A Joint MESA-AAUP Report Shows the Corruption of Anti-Semitism Charges (Guest Post)

Cornell University on July 11, 2014   

By Dr. Lori Allen, writing from London 

Chris Newfield’s recent post discussed a trend in university administration craven behavior: hiding behind the principle of “institutional neutrality” (or “restraint”) as a way to avoid putting well-paid heads above the bushes to say anything principled about the real problems of the day. Chris writes: “Under Trump-turboed pressure from government and from a loud minority of heavyweight trustees, university presidents have largely muzzled themselves.” 

Among the many forms of pressure are lawsuits brought by government and pro-Israel lawfare activists alleging Title VI violations. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits institutions that receive federal financial assistance from engaging in discrimination on the basis of “race, color, or national origin,” has now been weaponized. An achievement of the Civil Rights Movement and originally passed as a measure to thwart racism, Title VI’s remit has been expanded to address discrimination on the basis of “shared ancestry”—the result of long years of agitation by Kenneth L. Marcus, a conservative movement lawyer and pro-Israel activist who succeeded in bringing antisemitism claims into the purview of Title VI.  

As shown by a remarkable recent Middle East Studies Association (MESA) report, jointly issued with AAUP, there has been a sharp increase in unfounded accusations of antisemitism made against universities. Battling the scourge of antisemitism and all forms of discrimination should be a goal of all institutions, universities not least. But this isn’t what’s going on. 

According to MESA research, all but one of the 102 antisemitism complaint letters that they analyzed focused on speech critical of Israel, and 79% of those simply describe criticisms of Israel or Zionism with no reference to Jews or Judaism—meaning: the complaints were about politics, not antisemitism. It’s all part of a right-wing method by which Trump’s administration and pro-Israel activists collude in pursuit of shared or parallel goals: bringing higher education (especially elite institutions) to heel and driving university pedagogy and cultures into ideological line, which includes stifling criticism of Israel and promoting Zionism. 

Making false claims of antisemitism is a tried-and-true tactic deployed by pro-Israel activists to silence and intimidate faculty, students, and staff who would dare speak out on behalf of Palestinian rights and against genocide. It was mobilized to great effect in the UK and across Europe—as research by the European Legal Support Center has shown—when universities adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which wrongly conflates political criticism of Israel with antisemitism, leading to false accusations of antisemitism being made against faculty and students.

These forms of harassment and smear campaigns have led to self-censorship, no doubt the goal of the parallel efforts in the US, too. The gateway to the chilling of academic freedom was opened by the IHRA in Europe; in the United States, it’s been Title VI. As the MESA-AAUP report indicates, even when those who are accused are eventually shown to be innocent of the egregious charges, the mere fact of being targeted works “to chill speech through exerting pressure on affected schools to investigate and scrutinize faculty, staff, and student speech.” 

It’s a round-robin of repression. In the wake of lawsuits concluded with settlement agreements (rather than judgements), some universities have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism or announced they will follow federal guidance and use the IHRA (Harvard, Berkeley, NYU) including the definition’s attached examples of antisemitism that specifically equate criticism of Israel—which is protected political speech under the First Amendment—with antisemitism. 

The latest move in what has become a worryingly predictable game is the US government’s lawsuit against Harvard, filed on March 20, 2026, because its “faculty and leadership turned a blind eye to antisemitism and discrimination against Jews and Israelis.” It’s strange claim to make against Harvard, an institution that has violated core First Amendment protections to show obeisance to the government’s dictats, interfering in academic programs devoted to Middle East studies (as a MESA amicus brief spelled out). 

The tactic of weaponizing antisemitism claims, whether through the IHRA or Title VI, is now widely recognized and proven as that—a tactic, a cynical ploy. It’s time for university leadership to stop playing along with this dangerous and destructive game.