On May 7, several members of our group met with President Folt and Provost Guzman. In an hour-and-a-half-long meeting, we discussed the persistent and pervasive antisemitism and anti-Zionism on the USC campus and proposed concrete steps towards improving the campus climate. The conversation was in part informed by discussions within the Circle Against Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism at USC as well as previous initiatives by our group (see here and here). Afterwards, we prepared a report summarizing the main points of the meeting, which we sent to the president on May 24. Here we provide a version of the report from which we have redacted confidential information. We hope that publishing this report will help launch robust and sustainable initiatives towards addressing antisemitism, reversing radicalization on campus, and improving the campus climate for all. We plan to publish regular follow-ups and encourage any and all input from the campus community in this endeavor.
Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism at USC: Preliminary Report
Introduction
This report is the result of the collaborative work of members of the Circle Against Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism at USC. The group includes mainly faculty, as well as parents, alumni, and donors. The members of the group have diverse political opinions, religious backgrounds, and campus affiliations, but they are all united in combating the rise of antisemitism in any of its manifestations at USC. Antisemitism is not a Jewish issue—it is a symptom of a much deeper and broader problem in our society. Throughout history, the emergence of antisemitism has been the “canary in the coal mine” indicating the emergence of widespread discrimination. Once Jews are targeted, no minority is safe.
With the alarming rise of antisemitism and anti-Zionism incidents on the USC campus after October 7, 2023, like the ones occurring at UCLA and are currently under external investigation, our members have exchanged information about recent cases on our campus, focusing on those affecting students and faculty. This report summarizes many of the instances that are emblematic of the antisemitism pervasive on campus, but is by no means exhaustive—both due to known underreporting of such incidents and unknown complaints submitted to the University.
Jewish students at USC have reported harrowing experiences on campus and in their dormitories, recounting instances of being subjected to pervasive abuse, desecration of mezuzahs (religious objects affixed to doorposts containing a prayer), circulation of posters depicting Jews as malevolent, and chants invoking disturbing slogans like “from the river to the sea” and calls for “intifada” (which for this generation recalls the violence and bombings against civilians that was the hallmark of the Second Intifada). Our students feel abandoned, emotionally devastated, and singled out for hatred. This report calls for urgent action by the administration at its highest level to eliminate antisemitism and anti-Zionism on our campuses.
The report outlines several topics that we have identified as top priority: (1) demonstrations and encampments on campus; (2) antisemitism in the classroom; (3) antisemitism among students; (4) lack of enforcement of USC’s non-discrimination policies; (5) double standards when it comes to Jews and Zionists; and (6) issues related to the use and investment of the USC endowment.
Below we describe the issues and propose actions on each of the topics listed above. We have additional evidence and supporting documentation, some of which we include as links and in the Appendix. [NOTE: Confidential information is not included in the public version of the report].
We acknowledge and thank President Folt and Provost Guzman for their willingness to meet with us and the Jewish students on campus for preliminary discussions on these issues. We appreciate the invitation to submit this report and look forward to a response to address these urgent issues.
Topic 1: Encampments and Demonstrations on Campus
Issues: Encampment and free expression. We thank the President and the Provost for the decisive action on May 5. Clearing the illegal encampments was the right thing to do for the reasons that President Folt articulated in her May 5 statement. Such protests are clearly outside the domain of free expression, as stated by President Biden, Governor Newsom, as well as Rep. Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey. President Biden’s education secretary has said, “What’s happening on our campuses is abhorrent.” Organizations championing free speech (such as FIRE and Heterodox Academy) have also issued clear statements on the issue (a compilation of such statements from organizations and individuals can be found here).
These protests have been orchestrated by outside agitators; they infringe on the rights of the students and faculty to carry out their primary duties—research and education—and they represent impermissible disruption of the function of the university. As more details about the protests are becoming known, it is clear that these protests are instigated to foment disruption and fear rather than peaceful expression of opinions and productive dialogue (references to several articles documenting the tactics of the protestors and their goals—maximum disruption—can be found here). The US Congress has already launched a probe into the organizations funding the anti-Israel protests on college campuses to investigate the “malign influence on college campuses and to the national security implications of such influence on faculty and student organizations.”
The effect that campus protests have had on Jewish students is documented in the survey conducted by Hillel International. Importantly, the protests had a detrimental effect on the majority of USC faculty and students who are dedicated to teaching, studying, and research.
While we were glad to have our campus back, we were understandably dismayed that the oppressive campus environment and disruptions continued for more than a week; we appreciate the insights provided by the President and Provost over the delay for necessary steps to secure the campus. Nevertheless, we remain highly concerned for future delays in addressing illegal encampments and demonstrations. The illegal protesters will return, as per statements by the protesters themselves and as echoed by some USC faculty.
Recommendation:
We ask for assurances that in the future, the actions will be taken immediately so that order is restored swiftly. The rules and consequences for breaking these rules should be publicized and clearly evident upon students' return to campus. The students violating USC rules should be disciplined, up to and including the potential for expulsion. There should be no negotiations with perpetrators, as such negotiations legitimize disruptive behaviors and encourage future disruptive protests.
We do not ask for new rules. We ask that the university consistently applies the existing rules regarding time, place, and manner of expression in a swift, fair (i.e., viewpoint-neutral), and even-handed manner. We ask for zero tolerance for lawlessness and vandalism. We also ask for a firm stance against any unregistered protests, especially those led by outsiders. Our campus is a place to teach, study, and carry out research, not a public space for demonstrations and protests, as unlawful demonstrations and protests create a repressive environment counter to the University's mission.
Topic 2: Intimidation of students in classes by professors
Issues: Although we all strongly believe in academic freedom and freedom of speech, the recent behavior of some faculty in the classroom is problematic for the following reasons.
Academic freedom affords faculty freedom from institutional censorship when speaking as citizens, as well as the freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the classroom. Specifically, according to AAUP, “Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matters which are unrelated to their subject, or to persistently introduce material which has no relation to the subject. This doesn’t mean teachers should avoid all controversial materials. As long as the material stimulates debate and learning that is germane to the subject matter, it is protected by freedom in the classroom.”
This means that although faculty are free to express their political views outside the classroom, academic freedom should not allow faculty members to impose their political views on students. An example of this would be canceling assignments/exams and encouraging students (instead) to participate in the protest. If the protest is not related to the subject matter of the course (as described by AAUP), refraining from imposing one’s political views on students would not violate a faculty member’s academic freedom. If the topic of the protest is related to the course’s subject matter, and the instructor believes that active participation in civil disobedience is part of the course, then they should have stated that up-front in their syllabus so that students (i) know what to expect (as with other aspects of the course) and (ii) can make an informed choice when registering for the course.
This also means that faculty should refrain from introducing material that is focused on the protest but not germane to the subject matter. An example of this would be introducing a reading list that provides a partial view of the background for the protest without it being related to the course material (and presenting it as a balanced view of the matter). Another example would be lecturing on their views of the administration’s decisions rather than on course material.
In addition, according to the USC faculty handbook, “The faculty member should carefully consider the class climate and ground rules around academic discourse so that student learning is promoted, but students are not unreasonably exposed to potential harassment.”
This means that faculty have a responsibility to (a) foster civil discourse where all students are free to contribute and (b) intervene when discourse turns threatening or unprofessional. An example of the failure of the former would be constraining course discussion based on one’s views while discouraging broader perspectives (even when they are based on students’ lived experiences). An example of failure in the latter would be not only allowing a group of students in the class to gang up on a Jewish student when discussing recent events on campus but actually supporting the gang with approval. Given the substantial differential in power between a student and the instructor, such approval of the gang’s perspective effectively means that the student with a different perspective is not at liberty to respond to the gang.
Recommendations: While reaffirming its commitment to academic freedom, the USC administration must also reinforce its commitment to promoting student learning free of indoctrination and harassment. Specifically:
The administration must remind academic units that individual faculty are only free to express their political views outside the classroom but that academic freedom does not afford them the right to impose those views on their students or absolve them of responsibility to promote student learning without unreasonable exposure to potential harassment (as already stated in the faculty handbook).
Given the enormous differential in power between faculty and students, the administration must ensure that students’ complaints are taken seriously and resolved expeditiously, i.e., so that students are not forced to remain in an inappropriate classroom environment when such complaints are valid. The administration must also ensure that transparency and accountability (of the units investigating and resolving students’ complaints) are integral to the process.
The provost should publish clear rules about the obligation of instructors to ensure a classroom free of harassment, intimidation, and indoctrination. There should be a clear deadline for publishing a syllabus, after which changes require approval by a designated person in each school. In the interest of both intellectual integrity and averting indoctrination, syllabi that focus on a narrower historical or political view should state so and point students to available courses that present other perspectives. Complaints of published policy violations should be dealt with immediately by departments/schools, with suspension of instructors from classrooms when violations are determined to be valid. Corresponding updates should be made to the Faculty and Student Handbooks.
Topic 3: Antisemitism and anti-Zionism on campus
Issues: Antisemitic and anti-Zionist expressions among students at USC are currently pervasive and persistent. There are many documented incidents of vandalism (e.g. ripping off mezuzahs from students’ doors), verbal slurs (e.g. “dirty Jew,” “colonizer,” “murderer”), harassment (e.g., asking Jewish students to sit with “their own kind”), and intimidation (e.g., the case of an Annenberg student reporter who was perceived as Zionist). (The Appendix provides additional details.) The threatening behavior has been exacerbated by chants that call for violence against Jews, Israelis, and Zionists and signs posted on campus and in the encampment. The use of covered faces, barricades, and hidden identities runs counter to the values we strive to instill on our campus and should never have been allowed from the outset. Permitting disobedience under the guise of freedom of speech fails to uphold the moral principles and values that we all believe in. See a letter from a parent about campus climate and a compilation of incidents collected by students as well as video clips demonstrating the escalation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism on campus.
The policy instructing students to report complaints and wait patiently for results has failed them and must be changed. The incidents at USC are similar to those at UCLA, which were described in their invitation to appear before Congress.
The USC Advisory Committee on Jewish Life published a report that included many recommendations and was approved by President Folt on August 2022. The permanent committee established in Fall 2022 has been charged with implementing these recommendations but many of them have not yet been implemented (see Appendix).
Recommendations:
USC administrators must demonstrate unequivocally their commitment to zero tolerance of harassment and intimidation. Jewish and Zionist students should be afforded the same protection as other protected groups.
USC should publish precise and effective policies which are enforced strictly and even-handedly. It should be clear where free expression ends, and impermissible harassment and intimidation of individuals begin.
Complaints of antisemitism and anti-Zionism should be resolved within four weeks and not linger until after the end of the semester.
USC should publish openly each semester a report of the results of investigations of students’ complaints about antisemitism and anti-Zionism and the disciplinary measures that have been taken.
The recommendations of the Report of the 2022 Advisory Committee of Jewish Life must be implemented expeditiously.
A new and reorganized permanent Committee on Jewish Life should be formed with a focus on the participation of students and USC faculty committed to fighting antisemitism and anti-Zionism. The committee should provide progress reports to the President and Provost.
The campus should be safe for all students. Jewish students should have a space on campus and not have to walk to Hillel and Chabad, which are off campus. The kosher/halal dining hall, which was approved two years ago, should open. This combined dining hall will have the secondary benefit of promoting much-needed interfaith dialogue.
Supporters of federally-listed terrorist organizations should not be allowed on campus.
Topic 4: Lack of enforcement of the policy about political statements by departments
Issues: USC has clear policies regarding political statements by departments, in print, and during faculty meetings (see Policy and Statements under Faculty and Departmental Statements and also page 3 of the Faculty Handbook). However, there is a lack of consistent enforcement of these policies, which has created biases in documents sent by departments and faculty councils and a lack of accountability regarding policy violations. This inconsistency is undermining the integrity of the academic environment and detracts from the university's commitment to political neutrality.
One example is the Annenberg Faculty Council’s letter sent on May 1 to all faculty as an “official” communication from Annenberg on Annenberg letterhead. The letter calls the illegal encampment on campus “peaceful” and calls for “amnesty for the protesters who got arrested.” Faculty have not all been consulted about the contents of this letter. Correspondence with the Faculty Council has not resolved the issue.
A second example is a resolution by the Engineering Faculty Council (EFC), calling for Asna Tabassum to give her valedictorian speech, an issue that has clearly become political. The EFC’s statement was mentioned in a May 8, 2024, article in the NY Times, which states, “A resolution by the executive council of the engineering school’s faculty asked that she address its commencement ceremony.”
Again, though individual faculty are free to express their political views, the EFC should not be making political statements on behalf of engineering faculty. Beyond this being against university policy, one peril here is that a resolution addressing a political issue made by the EFC on behalf of the faculty is a form of compelled speech, especially from the standpoint of untenured and junior faculty members. Such statements also effectively suppress minority viewpoints and are, therefore, detrimental to the climate of scholarly debate and open exchange of ideas.
Additionally, in both cases, the faculty were not polled before the statements were sent by the faculty council, which is in clear violation of policy.
More examples of such letters can be found here.
Recommendations:
Enforce the policies on the books uniformly across all departments and schools to ensure that political statements do not influence or interrupt the academic agenda.
Establish a monitoring committee to oversee compliance and publicly report and disclose violations.
Frequently remind deans and department heads of the boundaries of permissible speech. Faculty must be informed of these policies by their departments, and departments must certify annually that they understand the guidelines, the expectations, and the consequences of non-compliance.
Topic 5: Double standard
Issues: There is a double standard in treating Jewish faculty and students as opposed to others on campus.
For example, Professor John Strauss was shamed, and his reputation was tarnished without checking the truthfulness of the accusations. He was immediately banned from campus and contact with students. After checking the facts, Professor Strauss was gradually allowed to return to teaching via Zoom and later allowed on campus. However, this process was wrong, and Professor Strauss is still under investigation. The administration has not provided him with a public apology.
[Note: Another example is removed due to privacy concerns.]
The university’s approach to inclusion and diversity favors mainly three populations: African Americans, Latinos, and LGBTQ++, but not Jews. What would be the fate of a faculty or student who would use insulting language to these three groups? Immediate suspension! However, the same standard does not apply when Jewish students and faculty are being called disgraceful names, accused of being murderers, experiencing isolation, or, even more severely, receiving threats of violence. Insults like dirty Jew, kike, and murderer do not carry disciplinary action by the university. In recent student-filed complaints, the office of EEO-Title IX dismissed such complaints.
Recommendations:
Revisit all recent complaints by Jewish students and faculty to the office of EEO-Title IX concerning antisemitism and anti-Zionism and apply the policies advertised by USC.
Quick disciplinary actions against the offenders—a quick turnaround of antisemitic and anti-Zionist complaints—not more than 4 weeks.
Provide an apology to Prof. John Strauss.
Topic 6: Endowment and investments
Issues: Pro-Hamas and Pro-Palestine protestors have issued demands to USC related to the use of University funds, including both from the endowment and in support of campus groups. As recently highlighted by the WSJ article and by the lawsuit filed against the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP), many such campus groups are affiliated with controversial outside organizations. The use of USC funds to support these political efforts is in contrast to the stated goal of returning the campus to one of academic neutrality, promoting active free speech and safe dialogue.
Recommendations:
USC will not devote funding, including in-kind use of space or resources, to political organizations.
USC will withhold funding or in-kind support from any student group that does not adhere to university rules regarding time, space, and manner of demonstrations and/or engages in or supports antisemitic acts or speech.
USC will be transparent and report annually funding of student organizations related to the current conflict, including the use of in-kind University spaces and resources.
Appendix
Topic 2. Intimidation of students in classes by professors: Exhibits
Appendices 2.3-2.5 were redacted for privacy concerns.
Topic 3. Issues of antisemitism among students: Examples
Asking Jewish students to sit with “their own kind”:
The Jewish students in the Gould School of Law were feeling harassed and started to sit together in the back of the class. One of them, who sat in his usual place in the front of the class was asked “Don’t you want to sit with your own kind?”. When a “Day of Action” was declared by Law Students for a Free Palestine, a USC chapter of the newly formed national group of law students, these students peppered the bulletin boards in the building with their posters, covering other posters, and met during class hours in the Law School. This was disruptive and intimidating to the Jewish students.
Doxxing of a non-Jewish Zionist Annenberg student reporter:
Articles in the Forward and the Times of Israel reported that that Jacob Wheeler, a reporter for Annenberg Media, had to stop reporting after he covered a pro-Palestinian demonstration in October as a journalist and interviewed demonstrators, asking questions that the SJP members and some others did not like. He was mobbed on social media and email, and there was a loud demonstration in front of the Anneberg school attacking him by name by shouts and chants. His appeals to the Annenberg leadership, including the Dean, to denounce these attacks have not resulted in a response, and he stopped reporting for his own protection. After he interviewed a Jewish student for one of the major TV networks about events regarding the USC encampment, he was identified as the former Annenberg correspondent and attacked again on social media.
Appendix 3.3. Restructuring the Committee on Jewish Life
The Advisory Committee on Jewish Life published its report, which was approved by President Folt on August 2022. The permanent committee established in Fall 2022 was charged with implementing the recommendations of the report. However, many of the recommendations have not been implemented (see below) and the time before October 7, 2023 was not used productively. We request to re-establish the committee with a focus on combating antisemitism encountered by students. It should be led by a full-time tenured faculty member with an established track record of effecting change and a commitment to Jewish and pro-Zionist affairs, and include representatives of Jewish and Zionist students. [NOTE: some details were redacted for privacy concerns.]
Selected recommendations that need to be implemented by the restructured Committee on Jewish Life
Recommendation: Whenever antisemitic incidents arise, respond quickly and publicly while highlighting and articulating the university’s values, standards, and expectations. Comment: This needs improvement.
Recommendation: Review communication processes and timelines for incident responses, including targeted outreach, resource lists, and reminders of reporting responsibilities.
Develop a clear distribution group for communications related to significant antisemitic incidents. Comment: These processes need revisions
Recommendation: Develop new ways to communicate and showcase the extraordinary work that is already being done by Jewish organizations and individuals on campus, such as the USC Shoah Foundation and the USC Casden Institute. This could include a centralized website, calendar, and/or mailing list specifically focused on opportunities and activities across the university.
Recommendation (already extant): Continue to use the website (and eventually build a new dedicated website that is decoupled from other campus challenges) to chronicle the university’s progress towards combating antisemitism and supporting Jewish life. Comment: This website is hard to find unless you know about it. It is updated periodically and has a FAQ section.
Recommendation: Explore the possibility of creating a full-time position—Director of Jewish Life—at the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life, similar to positions at other peer universities.
Recommendation: Work with USC Hospitality to establish a kosher/halal food station in a dining hall that all students can use as part of their meal plan, and that serves fresh, hot, healthy food with the appropriate levels of supervision.
Recommendation: Implement “office hours” and additional programming for Hillel and Chabad at the University Religious Center, and utilize the university’s Religious Center for more Jewish events on campus.
Recommendation: Clarify the role of Student Affairs in addressing and adjudicating cases involving online threats and social media hate speech.
Recommendation: Continue to develop educational activities that build bridges between Jewish groups and other religious groups on campus to promote inclusivity and mutual respect.
Recommendation (in progress): Review and update the faculty handbook to outline what comments are not acceptable in classroom settings. Integrate this in the onboarding of new faculty.
Recommendation (in progress): Develop training modules on religious discrimination and antisemitism as part of the onboarding process for students, faculty, and staff, and offer in-person training and learning opportunities for student, faculty, and staff leadership.
It was brought to my attention our recommendations are inline with this set of good practices by the Academic Engagement Network:
https://academicengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/AEN-and-Hillel-Best-Practices-May-2024_final.pdf
Bravi to you all.