Chapman University is being sued for antisemitism, in a case that has nothing to do with keeping Jews safe and everything to do with silencing criticism of Israel. We should know: we are Jewish faculty at Chapman, and one of us, Professor Klein, is a scholar of antisemitism and an Israeli citizen.
The 33-page class action brought by two former students alleges that Jewish students at Chapman face a “campaign of harassment.” On closer inspection, however, the case rests on a faulty premise: that criticism of Israel or Zionism is inherently antisemitic. “Zionism is the most ubiquitous trait in American Jewry,” claim the attorneys, alleging that “supporting Israel is a religious imperative for Plaintiffs and Jews more generally.” Using that logic, to reject Zionism or oppose Israel is to discriminate against Jews.
This is the same tired canard that President Donald Trump’s administration is using to defund universities it claims are inadequately tough on antisemitism.
The conflation between antisemitism and anti-Zionism is wrong. Anti-Zionism is opposition to a political ideology, and there is nothing antisemitic about it. Indeed, anti-Zionism has a rich history among American Jews. And criticism of Israel, however scathing, is not a hatred of Jews. Contrary to the lawsuit’s unfounded claim that “supporting Israel is a religious imperative,” many Jews, including we three authors, see a Jewish imperative in opposing Israel. All the more so after Israel’s destruction of Palestinian life these last two years. According to a recent Washington Post poll, over 60 percent of American Jews say Israel has committed war crimes, and about 4 in 10 say it is guilty of genocide.
Lawsuits of this sort abound. The plaintiffs are always represented by pro-Israel agencies, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Brandeis Institute, or the National Jewish Advocacy Center, whose president Mark Goldfeder is among the attorneys suing Chapman. By the ADL’s own admission, it has filed more cases in the last two years than in the organization’s entire 112-year history.
The end goal of these lawsuits is to muzzle critics of Israel, and they do so by weaponizing antisemitism claims. One central strategy is to make universities adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) “working definition” of antisemitism. The IHRA “working definition” includes eleven examples, seven of which focus on Israel, effectively conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism.
The IHRA “working definition” does not protect Jews. Indeed, its implication that Jews are inseparable from Israel hardens the dangerous notion that Jews are accountable for every action of Israel’s government. Unsurprisingly, over 1,300 Jewish faculty and staff have rejected the IHRA “working definition.” So have Jewish groups, from Zionist J-Street to anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Peace. Even the main drafter of the IHRA “working definition,” Kenneth Stern, has called it his “greatest failure.”
Lawsuits like the one facing Chapman, paired with the Trump administration’s threats to withdraw federal funding, are making an impact. Campus after campus has capitulated to adopt the IHRA “working definition,” including Harvard, Columbia, and Yale. The campaign to stifle criticism of Israel extends to state legislatures too. The same Mark Goldfeder that is suing Chapman helped make IHRA state law in South Dakota last year, where it was signed into law by then-Governor Kristi Noem.
We urge our university to reject any policy that conflates antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel. If adopted by Chapman, the IHRA definition will delegitimize and silence faculty and students, including Jewish ones, who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israel or Zionism.
Furthermore, universities are champions of academic freedom and empirical research, and this lawsuit’s logic threatens both. It departs from evidence-based arguments and instead imposes axioms about Jews and Israel. To accept these axioms is to deny students and faculty the ability to exercise critical thinking about Palestine/Israel.
As Jewish educators, we know that antisemitism is real—and dangerous. But we also know that antisemitism connects to other forms of oppression. One cannot confront it without also confronting other forms of racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, or misogyny. Making antisemitism exceptional, as this lawsuit does, harms Jews and belittles the bigotry suffered by other groups.
To be sure, some of the behavior described in the lawsuit is unacceptable, such as the cry “Fuck Jews.” But Jews are not special in the bigotry they face. In 2024, nearly half of Muslim students surveyed at California colleges faced harassment on campus, and an estimated 40% of transgender and questioning students were bullied during high school.
Universities, including ours, already have policies in place to address discrimination. Jews do not need an extra policy singling them out. What protects Jews is the same thing that protects all other groups: a multiracial democracy committed to civil rights, diversity, equality, and equity.
In all our years at Chapman University, 42 years for Professor Smoller, we have never witnessed a “campaign of harassment.” Chapman has a problem, but it’s not antisemitism. It is a lawsuit aiming to censor those who dare speak out against the Israeli government and its violence.
Shira Klein is associate professor of history and department chair at Chapman University, author of Italy’s Jews from Emancipation to Fascism (Cambridge, 2018), and a National Jewish Book Award finalist.
Richard Ruppel is professor in the English and Peace and Justice Studies departments at Chapman University.
Fred Smoller is associate professor of political science at Chapman University, where he has been teaching since 1983.