The Weaponization of Antisemitism: A Wedge Issue for Jews and Blacks

The weaponization of antisemitism has emerged as a wedge issue within the broader conversation about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) on college campuses. A major factor fueling this debate is the skepticism surrounding President Trump’s concern for antisemitism given some of his past comments and behaviors. Especially given his well-articulated goal and actions to wipe out any vestige of DEI in the government or in society.

Adding to the tension, Jewish individuals such as Bill Ackman, Marc Rowan, Clifford Asness, and Ron Lauder—prominent figures who have historically supported social justice causes—have recently aligned themselves with anti-woke and anti-DEI movements. Borrowing a technique from shareholder activism, these figures have either pledged to withhold donations or demand changes to universities that do not overhaul their DEI practices. Now the Trump administration is using its muscle to not only fight antisemitism, but dismantle DEI on college campuses.

The weaponization of antisemitism is being strategically employed not only to address real issues but also to dismantle critical DEI programs in higher education. This tactic—often deployed by those who benefit from anti-woke and anti-DEI rhetoric—aligns with political agendas that seek to shift focus from genuine threats of antisemitism to a larger cultural war against equity and inclusion initiatives in academia. The role of key Jewish figures in this fight further complicates the narrative and creates a political proxy battle.

While figures like Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan represent a vocal faction of Jewish donors critical of DEI, they do not speak for the entirety of the Jewish community. Many other Jewish organizations—such as J Street and the Jewish Federations of North America—continue to advocate for progressive DEI policies, emphasizing that academic freedom and Jewish safety are not mutually exclusive.

Historically, Jewish communities have been strong supporters of racial justice, with many prominent Jewish figures playing key roles in the Civil Rights Movement. This legacy of solidarity with Black Americans in their fight for equity and justice underscores the importance of maintaining DEI programs, which have been crucial in advancing social justice for all marginalized groups. The current tension arises when Jewish safety and academic freedom are framed as opposing forces in a broader political battle.

For many, the situation has left Black, Jewish, and Arab students and other marginalized groups in a difficult position: Do they support President Trump’s efforts to address rising antisemitism, or do they stand by the DEI programs that have provided a framework for promoting equity and diversity on campuses?

While it is undeniable that antisemitism is a growing threat, especially on campuses, it is crucial that this issue not be used as a Trojan horse to dismantle DEI programs, which are essential to creating inclusive and diverse environments for all students. The tension between Jewish safety and support for DEI creates a complex issue that requires a balanced, nuanced approach. This includes distinguishing between legitimate political expression (such as criticism of Israel) and hate speech that targets Jews or any other marginalized group.

It is important to note that the debate over antisemitism and DEI is not only driven by external forces but also by the students and faculty who are deeply engaged in creating inclusive environments on campuses. These individuals, who participate in DEI programs and advocacy, represent a more holistic and diverse view of Jewish identity, one that emphasizes the need for safe, inclusive environments for all marginalized groups.

Selective outrage on antisemitism—where political figures focus exclusively on antisemitic rhetoric but ignore other hate crimes, such as anti-Black or anti-Muslim sentiments, weakens the credibility of calls for action. This selective focus divides coalitions of marginalized communities, making it harder to foster solidarity between Jewish, Black, Muslim, and other minority groups who all face forms of racial and religious hatred. A holistic approach to combating all forms of hate is essential for maintaining the integrity of DEI programs.

I. From Campus Tragedy to National Proxy-Fight

On 7 October 2023, Hamas massacred 1,200 Israelis. Within hours, a bloc of more than thirty Harvard student groups issued a statement blaming Israel “entirely.” Counter-protests, doxxing trucks, and social-media threats followed; swastikas appeared in dorm stairwells, and Jewish students reported removing mezuzot from their doors. Donors froze millions, congressional committees hauled President Claudine Gay to Washington, and a cascade of Title VI civil-rights complaints landed at the Department of Education.

Harvard’s administration faced two realities at once:

• A real antisemitism problem—students were being harassed, doxxed, and physically intimidated.

• A political pile-on—outside litigators and some Christian-nationalist groups filed boiler-plate lawsuits that openly promised to “bring about the end of DEI.”

The resulting maelstrom turned Harvard into a test-case for what critics call the “weaponization of antisemitism”.

II. What “Weaponization” Means—and Doesn’t

The weaponization of antisemitism is not the denial of real Jew-hatred. It describes the strategic use of antisemitism accusations to silence debate or advance unrelated agendas:

III. The ADL’s Actual Stance

On 30 April 2025, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) welcomed Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism, calling it “long overdue.” But the same statement made two boundaries clear:

• Keep DEI. Jonathan Greenblatt warned that abolishing diversity initiatives “would leave every minority on campus less safe.”

• Protect speech. The ADL draws a line between harsh, even offensive criticism of Israel (protected) and speech that demonizes Jews as Jews or glorifies violence (unprotected). Their campus guidance demands content-neutral rules, not political litmus tests.

In short, the ADL wants more antisemitism literacy inside DEI, not the destruction of DEI—and it refuses the false choice between Jewish safety and free inquiry.

IV. A Balanced Playbook for Universities

The ADL’s position calls for a nuanced approach to combating antisemitism without sacrificing free speech or DEI programs. Universities must repair, not repeal, DEI and address antisemitism through education and inclusive strategies. A balanced playbook could look like this:

• Fix, don’t repeal DEI. Add mandatory modules on antisemitic tropes and modern conspiracy myths. This ensures DEI programs remain in place while addressing antisemitism within them.

• Two-tier definitions. Use the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) language for bias-training “radar,” but apply the narrower Jerusalem Declaration for punishable conduct, preserving robust Israel-Palestine debate.

• Content-neutral security rules. Ban doxxing, threats, or terror glorification—full stop—while protecting leaflets and teach-ins.

• Data transparency. Publish quarterly dashboards of all bias incidents (anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-Black, etc.) so no group feels gas-lighted.

• Coalition governance. Seat Hillel, Black Student Union, Muslim Students Association, LGBTQ groups, and disability activists on a standing council to co-design response protocols.

V. Why the Fight Matters Beyond Cambridge

The Harvard crisis is not an isolated incident. The same Title VI tactics now target universities like Arizona State, Princeton, and UMass. These tactics aim to defund DEI or reshape how universities approach academic freedom and free speech. Donor leverage is a significant factor—if big checks can recast academic freedom around one issue, they can do so on any hot-button debate tomorrow. This raises concerns about academic independence and the broader implications for higher education.

Moreover, the coalition integrity among minority groups is at risk. Jews, Black students, and other marginalized communities need equity spaces that neither erase Jewish identity nor pit minorities against each other. The over-use of the antisemitism label diminishes its moral power, as evidenced by record-high incidents across various minority groups, not just Jews.

VI. Conclusion: Hold Two Truths at Once

Harvard does face a serious antisemitism problem; Jewish students deserve safety. But treating that crisis as a Trojan horse to gut DEI or throttle speech would betray both Jewish security and academic freedom. The ADL’s message is clear: fight Jew-hatred rigorously and uphold the broader equity mission. Only a nuanced, consistently applied framework—not partisan weaponization—can meet both imperatives.

In conclusion, Harvard’s current crisis—and the broader national debate—highlights the need for a nuanced, balanced approach. While the rise of antisemitism must be addressed vigorously, this should not come at the expense of dismantling DEI programs, which are foundational for the inclusion of all marginalized communities. The ADL’s stance—that we must fight antisemitism without undermining DEI—is the path forward. Only by upholding both Jewish safety and academic freedom can we build truly inclusive institutions for the future.