Show Notes
The pro-Palestinian protests that erupted on many college campuses in the spring of 2024 gave rise to a surge of complaints about antisemitism at colleges across the United States. Under pressure to respond, Columbia and Harvard Universities have both in the past year adopted into policy a common definition of antisemitism, using the text as a guide in discrimination investigations. But defining the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and antisemitism has long bedeviled scholars, and refereeing such cases invites concerns about free speech and academic freedom. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism, upon which Columbia and Harvard now rely, wasn’t ever intended to be a speech code and shouldn’t be used as such, says Kenneth Stern, who helped to draft the text about two decades ago. But how, then, should colleges respond to concerns about hatred and prejudice aimed at Jewish people?
Colleges Use His Antisemitism Definition to Censor. He Calls It a ‘Travesty.’ (The Chronicle)
The Great Antisemitism Debate (The Chronicle)
Why Anti-Jewish Discrimination on Campuses Might Not Violate Title VI (The Chronicle)
UC Berkeley Hands Over 160 Names to the Federal Government for ‘Potential Connection’ to Antisemitism. (The Chronicle)
GuestKenneth S. Stern, director of the Center for the Study of Hate at Bard College.
For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.
More from College Matters from The Chronicle
Colleges across the country are cutting programs and slashing budgets on a grand scale. What began as a slow trickle from some seemingly unlikely places, like Princeton and MIT, has become a sector-wide deluge. Wealthy private colleges, major public research universities, and lower-resourced institutions alike are eliminating courses of study, laying off staff, and cutting some faculty jobs. How bad is it out there, really? And how will these cuts define the next era of higher education?
For weeks, the world has been reeling over allegations that multiple Cornell University students raped a woman at a fraternity house. The lurid case has renewed calls for banning fraternities, but pushback from alumni and fears of the groups going underground tend to scuttle these efforts. Fraternities, it seems, are a proverbial third rail in higher education. Not unlike big-spending athletics programs, Greek Life is supported by powerful people whom college leaders are loath to confront. What are higher education’s other third-rail issues? And why are they so challenging to take on?
The details of a lawsuit filed last month by a former Cornell University student, who says she was raped two years ago by multiple men at the Chi Phi fraternity house, are tough to stomach. Ketamine, alcohol, and misogyny figure prominently into the account laid out by the plaintiff, who is identified in the lawsuit only as Jane Doe. The suit has raised troubling questions about how the university and the county’s district attorney handled the case. More than that, the charges at Cornell have recentered waning conversations about the Greek system, the college party scene, and campus safety. Why has this case broken through, and what does it say about the darkest aspects of our culture?
Nearly four years after the introduction of ChatGPT, colleges and universities have propagated plenty of rules related to students’ use of AI. But what about administrators and faculty? Can they live by the same standards they’ve handed down? Should they? As more faculty and even some college leaders admit to using AI in their writing, charges of hypocrisy abound. News last week that Dartmouth College will investigate its provost for his use of AI has further intensified concerns that even the nation’s top institutions lack clear guidelines in this area. It’s also brought urgency to a deeper question: If everyone is using AI to write, what constitutes an original work?
University of Texas at Austin football fans have good reason to be happy right now. After narrowly defeating the Ohio State University Buckeyes earlier this month, the Longhorns are sitting pretty at No. 1 in the college football rankings. But all is not well in Austin. The morning after the Longhorns’ big win, a Republican political candidate posted an inflammatory message on X, expressing dismay at a photo of students of South Asian descent celebrating in the stands. Bo French, who is running for a seat on the Texas Railroad Commission, has stirred a tempest, suggesting that students of color have overrun the flagship university and “displaced” more deserving “Americans.” The controversy has ratcheted up tensions over immigration, diversity, and admissions in a state where some students from immigrant families say they feel unwelcome. It’s also shed light on the power of football fandom to shape a culture and define a community.