life altogether. “After openly mentioning I was Jewish within my program,” reported one student, “nobody wanted to work with me for group projects and ignored me any way they could.” Another student dropped out of a sociology programme “because of the level of hatred against Jews” in the department. Such responses underscore the human impact of a toxic campus environment.

“I dropped out. My anxiety level was too high and no one at school seemed to care. It is open season on Jewish students.”Student voice

2.1 Hostile Campus Climate

“Working in my labs, I have had people refuse to work with me due to my Jewish identity, and purposely try to mess up my data.”Student voice

The campus climate is widely experienced as hostile to Jewish students. It should be emphasized that Jewish students are not describing ordinary and expected discomfort at the introduction of challenging ideas or a few isolated bad incidents. Rather, they are describing a toxic environment in which antisemitism is not only tolerated but perpetuated by people in positions of authority. They do not trust their institutions, do not feel safe in their dorm rooms and their classrooms, and do not believe that standards of fairness and impartiality will protect them.Figure 1: Share of Jewish respondents expressing a negative view of campus climateShare of Jewish Respondents expressing a negative view of campus climate — alternative text

This hostile climate changes how students speak, study, and move through campus. Jewish students report changing what they say, where they go, what they wear, and whether they remain engaged in academic and campus life at all. More than 70% limit what they say in class about being Jewish, two-thirds limit what they say online, and more than 60% say they have lost friendships because of antisemitism. 40% report academic harm, and roughly 25% have considered leaving their university because of antisemitism.

2.2 Toxic Classroom Dynamics

“I was told by a professor, in class in the middle of the lecture, that Jews belong in Poland and need to go back.”Footnote 13Student voice

The classroom is not insulated from the overall campus climate. In the CASE findings, it is one of the places where students most clearly describe coercion, power imbalance, and fear of academic penalty.

The pattern is cumulative. 36% reported encountering course content or classroom discussions that portrayed Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Zionism in an antisemitic or biased way. 34% said a professor introduced those topics in ways unrelated to the course. Nearly half felt pressured to share their opinions about Israel with other students, more than one-third felt pressure to conform to a professor’s views on Israel, and about one in five felt pressured to join an anti-Israel protest.

36%

reported encountering course content or classroom discussions that portrayed Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Zionism in an antisemitic or biased way

47%

felt pressured to share their opinions about Israel with other students

20%

felt pressured to join an anti-Israel protest

34%

reported a professor introducing Jews, Judaism, Israel or Zionism in ways unrelated to the course

36%

felt pressured to conform to a professor’s views on Israel

25%

of antisemitic incidents on campus were witnessed in the classroom or lecture hall

“Professors sharing links to Holocaust denial websites as mandatory reading material”

“Professor assigned us to listen to a podcast that discussed how Zionism was similar to Nazism, which was unrelated to the course”Student voices

In the open-ended responses, students report numerous instances of the demonization, delegitimization and disinformation regarding Israel.Footnote 14 They also recount many examples of professors introducing the topic of Israel and the Israel-Hamas war in courses that have nothing to do with the conflict in the Middle East – including courses on Canadian constitutional law, on the technical aspects of film, and on statistical methods in health research. “A professor last year gave readings on Palestinian liberation,” reported one student, “for a course completely unrelated to the conflict.” The students’ comments also evince considerable anxiety over the pressure to conform to a professor’s anti-Israel views. One professor of medicine reportedly told students that “if we support Israel and don’t denounce the genocideFootnote 15, we would not be good doctors/don’t belong.” These examples of classroom politicization for the purposes of antizionist indoctrination are among the most worrying of the CASE findings.

Terminology note: Antizionism

Antizionism refers to a movement that calls for the annihilation of Israel and denies the Jewish people right to self-determination in part of their ancestral homeland.12

As the CASE survey results make clear, the problem is not only peer-to-peer: authority figures also appear in the data. Whereas fellow students are the most frequently identified actors, they are not the only ones. Faculty, teaching assistants, administrators, and staff all appear as perpetrators in students’ descriptions of campus antisemitism.Figure 2: Where incidents occurredWhere incidents occurred — alternative textFigure 3: Who students cite as perpetrating antisemitism on CampusFootnote 16Who students cite as perpetrating antisemitism on campus — alternative text

Among the incidents students described, 51% involved fellow students, 18% involved faculty members, 7% involved teaching assistants, and 7% involved administrators or staff. These categories are derived from multiple-response questions and should not be added together, but they clearly show that authority-linked conduct is not anecdotal or negligible. Significantly, the survey of the general student population, which will appear in a second report, confirms the perceptions of Jewish students by locating the problem in the same places Jewish students do. Among those in the general student population who encountered incidents, 54% pointed to other students, 44% to social media or online platforms linked to campus, 38% to campus protests or demonstrations, 19% to the classroom or lectures, 14% to professors, instructors, or teaching assistants, and 11% to administrators or staff. These statistics mirror the results found in Robert Brym’s report, Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools, which demonstrates the rise of antisemitism from Kindergarten through Grade 12 across Ontario educational institutions. In this report nearly one out of six incidents were initiated or approved by a teacher or involved a school sanctioned activity.Footnote 18

“In an international law class, my professor asked the Jewish students to raise their hands, and I felt very uncomfortable as no one raised, so I chose not to.”Student voice

Respondents describe numerous instances of faculty bias, abuse of podium, and inappropriate politicization, with professors offering one-sided accounts of complex issues and treating highly contentious claims as matters of settled fact. In one especially concerning example of classroom politicization, a student recounts how his or her professor forced students to find positive connections between the Black Lives Matter movement and Hamas.”Footnote 19 Students also report pressure by those responsible for their learning and for grading their work to sign petitions and to attend pro-Palestinian demonstrations. This politicization of the classroom represents a serious betrayal of academic norms of fairness, integrity, and responsibility.Footnote 20

Academic leadership must take greater responsibility for classroom environments. The CASE survey underscores the need for clearer guidance, standards, and accountability to ensure that course content is relevant, that contentious issues are handled with rigor and care, and that discussions do not reproduce exclusionary or discriminatory dynamics. Academic freedom protects rigorous inquiry, not harassment, coercion, or discriminatory misuse of classroom authority. Moreover, while academic freedom protects the right of faculty to express strong, even controversial, views, students must retain freedom to question, dissent, or remain silent without academic penalty. Universities have a duty to provide learning environments free from identity-based discrimination or harassment. Pressuring students to articulate political positions because they are Jewish may constitute unequal treatment and undermine both religious accommodation principles and academic freedom norms.

“A Women and Gender Studies professor graded me 0% on an assignment because I spoke about sexual assault on October 7, 2023. He suggested I focus instead on the Israeli Police’s role in sexual assaults.”Student voice

2.3 Prevalence and Severity of Campus Antisemitism

“I was told to go die when I said I was a Jew from Israel”Student voice

While the classroom is a major site of concern, antisemitism is not confined to one space, one channel, or one type of actor. Students encounter it online, in residences, in student life, in classrooms, and near campus. Particularly worrying is the normalized physical violence towards Jews. 22% of Jewish respondents (i.e., 198 students) reported that they had often or occasionally experienced or witnessed physical violence directed at Jews on their campus. Confirmation of this phenomenon comes from the general student survey wherein 20% of non-Jewish students reported having observed intimidation, bullying, or physical violence directed at Jews.Figure 4: Share reporting selected incidents often or occasionallyShare reporting selected incidents often or occasionally — alternative text

Separating intimidation, threats, and physical violence from the broader set of reported incidents makes clear that campus antisemitism is experienced not only as discrimination or hostile expression, but also as a direct safety issue. Although exclusion, hateful treatment, vandalism, and antisemitic remarks remain prominent across the wider incident profile, a substantial share of respondents also report intimidation or threats directed at Jews often or occasionally (54%), and more than one in five report physical violence (22%). These findings suggest that the problem extends beyond a hostile climate alone and, for many students, includes fear, vulnerability, and concern for personal security.Figure 5: Share reporting threats or violence often of occasionally

Source: CASE Jewish student survey. Percentages show the share selecting often or occasionally.Share reporting threats or violence often or occasionally – text version

“One of my friends was wearing her Magen David [Star of David] and was spat on by someone. She has been afraid to wear her necklace since.”Student voice

2.4 Online Platforms Amplify Antisemitism

The CASE data show that digital spaces are central to how antisemitism is experienced, amplified, and normalized. Institutions can no longer treat online environments as external or secondary. Policies, monitoring, and response mechanisms must reflect the reality that online and offline campus life are deeply interconnected.Figure 6: On which platforms have you seen this kind of contentOn which platforms have you seen this kind of content? — alternative text

“I was harassed online … She went as far as spamming my art page for 5 days straight sending me radical reels, calling my elderly family ‘killers’.”Student voice

2.5 The Harms of Antisemitism to Jewish Students

Jewish students remain connected to community and identity even in a hostile campus environment. Approximately half of Jewish student’s surveyed continue to be engaged regularly in Jewish activity on and off campus. However, Antisemitism on campus is affecting the way Jewish students are moving through and experiencing their academic journey.

The CASE data suggest that visibility and attachment can increase exposure to hostility. Students who are visibly Jewish risk experiencing more direct hostility, intimidation and exclusion than those who do not display visible symbols.Figure 7: Witnessed antisemitism on campus, by visibility of Jewish identityWitness Antisemitism on Camous, by Visibility of Jewish Identity — alternative textFigure 8: Experiences of antisemitism on campus, by visibility of Jewish identityExperiences of Antisemitism on Campus, by Visibility of Jewish Identity — alternative text

This, together with the climate of systemic antisemitism, is having a profound impact on Jewish student’s mental health, career choices and contribution to campus dialogue and life. Jewish students are changing their behaviors and choices to minimize their exposure to these hostilities. In a society that prides itself on equity and inclusion, 56% of Jewish students avoid wearing Jewish symbols, 71% limit what they say in class and 32% have considered dropping a course or a program due to the professor’s antisemitic views.

“I was dropped from research projects for saying I wished for safety and security of both Palestinians and Israelis. I faced extreme pressure from other student organizations to release a statement against Zionism in my position as president of the [REDACTED] student union, and had my name placed on a list circulating on and off campus as a “known Zionist”Student voice

Social and Mental Health Impacts

72% of Jewish students report that antisemitism on campus has affected their mental health. Furthermore, 60% have lost friends due to antisemitism. The result is that Jewish students are removing themselves from certain parts of civil society, which is isolating them from public life and undermines the democratic principals that protect safety, dignity and equality of all people.Figure 9: Agreement with statements about antisemitism and campus experienceAgreement with Statements About Antisemitism and Campus Experience — alternative textFigure 10: Agreements with statements about antisemitism and campus experienceAgreement with Statements About Antisemitism and Campus Experience — alternative text

“Students have asked me to take off my chai necklace because it is too Jewish”Student voice

3. Institutional Betrayal

“Previously discussing issues with administration did not help; I was warned by administration against making public complaints.”Student voice

In addressing the problem of campus antisemitism, the issue is not only whether incidents occur, there is also the question of institutional response. CASE findings suggest a reluctance on the part of campus authorities to address the issue of antisemitism with the urgency that the problem requires, and a failure to apply the same standards that are ensured to other minoritized groups. Ultimately, this study demonstrates an unwillingness by postsecondary institutions to apply their own policies and standards to combat systemic antisemitism.

3.1 Incident Reporting

Only 33% of respondents reported the incident they described. Among those who reported an incident, 63% were dissatisfied with how the matter was handled and just 37% were satisfied. The most common reason for not reporting was a belief that it would not help (52%), followed by the view that the incident was too minor (38%), uncertainty about reporting routes (25%), and fear of retaliation (16%). The gap between reporting and satisfactory outcomes is not a marginal issue—it is a central failure point that undermines trust and fuels underreporting.Footnote 21Figure 11: Reporting channels usedReporting channels used — alternative textFigure 12: Reasons for not reporting

Source: CASE Jewish student survey. Reporting-channel and non-reporting items are multiple response.Reasons for not reporting — alternative text

Low reporting should not be read as evidence of a low incident rate. The CASE data demonstrates that many students do not believe institutional channels will help them. “I have reported things to the university and human rights office in my first year,” reports one student, “but it never was taken seriously.” Another attributed the decision to not report an incident to the belief that “the school will most likely not care or even side with the aggressors.” Student responses indicate that reporting rates are low because institutional trust is low.

“After reporting the projection of a documentary glorifying Hamas on campus, the university involved diversity and inclusion and did absolutely nothing. So why bother reporting any other incident?”Student voice

3.2 Double Standards

Having students go on ‘strike’ and bar others from attending their lectures or accessing their studies goes against the contract that students have with their universities when they pay tuition.”Student voice

In its report on heightened antisemitism in Canada, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights found that “universities are failing to enforce their own policies to protect Jewish students on campus.”Footnote 22The CASE survey of Jewish students supports the findings of the Standing Committee. The double standard is what has been painful for many Jewish students. They watch as Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) offices implement policies and practices that raise awareness about racism and other forms of identity-based hate, for example, while remaining silent on antisemitism. Without visible and credible enforcement of campus codes of conduct, reporting systems risk becoming merely symbolic when it comes to the concerns of Jewish students.Footnote 23

“My classmates demanded I share my views on Israel as a condition for joining a student-led EDI initiative that should have been open to all graduate students from my department.”Student voice

Conclusion

“The only reason I have not realistically considered switching schools is because I do not believe other schools are necessarily better.”Student voice

Since October 7, 2023, rates of antisemitism have surged around the world, shattering the sense of peace and security for Jewish communities globally. In Canada, university campuses have become a microcosm of a national crisis. Read alongside the widely documented global rise in anti-Jewish hate, including in Canada, the evidence presented here points to serious concerns about campus climate, student safety, and confidence in institutional response.

For Jewish students, the burden described in this report is cumulative. Students are not only reporting insults, threats, graffiti, classroom hostility, exclusion, and online abuse; they are also reporting the constant calculation that follows from those experiences. These include whether to speak in class, whether to display visible Jewish identity, whether to file a complaint, whether a professor or classmate can be trusted, and whether remaining on campus is worth the cost. The data reported here point clearly to the conclusion that campus antisemitism is a climate problem rather than as a collection of isolated incidents.

Nearly one in five Jewish students report that their professors are the source of antisemitic incidents.Footnote 24 This raises serious concerns about our higher education system. Whereas grappling with new and uncomfortable ideas is an important part of higher education, faculty are also entrusted with ensuring a safe learning environment that balances academic freedom with academic integrity and responsibility. This becomes even more pertinent when the upcoming survey on the broader student population shows that the majority do not consider several forms of anti-Jewish targeting as antisemitic, including boycotting Jewish-owned businesses because of their perceived Israel tie (54%) and protesting outside Jewish houses of worship (54%). Additionally, more than half (55%) did not identify the statement that Jews have too much influence on the economy as antisemitic. If this concerning trend continues, these beliefs risk being carried into the workplace and all sectors of society.

In the CASE survey, 95.7% of Jewish students experienced at least one antisemitic incident in the last year, with 89.1% reporting that they experienced antisemitism on campus often or occasionally. Placed beside the wider Canadian context of sharply elevated anti-Jewish hate,Footnote 25 the evidence also underscores a broader point— campuses are not sealed environments. They concentrate and reproduce pressures that are visible across the country, but they do so in settings that directly shape students’ safety, learning, belonging, and future opportunities. Universities are therefore not merely observing a social problem from the outside. They are one of the institutions in which that problem is now being experienced, contested, and judged most directly. Most concerningly, they risk becoming the breeding ground for anti-Jewish hate to spread across generations and communities. History has shown that rising antisemitism is a “canary in the coal mine” for the spread of hatred and bigotry towards other groups. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of decision-makers to use these findings to change our current trajectory and ensure that all Canadians can learn in safety and dignity, regardless of their identity.

“I dropped out. My anxiety level was too high and no one at school seemed to care. It is open season on Jewish students.”Student voice

Appendix A | Methodology and interpretation notes

Jewish student survey

• Fielded November 17 to December 19, 2025.
• 1,038 responses received; 900 retained after screening and data-quality review.
• Recruited through Jewish student organizations, community networks, and related channels.
• Comprehensive, spanning the broad variation in demographic variables expected from the Canadian Jewish population
• Reported descriptively as valid percentages by item; not weighted.

The CASE Jewish student survey comprised 38 questions covering eligibility, background characteristics, Jewish identity, belonging and engagement, campus climate, experiences of antisemitism, incident reporting, online antisemitism, impacts, and optional gift-card draw entry. The instrument used a combination of response formats, including Likert-type agreement and frequency scales, single-response items, “select all that apply” questions, and open-ended free-text boxes. The open-ended responses were examined for common recurring themes, and illustrative examples were included throughout the report to contextualize and highlight the findings from the quantitative survey items.

Survey architecture and scope

The Jewish student survey was built to capture the lived experiences of Jewish Canadian students, whether and how they are exposed to antisemitism, whether their institutions took action and whether they believe that authorities would hold perpetrators to account, as well as the downstream impacts on their safety, mental health, and wellbeing. Many of the incident questions asked respondents to reflect on their experience in the previous 12 months, which allows the report to reflect the current campus climate.

Respondent universe and terminology

CASE includes students and recent graduates across Canadian postsecondary pathways, including university, college, CEGEP, and other professional or training streams where relevant. For that reason, the report uses “postsecondary” or “campus” as the default framing, unless a finding is specific to a narrower setting.

Fielding, recruitment, and screening

The Jewish survey was fielded from November 17 to December 19, 2025. Recruitment was facilitated by Jewish student organizations on campus, Jewish community networks, and related dissemination channels. This resulted in the reception of a wide range of views from across the Jewish community. The survey received 1,038 responses; 900 of whom were retained after eligibility checks and data-quality screening. An anomalous surge of identical responses occurred on December 10, 2025, after the survey link was publicly shared on social media. As a result, the original link was closed, a new secure link was issued for controlled dissemination, and flagged cases were purged from the final analytic dataset.

Weighting and valid percentages

The Jewish survey is not weighted. This is a deliberate methodological choice rather than an omission. Due to the uneven mobilization of the survey across student and community networks, provinces, institutions, and program types, post-stratification weights were not applied. They would have generated a level of representativeness not supported by survey participation. The Jewish-sample results are therefore reported as valid percentages among respondents who answered each item and are interpreted descriptively rather than as precise population estimates. Nonetheless, the demographic characteristics of the respondents is largely consistent with those observed in representative studies of the Canadian Jewish population of Canada.Footnote 26

Development and interpretation

Survey development was informed by a review of recent survey instruments, methodology notes, and campus-climate studies examining Jewish student experiences, antisemitism, safety, belonging, reporting, and institutional response. These included the Brandeis University Cohen Center’s In the Shadow of War survey of Jewish undergraduates at 51 U.S. colleges and universities; the Social Research Centre’s Australian Jewish University Experience Survey; the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism’s post–October 7 mixed-methods survey of Jewish students and staff, Antisemitism in Australian Universities Post 7 October ; Columbia University/NORC’s Student Belonging and Exclusion Survey; the Ipsos/Jewish on Campus poll on antisemitism at U.S. colleges and universities, Jewish on Campus Poll: Antisemitism at Colleges and Universities; and the ADL/Jewish Federations of North America survey report on antisemitic experiences in the United States, Portrait of Antisemitic Experiences in the U.S., 2024-2025. The CASE survey also drew on Canadian research provided by Robert Brym’s report, Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools, including both the Government of Canada–commissioned report and the related brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which documents a parent-reported survey of 599 Jewish parents and 781 antisemitic incidents in Ontario schools.Footnote 27 Together, these sources helped inform question wording, response categories, attention to both closed- and open-ended items, treatment of reporting barriers, and the interpretation of findings as descriptive evidence of campus climate rather than as population-level prevalence estimates.

Survey development and promotion were informed by an Expert Advisory Committee composed of academics, researchers, and practitioners, including observers from the Department of Canadian Heritage. This process strengthened question wording, recruitment strategy, and the interpretive framing of the final report. Open-ended responses allowed the study to contextualize the quantitative results in students’ own language while preserving anonymity in the reporting of quotations.

Percentages

For readability, the report rounds percentages to whole numbers. Small differences of one point between a figure label, a narrative sentence, and a background table can therefore be the result of rounding rather than contradictory source data.

Frequency measures should likewise be read carefully. “Often or occasionally” and “Often or sometimes” (which have been used depending on the question) capture more concentrated exposure. “At least rarely” combines often, occasionally, and rarely. Several of the most important figures are reported in these combined forms so that readers can distinguish between intensity, breadth, and overall direction.

Where questions allowed multiple selections—such as locations, actors, or reporting channels—percentages will add up to more than 100 percent. Open-ended quotations are included to allow respondents to describe their experiences in their own words. These responses are lightly edited for punctuation, spelling, length, and anonymity where needed, but they are not treated as stand-alone prevalence estimates.

Figure 13: Case Survey Sample Characteristics

Case Survey Sample Characteristics – Background profile of survey respondents (valid %)

Table A1: Number of Responses by Province and School

Totals by province and schools	Respondents
Ontario	418
Quebec	243
British Columbia	55
Nova Scotia	41
Manitoba	22
Alberta	14
New Brunswick	2
Saskatchewan	1
Unknown/Other	3
Ontario
Queen’s University	65
University of Toronto	62
University of Guelph	50
University of Ottawa	37
Toronto Metropolitan University	32
McMaster University	31
York University	26
Western University	23
University of Waterloo	21
Wilfrid Laurier University	17
Carleton University	16
Osgoode Hall Law School	13
University of Windsor	8
Other	17
Quebec
McGill University	135
Concordia University	43
Dawson College	19
Université de Montréal / University of Montreal	11
Vanier College	11
John Abbott College	8
Other	16
British Columbia
University of Victoria	25
University of British Columbia (UBC/UBC Vancouver/Allard Law)	17
Simon Fraser University	9
Other	4
Alberta
University of Calgary	9
Other	5
Manitoba
University of Manitoba	11
University of Winnipeg	11
Nova Scotia
Dalhousie University	28
Other	13
Unknown/Other
Unspecified “University/College” / “University” / miscellaneous placeholders	6

Appendix B | Why this should be understood as a Canada problem, not only a Jewish problem.

Antisemitism on campus should not be understood as an isolated Jewish concern, but as part of a broader Canadian problem. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard evidence in 2024 that Jewish students and faculty were experiencing a “toxic culture of antisemitism on campus,” marked by fear, exclusion, and weak institutional response. The same pattern extends beyond universities. A 2025 Government of Canada–commissioned study— Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools, by Robert Brym documented widespread incidents, inadequate school responses, and serious consequences for students’ well-being and sense of belonging. Read together with Statistics Canada’s hate crime data, these findings indicate that antisemitism is not only a problem for Jewish communities; it is a Canadian problem that touches education, public safety, and social cohesion.Footnote 28

The persistence of antisemitism is sustained by normalization and inaction. Its proliferation is enabled by gaps in understanding, and its impact is amplified by institutional shortcomings. The consequences have manifested across the country as Jews are more likely than any community be victims of hate crimes in Canada. Despite only representing 1% of the population, 18.8% of all reported hate crimes were motivated by antisemitism in 2024. 68% of all religiously motivated hate crimes targeted Jews. The Jewish community was the largest in either category, according to StatsCan. What is happening on postsecondary campuses cannot be separated from what is happening across the country. Rather, they are continuums of each other.

959

police-reported hate crimes targeting Jewish people in Canada in 2023Footnote 29

70%

of religiously motivated police-reported hate crimes targeted Jewish people in Canada in 2023Footnote 30

19%

of police-reported hate crimes targeted Jewish people in Canada in 2023Footnote 31

10%

of Jewish school-age children are estimated to have directly experienced antisemitismFootnote 32

920

police-reported hate crimes targeting Jewish people in Canada in 2024Footnote 33

68%

of religiously motivated police-reported hate crimes targeted Jewish people in Canada in 2024Footnote 34

19%

of police-reported hate crimes targeted Jewish people in Canada in 2024Footnote 35

49%

is the share of reported K–12 incidents that parents said were not investigated by schoolsFootnote 36

Appendix C | Additional student comments

Appendix C presents a selected sample of the more than 1,200 open-ended comments submitted by Jewish student survey respondents. These comments were reviewed thematically and grouped into recurring categories that reflected common patterns across responses, while recognizing that many comments touched on more than one theme. The most prominent themes included harassment and threats; Holocaust denial, distortion, and Nazi references; hostile classroom or academic environments; social exclusion and pressure to conceal Jewish identity; antizionist or Israel-related targeting experienced as antisemitic; fear, anxiety, and withdrawal from campus life; and perceived institutional inaction or inadequate response. These comments demonstrate the public nature of what Jewish students are experiencing, whether it be in a washroom or a classroom, from their peers or educators. Simultaneously, they reflect the social exclusion, withdrawal, and fear of institutional inaction experienced by Jewish students. The comments are not intended to replace the quantitative findings or function as prevalence estimates; rather, they provide qualitative context for understanding how the survey findings were experienced by students in their own words.

Student voices: Harassment and threats

Someone wrote on the walls of a bathroom at [UNIVERSITY REDACTED]: “All Jews must die,” with swastikas.

I was told that it was a shame Hitler did not finish the job.

I was told “Hitler should have finished you off” when people found out that I was Jewish.

I went to the bathroom; someone saw my [Star of David] and said welcome to your gas chamber while people were vaping.

Various [protesters] shouted antisemitic slurs at visibly Jewish students on campus, including phrases such as “Hitler should have killed all of you.”

I saw graffiti saying “Zionism is a death cult,” “Zionists invent false allegations of sexual assault,” “Death to Zionism,” and “Death to Israel.” People at a campus protest shouted “go back to Poland” at students who looked Jewish. I was yelled at when entering Hillel and followed after leaving Hillel.

A professor wrote that we need to kill all Zionists, that she had worked with them and saw how evil they were.

I was told to go die when I said I was a Jew from Israel.

Someone called me a “Jewish Nazi” because I was wearing my chai while walking past a protest, without even participating in it.

I and many other members of a Jewish organization unrelated to Israel received phone calls containing death threats after October 7.

A classmate of my wife approached her and said, “I thought you were a bad person because you are Jewish, but you are actually quite nice.”

My brother was wearing a kippah and a random person started yelling at him that he was a baby killer, that he was evil, and so on, and threatened to follow him home and attack him.

My friend was walking through the [REDACTED] building. He also wears a kippah, and a group of students shouted: “there is a Jew… let’s get him.” They then chased him out of the building.

When I was at the campus gym, while wearing a kippah that made me visibly Jewish, a student came up to me and said he wished all Israelis would die because we are “a bunch of colonizers from Europe.”

I was locked in a room, a water bottle was thrown at my friend, people gave the Nazi salute, there were chants of “Jews, Jews, you cannot hide,” on the bathroom wall “kill all Jews allahu akbar,” a teacher posted “kill them all,” windows were broken, there were bullet holes in the building, I was spat on, yelled at, and doxxed.

In first year, several mezuzot were torn from the doors of my residence. They never caught the people who did it, which made us wonder who was behind it and also made us look over our shoulders a little more often.

One of my friends was wearing her Magen David and someone spat on her. Since then, she has been afraid to wear her necklace.

I saw posters and heard discussions about the number of countries that have historically expelled Jews, implying that we must be the problem.

Several of my classmates cornered and surrounded me to ask where my family was from, where they were born, and where my grandparents were born.

I was in the library and saw written on a desk: “just because Hitler killed 6 million Jews does not mean he is a bad person #love #peace #tolerance.”

I was spat on and someone revved their car engine toward me in a crosswalk while I was wearing a kippah. I saw a Jewish student get punched; I heard a Jewish friend being called a Zionist whore and spat on because she was wearing a visible Magen David [Star of David]. I saw antisemitic graffiti in bathroom stalls and all over campus.

Student voices: Pressure to disclose political views

When people find out that I am Jewish, they always ask me what I think about Israel, and if they do not like the answer, they call me a horrible person.

When people discover that I am Jewish, there have been a few situations where they say something like “oh, but you are probably one of the good Jews who is anti-Israel.”

Teachers pressured me to take a position or give my opinion [on the Middle East conflict] because I am openly Jewish.

My classmates required me to share my opinions on Israel as a condition for joining a student-led EDI initiative that should have been open to all graduate students in my department.

I have always been asked the question “are you a good Jew or a bad Jew,” which means “do you support Jews having a country.” They always expect me to give my political opinion before they “respect” me as a Jew.

Students often ask me where I am from and then expect me to pass an ideological test. In addition, as soon as students find out that I am Jewish, they ask me what I think about Gaza, genocide, the Israeli government, etc. They ask these questions very aggressively. Professors and students have told me that I am not a real Jew because I am a Zionist.

Student voices: Lack of institutional response

On Instagram or TikTok, the university did not monitor students from [UNIVERSITY REDACTED] who were creating forums to joke about the Holocaust and deny its scale and severity.

We were excluded from our EDI community when it held a “pro-Palestinian” support meeting and said it was not offering a support group for Jewish/Israeli students. So we created our own support group.

After reporting the screening on campus of a documentary glorifying Hamas, the university brought in diversity and inclusion and did absolutely nothing. So why report another incident?

Discussing problems with the administration in the past did not help; the administration warned me not to make public complaints.

A member of my anti-racism research lab at the university minimized the impact of the Holocaust while the other lab members remained silent. For example, she said: “the Holocaust was not the first time gas chambers were used. They were first used against Indigenous peoples in Canada.” When I raised this with my research supervisor, now tenured, her reaction was to protect the student responsible. For example, she said: “what happens in the lab stays in the lab.”

A group of Jewish students, including me, was eating outside where the encampment was located when it was in place, and a girl came up to us shouting: “Hitler was right.” One of the Jewish students with us jumped up and followed her when she left. She entered a classroom and he went up to her, on video, and asked: “Did you really say that you wish Hitler were still alive?” She answered “Yes,” and then the professor removed the Jewish student.

Student Voices: Social exclusion

Students asked me to remove my chai necklace because it was too Jewish.

I was told to leave a public space because I was wearing a kippah.

One of my friends asked me what I was doing for Christmas, and I answered that I do not celebrate it because I am Jewish. She immediately asked whether I was Zionist. I answered yes, and she began excluding me from activities and making hateful remarks when she saw me on campus.

Please keep my statement anonymous for my safety: A faculty member with whom I had volunteered for years raised Gaza in front of other students and asked me to justify Israel’s position on more than one occasion. He did this even though he knew I had never lived in Israel and only because he knows I am Jewish. He made the situation uncomfortable enough that I felt unsafe and stopped volunteering, which cut me off from a community that had been important to me for many years.

A member of my group project heard me speaking Hebrew and asked out loud whether I was Israeli. After I answered yes, my group and several other people in my class stopped acknowledging me and excluded me from the group project, then gave me the longest and most difficult section while they worked together.

I was removed from research projects for saying that I wanted safety for Palestinians and Israelis. I faced extreme pressure from other student organizations to publish a statement against Zionism in my role as president of the [REDACTED] student union, and my name was placed on a list circulating on and off campus as a “known Zionist.”

I made no friends in a cohort of 17 students at [UNIVERSITY REDACTED] because I openly identified as Jewish and Israeli; my peers therefore distanced themselves from me.

Residents in my campus residence spread rumours that I am a child killer, a white supremacist, a racist, and a Zionist, simply because they discovered that I was Jewish.

Student Voices: Normalization of an antisemitic climate

Several faculty members in my program minimized the Holocaust or used it to condemn the Israeli response immediately after October 7.

Several students and faculty members in my courses frequently minimized or trivialized the Holocaust.

The campus is a hotbed of hate. Jewish students have to use back entrances to attend events in order to avoid hateful crowds of protesters, who often include professors. Hillel tables during welcome week were harassed by students and professors with megaphones.

In the anti-racist module of my psychology course, students had an image of a Jew who looked angry and scary, while the images representing people of other religions looked happy and friendly.

Shortly after October 7, I told my PhD supervisor that I did not feel safe on campus and she replied: “well, you should see the other side.”

Jews were described as greedy for money in a lecture.

When discussing characters in a book, my professor described one character by saying that “based on his last name, he is clearly Jewish and probably has a hooked nose.”

In an international law class, my professor asked the Jewish students to raise their hands, and I felt very uncomfortable because no one raised their hand, so I chose not to do so.

During class, a professor told me that Jews belong in Poland and should go back there.

I heard a professor say that Hitler was a hero.

Jews face double standards that no other group experiences on campus. The fact that students “strike” and prevent other people from attending their classes or accessing their education goes against the contract students have with their universities when they pay tuition.

Student Voices: Classroom bias

In a course that had nothing to do with Israel, my professor spent three weeks talking about Gaza and the creation of the State of Israel. He never mentioned the Holocaust as a precursor to its founding, repeatedly calling the state a “Zionist political project.”

In a course titled CANADIAN Law and Violence, the professor spent the entire semester discussing Israel’s occupation of Palestine, while encouraging students to miss class to attend protests, showing Al Jazeera videos, and wearing pro-Palestine shirts and earrings every week.

My class was forced to answer exam questions according to my professor’s biases. We were forced to draw positive connections between BLM and Hamas.

I wrote my final exam on Israel’s health care system because the assignment was about the health care system of a country. I failed the assignment, and I believe one comment said: “Israel is not a country.”

A professor cancelled class on October 7 so that students could attend anti-Israel protests.

We were evaluated on the situation in Gaza and Israel even though our course syllabus had absolutely nothing to do with it.

My professor, who openly participated in the Free Palestine movement, made comments in class such as “those fucking Israelis.”

My professor said that Zionism is an evil ideology.

My professor gave a lecture saying that if we supported Israel and did not denounce the genocide, we would not be good doctors or did not belong.

My geography course presented Hamas as a community organization with a high approval rating in Palestine.

Three minutes after the start of our presentation on breast cancer, my professor interrupted us to slander Israel, saying it was a sea of savages and barbarians and that, every second, three babies in Gaza were being killed.

A professor removed course content because it had been developed by a Jewish Israeli doctoral student.

During a class on an unrelated subject, my professor talked about Israel and forced the class to participate in a discussion about why protests and encampments were good.

A professor of women’s and gender studies gave me 0% on an assignment because I had discussed sexual assault on October 7, 2023. He suggested that I instead focus on the role of Israeli police in sexual assaults.

My Canadian criminal law professor left to join the Sumud flotilla, sending the class messages thanking us for our “solidarity.” She gave an emotional speech before leaving, in tears, and told us to contact her through her personal email, add her on Signal, and expect our communications with her to be intercepted by the ISG. Upon her return, she devoted an hour of instructional time to a presentation on the flotilla, referring to the IDF as the “IOF.” She had structured the course so that grading was not anonymous, which made it impossible to express disagreement. I felt completely violated and demoralized in her class.

My professor had us act out scenes from a film about a Palestinian woman accepting her sexuality and began the class by saying: “it looks like there are no Jews here either, so we will do this one.” He then described survivors who immigrated in 1945 as a repressive military regime, saying “they stole everything.” He clearly meant Jews.

During class, a professor shared a social media post describing an off-campus pro-Palestinian protest and encouraged students to attend. Another professor assigned us a podcast that explained that Zionism was similar to Nazism, which was unrelated to the course.

In laboratories, people refused to work with me because of my Jewish identity and deliberately tried to sabotage my data.

Student Voices: Fear and emotional impacts

I have been harassed, insulted, and antagonized both publicly and privately in attempts to make me say “politically incorrect” things about my nationality. My professors cancel classes in solidarity with the protests, so I do not feel comfortable asking them for help.

I was waiting for a music exam, to play a solo before a jury, when a large group of students wearing green Hamas headbands marched through the hallway of the education building with Palestinian flags. I hid my Star of David while they passed noisily with megaphones. It made me anxious and shaken during my exam and affected my performance.

I have only one semester left in my four-year bachelor’s degree and I am seriously considering dropping out because of the stress caused by my experiences of antisemitism.

I had to drop my archival cinema course last year because the instructor was very antisemitic and constantly talked about how our projects had to be very political, mainly using anti-Zionism in his examples.

I dropped out. My anxiety level was too high and no one at the school seemed to care. It is open season on Jewish students.

The only reason I have not seriously considered changing institutions is that I do not believe other institutions are necessarily better.

I dropped out. My anxiety level was too high and no one at the school seemed to care. It is open season on Jewish students. The fact that anyone can mask their face on campus, destroy property, etc., with no consequences is terrifying. I never felt safe.

I cannot speak Hebrew with my parents on the phone on campus, I have stopped wearing Jewish symbols, I cannot talk about my holiday plans because they are Jewish; I have to hide who I am and where I come from.

Antisemitism contributed to making me lose interest in academia.

There are often campaigns on campus inviting students to participate in walkouts, which creates significant anxiety among Jewish students who fear being identified as “Zionists” if they do not participate.

Student Voices: Holocaust denial and distortion

Behind me in the study room, a group of students were talking about Hitler, the Holocaust, how it was supposedly false, how Hitler would never have killed Jews, and how the Holocaust was simply invented by Jews to obtain more money and remorse.

At a school event, students ranked the Holocaust as “less serious” than other more recent genocides. Students and staff compared the Holocaust to the destruction of Indigenous peoples in Canada; they compared the Israel-Hamas war to the Holocaust and said the former was “worse.” Staff members specifically compared Israeli Jews to Nazis.

Teachers say they do not believe the Holocaust happened or that it was greatly exaggerated.

Someone waiting in line in front of me said: “the Holocaust did not really happen. But if it did, Hitler was right.”

People, especially those active in the pro-Palestine movement, very loudly and publicly sympathize with Hitler, saying he should have finished the job, that not enough Jews were killed, that what he did was right, and that he should be brought back, while also flatly claiming that it did not happen, that it was not as bad as Jews say, and that Jews invented the Holocaust to manipulate the West.

Professors describe Holocaust survivors who moved to Israel in 1945 as members of an oppressive military regime. Many students minimize the Holocaust and Jewish trauma, say that Gaza is the modern Auschwitz, and accuse Jews of “becoming what you swore to destroy.”

One of my current professors has already claimed that Jews exaggerate the Holocaust to make Israel more legitimate.

The professor spoke about the experiments at Auschwitz as “mere research conducted unethically during the Second World War.”

A notable case occurred when the student-faculty group “Solidarity for Palestine” at [UNIVERSITY REDACTED] invited a person who falsely claimed to be a Holocaust survivor. During the event, this person made historically inaccurate statements about the Holocaust and minimized well-documented facts.

There was one moment where people came up to me to engage in dialogue but claimed that the Holocaust was not a horrific event, but rather a plan Jewish people made to have an excuse to steal the land of Israel.

My law professor compared the Holocaust to the war in Israel and Gaza. He said Israelis are the modern Nazis.

The Holocaust was omitted from a lesson on the history of the Second World War.

Speakers distort the history of the Holocaust to adapt it to current struggles, such as BLM, EDI programs, or reconciliation. Professors share links to Holocaust-denial sites as required reading material.

In my ethics course, we were shown a photo of Joseph Mengele and told that he was a product of his society, then we quickly moved on, as if he had done nothing abominably evil.

I heard students compare Holocaust deaths to medically necessary abortions. It is a controversial topic, but hearing a student compare a medically performed procedure, done with consent, to genocide was shocking.

Appendix D | Broader Campus survey provides critical insights into antisemitism

Gaps in awareness and recognition within the broader student population are creating a postsecondary environment that allows for concerns about antisemitism to be minimized, misunderstood, and ignored. The broader Canada-wide campus survey, which will be the focus of the ensuing report of the general student population, will expose why an overwhelming majority of Jewish students feel that their experiences are being denied, reframed, and downplayed by professors, administrators, and their fellow students. As it stands, majorities did not consider several forms of anti-Jewish targeting antisemitic, including boycotting Jewish-owned businesses because of their perceived Israel tie (54%) and protesting outside Jewish houses of worship (54%). More than half (55%) did not identify the statement that Jews have too much influence on the economy as antisemitic. It will expose a campus environment in which recognition of blatant antisemitism is inconsistent, Holocaust literacy is limited, and political framing obscures plainly anti-Jewish conduct.

What Jewish students experience as repeated, visible, and routine antisemitism is still misinterpreted or misunderstood by much of the general student population as ambiguous, politicized, or peripheral. This asymmetry, which will be explored by the broader campus survey, will help unpack why institutional responses are experienced as slow, equivocal, or incomplete by Jewish students. It is evident that the surrounding campus environment does not register the same conduct with the same seriousness.

This pillar of CASE will therefore broaden rather than soften the Jewish student survey report’s central argument. The problem is not only that Jewish students are being harmed. It is that too many people around them do not reliably recognize contemporary antisemitism, and a substantial minority worry they will be judged or excluded if they speak up. As a result, it is imperatives to expand the focus beyond perpetrators and targets and explore how bystanders, interpretive norms, and administrative cultures can also reinforce how antisemitism thrives on Canadian postsecondary campuses.

Appendix E | Survey Instrument

The final survey instrument is included below in its original English form.

Preamble

This survey aims to better understand how Jewish university students across Canada have experienced campus life over the past 12 months, with particular attention to antisemitism, belonging, campus engagement, feelings of safety and inclusion, among other key themes.

The study has been commissioned by the former Office of the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism and is being conducted by the Association for Canadian Studies (ACS).

Participation in the survey is voluntary, and all responses are anonymous and will be analyzed only in aggregate form. No identifying information will be shared or published. The survey takes approximately 12-15 minutes to complete.

As a token of appreciation for your time, students who complete the entire survey and provide their e-mail will be entered into a draw to win one of fifteen (15) $100 Visa gift cards.

Findings from this study will help universities and policymakers strengthen efforts to address antisemitism and promote inclusion across Canadian campuses.

Eligibility to participate in this survey is limited to individuals who self-identify as Jewish and are enrolled in a Canadian post-secondary institution. The following questions will be used to confirm eligibility.

1. Are you currently enrolled in a Canadian post-secondary institution (e.g., university, college, or CEGEP) or did you graduate within the past two years?

• Yes
• No

Jewish Identity

2. Do you identify as Jewish (religiously, culturally, or ethnically)?

• Yes
• No

Jewish Denomination

3. What is your religious denomination?

• Traditional
• Orthodox
• Conservative
• Reform
• No denomination
• Other (please specify):

Background Information

4. What post-secondary institution are you currently attending?

(answer)

5. What is your current student status?

• Undergraduate
• Graduate
• Recent Alumni (graduated in past 2 years)
• Other (please specify)

6. What is your primary field of study?

(answer)

7. How long have you been enrolled at this institution?

• Less than 1 year
• 1-2 years
• 3-4 years
• 5+ years

8. Are you an in-province, out-of-province or international student?

• In-province
• Out-of-province
• International

9. Which of the following best describes your current living situation?

• On campus (e.g., residence, dormitory, student housing)
• Off campus — living alone
• Off campus — with roommates or friends
• Off campus — with family
• Other (please specify)

10. What is your gender?

(answer)

11. What is your primary language?

• English
• French
• Other (please specify)

12. Were you born in Canada?

• Yes
• No

13. If you were born outside of Canada, in what country were you born?

(answer)

Belonging and Engagement

14. How many of your friends are Jewish?

• All
• Most
• Some
• A few
• None

15. Do you wear or display items that identify you as Jewish on or around campus? (e.g., Kippah, Star of David)

• Yes
• No

16. Are you currently involved with Hillel, Chabad, or another Jewish student organization?

• Yes
• No

17. How involved are you in the following activities?

(Scale: Very involved / Somewhat involved / Not very involved / Not at all involved)

• Jewish activities on-campus (e.g., Hillel, Chabad, Jewish fraternity or sorority, student-led Jewish group)
• Jewish activities off-campus (e.g., synagogue, community or cultural organization, volunteer program)

18. How important are each of the following to your identity?

(Scale: Very important / Somewhat important / Not very important / Not important at all)

• My religion
• My local Jewish community
• Jewish culture
• The Holocaust / Shoah
• Zionism
• Israel

19. Have you personally seen or encountered examples of Holocaust denial or distortion on-campus (e.g., claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated, fabricated, or justified)?

• Often
• Sometimes
• Rarely
• Never

20. If you have seen or encountered Holocaust denial or distortion on-campus, please briefly describe an instance that stands out most to you.

(Open response)

Campus Climate and Discourse

21. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

(Scale: Strongly agree / Somewhat agree / Somewhat disagree / Strongly disagree)

• My university fosters a campus environment where people of all backgrounds are treated with respect.
• Faculty encourage open and respectful discussion about sensitive issues.
• My university takes antisemitism seriously.
• My campus is a safe and inclusive place for Jewish students.

22. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

(Scale: Strongly agree / Somewhat agree / Somewhat disagree / Strongly disagree)

• I have felt pressured to share my opinion(s) about Israel with other students.
• I have felt pressured to conform to views on Israel expressed by my professor.
• I have felt pressured to join an anti-Israel protest on or near campus.

23. If you have felt pressured by any of the above situations, please briefly describe what happened.

(Open response)

24. Thinking about your courses over the past 12 months, have you encountered any of the following in your classes?

(Scale: Yes / No / Not sure)

• Course content or classroom discussions that, in your view, portrayed Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Zionism in an antisemitic or biased way?
• Course content or classroom discussions in which a professor or instructor brought up Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Zionism in a way that felt unrelated to the course topic or discussion?

25. If yes, please describe briefly what concerned you.

(Open response)

Experiences with Antisemitism

26. Over the past 12 months, how often have you experienced or witnessed the following on your campus?

(Scale: Often / Occasionally / Rarely / Never)

• Antisemitic remarks/gestures directed at you.
• Antisemitic remarks/gestures directed at others.
• Hateful or discriminatory treatment of Jews.
• Hateful or discriminatory treatment of Zionists.
• Hateful or discriminatory treatment of Israelis.
• Exclusion from an event or group (on campus).
• Vandalism of school property motivated by antisemitism.
• Intimidation or threats directed at Jews.
• Physical violence directed at Jews.

27. If you experienced or witnessed any of the situations listed above, please briefly describe one or two instances that stand out most to you. What happened?

(Open response)

28. Where did the incident(s) you just described occur? (Select all that apply)

• Classroom or lecture hall
• Student organization, club, or campus event
• Residence, dormitory, or student housing
• Online or on social media
• Off campus, near the university
• Other location (please specify)

29. Who was involved in the incident you witnessed or experienced? (Select all that apply)

• Fellow student(s)
• Faculty member
• Teaching assistant
• Administrator or other staff
• Individual(s) not affiliated with the university
• Unknown individual(s)
• Other (please specify)

30. Did you report the incident?

• Yes
• No

Documenting Antisemitism (reported incident)

31. To whom did you report it? (Select all that apply)

• Campus security
• Equity or human rights office
• Dean or administrator
• Faculty/staff member
• Police
• Jewish organization
• Other (please specify)

32. How satisfied were you with how the report was handled?

• Very satisfied
• Somewhat satisfied
• Somewhat dissatisfied
• Very dissatisfied

Documenting Antisemitism (did not report incident)

33. If you did not report the incident, why not? (Select up to two)

• Didn’t think it would help
• Didn’t know how to report it
• Fear of retaliation
• Too minor of an incident
• Other (please specify)

Antisemitism Online

34. In the past 12 months, have you seen or experienced hateful or discriminatory content about Jewish people on university-affiliated social media or other online platforms?

• Yes, frequently
• Yes, occasionally
• Rarely
• No, never

35. If yes, on which platforms have you seen this kind of content? (Select all that apply)

• Instagram
• X (Twitter)
• TikTok
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Discord
• Telegram
• Other (please specify)

Impacts and Responses

36. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

(Scale: Strongly agree / Somewhat agree / Somewhat disagree / Strongly disagree)

• Antisemitism is a serious problem in Canada.
• Antisemitism is a serious problem on my university campus.
• I avoid wearing or displaying Jewish symbols because of safety concerns.
• I avoid attending certain classes or events because of antisemitism.
• I limit what I say online about being Jewish.
• I limit what I say in class about being Jewish.
• I have lost friendships because of antisemitism.
• Antisemitism has negatively affected my mental health.
• Antisemitism has negatively affected my academic performance.
• I have considered dropping a course or leaving my program because of antisemitic views from professors or other students.
• I have considered leaving my university because of antisemitism.

37. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experiences or perspectives related to antisemitism on campus that was not covered in this survey?

(Open response)

Gift Card Draw Entry (Optional)

38. To thank you for your participation, you may choose to enter a draw to win one of fifteen (15) $100 gift cards.

Participation in the draw is optional, and your email address will be stored separately from your survey responses to ensure anonymity.

If you wish to enter, please provide your email address below.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

The authors thank Lisa Abramowicz for her support in coordinating the CASE study and convening the Expert Advisory Committee

Return to footnote 1referrerFootnote 2

Statistics Canada, Police-Reported Hate Crime in Canada, 2025 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, July 22, 2026).

Return to footnote 2referrerFootnote 3

House of Commons Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It, 44th Parl., 1st sess., December 2024,.; Senate of Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Standing United Against Antisemitism: Protecting Communities and Strengthening Canadian Democracy [PDF document], 45th Parl., 1st sess., April 2026.

Return to footnote 3referrerFootnote 4

Canadian Heritage, Changing Systems, Transforming Lives: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2024-2028 (Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 2024).

Return to footnote 4referrerFootnote 5

Senate of Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Standing United Against Antisemitism: Protecting Communities and Strengthening Canadian Democracy [PDF document], April 2026.

Return to footnote 5referrerFootnote 6

For further information regarding the broader campus population survey, please refer to Appendix D.

Return to footnote 6referrerFootnote 7

The survey also responds to Recommendation 6 of the Canada’s Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights: Standing United Against Antisemitism: Protecting Communities and Strengthening Canadian Democracy [PDF Document], which calls for “improved research and disaggregated data collection relating to hate, bias, and antisemitism in Canada, including the monitoring of trends across sectors such as education, workplaces, and digital platforms.” Senate of Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Standing United Against Antisemitism: Protecting Communities and Strengthening Canadian Democracy [PDF document], April 2026.

Return to footnote 7referrerFootnote 8

For examples grouped by themes, please refer to Appendix C.

Return to footnote 8referrerFootnote 9

Canadian Heritage, Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism(Gatineau, QC: Government of Canada, 2024).

Return to footnote 9referrerFootnote 10

Ibid.

Return to footnote 10referrerFootnote 11

Izabella Tabarovsky, “Zombie Anti-Zionism,” Tablet Magazine, July 31, 2024; Cary Kogan, Deidre Butler, and Pamela Walker, Antizionism in Canada: The Evolution of Antisemitism, submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights (RIDR) [PDF document], November 17, 2025.

Return to footnote 11referrerFootnote 12

This study was also commissioned by the former Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism.

Return to footnote 12referrerFootnote 13

The commonly accepted interpretation of this epithet is that Jews should go back to Poland and the death camps of the Holocaust/Shoah, and continues the antisemitic trope that Jews are rootless foreigners who can never belong. Historically, these tropes have been used to justify genocide, ethnic cleansing, and pogroms against Jewish communities across the world. American Jewish Committee, “Cosmopolitan Elite,”#TranslateHate glossary,

Return to footnote 13referrerFootnote 14

These defamatory statements are antizionist conspiracies that repeat propaganda from the Soviet era about the world’s only Jewish state. (see Izabella Tabarovsky, Tabarovsky, “Zombie Anti-Zionism.”). Importantly, they function to stigmatize Jews worldwide, including in Canada, for expressing their identity and for having an emotional connection to their ancestral homeland, leading to exclusion, hate, and violence. Also see Shaul Kelner, “American Antizionism,”Sources: A Journal of Jewish Ideas(Fall/Winter 2025). Criticism of Israeli policies and practices in not antizionist or antisemitic as clearly articulated in the Government of Canada’s adopted definition of antisemitism, IHRA.

Return to footnote 14referrerFootnote 15

No court, international or otherwise has determined that the War in Gaza is a genocide.

Return to footnote 15referrerFootnote 16

Faculty and teaching assistants were separate categories in the Jewish student survey but a single category in the general population survey. To facilitate comparison, these two categories were combined for the Jewish response. However, because the original survey structure differed, the resulting figure may not be directly comparable and the actual number for the Jewish student sample is somewhere between 18 and 25%.

Return to footnote 16referrerFootnote 17

Ibid.

Return to footnote 17referrerFootnote 18

Robert Brym, Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2025),.

Return to footnote 18referrerFootnote 19

Since November 27, 2002, the Government of Canada has listed Hamas as a terrorist group. Public Safety Canada, Currently Listed Terrorist Entities, Government of Canada, September 29, 2025.

Return to footnote 19referrerFootnote 20

On academic freedom and academic responsibility, Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (NECA), “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and Academic Freedom,” NECA.; Ibid, “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on Campus,” NECA.

Return to footnote 20referrerFootnote 21

The Ontario government is attempting to address these concerns through Bill 166. Ontario Legislative Assembly, Bill 166, Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024, 43rd Parl., 1st sess., S.O. 2024, c. 11.

Return to footnote 21referrerFootnote 22

House of Commons Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It, 44th Parl., 1st sess. (Ottawa: House of Commons Canada, December 2024), 33.

Return to footnote 22referrerFootnote 23

Canadian Heritage, Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, 2024.

Return to footnote 23referrerFootnote 24

This is consistent with the results of a survey of Ontario K-12 students, which found that “nearly one in six antisemitic incidents were initiated or approved by a teacher or involve a school-sanctioned activity” (Brym, Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools [2025]).

Return to footnote 24referrerFootnote 25

According to the calculations of Robert Brym, in 2024 “the rate of anti-Jewish hate crime was nearly five times higher than in 2014,” with “one anti-Jewish hate crime for every 366 Jews in the country. (Brym, “Avi Lewis and Independent Jewish Voices are gaslighting Canadians about antisemitism,” National Post, January 26, 2026).

Return to footnote 25referrerFootnote 26

Robert Brym, Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2025).

Return to footnote 26referrerFootnote 27

Graham W. Wright, Sasha Volodarsky, Shahar Hecht, and Leonard Saxe, In the Shadow of War: Hotspots of Antisemitism on US College Campuses (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, December 14, 2023); Social Research Centre, Jewish University Experience Survey [PDF document], (Melbourne: Social Research Centre, July 2023), prepared for the Zionist Federation of Australia, Department of Education (Australia) submission.; Andrew Markus, Efrat Eilam, and Suzanne Rutland, “Antisemitism in Australian Universities Post 7 October,” [PDF document], Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism, May 2025.; NORC at the University of Chicago, “Student Belonging and Exclusion Survey Report: Report #3: Task Force on Antisemitism,” [PDF document], Student Belonging and Exclusion Survey Report – Report #3: Task Force on Antisemitism, June 2025.; 1. Annaleise Azevedo Lohr and Mallory Newall, “Jewish on Campus Poll: Antisemitism at Colleges and Universities,” [PDF document], Ipsos, September 8, 2023. Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Federations of North America, “Portrait of Antisemitic Experiences in the U.S., 2024-2025,” Portrait of Antisemitic Experiences in the U.S., 2024-2025, October 6, 2025.; Robert Brym, Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools [2025].; Andrew Markus, Efrat Eilam, and Suzanne Rutland, “Antisemitism in Australian Universities Post 7 October,” [PDF document] Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism, May 2025.; NORC at the University of Chicago, “Student Belonging and Exclusion Survey Report: Report #3: Task Force on Antisemitism,” [PDF document]. Student Belonging and Exclusion Survey Report – Report #3: Task Force on Antisemitism, June 2025.; Annaleise Azevedo Lohr and Mallory Newall, “Jewish on Campus Poll: Antisemitism at Colleges and Universities,” [PDF document], Ipsos, September 8, 2023.

Return to footnote 27referrerFootnote 28

Brym, Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools [2025]

Return to footnote 28referrerFootnote 29

Government of Canada, Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2023, March 25, 2025.

Return to footnote 29referrerFootnote 30

Ibid., Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2023, March 25, 2025.

Return to footnote 30referrerFootnote 31

Ibid., Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2023, March 25, 2025,

Return to footnote 31referrerFootnote 32

Brym, Antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 Schools, 2025

Return to footnote 32referrerFootnote 33

Ibid., Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2024, March 30, 2026.

Return to footnote 33referrerFootnote 34

Ibid., Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2024, March 30, 2026.

Return to footnote 34referrerFootnote 35

Ibid., Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2024, March 30, 2026,

Return to footnote 35referrerFootnote 36

.Ibid, Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2024, March 30, 2026.

Return to footnote34referrerFootnote 35

Ibid., Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2024, March 30, 2026,

Return to footnote35referrerFootnote 36

Ibid.

Return to footnote36referrer

Page details

Date modified:

 2026-08-05

12.08.26

Editorial Note

The Socialism 2026 Conference, to be hosted by Haymarket Books from September 4, 2026 to September 7, 2026, in Chicago, has many anti-Israel panels, including academic-related issues:

In the workshop “From Prairie to Poppy: How Struggles for Land, War, and Farming Are Connected from Chicago to Palestine,” participants will learn “how the struggles for food sovereignty are intertwined with struggles against imperialism and militarism. Join Chicago Dissenters and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) for an interactive session where participants will discuss, research, and leave with tools for how to divest from capitalist food systems.” 

Another workshop, “Confronting Zionism: Decolonizing Palestine and Building the World Anew,” will discuss how “For over one hundred years, Palestinians have struggled for liberation in their homeland. This session will take direct analytical aim at the ideology and institutional structures animating Israel’s brutal rule over Palestinian lives, and argue that Zionism is colonial and racist in essence and practice and that decolonization in Palestine predicated on redistribution, reparations and refugee return remains the only just way forward.” Speakers include Noura Erakat, Professor of Africana Studies and Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

The panel “Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Palestine, Internationalism, Abolition,” will discuss how “The struggle against state terror extends from the occupied lands and bombed homes of Palestine to the prisons and detention camps of Trump’s America. Join Angela Y. Davis for a conversation on Palestine solidarity, Black feminism, and the abolitionist fight for the future.”  The first speaker is Angela Y. Davis, Professor Emerita of History of Consciousness and Feminist Studies at UC Santa Cruz, an activist, writer, and lecturer. Her work “focuses on prisons, police, abolition, and the related intersections of race, gender, and class.” The second speaker is Naomi Murakawa, an associate professor of African American Studies at Princeton University and the editor of the Abolitionist Papers book series at Haymarket Books.

Another panel is “Break the Board: Neoliberalism in Crisis and the Popular University as Abolition.” This panel “introduces the Board of Butchers framework, an abolitionist project in opposition to the neoliberal university, actualized through the pursuit of the Popular University. The panel further strategizes how academics and intellectuals can use their skills to effectively support the Palestinian liberation movement and the abolition of the university.” The speakers: Adam Alex, Fiona Laith. The sponsor: National Students for Justice in Palestine.

The next panel “Building the People’s Embargo for Palestine: Strategy, Assessment, and the Path to Freedom During the Time of Genocide,” discusses how “Last year, the Palestinian Youth Movement launched the People’s Embargo for Palestine (PEP), a grassroots campaign uniting the international movement for arms embargo under a single banner: by intervening in the weapons supply chain, we can stop the genocide on Gaza. Sharing powerful campaign lessons from the U.S. and Europe, this session will share key insights into the PEP’s strategy and framework while equipping participants on how to identify local targets and take on PEP in their locales.” The sponsors are Palestinian Youth Movement and People’s Embargo for Palestine. 

A panel titled “Thought and the Prisoners’ Movement, What lessons does the Palestinian left offer today?” will explore “the history of prison writing in Palestine and key texts from the Palestinian left. Panelists will anchor the discussion in recently translated texts by Palestinian revolutionaries, including Ahmad Qatamesh and Walid Daqqa.” The speakers include Danya al-Saleh, who “developed her commitment to Palestinian community and youth education while organizing in the Palestine movement in North America.” Jenan Awaida, a “long-time community organizer in the Palestine movement based in Southern California. Her work has focused on grassroots mobilization, political education, Palestinian cultural programming, and coalition-building.” Ribhi Hussein, another featured speaker, is a “Palestinian-American born in San Francisco. He spent much of his life living in Ramallah. He was active as a student organizer at Birzeit University, where he graduated from the Department of Sociology.” He recently published an article titled “Another Dimension of Genocide: Interrogation in Zionist Prisons” about interrogation in Israeli prisons. The panel is sponsored by the People’s Center for Palestine.

The session “End the Genocide Behind Bars: Freedom for Palestinian Political Prisoners” will discuss how “Since October 2023, Israel has waged a genocide behind bars, systematizing and intensifying historic tactics of abuse and degradation against Palestinian prisoners, and turning prisons into death camp as part of Israels broader campaign to break the will of the Palestinian People. Palestinian Political Prisoners are the Compass of the National Struggle for Palestinian Liberation, the demand for their freedom must be amplified.” Featured speakers are Nawaf A, and Jenan A. This session is sponsored by the Freedom for Palestinian Political Prisoners and the Palestinian Youth Movement. 

The last panel deals with “Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism Resisting Attacks on Schools, from Gaza to Chicago,”  and looks at K-12 schools as “sites of imperial violence and attacks on knowledge, including scholasticide in Palestine and repression in the U.S. Demystifying the Anti-Defamation League’s assaults on antiracist teaching, this session grounds us in the knowledge needed to organize our schools — for Palestine, against racism, and with our communities.” The first speaker is Hadeil M. Abdelfattah, Ed.D., a Palestinian-American and the co-founder of the Justice Coalition, a grassroots political organization dedicated to building power through community organizing, civic education, and legislative advocacy.  She is also the founding director of Education Rising International, an organization that supports Palestinian students with accessing, navigating, and thriving in higher education and workforce pathways. Other speakers include David Stovall, Professor in the departments of Black Studies and Criminology, Law & Justice at the University of Illinois, is a “leader in Critical Race Theory.” Emmaia Gelman, the director of the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism, and Nora Lester Murad, a writer and activist, co-founded Dalia Association, Palestine’s community foundation, and Aid Watch Palestine, a community-driven aid accountability initiative. Lester Murad serves on the board of Visualizing Palestine and shares K-12 teaching resources about Palestine and DropTheADL From Schools. The panel is sponsored by Chicago Educators for Palestine, DropTheADL from Schools, and the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism. 

As can be seen, this Socialism Conference is a poster child for the highly troubling academic trend in which activism, especially pro-Palestinian activism, has supplanted scholarly inquiry. Ideological advocacy has taken precedence over intellectual rigor. Starting with the critical studies trend in the humanities, the phenomenon has spread across much of the liberal arts over the past two decades.

Interestingly, a recent study by Vanderbilt University illustrates the breadth of this development. According to Paul Boghossian, Professor of Philosophy at NYU, the chair of the committee conducting this study, the problem arises, “when the scholarly enterprise itself is subordinated to political or social values, when certain important questions are not asked, or certain plausible answers disallowed, because they would be politically inconvenient…. The subordination can assume a variety of forms. At its most extreme, there are calls within some disciplines – anthropology and sociology stand out – to abandon, or anyhow downgrade, the idea of trying to understand the world in favor of changing it.” He adds, “to think that this could justify proposing that the academic discipline of, say, anthropology abandon its traditional goal of understanding the human world in favor of ‘serving people’ is simply not a coherent option: academic disciplines are constitutively about understanding and knowledge. If your main aim is to serve a community’s interests, rather than advance our understanding of the world, there are lots of other occupations for you, from community activism to politics.”

As Israel Academia Monitor noted before, perhaps the most astonishing manifestation of the scholars’ political activism is the AAUP’s recent decision to engage in explicitly partisan activity by endorsing a political candidate—a striking departure for an organization founded in 1915 to defend academic freedom and faculty governance. Not incidentally, the current president of the AAUP, Todd Wolfson, a professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University, is a longtime leader of the Rutgers Academic Workers Union. 

Although the brunt of political activism is currently directed against Israel, the credibility of the liberal arts is ultimately at stake. What is presented as scholarship increasingly risks becoming an instrument of political advocacy, eroding the distinction between academic inquiry and ideological activism on which the legitimacy of any university depends.

The academic participants of the conference Socialism exemplify the trend.

REFERENCES

https://www.haymarketbooks.org/events/798-socialism-2026

September 4, 2026 – September 7, 2026 at 9.00am – 2.00pm

Hyatt Regency McCormick Place

Socialism 2026

Join Haymarket Books for the Socialism 2026 Conference in Chicago!

Hyatt Regency McCormick Place

2233 S Martin Luther King Dr
Chicago, IL 60616 United StatesRSVP

We are living through the reshaping of the world.

Neighborhood raids and imperial aggression aim to create compliance and pacification. But against the forces of fear and division, our communities are standing up with stunning acts of bravery and organization. Old networks and tactics are being revived, and new alliances are being forged in the heat of struggle. It has never been more urgent for us to come together and strengthen our movements by learning from one another.

This September, the Socialism 2026 Conference will bring together activists, organizers, and communities from across the country and around the world. A four-day conference featuring over a hundred participatory discussions, lectures, and workshops, Socialism is the place for both seasoned radicals and new activists to sharpen analysis, hone strategy, and build community.

For information on speakers, schedules, and logistics, visit the Socialism Conference website.

Some portion of the conference program will be live-streamed, sign up for our mailing list to stay tuned about details!

Please note: Haymarket Books is committed to making the Socialism Conference as affordable as possible, and for that reason we are keeping our prices as low as possible. However, the conference costs hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, and is funded almost entirely by registration revenue. If you can afford to purchase a higher tier ticket or make an additional donation, please do so! We depend on your solidarity to sustain the conference and provide scholarships to those who need them.

========================================================

About Our Lantern

The Socialism conference stands in the tradition of abolitionist, emancipatory, and working-class struggles, both large and small. At a time of increasing attacks on immigrants, queer and trans people, and workers, Socialism is a place for strengthening our connections and reaffirming our commitment to fighting for each other.

Endorsing Organizations

Socialism 2026 is brought to you by Haymarket Books, in partnership with the following organizations and media:

JewishCurrents Jewish Voice For Peace justseeds.com Boris Kagarlitsky International Solidarity Campaign Law for Black Lives Los Angeles Tenants Union Labor Power Publications Long-Haul Lux Magazine Muslim Counterpublics Lab Movement Media Alliance Mother Jones Heritage Project National Students for Justice in Palestine Network to Advance Abolitionist Social Work New Politics N Plus 1 Organized Communities Against Deportations (OCAD) Palestinian Youth Movement People’s Center for Palestine Pilsen Community Books Play Fair ATL Pluto Press PM Press Red Black And White Political Research Associates The Progressive Protean Puno Rethinking Schools RevLeft Radio Rosa Luxemburg Siftung logo Railroad Workers United SASSI: Southerners Against Surveillance Systems and Infrastructure Scalawag Science for the People Solidarity Southern Workers Assembly Speak Out Now Spectre Spirit of Justice Storytelling and Organizing Project Tempest Truthout Upend Ukraine Solidarity Network – US Verso W.E.B. Du Bois Movement School for Abolition and Reconstruction Writers Against the war on Gaza Workers’ Voice La voz de los trabajadores Xicanx Institute for Teaching and Organizing Howard Zinn Book Fair: December 6, 2026, San Francisco, CA

2026 Schedule

From Prairie to Poppy: How Struggles for Land, War, and Farming Are Connected from Chicago to Palestine
Friday September 4, 2026 2:30pm – 4:00pmCDT
TBA
You’re walking through the produce section and spot your favorite fruit! But how did it get to this grocery store? Whose labor, land, and future is tied up in the farming, packaging, and shipping of that fruit? In this workshop, participants will learn about how the struggles for food sovereignty are intertwined with struggles against imperialism and militarism. Join Chicago Dissenters and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) for an interactive session where participants will discuss, research, and leave with tools for how to divest from capitalist food systems.
Speakers
Heather Aubry
A. Funk
Rumsha S.
Sponsors
Dissenters
Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism

Confronting Zionism: Decolonizing Palestine and Building the World Anew
Friday September 4, 2026 4:30pm – 6:00pmCDT
TBA
For over one hundred years, Palestinians have struggled for liberation in their homeland. This session will take direct analytical aim at the ideology and institutional structures animating Israel’s brutal rule over Palestinian lives, and argue that Zionism is colonial and racist in essence and practice and that decolonization in Palestine predicated on redistribution, reparations and refugee return remains the only just way forward.
Speakers
Noura Erakat
Noura Erakat is Professor of Africana Studies and Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, New Brunswick. She is the author of Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine (Stanford University Press, 2019), which received the Palestine Book Award and the Bronze Medal for the Independent Publishers Book Award in Current Events/Foreign Affairs, and co-author of Confronting Zionism: Decolonizing Palestine and Building the World Anew. She is a co-founding editor of Jadaliyya and an editorial board member of the Journal of Palestine Studies. Erakat has served as legal counsel for a Congressional subcommittee in the US House of Representatives, and as legal advocate for the Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Refugee and Residency Rights.  Noura has also produced video documentaries, including “Gaza In Context” and “Black Palestinian Solidarity.” She is a frequent commentator in television, print, and radio media.
Brekhna Aftab
Anti-colonial Politics

Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Palestine, Internationalism, Abolition
Friday September 4, 2026 7:30pm – 9:00pmCDT
TBA
The struggle against state terror extends from the occupied lands and bombed homes of Palestine to the prisons and detention camps of Trump’s America. Join Angela Y. Davis for a conversation on Palestine solidarity, Black feminism, and the abolitionist fight for the future.
Speakers
Angela Y. Davis
Angela Y. Davis is Professor Emerita of History of Consciousness and Feminist Studies at UC Santa Cruz. An activist, writer, and lecturer, her work focuses on prisons, police, abolition, and the related intersections of race, gender, and class. She is the author of many books, from Angela Davis: An Autobiography to Freedom Is a Constant Struggle.

Naomi Murakawa
Naomi Murakawa is an associate professor of African American Studies at Princeton University. She is the author of The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America and the editor of the Abolitionist Papers book series at Haymarket Books.

Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism

Break the Board: Neoliberalism in Crisis and the Popular University as Abolition
Saturday September 5, 2026 12:00pm – 1:30pmCDT
TBA
This panel introduces the Board of Butchers framework, an abolitionist project in opposition to the neoliberal university, actualized through the pursuit of the Popular University. The panel further strategizes how academics and intellectuals can use their skills to effectively support the Palestinian liberation movement and the abolition of the university.
Speakers
Adam
Alex
Fiona
Laith
Sponsors
National Students for Justice in Palestine

Building the People’s Embargo for Palestine: Strategy, Assessment, and the Path to Freedom During the Time of Genocide
Saturday September 5, 2026 5:00pm – 6:30pmCDT
TBA
Last year, the Palestinian Youth Movement launched the People’s Embargo for Palestine (PEP), a grassroots campaign uniting the international movement for arms embargo under a single banner: by intervening in the weapons supply chain, we can stop the genocide on Gaza. Sharing powerful campaign lessons from the U.S., and Europe, this session will share key insights into the PEP’s strategy and framework while equipping participants on how to identify local targets and take on PEP in their locales.
Speakers
TBD
Sponsors
Palestinian Youth Movement
People’s Embargo for Palestine
Anti-colonial Politics

Palestinian Revolutionary Thought and the Prisoners’ Movement
Sunday September 6, 2026 12:00pm – 1:30pmCDT
TBA
What lessons does the Palestinian left offer today? This session explores the history of prison writing in Palestine and key texts from the Palestinian left. Panelists will situate this discussion in relation to recently translated texts by Palestinian revolutionaries, including Ahmad Qatamesh and Walid Daqqa.
Speakers
Danya al-Saleh
Danya al-Saleh developed her commitment to Palestinian community and youth education while organizing in the Palestine movement in North America. She has contributed as an editor to translation projects of Palestinian literature into English. Danya’s writing has been published in The Nation, Mondoweiss, and journals such as Climate and Development. She has a PhD in Geography from the University of Wisconsin.
Jenan Awaida
Jenan Awaida is a long-time community organizer in the Palestine movement based in Southern California. Her work has focused on grassroots mobilization, political education, Palestinian cultural programming, and coalition-building. She has contributed to national initiatives for the Palestine movement in North America, including the 2025 People’s Conference for Palestine.

Ribhi Hussein
Ribhi Hussein is a Palestinian-American born in San Francisco. He spent much of his life living in Ramallah, until recently. He was active as a student organizer at Birzeit University, where he graduated from the Department of Sociology. He recently published a piece about interrogation in Israeli prisons, titled “Another Dimension of Genocide: Interrogation in Zionist Prisons.

Sponsors
People’s Center for Palestine
Anti-colonial Politics

End the Genocide Behind Bars: Freedom for Palestinian Political Prisoners
Monday September 7, 2026 10:00am – 11:30amCDT
TBA
Since October 2023, Israel has waged a genocide behind bars, systematizing and intensifying historic tactics of abuse and degradation against Palestinian prisoners, and turning prisons into death camp as part of Israels broader campaign to break the will of the Palestinian People. Palestinian Political Prisoners are the Compass of the National Struggle for Palestinian Liberation, the demand for their freedom must be amplified.
Speakers
Nawaf A
Jenan A
Sponsors
Freedom for Palestinian Political Prisoners
Palestinian Youth Movement
Anti-colonial Politics

Building a Rank-and-File Working Class Antiwar Movement Today
Monday September 7, 2026 10:00am – 11:30amCDT
TBA
Drawing on lessons from the hidden history of US working class antiwar resistance in the Vietnam war and beyond to build a working class antiwar movement today.
Speakers
Michael Letwin
A third-generation political activist, and a revolutionary socialist since the 1960s, Michael Letwin has participated in movements against the Vietnam War, apartheid South Africa, and U.S. imperialism in Iran, Central America, the Middle East, and around the world. In 1971, he was a founding member of the Red Tide, a Marxist high school underground newspaper in Los Angeles that later became the youth organization of the International Socialists, with which he relocated to Detroit in 1975. He is a former New York City public defender (1985-2002) and former president of the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys-UAW 2325 (1990-2002), and is a cofounder of New York City Labor Against the War (2001), Labor for Palestine (2004), Labor for Standing Rock (2016), and UAW Labor for Palestine (2023).
TBD
Sponsors
Labor for Palestine National Network
Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism  

Resisting Attacks on Schools, from Gaza to Chicago
Saturday September 5, 2026 3:00pm – 4:30pm
CDT
TBA
This panel looks at K-12 schools as sites of imperial violence and attacks on knowledge, including scholasticide in Palestine and repression in the U.S. Demystifying the Anti-Defamation League’s assaults on antiracist teaching, this session grounds us in the knowledge needed to organize our schools — for Palestine, against racism, and with our communities.
Speakers
Hadeil M. Abdelfattah, Ed.D
Hadeil M. Abdelfattah, Ed.D. is a Palestinian-American born and raised on the northside of the city of Chicago. She is an educator of nearly 28 years and is currently a Lead Instructional Coach at Chicago Public Schools. She holds a doctorate in Educational Leadership and wrote an Autoethnographic study of her experiences as the child of immigrants in a large urban school district. Hadeil is a co-founder of The Justice Coalition, a grassroots political organization dedicated to building power through community organizing, civic education, and legislative advocacy. She is also the founding director of Education Rising International, an organization that supports Palestinian students with accessing, navigating, and thriving in higher education and workforce pathways.

David Stovall, Ph.D
David Stovall, Ph.D. is a professor in the departments of Black Studies and Criminology, Law & Justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). His scholarship investigates three areas 1) Critical Race Theory, 2) the relationship between housing and education, and 3) the intersection of race, place and school. In the attempt to bring theory to action, he works with community organizations and schools to address issues of equity, justice and abolishing the school/prison nexus. His work led him to become a member of the design team for the Greater Lawndale/Little Village School for Social Justice (SOJO), which opened in the Fall of 2005. Furthering his work with communities, students, and teachers, his work manifests itself in his involvement with the Peoples Education Movement, a collection of classroom teachers, community members, students and university professors in Chicago, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area who engage in collaborative community projects centered in creating relevant curriculum. In addition to his duties and responsibilities as a professor at UIC, he also served as a volunteer social studies teacher at the Greater Lawndale/Little Village School for Social Justice from 2005-2018. He is the author of Engineered Conflict: Structural Violence and the Future of Black Life in Chicago published by Haymarket Books.

Emmaia Gelman
Emmaia Gelman is the author of The Anti-Defamation League and the Racial State (UC Press, 2026) and co-editor of The Anti-Defamation League: A Critical Reader (Pluto Press, 2026). She is the director of the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism.
Nora Lester Murad
Nora Lester Murad is a writer and activist. She is the author of the award-winning young adult novel, Ida in the Middle, editor of I Found Myself in Palestine (2020) and co-author of Rest in My Shade (2018). Nora writes commentary for outlets including Mondoweiss, The New Arab, Markaz Review, Aljazeera, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and more. She co-founded Dalia Association, Palestine’s community foundation, and Aid Watch Palestine, a community-driven aid accountability initiative. Nora serves on the board of Visualizing Palestine and shares K-12 teaching resources about Palestine at www.IdaInTheMiddle.com and DropTheADL From Schools.
Sponsors
 Chicago Educators for Palestine
DropTheADL from Schools
Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism
  Education Justice

05.08.26

Editorial Note

The Association for Social Anthropologists of the UK (ASA) held its annual gathering on May 29–31, 2026, at the University of Edinburgh. 

The ASA was founded in 1946 to “promote the study and teaching of anthropology and to uphold the interests and status of the discipline, primarily in the UK, but also extending to the Commonwealth, where it works collaboratively with fellow anthropology associations. The ASA’s major role is to assist its members in planning and conducting research, and to represent social anthropology and anthropologists in the academy, and in relation to policy and funding.”

During its conference, an exhibition titled “Killing the Messenger” of all the “Palestinian journalists murdered by Israel” was shown. As stated in the invitation, this exhibit “stands as a site of remembrance for those who have been murdered and a site to resist the genocidal narratives that frame these victims as something other.” 

Accompanying the exhibition, a film was screened, titled “Gaza Fixer: A chronicle of survival,” by George Azar and Mariam Shahin. The film talks about “Raed Athamneh is a six-time war survivor, patriarch and trusted news fixer to foreign reporters covering Gaza. As he gives aid workers and journalists tours, he is the one who actually talks to the people, and translates the story of their fate to the foreigners eagerly recoding, writing, filming, the tragedy that Gaza has become.” After the screening, a discussion took place with director Mariam Shahin that covers the last 20 years of journalism in Gaza.  

In December 2025, the ASA voted to support the Palestinian call to boycott “complicit” Israeli academic and cultural institutions. According to the official announcement, following a member ballot, the Association voted to join the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).  Forty-seven percent of members voted in favor of a boycott (171 votes in favor, 37 against, and 11 abstentions). The organization now “advocates for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions for their deep and persistent complicity in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights stipulated in international law.”

The ASA announcement added, “To be clear, this is a boycott of complicit institutions, and the ASA remain committed to freedom of expression as stipulated in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and, as such, rejects on principle boycotts of individuals based on their opinion or identity.”  

It was also decided that “As part of our role as a professional and educational association, we are offering materials to contribute to broader understanding about what has occurred, and continues to occur, in Palestine from the perspectives of international law, history, anthropology, critical theory, journalism and forensic architecture.”

The Association issues a Resource Pack on its website to justify the boycott, intended to be a “living document’ to be “continually updated.”  The Pack includes a long list of items such as “United Nations (UN), International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other Reports: Gaza Genocide, A Collective Crime by the Special Rapporteur about human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” (A/80/492). 20 October 2025. 

The section on Accountability reads: “The architecture of genocidal starvation. This report published by Forensic Architecture at Goldsmiths University of London shows the strategy and tactics of the Israeli government and the IDF since October 2023, mapping out the details of what it describes as a systematic genocidal intent.” Among other items.   

The Videos section featured “‘In Search of Palestine,’ a short video by Edward Said who shows the house where his grandparents once lived, now occupied by Israeli settlers. Said asks, how did this happen and how does it relate to what is happening in Palestine today?”

“Our Genocide: The Guardian series of interviews published by The Guardian, that explores the views of ordinary residents of Tel Aviv—often considered Israel’s liberal capital—on the war on Gaza.”

“The IDF: This video explores the origins of the IDF and challenges its claim to be the ‘most moral army in the world’. It focuses on early actions to expel Arabs from the Palestinian territory.”

“Inside Israeli apartheid: The video explains why the concept of ‘apartheid’ is relevant to understanding the Israeli government’s policies toward, and treatment of, Palestinians.”

Another section is “The Role of Universities and Academia,” which showcases the work of Dr. Maya Wind (whom Israel Academia Monitor discussed previously). The Resource Pack states, “Through ethnographic research on university campuses in Israeli and analysis of government documents, Wind outlines the role universities have played in settler-colonialism and in the persecution of Palestinians within all occupied territories.” Usher, Alex and Wind, Maya. 2025. “Why Boycott? Maya Wind on the Case Against Israeli Universities,” 6 March. 

The last section, Higher Education Strategy Associations: “Palestinian-led Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel Established in 2004 by a group of Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the West Bank as part of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, PACBI aims to isolate Israel in order to force change in its actions towards Palestinians including the oppressing the academic freedom of Palestinians (as evidenced by Maya Wind’s 2024 ethnography).”

Clearly, the materials in the Pack follow the propaganda line of the Palestinian anti-Israel campaigns. It is totally decontextualized to present the Palestinians as totally lacking in agency: none of their decisions, including the rejection of the 1947 UN Partition proposal, the effort by Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, to destroy the Oslo Accords, have been mentioned. Hamas’s violent attack on Israeli communities in which civilians were murdered was omitted as well.  Instead, the Pack includes materials that purport to demonstrate Israel’s “genocidal” assault on the Gaza population using the report by Forensic Architecture. Nowhere does the Pack explain that Prof. Eyal Weizman, the head of Forensic Architecture, is a well-known Israeli anti-Israel activist whose lifelong expertise is fabricating materials to show “systematic genocidal intent.”

As an academic organization, the ASA should be condemned for all its falsifications and distortions.

REFERENCES

https://theasa.org/about/news/boycott-israel.phtml

The Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK (ASA) joins the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel

Photo by luzitanija – stock.adobe.com

Following a ballot of members the Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK (ASA) has voted to join the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). With a strong rate of return of 47.8%, members voted overwhelmingly in favour of a boycott (171 votes in favour, 37 against and 11 abstentions). Alongside PACBI, the ASA therefore advocates for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions for their deep and persistent complicity in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights stipulated in international law. Details of the campaign, and its precise objectives and terms of reference, can be found on the BDS Freedom Justice Equality PACBI page.

To be clear, this is a boycott of complicit institutions, and the ASA remain committed to freedom of expression as stipulated in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and, as such, rejects on principle boycotts of individuals based on their opinion or identity. As part of our role as a professional and educational association, we are offering materials to contribute to broader understanding about what has occurred, and continues to occur, in Palestine from the perspectives of international law, history, anthropology, critical theory, journalism and forensic architecture. The Resource pack which accompanies this announcement of a boycott is intended as a ‘living document’ that will be continually updated and changed as new information becomes available or as circumstances change.

==========================================================

https://www.theasa.org/

https://theasa.org/publications/resources-palestine.phtmlASA Resource Pack for further education and understanding on Palestine

As part of our role as a professional and educational association, we are offering materials to contribute to broader understanding about what has occurred, and continues to occur, in Palestine from the perspectives of international law, history, anthropology, critical theory, journalism and forensic architecture. This is by no means an exhaustive resource list, but rather a selected range of writings and media representations for understanding the historical and political background and context to the current conflict and atrocities we have witnessed in Palestine.

We also see this as a ‘living document’ that will be continually updated and changed as new information becomes available or as circumstances change.

Table of Contents

1. Law and Legislation

2. Accountability

3. Audiovisual/Videos

4. Historical Context

5. Academic Articles

6. Theoretical Texts

7. Palestinian Voices

8. The Role of Universities

1: International Law Reports and Legislation

United Nations (UN), International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other Reports

---

Gaza Genocide, A Collective Crime by the Special Rapporteur about human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (A/80/492). 20 October 2025. Advance unedited version. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/special-rapporteur-report-gaza-genocide-a-collective-crime-20oct25/

---

UNRWA Situation Report #195 on the Humanitarian Crisis in the Gaza Strip and Occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem

https://www.unrwa.org/resources/reports/unrwa-situation-report-195-situation-gaza-strip-and-west-bank-including-east-jerusalem. November 4, 2025

---

United Nations: The Question of Palestine. Commission of Inquiry: Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to commit genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip – Conference room paper (A/HRC/60/CRP.3). 16 September 2025.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/commission-of-inquiry-report-genocide-in-gaza-a-hrc-60-crp-3/

---

Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (A/HRC/59/26). 16 June–11 July 2025

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/report-of-the-independent-international-commission-of-inquiry-on-the-occupied-palestinian-territory-including-east-jerusalem-and-israel-a-hrc-59-26/

In this report, submitted following Human Rights Council resolution S-30/1, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel examines violations of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and possible international crimes relating to attacks against educational facilities and religious and cultural sites.

---

Human Rights Council Sixtieth session.Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 16 September 2025

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf

---

International Court of Justice, Palestine/Israel: Israel must immediately stop its criminal forcible displacement in Gaza. 30 June 2025.

https://www.icj.org/palestine-israel-israel-must-immediately-stop-its-criminal-forcible-displacement-in-gaza/

2: Accountability:

The architecture of genocidal starvation

https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/aid-in-gaza/investigation/a-cartography-of-genocide

This report published by Forensic Architecture at Goldsmiths University of London shows the strategy and tactics of the Israeli government and the IDF since October 2023, mapping out the details of what it describes as a systematic genocidal intent.

---

Demanding Accountability, Seeking Justice

https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org/

Hind Rajab (named after a 5-year-old girl murdered by an IDF tank) is a Legal organisation based in Belgium that is filing cases against individuals serving in the IDF who it believes have committed genocide. The individual cases offer insight into what types of law have been broken by Israel and its IDF soldiers, often evidenced through their own social media accounts.

3: Audio-Visual Sources: Videos

‘In Search of Palestine’

In this short video Edward Said shows the house where his grandparents once lived, now occupied by Israeli settlers. Said asks, how did this happen and how does it relate to what is happening in Palestine today?

---

Our Genocide The Guardian

A series of interviews published by The Guardian, that explores the views of ordinary residents of Tel Aviv—often considered Israel’s liberal capital—on the war on Gaza.

---

The IDF

This video explores the origins of the IDF and challenges its claim to be the ‘most moral army in the world’. It focuses on early actions to expel Arabs from the Palestinian territory.

---

Secret Hebron: the school run

This video focuses on the everyday dynamics of occupation and segregation in the West Bank town of Hebron showing the dangers to which children going to school are exposed to as a result.

---

Inside Israeli apartheid

The video explains why the concept of ‘apartheid’ is relevant to understanding the Israeli government’s policies toward, and treatment of, Palestinians.

---

Gaza: Dying for Food 

This is a BBC documentary focusing on starvation in Gaza, exploring how people were murdered while trying to access sites where food was being distributed.

---

How three terrorist groups formed the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) | The Big Picture

This Middle East Eye documentary outlines how the Israeli Defense Force has its origins and history in three terrorist groups that displaced Palestinians and British colonial forces in the 20th century despite being portrayed as the “most moral army in the world”.

4: Important texts/novels providing historical context to the Israeli-Palestine conflict

Khalidi, Rashid. (2020) The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonial Conquest & Resistance, 1917–2017. Henry Holt and Company: New York.

---

Makdisi, Saree. (2022) Tolerance is a Wasteland: Palestine and the Culture ofDenial. University of California Press: California.

---

Kanafi, Ghassan. (2022) On Zionist Literature. Translated into English in 2022. Ebb Books: Oxford.

---

Albulhawa, Susan. (2006) Mornings in Jenin. Bloomsbury: London.

A moving account of Palestinian displacements set over three generations and 60 years of settler colonialism.

---

Pappe, I. (2024) A Very Short History of the Israel Palestine Conflict. Oneworld Publications: London.

In this short and accessible handbook written Ilan Pappé shows how villages evacuated by Palestinian during the 1948 Nakba were flattened, covered over with grass and turned into golf courses to eliminate any remnant of the previous society

---

The Conversation(2023) has also published a review of ‘10 books to help you understand Israel and Palestine’, recommended by experts’, (21 November 2023)

5: Key Articles and Journal Special Issues:

Lamrani, Myriam (2025). ‘Arab Images: Musings on Disjointed Grief for Palestine.’ Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, vol. 21 no. 1, pp. 122-131. Project MUSE, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/960529.

---

Allen, Lori and Heidi Mogstad (2025) Special Issue: Speaking Out Against Genocide and Repression, edited by Lori Allen and Heidi Mogstad Public Anthropologist. Volume 7 (2025): Issue 2

---

Khalidi, Rashid and Sherene Seikaly (eds) (2023).

Gaza: Nearly Two Decades of Israeli Incursions, Siege, and Blockade

(17 articles) in the Journal of Palestinian Studies, October 2023.

---

Ivasiuc, Ana. ‘Palestine as Method: A Public Anthropology against Empire.’ Public Anthropologist 7.2 (2025): 345-371 (included in Open Access).

6: Useful Theoretical Texts

Césaire, Aimé. (2023) ‘Discourse on colonialism.’ In Postcolonialism. pp310-339. London: Routledge.

---

Said, Edward. (1978) Orientalism. Pantheon Books: New York.

---

Wolf, Patrick (2006). Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native. Journal of genocide research 8(4), 387-409.

7: Prominent Palestinian Journalists and Voices

People in Palestine have continuously tried to make their voices heard, for example, here on the Voices of Gaza website of the Palestinian Anthropology Network Insanniyat. And also through their journalists:

Mariam Abu Daqqa

Anas Al-Sharif

Saleh al-Jafarawi

Plestoa Alaqad

Wael Al-Dahdough

8: The Role of Universities and Academia

Wind, Maya. (2024) Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom. Verso books: London.

Through ethnographic research on university campuses in Israeli and analysis of government documents, Wind outlines the role universities have played in settler-colonialism and in the persecution of Palestinians within all occupied territories.

Towers of Ivory and Steel

---

Usher, Alex and Wind, Maya. 2025. ‘Why Boycott? Maya Wind on the Case Against Israeli Universities’, 6 March. Higher Education Strategy Associations.

URL: https://higheredstrategy.com/why-boycott-maya-wind-on-the-case-against-israeli-universities/
Youtube: https://youtu.be/Ash04O0wSEM
Podcast: https://worlded.transistor.fm/episodes/why-boycott-maya-wind-on-the-case-against-israeli-universities

---

PACBI – Palestinian-led Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel

Established in 2004 by a group of Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the West Bank as part of the boycott, diverstment and sanctions campaign, PACBI aims to isolate Israel in order to force change in its actions towards Palestinians including the oppressing the academic freedom of Palestinians (as evidenced by Maya Wind’s 2024 ethnography).

Guidelines can be viewed here: https://bdsmovement.net/pacbi/academic-boycott-guidelines

29.07.26

Editorial Note

The University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa has debated the issue of academic boycotts of Israel on numerous occasions. For example, in 2014, the UCT responded to calls to support anti-Israel measures and stated that “while UCT as an institution is unable to support the call to take a stand on the specific issues condemning Israel, we uphold the rights of individual academics and students to do so and will facilitate the promotion of all views and serious debate.” Likewise, in 2017, a proposal was put forward by the Palestine Solidarity Forum, which has called on UCT to implement an academic boycott of Israeli universities, and the University debated it.

However, on June 24, 2024, UCT published a notice online titled “UCT Council adopts two Senate resolutions on Gaza conflict,” during its plenary meeting. Two resolutions were passed by a majority vote regarding the Gaza conflict, originally passed by the Senate at a meeting held on April 19, 2024. The first resolution, on the destruction of scholarship and education in Gaza, the Senate resolved, among other things, to: 1. “express concern and opposition to any attempts to curtail academic freedom by labeling criticism of Israel or Zionist policies as antisemitism.” 2. “reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s conflation of critique of Zionism and Israel’s policies as antisemitism in favor of the Jerusalem Declaration’s dynamic understanding of what constitutes antisemitism.” 3. “express support for academic colleagues in Gaza who are surviving under appalling conditions and our intention to assist in the rebuilding of the academic sector after the war.” 4. “express solidarity with academic colleagues victimized for their willingness to speak out against the educaracide in Gaza.” 

The second resolution concerned research collaborations with members of the Israeli Defense Force and the wider Israeli military establishment. In terms of this resolution, no UCT academic may enter into relations, or continue relations with, any research group and/or network whose author affiliations are with the Israeli Defense Force, and/or the broader Israeli military establishment. 

As a result, the UTC faces consequences. On June 10, 2026, the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education of the Parliament of South Africa convened in order to engage with UCT. The Portfolio Committee is a group of members of Parliament from the National Assembly assigned to oversee and process legislation. The meeting engaged with UCT stakeholders and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) on institutional matters.

According to the transcript of the meeting published online, Karabo Khakhau MP asked the Chair of the UCT Council to explain the resolution to boycott Israel.

Adv Norman Arendse, Chair of Council, UCT, said that “the resolution had its origins in a resolution adopted in the Senate. He noted that he was not sure the resolution explicitly spoke to a boycott of Israel… the resolution spoke to collaborating with Israeli tertiary institutions that were either actively supporting or complicit in supporting the IDF in its war on Gaza. He added that, to the extent that some academics might also have a relationship with those institutions, that too fell within the scope of the resolution. He stated that “the resolution had in fact not been implemented.” He added that, “while Council adopted resolutions, implementation was left to the executive, and a committee in the Senate had been appointed to look into the implementation.” He said “the issue was debated by Council, and all relevant factors were considered, including a loss or potential loss of donor funding. The resolution was adopted on the 22nd of June 2024, following a debate and a vote conducted by a secret ballot.”

Ms Khakhau said she was satisfied “that implementation was nowhere near commencement.” However, “her concern was that students had raised that the university had lost funding from particular donors and that students had been disadvantaged as a result. She said where she was stuck was in understanding the relationship between the resolution, its inaction, and the loss of donor funding… Her problem, however, was with an institution making decisions that would have a negative, direct impact on students’ ability to access academic freedom and to exit an academic institution without impediment.”

Prof Musa Moshabela, VC, UCT, confirmed that “there had indeed been an impact on student funding, as some donors held strong views regarding the position the university had taken… As a result, funding for students had been lost, and the impact had been real.” He said those were matters that had been discussed at the time the resolutions were debated, “but the impact had been severe.” He said “the university had lost approximately R200 million [approx. $12 million] that was designated for an institute for neuroscience at UCT, and a further R50 million [approx. $3 million] in total from various donors.”

Ms Khakhau confirmed that “the figures were R200 million for the neuroscience institute and a further R50 million.”  

Prof Moshabela added that “a large portion of that, approximately R15 million [approx. $900 thousand] annually, had been for student bursaries.” He said, “all of that had been lost in terms of new funding… affected donors had continued to fund students already in committed cohorts but had chosen to do so directly rather than through the institution, and had not taken on new students.”

Ms Khakhau said “that was a problem for her. She said the primary responsibility of the institution was to ensure that students entered, studied, graduated… that was the institution’s job and that no decision could sideline that fact. The institution had a greater responsibility to advance the academic project of South African students than to take a position on what was happening in Gaza.” She acknowledged that “academic reflection was part of the institutional mandate and that individuals had the right to protest but said none of that could stand between a South African child, particularly a poor South African child dependent on funding, and their ability to access education.”

Mr S Lonzi (EFF) rose on a point of order. He said, “with the greatest respect, that what had been presented was a total distortion of global solidarity. He pointed to the history of South Africa and noted that part of what had assisted in defeating apartheid was global solidarity, including from universities in America, Germany, and the United Kingdom. It would be unfair to the university to suggest that by demonstrating global solidarity it was reducing its mandate of serving students. He said that was incorrect and a distortion and felt he had to make that point.”

The Chairperson said that “to be fair to the university, it had not been management that had taken the decision but the Council.” He noted that “the university’s statement, for those who had read it, had been mostly about the destruction of institutions of higher learning in Gaza and the killing of teachers and lecturers.” He said, “that was what the institution had been responding to, and the statement was publicly available.” He said “he did not think it was appropriate for Parliament, which had itself gone to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against genocide, to then vilify the Council’s resolution as an act of international solidarity.” He said that “the posture was not correct for Parliament to adopt, and while different political views could be expressed in political forums, Members should be mindful of what message was being sent to South Africans in a democratic house.” He suggested “the Committee refrain from entering that space, noting it was a dangerous one,” and said “it was not fair to imply the university had neglected its academic mandate simply because it had taken a position on international solidarity.”

Ms Khakhau said “the bottom line was that she fully respected UCT as an academic institution with the African and global intellectual standing it commanded, and she had no problem with that. She equally respected the human rights of each and every individual student and staff member. Her problem, however, was that under no circumstance could solidarity with any cause cost a South African child their ability to study.” She said “the primary mandate of UCT was not the production of papers or alignment with any discourse but ensuring that a South African student could present themselves at the institution, study, and that everything in the institution’s power was done to protect that student’s ability to do so.” She said that “where a decision threatened the funders of a student, the institution had a responsibility as the responsible adult to balance the political equation with its core mandate of funding students, and that was the area in which she believed the Chair of Council could have done more work.”

To understand the nuances of the boycott debate, it is imperative to note that South Africa is struggling with severe economic and social challenges.

The university authorities understand that higher education can help break the cycle of violence and poverty in the country and therefore did not implement the boycott. It is also clear that donors who provided students with grants declined to continue their charitable donations.  

Ultimately, South African universities should ask whether boycotting Israeli universities advances the welfare of South Africans. In a nation that suffers from so many endemic problems, it is the duty of universities to devote their resources to their own society. 

There is always the worry that Iran and Qatar might fill in the void.

REFERENCES:

https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-africa-south-2026-6-donors-pulled-millions-from-uct-over-gaza-resolutions-mps-told/

11 Jun 2026

Donors pulled millions from UCT over Gaza resolutions, MPs told

By Linda Nordling

Revelation prompts parliamentary debate over whether global solidarity should ever trump funding for education

The University of Cape Town in South Africa lost around 250 million rand (US$15m) in funding after its council adopted resolutions critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, according to the university’s vice-chancellor.

Mosa Moshabela made the disclosure during a 10 June hearing before the parliamentary portfolio committee on higher education, where he detailed the financial fallout from two resolutions adopted by a council majority in June 2024. 

The first resolution denounces the destruction of Palestinian academic institutions and rejects a widely used definition of antisemitism in favour of one that allows for broader criticism of Israel and Zionism. The second prohibits UCT academics from engaging with research groups affiliated with the Israeli military. A UCT professor has challenged in court whether the council was adequately informed of potential consequences before adopting the resolutions. Judgement is still pending.

“UCT is a place where historically there are people who support Israel and people who support Palestine, and our donors and alumni community is also sometimes aligned like that. So, as a result, we have lost funding for students, and it has had an impact,” Moshabela told MPs.

He said the losses include around R200 million that had been pledged to a neuroscience institution at UCT, as well as R50 million from other donors. This includes a R15 million annual hit for student funding, he said.

‘Global solidarity’

The revelation sparked sharp disagreement among committee members about whether a university should take positions on international conflicts.

Democratic Alliance MP Karabo Khakhau argued that UCT’s obligations to students should take precedence over geopolitical solidarity. “Human beings have the right to associate with whomever they want, and if they want to protest, they must protest,” she said. “But none of that must stand between a South African child and funding to access education.”

But Sihle Lonzi from the Economic Freedom Fighters argued that condemning the resolutions missed a deeper historical point. “If someone were to look at the history of South Africa, part of what assisted us to defeat apartheid was global solidarity. It will be unfair to the university to say that by demonstrating global solidarity they are reducing their mandate,” he said.

Committee chair Tebogo Letsie from the African National Congress urged colleagues to be careful about the precedent they were setting. Noting that South Africa’s own government had taken the matter further than any university—filing genocide charges against Israel at the International Court of Justice in December 2023— he called on MPs to refrain from criticising UCT’s council for following a similar moral impulse.

Khaukau was unmoved by the appeal for consensus. “I don’t know where this culture comes from. We don’t have to agree on everything,” she said.

Researchers clash

The debate mirrored one that took place on the pages of the March/April issue of the South African Journal of Science last year.

In one commentary, Nithaya Chetty, the dean of science at the University of the Witwatersrand, wrote that universities should refrain from taking official standpoints in polarising debates such as the Israel-Gaza conflict to “preserve academic integrity”.

However, other academics vehemently opposed Chetty’s argument. Jonathan Jansen, former president of the Academy of Science of South Africa, argued that universities are “by their very nature, political and not neutral”.

Another paper, authored by researchers from the universities of the Witwatersrand, Cape Town, Pretoria and Stellenbosch, said neutrality in the face of human rights violations can undermine moral authority. “Public universities in South Africa have an obligation to serve the public good,” it argued.

============================================================

https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/43289/

UCT governance, administration, teaching and learning and related matters, with Ministry

Higher Education

10 June 2026

Chairperson: Mr T Letsie (ANC) 

Meeting Summary

Video

The Portfolio Committee convened in Parliament to engage with the University of Cape Town (UCT), its stakeholders, and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) on governance, financial sustainability, student funding, transformation, and related institutional matters. The Ministry opened by confirming that the University of Cape Town remained a functional and stable institution from a governance perspective, having received an unqualified audit opinion with findings relating primarily to conflict of interest non-compliance. It noted UCT’s strong financial recovery in 2025, with a net surplus of R1 35 billion against R852 million in 2024, while cautioning that mounting student debt and the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) accommodation cap continued to exert structural pressure on the institution.

The NSFAS (NSFAS) accommodation cap emerged as the dominant and most contested issue of the engagement. UCT management reported that the cumulative net debt arising directly from the cap shortfall had reached R537 4 million between 2023 and 2026, with 3 465 NSFAS-funded students carrying accommodation balances in 2026 alone. It further noted that NSFAS first-time entering students had declined sharply from 1 431 in 2025 to 834 in 2026, with no confirmed funding policy at the start of the academic year.

The Student Representative Council (SRC) called on the Committee to exempt university-owned residences from the cap and to introduce regional differentiation, citing the Cape Town private market, where comparable accommodation reached R16 773 per month. UCT management rejected the characterisation that it made a profit on residences, maintaining that all costs went directly into services, including insourced staff, student life programming, and residence administration, and that the institution could not absorb the gap between what the NSFAS paid and the actual cost of delivery. Members disagreed with the institution’s management, questioning why UCT, when advertising and accrediting private leases after the cap was introduced, did not restrict those leases to NSFAS-rated pricing, given that NSFAS-funded students had been placed in accommodation above the cap and thereby put into debt.

Management acknowledged the structural tension but argued that placing NSFAS-funded students exclusively in lower-cost residences carried transformation and inclusion risks, and called for a collective multi-stakeholder solution rather than unilateral institutional concessions. The Ministry added that national expenditure on accommodation within the NSFAS budget now exceeded spending on academics, describing the imbalance as unsustainable and calling for accelerated infrastructure investment and a comprehensive review of the funding model.

UCT’s Council resolution on Israeli academic institutions was raised by Members. The Chair of Council clarified that the resolution was directed specifically at Israeli tertiary institutions actively supporting or complicit in the Israel Defence Force’s (IDF) operations in Gaza and confirmed that implementation had not commenced. Donor funding had consequently declined, with approximately R200 million in earmarked neuroscience funding and a further R50 million from various donors lost, of which around R15 million annually had been directed at student bursaries. Management confirmed the impact on student funding was real but noted that overall donor funding had increased by over 11% since 2024, despite a reduction in the number of donors. Divergent positions on the resolution and its consequences were held by Members.

Transformation across the academic pipeline was examined in detail. Members noted that at the Prof level, foreign national academics outnumbered Black African, Coloured, and Indian academics combined, which Human Resources confirmed and characterised as unacceptable. UCT outlined a range of programmes aimed at accelerating black academic progression, including the Next Generation Profiate, the Accelerated Transformation Academic Programme, an Emerging Research Programme, and targeted use of the Employment Equity Fund to recruit at senior academic levels. It acknowledged a persistent gap in undergraduate success rates for African students relative to other racial groups, attributed in part to legacy curriculum structures, and described interventions including curriculum reform, self-assessment tools, and pedagogically enriched first-year courses. Members challenged the framing, arguing that the gap reflected a systemic failure that should not be analysed through the lens of student preparedness, and requested written detail on causes and corrective measures.

Public and Administrative Support Staff (PASS) unions presented a picture of a chronically dysfunctional labour relations environment, citing a collective agreement concluded in February 2026 that was reversed on two key provisions shortly after signing, the absence of a promotion policy for Public and Administrative Support staff despite the gap being formally identified in UCT’s own Employment Equity Plan in 2022, mandatory quarterly consultation meetings that had not taken place once in 2026, and a structural pay disparity between Public and Administrative Support staff benchmarked at the 60th percentile of the general market and academic staff benchmarked at the 75th percentile of their specific labour market. Unions requested direct representation on Council. Members noted that this request was not grounded in the Higher Education Act as currently constituted and proposed that unions instead seek more meaningful recognition through expanded bargaining forum arrangements, observer status, or consultation mechanisms comparable to those at other institutions.

Members raised the issue of withheld academic certificates, with the Chairperson reiterating the Committee’s proposal that the approximately 13 000 certificates withheld by UCT be released through a mechanism involving memoranda of understanding between the DHET, National Treasury, and the South African Revenue Service (SARS), so that graduates entering employment could be identified and reminded of their debt obligations. UCT management indicated qualified support for the proposal but noted that it could not absorb the associated financial risk without a credible repayment undertaking from the state. The Committee requested that UCT consider allowing affected graduates to attend graduation ceremonies while the certificate remained retained, given the generational and social significance of that milestone for first-generation graduates.

The Committee closed with a commitment to convene a dedicated second engagement on student accommodation in the following term, bringing together the Department, the NSFAS, the Competition Commission, Infrastructure South Africa (ISA), Universities South Africa (USAf)), relevant Chapter Nine institutions, and other stakeholders to address the regulatory, pricing, and infrastructure dimensions of the crisis comprehensively. It warned that without intervention, the NSFAS budget, which currently funded approximately 800 000 students at R53 billion, would fund significantly fewer students within five years despite real-term increases in appropriations, as accommodation costs continued to absorb a disproportionate share of available funding. Written questions would be submitted to UCT on accommodation cost breakdowns, academic success rates, transformation pipeline data, and the foreign national workforce, with a response period of more than fourteen days.

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson welcomed everyone present and announced that the purpose of the meeting was to engage with the University of Cape Town (UCT) and its stakeholders regarding governance, administration, financial matters, and other related issues. He noted that there was a social cluster engagement at the National Assembly from 3 p.m. and therefore emphasised that the day’s engagement needed to be succinct, efficient, and direct in both questions and responses.

The Committee also welcomed representatives from the Russian Consulate responsible for Education. The Chairperson noted that he had met with the Consul-General and representatives of the Consulate the previous day, during which they had discussed a number of progressive views. He therefore invited them to attend the engagement as observers.

He explained that the importance of bringing all stakeholders together in a single engagement was to ensure that the Committee obtained a comprehensive picture and overall perspective of the functioning of the institution. He stated that the Committee wanted to see the Post-School Education and Training (PSET) system remain stable and universities continue to progress effectively. He further noted that he had submitted a motion in Parliament the previous day, recognising Wits University’s achievement of being ranked number one on the Centre for World University Rankings (CWUR). While Wits had often acknowledged that UCT held an advantage and was ranked among the top 1% of universities globally and first in Africa, he felt it was equally important to highlight Wits University’s accomplishment. He added that, as Parliament had previously celebrated UCT’s achievements in other rankings, it was appropriate to recognise this achievement as well.

The Chairperson expressed the hope that the engagement would be fruitful and urged all parties to work together wherever gaps existed. He noted that UCT’s Vice-Chancellor (VC) had recently appeared before Parliament through USAf. He cautioned that no university would be able to survive for more than five years if the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) were to collapse and stressed that it was the collective responsibility of all stakeholders to work with NSFAS to ensure that its governance instability was resolved. He explained that NSFAS beneficiaries often complained that they were unable to register because of outstanding NSFAS payments. However, when Members followed up on such cases, NSFAS would sometimes indicate that UCT had not provided the necessary registration data, preventing NSFAS from confirming which students were eligible for payment. He further warned that if NSFAS were to collapse in July, universities would be unable by September to pay salaries or employ staff to administer examinations. For this reason, he emphasised the need for all parties to work together to find solutions for the sector.

Referring to a statement issued the previous day, the Chairperson noted that the Services Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) had confirmed bursary funding amounting to R520 million in partnership with USAf. He stated that this was the type of initiative the Committee wished to see, as it represented a progressive development which the Committee welcomed. He also appealed to USAf to ensure that the funds were administered effectively so that affected students, particularly those on the verge of writing examinations, would not be disadvantaged.

Apologies and introductions

The Chairperson acknowledged apologies and allowed everyone present to introduce themselves. He then invited the Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Training, Ms Nomusa Dube-Ncube, to deliver her introductory remarks.

Opening remarks by the Deputy Minister

Deputy Minister Dube-Ncube opened by noting that UCT remained one of South Africa’s leading institutions of higher education, ranked first in the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) Sub-Saharan Africa rankings for 2026, with continued strength in academic reputation, employer reputation and sustainability. She indicated that the Department monitored governance, financial sustainability, compliance and transformation across the post-school education and training sector, including at UCT.

She described UCT as a functional and stable institution from a governance perspective. Prof Mosa Moshabela was appointed Vice-Chancellor and Principal with effect from October 2024, following due institutional process, contributing to continuity in leadership. UCT had five ministerial appointees serving on its Council for the period 2024 to 2028, reflecting the required demographic diversity and representativity across race and gender. The Department had received no reports of significant governance instability during the 2025 academic year to date.

On compliance, UCT had submitted its 2024 annual report and financial statements within prescribed timeframes. The institution received an unqualified audit opinion with findings, those findings relating primarily to instances where staff members had failed to declare conflicts of interest prior to the university procuring goods or services from entities in which they held an interest. The Deputy Minister noted that this constituted non-compliance with section 34 of the Higher Education Act and reflected weaknesses in internal controls and in the implementation of the university’s own conflict of interest policies.

On finances, UCT had generated a total surplus of R852 million in 2024, compared to R1.39 billion in 2020, with the decline partly attributable to fair value losses on financial instruments. Key pressures included lower-than-expected tuition fee increases, declining government appropriations, rising personnel costs, increased expected credit losses, and broader inflationary conditions. Personnel expenditure accounted for approximately 50% of total income, and student debt stood at R836 million in 2024, with impaired debt having increased substantially. UCT nonetheless continued to maintain substantial income from state subsidies, tuition and accommodation fees, and third-stream activities.

The Deputy Minister noted that the Institutional Forum (IF) continued to play an important advisory and oversight role, including over senior executive appointments and structures focused on transformation, inclusion, diversity and employment equity. She identified transformation as a strategic imperative and indicated that the Department expected UCT to demonstrate rigorous and sustained attention in this regard.

She advised that the Department was aware of disputes arising from the decommissioning of the Philip Kgosana residence and subsequent eviction proceedings involving former students, which had evolved into court proceedings raising concerns about compliance with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act. She encouraged all institutional bodies to handle student accommodation matters with the sensitivity and fairness the law required.

The Deputy Minister also raised the issue of students being withheld from graduating on account of outstanding debt. She recalled that at a prior engagement convened by the Minister, VCs and Registrars had committed, including through USAf, that institutions would not prevent students from graduating where debt was owed, but would withhold the certificate only. She noted that UCT’s reported practice appeared inconsistent with that commitment and indicated that the Department intended to pursue the matter with all relevant stakeholders.

In conclusion, the Deputy Minister stated that while compliance and financial pressures required ongoing attention, the Department regarded UCT as a functional institution with generally stable governance structures, and would continue to engage with the institution to strengthen its compliance, governance, financial sustainability and transformation.

Briefing: UCT Management

UCT’s unaudited financial results for the year ended 31 December 2025 showed that total revenue amounted to R9.15 billion, representing an increase of 5.4% compared with 2024, while the net surplus stood at R1.35 billion, reflecting a 59% improvement on the R852 million recorded in 2024. Total assets were reported at R19.34 billion, including investments valued at R11.79 billion and a bank balance of R2.20 billion. Despite this apparent financial recovery, student debt remained a significant structural concern. Gross student fees receivable reached R1.007 billion at year-end, with an expected credit loss provision of R465.9 million, representing 46% of gross receivables. More than 13,000 student accounts carried debit balances. It was further reported that the NSFAS accommodation cap had materially exacerbated the situation. Between 2023 and 2026, the cumulative net debt arising directly from the cap shortfall amounted to R537.4 million, while 3,465 NSFAS-funded students owed UCT accommodation balances in 2026 alone.

On student funding, UCT highlighted a critical structural risk. The number of NSFAS first-time entering students (FTENS) declined significantly from 1 431 in 2025 to 834 in 2026, with no confirmed NSFAS funding policy in place at the start of the academic year. The total number of funded students was 237 below budget. UCT reported that it accommodated more than a third of its student population across 8 765 managed beds, with monthly rates in university residences ranging from R6 199 to R10 217, substantially above the NSFAS accommodation cap. By comparison, private accommodation providers in the Cape Town market charged up to R16 773 per month, further illustrating the inadequacy of a nationally averaged cap applied within a city characterised by a broad-market rental environment.

UCT reported that its research output remained globally competitive. Total external research income in 2025 amounted to R2.33 billion, while 1,843 contracts were signed with a combined value of R2.752 billion. The institution filed 47 patents during 2025 and held equity in spin-off companies valued at approximately R445.8 million. UCT was ranked 150th globally in the QS rankings, 164th in the Times Higher Education rankings, and first in Africa across all major ranking systems. International research collaboration had increased by 75.9% since 2014 and accounted for 63.1% of publication output. However, the institution identified a significant risk arising from its heavy reliance on international funders, particularly the concentration of funding from the United States, alongside declining support from national agencies and industry.

On gender-based violence (GBV), UCT reported 94 incidents through trauma-informed informal pathways in 2024 and 87 in 2025, while on-campus incidents increased from 41 to 51 over the same period. Formal complaints referred to the Special Tribunal totalled 13 in 2024 and 15 in 2025, covering allegations of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and discrimination based on sexual orientation. UCT indicated that it operated a 24-hour GBV hotline, implemented a survivor-centred Sexual Misconduct Policy, maintained a dedicated Special Tribunal aligned with the DHET National Policy Framework, and supported a network of 3 000 Gender Marshals and 400 First Responders. Concerning broader campus security, the institution reported that total incidents declined from 295 in 2024 to 205 in 2025, although theft remained the most prevalent category, accounting for 132 incidents.

See attached for full presentation

Student Representative Council

The SRC stated that its presentation focused primarily on the NSFAS accommodation cap, which it described as the most significant challenge facing UCT students. It traced the origins of the crisis to the 2017 presidential announcement of fully subsidised free higher education, under which accommodation was intended to be covered through government grants rather than loans. The SRC explained that, in 2023, NSFAS introduced a cap on accommodation allowances based on a World Bank study, applying a national average of approximately R5,500 per month without taking into account regional variations, the Cape Town private housing market in which UCT students competed, or the reality that existing accommodation providers could not reduce rates to cap levels without experiencing reductions of up to 50% in per-student revenue. It noted that neither universities nor private landlords had reduced their prices as a result of the cap and that accommodation costs had continued to increase.

The SRC stated that the consequences had been severe. It reported that NSFAS-funded students were unable to attend graduation ceremonies because of outstanding debt arising from the shortfall between the accommodation cap and actual accommodation costs. It further noted that registration concessions during the year had been restricted to NSFAS-funded, NSFAS loan-funded, and bursary-funded students, while the broader concessions previously extended to self-funded students and those whose debt had been partially reduced were no longer available. As evidence of the growing hardship experienced by students, the SRC submitted a series of Back-a-Buddy crowdfunding campaigns, which it said demonstrated that students were being compelled to publicly advertise their financial difficulties in order to remain enrolled.

On transformation, the SRC noted that no persons living with disabilities occupied any of UCT’s 22 senior management positions and that none of the 18 staff members with disabilities classified as professionally qualified or middle management were Black. It argued that this highlighted the intersectional nature of the transformation challenges that remained. The SRC further noted that UCT’s position on Gaza had resulted in the withdrawal of certain donors and bursary providers, which had negatively affected student funding. It also indicated that GBV remained a persistent threat to student safety.

The SRC called on the Committee to exempt all university-owned residences from the accommodation cap, review the cap to better reflect regional market rates, and introduce alternative regulatory mechanisms that would prevent students from accumulating debt as a result of disputes between NSFAS and accommodation providers.

See attached for full presentation

Institutional Forum

The IF presented an overview of its mandate and current activities, drawing on its statutory foundation under section 31 of the Higher Education Act and the UCT Institutional Statute of 2022. It explained that its role was proactive rather than reactive, requiring it to identify policy gaps and concerns relating to institutional culture on its own initiative. The Forum further noted that Council was obliged to provide written reasons within seven days whenever it rejected the Forum’s advice. It reported that, in 2025, Council approved revised Terms of Reference which strengthened the Forum’s proactive mandate, tightened reporting lines, and made provision for the removal of inactive members.

With regard to senior management, the Forum noted that eight significant leadership positions had been filled over the previous two years, including those of the VC and two Deputy VCs, which contributed to greater leadership stability. It highlighted ongoing work undertaken through its Employment Equity Forum substructure, including oversight of the Employment Equity Plan and the incorporation of a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) into recruitment and selection policies. The Forum further reported that the Transformation Forum had endorsed the Gender Equity Policy and initiated a review of the Anti-Racism Policy, which was expected to lead to the development of a broader framework for discrimination and harassment.

The Forum identified a number of persistent institutional culture concerns, including the recurring pattern of fee-related student protests at the beginning of each academic year, growing concerns regarding GBV among students, and inadequate accessibility and support for staff and students living with disabilities. It acknowledged that a Culture Change Programme was underway, incorporating unconscious bias training, peer support initiatives for racial trauma, and anti-racism education.

The Forum’s recommendations to the Department included the development of a sustainable NSFAS funding model and a review of the accommodation cap. Its recommendations to university management included expanding disability inclusion initiatives, increasing mental health support, and strengthening mechanisms for monitoring transformation.

See attached for full presentation

Organised Labour Unions

The three PASS staff unions presented what they described as a picture of a fundamentally broken relationship with UCT management, characterised by a consistent pattern of agreements being concluded and subsequently disregarded. They stated that a collective agreement signed on 27 February 2026 had been reversed on two key provisions shortly thereafter: that executive-level participation in bargaining had occurred only once and was never repeated, and that more than 15 issues raised during a post-bargaining review meeting had not received any feedback. The unions further noted that the mandatory quarterly consultation meetings required under the Collective Bargaining Agreement had not taken place at any point during 2026.

The unions identified the absence of a promotion policy for PASS staff as a critical equity concern. They explained that, while academic staff benefited from a structured Ad Hominem promotion pathway that allowed advancement without requiring them to vacate their existing posts, PASS staff had no equivalent mechanism. They noted that UCT’s Employment Equity Plan, dated October 2022, had identified this gap as an employment equity barrier, yet no policy had been developed four years later. The unions further stated that a formal six-month ultimatum issued in August 2025, warning that continued inaction would amount to an unfair labour practice, had been ignored.

The unions also raised concerns regarding the exclusion of union representatives from UCT Council. They noted that, despite a previous directive from the Portfolio Committee requiring management to engage with unions on the matter, the Chairperson of Council had not taken any action. On remuneration, they argued that PASS staff were benchmarked against the national all-jobs market at the 60th percentile, whereas academic staff were benchmarked against their specific labour market at the 75th percentile, thereby entrenching a two-tier compensation structure within the same institution.

The unions called on management to include the Executive Director of Human Resources as a permanent member of the bargaining team, reinstate biannual information sessions with the university executive, and resolve outstanding Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) referrals internally. They further called on the Committee to urgently address the NSFAS funding crisis, which they described as posing a direct threat to the stability of students, staff, and public institutions.

[See presentations for full details]

Consideration and adoption of minutes and UWC Oversight Visit Report

Consideration and adoption of outstanding committee minutes and the University of the Western Cape (UWC) Oversight Report

Mr S Lonzi (EFF) noted that on 30 April, when they were engaging on vacancies in the sector, they spoke about the National Skills Fund (NSF), and the DG’s response was that they had asked for more material and that he would revert to the Committee. This was not reflected in the minutes.

At the 29 May meeting with the Minister, it was correct that a meeting would be held to discuss the conflicting versions of the Board members and the Minister’s versions. The Committee had not had time for that engagement.

For the 27 May meeting, with USaF and the South African College Principals Organisation (SAPCO), Members had asked for additional information from the remaining 30 TVET colleges that had not submitted statistics about their student debt. Disaggregated information was also requested to break the student debt information down accordingly.

With the note of these issues, he would happily move for adoption.

Dr D Christians (DA) also commented on the 29th of May meeting, indicating that she had submitted her corrections via the WhatsApp group, with the following amendments: NSFAS CEO position, concerns about NSFAS being placed under administration for the third term, and issues related to governance disputes. She had no issues with the adoption of the minutes granted the minor grammatical errors were also rectified.

Ms K Khakhau (DA) stated that she did not appreciate looking clumsy in front of visitors and had asked previously that the Committee deal with housekeeping matters privately to avoid these minor issues being discussed in front of guests. She noted that there was one thing missing, which was the inputs made by Members on the NSFAS comprehensive funding model and what it must look like. She acknowledged that the Committee had not yet agreed as a collective on the final model, but each party’s input must be recorded accordingly. Their inputs could be tagged under each Member’s inputs as separate inputs from resolutions. She felt this part was missing, especially the part relating to the decentralisation of administrative functions to institutions and National Treasury to disburse the NSFAS funds.

The minutes were adopted, with the corrections noted.

The Chairperson noted the draft oversight report of the Committee to the University of Western Cape, tabling it before Members to correct and adopt it.

The report was adopted. See full report here https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/6683/

Discussion

Ms Khakhau extended her deepest condolences to the university community, the family, loved ones, and friends of the late Mlingani ‘Mli’ Matiwane. She spoke warmly of Mli, recalling him as a very vibrant “shutdownist”. She said she was saddened when she spoke to his husband and had shared her last memories at the same time. She recalled that after the elections, where she had been dubbed president, they could not believe it, having spent two years shutting down the institutional mandate. She remembered a conversation she had had with Mli, noting that while he had been clear about his politics, he had always been a warm person, committed to self-identification at all costs and an advocate of simply being a human being and being the best one could be. She expressed the hope that Mli’s soul would rest in peace and that comfort would be found in knowing that, at least at UCT, there was much that could be pointed to as Mli’s contribution, not only at UCT but in his communities.

She then proposed that the Committee deal first with the matter before it. She asked the Chair of Council to take the Committee through the Council resolution to boycott Israel, what had informed it, and how it had come about.

Adv Norman Arendse, Chair of Council, UCT, said that the resolution had its origins in a resolution adopted in the Senate. He noted that he was not sure the resolution explicitly spoke to a boycott of Israel.

Ms Khakhau asked what his understanding of the resolution was.

Adv Arendse said the resolution spoke to collaborating with Israeli tertiary institutions that were either actively supporting or complicit in supporting the IDF in its war on Gaza. He added that, to the extent that some academics might also have a relationship with those institutions, that too fell within the scope of the resolution. He stated for the record that, as he understood it, the resolution had in fact not been implemented. He noted that the VC was present and that, while Council adopted resolutions, implementation was left to the executive, and a committee in the Senate had been appointed to look into the implementation. He said that was how the resolution had come to the Council. The issue was debated by Council, and all relevant factors were considered, including a loss or potential loss of donor funding. The resolution was adopted on the 22nd of June 2024, following a debate and a vote conducted by a secret ballot.

Ms Khakhau said she was satisfied with the response to the effect that implementation was nowhere near commencement. However, her concern was that students had raised that the university had lost funding from particular donors and that students had been disadvantaged as a result. She said where she was stuck was in understanding the relationship between the resolution, its inaction, and the loss of donor funding. She noted that she respected fully and without question the rights of individuals to associate as they wished, and that she appreciated the intellectual contribution of UCT and its academics to domestic and international discourses. Her problem, however, was with an institution making decisions that would have a negative, direct impact on students’ ability to access academic freedom and to exit an academic institution without impediment. She directed her question to the VC and asked for a full account.

Prof Musa Moshabela, VC, UCT, confirmed that there had indeed been an impact on student funding, as some donors held strong views regarding the position the university had taken. He noted that UCT was historically a place of contestation, with its donor and alumni community sometimes aligned with opposing sides of the Israel-Palestine question. As a result, funding for students had been lost, and the impact had been real. He said those were matters that, as the Chairperson of Council had indicated, had been discussed at the time the resolutions were debated, but the impact had been severe. Council had mandated management to assess the impact, which management had done and reported back to Council. The task given to management was to indicate what the impact had been on student funding. He said the university had lost approximately R200 million that was designated for an institute for neuroscience at UCT, and a further R50 million in total from various donors.

Ms Khakhau called a member of the public in the gallery to order in the absence of the Chairperson, noting that it was not the gallery’s meeting and that anyone requiring more information needed to conduct themselves in an orderly manner.

She confirmed that the figures cited were R200 million for the neuroscience institute and a further R50 million and asked the VC to continue.

Prof Moshabela confirmed that the R50 million had come from various donors, and that a large portion of that, approximately R15 million annually, had been for student bursaries. He said all of that had been lost in terms of new funding. He noted that affected donors had continued to fund students already in committed cohorts but had chosen to do so directly rather than through the institution, and had not taken on new students.

Ms Khakhau asked how many students had been affected by the loss of those funds.

Prof Moshabela said he did not have the exact number at hand but undertook to provide it. He noted that the calculation would need to account not only for those funded by the particular donor in question but for others as well.

Ms Khakhau said that was a problem for her. She said the primary responsibility of the institution was to ensure that students entered, studied, graduated, obtained employment, grew the economy, and lived their best lives, including being able to afford cars, pay lobola, and buy homes. She said that was the institution’s job and that no decision could sideline that fact. The institution had a greater responsibility to advance the academic project of South African students than to take a position on what was happening in Gaza. She acknowledged that academic reflection was part of the institutional mandate and that individuals had the right to protest but said none of that could stand between a South African child, particularly a poor South African child dependent on funding, and their ability to access education.

Mr S Lonzi (EFF) rose on a point of order. He said, with the greatest respect, that what had been presented was a total distortion of global solidarity. He pointed to the history of South Africa and noted that part of what had assisted in defeating apartheid was global solidarity, including from universities in America, Germany, and the United Kingdom. It would be unfair to the university to suggest that by demonstrating global solidarity it was reducing its mandate of serving students. He said that was incorrect and a distortion and felt he had to make that point.

The Chairperson said that to be fair to the university, it had not been management that had taken the decision but the Council. He noted that the university’s statement, for those who had read it, had been mostly about the destruction of institutions of higher learning in Gaza and the killing of teachers and lecturers. He said that was what the institution had been responding to, and the statement was publicly available. He said he did not think it was appropriate for Parliament, which had itself gone to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against genocide, to then vilify the Council’s resolution as an act of international solidarity. He said that the posture was not correct for Parliament to adopt, and while different political views could be expressed in political forums, Members should be mindful of what message was being sent to South Africans in a democratic house. He suggested the Committee refrain from entering that space, noting it was a dangerous one, and said it was not fair to imply the university had neglected its academic mandate simply because it had taken a position on international solidarity.

Ms Khakhau said she did not know where the culture of requiring all Members to agree had come from. She said Members did not generally agree, and it would not start today, that a point of order was raised simply because a Member held and presented a different view, because the same could just as easily be done in return.

She said the bottom line was that she fully respected UCT as an academic institution with the African and global intellectual standing it commanded, and she had no problem with that. She equally respected the human rights of each and every individual student and staff member. Her problem, however, was that under no circumstance could solidarity with any cause cost a South African child their ability to study. She said the primary mandate of UCT was not the production of papers or alignment with any discourse but ensuring that a South African student could present themselves at the institution, study, and that everything in the institution’s power was done to protect that student’s ability to do so. She said that where a decision threatened the funders of a student, the institution had a responsibility as the responsible adult to balance the political equation with its core mandate of funding students, and that was the area in which she believed the Chair of Council could have done more work.

She then moved to the issue of the student accommodation cap, noting that she had only two minutes remaining, and that was the reason she had asked for more time. She said she and the Deputy Minister disagreed on the matter, as did she and the ANC. She said since the previous administration had used the example of the university she had studied at, making the point that accommodation in Rondebosch, Claremont, and the CBD could never be equivalent to accommodation in Bloemfontein because of the cost of living in different metros, it made no sense for the Department to force property owners to service bonds at a rate lower than what they were being charged. She said when a property owner approached ABSA for a home loan, ABSA determined the repayment amount, and rental pricing was necessarily based on that repayment obligation. She noted that was only one factor, leaving aside municipal rates and other considerations, and said there were further points she had wished to raise, but time did not allow.

The Chairperson said the issue of the accommodation cap would enter that path. He said that even when comparing Cape Town to Cape Town, the cap did not make sense. He said that in 2023, when he was part of the Committee, they had raised the matter of the UCT student accommodation in Observatory and the student accommodation of CPUT at the time, which were in literally the same suburb. He said that the Committee had gone there and did not speak from reading things in newspapers, and noted that Mr Lonzi had made the same example two weeks prior, and hoped the university would obtain those names. He said the point was valid: if one was paying the same rate, one could not have a UCT residence charging R9 000 when the one opposite was charging R6 000.

The Chairperson referred to a slide presented by UCT and noted that less than 2.5% of the total budget was allocated to student life, amounting to R21 million out of approximately R900 million. He stated that the argument being advanced was that residences might appear similar, be located in the same area, and charge comparable rates, but that the distinguishing factor was student life. He said he had waited to hear the presentation on this issue and noted that the information presented showed that only R21 million, or 2.5% of the budget, was allocated to student life. He questioned the source of that allocation.

He stated that Members of the Committee met with students in their communities, churches, and other establishments, and that some Members even conducted observations at night as part of their research into the behaviour of young people, including patterns of behaviour following alcohol consumption. He argued that prices in those environments had become excessive because some of the university’s representatives required establishments to stock energy drinks and cold drinks in order to obtain accreditation, which in turn had financial implications.

The Chairperson expressed disappointment that the students present had not raised the issue that, according to UCT’s presentation, approximately R2 billion was received from government subsidies. He noted that the government was subsidising education at UCT to the value of more than R2 billion, yet no one had questioned why such subsidies were being provided while certain individuals within the system were simultaneously arguing that accommodation should not be subject to a cap and that rates of R16 000 per bed should be charged. He maintained that even accommodation charges of R7 000 or R9 000 per month were unacceptable because education, as a social good, was being treated as a commodity.

He stated that he could personally take the university to some of its accommodation facilities and demonstrate that the cost per square metre was lower for individuals working in nearby commercial premises than for students occupying university accommodation. He said that the rationale for student accommodation was well established, as statistics consistently showed that students residing in student accommodation completed their studies more successfully and within shorter timeframes than those who did not. He explained that a student from Gugulethu who slept in a dining room because of overcrowding at home did not have a conducive environment for studying, whereas student accommodation was intended to provide such an environment. Instead, he argued, accommodation costs had become excessively high.

He further stated that UCT-owned buildings listed under Public Works and government ownership, which he would have expected to be among the least expensive accommodation options. However, he argued that this was not the case because the institution sought to treat accommodation as a commodity. He contended that, while the prevailing argument was that the NSFAS accommodation cap was harming the sector, the reality was that accommodation was increasingly becoming accessible only to wealthier students, resulting in the effective exclusion of poor students. He noted that the government was willing to fund tuition and accommodation at a specified level while continuing to subsidise higher education, yet UCT appeared to be arguing that although the government could provide subsidies, it could not influence accommodation pricing. He questioned what exactly the government was subsidising under such circumstances. He indicated that the Committee would engage the university frankly on the matter, as it appeared that the Committee and the institution were approaching the issue from fundamentally different perspectives.

He concluded by stating that the issue of the accommodation cap remained unresolved and that he still had questions for Prof Ramugondo.

Mr M Msezane (MKP) apologised for his late arrival, attributing the delay to Cape Town traffic. He stated that he would endeavour to be concise given the limited time available.

His first question was directed to the Deputy VC: Academic and the VC. He noted that, in UCT’s presentation, the success rate of undergraduate students, particularly African students, was substantially lower than that of all other racial groups. He further observed that there had been a marked decline in 2021, followed by a slight improvement in 2022, although performance levels remained relatively low. He asked what factors accounted for the lower success rate among African students and what measures had been implemented to address the issue, particularly within the context of the university’s transformation agenda.

Prof Brandon Collier-Reed, Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Teaching and Learning, responded by acknowledging the decline identified by the Member and explained that UCT had referred to it as the “post-COVID dip”. He stated that in 2021 the difference in overall undergraduate course pass rates between the combined African, Coloured and Indian student grouping and white students had been 15%, whereas by 2025 the gap had narrowed to 7%, reflecting a significant improvement. He added that pass rates within the African, Coloured and Indian grouping had increased by 12% between 2021 and 2025, reaching 89%.

Mr Msezane interjected, stating that his question had been specific and that the response had moved beyond the issue he had raised. He noted that his concern was not with broader trends but with the reasons for the lower performance of African students and the measures taken to address that challenge. He stated that the graph clearly showed African students performing below all other groups and questioned whether the university’s transformation agenda adequately addressed that reality. He requested a more direct response so that he could proceed to his remaining questions.

Prof Collier-Reed explained that, following the Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall protests, UCT had established a curriculum change working group between 2017 and 2018 and developed a deliberate strategy aimed at addressing the very issues raised by the Member. As part of UCT’s Vision 2030 agenda, substantial funding had been allocated to faculties to identify and implement interventions that would improve student success, particularly among African students. He requested the Member’s indulgence to provide examples of initiatives that had proved effective.

He cited the Commerce Faculty, where one of the challenges had been students entering quantitative courses without adequate preparation. To address this, UCT had developed a self-assessment tool to assist students in determining whether they possessed the necessary foundations to succeed. He also referred to the Civil Engineering programme, where a comprehensive curriculum redesign had introduced locally relevant examples and project-based learning to improve student outcomes.

Prof Collier-Reed further highlighted two initiatives within the Humanities Faculty. The first involved the integration of pedagogically enriched and decolonial first-year courses directly into departmental curricula. These courses were designed to engage students’ diverse life experiences, foreground African contexts, strengthen academic literacies, and incorporate multilingual and digital pedagogies. He stated that such interventions were intended to improve the success rates of all students, particularly African students who had historically experienced lower success rates than their white counterparts. He nevertheless reiterated that the performance gap had narrowed significantly between 2021 and 2024, as reflected in the data presented.

Mr Msezane stated that he remained unconvinced by the explanation provided. He observed that the Deputy VC had referred to curriculum design and questioned whether this implied that African students were less able to comprehend the curriculum than their white counterparts. He reiterated that he wished to understand the root causes of the lower performance levels and the interventions implemented to address them. He maintained that the explanation had not sufficiently answered his question and stated that, given more time, he would have explored the issue further.

He further noted that while reference had been made to a post-COVID dip in 2021, the graph appeared to show an improvement in the success rate of African students in 2020. He emphasised that, despite the explanations provided, African students continued to perform below all other racial groups at the institution. He placed on record that he was not persuaded by the response and suggested that the university submit a written explanation to the Portfolio Committee outlining both the causes of the lower success rates and the measures taken to address them. He stated that he was particularly interested in understanding why African students were not progressing beyond a certain point and observed that lower success rates implied that students were either not graduating or not graduating within the expected timeframe. He added that the discussion on curriculum had diverted attention from his central concern and requested, through the Chairperson, that the university provide a written response detailing the causes of the challenge and the interventions implemented to ensure that African students successfully completed their studies.

Mr Msezane then turned to the issue of foreign nationals, which he described as a topical and significant matter. Referring to the presentation on foreign national professionals, he stated that it had been indicated that foreign nationals employed by the university were providing scarce skills in accordance with legislative requirements. He requested that the presenter, or another appropriate official, place on record that all foreign national academic staff employed by UCT were providing scarce skills. He further stated that the Committee would subsequently require a detailed breakdown of the work being performed by those individuals, confirmation that such work constituted scarce skills, and verification that the individuals concerned held valid work visas.

Prof Moshabela responded that UCT would place the requested information on record and provide the necessary details. He confirmed that his understanding of the request was that the university should formally confirm that the foreign national academics employed by UCT were providing scarce skills.

Mr Msezane confirmed that he wanted all such staff members to be accounted for.

The Chairperson observed that the issue was not only whether foreign nationals employed by UCT were providing scarce skills, but also whether all of them appeared on the critical skills list and possessed valid work visas. He noted that there were nearly 900 foreign nationals employed at the institution.

Prof Moshabela stated that he would request the Executive Director of Human Resources to address the matter, although he had initially understood the Member’s question to be a request for confirmation of what had been presented, with supporting details to follow.

Ms Juliet Mhango, Executive Director: Human Resources (EDHR), UCT, acknowledged the request for further information regarding academic staff. She explained that the majority of PASS staff were South African citizens. Concerning foreign nationals, she stated that UCT maintained its own scarce and critical skills list and confirmed that some PASS staff members fell within those categories. She acknowledged, however, that historical issues existed and that a small proportion of staff members did not appear on the scarce and critical skills list. She added that a plan was in place to address the matter.

Mr Msezane responded that he had listened carefully to the presentation and recalled that Ms Mhango had stated that foreign national academic staff were providing scarce skills. He explained that this was why he had directed his question to the VC, seeking confirmation on record that the academic staff concerned were indeed providing scarce skills. He further stated that the university should then provide the Committee with a breakdown of the number of such staff members, the nature of the work they performed, the basis upon which that work was classified as scarce skills, and confirmation of their verified work visas. He argued that the Executive Director was now presenting a different position from that contained in the original presentation and maintained that her response did not reflect what had previously been conveyed to the Committee.

The Chairperson stated that the VC had indicated that all academic staff who were foreign nationals were providing scarce skills and that he had subsequently broadened the question to encompass all foreign nationals employed by the university. He noted that the EDHR had responded to that broader question and had indicated at the outset of her response that all academic staff were on the critical skills list. He added that he had then sought clarification as to whether this also applied to PASS staff, to which the EDHR had responded that only a small proportion were not on the list and that this was a legacy or historical matter rather than a recent development. He therefore considered the question regarding academic staff to have been answered. What remained outstanding, however, was whether those individuals on the critical skills list held legitimate work visas and valid documentation. He invited either the EDHR or the VC to address that issue.

Ms Mhango responded that, with regard to the legitimacy of employment in South Africa, UCT ensured that all employees held valid documentation and work permits permitting them to work legally in the country. She explained that where a work visa expired, the matter was managed on an individual basis. She emphasised that the institution’s policy required all employees to possess valid documentation and reiterated that any expired permits were dealt with through established processes. She noted that such cases were very limited in number, currently amounting to approximately two instances, and maintained that, overall, all employees at the institution held valid work permits.

Mr Msezane thanked the EDHR for the response. He explained that the clarification he had been seeking related specifically to the information originally presented and not to the broader question raised by the Chairperson. He noted that the issue of legacy cases had not been mentioned during the presentation and stated that he was now satisfied that he had the necessary clarity. He added that the Committee would await the written report.

Mr Msezane further expressed concern that the SRC had not addressed a number of sensitive and topical issues affecting the university, particularly the success rate of African undergraduate students. He requested a response from the SRC Secretary-General regarding what he regarded as a contentious issue, namely why the SRC was advocating for university-owned residences to be exempted from the NSFAS accommodation cap.

Mr Percival Mabuza, SRC Secretary-General, explained that the position stemmed from considerations relating to residences such as St Peter’s and, possibly, Rochester. He stated that the SRC had examined these matters and noted that accommodation at St. Peter’s currently cost in excess of R70 000 despite consisting of shared rooms, unlike Observatory Square, which provided single-room accommodation. He said the SRC had taken these factors into account and had concluded that an approach was needed that would not disadvantage students. For that reason, it maintained that university-owned residences should be exempted from the cap. He added that where accommodation providers were inflating prices, the Department, the Portfolio Committee, or NSFAS should hold them accountable. He noted that NSFAS had previously threatened to refer certain providers to the Competition Commission in 2023, a stance supported by the SRC. He stated that the SRC’s objective was to ensure that students did not incur accommodation-related shortfalls, were able to register, and could proceed to postgraduate studies without financial impediments.

Mr Msezane indicated that, given the time constraints, he would confine himself to one final point. He asked the official responsible for accommodation whether the university, when leasing accommodation, determined the contractual terms and pricing conditions applicable to private providers. He questioned why the university did not require providers, through its contracts and invitations to tender, to ensure that accommodation costs remained within the NSFAS cap. He stated that the Committee should not be told that accommodation would not be available under such conditions, as there were numerous vacant buildings seeking student tenants. He argued that the university was in a position to shape the conditions of its contracts and expressions of interest to ensure compliance with the NSFAS accommodation cap.

Prof Elelwani Ramugondo, Deputy VC: People, Culture and Society, began by apologising for having shaken her head during the discussion.

The Chairperson remarked that he had noticed the gesture but had not heard the accompanying comment.

Prof Ramugondo explained that the discussion had been passionate, particularly the suggestion that UCT was responsible for manufacturing accommodation costs, which she regarded as a serious allegation. She stated that she had also heard suggestions that UCT charged students solely for a bed, whereas her presentation had sought to demonstrate that student success could not be supported if student accommodation was viewed merely as sleeping space. She stressed that UCT fully agreed with the SRC that accommodation providers who inflated prices should be held accountable.

She stated that comparisons between residences needed to be made on a like-for-like basis and noted that not all universities offered what UCT provided through its all-inclusive residence fee structure. She explained that students at other institutions sometimes only became aware of additional costs, such as Wi-Fi charges, after arriving at their residences. She further noted that UCT had become aware that some universities cross-subsidised their residences and that it was therefore insufficient to compare residences located solely within the same suburb. Universities with residences concentrated in a single area, she argued, could not cross-subsidise costs from residences located in more affordable areas.

Addressing the R21 million allocation for student life, Prof Ramugondo explained that this amount was managed directly by students and reflected UCT’s commitment to student leadership and budget management. She noted that UCT’s residence culture differed from institutions where social events were centred on extended entertainment activities, as students and residence committees deliberately curated activities that balanced social engagement with academic and residential objectives. She stated that the student life allocation would effectively amount to nothing without staff support and that a substantial proportion of residence expenditure was directed towards staff who assisted students with budgeting, mentorship, and related support. She added that UCT’s insourcing model also required investment in staff development and argued that proposals to reduce costs to the bare minimum would, in practice, require the removal of staff who played a critical role in supporting students and advancing the academic project.

Turning to leased accommodation, Prof Ramugondo stated that such accommodation represented only a small proportion of UCT’s overall accommodation portfolio and that, if it were possible, the university would prefer not to lease accommodation at all. She noted that UCT operated two residences under Public Works and three within leased private accommodation. Private providers, she explained, necessarily considered prevailing market conditions and the pricing structures of other providers in order to remain commercially viable. She further noted that one leased residence was currently operating below full occupancy because students retained the freedom to choose their accommodation, and UCT would not interfere with that choice. She stated that the university was required to enter into commercially viable agreements with private providers and that its primary concern during the contracting process was to ensure that minimum standards, including Wi-Fi access, were maintained.

The Chairperson responded that the Deputy VC appeared to be suggesting that other institutions did not provide the services UCT considered exceptional. He observed that student accommodation providers were generally required to provide security, Wi-Fi, and other basic services and that these were standard features across the sector. Drawing on his own experience in student residences, including at UKZN’s Pius Langa Residence, he noted that residence assistants, security personnel, and similar support structures had long been standard features. He therefore stated that he had not heard any justification for the significantly higher costs associated with UCT accommodation.

He further argued that the Deputy VC appeared to be suggesting that UCT advertised accommodation but did not determine pricing, and that accommodation costs had to remain competitive with the broader market. Referring back to Mr Msezane’s question, he asked why UCT did not specify in its accreditation advertisements and calls for accommodation providers that accommodation intended for NSFAS-funded students had to comply with the NSFAS accommodation rate. He argued that if the university genuinely cared about the financial burden faced by NSFAS students, it could have imposed such a requirement.

The Chairperson emphasised that NSFAS-funded students were individuals whom government had identified as requiring support because their families lacked the financial means to cover higher education costs. He noted that government funded their tuition, accommodation, personal care allowances, and living expenses. He stated that many such students arrived from places such as Bloemfontein, the Northern Cape, Soweto, and other parts of the country with no alternative accommodation options and therefore occupied expensive accommodation out of necessity rather than choice. He argued that it was unfair to attribute responsibility for those circumstances to the students themselves.

He reiterated that the key issue was why UCT, when advertising leased accommodation opportunities, did not stipulate that accommodation costs must remain within the NSFAS cap while the dispute between NSFAS, the Department, and the university remained unresolved. He stated that this was the central argument being advanced. Since 2023, UCT had entered into new lease agreements at rates above the cap despite knowing that NSFAS-funded students placed in those residences would be unable to cover the resulting shortfalls and would therefore incur debt.

Prof Ramugondo responded that UCT’s preference was for students to reside in university-owned accommodation and noted that NSFAS policy similarly identified on-campus accommodation as the preferred option. She stated that UCT would prefer not to rely on leased accommodation.

The Chairperson replied that the fact remained that UCT had entered into lease agreements after the accommodation cap was introduced. He noted that those leases exceeded the NSFAS cap and that NSFAS-funded students had been placed in the accommodation concerned. He argued that whether the university preferred students to live in university-owned residences was irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

Prof Ramugondo then asked what would prevent UCT from considering residences located within safe communities and accessible by shuttle services as an alternative, even if not a preferred option.

The Chairperson responded that the discussion was becoming frustrating. He reiterated that UCT had signed lease agreements after the introduction of the accommodation cap and had advertised those accommodation opportunities itself. He repeated the central question: if the institution was genuinely concerned about the welfare of students and the financial shortfalls they faced, why had it not stipulated that it would not lease accommodation above the NSFAS cap? He noted that UCT had previously argued that, without these agreements, private providers would simply accommodate privately funded students. He questioned that assumption and suggested that the market would ultimately determine whether such providers remained viable. He maintained that UCT had knowingly entered into lease agreements above the cap, placed NSFAS-funded students in those residences, and thereby contributed to the indebtedness of those students. He stated that this was the essence of Mr Msezane’s question: if UCT genuinely cared about the issue, why had it not exercised its influence over pricing? He argued that the university could have engaged with the SRC, reviewed the approximately 2 400 leased and accredited accommodation units, and stipulated that accommodation designated for NSFAS-funded students should be capped at the NSFAS rate. In his view, UCT had the capacity to do so but had chosen not to.

Prof Moshabela stated that he wished to respond to the point raised by Mr Msezane regarding the negotiation of terms with private accommodation providers. He acknowledged that the Chairperson was correct in stating that UCT selected its service providers and determined the standards they were required to meet. He explained that UCT maintained a high standard within its own residences at the cost previously presented to the Committee. While recognising that the Committee might disagree with UCT’s position that the cost of its university-owned accommodation exceeded that of institutions such as CPUT, he maintained that UCT could demonstrate that it generated no profit from its residences and that all revenue was reinvested into services provided to students. He urged that UCT not be placed in competition with other universities, emphasising that the institution’s objective was to contribute to a strong PSET sector and to ensure that students had a conducive learning environment. He argued that UCT should be allowed to determine the standard of accommodation it provided because it believed that the standard supported student success. He added that if UCT failed to maintain those standards, it would later be questioned about poor student performance and outcomes.

He stated that UCT was asking the Committee to work with the institution to determine an appropriate standard of residential living, establish the costs associated with that standard, and verify that no profit element was involved. Where leased accommodation was concerned, UCT sought to ensure that the same standards were maintained. He acknowledged that achieving those standards in privately leased accommodation inevitably resulted in costs that were somewhat higher than those associated with university-owned residences. He added that this was one of the reasons student leaders had argued that university-owned residences should receive preferential treatment, recognising that UCT did not exercise full control over privately owned residences but nevertheless required the same standards to be upheld. He stated that UCT could not allow students in university-owned residences to experience a different standard of living from those placed in privately owned accommodation.

Prof Moshabela further stated that it was easy to suggest that UCT could simply dictate accommodation prices but argued that this was not how markets operated. He urged the Committee to exercise caution in how it approached the matter and requested that no impression be created that other universities were offering lower standards. He reiterated that UCT sought to provide students with a comprehensive package of services.

Addressing the accommodation cap directly, he stated that UCT disagreed with aspects of the NSFAS accommodation cap and maintained that NSFAS owed the university approximately R540 million, a liability which NSFAS did not recognise. He remarked that, should the matter ultimately require resolution through the courts, so be it. However, he emphasised that UCT’s primary concern was that students should remain at the centre of the discussion and that attention should remain focused on the challenges students faced as a result of mounting debt. He noted that the previous engagement had concluded with an agreement to seek a collective solution and stated that UCT was attempting to act reasonably while preserving the standards of service it wished to provide.

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee did not agree with the position being advanced.

Mr Msezane requested an opportunity to make a brief final point. He stated that the Committee had raised a crucial issue and noted that some Members had themselves studied under difficult financial circumstances without family support. He said there were now students experiencing severe distress because of additional accommodation costs, with some accumulating debts so substantial that they were unable to access their academic results. Referring to the VC’s earlier remarks, he stated that Members of Parliament were indeed placing students at the centre of the discussion, particularly poor students, regardless of whether UCT generated a profit from its residences. He reiterated that UCT determined the conditions applicable to leased accommodation and that NSFAS operated within a fixed funding framework. He argued that any shortfall should not be borne by poor students who lacked the means to pay it. He stated that figures covering the period from 2023 to 2026 would likely demonstrate the extent to which accommodation debt had accumulated, increasing from approximately R3 000 to between R16 000 and R18 000. He questioned how many affected students had ultimately graduated, given that accumulated debt could prevent them from registering in subsequent years. He concluded by stating that the Committee was prioritising the interests of poor students and could not accept the argument that UCT’s accommodation services justified imposing financial burdens that those students could not afford.

The Chairperson stated that he wished to make it clear that he disagreed with the VC’s suggestion that comparisons between universities should not be made. He argued that accommodation procurement processes were broadly similar across institutions and that UCT could not claim exemption from scrutiny simply because it believed it offered superior services. He stated that he would be failing in his responsibilities as a Member of Parliament if he accepted the proposition that accommodation charges of R16 000 should not be questioned. He also clarified that he was not defending NSFAS, noting that such a perception would be incorrect. He argued that accepting UCT’s reasoning would imply that any provider could set any price without accountability. While the Committee wanted students to benefit from high-quality accommodation, it could not accept the suggestion that questions regarding pricing or comparisons with neighbouring institutions were inappropriate. He maintained that accommodation in Cape Town itself demonstrated that UCT’s charges exceeded those of comparable providers in the same area.

Deputy Minister Dube-Ncube stated that she wished to offer a different perspective to both the Committee and the university. She observed that, nationally, more money was currently being spent through NSFAS on accommodation than on academic costs. She explained that this reality had informed the President’s call for universities to construct their own accommodation because the existing situation was unsustainable. She further stated that there now appeared to be instances of “double dipping”, whereby universities constructed their own residences and still charged rates exceeding those funded by the state, even where the state had supported the development of the accommodation. She argued that this was an issue that required serious discussion.

The Deputy Minister also sought clarity regarding the presentation, noting that she had initially welcomed the reference to accommodation having been insourced. However, she said that she became concerned when she heard that insourcing had created additional administrative issues which raised questions regarding how the model was being managed.

She further urged the university to recognise the necessity of comparisons with other institutions and accommodation providers. She stated that she had previously shown examples to the Director-General, including Campus Key, Rise Student, DigsConnect, and other providers, all of which charged lower rates than those presented by UCT. She encouraged the Committee to examine the standards offered by those providers as well. She added that it was unfair to imply that Members were advocating for lower standards or lacked an understanding of the issues. In her view, the standards were broadly comparable, but the Committee’s concern was rooted in the reality that the fiscus could only stretch so far and that NSFAS funding was specifically intended for poor students.

She noted that the Committee had previously discussed the matter with USAf, during which the University of Pretoria had indicated that, where accommodation costs exceeded the NSFAS cap, the university itself absorbed the difference. She argued that the real problem arose when universities transferred those shortfalls onto students who had been funded precisely because they lacked financial means. She stated that this was a discussion from which none of the parties could retreat and which the country would ultimately have to confront. She questioned whether it was reasonable that institutional leadership could not provide clear answers to these concerns.

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister and invited the VC to respond.

Prof Moshabela stated that he did not wish it to be interpreted that UCT opposed the existence of an accommodation cap. He explained that, while the university had responsibilities towards its students, it also had responsibilities regarding its own financial sustainability. He argued that if the expectation was that universities should absorb any difference between the NSFAS cap and actual accommodation costs, then such expectations should have been incorporated into the funding model from the outset. He noted that while the University of Pretoria might be able to absorb those costs, UCT could not do so.

He stated that he did not wish to begin criticising the NSFAS funding model but believed that all parties needed to acknowledge that a problem existed and required resolution. He warned that UCT faced the risk of reversing the gains made through transformation if the current situation persisted. Referring to earlier comments made by the Deputy VC, he stated that if institutions were compelled to make decisions solely on financial considerations, the consequences for transformation would be severe. He cautioned that if each institution focused only on its own interests, the outcome would ultimately be detrimental to students and the country as a whole. This, he explained, was why he had earlier described the discussion as potentially leading down a dangerous path.

Prof Moshabela also addressed the suggestion that NSFAS-funded students should simply be allocated to lower-cost residences. He explained that UCT had considered this option and that, shortly after his arrival at the university in 2024, he had participated in budget discussions where precisely that proposal had been examined. However, he noted that UCT had a highly diverse student population and that concentrating students from similar socio-economic backgrounds within particular residences raised broader concerns regarding inclusion, non-discrimination, and transformation. He stated that these considerations had to be balanced carefully.

He added that, from a purely financial perspective, it would be easier for UCT if all students were housed in residences costing approximately R60,000 per year, requiring the university to cover only a relatively small shortfall. However, he argued that such an approach would not serve students’ long-term interests or support the kind of institutional environment UCT sought to foster. He maintained that UCT wanted students to graduate having interacted with peers from a broad range of socio-economic backgrounds.

The VC further stated that UCT had conducted a survey in 2024 which revealed that many students did not wish to move into the relatively cheaper residences available within the UCT system. He noted that it was only in 2026 that students had, of their own accord, begun to choose such residences in greater numbers. He stated that the university now had to consider the implications of that trend, particularly if students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds became concentrated in specific residences. He emphasised that these were among the many factors the university had to consider and that UCT’s approach extended beyond financial considerations to encompass the holistic development of students.

He concluded by appealing for moderation in the discussion and cautioning against overly simplistic or absolute positions. He stated that balancing the competing interests involved was complex and that no aspect of the issue could be regarded as straightforward. He urged all parties to work collectively towards a reasonable solution that balanced the interests of NSFAS, universities, students, the higher education sector, and the broader public.

Mr T Louw (ANC) rose on a point of order. He stated that, while he appreciated the VC’s call for collaboration, he was concerned that he had directed significant criticism towards NSFAS and its shortcomings. He appealed to the VC to maintain consistency in his submissions. While acknowledging that NSFAS had weaknesses, he stressed that the scheme existed to support the poorest students and argued that discussions should remain focused on that central objective

.

Mr Lonzi stated that he did not intend to spend much time on the accommodation issue, noting that the Committee had previously discussed it with the VC in his capacity as a representative of USAf. He emphasised that the matter was not unique to UCT but affected the higher education sector as a whole. In his view, the DHET ultimately bore responsibility for addressing the issue because it was responsible for ensuring equitable access to education across the country. He argued that students should be treated consistently regardless of whether they attended Walter Sisulu University, UCT, the University of Pretoria, or the University of Fort Hare. He therefore urged the Department to work closely with NSFAS and USAf to develop a long-term solution. He noted that universities such as the University of Pretoria and Stellenbosch University faced similar challenges, as did many other institutions.

He further stated that all parties should agree on a fundamental principle: once a student had been identified as eligible for NSFAS funding, particularly where eligibility arose through receipt of a SASSA grant, that student’s educational journey should not be undermined by circumstances beyond their control. He argued that it was unacceptable for a student to complete their studies successfully yet be unable to graduate because of financial disputes arising between institutions and funding bodies. He noted that if a student had failed academically, the situation would be different, but where students had excelled academically and still faced barriers to graduation because of debt, responsibility lay with the Department, NSFAS, universities, Parliament, and all stakeholders collectively. He therefore urged the Department to prioritise resolving the issue.

Turning to another matter, Mr Lonzi referred to audit findings previously mentioned by the Deputy Minister. He requested that the Chief Financial Officer provide a written response, given the limited time available, indicating what steps had been taken to address the findings and how far the process had progressed. He added that, apart from the issue in question, the university’s audit outcomes had generally been positive.

Mr Vincent Motholo, CFO, UCT, explained that the audit finding in question related to a conflict of interest involving transactions entered into between the university and members of staff who were required to declare their interests. He stated that the university took comfort from the fact that those transactions had not resulted in any instances of fraud. However, from a legislative compliance perspective, the required declarations should have been made. He indicated that the university was actively working to improve staff compliance with disclosure requirements and that the matter remained an ongoing area of focus.

Mr Lonzi stated that he wished to raise the issue of student debt, noting that it was highly contentious and that the Committee had previously discussed it with USAf when the VC had appeared before the Committee in that capacity. He remarked that he frequently had this debate with chief financial officers, including the CFO of Nelson Mandela University. He observed that when debts were classified as effectively irrecoverable, institutions were implicitly acknowledging that significant efforts had been made to recover the funds without success. He questioned what benefit accrued to universities from continuing to withhold the qualifications of affected students, or whether the rationale was that withholding qualifications would place sufficient pressure on graduates to return and settle their debts. He asked whether universities could not adopt alternative debt recovery measures that were less punitive and did not centre on withholding qualifications and degrees. While acknowledging that the VC might disagree with him, he maintained that the practice was punitive in nature.

Mr Motholo responded that Mr Lonzi was correct in observing that the practice had originally been introduced as a debt collection mechanism and had served that purpose for a period of time. He acknowledged that the Member’s concerns regarding students’ ability to access the labour market raised legitimate questions about whether the approach remained sustainable. He explained that the university had processes in place that enabled students to obtain employment both within the institution and in the broader labour market where qualifications could be made available. However, he stated that the discussion had created an opportunity to reconsider the existing process and explore alternative mitigation measures, including potential collaboration with SARS as a partner in debt collection. He added that this was an area the university was actively examining.

Mr Lonzi thanked the CFO and stated that he had advanced similar arguments during previous engagements with USAf when the VC had represented the organisation. He argued that universities across South Africa should consider less punitive methods of recovering outstanding debt. He noted that all parties could agree that qualifications and degrees were the primary means through which young people gained access to employment opportunities. He questioned how a graduate was expected to secure employment and earn an income if the institution withheld the very qualification required to enter the labour market until payment had been made. He stated that the discussion was long overdue but welcomed USAf’s willingness to engage with the issue.

Mr Lonzi indicated that his penultimate point related to the Gaza and Israel resolution. He explained that he had not originally intended to raise the matter, but comments made earlier by Honourable Khakhau had prompted him to do so to ensure that the Committee did not inadvertently convey an incorrect message to the public. He stated that his understanding was that the resolution related specifically to the IDF and the military activities forming part of the matter before the ICJ, rather than constituting a blanket boycott of all individuals or institutions in Israel. He requested that the Chairperson of Council clarify the matter so that the meeting would not conclude with a misunderstanding of the institution’s position.

Adv Arendse responded that the resolution was entirely linked to and concerned with the activities of the IDF, the war in Gaza, and what had been described as genocide taking place there. He stated that the resolution was grounded in the values of the university. While acknowledging the importance of financial considerations, he took the opportunity to provide context regarding donor funding. He explained that the R200 million figure referred to funding spread over ten years, amounting to approximately R20 million per annum. He noted that the first tranche of R20 million had been spent in accordance with the agreement between the donor and the university, entirely on the Neuroscience Institute, and had not involved student funding. To the best of his recollection, the donation as a whole had not been directed towards student funding.

He further stated, for the record, that donor funding had increased by more than 11% since 2024, although the number of donors had declined. He noted that it could reasonably be assumed that some of those who had withdrawn support or ceased donating had done so because they disagreed with the Gaza resolution. He reiterated that this was the relevant context. He confirmed that the resolution related specifically to the activities of the IDF and did not concern academic freedom. Rather, it reflected the view that academics should not engage in or associate themselves with activities that directly or indirectly contributed to the conflict and thereby rendered them complicit.

Mr Lonzi stated that the clarification was important.

Mr Arendse then requested to be excused, noting that he had submitted a request the previous day because he needed to attend a disciplinary hearing of considerable importance, one aspect of which could potentially affect a participant in the proceedings. Turning to the issue of union representation, he indicated that he would address the matter in his capacity as Chairperson of Council. He stated that UCT had prepared a formal response which could be submitted for the record. In summary, however, the Council was scheduled to meet on Saturday. He explained that the university’s position had always been that employees, rather than unions, were represented on Council, with academic staff and two PASS staff representatives serving as Council members. He noted that Council was not a constituency-based body and that its members did not represent constituencies in the same manner as Members of Parliament. He explained that ministerial appointees to Council, including himself and four others, were required to act in the best interests of the university.

Returning briefly to the donor funding issue, Mr Arendse stated that the state remained by far the largest funder of tertiary institutions. He noted that, when the Gaza resolution had been under consideration, he had not received a single telephone call, email, or message from government, a Minister, or any representative of the state suggesting that the university should take into account South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice. He explained that the decision had been left entirely to Council members, who had been required to determine what they believed to be in the best interests of the institution. Through a process of majority decision-making, Council had resolved to adopt the resolution. He emphasised that this aspect of university governance should be respected across the higher education sector.

He added that a formal response could be submitted for the record and reiterated that, in summary, UCT complied with the Higher Education Act and its Statute regarding employee representation. He stated that any move to introduce direct union representation on Council would require amendments to both the institutional statute and the university’s own governance instruments. Such a process would necessarily involve consultation with a range of constituencies, including the Institutional Forum, Convocation, Senate, and other relevant structures.

Mr Lonzi remarked that the Chairperson had already utilised some of his allocated time but requested some leniency. He explained that he had intended to advise the unions that, in his view, their proposal was not grounded in the Higher Education Act, which referred specifically to academic and non-academic staff rather than unions. He observed that the Act did not expressly require student representative councils to deploy members to Council, as it referred only to student representatives. Consequently, he suggested that a university could theoretically hold separate elections for student representatives independent of the SRC while remaining compliant with the Act.

He stated that a more viable request would be for unions to seek forms of recognition similar to those adopted at institutions such as Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University and the University of Pretoria, where unions participated as observers or were afforded more meaningful engagement within bargaining structures. He suggested that such demands would be more realistic. He warned that requiring every union to be directly represented on university councils could prove disruptive, particularly at institutions with six or seven unions holding divergent ideological positions. While he did not disagree with the concerns raised by the unions, he maintained that their proposals should be reframed in a manner consistent with the relevant legislative framework.

Adv Arendse sought clarification as to whether the unions intended presenting their proposal at the Council meeting scheduled for Saturday.

The Chairperson responded that the matter was internal to the institution and suggested that those concerned engage directly with the Chairperson of Council outside the Committee proceedings. He stated that such internal matters were not issues in which the Committee should become involved.

Mr Arendse noted that the Registrar had already been engaging with the unions on the matter.

The Chairperson reiterated that it was an internal matter that would be dealt with through the appropriate institutional processes. He indicated that he intended to give the Director-General an opportunity to speak before the meeting concluded but first needed to release Members who had questions to pose to Ministers during the social cluster sitting, some of which already appeared on the order paper.

Prof Moshabela indicated that he had wished to make a contribution earlier on the accommodation issue, before the Deputy Minister’s intervention.

The Chairperson confirmed that he would allow the VC to speak but requested that Dr Christians proceed with her questions first, given that some Members needed to be excused to attend the social cluster session.

Dr D Christians (DA) stated that she wished briefly to return to the accommodation debate and observed that the Director-General might also wish to comment on the issue when allowed speaking. She noted that the Committee had heard that NSFAS allegedly owed UCT R540 million and that the VC had made it clear that numerous factors complicated direct comparisons between institutions. She acknowledged that the Committee understood this complexity and recognised that similar debates occurred internationally, where universities with differing rankings charged varying fees and where funding and quality considerations formed part of the broader discussion.

She expressed the view that the accommodation crisis was not unique to UCT but was recurring across the sector. Student debt continued to grow, universities were carrying increasing financial burdens, and pressures on the system were intensifying. She observed that both the SRC and the Institutional Forum had argued that the funding model required reform. In her view, the Committee was becoming distracted by secondary issues rather than addressing what she regarded as the core problem, namely the NSFAS funding model itself.

Directing a question to the university, Dr Christians asked whether UCT believed that the current funding model was suitable for a city such as Cape Town. She further asked whether the university was proposing that the model be adapted to accommodate its particular circumstances and, if so, what changes it would recommend.

Prof Moshabela responded that, in the interests of time, he would be direct. He stated that UCT currently had approximately 5 000 NSFAS-funded students and that the institution did not wish to see that number decline, particularly given existing concerns in that regard. On the contrary, UCT wished to increase the number of NSFAS-funded students as far as possible. He explained that if the university was bringing students from provinces such as KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape to Cape Town, it wanted to ensure that they were housed appropriately and did not have to worry about accommodation. Consequently, UCT’s position was that funding should cover all student costs, including accommodation.

He acknowledged concerns regarding rising accommodation costs and the resulting pressure on NSFAS. However, he argued that if accommodation was accepted as an essential component of transformation and student support, then the associated costs should be fully funded. He stated that he was willing to engage on how NSFAS could pay the actual costs incurred in university-owned residences in order to ensure that students were adequately supported. He added that, from UCT’s perspective, the central issue was ensuring that the funding model covered the full cost of study and that, where possible, intermediary costs should be reduced so that a greater proportion of funding reached students directly.

Prof Moshabela further acknowledged broader structural challenges, including the fact that the R350 000 household income threshold had remained unchanged for an extended period and had not kept pace with inflation. He noted that increasing demand for higher education had placed additional pressure on families earning above both the R350 000 and R600 000 thresholds. Such families frequently approached the university questioning why the thresholds had not been adjusted. He recognised that NSFAS itself faced budgetary constraints and that any move towards a more comprehensive funding model could reduce the total number of students who could be funded. Nevertheless, he maintained that for students residing in university accommodation, the priority should be ensuring that they were fully funded.

Dr Christians responded that it had become clear throughout the engagement that the existing NSFAS funding model was no longer functioning effectively for universities. She suggested that some degree of decentralisation might allow institutions to adapt funding arrangements to their particular circumstances and needs. In her view, the model was no longer serving students adequately. She indicated that she would leave further explanation to the Director-General and noted that investment in student accommodation infrastructure represented another significant challenge facing the sector, a point that had also been raised by the Deputy Minister.

Turning to transformation, Dr Christians stated that Parliament continued to grapple with the issue of transformation throughout the academic pipeline. Referring to slide 31 of the university’s presentation, she noted that UCT had provided a detailed racial breakdown of employees by category, including African, Coloured, Indian, and White staff. However, she observed that the level of detail diminished in later sections dealing with academic progression, senior academic appointments, Profships, and senior lecturer positions. She expressed concern that aggregated figures could conceal important trends within the academic pipeline and requested that the university provide a detailed racial breakdown of senior lecturers, associate Profs, and Profs across the African, Coloured, Indian, and White categories.

Prof Collier-Reed asked whether the university should provide the information immediately or submit it in writing.

Ms Mhango thanked the Member for the question and stated that the university did possess the data. However, she suggested that it would be more useful to provide the information in writing because the figures had been aggregated and a more detailed breakdown could then be supplied.

Dr Christians indicated that this would be acceptable but asked Ms Mhango, based on the figures available to her, to identify the point within the academic pipeline at which transformation began to slow.

Ms Mhango responded that transformation began to slow at the senior academic levels, particularly at the level of associate Prof and Prof, where the most significant gaps remained. She noted that the university had introduced a number of transformation initiatives, including its Academic Transformation Programme, specifically aimed at addressing those disparities. While there had been some progress at lecturer level, she acknowledged the Member’s concern regarding the need for more detailed disaggregated data. She added that, within the broad black category, substantial work remained necessary at Prof and associate Prof level from a transformation perspective.

Dr Christians stated that her concern related to the age profile of the academic workforce and the sustainability of the university’s future academic pipeline. Given the demographic profile of current Profs across faculties, she asked whether the university believed that its existing pipeline of African, Coloured, and Indian academics was sufficiently strong to replace those academics who would be leaving the institution in the coming years.

Prof Ramugondo stated that this was a very important question which UCT was taking seriously and that a number of initiatives had been introduced to address that concern precisely. She explained that one initiative which had been particularly important in helping to close the gap identified by the Executive Director of Human Resources, was what UCT referred to as the Next Generation Profiate. These were colleagues already employed by UCT at senior lecturer and associate Prof level, and the programme focused on addressing the structural barriers that impeded promotion. She stated that it had been important for UCT to recognise that the problem did not usually lie with individuals themselves, and that if the institution was successful in attracting talented academics, it should be concerned when those individuals were not progressing as expected. She explained that the initiative worked specifically with colleagues who should be progressing and assisted them in preparing applications for promotion.

She added that UCT also participated in the New Generation of Academics Programme (nGAP), a national initiative for which the university was grateful, as it brought new academics into the sector. She explained that one structural barrier identified over the years was that entry-level lecturers often became overwhelmed by heavy undergraduate teaching loads. At universities of high standing, it was common for newly qualified doctoral graduates to be afforded time to publish from their doctoral research, something which was difficult to achieve when they were fully occupied with undergraduate teaching responsibilities. She said the nGAP had provided an important indication of the structural barriers that needed to be addressed.

Prof Ramugondo further stated that UCT also operated an Emerging Research Programme, which was available to all staff because everyone required support. She noted that signalling that only people of colour or Black staff required support conveyed the wrong message. She said there were two additional initiatives she wished to highlight. The first was the Employment Equity Fund, through which heads of department or deans could approach the executive to motivate for the appointment of exceptionally talented candidates from historically disadvantaged groups at associate Prof or Prof level. This effectively enabled targeted recruitment where necessary. The second, and particularly exciting, initiative was the Accelerated Transformation Academic Programme, which addressed concerns regarding the ageing professoriate. She explained that it was no longer sufficient to focus solely on existing academic staff and that the institution also needed to pay attention to postgraduate students, particularly Black African and Coloured students who had a passion for academia. Through this initiative, UCT sought to encourage such students to remain within the academic system and pursue academic careers.

Mr A Sauls (PA) stated that he wished to begin by emphasising that his commitment to racial transformation was not focused on a single race but rather on a balanced approach. He explained that he wanted to change the way racial transformation was conceptualised. He said that when he heard that 20% of students were Coloured, many expected him to celebrate the increase. However, what interested him was the movement towards a balanced approach in which all students were regarded as Africans and represented proportionately. He stated that this was his central concern and that he wanted it to be understood that he was equally encouraged by figures showing 20% Coloured students, 23% White students, 44% Black African students, and a slight increase to 7% among Indian South Africans. In his view, all of these groups should be regarded as Africans.

He asked whether it was correct that applications from Coloured students had increased by 5% and requested confirmation from the Deputy VC (Academic) that he had interpreted the presentation correctly.

Prof Collier-Reed confirmed, through the Chairperson, that applications from Coloured students had indeed increased for the 2026 academic year.

Mr Sauls stated that he needed matters explained in very simple terms and asked whether the figures showed that more Coloured students had applied to study at UCT compared with previous years. He further asked whether it was correct that Coloured students had accepted firm offers from the university at a higher rate than Black African and White students.

Prof Collier-Reed confirmed that, for 2026, Coloured students had the highest take-up rate, which he believed was approximately 53%.

Mr Sauls then asked whether it was true that UCT had made fewer offers to Coloured students than to White and Black students.

Prof Collier-Reed explained that the university followed a rigorous admissions process in which offers were made to eligible students who met the admission requirements. He stated that every student who met those requirements received an offer. He added that the university did not make judgements about applicants beyond assessing whether they met the established thresholds.

Mr Sauls responded that the presentation itself contained the relevant figures and asked the Deputy VC to answer directly and transparently rather than assuming he had not studied the presentation. He stated that the figures showed that the university made fewer offers to Coloured students and more offers to Black and White students.

Prof Collier-Reed confirmed that this was correct and explained that it reflected the pattern of applications received.

Mr Sauls stated that this was the fact he wished to explore and asked whether the university understood the implications. He argued that Coloured students were demonstrating increasing interest in studying at UCT, that the university was making more offers to Black and White students than to Coloured students, and that Coloured students were accepting offers at a higher rate than either Black African or White students, despite receiving fewer offers. He asked whether that situation was fair.

Prof Collier-Reed reiterated that offers were made to every student who met the admission requirements and that every eligible student received an offer. He stated that fewer offers were made to Coloured students because there were fewer Coloured applicants overall.

Prof Moshabela added that the figures reflected a pattern rather than a deliberate institutional action. He explained that one could have a large applicant pool within which relatively few individuals met the required criteria, while another group with a smaller applicant pool could have a higher proportion of applicants who met the criteria, resulting in more offers being made. He stressed that this did not necessarily indicate any systematic form of segregation but reflected the outcome of the admissions process. He characterised it as a pattern rather than an action.

Mr Sauls responded by acknowledging that the VC was a highly intelligent individual, considerably more so than himself, but stated that he wished to challenge that reasoning. He argued that the issue was indeed systematic and said he had anticipated such a response based on his previous experiences with Stellenbosch University. He explained that he had identified a case study which, in his view, illustrated the systematic nature of the problem and asked the VC to consider it carefully rather than dismissing it.

He referred to a Grade 12 learner named Cameron Reid, whom he described as a Coloured student with outstanding academic results, including distinctions in Mathematics and Physical Science. He stated that she was the country’s leading school debater and remained the national champion. He explained that she had applied to UCT, UKZN, the University of Pretoria, VUT and other institutions, selecting Medicine as her first choice and Dentistry as her second. According to Mr Sauls, all of the universities, including UCT, had declined her application for Medicine and instead offered her a place in Accounting. He described her as a brilliant learner from a disadvantaged community who had excelled academically, in leadership, and in debating, and asked whether it was fair that she was not admitted to study Medicine.

Prof Moshabela responded by recounting that UCT had rejected his own application to study Medicine approximately thirty years earlier. He explained that he had subsequently studied Medicine at UKZN, completed further qualifications at the Medical University of South Africa (Medunsa), Wits, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and had eventually been approached by UCT on several occasions when the institution was searching for its next VC. He remarked that he had long felt aggrieved by that rejection and had considered it unfair at the time, although he had since forgiven the institution. He stated that he could therefore understand why the situation described did not feel fair.

Mr Sauls replied that his respect for the VC had increased as a result of that response and that it resonated deeply with him. He stated that Cameron Reid was not an isolated case and that many similar examples existed. Given that the VC understood the concern being raised, he asked whether the institution would examine more closely the systemic limitations affecting students such as her. He argued that students who had devoted themselves entirely to academic achievement should not be pushed out of the system when their aspiration was to study professions such as Medicine. While acknowledging that the intention might not be discriminatory, he maintained that the framework nonetheless produced exclusionary outcomes. He therefore requested the VC’s commitment to investigate the matter.

Prof Moshabela confirmed that he gave the Member that commitment.

Mr Sauls then asked one final question. He stated that he accepted the undertaking from Human Resources that a detailed demographic breakdown would be provided to the Committee and sought confirmation that the category “Black” included Coloured and Indian South Africans alongside Black Africans. He then asked whether it was correct that, at UCT, foreign national Profs outnumbered Black African, Coloured, and Indian South African Profs combined.

Ms Mhango confirmed that this was correct at Prof level, as reflected on her presentation slide.

Mr Sauls then asked whether she considered that situation to be appropriate.

Ms Mhango replied that she did not. She stated that, as Prof Ramugondo had outlined, the institution remained committed to transformation and was seeking to change that picture through the various programmes that had been implemented.

Mr Sauls thanked Ms Mhango.

Responses by the DHET

The DG stated that he could not remain silent when presented with an opportunity to engage on the issue of student accommodation. He remarked that, when the Chairperson had opened the meeting, he had assumed the discussion would be guided towards a dedicated engagement on student accommodation. However, as proceedings progressed, the discussion had broadened and certain assertions had been made that could not be fully substantiated within the limited time available.

He stated that the Department’s position was that a report already existed from the Ministerial Committee on the Review of the Provisioning of Student Housing and that, on the basis of that report, the Department had also developed a policy on minimum norms and standards for student housing in public investments. He explained that the system had therefore been guided by clear policy directives, which should make it difficult for non-compliant practices to emerge. However, he argued that it was reasonable to ask institutions whether they experienced difficulties in implementing those policies and what support might be required to facilitate implementation. Given that a significant period had passed since the publication of the policy directives, new challenges may have emerged during implementation which institutions wished to raise. He noted that the guidelines were comprehensive and addressed issues such as costs and services rendered, which were central to the current discussion.

The DG expressed support for the Chairperson’s earlier remarks and request, noting that Honourable Lonzi had also raised the matter and had implicated the Department in efforts to find solutions. He observed that Dr Christians had highlighted the importance of infrastructure and stated that the Department continued to experience slow progress in the rollout of infrastructure projects across universities. Given the imperative of expanding access to higher education, infrastructure resources needed to be utilised strategically to support system growth.

He further noted that the Department had begun engaging on a range of policy matters, including the overall structure of the system. He explained that a key challenge was ensuring that infrastructure investments were supported by robust feasibility studies. Without such studies, there was a risk of repeating mistakes observed in the basic education sector, where schools had been built in response to perceived demand but later stood empty because proper feasibility assessments had not been conducted. He suggested that any future approach would need to involve entities such as the construction sector, Infrastructure South Africa, and relevant housing departments, and should not be limited solely to the post-school education sector. He remarked that one only had to travel around South Africa to observe large quantities of underutilised infrastructure in industrial and other areas to appreciate that the country was not necessarily short of infrastructure resources, despite the accommodation difficulties faced by young people.

He stated that the Department wished to make it clear that student accommodation was a priority. The Department intended to work with USAf and the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) sector to determine what infrastructure interventions could be pursued. He noted that discussions had already taken place with the Department of Public Works, although those engagements had not progressed as constructively as hoped due to misunderstandings regarding the Department’s objectives. Nevertheless, he believed those engagements had been valuable and stated that the Department was prepared to take responsibility for facilitating cooperation and engagement among all stakeholders. He emphasised that addressing student accommodation remained the Department’s foremost priority and that it fully appreciated the hardships students were experiencing as a result of unresolved accommodation challenges.

Further discussion

Mr Lonzi stated that he wished to place several matters on record. He reminded the Chairperson of his commitment to circulate a report to the Committee and requested that the university also provide written responses to questions which had not been fully addressed during the meeting due to time constraints. He further requested that the VC and CFO provide details supporting the university’s claim that no profit was generated from university-owned accommodation, including a breakdown of costs and income.

He added that he had refrained from interrupting Mr Sauls’ earlier engagement but wished to note that, in his understanding, where ten places were available and twenty applicants met the minimum requirements, admission decisions would ultimately be determined by the competitiveness of the applicants’ results. Thus, a student could satisfy the minimum criteria but still not secure admission. He stressed that the shortage of spaces within post-school education was not solely a university problem. While he was not suggesting that Cameron Reid’s academic results lacked competitiveness and indeed believed they were likely to be highly competitive, he wished to afford the university the benefit of the doubt and suggested that this was the point Prof Collier-Reed had been attempting to make.

Mr Sauls responded that the issue raised by Mr Lonzi was not the matter under discussion. He explained that this had initially been the university’s response, but that he and the VC had subsequently reached a shared understanding regarding the systemic limitation he had sought to highlight. He noted that the VC had himself acknowledged having been disadvantaged by UCT in the past and had since forgiven the institution.

The Chairperson indicated that he had intended to ask the Chief Financial Officer who audited the institution.

Mr Motholo responded that the university had recently concluded a five-year audit term with PricewaterhouseCoopers and that Ernst & Young had now been appointed as the new external auditor.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had an arrangement with the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) whereby, when detailed information was required, the Committee could engage with the Auditor-General, who would in turn engage with the institution’s auditors. He indicated that he was particularly interested in obtaining a detailed breakdown of student accommodation figures. He explained that he had reviewed the university’s annual report but had not found the level of detail he sought within the financial statements. Consequently, he intended to write to the Auditor-General, as suggested by Mr Lonzi, to request that the relevant information be obtained from the auditors. He stated that he required an independent assessment of the accommodation figures, which appeared to involve expenditure approaching R900 million and potentially more.

The Chairperson further stated that the Committee would write to the institution with a number of specific questions requiring responses from the VC. He recalled having previously discussed with the DG a proposal that had also been shared with the VC when he appeared before the Committee as a representative of USAf. The proposal envisaged the release of approximately 13,000 withheld certificates following the conclusion of memoranda of understanding between the Departments of Higher Education and National Treasury. Under such an arrangement, if a graduate subsequently secured employment, the system would identify that employment, and the graduate would be reminded to repay the outstanding debt owed to the institution.

He noted that USAf had responded that, in the case of financially distressed universities, National Treasury might need to provide upfront financial support before certificates could be released. Nevertheless, the Committee remained of the view that there was a direct relationship between the number of unemployed graduates and the number of graduates whose certificates were being withheld, as many individuals had completed their studies but lacked documentary proof of their qualifications.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee possessed correspondence showing that Parliament, together with the Department of Higher Education and Training, advertised positions on the basis that applications would be considered incomplete if they did not include all required certificates. He argued that this created a significant obstacle for graduates whose certificates had been withheld. The Committee therefore wished to see those certificates released. He acknowledged that the proposal would require further development, consultation with USAf, engagement with the Department, and subsequent consideration by National Treasury. In the interim, he argued that greater recognition should be afforded to letters of completion and that the DHET, together with the National Treasury, should engage with the South African business sector to ensure that such letters were recognised as carrying the same weight as formal degree certificates. Academic transcripts and records remained available should employers require additional verification. He concluded that poor students who lacked the means to settle outstanding debts should not be punished but should instead be afforded an opportunity to participate fully in the labour market.

He said the second part of the proposal was that the public service, all government departments, municipalities, state-owned entities, and Parliament itself had to accept letters of completion as equivalent to degrees, because a number of graduates had been punished because of the format requirement.

The DG said he supported what the Chairperson had said, noting that even within the department itself, the recruitment and selection policies indicated that a certificate was required.

Remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would hold a second dedicated engagement on the issue of student accommodation, which he anticipated would also include students, student housing stakeholders, and relevant state agencies. He said he held a different view from the position that institutions could determine accommodation fees without scrutiny, and indicated that the Committee would revisit the matter during the next parliamentary term once Parliament reconvened, as the current term was due to end at the close of the month. He explained that the Committee intended to bring together the ministerial report, USAf, NSFAS, the Competition Commission, relevant Chapter 9 institutions, Infrastructure South Africa, and other stakeholders for a comprehensive discussion on the matter. He noted that the Deputy Minister had indicated that the country was spending more through NSFAS on accommodation than on academic costs and warned that, if left unchecked, NSFAS risked becoming primarily a student accommodation funding entity rather than a student funding institution. He said this was the direction in which matters were heading in the absence of proper regulation of accommodation costs.

He stated that he did not believe education, as a social good, should be commodified, and argued that student accommodation had become a significant commercial commodity sold at the highest possible price. He said all parties present had a responsibility to address the issue because the ultimate victims would be students, not necessarily the current generation, but those currently in lower grades who might be unable to access higher education if the matter was not regulated. He remarked that he could demonstrate the difference between accommodation expenditure in 2022 and current expenditure for a similar number of beneficiaries and argued that the trend was moving in the wrong direction. He warned that this trajectory would undermine the transformation objectives consistently advocated by stakeholders. He noted that NSFAS was currently funding approximately 800 000 students with a budget of R53 billion and suggested that, even with an increase to R55 billion, the number of funded students could decline to 500 000 if the issue remained unresolved. He argued that, within three to four years, the number of funded students could be reduced by half despite a substantial increase in funding. He further cautioned that NSFAS could eventually have a budget of R60 billion while supporting only half the number of students it funded at present. He emphasised that this required a collective response and should not be dismissed as solely a government responsibility.

He further stated that, should the situation remain unresolved, the government might eventually be compelled to divert funding from university subsidies to NSFAS. In that context, he noted that the approximately R2 billion in government subsidies currently received by UCT could ultimately be placed at risk.

The Chairperson explained that his questions regarding foreign nationals would have taken a different form and that he would therefore submit them in writing. He said his interest related specifically to compliance with the Employment Services Act, the Immigration Act, and the policy framework on internationalisation, which the Committee fully supported. He acknowledged that the institution relied on international investment and needed to attract international talent but stressed that the applicable legislative framework had to be followed. He indicated that his questions would focus on whether the institution had complied with those legal requirements and policy frameworks. He further advised that he would write to the institution with additional questions on behalf of Members who had not had an opportunity to raise them during the meeting and that the institution would be afforded more than fourteen days to provide comprehensive responses.

He noted that a number of proposals had emerged during the engagement and observed that the students had approached the matter strategically by ensuring that the SRC’s presentation and recommendations had also been channelled through the Institutional Forum via the Deputy President, effectively resulting in two presentations from the same structure. He indicated that he would also direct further questions to the institution to assist the Committee in gaining a clearer understanding of certain matters.

The Chairperson stated that UCT was an extremely important academic institution and that while the Committee would not always agree with the university, such agreement was not necessary. He said the Committee nevertheless had a responsibility to acknowledge areas in which the institution was performing well, noting that UCT had demonstrated strong performance in a number of respects despite disagreements on certain issues. He reiterated his personal view that the accommodation pricing model was inappropriate, while acknowledging that the university believed its pricing was justified. He noted that this remained a point of disagreement. He added that the Committee had agreed with the VC that the proposal under consideration would at least help unlock opportunities for graduates whose qualifications had been withheld.

He suggested that, going forward, the Committee’s correspondence to Council might request consideration of a proposal whereby students who had completed their studies but still owed money would be permitted to participate in graduation ceremonies, even if their certificates remained temporarily withheld. He observed that if certificates were only released several years later, affected graduates might lose the opportunity to participate in a formal graduation ceremony altogether. He said the Committee would ask Council to consider holding graduation ceremonies on Saturdays and allowing such students to graduate while retaining the certificates pending the finalisation of the legislative proposal. He argued that, for many students, particularly first-generation graduates, being denied the opportunity to graduate formally could cause lasting harm.

The Chairperson thanked the students for exercising restraint and refraining from further interventions and apologised for the limitations imposed by time constraints. He remarked that, in recognition of their cooperation, when the institution invited Members to attend elections or campaigns, the Committee would participate collectively as supportive partners rather than as individuals. He thanked all participants for attending and for contributing to a robust engagement, including worker representatives, student leaders, members of the Institutional Forum and its advisers, and NSFAS representatives. He noted that NSFAS had been required to attend the meeting but would not form part of the next engagement the Committee intended to convene, despite being central to many of the issues under discussion. He added that he did not understand why UCT had not referred accommodation providers to the Competition Commission and remarked that he would have done so himself.

He stated that the Committee would now need to conclude proceedings and proceed to the social cluster sitting, where Members had questions directed to Ministers, including questions from Honourable Lonzi and himself. He wished students well in their examinations and in the upcoming SRC elections during the second semester. In a light-hearted remark, he observed that online elections occasionally appeared to produce results influenced by algorithmic interference and commented that, although the preferred candidates had been successful the previous year, he was aware of a rotation practice. He jokingly suggested that if anyone intended programming the algorithm, they should programme it to maintain the same outcome for the next five years.

The meeting was adjourned.

==================================================

https://www.news.uct.ac.za/article/-2024-06-24-uct-council-adopts-two-senate-resolutions-on-gaza-conflictUCT Council adopts two Senate resolutions on Gaza conflict

24 June 2024

Dear colleagues and students

The University of Cape Town (UCT) Council held an ordinary plenary meeting on Saturday, 22 June 2024.

Among the items on the agenda were two resolutions regarding the Gaza conflict, which were passed by Senate at a meeting held on Friday, 19 April 2024 and then tabled for consideration by Council.

Council debated the two resolutions and following this debate, adopted each by majority decision.

In terms of the first resolution, on the destruction of scholarship and education in Gaza, Senate resolved to:

call, again, for an immediate ceasefire, the passage of humanitarian aid and the return of all captives as contained in the Senate’s resolution of 17 November 2023
condemn the destruction of the education sector in Gaza and the massive scale of killing of teachers and university staff in the current war
urge the international community to ensure that the provision of humanitarian aid includes the restoration of the education sector in Gaza
express concern and opposition to any attempts to curtail academic freedom by labelling criticism of Israel or Zionist policies as antisemitism
reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s conflation of critique of Zionism and Israel’s policies as antisemitism in favour of the Jerusalem Declaration’s dynamic understanding of what constitutes antisemitism
express support for academic colleagues in Gaza who are surviving under appalling conditions and our intention to assist in the rebuilding of the academic sector after the war
express solidarity with academic colleagues victimised for their willingness to speak out against the educaracide in Gaza.

The second resolution was in regard to research collaborations with members of the Israeli Defence Force and the wider Israeli military establishment. In terms of this resolution, no UCT academic may enter into relations, or continue relations with, any research group and/or network whose author affiliations are with the Israeli Defence Force, and/or the broader Israeli military establishment.

Council will in due course provide further updates through the usual communication channels on some of the other key items discussed at the June 2024 meeting.

Communication and Marketing Department

======================================================

https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/university-of-cape-town-debates-academic-and-cultural-boycotts-of-israel-506305University of Cape Town debates academic and cultural boycotts of IsraelActivists say action would lead to cut in funding, underprivileged students suffering the consequences.

By ILANIT CHERNICK

SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 11:06Updated: OCTOBER 1, 2017 16:12

Africa’s top university, the University of Cape Town, is debating a proposed academic and cultural boycott of Israel. The proposal was put forward by the Palestine Solidarity Forum, which has called on UCT to implement an academic boycott of Israeli universities. “This academic boycott would require that UCT reject forming any institutional ties with Israeli universities,” the PSF wrote.“The rationale for this call is clear – Palestinian human rights are violated by Israel on a daily basis with the direct and indirect support from Israeli universities… By implementing an academic boycott, UCT takes a principled position in the defense of human rights and academic freedom,” The group claimed.

The matter has been raised for discussion at the UCT Academic Freedom Committee. The committee, however, is only able to make recommendations to the university for consideration by the UCT senate and council, it does not have the authority to make binding decisions on behalf of the school.Klaas Mokgomole, a member of Africans for Peace, said the idea of boycott is taking the focus away from real issues.“First of all, we have very important issues in South Africa that are burning and need urgent attention,” he told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.“For example, we are busy fighting for free, quality and decolonized education. That is why we had the ‘#FeesMustFall’ movement in the past two years. We need the government to work together with institutions of higher learning. The boycott is trying to sway the black students’ focus from real issues that affect them in South Africa.

“This will lead to a cut in funding, and more and more black and underprivileged students will suffer the consequence. It is actually very selfish to suggest such a boycott. This kind of a suggested motion is very anti-black and it cannot be allowed to carry on,” Mokgomole said.“Africans for Peace is about bring two parties to the table and have a dialogue. We need to be promoting peace in the Middle East, not boycotts. Boycotts have not helped so far, however, promoting dialogue will help,” he stressed.Asked how a boycott might affect relations between Israel and South Africa, Mokgomole said ties between the two countries “are very strong.”

“However, a boycott like these would lead to unnecessary consequences, and as a result, the South African black community will suffer at the end,” he said. 

Concerned UCT students, parents and alumni have banded together to create an online petition that, once it reaches 2500 signatures, will be handed over to UCT management, which includes the university’s senate and council. “We believe that the implementation of a wholesale academic boycott against Israel violates the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech, guaranteed in Section 16 of the South African Constitution and which are fundamental to the undertaking of education and research,” said the group, which calls itself Concerned Citizens for Academic Freedom at UCT. “Research, teaching and scholarship flourish through robust exchange of ideas across borders and among institutions in different parts of the world, including the Middle East. The true essence of a university is to foster dialogue and develop solutions to problems without regard to political, racial and cultural differences. UCT has always shown these qualities, leading us to celebrate our association with UCT,” it said. “Student groups are well-known for their efforts to isolate the Jewish state’s universities, students and academics. And all too often, student groups like the Palestine Solidarity Forum at UCT do not make the profound distinction between antisemitism, anti-Zionism and criticism of the policies of a particular Israeli government.“It is these blurred lines and misunderstandings that create a negative impact on campus for Jewish students, making them one of the most targeted minority groups at university,” the group added.In an interview with South African Jewish Report, UCT vice-chancellor Max Price, who himself is Jewish, said his “personal position is that there should never be an academic boycott anywhere, and this coincides with the position of UCT up till now.”“Things can change depending on the debate. We should be concerned about academic freedom globally. This year we have been called upon to re-think our position as a university,” he said. He made it clear that the debate was an institutional issue, not a personal one. 

Earlier this month, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) and South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) said they were working closely with the South African Union of Jewish Students (SAUJS). Representatives of SAUJS will make a presentation this week to the AFC and have been in communication with university management, and other concerned organizations. “We are concerned both about the nature of this campaign by anti-Israel groups on Campus, as well as the antisemitic rhetoric that may evolve from this debate and its implications for Jewish students who support the values of academic freedom.“The SAJBD and SAZF unequivocally reject academic boycotts, whether aimed at Israeli institutions or those of any other country. Such initiatives are discriminatory and inconsistent with universal academic standards,” the organizations said in a statement.

Both the SAUJS and the Palestine Solidarity Forum have made lengthy presentations to the Academic Freedom Committee, which the body is still considering.

==============================================

14 October 2014

https://www.news.uct.ac.za/downloads/email/UCTManagementStatementOnGazaConflict.pdf

UCT response to calls to support anti-Israel measures 

The Palestinian Solidarity Forum (PSF) and the Student Representative Council (SRC) at the University of Cape Town have called upon the University’s management to make a statement on behalf of UCT in solidarity with the Palestinians around the Gaza conflict. In particular there has been a demand for the university to:  declare unconditionally that Israel is an apartheid state;  support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign;  not renew UCT’s contract with the security company G4S; and  call for the South African government to cut diplomatic ties with Israel. The University community is distressed by the loss of life as a result of the conflict and we offer our deepest condolences to all the families affected. However, after extensive discussion, UCT management has concluded that we cannot support the statement and demands of the PSF and SRC. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, while as individuals in the management team we all have views on the conflict between Palestine and Israel, and there is significant overlap in our views, when UCT management speaks, it is necessarily a position that it takes on behalf of the institution; it is read by the members of staff, students and the public as an institutional position. So the call to management to support the above is therefore a call to the institution to take a position. UCT is not reluctant to take such a position when there is sufficient clarity on the essential issues, and especially when there is a clear moral imperative. But given how controversial and highly contested the interpretation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is, including disputes over the facts and interpretations of motives, we do not think at this stage that there is a shared or even dominant view on these issues. Does this mean we can do no more than maintain silence? The answer is no. The evidence, from on-campus marches, to Israel Apartheid Week, to the stream of speakers visiting UCT to address related topics, is that a large number of our students and staff feel involved in or affected by the Israel-Palestine issue and would like their UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN iYunivesithi YaseKapa Universiteit van Kaapstad Dr Max Price: Vice-Chancellor Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa Room 101, Bremner Building, Lower Campus, Lovers’ Walk, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7700 Tel: +27 (0) 21 650-2105/6 Fax: +27 (0) 21 650-5100 E-mail: vc@uct.ac.za Website: www.uct.ac.za “Our Mission is to be an outstanding teaching and research university, educating for life and addressing the challenges facing our society.” university to show some moral and intellectual leadership on the issue. That, it seems to us, is good enough reason to engage. The University’s role is to create and protect safe spaces for controversial and competing views, and to nurture rational debate on difficult issues in accordance with the principle of academic freedom. We also have a duty to provide thought leadership. We will initiate a project inviting essays from members of the university offering analyses of, arguments about and possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Gaza war. In producing an anthology of position papers from across the university, we hope to re-emphasise the point that on the one hand the university as an institution does not have a single view, and on the other, that the university is a place where ideas, argument and reason matter. Implicit in creating the space for debate is a position on the academic boycott. While there are many in our community who may support divestment, sanctions and other boycotts, UCT (through its Academic Freedom Committee) takes the view that academic boycotts are in a category of their own and should almost never be supported by universities. The day we ban people from speaking on our campus because we do not agree with their politics is the day we sacrifice our commitment to academic freedom and the ability to protect different, unpopular, and dissident views, and set ourselves up to repeat the errors of the Galileo affair. Finally, the PSF and SRC specifically called on UCT management not to renew its contract with G4S. The information about G4S activities and an alleged record of abuses, both in Israel and elsewhere, is disputed, but UCT will conduct its own assessment prior to making a decision on renewing the contract. As is the case with all contracts, when this one becomes due for renewal it will be put out to tender and many factors will be considered, including the findings of this assessment. In summary, while UCT as an institution is unable to support the call to take a stand on the specific issues condemning Israel, we uphold the rights of individual academics and students to do so and will facilitate the promotion of all views and serious debate. 

Dr Max Price Vice-Chancellor University of Cape Town  

“Our Mission is to be an outstanding teaching and research university, educating for life and addressing the challenges facing our society.”