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.”


Geoeconomic confrontation tops global risks in 2026: WEF report

Updated 20 min 53 sec ago
Follow

Geoeconomic confrontation tops global risks in 2026: WEF report

  • Also armed conflict, extreme climate, public polarization, AI
  • None ‘a foregone conclusion,’ says WEF’s MD Saadia Zahidi

DUBAI: Geoeconomic confrontation has emerged as the top global risk this year, followed by state-based armed conflict, according to a new World Economic Forum report.

The Global Risks Report 2026, released on Wednesday, found that both risks climbed eight places year-on-year, underscoring a sharp deterioration in the global outlook amid increased international competition.

The top five risks are geoeconomic confrontation (18 percent of respondents), state-based armed conflict (14 percent), extreme weather events (8 percent), societal polarization (7 percent) and misinformation and disinformation (7 percent).

The WEF’s Managing Director Saadia Zahidi said the report “offers an early warning system as the age of competition compounds global risks — from geoeconomic confrontation to unchecked technology to rising debt — and changes our collective capacity to address them.

“But none of these risks are a foregone conclusion.”

The report assesses risks across three timeframes: immediate (2026); short-to-medium term (next two years); and long term (next 10 years).

Economic risks show the largest overall increase in the two-year outlook, with both economic downturn and inflation jumping eight positions.

Misinformation and disinformation rank fifth this year but rise to second place in the two-year outlook and fourth over the 10-year horizon.

The report suggests this reflects growing anxiety around the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence, with adverse outcomes linked to AI surging from 30th place in the two-year timeframe to fifth in the 10-year outlook.

Uncertainty dominates the global risk outlook, according to the report.

Surveyed leaders and experts view both the short- and long-term outlook negatively, with 50 percent expecting a turbulent or stormy global environment over the next two years, rising to 57 percent over the next decade.

A further 40 percent and 32 percent, respectively, describe the outlook as unsettled across the two- and 10-year timeframes, while just 1 percent anticipate a calm global outlook in either period.

Environmental risks ease slightly in the short-term rankings. Extreme weather fell from second to fourth place and pollution from sixth to ninth. Meanwhile, critical changes to Earth systems and biodiversity loss dropped seven and five positions, respectively.

However, over the next decade, environmental threats re-emerge as the most severe, with extreme weather, biodiversity loss, and critical changes to Earth systems topping the global risk rankings.

Looking ahead over the next decade, around 75 percent of respondents anticipate a turbulent or stormy environmental outlook, making it the most pessimistic assessment across all risk categories.

Zahidi said that “the challenges highlighted in the report underscore both the scale of the potential perils we face and our shared responsibility to shape what comes next.”

Despite the gloomy outlook, Zahidi signaled a positive shift in global cooperation.

 “It is also clear that new forms of global cooperation are already unfolding even amid competition, and the global economy is demonstrating resilience in the face of uncertainty.”

Now in its 21st year, the Global Risks Report highlights a core message: global risks cannot be managed without cooperation.

As competition intensifies, rebuilding trust and new forms of collaboration will be critical, with the report stressing that today’s decisions will shape future outcomes.

The report was released ahead of WEF’s annual meeting, which will be held in Davos from Jan. 19 to 23.