Q. This has been some year for the world and also pretty shaking for those of us with kids applying to college. My daughter was accepted at a very good school, but she was waitlisted at an Ivy and she would like to go there, but I am concerned about antisemitism. My son is applying next year and I’m wondering how I help him make the decision where to apply?
A. By now, I assume you are aware of the report put out by the ADL, which grades colleges on three categories: Administrative actions/policies, Jewish life on campus, and prevalence of antisemitic incidents. Policies include religious exemption rules, mandatory antisemitism training, and mentioning antisemitism in their code of conduct. Administrative actions cover issuing an official statement against BDS or Hamas atrocities, establishing an antisemitism advisory council and having an effective reporting process for antisemitic incidents. This is useful to see the general attitude of the school’s administration, but it does not really speak to the lived experiences of the students on the campus. We all know that the best reporting process in the world is useless if kids don’t feel comfortable coming forward.
The second section of the report focused on Jewish life on campus, including Kosher dining options, Hillel/Jewish Greek life, and religious services. What it doesn’t say, and what you, frankly, cannot know, is whether your child will gravitate towards Jewish life on campus. They might participate more in a school with a small Jewish life since they feel it’s important to create community, or they might feel more comfortable participating in an already-established Jewish life. Or they may decide to “take a vacation” from Jewish community and practice. Their attitudes towards this may also change as they go through college, and so might the Jewish life on campus, but, ultimately, it’s up to the child what they make of it. We cannot predict the future or what will happen on a particular campus. A school with an established Hillel might see a popular rabbi leave, which could change the whole culture and involvement in worship activities and political involvement. A school could get a new endowment for Jewish life, and suddenly see its programs expand and attract new members.
The third section of the report card tracks prevalence of antisemitic incidents. This section aggregates the number of reports made by individuals to the ADL has received regarding antisemitic or antizionist activity. It also tracks the presence of hostile student groups or speakers and student government actions. Of course, this relies on the student culture on campus. Are students inclined to report every incident, or do they not want to bother? Do they fear retaliation if they speak up? The environment itself influences the outside perception of antisemitic activity, regardless of the state of the campus.
Various universities and members of their campuses have objected to these classifications. Some say it’s an oversimplification to reduce a complex situation to a single letter grade (though the ADL does provide write-ups on their site for every University explaining the reasoning behind their decision). The fact the matter is, a grade like this is always going to be incongruous with individual student experiences on campus. That’s the nature of any sort of average. Moreover, the report is based on collecting data in the past and evaluating policies at a fixed moment in time. The ADL attempts to mitigate this by including “tags” on their rankings, such as “Recent Action” or “Active Litigation Pending.”
I don’t know if you’re aware of some of the rebuttals or responses to this survey. One of the problems with the survey is that, by reducing incidents of antisemitism to a number, it removes the role of the student who reported it. Antisemitism is indeed alive and well in many university campuses. We should never gloss over threats of killing and that’s true whether it’s an individual or a group who does the threatening, but we lose important information when we separate the report from the student. Where the report card can be useful is in communicating what strategies work and don’t work in mitigating harassment.
We know that the worst actions are the ones that get the headlines. In a March 18 lecture by Rabbi Wolpe, an original member of the committee to explore the threats at Harvard, only a small percentage of students participate in egregious name calling and threatening behavior. A small group of Jewish students can affect the perception of antisemitic incidents based on whether they report them or not, and a small group of anti-Israel students can heavily affect media coverage of a campus climate.
I began writing this column on Sunday, April 14, the day after Iran bombed Israel. So much of what we knew about the conflict in Israel and worldwide opinion changed in almost a minute. I now write on April 30, as tent cities have arisen on college campuses across the United States. We all want our children to be safe, but none of us can know whether the colleges experiencing the most turmoil now will figure out how to make fair and firm rules that protect all students and freedom of speech. We cannot know which demonstrations will remain peaceful and civil and which will turn to hateful name calling and potential violence.
The question of “which college is safest for my child” is never one that we can definitively answer. What we can do, however, is examine the responses of schools when allegations of antisemitism surface. Do they get defensive, or do they spring into action? We can also empower our children to ask questions of the school and of current students about Jewish activities on campus and the general campus climate. I wish I could give you a more definitive answer, but ultimately, the way to see through all the noise and news coverage is to talk to the people on campuses directly, but with the full recognition that things can change in an instant.