Anti-Semitism

After Columbia University agreed last week to pay over $200 million to resolve federal investigations into campus antisemitism and submit to outside monitoring and policy changes, Harvard is now reportedly in settlement talks of its own, with figures as high as $500 million being discussed. This is not a blip; it’s a reckoning and if done correctly, it will mark a turning point for accountability in higher education. Let’s be clear about what happened. Columbia’s deal with the federal government restored access to large pools of frozen federal funding, but also imposed independent oversight and reforms to hiring and campus policies. Separately, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a $21 million resolution for Jewish employees over a hostile work environment – it’s the largest public settlement in nearly two decades – underscoring this is about civil rights, not politics. Now all eyes are on Harvard. The university is fighting in court to restore $2.6 billion in frozen federal research funds even as press reports say it is exploring a settlement path similar to Columbia’s. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has publicly expressed hope that Harvard will ‘learn from’ Columbia’s approach. However, when this ends, it will set a national precedent for what real compliance looks like and whether elite institutions can be compelled to live up to the standards they claim to cherish. The Trend: Rebranding Without Reform At the same time, some institutions are not correcting course, rather their administrators are spending time and money relabeling it. Staff at two prominent universities in Tennessee were recently recorded acknowledging that their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs were rebranded to skirt enforcement. On Capitol Hill, a Senate hearing focused on the growing practice of swapping “DEI” for friendlier labels like “belonging” or “inclusive excellence,” without changing the underlying policies that have produced discrimination and ideological coercion. That’s not reform – it’s evasion. What Real Accountability Should Include If universities want public trust and federal funds then they should demonstrate measurable change. The New Tolerance Campaign recommends the following: Independent Monitoring with Teeth: Third‑party monitors must have access to records and authority to verify compliance, not just receive reports. Columbia’s model of having independent oversight and required reporting should be the floor, not the ceiling. Transparent Metrics: Publish quarterly data on antisemitic incidents, outcomes of investigations, and sanctions, alongside training content and complaint-resolution timelines. After all, the Trump Administration has already signaled to at least sixty higher education institutions that they expect sustained, documented progress in order for them to fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus. End Compelled Speech & Political Litmus Tests: No student or employee should be forced to adopt ideological statements to enroll, be hired, or be promoted. This is where the ongoing strategy of ‘rebrand-to-evade’ must be confronted head-on. Equal Protection in Policy and Practice: Apply harassment and safety rules consistently — no double standards for virtue signalers, special interests, encampments, disruption, or threats based on viewpoint. The EEOC’s action at Columbia should be a warning that civil-rights laws still hold their weight. Independent Channels for Jewish Students and Faculty: Establish protected reporting lines and enforce zero-tolerance for targeted harassment, matched with due process for the accused. Recent cases show why both sides of that equation matter. Why This Matters Beyond the Ivy League Schools This isn’t just about Cambridge and Morningside Heights. Federal agencies have widened scrutiny across dozens of campuses, and statehouses are weighing how to protect free expression while ensuring compliance with civil rights. Universities cannot dodge responsibility through semantic games or linguistic restructuring. The status quo of performative tolerance and selective enforcement is collapsing under legal and public scrutiny alike. What You Can Do Today Tell your alma mater: No rebranding without reform. Demand published metrics and independent oversight. Report double standards you witness on campus: Send documentation to us so that we can investigate and, when necessary, mobilize campaigns. We even have a tipline on our website should you want to submit anonymously (click here). Share this blog: Share with parents, alumni, and trustees who expect better from institutions that receive taxpayer funds and philanthropic support. The New Tolerance Campaign was founded to call out hypocrisy and insist on equal standards. The Columbia agreement and the pressure on Harvard shows that accountability is possible – no matter how long it takes. Now we need to make it durable. While we will keep tracking these cases and spotlighting institutions that choose real reform over reputation management, if you have any evidence of rebranding to evade federal compliance or have any horror stories of antisemitism being tolerated or minimized on campus, contact us confidentially. We’re listening and we’re willing to take action!

Few recent stories illustrate this betrayal of principle more clearly than the disturbing revelations about Columbia University’s interim president, Claire Shipman. According to internal communications obtained and published by the Washington Free Beacon, Shipman privately called for the addition of an Arab board member, while suggesting the removal of a Jewish trustee who had previously spoken out against the rise of antisemitism on campus. “We need to get somebody from the Middle East or who is Arab on our board. Quickly I think,” Shipman texted in January. Days later, Shipman wrote of Trustee Shoshana Shendelman: “She shouldn’t be on the board.” Let us be clear: the problem here is not the desire for diverse representation. True diversity which includes variables like background, identity, and thought is a hallmark of a healthy institution. The problem is when identity becomes a political calculation, and when the inclusion of one group is explicitly tied to the exclusion of another. When Identity Politics Trumps Principles Shipman’s private remarks betray a dangerous mindset: that credibility of Columbia’s leadership rests not on the moral courage or qualifications of its members, but on how well they conform to ideological optics. In this case, Shendelman’s “offense” wasn’t a lack of diversity, rather it was her outspoken opposition to antisemitism on Columbia’s campus during a year of historic unrest, encampments, and violent threats targeting Jewish students. According to the Free Beacon, Shipman’s comments came just weeks after Columbia faced public scrutiny for failing to protect Jewish students from harassment and intimidation. Rather than embrace a trustee willing to address that growing crisis, Shipman suggested she be removed and replaced. This is not diversity. This is evidence of discrimination under the guise of inclusion.  A Pattern of Double Standards This episode doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Columbia University has been one of the epicenters of campus protests since October 7, 2023, when terrorist attacks in Israel triggered widespread political activity on campuses across the country. What began as anti-war demonstrations quickly morphed into chants calling for the destruction of Israel and justifications for political violence. After all, students affiliated with the group, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine publicly launched and handed out their inaugural edition of “The Columbia Intifada” despite the Ivy League University denouncing their publication. Jewish students at Columbia reported feeling unsafe, unsupported, and in some cases, explicitly threatened. Many alumni and donors began to speak out. Some trustees did as well. Rather than treat these concerns seriously and strive to protect all students equally, Columbia’s top leadership appears to have unethically calculated which voices were politically advantageous and which were not. Claire Shipman’s remarks reflect a growing trend in higher education: the preference for ideological conformity over principled leadership. Tolerance Requires Courage, Not Curation The New Tolerance Campaign (NTC) believes that institutions must consistently reflect their stated values and operate without bias. That means rejecting selective outrage. It means defending freedom of conscience for everyone, not just those with the most fashionable beliefs. And it means acknowledging that diversity and inclusion are not mutually exclusive with moral clarity. Wanting to remove a trustee for calling out antisemitism is not progress; it’s a giant step backward. Appointing someone based solely on ethnicity or political optics is not empowerment; it’s tokenism. True tolerance demands more than hashtags, hollow statements, and civil righteousness. It demands institutional integrity, even when the political winds may shift. The Call to Action As a nonprofit committed to defending the principles of real tolerance, NTC calls on Columbia University to: Denounce identity-based discrimination in all forms, including decisions that exclude individuals based on their religious or political views. Protect trustees, faculty, and students who raise legitimate concerns about antisemitism, especially when they challenge the status quo. Follow the transparent standards for trustee membership as outlined in the Columbia University “Trustees’ By-Laws And Rules Of Order” document, where qualifications, experience and values are prioritized over ideological posturing. Reaffirm their commitment to the First Amendment principles of free expression, religious liberty, and ideological diversity. On Final Thought Columbia University Interim President Claire Shipman’s texts are not just inappropriate, they expose the fragility of performative tolerance in American institutions. If inclusion can only exist at the expense of dissent, then we’ve lost the entire plot. Columbia University has an opportunity — right now — to model true leadership. That doesn’t mean chasing public approval or checking identity boxes. It means defending all communities on campus — Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Christian, atheist, conservative, progressive — with equal commitment and equal courage. At NTC, our mission is to hold powerful institutions accountable to the very standards of inclusion, fairness, and equality they publicly claim to uphold. When these standards are applied selectively, favoring one group while excluding another, true tolerance dies, and performative activism reigns supreme. We will continue to monitor this unacceptable action by Shipman while continuing to shine a light on storied institutions that violate the values they claim to champion. Because tolerance, when applied unevenly, is not tolerance at all.

Contrasting responses to pro-Hamas protests on campus Amid a wave of pro-Hamas protests that erupted on college campuses this spring, universities across the nation grappled with how to address the demonstrations while upholding principles of free speech and safety for all students. Some institutions were exemplary in their reaction — others, not so much… UNIVERSITIES THAT HANDLED THE PROTESTS POORLY: Columbia University was ground-zero for aggressive pro-Hamas protests. A three-week fiasco, the Columbia administration was paralyzed in the face of increasingly disorderly conduct, allowing for weeks of ongoing protests even after the students took over the campus’s famed Hamilton Hall, barricaded the entrances, and hung a banner from the window saying, “Free Palestine.” Students held the school hostage, issuing a list of wild demands that included a “complete divestment” from all Israel-related investments and amnesty from disciplinary actions for protesting students. Columbia’s pushback? An email saying that bringing back police “at this time” would be counterproductive. Things got so hot that Columbia ended up canceling its university-wide commencement ceremony. Harvard University pursued a more “inclusive” approach to the chaos. Student agitators made a mess of the Harvard campus, pushing their agenda for more than three weeks until the Ivy League school’s president Alan Garber and university officials agreed to meet with them to discuss the students’ demands that the university cut ties with Israel and businesses that support Israel. Harvard was already facing backlash after not condemning its student groups with statements claiming that Israel was “entirely responsible” for the brutal Hamas attacks on the country. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, also a Harvard Law School graduate, wrote on X, “What the Hell is wrong with Harvard? Given the choice between standing with Israel or supporting terrorists who are raping, kidnapping & killing thousands of women & children…31 student groups choose the terrorists. Their blazing hatred & antisemitism utterly blinding.” Cornell University found itself on the receiving end of a letter from Congress criticizing their handling of the protests, asserting that “antisemitism remains a serious problem” at the school. They weren’t exaggerating: numerous students expressed concerns over the protests, citing feelings of insecurity and the fostering of antisemitic sentiment on campus. In the midst of heated campus discussions regarding antisemitism and demonstrations concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict Cornell president Martha E. Pollack announced she would be stepping down.   UNIVERSITIES THAT HANDLED THE PROTESTS WELL: University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos pushed back with a robust statement declaring an end to spiraling protests on campus and reasserting the school’s stated values. “Free expression is the core animating value of the University of Chicago, so it is critical that we be clear about how I and my administration think about the issue of encampments, how the actions we take in response will follow directly from our principles, and specific considerations that will influence our judgments and actions. The general principle we will abide by is to provide the greatest leeway possible for free expression, even expression of viewpoints that some find deeply offensive. We only will intervene when what might have been an exercise of free expression blocks the learning or expression of others or that substantially disrupts the functioning or safety of the University. These are our principles. They are clear.” Alivisatos came out with a follow-up saying, “I believe the protesters should also consider that an encampment, with all the etymological connections of the word to military origins, is a way of using force of a kind rather than reason to persuade others…those violating university policy should expect to face disciplinary consequences.” And they did. University of Florida took a tough approach and condemned campus agitators, telling them they would face legal consequences for actions that cross the line from speech into violence. The demonstrations baffled university president Ben Sasse, who said, “We support folks’ free-speech rights, but that includes the right to make an a– and an idiot of yourself, and a lot of the protesters say ridiculously, historically and geographically ignorant things.” Sasse continued: “This is not complicated: The University of Florida is not a daycare, and we do not treat protesters like children. They knew the rules, they broke the rules, and they’ll face the consequences.” University of Texas at Austin adopted a firm approach toward protesting students and faculty alike. Pro-Palestine activists were adamant in their demands, which included the resignation UT Austin president Jay Hartzell. As UT Austin is a public university, Texas Governor Greg Abbott stepped in and responded, saying, “This will NEVER happen. The only thing that will happen is that the University and the State will use all law-enforcement tools to quickly terminate illegal protests taking place on campus that clearly violate the laws of the state of Texas and policies of the university.” In just one week, law enforcement cracked down on the law-breakers, apprehending over 100 protesters for offenses that included criminal trespassing and violations of university regulations. The differing approaches universities took to this heated moment highlight the principle of upholding free speech but also the importance of having a clear policy showing where to draw the line. The institutions of higher education that handled the protests best are the ones that upheld their stated rules and values. That’s not a coincidence.   [Photo credit: Jane Dominguez, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 DEED, via Flickr (cropped)]