RSS
Should Jewish Students Stop Attending Sarah Lawrence College?
The Sarah Lawrence campus. Photo: Wiki Commons.
Sarah Lawrence College (SLC) — my alma mater — has an antisemitism problem that is driving Jewish students from campus and persuading others from attending.
On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists invaded southern Israel and perpetrated the biggest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
On Oct. 9, 2023, the SLC campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) celebrated the rapes, massacre, and hostage-taking of Israelis when it announced an “Hour of Solidarity with Palestine” event. The event flyer featured a Hamas bulldozer breaking into Israel through the security barrier.
As The Algemeiner reported, “Briana Martin — SLC director of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) — called on students to ignore Jewish suffering by attending” the event. According to the report, Martin was SJP’s advisor and “club’s advocate and liaison.”
I am a member of an independent Sarah Lawrence alumni social media group that has almost 3,500 members. When the topic of Israel is raised, graduates frequently engage in hateful, antisemitic, and intolerant commentary — which partially explains the college’s tolerance and even encouragement of antisemitism on its campus.
Let’s take a look at what graduates of the college are saying.
In late 2024, a Sarah Lawrence graduate posted concerns about what she called a “despicable” banner hung at Sarah Lawrence which read, “ZIONISM WILL FALL. REVOLUTION UNTIL VICTORY. FREE PALESTINE.”
Many Sarah Lawrence graduates chimed in to support the hateful banner with comments such as “Get over yourself” and “This is EXACTLY the Sarah Lawrence I went to.” One graduate explained, “I learned about the foundation of zionism as a colonial ideology At slc! [sic].”
Some graduates joined the conversation to agree that antisemitism is currently a huge issue at the college. One responded, “The SLC I knew did not make other students feel unsafe … The SLC administration continues to be asleep at the wheel with both blindfolds and earplugs.”
Another graduate wrote, “Many Jewish students do not feel safe to be known or visible as Jewish on the campus.” This graduate explained she has a child attending Sarah Lawrence and also communicates with other parents of SLC students.
Another graduate added, “I know of many Jewish parents who have now crossed Sarah Lawrence off of their schools to visit list.”
In another thread on this alumni group, a graduate shared, “A Jewish senior [in high school] I know was accepted to SLC. But he has chosen to attend elsewhere because they heard from other Jewish students at SLC that they don’t feel safe and they don’t feel the admin[istration] takes their concerns seriously.”
As I recently reported, at the anti-Israel encampment on its campus last year, Sarah Lawrence students planted a large banner promoting Samidoun, which was designated by the US government under President Biden as a “sham charity that serves as an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization.”
In a 2024 zine written by “Anonymous Sarah Lawrence Students,” the authors state that they answered Hamas’ call for “escalation” by occupying a building on campus.
Sarah Lawrence students have masked up to conceal their identities and dressed up like Hamas — the very terrorists dedicated to killing Jews across the globe — to occupy the main administration building on campus in a failed attempt to have the college divest from Israel.
Ask yourself, would Sarah Lawrence or any college or university allow students to dress up like the Ku Klux Klan and conceal their identities while they occupy buildings, disrupt campus life, and terrorize the community? I surely doubt it.
In a column published this month, Sarah Lawrence professor Samuel J. Abrams discussed a student who is Jewish and a Zionist and afraid to return to campus. I shared Abrams’ column with the social media alumni group. A graduate responded, “imagine the kind of coward you’d have to be to be afraid to go to school.”
Such a total lack of empathy from a fellow Sarah Lawrence graduate helps explain why Jewish students don’t want to attend SLC, and why Jewish parents are looking elsewhere.
In the same thread, another graduate of the college responded: “i’m not a zionist but nevertheless … when i was at SLC someone graffitied a swastika onto my dorm and i had fake eviction notices slipped under my door, just because i celebrated jewish holidays. people threatened me because i went to hillel. it’s tough out there even for jews who 1000% support Palestine [sic].”
Recently, students at SLC have encouraged fellow students to boycott Abrams’ classes. Abrams explained that the boycott is because he supports “Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself” and because he is a “Zionist Jew.” Just last week, Abrams published a column detailing how the social media alumni group has allowed antisemitism directed at him.
In August, a graduate posted to the alumni group, “I asked the current Dean of Students what SLC was doing to make Jewish students feel safe. The answer was ‘nothing.’”
I emailed Dave Stanfield, the Dean of Students, about this. He responded:
While I do not comment on private conversations with students or on social media posts, I can say that the College remains committed to fostering an inclusive and supportive environment for all students, including our Jewish community. In my role, I regularly engage with students to understand their concerns and ensure their voices are reflected in our policies and programs.
This month, I reported in The Algemeiner that a graduate of Sarah Lawrence recently commented in the alumni group, “May no Zionist, be they Christian, Jewish, or atheist (because all of these exist) be safe from harassment just as white men who espouse white supremacy should not be safe from harassment either.”
Not a single graduate among the almost 3,500 who belong to this alumni group spoke up against this hateful, antisemitic comment.
This month, I also posted my first column detailing antisemitism at Sarah Lawrence on the alumni social media group. My fellow graduates regularly post our work and interests in the group, which is one of the reasons the alumni group exists. My post was initially published and then it was declined or removed. Apparently, Sarah Lawrence graduates do not like reading about their own intolerance and antisemitism.
Before my post was declined, a fellow graduate responded, “Peter Reitzes thank you for this brave post. It echoes my impression exactly and I will add that although I have given to SLC’s annual fund every year since 1983 I will no longer provide financial support to the college.”
Another graduate responded, “I wouldn’t send my dog there.”
Recently, several Sarah Lawrence graduates have denigrated the politically progressive Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the alumni group by calling it a terrorist organization. The ADL is one of the leading organizations in the world fighting hatred and antisemitism.
Emmaia Gelman — Sarah Lawrence professor and Director of the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism — has as her current Instagram profile picture a photo that reads “GO TO HELL ADL.” In 2024, Gelman shared a photo on Instagram that included the messages “NO ADL” and “SHAME ON GLAAD.” GLAAD is the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
In August, Sarah Lawrence professor Suzanne Gardinier posted on X, “That sick uniformed glee in civilian suffering I used to call Nazi—watching a whole generation learn to call it Israeli.” According to the US Department of State, one example of antisemitism is “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
It may come as a huge shock to parents spending more than $66,000 a year in tuition to send their children to Sarah Lawrence that professors would espouse such views.
Some of my fellow graduates even rely upon gaslighting or trolling arguments in attempts to deny or diminish antisemitism. In one such absurd exchange, a graduate actually stated that it is a “weak argument” for Zionists to complain of antisemitism because Palestinians are Semites too.
In another such exchange, a graduate put forth the view that it is antisemitic if you do not ask if Sarah Lawrence has “any investments in Israel that we need to divest from?” To make such a noxious view even worse, it was made by a graduate who identified herself as an instructor or professor at a nearby university.
In his most recent column, published last week, Abrams concludes: “Those numerous alumni who have engaged in anti-Semitic behavior serve as a stark reminder that SLC has not instilled the critical thinking skills necessary to foster a truly open and tolerant society.”
In early 2025, the US Department of Education opened a Title VI antisemitism investigation in response to a complaint filed by Hillel accusing the college of fostering a hostile environment towards Jewish students.
Jewish families and our allies need to stop sending our children to Sarah Lawrence. The college has chosen its side. Now it is time for Jewish families to move on from Sarah Lawrence.
Peter Reitzes writes about issues related to antisemitism and Israel.
The post Should Jewish Students Stop Attending Sarah Lawrence College? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
NYC Mayor Eric Adams Calls Zohran Mamdani an ‘Antisemite’ Who Has Embraced Hamas, Says Jews ‘Should Be Concerned’
New York City Mayor Eric Adams attends an “October 7: One Year Later” commemoration to mark the anniversary of the Hamas-led attack in Israel at the Summer Stage in Central Park on October 7, 2024, in New York City. Photo: Ron Adar/ SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
New York City Mayor Eric Adams has accused mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani of spreading antisemitic views, citing Mamdani’s past remarks and anti-Israel activism as he starts his efforts to thwart the progressive insurgent.
Adams’s repudiation comes in the aftermath of a heated mayoral Democratic primary in which Mamdani, a 33‑year‑old democratic socialist, former rapper, and New York City Assembly member, achieved a stunning upset over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday. While Mamdani has denied being antisemitic, Adams argued that some of Mamdani’s rhetoric, including his defense of the phrase “globalize the intifada,” crosses the line into inflammatory territory and risks alienating Jewish New Yorkers.
In the Thursday interview with journalist Don Lemon, Adams slammed Mamdani for his “embracing of Hamas” in his public comments and rap lyrics. The mayor labeled Hamas a “murderous organization” that murders members of the LGBTQ+ community and uses “human beings as shields” when engaging in military conflict with Israel.
“You can’t embrace Hamas, and the mere fact that you embrace Hamas says a lot,” he said.
During his rap career, Mamdani released a song praising the “Holy Land Five,” a group of five men connected to the Hamas terrorist group. The men were accused of funneling millions in cash to Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation — a charity organization that was shut down by the federal government in 2001 for having links to terrorist groups.
The mayor added that the city’s Jewish community should be “concerned” with Mamdani’s comments.
Eric Adams after campaign kickoff calls his Democratic rival, Zohran Mamdani, “an antisemite” who, he says, has embraced Hamas.
“Those who are Jewish should be concerned.” pic.twitter.com/COZSF9jHXE
— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) June 26, 2025
Adams is battling to keep his political future alive amid mounting legal and political troubles. A federal bribery probe into foreign campaign donations cast a shadow over his administration until charges were unexpectedly dropped by a Trump-aligned Justice Department, sparking accusations of political favoritism. Since then, Adams has leaned into right-wing rhetoric on crime and immigration, forging relationships with allies of US President Donald Trump and refusing to rule out a party switch, moves that have alienated Democratic leaders and progressives alike and caused his approval ratings to spiral.
Adams, who is running for reelection as an independent, had reportedly hoped for Mamdani to emerge victorious in the Democratic primary, believing that a face-off against the progressive firebrand would create an opportunity to revive his near-moribund reelection campaign by highlighting the democratic socialist’s far-left views.
Mamdani, a progressive representative in the New York State Assembly, has also sparked outrage after engaging in a series of provocative actions, such as appearing on the podcast of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas influencer Hasan Piker and vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
During an event hosted by the UJA-Federation of New York last month, Mamdani also declined to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
“I believe that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all,” Mamdani said in a carefully worded response when asked, sidestepping the issue of Israel’s existence specifically as a “Jewish state” and seemingly suggesting Israeli citizens do not enjoy equal rights.
Then during a New York City Democratic mayoral debate, he once again refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, sparking immediate backlash among the other candidates.
In 2023, while speaking at a Democratic Socialists of America convention in New York, Mamdani encouraged the audience to applaud for Palestinian American community activist Khader El-Yateem, saying, “If you don’t clap for El-Yateem, you’re a Zionist.”
High-profile Democratic leaders in New York such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have congratulated and complemented Mamdani but have not yet issued an explicit endorsement. Each lawmaker has expressed interest in meeting with Mamdani prior to making a decision on a formal endorsement, indicating discomfort within Democratic circles regarding the presumptive Democratic mayoral nominee’s meteoric rise over the past few months.
The post NYC Mayor Eric Adams Calls Zohran Mamdani an ‘Antisemite’ Who Has Embraced Hamas, Says Jews ‘Should Be Concerned’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Civil Rights Nonprofit Slams Pro-Hamas Briefs Defending Harvard Lawsuit Against Trump
April 20, 2025, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University and Harvard Square scenes with students and pedestrians. Photo: Kenneth Martin/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect.
A new amicus brief filed in the lawsuit that Harvard University brought in April to stop the Trump administration’s confiscation of some $3 billion of its federal research grants and contracts offered a blistering response to previous briefs which maligned the institution’s decision to incorporate the world’s leading definition of antisemitism into its non-discrimination policies.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, legal briefs weighing in on Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. have been pouring in from across the country, with dozens of experts, think tanks, and student groups seeking to sway the court in what has become a historic confrontation between elite higher education and the federal government — as well as a showdown between Middle American populists and coastal elites.
Harvard’s case has rallied a team of defenders, including some who are responsible for drawing scrutiny of alleged antisemitism and far-left extremism on campus.
Earlier this month, the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) — which blamed Israel for Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel mere hours after images and videos of the terrorist organization’s brutality spread online — filed a brief which compared Zionists to segregationists who defended white supremacy during Jim Crow, while arguing that Harvard’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — used by hundreds of governing institutions and widely accepted across the political spectrum — is an instrument of conspiracy and racist oppression.
“Adopting the IHRA definition, granting special status to Zionism, and penalizing pro-Palestinian student groups risks violating the Title VI rights of Palestinians on campus,” the filing said. “There is ample evidence that adoption of IHRA and other policies which limit speech supporting Palestinian rights are motivated by an intent to selectively silence Palestinians and students who advocate on behalf of Palestinians. Such action cannot be required by, and indeed appear to violate, Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act].”
The document added, “Though the main text of the definition is relatively benign, the illustrative examples — seven of the eleven which pertain to criticism of Israel — make clear that they are aimed at preventing Palestinians from speaking about their oppression.”
Similar arguments were put forth in other briefs submitted by groups which have cheered Hamas and spread blood libels about Israel’s conduct in Gaza, including the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and other anti-Zionist groups.
“Harvard’s incorporation of IHRA was an overdue and necessary response to the virulent and unchecked antisemitic discrimination and harassment on its campus,” the Brandeis Center said in its response to the arguments, noting that Harvard itself has determined that embracing the definition is consistent with its obligations under Title VI, which have been reiterated and stressed by the US Office for Civil Rights (OCR) guidance and two executive orders issued by President Donald Trump.
“Misunderstandings about what antisemitism means — and the form it takes — have long plagued efforts to address antisemitic conduct. Modern versions of antisemitism draw not only on ancient tropes, but also coded attacks on Zionism and the Jewish state, which often stand in for the Jewish people in modern antisemitic parlance,” the organization continued. “Sadly, this is nothing new: Soviet propagandists for decades used the term ‘Zionist’ or ‘Zio’ in this coded way. This practice has become commonplace among antisemites in academia who seek to avoid being labeled as racists.”
The Brandeis Center also argued that IHRA does not “punish or chill speech” but “provides greater transparency and clarity as to the meaning of antisemitism while honoring the university’s rules protecting free speech and expression.” The group stopped short of urging a decision either for or against Harvard, imploring the court to “disregard” the briefs submitted by PSC, JVP, and MESA.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard sued the Trump administration, arguing that it bypassed key procedural steps it must, by law, take before sequestering federal funds. It also said that the Trump administration does not aim, as it has publicly pledged, to combat campus antisemitism at Harvard but to impose “viewpoint-based conditions on Harvard’s funding.”
The Trump administration has proposed that Harvard reform in ways that conservatives have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Its “demands,” contained in a letter the administration sent to interim Harvard president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implored Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
On Monday, the attorneys general of Iowa, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, and 12 other states said the Trump administration took appropriate action to quell what they described as Harvard University’s flagrant violation of civil rights laws concerning its handling of the campus antisemitism crisis as well as its past history of violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause by practicing racial preferences in admissions.
“Harvard both admits that it has a problem with antisemitism and acknowledges that problem as the reason it needs a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. Yet when the federal government acted to rectify that acknowledged violation of federal law through a negotiated practice, Harvard cried retaliation,” the attorneys general said in their own brief. “Its characterization of its refusal to follow federal nondiscrimination law as First Amendment speech is sheer chutzpah.”
They continued, “There is strong evidence of Harvard’s discriminatory animus, and the First Amendment does not shield it from consequences. This court should deny summary judgement and allow the federal government to proceed with enforcing the law. Perhaps if Harvard faces consequences for violating federal antidiscrimination law, it will finally stop violating federal antidiscrimination law.”
Trump addressed a potential “deal” to settle the matter with Harvard last Friday, writing on his Truth Social platform, saying a “deal will be announced over the next week or so” while praising the university’s legal counsel for having “acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right.” He added, “If a settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.”
To date, Harvard has held its own against the federal government, building a war chest with a massive bond sale and notching a recent legal victory in the form of an injunction granted by a federal job which halted the administration’s restrictions on its international students — a policy that is being contested in a separate lawsuit. Garber has reportedly confirmed that the administration and Trump are discussing an agreement that would be palatable to all parties.
According to a report published by The Harvard Crimson on Thursday, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
The Crimson added, “He also did not discuss how close a deal could be and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying on steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the University and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Civil Rights Nonprofit Slams Pro-Hamas Briefs Defending Harvard Lawsuit Against Trump first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
University of Virginia President Resigns Amid DEI Controversy With Trump Administration
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media as US Attorney General Pam Bondi and US Attorney General Todd Blanche listen, on June 27, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect
The University of Virginia (UVA) is without a president following the reported resignation of James Ryan, a move which the US Justice Department stipulated as a condition of settling a civil rights case brought against the institution over its practicing racial preferences in admissions and hiring, a policy it justified as fostering “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI).
As first reported by The New York Times, Ryan tendered his resignation in a letter to the university’s corporate board on Thursday, noting that he had originally intended to step down at the conclusion of the 2025-2026 academic year. Recent events hastened the decision, the Times added, including several board members’ insisting that Ryan leave to prevent the institution’s losing “hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding” that the Trump administration would have impounded had he remained in office.
Ryan drew the scrutiny of the Justice Department, having allegedly defied a landmark Supreme Court ruling which outlawed establishing racial identity as the determinant factor for admission to the university as well as a series of executive orders US President Donald Trump issued to shutter DEI initiatives being operated in the public and private sectors. Such programs have been accused of fostering a new “anti-white” bigotry which penalizes individual merit and undermines the spirit of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement by, for example, excluding white males from jobs and prestigious academic positions for which they are qualified.
Another DEI-adjacent practice was identified at UVA in 2024, when the Equal Protection Project, a Rhode Island based nonprofit, filed a civil rights complaint against the university which argued that its holding a BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) Alumni-Student Mentoring Program is discriminatory, claiming no public official would think it appropriate to sanction a mentoring program for which the sole membership criterion is being white. UVA later changed the description of the program, claiming that it is open to “all races, ethnicities, and national origins” even as it stressed that it was “created with BIPOC students in mind.”
The university’s tactics were allegedly employed to hide other DEI programs from lawmakers and taxpayers, with Ryan reportedly moving and concealing them behind new names. He quickly exhausted the patience of the Trump Justice Department, which assumed office only months after the BIPOC program was reported to federal authorities.
“This is further demonstration that the Trump administration is brutally serious about enforcement of civil rights laws. This will send shock waves throughout higher education, and it should,” Kenneth Marcus, chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told The Algemeiner on Friday, commenting on the news. “It is a clear message that university leaders will be held accountable, personally and professionally, if they fail to ensure their institutions’ compliance.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the Trump administration is leading a campaign against colleges and universities it has deemed as soft on campus antisemitism or excessively “woke.” Over the past several months, the administration has imposed catastrophic financial sanctions on elite universities including Harvard and Columbia, rattling a higher education establishment against which conservatives have lodged a slew of criticisms for decades. The actions coincide with a precipitous drop in public support for academia caused by an explosion of pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses and the promotion of views which many Americans perceive as anti-meritocratic, anti-Western, and racist.
Since January, the administration has impounded $3 billion in Harvard’s federal funds over the institution’s refusal to agree to a wishlist of policy reforms that Republican lawmakers have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Contained in a letter the administration sent to Harvard interim president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — the policies called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implore Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
Columbia University has announced that it acceded to similar demands put forth by the Trump administration as prerequisites for the restoration of its federal funds — including a review of undergraduate admissions practices that allegedly discriminate against qualified Jewish applicants, the enforcement of an “anti-mask” policy that protesters have violated to avoid being identified by law enforcement, and enhancements to the university’s security protocols that would facilitate the restoration of order when the campus is disturbed by unauthorized demonstrations.
Harvard is reportedly prepared to strike a deal with Trump as well, according to a Thursday report by The Harvard Crimson.
Garber, the paper said, held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
The Crimson added, “He also did not discuss how close a deal could be and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying on steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the university and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”
Meanwhile, others continue to argue that Trump’s reforms of higher education threaten to mire the university in politics while describing Ryan’s resignation as a setback for academic freedom.
“It is a sign that major public research universities are substantially controlled by a political party whose primary goal is to further its partisan agenda and will stop at nothing to bring the independence of higher education to heel,” Michigan State University professor Brendan Cantwell told Inside Higher Ed on Friday. “It undercuts both the integrity of academic communities as self-governing based on the judgement of expert professionals and the traditional accountability that public universities have to their states via formal and established governance mechanisms.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post University of Virginia President Resigns Amid DEI Controversy With Trump Administration first appeared on Algemeiner.com.