POSTED BY HANK REICHMAN

The following public response was addressed to the administration and regents of the University of Washington.

We write as Jewish faculty, staff, alumni, and students of the University of Washington to voice our concerns with the Antisemitism Task Force’s Report, titled “Climate Assessment and Reports from the Antisemitism and Islamophobia Task Forces” (published on October 15, 2024) which states that antisemitism on the UW campuses is “widespread, systemic, and institutionalized.” We are deeply concerned about antisemitism in the contemporary United States, and we agree with the report’s authors that harassment, intimidation, or violence against students for being Jewish should not be tolerated on our campus. Moreover, we echo President Cauce’s statement that the University of Washington “should be a welcoming place for all.”

We are disappointed and alarmed, however, that the report’s conclusions and recommendations are not borne out by the survey data collected and, moreover, that they rely on flawed methodology and unclear and misleading operational definitions of antisemitism that simplistically conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. We fear that the report will be used as a pretext to attack EDI (equity, diversity, and inclusion) committees across campuses. We are also concerned that it will erode shared governance by giving inappropriate influence to external organizations that do not represent the values or diversity of views of Jews at UW.

In particular, we are concerned about demonstrable inconsistencies between the results of robust—if at times opaque and methodologically flawed—UW community surveys, which document significant ideological and viewpoint diversity among Jewish students and employees, and the recommendations made by the panel, which indicate the existence of a preconceived response and an agenda driven by groups outside of our community. The report, we believe, is unfitting of an institution that claims to “foster a culture of collaboration and bring diverse perspectives together to find better solutions.”

I. Concerns about Methodology

Composition of the Task Force

We note that whereas the co-chair of the Islamophobia task force is a scholar with a distinguished record of research on Muslim and Arab communities, the co-chair of the antisemitism task force, while an accomplished epidemiologist, has no relevant scholarly background in Jewish Studies, antisemitism, or Israel Studies. At a university with a distinguished Jewish Studies faculty, we are disappointed to see the antisemitism portion of the report did not have the benefit of a seasoned scholar of the subject at its helm.

Overreliance on small, unrepresentative focus groups and disregard for survey data

The report consists of quantitative and qualitative data from a climate survey that received 6,700 responses, with 1,815 responses to the antisemitism questions specifically, and from focus groups conducted by UW’s Office of Educational Assessment (OEA) “with relevant communities of academic personnel, staff and students.” It appears, however, that the extremely small number of Jews who participated in the focus groups – 35 – had an outsized influence on the content and tone of the report and, in particular, on its recommendations. Given that the survey results suggested significant heterogeneity in Jewish responses to questions about Israel/Palestine, it was particularly important that the task force intentionally select a representative selection of Jews for their smaller focus groups. The report, however, does not specify whether, or how, representation was ensured. We know that whatever steps were taken were not sufficient; for example, one focus group was held at UW Hillel (an organization with standards of partnership that explicitly disallow affiliation with Jews critical of the state of Israel) with little effort to recruit students and employees with more critical or ambivalent positions about Israel, or any others who might not consider Hillel their Jewish home.

Though the survey data suggested that the majority of Jewish respondents expressed positions coded as “critical of Israel,” and a small but significant number as “anti-Israel”—in addition to the 42% who expressed sentiments coded as “pro-Israel”—the substance of the report suggests that the qualitative conclusions and, especially, the recommendations, disproportionately reflect the views and desiderata of the portion of survey respondents with a particular set of “pro-Israel” positions. The tendency of the report to conflate this subgroup with “the Jewish community” comes across when it recommends “ensuring that the Jewish community is not subjected to further harassment and intimidation under the guise of [pro-Palestine] protest,” which implies  that Jews who are supportive of or unintimidated by the protests are not part of the Jewish community. This slippage between “Jewish community” and pro-Israel community raises the question of whether these recommendations were developed in response to the actual viewpoint diversity of Jews on campus, as demonstrated by the survey, or if they were generated by outside pro-Israel advocacy groups in advance of and without regard for the survey data.

Conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism

We condemn all forms of discrimination, antisemitism included, on our campus. However, we object to the automatic conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism that the task force clearly supports, both in its language and in the approach it took in its outreach and data gathering. Examples of bona fide antisemitic incidents do occur in the report, but they are grouped with incidents where speech critical of the state of Israel made some feel uncomfortable. We are also troubled by the refusal by the authors of the report to present a definition for antisemitism, while nonetheless appearing to have adopted an implicit definition, as they reference the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, and the conclusions drawn by the Anti-Defamation League, which relies on this definition. As the task force recommends “proactive, systematic tracking and transparency” of antisemitism on campus, this lacuna is particularly problematic. How can bias be tracked if it cannot be defined?

While the report states that the task force “did not attempt to distinguish or characterize the overlap between antisemitism and anti-Zionism,” it clearly equates any manifestation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. For example a poster that proclaimed “death to Zionism” is cited as an example of antisemitism. While Zionism has undoubtedly become a core feature of many twentieth-century Jewish movements and institutions, it is not synonymous with Judaism. There may be as many if not more Christian Zionists than Jewish ones, and Jewish anti-Zionism dates back to the origins of Zionism itself. Political ideologies, even those held dear by some members of particular religious or ethnic groups, remain political ideologies, which can and should be discussed and debated in the public square.

For Jews on our campuses protesting Israel’s actions and policies (including many who would not call themselves anti-Zionists), the historical and contemporary practices of Zionism as a settler project rooted in Jewish ethnonational supremacy are in conflict with principles of democracy and equality. We can’t have open dialogue across differences on this difficult topic if students, faculty, and others are not free to criticize a modern state and its actions or debate the nuances of a multifaceted political philosophy like Zionism. As stated in the Islamophobia Task Force report, “Islamophobia-affected communities have also reported in the focus groups being accused of antisemitism simply for advocating Palestinian rights or call for a ceasefire.” The conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism in the Antisemitism Task Force report directly contributes to this grave issue. Antisemitism can be present in left and pro-Palestine movements, and where we see it, we must denounce it—but equating anti-Zionism as such with antisemitism puts all Jews at greater risk in a country where voices in support of white Christian nationalism and white supremacy are increasingly empowered.

A clear definition of antisemitism is indeed important in this context. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, widely accepted by academic experts in Jewish Studies, uses this terminology: “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).” Incidents detailed in the report, such as ethnic slurs directed at Jewish staff and physical harassment of Jewish students, are very concerning and should be investigated. To treat pro-Palestine advocacy as such as being antisemitic, however, dilutes the real problem of antisemitism of meaning and makes serious documented incidents more difficult to address effectively.

While Islamophobia-affected communities and other racialized and marginalized groups participating in pro-Palestine protest and advocacy have borne the brunt of such accusations of antisemitism, Jewish community members have also been negatively impacted by the weaponization of antisemitism to stifle legitimate debate. Significantly, many Jews at UW participated in or sympathize with pro-Palestinian protests, and reject the use of vague allusions to Jewish safety as a justification for turning a blind eye to siege and starvation tactics, near daily bombings of civilians and civilian infrastructure, and, as many scholars of Holocaust and Genocide Studies have concluded—including Jewish-Israeli scholars Omer Bartov (Brown University) and Raz Segal (Stockton University)—mounting evidence of genocide. While the report rightly addresses the heinous Hamas attack of October 7, its failure to address Israel’s ongoing bombardment and siege of Gaza produces the impression that students protesting Israel are acting out of some preternatural Jew-hatred, rather than responding to one of the most horrific humanitarian crises of their generation. The attempt to present the Jewish community at UW as a monolith on Israel, despite survey data to the contrary, not only does a disservice to the University’s own stated values of inclusivity and respect of varied perspectives, but does actual harm to the many Jewish UW community members who, as reported in the survey data, are being bullied by others in the Jewish community due to their opinions on the issue.

II. Concerns about Task Force Recommendations

Concern about inviting outside organizational oversight over UW

Some of the most concerning recommendations made by the panel regarded the creation of a University Committee on Antisemitism staffed largely by representatives of outside organizations. The task force recommended that this committee should include “representatives from key local Jewish organizations including: UW Hillel, UW Chabad, the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, StandWithUs, the American Jewish Committee, and the Anti-Defamation League …. along with representatives from the University faculty, staff, and student Jewish and Israeli communities.” The phrasing of this recommendation makes it clear that university faculty, staff, and students are subordinated to these outside organizations on this committee, which would constitute a major assault on academic freedom. The fact that all of the groups mentioned are staunchly pro-Zionist, and that some are strongly aligned with right-wing politics, is deeply troubling. The authors’ selection of pro-Zionist organizations to represent Jews on this committee ignores Jewish respondents’ diverse views on Zionism, respondents’ experiences of discrimination from inside the Jewish community due to anti-Zionist views, and the existence of multiple anti-Zionist Jewish organizations in our community.

We question the involvement of outside organizations that don’t represent the full spectrum of Jewish views on campus, and object to their empowerment over and with disregard for UW policies and procedures. These groups have a role in the Jewish community as a whole, but that does not justify the installation of outside actors into key roles in our university.

Attacks on UW’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Initiatives and Committees

The report alleges that equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) work marginalizes Jewish voices, troublingly pitting concerns about antisemitism against other forms of marginalization. Simultaneously, it marginalizes and ignores the perspectives of Jews who hold critical or anti-Zionist views, or who support calls for ceasefire, even though the survey data directly suggests the robust presence, if not the predominance, of such Jews on our campuses.

We reject the report’s claims that EDI Committees at UW perpetuate antisemitism. Many of those committees, based in academic units across UW, have become professional, emotional, and social homes for Jewish students, faculty, and staff. Those of us who serve on those committees do so in part because of the convictions we share as Jews. Smearing these committees and their members not only puts individuals in real danger of harassment and attack, but also undermines the critical work that they perform in moving the University toward a welcoming and accessible place where people of all backgrounds and identities, including Jews, can thrive. In the recent past, the EDI Committee in the Department of Epidemiology, where one of the authors of the antisemitism report has been serving an interim chair, has implemented quarterly course reviews to support the development of anti-racist and anti-oppression pedagogy; nurtured a robust and well-loved peer mentorship program; promoted funding opportunities for NIH Diversity Supplements; supported student-led events for prospective students from diverse backgrounds interested in the department; hosted events on dismantling the racist and classist “hidden curriculum” of academia; and worked with department leadership to eliminate the GRE requirement for applicants. This work is intended to make the department feel like a home to all of our students, faculty, and staff, including Jews. Defaming these efforts serves no purpose but to encourage our institution to be hostile to marginalized groups who challenge powerful people and structures.

Although antagonism to EDI is at the center of some of the report’s recommendations, the survey responses show that just 3% of students and 7% of employees identified EDI frameworks as a problem on campus—but those frameworks are not identified, and these numbers are not disaggregated by respondents to the antisemitism and Islamophobia task force surveys, so it remains unclear what the supposed role of EDI work is in perpetuating antisemitism.

Where is this ill-will toward EDI coming from? It clearly is not rooted in the data collected by the antisemitism task force. Our current cultural context, in which EDI work is under attack from far-right demagogues in academia and elsewhere, is an important factor here. This task force is not the first group to publish a report claiming that EDI work drives antisemitism, but it should not be proud of its predecessors. The Heritage Foundation, authors of the plans for a second Trump presidency known as Project 2025 that has been widely denounced as a roadmap to hard-right authoritarian rule, beat them to it in 2021. The timing of that report suggests that the true motivation of its authors was to push back against the Black Lives Matter movement, and the long-overdue institutional changes that resulted from its call for justice and accountability. That the Task Force should take up this mantle from hard-right extremists gives cause for us to question the authors’ motivations: is the task force concerned with the safety of students, or with pushing a reprehensible agenda bent on undermining the core missions of our university?

Discourse on Zionism and Colonialism

We reject the report’s recommendation that antisemitism trainings should emphasize “the particular toxicity of the settler-colonial / oppressor-oppressed narrative when applied to Jews,” thus implying that this “narrative” is ipso facto antisemitic rather than what it is: one of several analytical frameworks that can usefully be employed to understand aspects of the complex history of Zionism and Israel.

We must remember that it is possible for a person, a people, to be both refugees and settlers at the same time. We can take seriously Jewish histories of unjust persecution and exposure to murderous violence while acknowledging and seeking repair for the ways some Jews participate in or benefit from forms of colonialism. Acknowledging these complexities requires seeking accurate and nuanced language to describe both ourselves here in the United States and Jews in the state of Israel. Stifling debate and honest inquiry with spurious accusations of antisemitism does a disservice to our students and to their intellectual and emotional growth.

III. Demands and Alternative Suggestions

In sum, the report does much more than detail incidents of alleged antisemitism: the Antisemitism Task Force is actually helping to build a case against our university, a case aligned with a broader right-wing effort to weaponize charges of antisemitism in the interest of not only suppressing political speech critical of the state of Israel but also of undermining the legitimacy and autonomy of democratic institutions, including universities, public K-12 schools, and unions.

The glaring inconsistencies between the results of robust community surveys, which demonstrate significant ideological and viewpoint diversity among UW’s Jews, and the recommendations made by the panel indicate the existence of a preconceived response and an agenda driven by groups outside of our university community. The report offers recommendations unsupported by the data and in an area in which no Task Force member has scholarly expertise.

We suggest an alternative approach to addressing antisemitism at UW: utilize existing, internal resources, including the subject matter experts on campus, to confront antisemitism and Islamophobia within our community. There is no need for outside groups to play such a pivotal role on campus. The idea of a Standing Committee suggested in the Islamophobia report is a good model for this task, as it would be “composed of staff, faculty, and students who represent these affected communities and offer a diverse array of identities and viewpoints pertinent to the affected communities.” A similar approach would be much more inclusive of diverse Jewish perspectives, and it would appropriately represent UW voices in addressing UW issues. UW should empower EDI committees and professionals from across all three campuses to work together to ensure that an awareness and rejection of both antisemitism and Islamophobia, as well as stigma or prejudice against any religious or ethnic minority group, feature in the frameworks they use to guide their critical work. In short, instead of bringing in potentially harmful and politically motivated outside oversight, let us focus on building a community of care across all three of our campuses, taking full advantage of the expertise, relationships, and environments within the university community.

Affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not reflect endorsements by departments or units.

Sincerely,

Nicolaas Barr, UW faculty and staff (Comparative History of Ideas); alumnus (BA 2004)
Dan Berger, UW faculty (School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, Bothell)
Abraham Flaxman, UW faculty (Health Metrics Sciences)
Susan Glenn, UW faculty (History)
Jason Groves, UW faculty (German Studies)
Liora Halperin, UW faculty (International Studies; History)
Avi Matarasso, UW graduate student (Bioengineering)
Jade Minzlaff, UW graduate student (Bioengineering)
Deborah Nemens, UW staff (School of Environment and Forest Sciences) and alumna (2017)
Keshet Ronen, UW faculty (Global Health) and alumna (MPH 2017)
Jessie Seiler, UW faculty (Epidemiology) and alumna (PhD 2023)
Sasha Senderovich, UW faculty (International Studies; Slavic Languages & Literatures)
Jessica Trupin, UW staff (School of Social Work) and alumna (BA 2002, MPA 2005)

Additional signatures from Jewish students, staff, alumni, and faculty following this letter’s initial delivery (updated periodically). Signatures by Jewish students, faculty, staff, and alumni of the University of Washington can be added here: bit.ly/UWJewishResponseSignatures

1. Devorah Detzer, UW alumna (BM 2019)
2. Noga Rotem, UW faculty (Political Science)
3. Sarah Tuttle, UW Faculty (Astronomy)
4. Sarah-Ahava Ezra Fernandez, UW Student (Jewish Studies)
5. Joie Waxler, UW Alum (MSW/MPH 2023) and current UW Staff Member (Student Life)
6. Jo Berliner, UW alumni (MA 2020, Museology)
7. Abby Brockman, UW staff (UWMC)
8. Zephyr Mattinson, UW alumna, School of Social Work, 2020
9. Nina Galanter, UW graduate student (Biostatistics)
10. Jen Greenstein, UW Alumni, MSW
11. Kamryn Wolf, UW Staff (Spiritual Care Provider with UWMC)
12. Rainer Waldman Adkins, Alumnus (MFA School of Art 1982)
13. Anna Feit, UW alum (BA 2024)
14. Stacey Prince, UW alum (PhD Psychology 1999) and adjunct faculty (Psychology)
15. Greta Treistman, UW Alumna (Master of Library and Information Science, 2021)
16. Julie Patt, UW staff (UW Medicine) and alumna (School of Social Work)
17. Michael Forman, UW faculty (SIAS), Tacoma
18. Jonathan Kallay, alumnus, College of Education
19. Ari Forsyth, UW graduate student (History)
20. Emily Grayson, UW alumna (iSchool, MLIS 2009)
21. Sam Leeds, UW alumnus (BA 2015)
22. Shelby Handler, UW alum
23. Jacob Schear, UW alum (BA 2016)
24. Philippa Steinberg, Molecular and Cell Biology PhD
25. Lev Cunningham, UW faculty and UW staff (School of Social Work) and UW alum (MSW 2013)
26. Anna Reed, UW staff (Public Health) and alumna (MPH 2023)
27. Nell Gross, UW alum & staff
28. Zoë Bermet, UW Staff, Information School
29.  Jane Singer, UW alum (iSchool, MLIS ‘21)
30. Tovi Avnon, UW faculty, School of Medicine
31. Nora Molasky, UW staff, AID
32. Emmett Stanfield, UW alum (School of Social Work MSW 2017)
33. Eva Cherniavsky, UW faculty, CAS
34. Neal Koblitz, UW Faculty (Mathematics)
35. Alys Weinbaum, UW faculty
36. Leah Knopf, UW Alum
37. Naomi Goldenson, UW alum, Atmospheric Sciences PhD 2017
38. Jenn Udren, UW Staff (Global Health) and alumna (MPH 2013)
39. Jax Hermer, UW Alum (School of nursing), former staff (UWMC)
40. Stephanie Clare, UW faculty
41. Deborah Massachi, UW Staff (College of Education) and alum (2013)
42. Dana Barnett, MSW student class of 2025
43. Daniel Oron, UW alum (BS 2017)
44. Bennie Gross, UW alum
45. Alec Bellis, MSW Class of 2025
46. Ruby Keller, UW Undergraduate
47. Keith P. Feldman, UW Alum (PhD 2008)
48. Sonia Storck, UW student
49. Ariel Rokem, UW Faculty (Psychology & eScience Institute)
50. Lauren Berliner, faculty, UW Bothell School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences
51. Eva Dale, UW Alum
52. Andrea Marcos, UW staff and alum
53. Jacob Greenberg, UW alumni, Department of History and College of Education
54. Meli Sameh, UW alumni (MPH) and staff
55. Ledah Kaplan-Wilcox (College of Education PhD Student)
56. Natalie Weizenbaum, UW alum (BA & BS 2010)
57. Emily M. Bender (UW Faculty, Linguistics, College of Arts and Sciences)
58. Molly G., Alumnus, Class of 2011
59. Vincent Calvetti, UW Alum (2017 MAIS)
60. Elana Feldman (UW Faculty, School of Medicine)
61. Benjamin Lucking, UW alum
62. Rebekah Gardea, UW alum
63. Sam Cristol, alum, Master in Teaching ‘16
64. Ellen Punyon, UW alum (M.Ed 1975)
65. Glenn Leever, UW Alum (MSW 2013)
66. Aaron Flaster, UW staff (UW Rehabilitation Medicine)
67. Alana McGovern, UW grad student (Statistics)
68. Robby Stern, alumni, UW Law School graduate, 2024
69. Elyse Gordon, UW Alum (PhD Geography 2017)
70. Pascal Diamond, UW Student (Sociology Major)
71. Jacob Beckert, doctoral student, History
72. Julia Daniels, UW Alum (PhD in Education, 2018)
73. Sloane Savitt – UW Student
74. Josh Sturman, UW graduate student
75. Danya Clevenger, UW Alum Evans 2018 College of Ed 2019
76. Ron J Smith PhD, UW 2011.
77. Erin Lipman, UW grad student (statistics)
78. Courtney Berger, Staff
79. Sandra Silberstein, UW Faculty Emeriti (English)
80. Jonah Silverstein, UW Alum (BA Psychology, 2022)
81. Maddie Keating UW Alum (BA Environmental Studies)
82. Megan Sarkissian, Undergraduate Student (Physics)
83. Elizabeth Schuster (College of Education, PhD student)
84. Maya Hahn, UW MSW alum
85. Dr. Howard J. Gale, UW Alum, BS Psychology, 1983 & BA Anthropology 1983
86. Jonas Abady, UW Alum (LSJ 2024)
87. Dalya Perez, PhD (UW College of Education)
88.  Abby Zorn, UW Staff
89.  Ethan Nowack, UW Alum, (CHID and Music 2022)
90.  Sarah Cunningham Garibova, BA 2009
91. Henry Noble, UW ACCESS Student, former employee
92. Mel Fernandes (UW Post Grad Cert Student)
93. Samantha Simon, UW Alum (English PhD 2019)
94. Alysha Fung Koehler, UW Alum (BA Philosophy 2015, MPA 2018)
95. Mollie Wolf, UW alum (MA Cultural Studies, 2015)
96. Nora Kenworthy, UW faculty (Nursing and Health Studies)
97. Adrienne Shapiro, UW Faculty, Departments of Global Health and Medicine (Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases)
98. Zehava Chen-Levy, UW Alumna and UW faculty emeritus, Lab Medicine
99. Laura Chrisman, UW Faculty
100. Ben Oron, Undergraduate Student
101. Assaf P. Oron, alumnus and current staff
102. Erin McElroy, UW faculty
103. Malka Hoffman, UW Alum (MLA, 2024)
104. Kira Wyld, UW Librarian
105. Barri Rind Alumni
106. Anna Fuss, Undergraduate Student
107. Janet Woodward, UW Alum (MLIS – 1994)
108. Smadar Ben-Natan, former UW faculty (International Studies; Law, Societies, and Justice)
109. Yoav Duman, Lecturer and alum
110. Raya Fidel, Professor Emerita, Information School
111. Beverly Naidus, Professor Emerita
112. Alex Henry, graduate student, English Department
113. Adam Akullian (alumn)
114. Eli Lilleskov, graduate student
115. Cole McMullen, UW Graduate Student
116. Adi Stein, alum

Contributing editor Hank Reichman is professor emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay; former AAUP vice-president and chair of the AAUP Foundation; and from 2012-2021 Chair of AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. His book, The Future of Academic Freedom, based in part on posts to this blog, was published in 2019.  His Understanding Academic Freedom was published in October, 2021; a second edition will be published in March 2025.