RSS
I Was Shunned at Princeton for Being a Zionist; We Must Actively Ensure Academic Diversity Now
A pro-Hamas group splattered red paint, symbolizing spilled blood, on an administrative building at Princeton University. Photo: Screenshot
Universities were once celebrated as arenas of free thought, where diverse ideas could challenge one another, and truth could emerge from debate. However, a new form of intolerance has gripped campuses worldwide, stifling intellectual diversity and turning academic institutions into echo chambers.
My experience at Princeton University illustrates the extent of this culture of suppression and the dangerous consequences it poses for education.
On March 27, 2023, I was invited to speak about Israel’s legal system dispute at the Center for Jewish Life at Princeton. Although I have never hidden my Jewish identity, this was the first time I was invited to speak publicly about Israel. Until then, I was focused on my work as associate research scholar and lecturer, as part of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions in the Department of Politics at Princeton University.
As the event date approached, several professors from other departments pressured the organizers to cancel my lecture, arguing that my Zionist viewpoints had no place on campus. The irony was glaring: a university that prides itself on diversity was actively working to silence a viewpoint that didn’t fit the accepted narrative.
On the day of the lecture, I was escorted through a back entrance by campus security. A group of student protesters, encouraged by faculty members, had blocked the main entrance. Their signs read “Racist,” “Democracy for Israelis and Palestinians,” “No Democracy under Apartheid,” and “No Blank Check for Apartheid.”
These were not calls for dialogue, but declarations that dissenting voices were unwelcome. The protest wasn’t about what I might say; it was about sending a message: those who defy the prevailing ideology will face resistance.
Some rioters and demonstrators forcefully entered the building, creating a tense atmosphere charged with disapproval from a faculty that once championed open inquiry. Unfortunately, the lecture was repeatedly disrupted — shouts through megaphones, the beating of drums outside the hall, and verbal outbursts interrupting nearly every sentence from people inside. I could not finish a single sentence. After enduring these disruptions for an extended period, I saw no point in continuing the lecture. Ultimately, the police escorted me back to my car.
Today, many academics see their role as enforcing ideological conformity, leaving no room for genuine debate. My lecture was just one skirmish in a broader battle to reshape the university into a space devoid of diverse perspectives. The hostility extended beyond the lecture hall, revealing a deeper and more systemic issue within the academic environment.
Despite the staunch defense of the Madison program and the colleagues who worked with me on a daily basis, the attacks against me did not stop. Professors defamed me, wrote letters against me, tried to cancel my course, and organized a media persecution campaign. The backlash against my presence escalated in campus publications, where I was labeled an extremist — not for my work, but for my conservative and Zionist beliefs. This wasn’t about academic discourse; it was an ideological purge.
What saddened me the most was that my request for a personal meeting with the president or dean of the university was refused.
This episode is emblematic of a larger trend: the suffocation of intellectual diversity and the rise of a new orthodoxy that threatens the foundational values of academic freedom.
At universities everywhere, professors have been pushing for changes to the hiring process that would prioritize ideological alignment over academic excellence. Their goal is clear: to exclude scholars who don’t fit the desired mold, ensuring a uniform intellectual environment.
The future of education depends on our ability to resist this tide of conformity and reclaim the university as a place where all ideas, even those that challenge the status quo, can be heard.
Universities are acting more like the institutions of the Middle Ages that enforced a single, dominant ideology. Back then, academic freedom was severely constrained by religious dogma. Today, the ideological gatekeeping is no less restrictive, though now it is secular in nature.
The shift toward a singular ideological stance threatens the foundational mission of higher education. Just as medieval institutions imposed theological constraints on academic pursuits, today’s universities enforce ideological boundaries that stifle critical thinking and the pursuit of truth. In this climate, truth is no longer the product of open inquiry but is dictated by those who hold power, leaving little room for constructive debate. The once-vibrant marketplace of ideas has been reduced to a space where only approved viewpoints are allowed to thrive.
This environment fundamentally undermines the pursuit of truth. In spaces where debate is suppressed, critical thinking cannot flourish. Truth has become a function of power, and without the ability to challenge and question, we lose our capacity to scrutinize our own assumptions. Individuals are reduced to caricatures — superficial, unrefined, and lacking depth. Instead of striving to uncover truth, as in propaganda films from authoritarian regimes, the academy employs aggressive tactics to mask its own distance from it.
The impact on students is profound. Many now self-censor, fearing the consequences of expressing views that might place them outside the accepted narrative. They’ve learned that challenging dominant viewpoints can lead to social exclusion or academic penalties. Rather than being trained in critical thinking, students are being conditioned to conform intellectually.
Universities now stand at a crossroads. They can continue down this path, fostering a culture of ideological uniformity and suppressing free exchange. Or, they can return to their foundational principles as places where ideas are tested, debated, and refined. True pluralism goes beyond superficial diversity; it requires an environment where conflicting viewpoints can coexist and engage. The most crucial pluralism to champion is not one of appearances, but one of ideas.
Once, scholars would say, “Here are my arguments. What are yours?” Today, the spirit of intellectual inquiry is under siege. The new mantra is, “Here are my arguments, and if you dare to disagree, we will remove you — and still call ourselves pluralists.”
We are in a state of emergency. Universities must go beyond mere statements of commitment to free speech, such as the Chicago Principles, and take active measures to restore ideological balance. The situation is so dire that it now demands affirmative action, not just to protect academic freedom, but to actively recruit conservative voices that have been systematically excluded.
We typically think of affirmative action in terms of race or gender, with the aim of fostering a diversity of perspectives, particularly those that have been marginalized or excluded. If admission to academic institutions were solely based on academic excellence, conservatives would have no trouble being admitted and advancing. However, in recent years, not only has excellence ceased to be the sole criterion, but conservatives have also become singled out. Paradoxically, despite their academic achievements, they are often excluded because of their views. Thus, to truly ensure a diversity of perspectives within academia, we must cultivate ideological diversity, not just gender or racial diversity. Affirmative action should extend to protecting and representing conservative views, adapting the existing mechanisms to include voices that are currently marginalized and silenced.
Mitchell Langbert and Sean Stevens highlight the severe ideological imbalance among faculty at major universities, particularly within the social sciences. Their study found that the overall ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans among faculty members is 8.5:1. In specific fields, this disparity becomes even more extreme. In sociology, the ratio is 27:1 in favor of Democrats, and in anthropology, it skyrockets to 42.2:1.
This troubling trend is not limited to specific fields; it also extends across some of the most prestigious universities. Brown University has a ratio of 21.3:1, indicating a significant imbalance, while Columbia’s ratio of 24.5:1 shows a slightly higher dominance of liberal perspectives. Yale’s ratio reaches 31.3:1, reflecting an even greater skew toward one political ideology. Princeton University presents a more serious case with a ratio of 40:1, demonstrating a pronounced lack of conservative viewpoints. At the top of the scale is Harvard, where the ratio reaches a staggering 88:1, highlighting an overwhelming and nearly complete absence of ideological balance.
These figures underscore the urgency of adopting corrective measures to foster a more balanced and intellectually diverse academic environment. The marketplace of ideas must remain vibrant and contested. Otherwise, the very essence of learning is lost.
My experience of persecution is not a personal problem. It is a symptom of a much more severe issue. I was persecuted because I am part of a conservative viewpoint, which is one that is systematically excluded from the academic discourse.
The time has come to reclaim the true mission of the university. We must ensure our academic spaces remain open to all voices, not just those that comfortably fit the prevailing narrative. Intellectual freedom is not just an academic ideal — it’s the bedrock of a vibrant society. It must be defended, even when inconvenient, because only then can we keep the pursuit of knowledge alive.
Ronen Shoval taught and conducted research at Princeton University during the 2022-23 academic year. His latest book, “Holiness and Society: A Socio-Political Exploration of the Mosaic Tradition,” was published by Routledge, 2024.
The post I Was Shunned at Princeton for Being a Zionist; We Must Actively Ensure Academic Diversity Now first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.