Shift in antisemitism policy triggers academic freedom debate

Collage by Easton Clark, Photo Editor

Chapman administration has revised its anti-discrimination and harassment policy as it faces a federal investigation into allegations that the university failed to adequately address antisemitism.

The policy revision comes after two alumni filed a lawsuit last year regarding Chapman’s handling of alleged antisemitic actions. However, some faculty members say the university’s recent policy changes appear inconsistent with its legal response, in which the university argued that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.

Since September, Chapman’s policy has included the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when assessing violations. It outlines that antisemitism is a perception of Jews that can manifest as hatred expressed through speech or actions targeting Jewish people, others, their property or Jewish institutions. 

Chapman joined universities like Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania, which have incorporated this definition into policy.

According to Bob Hitchcock, Chapman’s director of strategic communication, the university has followed guidance from the U.S. Department of Education to use the IHRA definition of antisemitism to the extent it may be useful in a particular case.

“Chapman University cares deeply about its students, consistent with our mission and founding, and we stand by our strong record of supporting Jewish students,” Hitchcock said. 

Jewish students make up roughly 10% of Chapman’s student body.

The IHRA states that antisemitism can include certain rhetoric about Israel when it is treated as a collective expression of Jewish identity, while emphasizing that criticism of Israel comparable to that directed at any other country is not inherently antisemitic. It also includes examples such as comparing Israeli policy to Nazi Germany or claiming the existence of Israel is inherently racist.

The added definition has raised concerns among several faculty members. 

Shira Klein, the chair of the department of history and an antisemitism scholar, condemned the new policy’s support of the IHRA definition during a presentation about it at last month’s faculty senate meeting. 

She said that adopting the IRHA definition and its examples could expose faculty to Title VI violations, and said that the policy should not include any formal definition of antisemitism.

“Chapman should not be singling out Jews at all,” Klein told The Panther. “There are 35 pages in this document, and Jews are the only group to be singled out. That's absurd, and I say this as a Jewish person.” 

Faculty were invited to respond to Klein’s speech, and the issue is expected to be discussed further at this month’s faculty senate meeting. According to Klein, at least 28 faculty members have signed a letter urging administrators to strike the two paragraphs with the IHRA definition.

English professor Ian Barnard, who supports striking the definition, said the new policy could have a disastrous effect on academic freedom and scholarly inquiry. They cited how, with their current work on a book about genocide rhetorics — including discussion of Israel's actions in Gaza — they could face sanctions under Chapman's new anti-discrimination policy if they draw comparisons between Israel’s campaign and Nazi Germany’s genocide of Jews.

Barnard also said that, since the policy does not clearly specify when the IHRA definition will be used, its application becomes more arbitrary. 

“If Chapman admin likes me, then they won't use it, but if they don't like me, they will use it?” Barnard said. “This is worse than having a policy that states outright that the IHRA definition will be used, as it means that folks might resort to self-censorship just in case the IHRA definition is invoked to sanction them.”

Sociology professor Pete Simi agreed, saying the policy's vagueness could cause self-censorship.

“Even if unintentional, the policy will likely ‘chill’ speech in the classroom, at campus events and in terms of research, as employees may find the safest course of action is to avoid anything that could be interpreted as critical of Israel and thus potentially an instance of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition,” he said.

Barnard said that Chapman’s decision to use the IHRA definition of antisemitism is disappointing, especially in relation to how the university responded to the lawsuit last year by pointing out that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic. 

“It's hard not to read this as outside interests trying to blackmail Chapman into adopting a policy that Chapman leaders themselves know is illogical and antithetical to the principles of academic freedom and free speech that Chapman claims to champion,” they said.

Klein said that she doesn’t see Chapman as antisemitic, but as fostering academic freedom. 

“The problems Chapman is described as having aren’t problems,” she said. “There is a robust tradition of enabling academic freedom and freedom of speech."

Hitchcock said the university welcomes and reviews thoughtful feedback on policies, in line with its commitment to academic freedom and free speech.

While faculty can’t directly enact change, Kelli Fuery, creative and cultural industries professor and faculty senate leader, said that the issue is on the agenda for the next meeting, where Klein plans to introduce a proposal addressing the IHRA language.

"We need a university committed to civil rights, to diversity, to equity, to equality and, really, we need to be able to follow the empirical data and not be worried about an HR discrimination policy," Klein said.