RUTHFULLY YOURS

On October 7, 2023, crossing the Gaza border during a ceasefire, Hamas and other Islamic terror groups slaughtered 1,200 Israelis and took 240 hostage. The magnitude of this unprovoked act should have ignited widespread outrage and solidarity with Jews and Israel. Instead, students and professors on many university campuses celebrated Hamas, vilified Israel, and expressed virulent antisemitism that had built up over the years, through slurs, flagrant discrimination, and even assaults.

Prof. Russell Rickford, who teaches history at Cornell, described the Hamas attack as “energizing” and “exhilarating,” and called it a “symbol of resistance.” He later defended his comments, saying he was referring to Hamas’s breaking through a “wall of apartheid” — whatever that means. Five days after the attack, student groups at Cornell justified it and blamed Israel for it. Similar displays of anti-Israel sentiment and blatant antisemitism appeared on other campuses as well. Jewish students and professors reported feeling unsafe, facing hate speech and unprovoked heckling.

An April report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) revealed 1,694 antisemitic incidents in 2024, marking an 84% increase from 2023. Likely, the actual numbers are higher, as a survey conducted by the ADL, Hillel International, and College Pulse found that 93% of students did not report antisemitic incidents to university authorities, and 83% of Jewish students have experienced various forms of antisemitism since October 7. Twenty-seven percent reported antisemitic behavior by faculty, and 66% expressed no confidence in their university’s ability to prevent such incidents. In fact, 30% of those who reported incidents said they received no help. Additionally, 23% of Jewish students now take extra security measures, and 41% feel the need to hide their identity.

According to the joint survey, on-campus antisemitism includes disrupting Jewish, Israeli, and pro-Israel speakers; singling out Jews for perceived or actual ties to Israel; subjecting Jews to anti-Israel or anti-Jewish comments both in conversations and online; vandalizing Jewish signs and symbols; forcing students to view course material that is openly anti-Israel; disrupting classes with protests, with some professors offering extra credit for participating in anti-Israel protests; receiving biased treatment from anti-Israel professors; being blamed for Israel’s policies; and facing ostracism by campus groups and students who are strongly anti-Israel.

So, how did so much antisemitism develop on our campuses? Without a doubt, it largely arises from the substantial financial support American universities have received from countries that oppose Israel and promote hatred against Jews. As expected, most of these countries are in the Middle East: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Egypt, and the non-existent State of Palestine. However, there are also contributions from Turkey and Malaysia.

A 2023 report titled The Corruption of the American Mind, published by the Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University, noted that over 200 American colleges and universities received $13 billion from foreign regimes, which helped increase antisemitism. Many of these institutions do not voluntarily disclose such funding. The report states that universities accepting undocumented money tend to have higher levels of antisemitism on campus, and the “relationship was even stronger if the undocumented money came from countries in the Middle East.”

In a paper titled Arab Funding of American Universities: Donors, Recipients, and Impact, Dr. Mitchell Bard, a foreign policy analyst, states that sources of funds are often hidden or not disclosed. He notes that in 2020, when the Department of Education (DoE) began investigating universities’ reporting of funding, it found Yale did not disclose foreign gifts for four years, Case Western Reserve for 12 years, and Harvard reported a lump sum without breaking it down by country, as required by law. Based on the DoE’s 1986–2022 documents, the paper highlights that Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. donated $4.3 billion combined, Egypt contributed $125.7 million, and the “State of Palestine” gave $10.1 million. It emphasizes that lack of transparency is the biggest issue: only 9% of recipients clearly disclose how the money is used.

In a column for the Jewish News Syndicate, Bard labels Qatar. It funds Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, and the Taliban, and supports the Muslim Brotherhood, making it a major contributor to campus antisemitism. He states that, since 1981, Qatar has made 1,143 donations totaling $6 billion to 63 universities.

Last week, as leaders from Georgetown, UC Berkeley, and CUNY prepared to appear before a Congressional committee on July 15, the Institute of the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) released a 135-page report on Georgetown, “exposing a 50-year Muslim Brotherhood campaign and a 20-year Qatari funding strategy to reshape American foreign policy through elite academia.” A similar report from the Middle East Forum states that, thanks to influence bought by a network run by Qatar, Turkey, and Malaysia, Georgetown’s leaders are now antisemitic, anti-Western, and anti-American. Confirming the extent of Qatari influence, on July 14, conservative activist Laura Loomer alleged that Rep. Lisa McClain had leaked the agenda of the congressional hearing to the Embassy of Qatar.

Since influencing impressionable students through course materials, classroom discussion, and grading requires professors who align with a specific ideology, faculty members opposing anti-Israeli and antisemitic views face discrimination when seeking teaching contracts and tenure. Three recent examples show how such discrimination happens on campuses.

The first example comes from the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania. Even before Francisco Gil-White finished his PhD in biological and cultural anthropology, he was recruited by the university’s psychology department, recognizing his academic potential. However, in 2004, when the university was considering renewing his contract for a second three-year term, it identified “problems” with his performance and was preparing to dismiss him. By then, he had 12 publications in respected journals, so he clearly met the standards for reappointment.

The issue, he claimed, was his shift from supporting the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to taking a pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish stance. He also opposed UPenn’s invitation of Bill Black (author of Theft of a Nation, which advocates for the destruction of Israel) because of Black’s anti-Israeli, antisemitic, and antiblack views. Gil-White states that this led political science professor Ian Lustick, who had previously praised him when he was pro-PLO, to turn against him. His contract was never renewed; essentially, he was dismissed.

The second example is from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). Dr. Benjamin Bross, who teaches in the urban and regional planning department, was dismissed because of his pro-Israel views. Before October 7, he received excellent reviews for his teaching and publications, was awarded a scholar’s prize, and was encouraged to write a book. However, shortly after expressing pro-Israel views, his work was seen as inadequate, and he was denied tenure. He has appealed to UIUC’s faculty advisory committee and hopes to prove that he has been unfairly treated. Read his full story here.

The third case is from Harvard, where Saul Noam Zaritt, the only Yiddish professor, was denied tenure despite being highly regarded as a teacher. Both the tenure review committee and other faculty were surprised by the decision. Zaritt has filed a grievance citing procedural irregularities. Meanwhile, the future of Yiddish instruction at Harvard remains uncertain.

Jew hatred has reached levels not seen since the Holocaust. The existence and encouragement of such prejudice at our universities is shameful and dangerous because this revival of “the world’s oldest hatred” will eventually have a significant impact on American society and government. The cause is clear. As Bard writes, “the Arab lobby…now has faculty across the country who use their positions to advance political agendas that are typically pro-Arab, anti-Israel, and uncritical of radical Islam.” This poisoning of our universities and young minds must stop. The flow of money fueling hatred must be cut off.