NEW YORK — For years, Marianne Hirsch, a prominent genocide scholar at Columbia University, has used Hannah Arendt\u2019s book about the trial of a Nazi war criminal, \u201cEichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,\u201d to spark discussion among her students about the Holocaust and its lingering traumas. <\/p>\n
But after Columbia\u2019s recent adoption of a new definition of antisemitism<\/a>, which casts certain criticism of Israel as hate speech, Hirsch fears she may face official sanction for even mentioning the landmark text by Arendt, a philosopher who criticized Israel’s founding. <\/p>\n For the first time since she started teaching five decades ago, Hirsch, the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, is now thinking of leaving the classroom altogether. <\/p>\n \u201cA university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,\u201d she told The Associated Press. \u201cI just don\u2019t see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.\u201d<\/p>\n Hirsch is not alone. At universities across the country, academics have raised alarm about growing efforts to define antisemitism on terms pushed by the Trump administration, often under the threat of federal funding cuts. <\/p>\n Promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the definition<\/a> lists 11 examples of antisemitic conduct, such as applying \u201cdouble standards\u201d to Israel, comparing the country\u2019s policies to Nazism or describing its existence as \u201ca racist endeavor.\u201d<\/p>\n Ahead of a $220 million settlement<\/a> with the Trump administration announced Wednesday, Columbia agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition and its examples into its disciplinary process. It has been endorsed in some form by Harvard, Yale and dozens of other universities. <\/p>\n While supporters say the semantic shift is necessary to combat evolving forms of Jewish hate, civil liberties groups warn it will further suppress pro-Palestinian speech already under attack<\/a> by President Donald Trump. <\/p>\n For Hirsch, the restrictions on drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and questioning Israel\u2019s founding amount to \u201cclear censorship,\u201d which she fears will chill discussions in the classroom and open her and other faculty up to spurious lawsuits. <\/p>\n \u201cWe learn by making analogies,\u201d Hirsch said. \u201cNow the university is saying that\u2019s off-limits. How can you have a university course where ideas are not up for discussion or interpretation?\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Columbia didn\u2019t respond to an emailed request for comment.<\/p>\n When he first drafted the IHRA definition of antisemitism two decades ago, Kenneth Stern said he \u201cnever imagined it would one day serve as a hate speech code.\u201d <\/p>\n At the time, Stern was working as the lead antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. The definition and its examples were meant to serve as a broad framework to help European countries track bias against Jews, he said. <\/p>\n In recent years, Stern has spoken forcefully against what he sees as its \u201cweaponization\u201d against pro-Palestinian activists, including anti-Zionist Jews. <\/p>\n \u201cPeople who believe they\u2019re combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues,\u201d he said. \u201cBut when used in this context, it\u2019s really actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.\u201d<\/p>\n Stern said he delivered that warning to Columbia\u2019s leaders last fall after being invited to address them by Claire Shipman, then a co-chair of the board of trustees and the university\u2019s current interim president. <\/p>\n The conversation seemed productive, Stern said. But in March, shortly after the Trump administration said it would withhold $400 million<\/a> in federal funding to Columbia over concerns about antisemitism, the university announced it would adopt<\/a> the IHRA definition for \u201ctraining and educational\u201d purposes. <\/p>\n Then last week, days before announcing a deal with the Trump administration to restore that funding, Shipman said the university would extend the IHRA definition for disciplinary purposes, deploying its examples when assessing \u201cdiscriminatory intent.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cThe formal incorporation of this definition will strengthen our response to and our community\u2019s understanding of modern antisemitism,\u201d Shipman wrote. <\/p>\n Stern, who now serves as director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, called the move \u201cappalling,” predicting it would spur a new wave of litigation against the university while further curtailing pro-Palestinian speech. <\/p>\n Already, the university\u2019s disciplinary body has faced backlash for investigating students who criticized Israel in op-eds<\/a> and other venues, often at the behest of pro-Israel groups. <\/p>\n \u201cWith this new edict on IHRA, you\u2019re going to have more outside groups looking at what professors are teaching, what\u2019s in the syllabus, filing complaints and applying public pressure to get people fired,\u201d he said. \u201cThat will undoubtedly harm the university.\u201d<\/p>\n Beyond adopting the IHRA definition, Columbia has also agreed to place its Middle East studies department under new supervision, overhaul its rules for protests and coordinate antisemitism trainings with groups like the Anti-Defamation League.<\/p>\n