Campus hate costs in US; Not in Europe

TL;DR: In the United States, universities act against antisemitism because the legal, financial, and reputational costs of inaction are high. In Europe, such costs barely exist, making avoidance the safest choice. To stop this social cancer from spilling from campuses into public life, Europe must build genuine accountability: enforce anti-discrimination laws, impose legal and financial consequences, and make inaction impossible.

Antisemitism no longer hides on campus

Since October 7, an unsettling reality has become impossible to ignore: on too many campuses, antisemitism no longer lurks in the shadows. It takes a seat in lecture halls, finds cover in faculty statements, and marches openly at student events. Once recognised as one of the most destructive forms of hate in modern history, it is now too often reframed – and excused – as legitimate political expression.

This is not unique to one side of the Atlantic. The patterns are similar in the United States and Europe, but the responses could not be more different. The difference is not in moral stance, since universities in both contexts claim to oppose antisemitism, but in the structures that surround them.

Why American universities act

In the United States, universities operate inside a dense web of legal, financial, and reputational incentives that make inaction costly.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any institution receiving federal funds, a framework that Jewish students have successfully used to challenge antisemitic harassment. Litigation risk from students and staff, scrutiny from national media, and political pressure from Congress combine to make antisemitism a high-stakes issue.

The link between incidents and consequences is direct: reputational damage undermines recruitment and alumni giving; lawsuits produce financial settlements and policy changes. Even controversial interventions, such as the Trump administration’s decision to withhold federal research funding from elite universities over their handling of antisemitism cases, reinforced the message: when accountability is real, university leadership cannot afford to treat antisemitism as a low-priority issue.

Why European universities don’t

European higher education operates on fundamentally different grounds. Most universities are publicly funded, their survival unrelated to tuition revenue or alumni donations, and they enjoy substantial autonomy from both political and donor influence.

Anti-discrimination laws exist on paper but are rarely enforced in the academic sphere. A deep cultural emphasis on institutional independence reinforces the reluctance to intervene. Antisemitism is too often treated as a “sensitive” political matter rather than a procedural breach, inviting avoidance and delay.

When action is taken, it is often symbolic: equating antisemitism with unrelated or imagined “parallel” issues such as Islamophobia, allowing administrators to claim balance while avoiding decisive protection for Jewish and Israeli students.

The role of pressure, and its absence

In the US, Jewish and Israeli students benefit from a multi-directional network of advocates: legal organizations, alumni groups, and national advocacy networks that apply pressure through lawsuits, media campaigns, and donor leverage. Public rankings assess universities on responsiveness to antisemitism, translating complex evaluations into clear scores understood by parents, prospective students, and policymakers. Inaction becomes visible and costly.

Europe lacks any equivalent. Jewish communities are fragmented by language, jurisdiction, and population size. National leadership often prioritizes cordial relations with university administrators over public confrontation. Closed-door dialogue dominates, outcomes are rarely measured, and performance expectations remain minimal. Without sustained exposure or credible consequences, European administrations feel no urgency to act.

The Dutch example: From campus to civic space

The Netherlands illustrates the wider consequences of institutional complacency. Dutch law prohibits discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, or nationality, yet universities have adopted “ethical” policies that enable it. In recent months, ethics committees at several institutions have decided to boycott Israeli academic partners, citing alleged human rights violations. Such boycotts explicitly target nationality, a form of discrimination that would be illegal if directed at any other group, yet they are framed as a moral necessity.

Equally troubling is the willingness to host speakers affiliated with organisations such as Samidoun, designated by multiple governments as supporting terrorist activity. On Dutch campuses, these speakers have distributed antisemitic propaganda, called for Israel’s destruction, and recycled medieval blood libels, all under the banner of political activism.

Some Dutch universities have responded to rising tensions not by safeguarding open debate, but by silencing Jewish and pro-Israel voices, while allowing pro-Palestinian activism, even when linked to extremist groups, to proceed unhindered.

A clear example came on 19 May 2025, when American Jewish activist Shabbos Kestenbaum was due to lecture at Maastricht University. Although the event had been approved, the university cancelled it after it failed to protect a previous gathering, and imposed a blanket suspension on all Israeli-Palestinian discussions, a policy that, in practice, shut down only Jewish and pro-Israel events. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian groups, including those hosting speakers from Samidoun and distributing hate speech, continued without interruption. When organizers obtained an alternative venue from the Maastricht city municipality, the mayor vetoed the decision, forcing the lecture to be held in a private home.

COWARDS:

The Dutch Union of Jewish Students invited me to give a lecture at the University of Maastricht next week.

The students just informed me the University has suddenly cancelled the lecture due to "security concerns."

I have offered to provide my own security at no… pic.twitter.com/UnORDq9ZSU

— Shabbos Kestenbaum (@ShabbosK) May 14, 2025

In another case, a student group posted a song titled “Kill all Zionists” on social media. The group was neither sanctioned nor removed; it retained university-provided office space, granting institutional legitimacy to its campaign of intimidation.

These failures are not confined to academia. The same activists reappear in public demonstrations where antisemitic slogans have surfaced in Dutch train stations, at the opening of the Holocaust Museum in Amsterdam, and at civic events such as Amsterdam Gay Pride and the International Four Days Marches in Nijmegen. Campus antisemitism in Europe is not a subculture; it is a generator of narratives that bleed directly into society.

Closing the accountability gap

The American model cannot be imported wholesale into Europe, but its underlying principle is universal: universities must face tangible consequences for failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students and staff.

Europe must move beyond polite ambiguity toward direct confrontation with antisemitism, whether it appears as “mere” anti-Zionism, academic jargon, or activist rhetoric. Boycotts targeting Israel should be recognized as discriminatory, not legitimized as ethical stances.

Jewish communities and allies should press for equal enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and reject ideological preconditions for inclusion. Where existing structures fail, new ones must be built:

• Legal defense funds to support victims and pursue strategic litigation.
• Real-time reporting platforms to document incidents and guide policy.
• Leadership academies to train future advocates.
• Independent cultural and academic spaces where Jewish identity can thrive.

Political alliances must be earned through demonstrable solidarity with Jewish safety and Israel’s legitimacy, not assumed by rhetoric alone. The false divide between antisemitism and anti-Zionism must be exposed as a shield for hate.

The price of inaction

Antisemitism persists where it is cost-free. Until Europe imposes real legal and financial consequences, from litigation and formal complaints under EU law to demands for restitution, universities will continue to treat it as someone else’s problem.

If European higher education does not close its accountability gap, it will not only fail its Jewish students. It will also help normalize a prejudice that, once unleashed, rarely confines itself to the campus gates.