Antisemitism and the Corruption of Liberal Arts

At a time when academic institutions should be bastions of critical thinking and open debate, Connecticut College stands as a cautionary tale of how ideological bias and unchecked antisemitism will corrode the foundation of liberal arts education. Unlike the high-profile protests that have disrupted campuses nationwide, Connecticut College’s descent into illiberalism unfolded quietly – but no less destructively – within its faculty and administration.

Connecticut College is a small liberal arts school in New London, CT, and it bears a distinction no other school can claim: Nearly a third of its faculty signed a letter openly acknowledging their acceptance of antisemitic views.

Over the course of three college presidential administrations, anti-Israel activism and rhetoric have diminished the school’s ability to fulfill its mission as a liberal arts institution.

I graduated from Connecticut College nearly 50 years ago.  It was a college that championed the liberal arts.  The pursuit of truth was the focus of its pedagogy.  Students were taught critical thinking, how to embrace and challenge dissenting views, and the skills to present oneself clearly and persuasively.

Those ideals have been compromised by faculty members who traffic in antisemitism and an administration and board of trustees that have failed to fulfill their leadership responsibilities.

The devolution into demonization of Israel

The problems began in early 2023 when then-President Katherine Bergeron scheduled a fundraiser at the Everglades Club in Palm Beach, Florida.  That club had a history of antisemitism and racist policies during the first half of the 20^th century, and those problems were subsequently addressed by the club.  But the faculty called for Bergeron’s resignation, in part because of antisemitism, and the board of trustees complied.  This was a false accusation. Many private clubs, in Palm Beach and elsewhere, had discriminatory policies that lasted into the 1970s, and, like the Everglades Club, have made the necessary and appropriate corrections.  Bergeron did nothing wrong and was the victim of the board’s failure to properly assess the situation.

Bergeron was replaced by an interim president, Les Wong, who came from San Francisco State University, where he had faced genuine accusations of antisemitism.  At that school, he failed to respond to incidents where anti-Zionist students disrupted classes and declined to say whether Zionists were welcome on its campus.

Wong was president on October 7, 2023, and a couple of weeks later sent an email to all students, faculty and alumni that falsely accused Israel of “indiscriminate bombing” in Gaza.  He implied a moral equivalence between Hamas, which raped, mutilated and murdered innocent civilians, and Israel, which responded militarily to defend itself.

This marked the onset an anti-Israel assault led by faculty members.  It began on May 2, 2024, when a letter appeared on the website of the college newspaper, with the signatures of 95 faculty and staff.  I determined that 75 of the 95 were faculty, representing 28% of its teachers.  The letter meets the IHRA definition of antisemitism by accusing Israel of apartheid and genocide based on “Jewish superiority,” and denying that Zionism is based on Jewish ancestry and a homeland in Israel.

One can only imagine how many more faculty members harbored antisemitic feelings but chose to keep them private by not signing the letter.

One faculty member, Andrew Pessin, wrote a powerful response to the letter, which you can read here.

Faculty members then began a series of what they called “educational” webinars on the “Israel-Palestine issue.” It was sponsored and funded by the office of the dean of the faculty.  Since the spring of 2024, there have been 13 webinars, and I have attended five of them.

During those webinars, the audience was subjected to a parade of anti-Israel, patently and provably false accusations: indiscriminate bombing, war crimes, violations of international law, intentional targeting of civilians, starvation, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, genocide, etc.  On at least two occasions, the speakers transgressed from anti-Israel criticism to antisemitism.  One speaker said that Israel’s actions against Hamas were the result of a racial bias prevalent among Israelis, and another held Israel to a double standard by accusing it of genocide while absolving the crimes of Hamas and Syria under Assad against civilian populations.

The Connecticut College faculty moderators never challenged those false accusations.  Indeed, they purposely amplified them by omitting any critical analysis.  Presenters routinely made assumptions and cited sources that had documented and verified biases, yet the faculty accepted their every word as truthful.

Most striking was the absence of moral clarity in any of these webinars.  Israel was consistently portrayed as the aggressor and oppressor, and those in Gaza as innocent victims.  Hamas and Hezbollah were not portrayed as terrorist organizations; they were merely the military arm of organizations that provide social services.  No mention was made that Israel has never started a war, or that it allowed 15,000 to 20,000 Gaza civilian workers into Israel daily prior to October 7 (who then used the information they gathered to plan their attack), or of the extensive measures the Israel Defense Forces have taken to avoid civilian casualties.  In this upside-down world that the Connecticut College antisemitic faculty members inhabit, the Jewish people lack any degree of moral compassion and are guilty of all the death and destruction that the Palestinians have suffered.

Pessin calls the webinars the “Hate Series,” and his critique illustrates just how horrific they are.

These webinars were not educational; they were activism targeted at college students.  This achieved the faculty’s desired result.  Students lobbied the board of trustees to divest from weapons manufacturers to punish Israel.  According to the students, they met with the board for “over a year” to advocate for this policy.  It is disappointing that the board would give this policy serious consideration because, if passed, it would be antisemitic.  The board chose not to divest.

The bias extends from the webinars to the school’s curriculum, which features anti-Israel, hate-fueled teachings.  One professor proudly proclaimed that she instructs students that “no reasonable historian does not think Israel is guilty of settler colonialism.”  She teaches the course “Israel and Palestine” in the government department.  I obtained the reading list for this course, and it is completely one-sided and designed to demonize Israel and make the case that it is illegally occupying Palestinian lands and displacing the population through settler colonialism. That is the central argument made by Rashid Kahlidi and James Galvin, who are the two primary sources for reading materials.  There are 10 web sites cited as information sources, and every one of them is biased and propagandizes against Israel.  There are readings from Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein, two widely discredited authors whose scholarship has been shown to be inaccurate.  Finkelstein endorsed a book by a Holocaust denier, David Irving.

This is not a course designed to educate students; it is designed to incite hatred of Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people.

How did this happen?

I can offer two reasons for Connecticut’s failures.  It has made diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) a priority since 2019, hiring a DEI officer and setting numerous diversity goals.  The school’s website lists a dozen individuals associated with its DEI efforts. One of its goals is to “Increase the compositional diversity of the staff.”

Faculty diversity is a laudable goal, because it exposes students to different viewpoints.  I don’t know what accomplishments have been made in this respect, but the downside has been a faculty that is ideologically aligned against Israel and supportive of antisemitism.  Whatever efforts the college made to hire a faculty of diverse opinions were a failure.  The data proves this.

More importantly, the leadership of the college – its presidents and board of trustees – have facilitated the amplification of the anti-Israel rhetoric and failed to respond to its consequences. Every president – whether it is an educational institution, corporation, or political office – inherits problems, and it is incumbent on them to correct the errors of their predecessors.  It is shameful that President Chapdelaine has not responded to the letter, the webinars, or the course curriculum, and it is equally distressing that the board of trustees has allowed these problems to persist and grow.

Shortly after beginning her presidency, Chapdelaine issued a statement of institutional neutrality, following the Chicago principles, saying that she would not comment on political or social issues.  This is commendable, but she also promised to speak out on “challenges facing higher education.”  Her silence leaves the message that antisemitism is not a challenge that concerns her.

Imagine if a group of professors ran a series of webinars focusing on Islamic terrorism or on violence by Black protestors in the wake of George Floyd’s murder.  There would be justifiable outrage by the students, and the college leadership would quickly condemn it.

But when the hatred turns to Israel, all we hear is silence.

The corruption of liberal arts at Connecticut College was encapsulated in a comment during one of the webinars. The faculty moderator confirmed that her educational mission was not to present the “other side” of the argument, but to facilitate a “search for the truth.”  But the only truth that she sees is the demonization of Israel, and that is the only side of the argument she deems worth presenting.

When liberal arts education loses sight of its mission to welcome critical analysis and competing viewpoints, it becomes illiberal.

I sent emails to Presidents Wong and Chapdelaine, offering to travel to New London to discuss this issue.  The only response I received was from Chapdelaine, who said that the letter happened before she took office, and it was not her concern.  My emails and phone calls to the dean of the faculty and to the rabbi at the Hillel were not returned.  I spoke with one member of the board of trustees, and the only effort she cited in response to these issues was a video some students were creating to provide education about antisemitism.

I had dinner a week ago with a friend who, like many of my close friends, lived in the same dormitory as me during our freshman year.  “Connecticut College is not the same school we knew and loved,” he said.  “You have to put this behind you and move on.”

He’s right.

The decline of Connecticut College is not just a tragedy for its Jewish students – it is a warning for academia. When universities abandon truth in favor of ideological conformity, they cease to be institutions of learning and become platforms for activism. Alumni, trustees, and concerned educators must demand better, lest the liberal arts tradition be lost to the forces of bias and intolerance.