What It Takes for Universities to Address Antisemitism: Lessons From 5 Campuses
Calls to cancel controversial speakers are often loud on college campuses across the country. But a few years ago, one college proved there’s an equally effective response that doesn’t require canceling anything.
A student group at Queens College had invited a speaker with a public record of Holocaust denial and other hateful statements to campus, and rather than forcefully canceling the event, then-President Wu issued the strongest condemnation the college could make. He unequivocally distanced the college from the speaker and explained why their views were abhorrent, all without silencing the speaker or the student group that invited them.
The event moved forward as planned, but what happened stands as proof that you can counter hate through strong language and leadership. How a university handles a moment like that says as much about its institutional character as any mission statement, and for Jewish college students, moments like these also serve as a measure of how much they can count on being protected.
Queens College’s leadership in this scenario is a clear example of how universities are supporting Jewish students now more than ever, and the data backs it up. The 2024 ADL Campus Antisemitism Report Card gave an A or B to just 24 percent of assessed colleges and universities, and the figure rose to 61 percent in 2026. That is real, measurable progress. Improved leadership translates directly to the student experience as well — in 2025, ADL recorded 583 antisemitic incidents on college and university campuses, a decline from the record 1,694 incidents in 2024. There is clearly a good reason for cautious optimism. But it is not yet a declaration of victory.
We know that antisemitism persists in higher education, and with the progress we’ve made, we can now present concrete solutions for how all campus leaders can address it. As Regional Director of ADL New York/New Jersey, I’ve met with campus leaders across the region seeking to understand how to make policy and cultural changes that better protect Jewish students. Six schools in our region ultimately earned an A in 2026: Baruch College, Brooklyn College, New York University, Queens College, SUNY Rockland Community College and Vassar College.
Leaders from these schools joined me for a conversation on the From the Frontlines podcast, and despite their institutions differing significantly in size, location, and resources, four common building blocks emerged from our discussion that I hope other universities can apply on their own campuses.
1. Lead vocally
Respecting different points of view does not mean that institutions necessarily need to stay silent. Queens College’s administration demonstrated how to communicate in a way where all involved groups walk away feeling heard.
Campus leaders will inevitably confront speech they cannot or should not prohibit, but a strong, timely message tells Jewish students that their university sees what is happening and takes it seriously. Queens College has not encountered any other issues with student groups and speakers since then.
2. Create clarity and enforce rules consistently
A policy is only as strong as an institution’s willingness to apply it. For instance, NYU already had strong policies on paper, but Vice President Rodriguez said that enforcing the rules is what ended up changing students’ behavior. As a starting point, they made it explicit that their Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy applied as it relates to antisemitism.
The lesson is straightforward: Rules must be understandable, accessible and enforced regardless of the viewpoint or identity of the people involved.
3. Invest in Jewish life
Protecting Jewish students requires both responding to crises and sustaining investment in the institutions, relationships and academic programs that allow Jewish life to flourish.
To accomplish this mission, Baruch College, created an Antisemitism Studies Lab that enables undergraduates to conduct semester-long research projects, embedding the study of antisemitism into the academic life of the college. SUNY Rockland Community College established a spiritual life advisor position. Queens College developed joint messaging and an action plan with the executive director of its Hillel.
These efforts convey an important message: Jewish life is not peripheral to campus life. It is an integral part of the institution’s identity, academic mission and responsibility to its students.
4. Build bridges to a better future
Strong policies and vocal leadership are essential, but they are not sufficient by themselves. Campuses must also create opportunities for people to encounter one another across lines of identity and disagreement.
This can take many forms, like Brooklyn College’s “We Stand Against Hate” series, NYU’s Youth Ambassadors for Peace initiative, and Baruch College’s Black-Jewish unity dinners. Each of these provides a forum for dialogue, learning, and connection, leading to healthier campus climates.
Change is Possible
Perhaps the clearest evidence that change is possible comes from SUNY Rockland Community College. The college received a D in the Report Card’s first year and an A in 2026. President Mullaney attributed that progress to hard work and buy-in from across the campus community.
That trajectory captures the true purpose of the Report Card — a tool to help institutions identify weaknesses, adopt stronger practices and measure their progress.
I hope every campus will earn an A eventually, and we are ready to work together to make that happen. Let’s learn from these leaders and keep making progress in the fight against antisemitism.
Scott Richman is Regional Director of ADL New York/New Jersey and host of the From the Frontlines podcast.
