How should antisemitism be defined?

Illustration by Lexi Forman, Cartoonist

Chapman is standing by its decision to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism in its anti-discrimination and harassment policy, while some faculty members continue to express concerns over academic freedom.

Faculty have been urging administrators to reconsider their use of the IHRA’s definition since spring, after its addition in September 2025. According to English professor Kent Lehnhof, concerns about the definition were presented to the Faculty Senate in the spring, where it was voted unanimously to recommend to Chapman’s administration that the IHRA definition be removed.

The university said it considers the Faculty Senate’s discussion of the issue concluded and that the current policy will remain in effect. 

“It is our understanding that the Faculty Senate already took up and concluded discussion on this topic,” Chapman’s Strategic Communications Director Bob Hitchcock said. “Consistent with the process for recommendations of the Faculty Senate to the Provost, the matter was discussed, and the Provost reported to the Senate that there would be no changes to the policy.”

Provost Michael Ibba did not respond to requests for comment.

The dispute centers on how Chapman should identify and respond to antisemitism. The IHRA definition describes antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” and says manifestations can be directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and property, as well as Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The definition is accompanied by examples intended to illustrate contemporary antisemitism. Several examples concern Israel, including situations in which criticism of Israel may be antisemitic. One example describes denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, including by claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor. Another concerns applying double standards to Israel by requiring behavior not expected of any other democratic nation.

The IHRA definition also states that criticism of Israel, similar to criticism leveled against any other country, cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

History professor Shira Klein said she believes the IHRA definition improperly connects Jewish identity with Israel and can discourage faculty from assigning material that addresses Israel critically.

“The IHRA definition conflates between Jews and Israel, and equates antisemitism with criticism of Israel,” Klein told The Panther.

In a statement made in the spring, Chapman said its policy does not treat criticism of Israel as automatically antisemitic. Rather, the university said it considers the IHRA definition and accompanying examples “to the extent it may be useful in a particular case.”

The university said the policy clarification was made in response to guidance from the U.S. Department of Education and reiterated its commitment to Jewish students and campus safety.

“Chapman University cares deeply about its students, consistent with our mission and founding, and we stand by our strong record of supporting Jewish students,” the statement read. “The University is pleased to be recognized for fostering a safe, welcoming campus environment.”

The university added that it welcomes “thoughtful feedback on policies” in keeping with its principles of academic freedom and free speech.

While Hitchcock said that Ibba reported to the Faculty Senate that there would be no changes to the policy, Lehnhof said that, to his understanding, the Senate was not given an explanation.

“As far as I know, the Faculty Senate was not provided an explanation for the decision,” Lehnhof said.

Faculty Senate President and Professor Kelli Fuery did not comment on whether the Faculty Senate was offered an explanation for the decision, but said that faculty members can continue to bring questions before the Senate.

“I support the faculty’s right to bring any question to the Senate,” Fuery said. “They can bring forward any question going through the right processes and abiding by the faculty bylaws.”

Fred Smoller, a political science professor, said faculty have a role in debating the policy because of its potential effect on curriculum and academic discussion.

He said the policy could affect what faculty and students feel comfortable discussing in academic settings.

Klein said she knows of faculty members who have removed readings from their syllabi because they believed continuing to assign the material could violate the policy.

“I know of Chapman faculty who have removed readings from their syllabus — peer-reviewed readings published in leading journals — because if they keep assigning those readings, they’d be in violation of IHRA and risk being charged with antisemitism,” Klein said.

Richard Ruppel, English and peace studies professor, said he shares Klein’s fear that the IHRA language could chill academic freedom, offering the following hypothetical: “If, for example, a student in my Literature and War class, which reads two Holocaust memoirs, suggests that what is happening in Gaza echoes what the Nazis did in Europe in the 1930s and 40s, could another student formally accuse him or her of antisemitism to the Dean of Students?” 

Ruppel did not cite an instance in which that specific scenario had occurred.

Smoller also characterized the university’s decision as a possible response to pressure from the federal government and outside organizations. He expressed concern that responding to pressure over the antisemitism policy could create a precedent for additional challenges to academic programs.

Smoller referenced programs including Latinx studies, gender studies and disability studies as examples of programs that could potentially face scrutiny from groups opposed to diversity, equity and inclusion programming.

“Quite frankly, the Trump administration has been able to intimidate much bigger actors than us,” Smoller said.

Universities like Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania have also incorporated this definition into policy.

Despite others' concerns, Lehnhof said he remains optimistic that Chapman will continue its historical practice of supporting open discourse.

“Speaking personally, I'm optimistic that the University will support free and open discourse on campus, as this has been our historical practice,” Lehnhof said. “Accordingly, I’m reasonably confident the University will defend the academic freedom of its faculty and will not apply the IHRA definition to punish those who take a critical view toward Israel in their teaching or research.”

The university’s decision to stand by the controversial definition of antisemitism follows a broader dispute over allegations of antisemitism at Chapman and a federal lawsuit brought by two Jewish alumni. Chapman has previously emphasized that criticism of Israel is not automatically considered antisemitic and has said it is committed to academic freedom and free speech.