Scholar at Risk: Columbia's Antisemitism Debate

The Controversy Over Antisemitism Definitions and Academic Freedom

Marianne Hirsch, a renowned genocide scholar at Columbia University, has long used Hannah Arendt’s book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil to engage her students in discussions about the Holocaust and its lasting impact. However, recent changes in how antisemitism is defined at the university have placed her in a difficult position. She now fears that simply referencing Arendt’s work could lead to disciplinary action, as the philosopher was critical of Israel's founding.

Hirsch, who is the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, has spent over five decades teaching. For the first time, she is considering leaving the classroom altogether. “A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,” she said. “I just don’t see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.”

She is not alone in her concerns. Across U.S. universities, many academics are raising alarms about the growing influence of definitions of antisemitism promoted by the Trump administration. These definitions often come with the threat of losing federal funding. One such definition is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) framework, which outlines 11 examples of antisemitic behavior. These include applying “double standards” to Israel, comparing its policies to Nazism, or describing its existence as “a racist endeavor.”

Columbia recently agreed to adopt the IHRA definition as part of its disciplinary process, following a $220-million settlement with the Trump administration. Other top universities, including Harvard and Yale, have also embraced the framework. Supporters argue that the shift is necessary to address evolving forms of Jewish hate. However, civil liberties groups warn that it may further suppress pro-Palestinian speech, already under pressure from the Trump administration.

For Hirsch, the restrictions on drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and questioning Israel’s founding represent clear censorship. “We learn by making analogies,” she said. “Now the university is saying that’s off limits. How can you have a university course where ideas are not up for discussion or interpretation?”

The Weaponization of an Educational Framework

Kenneth Stern, who helped draft the IHRA definition two decades ago, never imagined it would become a tool for restricting free speech. At the time, he was working as the lead antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. The original intent was to help European countries track bias against Jews. But in recent years, Stern has spoken out against what he sees as the “weaponization” of the definition against pro-Palestinian activists, including anti-Zionist Jews.

Stern warned Columbia leaders last fall after being invited to speak by Claire Shipman, then a co-chair of the board of trustees and current interim president. He described the conversation as productive, but shortly after the Trump administration threatened to withhold $400 million in federal funding from Columbia over concerns about antisemitism, the university announced it would adopt the IHRA definition for “training and educational” purposes.

This month, days before announcing a deal to restore the funding, Shipman stated that the university would extend the IHRA definition to disciplinary processes. “The formal incorporation of this definition will strengthen our response to and our community’s understanding of modern antisemitism,” she wrote.

Stern, now director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, called the move “appalling.” He predicts it will lead to more litigation against the university and further limit pro-Palestinian speech. Already, the university’s disciplinary body has faced backlash for investigating students who criticized Israel in op-eds and other venues, often at the behest of pro-Israel groups.

Calls for ‘Self-Termination’ and New Restrictions

Beyond adopting the IHRA definition, Columbia has also agreed to place its Middle East studies department under new supervision, overhaul its rules for protests, and coordinate antisemitism training with groups like the Anti-Defamation League. Last week, nearly 80 students were suspended or expelled for participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

Kenneth Marcus, chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, defended these actions, calling them an overdue step to protect Jewish students from harassment. He dismissed faculty concerns about the IHRA definition, arguing it would provide “clarity, transparency and standardization” in addressing antisemitism.

“There are undoubtedly some Columbia professors who will feel they cannot continue teaching under the new regime,” Marcus said. “To the extent that they self-terminate, it may be sad for them personally, but it may not be so bad for the students at Columbia University.”

However, Hirsch remains committed to her work. She plans to continue her study of genocides and their aftermath, including discussions about Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip. “With this capitulation to Trump, it may now be impossible to do that inside Columbia,” she said. “If that’s the case, I’ll continue my work outside the university’s gates.”