Columbia’s New Antisemitism Definition: Real Progress or Political Spin?

StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein called the adoption “a crucial step” toward addressing antisemitism, noting that the U.S. Department of Education uses the same definition in Title VI investigations. She stressed the IHRA definition is "a tool for understanding, not a restriction on speech,” and urged universities to pair it with robust enforcement of anti-discrimination policies.

But Jeffrey Lax, a CUNY law professor, warned Columbia’s rollout appears to confine the definition to “training and education,” avoiding integration into disciplinary codes. “If it’s not in policy, it’s meaningless,” Lax said, likening the move to “sleight of hand” at other universities.

The IHRA definition, which describes antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews” often expressed as hatred, includes examples that link some anti-Israel rhetoric to antisemitism. That connection is at the core of the controversy.

Professor Rashid Khalidi, a prominent critic of Israeli policy, canceled his Middle Eastern history course in protest, calling the definition “disingenuous” and claiming it equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Pro-Palestinian student groups echoed his concern, warning it would muzzle advocacy and restrict calls for divestment.

The agreement also commits Columbia to a “Zero Tolerance” policy toward certain pro-Palestinian organizations and to launch training programs in partnership with the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups.

The deal follows a turbulent year on campus marked by large-scale pro-Palestinian protests, building occupations, and incidents in which university officials were caught mocking Jewish leaders during an antisemitism panel.

Whether the new definition will serve as a genuine tool for combating hate or as a symbolic gesture remains an open question, one that will be tested when the first disciplinary cases arise.