Following the barbaric October 7, 2023 attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, there was hope - perhaps naïve - that American and European universities would rally around the only democratic country in the Middle East. This expectation was short-lived and vaporized within the 48 hours that followed the unprovoked terrorist attack. During this time, protests erupted on campuses of both American and European universities. Amazingly, these demonstrations were overwhelmingly pro-Hamas and anti-Israel.
Anti-Zionist ideology has been fomenting in the Academy for years. It is the result of the settler-colonialism architecture of left-wing “progressives” who largely dominate campus activism in the 21st century. In the last quarter of the 20th century, protests primarily dealt with racial equality, women’s rights, and individual freedom. The women’s rights platform featured job equality, reproductive rights, inclusivity, and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. Prominent advocates included Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and Angela Davis. Jewish women played key roles and were strong voices for inclusion of persons of color in the movement.
On my campus, Dr. Phyllis Chesler, a psychology and women’s studies professor at the College of Staten Island (CSI) and the Graduate School of the City University of New York (CUNY), was a leading Jewish feminist intellectual. She spent a year as a captive bride in Kabul and has written 20 books, many of which, like An American Bride in Kabul and Islamic Gender Apartheid, are considered classics. In a podcast promoted by the Times of Israel, Professor Chesler analyzes whether feminism has an antisemitism problem. Clearly and convincingly, she demonstrates that the feminist movement has become Stalinized and Palestinianized. Due to binary thinking, people were stereotyped as “victims or victimizers, as colonized or colonizers.” The movement became “more obsessed with the occupation of a non-existent country than with the occupation of a woman’s body.” When Chesler tried to raise the issue of antisemitism or advocated for Israel, she was ostracized by and lost feminist colleagues.
The response of activists in the Academy to the war between Israel and Hamas is skewed in favor of a terrorist organization that clearly states as its goal the destruction of the State of Israel and the eradication of a Jewish presence in the Middle East. The agreement to a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel on October 10, 2025, included the rapid return of all Israeli hostages both alive and dead, the disarming of Hamas, the entry of humanitarian aid into the Strip, and the release of Hamas terrorists, many with blood on their hands, from Israeli prisons. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were to withdraw to the so-called yellow line and maintain that position until the second phase of the agreement was implemented. The IDF withdrew, aid was let in, and in exchange for 20 live hostages and about 30 hostage bodies, more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners were freed. The UN, not known for its pro-Israel stances, reported that there is no longer starvation in Gaza and that 100 percent of basic food needs are being met. In contrast, the body of Ran Gvili is still held hostage in Gaza, Hamas has not disarmed, and its terrorists continue to confront Israeli forces. There is a semblance of peace, but quiet is nonexistent. Where are the voices in the Academy criticizing Hamas and its Iranian and Qatari guarantors for violating its agreements? Why do many faculty on campuses throughout the US still lobby for the BDS goal of delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish State? Why are pro-Hamas professors allowed to teach courses that label Israel as a settler-colonial state without presenting the historical context that connects Jews to the land of Israel and that led to its formation in 1948? Obviously, the core belief that the First Amendment allows lecturers the privilege to present lies without consequence is becoming a norm in the Academy.
US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes strongly supported free speech. He argued that even speech we hate must be tolerated. However, this support was not absolute, and speech can be limited when it presents a clear and present danger. When students, supported by radical faculty, shout “Jews not wanted here,” “kill the Jews,” and “globalize the intifada,” and in addition physically prevent Israelis and Jews on their campuses from speaking, a clear and present danger exists.
Pro-Hamas demonstrators justify their vile actions based on a humanitarian crisis said to be caused by Israel in Gaza. There is no question that the Israel-Hamas war has led to widespread suffering. But the responsibility for this suffering is due to the actions of Hamas and of Hamas alone. Moreover, facts on the ground show that the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza is not at the core of the hatred of Israelis and Jews. After the Israeli Defense Forces withdrew during the October 2025 ceasefire, anti-Israeli academic protesters were remarkably silent while Hamas was murdering fellow Palestinians who opposed their rule in Gaza City. They didn’t condemn Hamas when it stole international humanitarian aid designated for their brothers. They were not upset when the Islamic rulers and the IRGC of Iran beat, arrested, and admitted to the execution of thousands of unarmed Iranians who took to the streets in protest. However, when the Jewish State dared to protect its civilians and fought on multiple fronts for its existence against cruel and determined enemies that preached genocide against Jews, the Academy rose up. Fury against Jews is justified, but against terrorists and a despotic regime remains abated.
Why does academia and so much of the media remain Judeo/Israel-centric in its criticism? The answer is complex and multifaceted. It reflects the influence of billions of dollars flowing from state actors such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia to American universities and social media celebrities, the persistence and flare-up of antisemitism that historically rears its head after periods of quiet, the obsession of the media with Israel, and the continued distortion of facts by anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish influencers. At the campus level, left-wing radical anarchist faculty with lifelong contracts (tenure) are emboldened to champion anti-Israel positions. Career administrators whose jobs depend on the support of these faculty are unwilling to confront antisemitic speech because they fear the consequences of such actions.
Rather than serving as a sanctuary for objective and civil cross-cultural discussions, the halls of the Academy have become realms for one-sided, bigoted discourse. This decline in integrity endangers the Academy and threatens the foundations of the democratic societies that the Academy is charged to serve. Most professors are highly intelligent, committed professionals who are devoted to their students, discipline, and scholarship. However, they remain passive while a small percentage of antisemitic and anti-Israeli colleagues dominate the message emanating from their campuses. Plato viewed the Academy as a site to train elite individuals who would lead Athenian democracy with wisdom based on truth and knowledge. Looking back over the last 50 years, I believe that many American and European universities have lost their way and no longer follow a Platonian dialectic. Unless this decline is reversed, the Academy will be irreparably tarnished and its faculty will forfeit their status as societal leaders. It is time to rally for a civil, honest, and inclusive discussion on our campuses.
Dr. Naider is a former Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at the College of Staten Island and Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Chemistry at the City University of New York. He now lives in Rehovot.
