From Ambiguity to Accountability: The Case for a Legal Definition of Antisemitism in Academia

Abstract

Following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, U.S. college campuses experienced a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents, driven by an antizionism movement aimed at demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish state and its supporters. A congressional investigation found that antisemitism persisted at prominent universities because administrators repeatedly failed to denounce antizionist conduct that functions as a vehicle for harassment of Jewish students and neglected to enforce their own nondiscrimination policies. The congressional committee, as well as several university antisemitism task forces, identified antizionism as a primary driver of campus antisemitism and strongly recommended that university leaders recognize and address how hostility towards Zionists serves as a proxy for harassment of Jewish students. The widely adopted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA Definition or the Definition) provides a vital legal and policy framework to serve this purpose. It addresses antizionism by providing examples of this contemporary form of antisemitism, such as using Israel libels to deny Jewish people their right to self-determination and applying discriminatory double standards exclusively to Israel. While critics complain that these examples may chill political speech, the IHRA Definition explicitly affirms that criticism of Israel comparable to that leveled against any other country is not antisemitic, and its examples provide accurate and instructive guidance on antisemitism. This Article argues that formally adopting the IHRA Definition into university nondiscrimination policies, training programs, and enforcement mechanisms is essential to dispel the prevailing ambiguity surrounding antizionism as a contemporary form of antisemitism and to restore institutional accountability in combating campus antisemitism.