Rebuilding Jewish students’ trust in universities 

On August 5, 2026, the Government of Canada, Department of Heritage released the first of two reports about campus antisemitism and student experiences (CASE). This landmark report described the experiences of Jewish students at Canadian universities and showed that almost all have experienced antisemitism on campus.  

The survey results were staggering, revealing a pervasive pattern of discrimination against Jews in student residences, student organizations, campus events, in off-campus spaces, and in classrooms with nearly 96% of the sample reporting having experienced or witnessed at least one incident of antisemitism in the year preceding the survey. 70% reported that their university does not take antisemitism seriously, and 68% reported that their campus is not a safe and inclusive place for Jewish students.  

Despite the efforts of Canadian universities to create more inclusive campuses, EDI policies ignore and, in many cases, fail Jewish students who report experiencing a campus climate hostile to their identity. This is because EDI policies that primarily adopt an anti-oppression framework often mischaracterize Jew as “White,” which ignores the history and ongoing injustices faced by Jews. The framework treats Judaism as a religion rather than reflecting the rich complexity of Jewish identity as spanning religion, ethnicity, race, secular self-identification and peoplehood. 

 The failure of EDI to recognize Jewish identity and antisemitism in all its forms may also explain the reluctance of Jewish students surveyed to report incidents of antisemitism. If the systems meant to protect students from intolerance and discrimination are blind to the ways in which Jews are targeted and in which antisemitism manifests, it is not surprising that 52% of Jewish respondents said reporting is futile. One student stated, “After reporting the screening on campus of a documentary glorifying Hamas [a recognized terror entity by the Canadian government], the university brought in diversity and inclusion and did absolutely nothing. So why report another incident?”  

The CASE results make it clear that Jewish students have lost confidence in their institutions to address antisemitism because there are rarely consequences to discriminatory conduct. In many cases, Jewish students are told that their reports are unfounded or protected by academic freedom, judgments that would never be levelled at students from other minoritized groups who report discrimination. Their lived experiences are ignored. As a result, many Jewish students are experiencing a two-fold harm. The first are the incidents themselves and the second the invalidation from authorities that these experiences are not antisemitic.  

One of the most concerning findings of the CASE report were student reports of undue political pressure and ideological conformity in the classroom. Nearly half of Jewish students reported that they felt pressured to share their opinions about Israel with other students, more than a third felt pressured to conform to a professor’s views on Israel, and one in five felt pressured to join an anti-Israel protest. Moreover, one in three encountered course content or classroom discussions they experienced as antisemitic or biased. One student reported: “I was told by a professor, in class in the middle of the lecture, that Jews belong in Poland and need to go back.” Another stated: “We were evaluated on the situation in Gaza and Israel even though our course syllabus had absolutely nothing to do with it.” And another wrote: “A professor of women’s and gender studies gave me 0% on an assignment because I had discussed sexual assault on October 7, 2023. He suggested that I instead focus on the role of Israeli police in sexual assaults.”  

Universities are meant to foster open exchange of ideas even, and perhaps, especially, about challenging topics. The Middle East conflict is one of these subjects, and it deserves a scholarly, responsible, and robust treatment. Given the complexity and importance of the conflict it should be debated from all sides grounded in evidence and facts. Only through dialogue can understanding be fostered. 

A common misunderstanding, for example, is that the Government of Canada’s adopted definition of antisemitism, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. IHRA actually explicitly states that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic. Debate should include scrutiny of its actions from diverse viewpoints. 

What the CASE data, however revealed, is that what is happening in the classroom is not mere criticism of Israel. Rather, academic freedom is being used to shield the imposition of ideological positions on the Middle East conflict that insist on a single unimpeachable viewpoint casting a single one actor, Israel, as irredeemably evil, a characterization that echoes antisemitic rhetoric that frames Jews as inherently malevolent. Academic freedom must be accompanied by academic responsibility. 

Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier articulated three pillars that the academy’s success rests on: academic freedom, institutional neutrality, and civil discourse. The results of the CASE study suggest that each of these pillars is being undermined on Canadian campuses when it comes to the experience of Jewish students. 

 Much of the harassment extends to the broader campus environment and online spaces that students inhabit. For example, 34% of students experienced online harassment and 33% experienced it through student groups. 

What concrete steps can be taken to rebuild Jewish students’ trust in universities?  

NECA offers a roadmap. Included among the ten recommendations, NECA calls on university and colleges to: 1) enforce existing policies and procedures to protect Jewish students from being bullied, harassed and targeted, 2) adopt and implement institutional neutrality policies that differentiate the institution that protects the place where vigorous open debate happens from those engaging in those debates, 3) reexamine how academic freedom is defined and practiced and recognize that it must be accompanied by academic responsibility and integrity, and 4) task Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and Human Rights Offices to create clear and explicit policies on  antisemitism in all its forms and to facilitate learning and dialogue on campuses.   

As former UBC President Martha Piper stated at the CASE press conference, “The time for decisive action is now. Universities must publicly commit to addressing the ongoing prevalence of antisemitism on their campuses.”