There’s an old saying that he who defines the terms wins the debate. That seems to be the case at Columbia University where both sides of the argument over anti-Semitism on campus are upset that the Task Force set up to deal with the issue has refused to accept a specific definition of anti-Semitism.
A Columbia University task force set up to combat antisemitism on campus in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks is attempting to avoid one of the most contentious issues in university debates over the war: Its members have refused to settle on what the definition of “antisemitism” is.
Competing factions on campus and beyond are pushing for two different definitions. The first, favored by the U.S. State Department and many supporters of Israel, says “targeting of the state of Israel” could be antisemitic, a definition that could label much of the pro-Palestinian activism sweeping campus as antisemitic.
The second is narrower. It distinguishes between anti-Zionism and antisemitism and could lead to criticism that the school is not taking antisemitism seriously enough.
The battle over the definition is being used by progressives among the faculty as a first line of defense. Last month the site Lit Hub published an email exchange between members of the Task Force and a film professor named James Schamus. The Task Force invited Schamus and others to discuss anti-Semitism on campus and here was Schamus’ response:
Thank you for this invitation. I understand from your framing below that prior discussions about Israel provide some context for your current work as co-chairs of the new task force on antisemitism. Which prompts a question I think it fair to ask before engaging on potential participation in your proceedings: since you are co-chairing a task force on antisemitism (and thus can be assumed to know what you mean by that term) can you share what you mean by that term with us?
As you’ll see if you click the link, the Task Force said it was aware of the various definitions but refused to settle on one. Schamus then pressed them to say whether they would accept the ADL definition which treats anti-Zionism as a species of anti-Semitism:
Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect, as it invokes anti-Jewish tropes; is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel; exploits Jewish trauma by invoking the Holocaust in order to position Jews as akin to Nazis; or renders Jews less worthy of nationhood and self-determination than other peoples.
“Has anyone on the committee ever publicly even whispered the mildest unease with these definitions and their current weaponization against many of the faculty you are inviting to this listening hour?” Schaums asked. The Task Force responded by saying it could be discussed at the listening session. At this point, Schamus said he was busy and wouldn’t be able to attend.
Columbia grad students did attend the listening sessions and also pressed the issue of a definition:
Some of the Columbia task-force listening sessions on campus have become tense. At a March 1 session with graduate students, for example, several anti-Zionist Jews demanded to know what the definition of antisemitism would be and whether their views would be included in it.
Ester Fuchs, an urban policy professor and task force co-chair, interrupted them and became hostile, four students charged in a subsequent letter to Ms. Shafik and other administrators in which they called on Professor Fuchs to be replaced on the task force by an anti-Zionist.
But members of the Task Force are also getting pressure from those on the other side who want them to accept the broader definition of anti-Semitism (like the ADL definition) which includes anti-Zionism.
“If you don’t diagnose the problem, you don’t have to deal with it,” said Shai Davidai, a Columbia professor who is Israeli and favors the more sweeping definition. He added, “Saying we don’t want to define it so we don’t have a problem, that’s copping out.”
Assistant Professor Davidai has been one of the loudest voices at Columbia calling for the school to do something about anti-Semitism. Earlier this month, he revealed that he was under investigation by the school and called it an “act of retaliation.”
📢📢 IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT📢📢@Columbia has opened an investigation into my advocacy for the Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff at the university.
This is a clear act of retaliation and an attempt to silence me.
If you want to know more, read my statement below pic.twitter.com/vouAtf1nHq
— Shai Davidai (@ShaiDavidai) March 8, 2024
Here’s a bit of his statement.
Over the past months, Jewish students at Columbia have been locking themselves in their dorm rooms to avoid being assaulted. They have been spat on, attacked, bullied and vilified. Columbia has done nothing to stop pro-terror organizations that justify, excuse and celebrate the massacre of my people, and chant for their eradication “by any means necessary”— as if violence against my four-year-old Israeli niece and my 93-year-old Israeli grandmother would be justified. As if Hamas terrorists raped my Israeli wife, it would be an act of resistance…
Speaking up has ruined my life. I receive death threats on a daily basis. I have been targeted on social media, including by Columbia students and faculty. To the best of my ability, I avoid spending time on campus, out of fear of being verbally or physically assaulted. And now, I am being persecuted by Columbia, which is retaliating against me based on groundless complaints.
Davidai was interviewed by Tablet magazine yesterday and today he posted a portion of that interview on X as his answer to the question: How did we get here?
So there’s pressure on both sides to define anti-Semitism. But the Task Force is refusing to be pinned down thus far, likely because they know doing so will create another round of angry protests. But what is the point of having a Task Force to combat anti-Semitism on campus if it is afraid to risk angering the anti-Semites on campus?