Columbia genocide scholar says she may leave over university’s new definition of antisemitism

The university recently adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 25 July 2025
Follow

Columbia genocide scholar says she may leave over university’s new definition of antisemitism

  • The university recently adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism
  • Columbia University genocide scholar Marianne Hirsch, is reconsidering her teaching role

NEW YORK: For years, Marianne Hirsch, a prominent genocide scholar at Columbia University, has used Hannah Arendt’s book about the trial of a Nazi war criminal, “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,” to spark discussion among her students about the Holocaust and its lingering traumas.
But after Columbia’s recent adoption of a new definition of antisemitism, which casts certain criticism of Israel as hate speech, Hirsch fears she may face official sanction for even mentioning the landmark text by Arendt, a philosopher who criticized Israel’s founding.
For the first time since she started teaching five decades ago, Hirsch, the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, is now thinking of 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 told The Associated Press. “I just don’t see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.”
Hirsch is not alone. At universities across the country, academics have raised alarm about growing efforts to define antisemitism on terms pushed by the Trump administration, often under the threat of federal funding cuts.
Promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the definition lists 11 examples of antisemitic conduct, such as applying “double standards” to Israel, comparing the country’s policies to Nazism or describing its existence as “a racist endeavor.”
Ahead of a $220 million settlement with the Trump administration announced Wednesday, Columbia agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition and its examples into its disciplinary process. It has been endorsed in some form by Harvard, Yale and dozens of other universities.
While supporters say the semantic shift is necessary to combat evolving forms of Jewish hate, civil liberties groups warn it will further suppress pro-Palestinian speech already under attack by President Donald Trump.
For Hirsch, the restrictions on drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and questioning Israel’s founding amount to “clear censorship,” which she fears will chill discussions in the classroom and open her and other faculty up to spurious lawsuits.
“We learn by making analogies,” Hirsch 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?”
A spokesperson for Columbia didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment.
The ‘weaponization’ of an educational framework
When he first drafted the IHRA definition of antisemitism two decades ago, Kenneth Stern said he “never imagined it would one day serve as a hate speech code.”
At the time, Stern was working as the lead antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. The definition and its examples were meant to serve as a broad framework to help European countries track bias against Jews, he said.
In recent years, Stern has spoken forcefully against what he sees as its “weaponization” against pro-Palestinian activists, including anti-Zionist Jews.
“People who believe they’re combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues,” he said. “But when used in this context, it’s really actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.”
Stern said he delivered that warning to Columbia’s leaders last fall after being invited to address them by Claire Shipman, then a co-chair of the board of trustees and the university’s current interim president.
The conversation seemed productive, Stern said. But in March, shortly after the Trump administration said it would withhold $400 million in federal funding to Columbia over concerns about antisemitism, the university announced it would adopt the IHRA definition for “training and educational” purposes.
Then last week, days before announcing a deal with the Trump administration to restore that funding, Shipman said the university would extend the IHRA definition for disciplinary purposes, deploying its examples when assessing “discriminatory intent.”
“The formal incorporation of this definition will strengthen our response to and our community’s understanding of modern antisemitism,” Shipman wrote.
Stern, who now serves as director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, called the move “appalling,” predicting it would spur a new wave of litigation against the university while further curtailing 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.
“With this new edict on IHRA, you’re going to have more outside groups looking at what professors are teaching, what’s in the syllabus, filing complaints and applying public pressure to get people fired,” he said. “That will undoubtedly harm the university.”
Calls to ‘self-terminate’
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 trainings with groups like the Anti-Defamation League.
Earlier this week, the university suspended or expelled nearly 80 students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
Kenneth Marcus, chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said Columbia’s actions were an overdue step to protect Jewish students from harassment.
He dismissed faculty concerns about the IHRA definition, which he said would “provide clarity, transparency and standardization” to the university’s effort to root out 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.”
But Hirsch, the Columbia professor, said she was committed to continuing her long-standing study of genocides and their aftermath.
Part of that work, she said, will involve talking to students about Israel’s “ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide” in Gaza, where more than 58,000 Palestinians have died, over half of them women and children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
“With this capitulation to Trump, it may now be impossible to do that inside Columbia,” Hirsch said. “If that’s the case, I’ll continue my work outside the university’s gates.”


Indigenous protesters occupy Cargill port terminal in Brazil

Updated 7 sec ago
Follow

Indigenous protesters occupy Cargill port terminal in Brazil

  • The South American nation is the world’s top exporter of soy and maize
  • The US-based multinational is a major shipper of soy and corn in Brazil
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil: Indigenous protesters in Brazil occupied a shipping terminal operated by US agricultural giant Cargill on Saturday, demanding a ban on dredging Amazon waterways.
The South American nation is the world’s top exporter of soy and maize, and ongoing efforts to upgrade river ports aim to ease transportation.
Demonstrators had been gathering outside the terminal in Santarem, in northern Brazil’s Para state, for a month before taking over company offices this weekend.
In a statement to AFP the company said operations were suspended, blaming an “ongoing dispute between government authorities and Indigenous communities.”
Protesters are calling for the repeal of an order signed by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in August that designated Amazonian rivers as priority areas for shipping and port development.
The Indigenous protesters are against an expansion of the ports and the dredging of the Amazon’s rivers, which they consider vital to their way of life.
Alessandra Korap, a community leader from the Munduruku Indigenous group, said protesters “will only leave if Lula and the government overturn and revoke the decree.”
Activists protested in front of Cargill’s offices in Sao Paulo on Friday.
“When they start dredging the river and causing pollution, the river will cease to be a common good for all humanity and will become the property of a single individual,” demonstrator Thiago Guarani said.
Two weeks ago the government announced the suspension of dredging in the Tapajos River, a key Amazon River tributary, after Indigenous-led protests.
Cargill called on the government and demonstrators to engage in a “constructive dialogue.”
The US-based multinational is a major shipper of soy and corn in Brazil.