I Teach Jewish Studies. There's a Bitter Irony to What the Trump Administration Is Asking of My Campus.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to 60 institutions of higher education across the United States, warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not address what the department calls 'the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year.' The small liberal arts college in New York where I teach Jewish Studies was among these 60 schools.
As the sole permanent tenure-track faculty member in Jewish Studies at my school, I would really rather be spending my time helping students pore through complicated legal arguments in old tracts of the Talmud, or evaluating the differences between rationalist and anti-rationalist trends in medieval Jewish thought, or thinking about the knotted course of Jewish emancipation in modern Europe. But in the past year, as our campus has become embroiled in contentious protests about Israel's war in Gaza and debates over our college's responsibility to respond to it, my academic discipline of Jewish Studies has become unavoidably politicized.
Since last fall, when our school had its Gaza solidarity encampment, Jewish students have come to my office to speak about their feelings about the campus climate. My Jewish students, contrary to what the Trump administration would have us believe, hold a broad spectrum of opinions about Israel and Palestine, the current war, and the environment on campus. I have a Jewish student who received disciplinary action from the school for leading the protests, and a Jewish student who felt sufficiently threatened by some of the rhetoric coming from the protesters that they did not want to leave their room for several days. And I have many Jewish students in the mushy middle between those two poles, sympathetic to some criticism of Israel's war while also feeling that some of the anti-Israel rhetoric has gone too far.
But what all my students, Jewish and non-Jewish, share, no matter their feelings about Gaza and campus protests, is disdain for the exploitation of real concerns about antisemitism on campus to fuel a broader crackdown on liberal education in the United States. And that is what they see coming from the Trump administration right now.
When they look at the actions of the Trump administration, my students observe a broad assault on the very concept of a liberal, humanist higher education, an ideal which all of us at this institution share. They see an administration cutting funding for necessary academic research to make examples of universities, even when that will hurt Jewish students.They see an administration detaining a Columbia alumnus with a valid green card for, while he was a graduate student, protesting the actions of the state of Israel, even while the administration admits he was not breaking the law. And they see an administration which entered office with detailed plans to dismantle higher education in this country root and branch, and is now seizing its opportunity to do just that.
My students see all that, and no matter their disagreements over Gaza and campus protests, they are unified in doubting the Trump administration's commitment to genuinely fighting campus antisemitism. When the Trump administration is telling German politicians to abandon their post-Holocaust commitment to keeping far-right extremists out of government, and appointing officials with long histories of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories to high office, my students across the political spectrum doubt that Donald Trump and his administration are serious about fighting antisemitism. Rather, they see a government using the pretext of fighting antisemitism to destroy the foundations of the liberal arts education that all my students, despite wide political differences, cherish and value.
And that, in turn, makes them less likely to want to speak up at all, even when they do have legitimate concerns about antisemitism on campus.
Contrary to what the Trump administration seems to think, I have seen my students in class have productive, sensitive discussions about the complicated histories of the Israeli and Palestinian national movements, and how these histories redound today. I have seen them disagree respectfully, engaging with and learning from each other. But they are less likely to do that if they fear an errant word could be taken up by national politicians and turned against the college as a whole.
Much of my time is spent thinking and teaching about the transformations in Jewish identity that occurred as Europe as Jews gradually left the ghettos and acquired equal rights of citizenship. Though the specific histories differ according to time and place, what my students observe is that there is a reason Jews have tended to support liberal political movements advocating religious freedom, pluralism, and equality under the law. As a long-persecuted minority, Jews tend to do better in such political environments.
Trump, in contrast, is pointing us away from the liberal, pluralist values that have secured Jewish thriving in the United States, and toward an earlier model by which Jews related to sovereign governments: the court Jew, those Jews of Europe who made themselves indispensable to non-Jewish rulers by providing financial services and other support to the crown. In return, these Jews received temporary protection and an improvement in their social status—but these protections were always temporary, always something that could be taken away if times got tough and the ruler needed a scapegoat. Becoming a temporary protected class of the sovereign is always a dangerous position for a minority to be put in.
Earlier this year, our college received another directive from the Department of Education informing us that in the name of fighting 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion' initiatives—a right-wing bogeyman that is as universal and as spectral an enemy for Trump now as Communism was for the House Un-American Activities Committee and Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s—we are no longer permitted to educate students about implicit biases during freshmen orientation, as we have long done. This directive, however, came with a large asterisk: We are still permitted to educate students about antisemitism. Antisemitism education, in other words, receives a special carve-out from broader anti-DEI policies. Jews get to be the special minority group receiving temporary protection from the government.
Not only does this separate Jews from other groups with which we might stand in solidarity, but it makes it impossible to educate students about the actual forms that antisemitism today takes. Imagine, for example, trying to teach about the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the deadliest anti-Jewish violence in American history, but being banned from teaching about the shooter's well-documented hatred of immigrants, which he linked to his hatred of Jews, whom he blamed for bringing immigrants into the United States. The mere thought of teaching about antisemitism this way is absurd, and yet this is precisely what the Trump administration's policy of allowing us to teach our students about antisemitism but banning education about xenophobia and anti-immigrant hatred would accomplish. By making Jews his personal pet minority—his court Jews, so to speak—Trump is making it impossible for us to link antisemitism to other forms of bigotry, and thereby to understand it in its real historical context.
My students learn about this history, and they see parallels between the long history of governments temporarily protecting Jews and how the Trump administration is now instrumentalizing Jews and Jewish safety, turning us into scapegoats for a larger crackdown on higher education across the country. Right now, Trump may say that he is acting on behalf of Jews. But a government that can detain student activists extrajudicially if it does not like their speech is a government that has abandoned its commitment to the liberal values that have made the United States possibly the greatest place for Jews in diaspora over many centuries.
By claiming to be acting on behalf of Jews while engaging in a preconceived right-wing ideological fight against the American university, the Trump administration gets a double win. They can claim to be acting on behalf of a powerful minority group, feeding into antisemitic narratives of shadowy Jewish power behind the scenes, while disguising the true nature of the Christian nationalist influences standing behind this campaign against higher education. Then if people start to actually miss the valuable research being done at these institutions of higher learning, American Jews will be made to take the fall for an assault on higher education that the American right has wanted to undertake since long before Oct. 7, 2023.
There is real antisemitism on college campuses and in American society more broadly, and it deserves to be addressed. But that would mean investing more in education, to learn critical lessons from history. And it would mean having difficult but necessary discussions about Israel and Palestine and their relationship to Jews and Palestinians living in the United States, discussions involving the kind of questions I know my students are fully capable of posing. But my students tell me they are now less likely to speak out, knowing how easily their concerns can be exploited by a hostile administration.
So when the Trump administration sends a letter to our college, turning us into a symbol of the liberal arts education model he is trying to decimate, I want to send them a letter right back, saying: 'Stay away from our campus. Our students deserve better than to be your pawns.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
What six wars did Donald Trump end? See the list of conflicts he claims as settled
As President Donald Trump continues to work toward peace between Russia and Ukraine, he is touting a record of settling six wars. "I've settled 6 Wars in 6 months, one of them a possible Nuclear disaster," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Aug. 18, before the meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House where he made a similar claim. "I know exactly what I'm doing, and I don't need the advice of people who have been working on all of these conflicts for years, and were never able to do a thing to stop them," the social meda comment continued. But did Trump really end six wars in six months? Here is what we know: More: Trump caught on hot mic talking to Macron: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me' Has Trump ended six wars? Since Trump took office, the United States has been involved in five ceasefires or peace agreements, though not all parties involved credit the U.S. for the agreements. Those include: When asked about the sixth war Trump was referring to, the White House also cited Ethiopia and Egypt. However, there has neither been a war or a peace agreement between the countries, according to Axios. Trump dealt with a dispute between the two countries in his first term as they were feuding over a huge hydropowerdam, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Egypt and Sudan have expressed concern that water flow to their part of the Nile River would be impacted, USA TODAY previously reported. Trump mentioned the countries in a July meeting with the NATO Secretary General where he rattled off other examples of settling wars. "We worked on Egypt with a next-door neighbor who is a good neighbor," he said. "They're friends of mine, but they happened to build a dam, which closed up water going into a thing called the Nile. I think if I'm Egypt, I want to have water in the Nile and we're working on that." The White House did not answer follow-up questions on how this constitutes a "settled war." More: A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up What happened at the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump? Zelenskyy's August trip to the White House had far fewer fireworks than the February visit, when he was berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. In addition to Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also attended the summit on Aug. 18. Zelenskyy, wearing a black suit instead of the military garb that drew comments in February, met with Trump in the Oval Office ahead of the wider group of foreign leaders. He also thanked Trump, something Vance had criticized Zelenskyy of not doing during the previous Oval Office spat. Trump then met with the European leaders in the White House East Room, saying they would know 'in a week or two weeks' if a deal to stop the fighting is possible. After the day of meetings with the European leaders, Trump called Putin to urge him to meet with Zelenskyy. Trump deemed it a step in the right direction. "Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy," he wrote on Truth Social. "After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself. Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years." Although the meeting showed strong European unity, it was unclear whether major progress toward peace was made. Trump said the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in a deal, but did not clarify the extent of the commitment. He also appeared to dismiss the need for a ceasefire ahead of peace negotiations. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, Bart Jansen, Zac Anderson, Francesca Chambers, Josh Meyer, Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @

Los Angeles Times
28 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: CAIR's national deputy director defends the group against L.A. Times op-ed
To the editor: Contributing writer Josh Hammer's recent column repeats bigoted, discredited conspiracy theories about American Muslims ('Label the Muslim Brotherhood's branches as terrorist organizations,' Aug. 15). Just as extremists once smeared Catholic and Jewish Americans as disloyal and accused Black civil rights leaders and Vietnam War protesters of being communist agents, Islamophobes today falsely claim that American Muslim institutions are part of a global terrorist conspiracy. The main target of Hammer's article was my civil rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. For more than 30 years, CAIR has defended free speech, racial equality and religious liberty while consistently condemning all forms of bigotry — including antisemitism and Islamophobia — and unjust violence. We have spoken out against terrorism so often that ISIS once put a target on our executive director. Like other American Muslim institutions, CAIR is an independent nonprofit, not an agent of any foreign group. If Hammer's real grievance with CAIR is our advocacy for Palestinian human rights, polls show that most Americans oppose U.S. support for Israel's devastating war in Gaza. Does Hammer smear American Muslim groups because he fears our growing civic engagement will continue to reorient U.S. policy on Israel and Gaza in a more just, humane direction? Anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian activists are entitled to lash out, but the rest of us should not take their bigoted conspiracy theories seriously. Edward Ahmed Mitchell, Washington, writer is a civil rights attorney and the national deputy director of CAIR.