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
Kanye West Declares ‘I Love Hitler, I’m a Nazi’ as Rapper Condemned for Another Antisemitic Rant on X
Singer Ye, formerly known as Kanye West (2nd R), laughs before presenting his Fall/Winter 2015 partnership with Adidas at New York Fashion Week February 12, 2015. Photo: Reuters
Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West, posted another antisemitic rant on X/Twitter early Friday morning, similar to the one he posted on the social media platform in 2022 targeting Jews.
Ye posted a series of antisemitic messages in which he repeatedly praised and expressed love for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, and went on a rampage about how much he dislikes Jews. He declared “Im a Nazi” and “Im racist, Stereo types exist for a reason and they all be true.” He later added, “I love Hitler now what bi—es” and said, “Me loving Hitler is old news” as well as. “I am God Jesus Hitler Ye Like I told you.”
He claimed Jews are “always gonna steal” and “actually hate White people and use Black people.” He also said some of his best friends are Jewish “and I dont trust any of them.”
“White people do not f—k with ni—as they leave that to the Jews If you think you getting money with a white person its not true that so called white person is actually Jewish Jews hate Whites because of the Germans from World War 2,” he tweeted. He also admitted, “I dont even know what the f—k anti semetic [sic] means.” He claimed antisemitism is “just some bulls—t Jewish people made up to protect their bulls—t.”
The rapper also criticized Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk for stealing his “Nazi swag” after the latter stirred controversy for making a hand gesture at US President Donald Trump’s inauguration rally last month that resembled a Nazi salute. Ye tweeted, “Elon stole my Nazi swag at the inauguration yoooo my guy get your own third rale.”
In October 2022, Ye tweeted about wanting to physically harm Jews. “I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I’m going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE,” he wrote in the since-deleted post, referring to the US military’s DEFCON system for rating how alert the armed forces should be at a given moment in the face of a threat. He also tweeted at the time: “The funny thing is I actually can’t be Anti Semitic [sic] because black people are actually Jew also You guys have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes your agenda.”
Ye lost a number of brand partnerships because of his remarks, including the Adidas and Yeezy collaboration, and his X account was temporarily locked. He later apologized for his antisemitic comments — in Hebrew — and said he “definitely was drinking” when he was posted the antisemitic comments in 2022, specifically Hennessy.
Not long after Ye’s antisemitic rampage in 2022, he praised Hitler in an interview with far-right talk show host Alex Jones and promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and stereotypes during an interview with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
On Friday, Ye tweeted that he “will not apologize” for his antisemitic remarks this time and insisted that he was sober during his foul-mouthed tirade.
He said: “Aint nobody ramped up either Im calm as ice this is how I really feel how I really felt and how I will always feel … any Jewish person that does business with me needs to know I dont like or trust any Jewish person amd [sic] this is completely sober with no Hennessy [sic].”
“You Jewish ni—as dont run me no more,” he added. “This is a free country and this is my free opinion.” He said in a separate post: “Im never apologizing for my Jewish comments. I can say whatever the f—k I wanna say forever. Where’s my f—king apology for freezing my accounts. Suck my d—k how’s that for an apology.”
“IF I LOST EVERYTHING AGAIN TONIGHT WAS WORTH IT I CAN DIE AFTER THIS,” he stated.
The majority of Ye’s antisemitic comments from Friday morning are no longer on X, but it’s unclear if he deleted them or if X removed them from the platform.
US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said Ye “should be ostracized for his rabid antisemitism.”
The Campaign Against Antisemitism and the organization StopAntisemitism both called on Musk to delete Ye’s account from X in light of his recent antisemitic tirade.
“Once again, Ye has gone on an antisemitic rampage online. It couldn’t be any clearer that he is an unrepentant, proud antisemite,” said a CAA spokesperson. “More people have viewed these posts than there are Jews on the planet. It is obvious that Ye has not learned his lesson the first time, when Adidas ended its partnership with him, following our call to do so. At a time of unprecedented antisemitism, there can be no mistaking this incitement for exactly what it is. We call on Elon Musk to remove him from X.”
At this very moment, @kanyewest is going on yet another antisemitic rampage.
It couldn’t be any clearer that he is an unrepentant, proud antisemite. More people have viewed these posts than there are Jews on the planet.
It is obvious that Ye has not learned his lesson the first… pic.twitter.com/qXeXQsjb4F
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) February 7, 2025
StandWithUs encouraged Jews to exhibit pride in their Jewish identity, despite the hateful remarks made by the rapper.
“Once again, Kanye West spewed vile antisemitism on his X account, which reaches millions of people,” StandWithUs said in a statement on X. “This is indicative of how mainstream antisemitism has become. The more hatred and bigotry that Jewish people face, the more important it is for Jews to carry their identity like a badge of honor. To every Jewish person out there: We hope that even in the face of hate, you will celebrate your Jewish identity with pride and love. We Stand With You.”
The Anti-Defamation League condemned Ye’s “egregious display of antisemitism, racism, and misogyny.” It reminded the public that according to ADL research, 30 antisemitic incidents across the US were tied to Ye’s antisemitic comments in 2022. “We condemn this dangerous behavior and need to call it what it is: a flagrant and unequivocal display of hate,” the organization said.
The Combat Antisemitism Movement told Ye, “Your antisemitic rants are as absurd and repulsive this time around as they were back in 2022. We hope you get the help you so clearly need, and fast.”
David Draiman, the Jewish lead singer of the rock band Disturbed, said in a post on X addressed to Ye: “Maybe you should apologize to the world for being a miserable, overhyped, sexist, racist, antisemitic c—t who has nothing better to do than harass #Jews ?”
The post Kanye West Declares ‘I Love Hitler, I’m a Nazi’ as Rapper Condemned for Another Antisemitic Rant on X first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Presents White House With Plan to End Gaza War if Hamas Gives Up Power, Leaders Go Into Exile: Report
US President Donald Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talk in the midst of a joint news conference in the White House in Washington, US, Jan. 28, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyuahu has presented to US officials a proposal to end the war in Gaza in exchange for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas giving up power and its leaders leaving the enclave, according to a new report.
Under the plan, Israel would agree to release “senior” Palestinian prisoners that it did not want to free during the first phase of the ceasefire and hostage-release deal, which began on Jan. 19, the news site Axios reported on Thursday. In return, Hamas would release the remaining hostages, cede control of Gaza, and send its top leaders — including those serving jail sentences — into exile.
During his trip to Washington this week, Netanyahu reportedly informed the Trump administration that he does not believe the war in Gaza can end while Hamas controls the coastal enclave, arguing that an unconditional surrender by the terrorist group and an expulsion of its leaders would open the possibility for a lasting peace.
According to Axios, Netanyahu told US officials this week that he wants to prolong the first phase of the ceasefire beyond the 42-day benchmark in order to free more than the 33 hostages originally agreed upon. Israel, which initially agreed to release more than 1,900 Palestinian prisoners during the first phase of the deal, would release more in exchange for the release of more hostages.
Israeli officials close to the deal believe that a renegotiation could result in securing the release of two or three more hostages during the first phase. Furthermore, observers believe that an extension of the first phase of the deal would buy Israel more time to negotiate the freedom of its citizens without having to vacate troops from Gaza.
If Netanyahu succeeds in extending the first phase of the ceasefire, he plans on presenting Hamas officials a proposal to release a set of “senior” Palestinian prisoners that Israel initially refused to free, Axios reported.
According to Israeli officials, Hamas has reportedly agreed to hand over civilian governance of Gaza and relinquish reconstruction duties to the Palestinian Authority or another party.
However, there are some potential roadblocks that could result in a resumption of the war in Gaza, senior Israeli officials warn. The terrorist group will not agree to disarm or dissolve its military wing, according to Axios. Moreover, Israeli officials say the odds that Hamas leaders willingly exile themselves from the Gaza Strip are “extremely low.”
The post Israel Presents White House With Plan to End Gaza War if Hamas Gives Up Power, Leaders Go Into Exile: Report first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel on High Alert Ahead of Next Hostage Release as Hamas Fails to Deliver List of Names on Time
Families and supporters of Israeli hostages kidnapped during the deadly Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas gather to demand a deal that will bring back all the hostages held in Gaza, outside a meeting between hostage representatives and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in Jerusalem, Jan. 14, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
As Israel prepares for the fifth wave of hostages to be released under the recently brokered ceasefire with Hamas on Saturday, the nation remains vigilant against potential violations by the Palestinian terrorist group.
A significant aspect of the ceasefire agreement involves the IDF’s planned withdrawal from the Netzarim corridor, a strategic area that bisects the Gaza Strip. If the process proceeds without incident, the military intends to complete this withdrawal by Sunday, signaling a step toward de-escalation.
However, the Israeli military on Friday said that it had bolstered its presence at key points within the Gaza Strip. The Southern Command’s leadership has conducted multiple field assessments alongside frontline soldiers to ensure readiness for any unforeseen developments during the hostage transfer process.
Israel’s defense ministry said that any violation of the agreement will be dealt with severely.
Hamas claimed that Israel had not fulfilled its side of the deal in transferring humanitarian aid, but Israel denied the claim, saying that 12,600 trucks of aid had arrived in Gaza since the beginning of the deal’s implementation on Jan. 19.
Israel was slated to receive the list of hostages scheduled for release in the fifth wave on Friday, but Hamas delayed announcing the names of the three Israelis due to be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners, who were largely detained for terrorist activity.
Unlike previous exchanges, Hamas has not committed to a specific category of hostages for this round, adding a layer of uncertainty and tension for the families awaiting news.
Israel is exerting diplomatic pressure on mediators to prioritize the release of Shiri Bibas and her young children, Kfir and Ariel.
The forthcoming hostage releases over the next month under phase one of the ceasefire deal are expected to include 20 individuals: seven adults over the age of 50, ten identified as sick or wounded, and three members of the Bibas family.
The list of sick or wounded individuals includes American-Israeli Sagi Dekel-Chen.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza when they murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages during their invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in the neighboring enclave. The conflict raged for nearly 16 months until both sides agreed to last month’s ceasefire and hostage-release deal, the first phase of which is set to last six weeks.
During phase one, Hamas is supposed to inform Israel of the next hostages to be freed 24 hours before their release.
US President Donald Trump’s new proposal to “take over” Gaza has introduced a contentious element into the fragile ceasefire agreement.
Critics argue that the plan could undermine the negotiations between Israel and Hamas, but others say it will only strengthen Israel’s position. An unnamed Hamas official cited by Israel’s Channel 12 said that the terrorist group would see how the plan develops before deciding to change the terms of the deal. Nonetheless, the official said that the “takeover” proposal would not thwart the first phase of the plan.
Seventy-nine hostages remain in Hamas captivity. Upon the conclusion of the initial phase of the agreement, 59 hostages will still be held in Gaza, with 35 already declared deceased.
The post Israel on High Alert Ahead of Next Hostage Release as Hamas Fails to Deliver List of Names on Time first appeared on Algemeiner.com.