Michael Goldstein ’78, Van Wallach ’80, Page Bondor ’90, David Schechter ’80, Rebecca Gold ’09, Jacob Gold ’06, Rabbi Yaakov Menken ’86
1 Month Ago
Taking a Stand Against Antisemitism
The June issue featured numerous letters lauding President Eisgruber’s stand against the Trump administration and its cuts in federal funding to universities.
The Department of Education has warned Princeton and 59 other schools of “potential enforcement actions” related to protecting Jewish students (see here). While in Princeton’s case the specific reason for the funding pause has not been stated, it is clear that Princeton is under investigation for not fulfilling its obligation to protect Jewish students.
Ironically enough, President Eisgruber announced the funding pause for Princeton on April 1, just before two more antisemitic events. One was the “anti-Zionist” conference sponsored by two University departments on April 4. The other was the infamous Naftali Bennett speech debacle on April 7, where Jewish students were reportedly cursed and the former Israeli leader prevented from speaking by hecklers.
Princeton has an antisemitism problem it appears unwilling and unable to address.
Based on examples at other Ivy League institutions, it appears to require legal pressure from the federal government, plus the threat of significant funding cuts, to get universities to take virulent campus antisemitism seriously and to treat students and applicants fairly.
At Columbia, $400 million in cuts may have finally gotten the attention of that university’s third president in two years. She has agreed to comply with the government to end the rioting, encampments, and vicious antisemitism that have paralyzed the school and forced Jewish students and faculty to work from home.
UPenn, which received a $175 million federal haircut due to trans athlete Lia Thomas swimming for its women’s team, has entered into an agreement to comply with Title IX. Among its stipulations, “UPenn will restore to female athletes all individual UPenn Division I swimming records, titles, or similar recognitions which were misappropriated by male athletes allowed to compete in female categories … UPenn will send a personalized letter of apology to each impacted female swimmer.” Perhaps Princeton swimmers will be among them.
Harvard has been recalcitrant, despite $2.6 billion in federal cuts and its own 300-page report acknowledging antisemitic incidents and the school’s failure to stop them. The federal government has formally found that “Harvard failed to protect Jewish students” and is “in violent violation” of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism sent a recent letter threatening to cut all federal funding. Does Harvard think it has a “right” to discriminate against groups like Jews and Asians while still taking tax money?
Let’s be honest; none of these changes would have happened without federal intervention. Yes, cancelling research grants to scientists and others uninvolved in denying students their civil rights is a blunt instrument. But the intransigence of the universities, after repeated efforts by students, alumni, and the government to make them stop discriminating, has left the government little choice but to take away what they love most, federal money.
Instead of pretending violent antisemitism is “free speech” or “academic freedom,” perhaps President Eisgruber could recreate a civil campus where all can learn.
The June issue featured numerous letters lauding President Eisgruber’s stand against the Trump administration and its cuts in federal funding to universities.
The Department of Education has warned Princeton and 59 other schools of “potential enforcement actions” related to protecting Jewish students (see here). While in Princeton’s case the specific reason for the funding pause has not been stated, it is clear that Princeton is under investigation for not fulfilling its obligation to protect Jewish students.
Ironically enough, President Eisgruber announced the funding pause for Princeton on April 1, just before two more antisemitic events. One was the “anti-Zionist” conference sponsored by two University departments on April 4. The other was the infamous Naftali Bennett speech debacle on April 7, where Jewish students were reportedly cursed and the former Israeli leader prevented from speaking by hecklers.
Princeton has an antisemitism problem it appears unwilling and unable to address.
Based on examples at other Ivy League institutions, it appears to require legal pressure from the federal government, plus the threat of significant funding cuts, to get universities to take virulent campus antisemitism seriously and to treat students and applicants fairly.
At Columbia, $400 million in cuts may have finally gotten the attention of that university’s third president in two years. She has agreed to comply with the government to end the rioting, encampments, and vicious antisemitism that have paralyzed the school and forced Jewish students and faculty to work from home.
UPenn, which received a $175 million federal haircut due to trans athlete Lia Thomas swimming for its women’s team, has entered into an agreement to comply with Title IX. Among its stipulations, “UPenn will restore to female athletes all individual UPenn Division I swimming records, titles, or similar recognitions which were misappropriated by male athletes allowed to compete in female categories … UPenn will send a personalized letter of apology to each impacted female swimmer.” Perhaps Princeton swimmers will be among them.
Harvard has been recalcitrant, despite $2.6 billion in federal cuts and its own 300-page report acknowledging antisemitic incidents and the school’s failure to stop them. The federal government has formally found that “Harvard failed to protect Jewish students” and is “in violent violation” of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism sent a recent letter threatening to cut all federal funding. Does Harvard think it has a “right” to discriminate against groups like Jews and Asians while still taking tax money?
Let’s be honest; none of these changes would have happened without federal intervention. Yes, cancelling research grants to scientists and others uninvolved in denying students their civil rights is a blunt instrument. But the intransigence of the universities, after repeated efforts by students, alumni, and the government to make them stop discriminating, has left the government little choice but to take away what they love most, federal money.
Instead of pretending violent antisemitism is “free speech” or “academic freedom,” perhaps President Eisgruber could recreate a civil campus where all can learn.