
Hillel, the Campus Jewish Group, Is Thriving, and Torn by Conflict
It was chicken tenders night at Yale's chapter of Hillel, the Jewish student group, and the basement dining hall was packed with boisterous, hungry students attracted by overflowing vats of kosher fried chicken and mac and cheese.
Some students kissed the mezuza on the way in. Others were not even Jewish, but came for the food and companionship, a sign of the pluralism that Hillel — the dominant Jewish campus organization in the United States — says it embraces.
Yet under the surface, there were signs of strain, after months of divisive protests on campus over the war in Gaza. A silent question hung in the air, several students said: 'Which side are you on?'
Few American organizations have been touched by clashes over the war quite the way Hillel has. The movement, founded in 1923 at the University of Illinois, now has chapters at 850 colleges and universities around the world, from highly selective private schools like Yale to big state universities like Texas A&M. The Hillel movement, including Hillel International and the campus Hillel chapters, had $200 million in revenue in 2003, received from tens of thousands of donors.
Hillel centers are where college students go to cement their sense of Jewish identity, or to discover it. Its slogan is 'all kinds of Jewish,' and it aims to be welcoming to all.
But as the conflict in Gaza continues, some Jewish students believe that Hillel is not critical enough of the Israeli government's conduct of the war, and too defensive in its support of Zionism, a belief in the right of Jews to a Jewish state in their ancestral land of Israel.
Hillel, for its part, is unapologetic. 'Hillel as an institution has been and remains committed to the support of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, that fulfills the right of Jewish self-determination in an ancestral homeland,' Adam Lehman, Hillel's chief executive officer, said in an interview.
The shock of the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, against Israel has moved many Jewish students to explore what it means to be Jewish, fueling significant growth in interest in Hillel on campuses around the world. During the 2023-24 school year, as the conflict in the Middle East escalated, a record 180,000 students participated in Hillel activities at least once, 12,000 more than the year before, according to the organization. There was also an uptick in the number of 'super-users,' who visited Hillel at least six times.
Over the last year and half, though, the solidarity that came with that identity has cracked.
The fissures can be felt in public life and in synagogues. And the division among Jews more generally is playing out among Jews on campus, as some complain that Hillel is too aligned with Israel, while others say that it is too open to critics of Israel.
Many students find it hard to divorce themselves from Hillel completely, especially in this time when they may not feel safe expressing their Jewish faith and identity outside their own community.
Some students, like Emanuelle Sippy, a senior at Princeton, look for a middle ground. She still goes to Hillel for prayer services, meals and lectures. But in the search for a more congenial left-wing political environment, she also helped to revive a small rival group, the Alliance of Jewish Progressives, on her campus.
'There is a group of people — very close friends, people I respect and admire — who are fighting battles within these institutions like Hillel,' she said. 'They might be showing up to events. Hillel might be counting them. It doesn't mean they don't have criticisms.'
This is not the first time that there has been a schism among students at Hillel.
Students at Harvard launched an Open Hillel movement in 2012, in protest against the parent organization's policy against partnering with anti-Israel groups. In December 2013, students at Swarthmore Hillel declared themselves the first 'Open Hillel' chapter in the nation, vowing to promote open inquiry, regardless of ideology.
The current ideological split feels sharper, as campus protests for and against Israel have led to arrests, suspensions and lawsuits. When it comes to the campus Hillel, 'a lot of students don't feel comfortable going in for political reasons,' said Danya Dubrow-Compaine, a senior and a co-founder of Yale Jews for Ceasefire.
There is also a growing generation gap. In a Pew survey conducted in February 2024, 38 percent of adults under 30 years old said Israel's reasons for fighting Hamas were valid, down from 41 percent two years earlier. That compares with 78 percent of people 65 and older who said the same, up several points from the earlier survey.
Elijah Bacal, a sophomore who is an organizer for Yale Jews for Ceasefire, said the institutional leadership of the Slifka Center, as Yale's Hillel is known, has been slow to adapt.
'I think there is a real, honestly, just like an out-of-touchness,' Mr. Bacal said.
Hillel is still one of the first places Jewish students go when arriving on campus, to meet others, do homework and enjoy a meal with friends.
'I was looking for a place where my intellectual life wouldn't be siloed into the classroom, but would spill out to a broader community,' said Medad Lytton, a Yale senior.
After Oct. 7, he said, he 'felt a strong sense of peoplehood.' A singing circle at Slifka helped him connect with others to express the his grief. 'It's kind of a second home for me,' he said of the center.
Nili Fox, a junior at Washington University in St. Louis, was brought up in a religious Jewish family, and sought out Hillel as soon as she arrived on campus. After Oct. 7, Hillel was her 'rock,' she said.
'It has really been helpful to know that whenever I feel uncomfortable I have a place where I was supported and loved, no matter what,' Ms. Fox said.
Other students are dismayed by what they perceive as Hillel's uncritical view of Israel in the face of a complicated and morally challenging reality.
Some students object to Hillel houses flying the Israeli flag, which they see as a symbol of a nation that has, from Ms. Sippy's perspective, committed war crimes.
Uri Cohen, the executive director of the Slifka Center at Yale, says the flag represents Hillel's values.
'There are some who don't come because it crosses a line for them, and there are many who come,' Mr. Cohen said. 'Slifka is very clear. We are a Zionist institution. We are also not checking anybody's credentials at the door.'
In January, Yale Hillel hosted a talk by Naftali Bennett, a former Israeli army commando, defense minister and prime minister, who was once considered a protégé of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's current prime minister. Many Jewish students objected to Mr. Bennett's hawkish politics.
(At a later talk at Harvard Business School, Mr. Bennett joked that he would give exploding pagers to people who disagreed with him, according to The Harvard Crimson.)
Mr. Bacal, the organizer with Yale Jews for Ceasefire, helped lead a peaceful protest against Mr. Bennett in the lobby of the Slifka Center. He did not contest Mr. Bennett's right to speak, Mr. Bacal said, but he did not see why the event had been held in a spiritual place, a chapel where students went to pray and that contained an ark with a Torah in it.
'I think it's a real shame, because the Jewish community at college should welcome and represent all Jews on campus to the best of its ability, no matter where they are coming from,' he said.
Another student, Netanel Crispe, a senior, said that he objected not to the speaker but to Hillel's having allowed the protest against him. Mr. Crispe said that Slifka staff stopped him and several others from filming the protest.
He faulted Yale Hillel for trying 'to play to both sides in a way that doesn't reflect core values.'
Mr. Cohen, Slifka's director, defended the invitation the center extended to Mr. Bennett, noting that his talk drew 300 people to a space that only held 100. 'We did it out of our love for Israel and our love for Zionism, and the opportunity of giving access for our students to an influential world leader,' he said.
To illustrate Hillel's dilemma, Mr. Bacal, the protest leader, recalled how honored he was to lead Shabbat services for the first time. His parents came to town to be there, and friends attended. But it took place around the time of the Naftali Bennett event, and one of his friends stayed away in protest.
She told Mr. Bacal she did not feel comfortable stepping into Slifka that week. 'I totally get that,' Mr. Bacal said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring to the Pentagon. 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions. He clearly can't solve this, so California will.' Newsom was responding to a post from DOD Rapid Response on X, a Pentagon-run account, which claimed that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' President Trump on Saturday deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amid the ICE protests, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the decision was made due to 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' While protests have intensified in recent days, devolving at times into violence, the majority of gatherings have been largely peaceful. Still, California National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, with some 300 deployed on the ground later that day at three locations: Los Angeles proper, Paramount and Compton. White House officials have sought to highlight images of burning vehicles and clashes with law enforcement to make the case that the situation had gotten out of control. 'The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail,' Trump told reporters on Monday. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to deploy approximately 500 U.S. Marines to the city, with U.S. Northern Command on Sunday confirming the service members were 'prepared to deploy.' The use of American troops has rankled California officials, who have said the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Newsom also has traded insults with Hegseth, calling him 'a joke,' and that the idea of deploying active duty Marines in California was 'deranged behavior.' 'Pete Hegseth's a joke. He's a joke. Everybody knows he's so in over his head. What an embarrassment. That guy's weakness masquerading as strength. . . . It's a serious moment,' Newsom said in an interview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. The tit-for-tat continued when chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then took to X on Monday to attack Newsom. 'LA is on FIRE right now, but instead of tackling the issue, Gavin Newsom is spending his time attacking Secretary Hegseth,' Parnell wrote. 'Unlike Newsom, [Hegseth] isn't afraid to lead.' Newsom, who has formally demanded the Trump administration pull the National Guard troops off the streets, has declared the deployment 'unlawful' and said California will sue the Trump administration over its actions. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' David Sapp, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Sunday. 'Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' In the past 60 years, a U.S. president has only on one occasion mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor to quell unrest or enforce the law. That was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's broad definition of ‘insurrection' looms over Los Angeles
In September 2020, President Donald Trump suggested he was hamstrung to crack down on at-times-violent racial justice demonstrations in cities like Portland, Oregon. 'Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws,' Trump said at an ABC News town hall, adding: 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor.' Trump noted there was one way he could do that – by invoking the Insurrection Act – but added that 'there's no reason to ever do that, even in a Portland case.' Something has clearly changed since then. Trump this weekend became the first president in about 60 years to call in the National Guard without a request from a governor – to help quell protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. He did so without invoking the Insurrection Act – the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy American soldiers to police US streets in extreme circumstances. That means the guard has limited authorities that don't include law enforcement, as CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted. Even that more limited decision, though, has been criticized as overzealous and heavy-handed by some experts, given fears it could inflame the situation. unknown content item - But Trump has clearly left open the possibility of ratcheting things up and possibly even doing what he said five years ago there was 'no reason to ever do': invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with demonstrators. Northern Command said Sunday that 500 US Marines were on 'prepared to deploy' status. Trump was asked Sunday whether the situation was an insurrection, and he said no. But just after 10 p.m. ET, he posted on Truth Social: 'Paid insurrectionists!' The president again used the term on Monday, telling reporters upon his return to the White House that the 'people that are causing the problem are professional agitators' before going on to call them 'insurrectionists.' Top White House adviser Stephen Miller has been calling the situation in Los Angeles an insurrection for days. And indeed, for Trump, Miller and their allies, the bar for 'insurrection' appears quite different than it was five years ago. After many labeled the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol an insurrection, Trump and MAGA have spent years applying that label extremely broadly to other things. The idea seems to have been to 'whatabout' the term and water it down by suggesting other events are the 'real' insurrections – like the protests after George Floyd's murder. But Trump's broad definition of that term looms large as the administration considers something he's long entertained: dispatching the military on US soil. It has almost seemed like Trump and Co. see themselves surrounded by insurrections. Among the situations Trump has previously attached the 'insurrection' label to: Antifa ('they're causing insurrection') His baseless claims of a 'stolen' 2020 election ('the real insurrection happened on November 3rd') Unspecified enemies within the United States ('insurrectionists roam free') A border influx ('when you talk about insurrection, what they're doing, that's the real deal') Then-President Joe Biden ('I'm not an Insurrectionist … Crooked Joe Biden is!!!') Miller – a key figure in the White House on such matters – has appended that label to many of these things and more. He's most often used it in relation to the border under Biden. But he's also repeatedly accused judges who ruled against Trump of a 'legal insurrection.' He's called pro-Palestinian demonstrators a 'pro-Hamas insurrection.' And he accused those who protested the Supreme Court in 2022 – including in some cases apparently illegally at justices' homes – of waging an 'open insurrection.' It's worth emphasizing that many of these things don't qualify as insurrections. While Trump and his allies balked at people labeling January 6 an insurrection, there's little doubt that it met the definition. That word is generally defined as a violent revolt or rebellion against the government. The attack on the US Capitol was a violent attempt to effectively change the makeup of that government by overturning the election result – and by attacking an actual seat of power. In other words, an insurrection isn't about the level of violence; it's about the target and purpose of it. Merely protesting or even engaging in violence while doing so doesn't automatically make something an insurrection. Nor do adverse court rulings and an influx of undocumented immigrants constitute a rebellion. Of course, Trump has shown he's more than happy to stretch the bounds of words and the law in his quest to expand his power and go after perceived enemies. The question from here is why Trump hasn't gone there on invoking the Insurrection Act. He and Miller have now invoked that specific word multiple times in reference to the situation in Los Angeles, and preparing the Marines to possibly come in suggests this is very much on the table. Perhaps the White House has some qualms about the politics of what could come from the more in-your-face federal presence Trump has spent years entertaining. Or perhaps, as Vladeck wagers, the initial deployment of the National Guard could be a precursor. 'In other words, it's possible that this step is meant to both be and look modest,' Vladeck wrote in his newsletter Saturday, 'so that, if and when it 'fails,' the government can invoke its failure as a basis for a more aggressive domestic deployment of troops.' Only time will tell. But we're clearly operating in a very different political world than we were five years ago. Trump seems to have developed a very broad sense of what constitutes an insurrection and plenty of reasons to potentially do what he said 'there's no reason to ever do.' Indeed, he's already gone further than he did before.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump meant for National Guard deployment to act as a deterrent, White House says
President Trump's tense, late-night phone call with Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday night came with a warning: 'Get the police in gear.' The president was being shown evidence by his staff of theft at a 7-Eleven and of federal law enforcement with lacerations. His patience would last less than 24 hours before federalizing the National Guard in a historic action. 'He told the governor to get it under control and watched again for another full day, 24 hours, where it got worse,' Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told The Times in an interview. 'The assaults against federal law enforcement upticked, the violence grew, and the president took bold action on Saturday evening to protect federal detention spaces and federal buildings and federal personnel.' The president did so, Leavitt said, 'with the expectation that the deployment of the National Guard would hopefully prevent and deter some of this violence.' Read more: President Trump suggests Gov. Newsom should be arrested; Newsom decries 'step toward authoritarianism' The opposite occurred. The worst violence yet took place on Sunday, with some rioters torching and hurling concrete at police cars, hours after National Guard troops had arrived in Los Angeles County. The protests had been largely peaceful throughout Friday and Saturday, with isolated instances of violent activity. Leavitt said that Newsom and Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, have 'handicapped' the Los Angeles Police Department, "who are trying to do their jobs." Local leaders 'have refused to allow the local police department to work alongside the feds to enforce our nation's immigration laws, and to detain and arrest violent criminals who are on the streets of Los Angeles,' she said. The president and his so-called immigration czar, Tom Homan, have suggested that political leadership — including Newsom himself — could face arrest over 'obstructive' behavior. "It is a basic principle in this country that if you break the law, you will face a consequence for that," Leavitt said. "So if the governor obstructs federal enforcement, or breaks federal laws, then he is subjecting himself to arrest." Leavitt said she would not get ahead of Trump on whether he will invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that allows the president to suspend Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the military from engaging in local law enforcement. Read more: Downtown L.A. hit by widespread vandalism, damage as city struggles to calm unrest But she took note that, on Monday, the president referred to some of the rioters as insurrectionists, potentially laying the groundwork for an invocation of the law. 'The president is wisely keeping all options on the table, and will do what is necessary to restore law and order in California,' she said, 'and protect law-abiding American citizens. And federal immigration enforcement operations will continue in the city of Los Angeles, which has been completely overrun by illegal alien criminals that pose a public safety risk and need to be removed from the city.' The president's order, directing 2,000 National Guard troops to protect federal buildings in the city, allows for a 60-day deployment. Leavitt would not say how long the operation might last, but suggested it would continue until violence at the protests ends. 'I don't want to get ahead of the president on any decisions or timelines,' she said. 'I can tell you the White House is 100% focused on this. The president wants to solve the problem. And that means creating an environment where citizens, if they wish, are given the space and the right to peacefully protest.' 'And these violent disruptors and insurrectionists, as the president has called them, are not only doing a disservice to law-abiding citizens, but to those who wish to peacefully protest. That's a fundamental right this administration will always support and protect.' Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.