Faculty Under Fire: Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias in Higher Education

Co-produced with the Academic Engagement Network (AEN)

Executive Summary

In the aftermath of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the landscape for Jewish faculty across U.S. colleges and universities and in other academic arenas has undergone considerable shifts. This report, a joint effort by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Academic Engagement Network (AEN), delves into the nuanced experiences of, and challenges faced by, these academics, exploring how rising antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and attacks on Jewish identity have impacted their professional lives and well-being. The findings are based on a survey of 209 Jewish-identifying U.S.-based faculty members. Respondents were recruited via snowball sampling, leveraging both ADL and AEN networks.

In the survey, respondents described patterns of hostility, institutional inaction, and personal tolls that merit immediate attention. By capturing the voices and experiences of those faculty directly affected, this report offers critical insights into why urgent action is needed to address antisemitism and anti-Israel bias within U.S. higher education.

1. Faculty identify other faculty and staff as key sources of antisemitism on campus. Of the faculty surveyed, many reported that antisemitism on campus is not only coming from students but is also often coming from faculty, staff, and organized faculty-led or endorsed campus groups. Specifically, 73.2% of the surveyed faculty reported observing anti-Jewish activities or statements from faculty, administrators, or staff on campuses, and 44% were aware of an organized Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) chapter on their campus. The overwhelming majority of respondents who were aware of an FJP chapter on their campus reported that the chapter engaged in anti-Israel programming (77.2%), organized anti-Israel protests and demonstrations (79.4%), and endorsed anti-Israel divestment campaigns (84.8%). Critically, legitimization of antisemitism by faculty, staff and administrators risks emboldening antisemitic attitudes among students.

2. Faculty report facing targeted boycott, smear, and doxxing campaigns - often with troubling professional consequences. Half (50.2%) of the respondents believed that their campuses have been affected by “soft” or “shadow” boycotts, of which 55.2% noted that departments avoid co-sponsoring events with Jewish or pro-Israel groups and 29.5% report that partnerships with Israeli institutions and/or academics are discouraged or blocked. In their open-ended responses, faculty described being publicly maligned, professionally isolated, and in severe cases, doxxed or harassed, with repercussions including canceled academic talks, denied professional opportunities, reputational damage, and even withdrawal from the academy.

3. Faculty report being told what “counts” as antisemitism - even when they are the targets. Despite many of them being on the receiving end of antisemitic targeting, 63.6% of the faculty members surveyed reported being told by others on campus what is and is not antisemitism. 45.3% of the 190 respondents who are members of professional academic associations report a similar response from colleagues in these fora.

4. Many faculty report limited support on addressing antisemitism from institutional leadership - both on campus and within professional academic associations. Among surveyed faculty who thought a university response to antisemitism or anti-Israel bias was relevant, a slight majority (53.1%) described their university’s response as “very” or “somewhat” unhelpful. Respondents tended to view association responses to antisemitism and anti-Israel bias even less favorably: 77.3% of those who thought an association response to antisemitism or anti-Israel bias was relevant viewed their association’s response as “very” or “somewhat” unhelpful.

5. Faculty report a profound personal and professional toll - paired with a strengthened resolve to address antisemitism and anti-Israel bias. As a result of sustained hostility, harassment, ostracism, gaslighting, and the absence of institutional support, many of the surveyed faculty described worsening mental and physical health, increased self-censorship, fear for personal safety, and perceived risks and long-term costs for their professional careers.

In particular, 37.8% of those surveyed reported feeling a need to hide their Jewish and/or Zionist identity from others on campus. Among those who are members of professional academic associations, 25.3% reported feeling the need to do the same within these fora. In addition, respondents who had negative experiences related to being Jewish and/or Zionist on campus tended to report feeling less comfortable (compared to those who did not have such experiences) with others on campus knowing they are Jewish.

Yet, within the open-ended responses, some respondents also described a deepened commitment to fighting antisemitism and a growing sense of pride in openly sharing their Jewish and Zionist identities.

This report sheds light on the challenges experienced by self-identified Jewish faculty members since October 7, 2023, thus serving as a catalyst for meaningful action. Specifically, the report aims to inform stakeholders and drive change in countering antisemitism and anti-Zionism that is negatively impacting faculty on U.S. campuses and in other academic arenas within American higher education. It seeks to contribute to a greater understanding and appreciation of the current challenges faced by many Jewish faculty at both private and public universities and colleges, and to inspire collaborative efforts toward creating more equitable and inclusive academic workplaces and scholarly communities.

Introduction

In Spring 2025, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Academic Engagement Network (AEN) partnered on a critical exploration of how antisemitism is experienced by Jewish faculty in U.S. higher education. This report examines the antisemitism faced by Jewish academic faculty members in the U.S., a demographic often overlooked in conversations about campus antisemitism which typically center on student experiences.

The importance of the survey’s findings is underscored by the rise in antisemitic incidents on campuses following the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the subsequent Israel-Hamas war. Faculty experiences with antisemitism – on both campuses and in other academic arenas, such as within professional academic associations – have been understudied despite the fact that faculty have been increasingly voicing concerns about hostile workplace environments, professional isolation, and a pressure to conform to prevailing ideological positions.^[1] This report seeks to shed light on these challenges and provide a platform for better understanding how antisemitism and anti-Israel bias in the U.S. academy affects Jewish faculty members.

To do so, ADL and AEN conducted a survey of 209 Jewish-identifying U.S. academic faculty members. We asked them both closed-ended and open-ended questions to maximize our ability to effectively understand the experiences of those surveyed. While the survey is not nationally representative of the entire population of Jewish faculty on U.S. campuses or in professional academic associations, it offers valuable insights into how faculty members perceive and experience antisemitism in academic settings. The survey findings highlight patterns, concerns, and institutional dynamics that have to date been underreported. ADL and AEN hope that the findings will serve as a launchpad for future, more targeted and representative research into faculty attitudes, campus workplace climates, and institutional responses, aiming to foster more inclusive and respectful academic and scholarly environments.

The survey reveals that the surveyed faculty are experiencing antisemitism from both their colleagues and organized campus groups, facing targeted harassment campaigns, and are being ignored and gaslit when they speak out against antisemitism. Moreover, the findings show that the surveyed faculty are receiving little institutional support and perceive serious personal and professional consequences as a result of unchecked antisemitism and anti-Israel bias. Yet many of those surveyed also report a renewed commitment to fighting antisemitism on their campuses and within other academic settings and to embracing their Jewish and Zionist identities; that is, they are determined to bring their full selves into their professional lives, despite the challenges they face. These core findings provide a foundation for informed policy responses and collaborative efforts to address antisemitism on campuses and within professional academic associations nationwide.

Key Findings

Primary Sources of Antisemitism

The survey’s findings reveal a disturbing reality: faculty colleagues and institutional staff are a prominent source of antisemitism on university campuses. This was particularly evident within the open-ended responses, with one respondent noting:

“My chair is pro-Hamas (explicitly so) and has turned our department into an encampment, full of 'river to the sea' slogans and propaganda...When I and a few other Jewish faculty objected, the chair organized about 50 people to verbally attack us, including one who told me that we had all the money and power. Consequently, my department is a hostile work environment and I can no longer attend events or participate in departmental life there.”

Another respondent echoed similar sentiments, stating that “Faculty are not talking to me because they know I'm a Zionist.”

Faculty and staff being sources of harassing experiences for Jewish faculty was also supported by the quantitative survey findings, with 73.2% of respondents identifying faculty, administrators or staff as perpetrators of anti-Jewish activities or statements on campus. The percentage of respondents who had observed such activities/statements from students was only slightly higher at 79.9%.

This finding fundamentally challenges assumptions about campus antisemitism as a primarily student-driven phenomenon and reveals that anti-Jewish bias has permeated the professional ranks of higher education. In addition, the involvement of faculty groups and organizations in antisemitic behavior, reported by 49.8% of respondents, suggests that this is not merely individual prejudice or bias, but an institutionalized bigotry embedded within academic structures and professional networks. For example, one respondent underscored their department’s complicity in these issues: “[I] was asked to co-chair an antisemit[i]sm task force under our faculty senate. The DEI committee in the faculty senate protested saying antisemitism shouldn't get its own committee."

A core finding is that the attitudes among faculty and staff result in the exclusion of Jewish and Zionist academics from faculty spaces. Nearly half of respondents (43.5%) reported feeling unwelcome in faculty committees or at faculty events because they are Jewish or perceived as Zionist, and 5.7% said they have been prevented from joining faculty groups or academic organizations. This exclusion, marginalization, and ostracism from core components of academic life - committee service, professional gatherings, and collaborative work - undermines both career advancement and the fundamental principle of academic collegiality.

The survey’s findings show that the presence of Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) chapters, identified by 44% of surveyed faculty on their campuses, has intensified this hostile workplace environment.^[2] FJP was launched in the weeks after the October 7, 2023 massacre as an organized campaign by the US Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI), a group which has long sought to isolate Israeli scholars, shutter student study abroad programs to Israel, and promote the boycott of Israel’s academic institutions. The mere presence of these FJP chapters or their hosting of programs critical of Israel is not inherently cause for concern; yet repeatedly various chapters’ activities have sowed division, pushed one-sided virulently anti-Israel narratives, and have at times even crossed the line into antisemitism.^[3]

Faculty affiliated with FJP have also been identified in leading, not just supporting, anti-Israel efforts on campus. In the ADL/AEN survey, the overwhelming majority of respondents who were aware of an FJP chapter on their campus reported that the chapter engaged in anti-Israel programming (77.2%), organized anti-Israel protests and demonstrations (79.4%), and endorsed divestment campaigns (84.8%). This was reinforced within the open-ended responses, with respondents noting that FJP chapters are “chalking sidewalks with anti-Israel statements and flying banners” and are allegedly “advising students on activities, including how to avoid "getting caught.” Another respondent described a pattern of problematic activities organized by their campus FJP chapter, stating:

“FJP have had many events on my campus which were billed as being anti-zionist [sic] but truly were antisemitic. They posted tropes about Jews and Israel that were clearly anti-semitic [sic]. Administration has been notified multiple times and sometimes say the right things, but the events/incidents continue without consequences to FJP.”

Manifestations of Antisemitism

The antisemitic and anti-Israel attitudes of faculty, staff, and students manifest in direct intimidation, exclusion, and harassment that creates a hostile campus environment, including an unwelcoming workplace. More than half of respondents (59.3%) reported experiencing offensive or derogatory anti-Israel remarks in personal conversations on campus, while one-third (33%) reported being subjected to anti-Jewish comments directly. The hostility extends into digital spaces, with 29.7% of respondents reporting that they have faced offensive anti-Jewish content online or on social media to or about them, and 34% reported being targeted with anti-Israel material online or on social media. Furthermore, 17.2% of surveyed faculty said they had experienced verbal abuse on campus, including being yelled at or personally insulted because of their real or perceived Jewishness or support of Israel. These incidents represent not academic discourse or political debate, but personal attacks designed to intimidate and silence Jewish faculty members.

The hostile environments extend beyond individual campuses and into professional academic associations, where 42.1% of the surveyed faculty members who are members of professional associations (N=190) reported feeling unwelcome because they are Jewish or perceived as Zionist. Within these supposedly professional fora, 21.6% of these 190 respondents said they have been blamed for Israeli government actions simply because of their Jewish identity or because of their perceived Zionism, and 38.4% have faced offensive anti-Israel remarks in conversations. This hostility within professional associations - organizations meant to advance scholarly discourse and career development - represents a particularly troubling development, as it suggests that Jewish faculty face systematic hostility and exclusion not just from their home institutions but from the broader academic community that should serve as a professional and intellectual support.

For further details on faculty experiences with antisemitism and anti-Zionism on campus and in professional academic associations, see Tables A1 through A4 of the Appendix.

Boycotts and Smear Campaigns

Since October 7, 2023, faculty members nationwide have reported facing targeted harassment, boycotts, and professional isolation that extends far beyond traditional academic discourse. The experiences of the surveyed faculty members reinforces that these are not isolated incidents. Rather, the findings reveal a troubling pattern of exclusion and intimidation that threatens the fundamental principles of academic freedom and scholarly exchange.

As one respondent noted: “Post-docs and visiting professors from Israel have been actively excluded and minimized to the point where multiple people have left their positions early.” Another indicated that such issues even extend into the classroom: “Even before October 7th, the [Middle East] Studies dept would tell students not to cite ’Zionist authors’ - even in issues having nothing to do with Palestine/Israel.”

These issues were also underscored within the quantitative survey findings. Half of faculty respondents (50.2%) reported that they believe their campuses have been affected by soft or shadow boycotts - subtle but systematic forms of exclusion that often operate beneath the surface of official university policies. These covert practices manifest in multiple ways. Among those who believe such boycotts have affected their campus, 55.2% report that certain departments at their college or university avoid co-sponsoring events or activities with Jewish or pro-Israel groups, and 29.5% reported that partnerships with Israeli institutions and academics are being discouraged or blocked.

Perhaps most concerning, 76.2% of respondents who perceive their campus to be affected by such boycotts indicated that pro-Israel voices are excluded from campus dialogues or panels, creating an environment where certain perspectives are effectively silenced.

These boycotts have the potential to substantially impact academic programming and represent a fundamental departure from the bedrock principles of academic freedom and open scholarly exchange. Among respondents who believed their campus has been affected by such boycotts, 30.5% reported that events featuring Israeli speakers are quietly canceled or denied approval, and 37.1% indicated that Israel-related study abroad programs have been removed or discouraged. One respondent even noted that, “A colleague had their proposed study abroad trip to Israel so severely harrassed [sic] that no one signed up and it was cancelled, so I censored myself and put off proposing my own study abroad trip to Israel for the foreseeable future."

Beyond boycotts, individual faculty members report facing direct targeting that carries severe professional and personal consequences. More than one in five surveyed respondents (21.1%) said they have experienced their hosted events being boycotted or disrupted by protesters on campus. Of the 190 respondents who were members of professional academic associations, 6.8% report the same within their professional academic associations.

Meanwhile, 8.1% of survey respondents said they have had their university courses boycotted. This was reflected within the open-ended responses as well, with one respondent noting: “Students dropped my class after finding out I’m Jewish - a class on engineering ethics which has nothing to do with politics.” Another mentioned hearing that “students are boycotting me because of my Zionism.”

Faculty encounters with anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist activity extend beyond the physical campus into the digital realm, where 13.4% of surveyed faculty said they have been subjected to online smear campaigns associated with their campus that identify them by name. Of the 190 respondents who were members of professional academic associations, 6.8% report the same within their associations. This form of targeted harassment, often accompanied by doxxing - the malicious publication of private information - creates lasting reputational damage and can effectively hinder or end academic careers.

The doxxing element – both online and in-person – has been especially troubling, with multiple open-ended responses highlighting it as a matter of serious concern. As one faculty member noted, “I have had a group doxx me and invite people to "visit" my office. I have had the police offer personal defense classes and offer security, including an officer at my classroom door.” Another stated:

“The most recent incident involved a student art exhibition in the gallery of the college where I serve as a Dean. The exhibition displayed as the artwork an 8 page pamphlet calling for my removal because I am a Zionist, stating I am a threat to others on campus because I am a Zionist.”

As the final section of this report highlights, the professional consequences of antisemitic and anti-Israel experiences can be severe and far-reaching for Jewish and Zionist faculty.

Gaslighting and Minimization of Antisemitism

A particularly troubling dimension of the experiences of the surveyed faculty involves the denial of authority to identify anti-Jewish prejudice, particularly when they themselves are the targets. As one respondent noted: “I feel continuously traumatized by the actions, even in online posts, of the main faculty, who deny antisemitism on campus (unless directly affected) and minimize what others may be experiencing."

This is a form of gaslighting which serves to protect antisemitic behavior by reframing it as legitimate academic discourse. One Jewish faculty member described being told by a non-Jewish faculty member that they “had no idea what antisemitism was.” Another respondent recounted a situation in which a faculty member, accused of antisemitism, denied the claim by stating he couldn’t be antisemitic because he had Jewish friends.

These experiences were also reflected in the quantitative survey findings. Nearly two-thirds of faculty respondents (63.6%) reported being told by non-Jews on their campuses what does or does not constitute antisemitism, while 45.3% of those in professional academic associations (N=190) reported similar experiences within their associations.

It is worth noting that this gaslighting is a fundamental inversion of how bias is typically understood. When members of other marginalized groups report discrimination, their perspectives are generally centered and respected as authoritative. However, Jewish faculty find themselves having their lived experiences dismissed, minimized, or redefined by those outside their community. Such dismissals create an environment where antisemitism can flourish under the guise of political debate.

This pattern furthermore highlights a profound denial of Jewish agency and expertise regarding antisemitism, suggesting that Jewish faculty are considered less qualified than non-Jewish colleagues to identify anti-Jewish prejudice - a dynamic that perpetuates harmful stereotypes while enabling antisemitic behavior to continue unchecked. As one faculty member put it, the sense is that "our trauma does not matter.”

Minimal Institutional and Administrative Support

Many of the surveyed faculty who have experienced or witnessed antisemitism and anti-Israel bias find themselves largely abandoned by the very institutions meant to protect and support them. More than half (53.1%) of respondents who viewed a university response as relevant said the university’s response to incidents involving antisemitism and/or anti-Zionist/anti-Israel bias was either somewhat or very unhelpful. As one respondent recounted: “There is a lot of anti-Semitic graffiti. I reported it several times and nothing was done. After spring break there were protesters and it was terrifying to even cross the street."

One respondent also highlighted the issue of underreporting, noting that administrators use the absence of formal complaints as an excuse for inaction:

“Administrators state there is no antisemitism problem on our campus, because they have received few complaints, ignoring that people are hiding and not talking publicly about their experiences because they do not want to be identified, and also think nothing will happen if they complain.”

These institutional failures represent more than administrative inadequacy – they signal a fundamental breakdown in the commitment to protect all members of the academic community. When faculty face harassment, intimidation, boycotts, or professional exclusion, they rightly expect their employers to respond with clear policies, decisive corrective action, and meaningful support. Instead, many Jewish and Zionist faculty encounter institutional silence, equivocation, or responses that treat antisemitism as a lesser concern compared to other hatreds and forms of bias. This lack of support leaves faculty feeling invalidated and vulnerable to continued harassment while sending a message that antisemitism and attacks on Jewish identity will be tolerated or minimized.  Thus, the lack of meaningful institutional responses to antisemitism could be seen as a key perpetuator of the problem.

Yet, some of the open-ended responses also reveal a degree of cautious optimism, with a handful of surveyed faculty members offering praise for how their colleges and universities have responded to antisemitism:

“I feel fortunate to have a level headed and proactive leadership team of the President, Provost and Board of Trustees that has been successful and constructive in addressing antisemitism and riots on campus."

“I think that our university president has done a good job of quietly supporting Jewish students as they've experienced hostility and resisting pressure from a radical student organization to discuss university investments in anything related to Israel. The administration also has actively supported developing an atmosphere of civil discourse.”

The situation is seemingly more dire within professional academic associations, where an overwhelming majority (77.3%) of the surveyed faculty members who viewed an association response as relevant regarded their association's response to antisemitism and anti-Zionist/anti-Israel bias as "very" or "somewhat" unhelpful. This represents a substantial failure of professional academic associations and scholarly societies that are supposed to serve as welcoming intellectual homes and fora for scholarly exchange and career development. When these associations fail to address antisemitism effectively - or worse, when they become venues for such harassment - they betray their fundamental mission and leave Jewish and Zionist faculty professionally isolated. This institutional abandonment forces faculty to navigate hostile environments without the support systems that should be protecting their academic freedom and professional standing.

Profound Personal and Professional Tolls of Antisemitism and anti-Israel Bias

The harassment, intimidation, ostracism, and discrimination faced by Jewish faculty members exact a devastating personal toll that extends far beyond individual incidents. As one respondent noted:

“The events that have followed October 7 have added to my stress and anxiety, and likely have had a negative impact on my health.”

The cumulative impact of this hostility and bigotry has also driven some faculty to significantly alter or even abandon their academic careers and scholarly trajectories. Open-ended responses reveal faculty members effectively forced out of academia or abandoning research areas they are passionate about due to a fear of being targeted and thus harmed professionally. One respondent noted that they “have decided to retire,” another asked for their classrooms to be moved “to avoid protests to protect myself and my students,” and a third “stopped teaching a class I designed on social movements because I can't handle the topics students are likely to raise.” This represents not merely individual career damage but a profound loss to the academic enterprise, as qualified scholars are either self-censoring or exiting fields of study where their expertise could contribute meaningfully to knowledge production and understanding.

These feelings were echoed by the quantitative survey findings. More than one-third of the surveyed respondents (37.8%) report having felt a need to hide their Jewish and/or Zionist identity from others on campus, and 25.3% of those who are members of academic associations feel the need to conceal these aspects of their identity within their associations. This “forced invisibility” represents a profound violation of personal dignity, requiring faculty to disavow and compartmentalize fundamental aspects of their identity in order to navigate hostile professional environments – spaces that are supposed to be their intellectual homes. The psychological burden of such concealment cannot be overstated - it forces individuals to live in a state of constant vigilance, carefully monitoring themselves to avoid potential targeting.

Not surprisingly, our survey data also suggest that there is a statistically significant association between negative experiences on campus related to being Jewish and/or Zionist and comfort with Jewish visibility on campus. Among faculty who have had negative experiences related to being Jewish and/or Zionist on campus (N=170), 64.7% reported feeling very or extremely comfortable with others on campus knowing they are Jewish, compared to 94.9% of those who have not faced such experiences (N=39).^[4] Moreover, our survey data also suggest that there is a statistically significant association between negative experiences on campus related to being Jewish and/or Zionist and considering leaving the academy. Specifically, whereas 5.1% of faculty who have not had these negative experiences said they have considered leaving the academy, 38.8% of those who have had these negative experiences said they have considered leaving the academy.^[5]

These results suggest that the consequences of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist harassment extend beyond personal discomfort to genuine concerns about professional survival.

 

The impact of antisemitism and anti-Zionist bias extends to career advancement and professional opportunities, with a shocking 21.5% of surveyed faculty reporting they have experienced differential treatment in professional evaluations, promotions, or job assignments because they are Jewish or perceived as Zionist.  While these are reported claims rather than investigative conclusions of differential treatment, they are nevertheless deeply alarming and warrant serious attention. Critically, should it become pervasive, such discrimination would strike at the heart of academic meritocracy, with scholarly achievement and professional competence overshadowed by identity-based bias. Additionally, 13.4% reported experiencing bias in peer review or research funding decisions on campus, and 13.7% of the 190 respondents who are members of professional academic associations reported facing similar issues within their associations. These forms of bias are particularly insidious because they operate within systems designed to be merit-based and could potentially derail academic careers.

The isolation extends to collaborative relationships, with 14.8% of faculty encountering reluctance or refusal from campus colleagues to collaborate on academic projects, and 12.6% of the 190 respondents who are members of professional academic associations experiencing similar rejection within their associations. This professional ostracism not only limits research opportunities and career advancement but also undermines the collaborative nature of academic work. When faculty are excluded from research partnerships based on their identity rather than their expertise, the entire academic enterprise suffers.

Despite these profound challenges, some faculty report that their experiences have strengthened rather than diminished their resolve to speak out against antisemitism and anti-Israel bias and to defend their right to participate fully in academic life, not in spite of, but because of their identities. As a result of antisemitism, faculty members reported:

The challenges they face have clarified the stakes involved and reinforced their commitment to rectifying the problem and ensuring that future generations of Jewish and Zionist scholars can thrive in the American academy. This resilience represents both a testament to individual courage and a commitment to transforming personal trauma and hardship into collective and collaborative action for comprehensive and long-term reform.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the ADL/AEN survey reviewed in this report, it is clear that addressing antisemitism in American higher education requires immediate action to ensure that Jewish and Zionist faculty can teach, research, and collaborate in welcoming and inclusive workplaces and academic fora. Leaders of colleges and universities and of professional academic associations must devise – and implement – proactive action plans to address antisemitism and anti-Israel bias and can turn to both the ADL and AEN for resources with specific guidance and recommendations.

Critically, ADL and AEN urge college and university administrations to:

1. Develop, clearly convey and enforce anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.
2. Provide faculty with guidance to ensure they understand their responsibilities, including regarding using classrooms for proper educational purposes, professional and ethical instruction, and fostering a learning atmosphere of civility and tolerance.
3. Ensure that degree-granting academic units (i.e., departments) refrain from imposing political orthodoxies in their mission statements.
4. Develop and promote programs that highlight the importance of creating and sustaining welcoming learning environments, encourage the analysis of contentious issues from a range of perspectives, and foster dialogue across difference.^[6]

Meanwhile, leaders of professional academic associations are encouraged to:

1. Ensure board members understand and respect their fiduciary responsibilities to the association.
2. Create organizational policy stipulating that public statements must align directly with the mission of the association, and enforce these policies without exception.
3. Establish and uphold clear codes of ethics, non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, and codes of conduct to guide member behavior and create accountability.
4. Develop clear and easy processes for reporting antisemitic rhetoric and activity in the association, and commit to investigating and responding to reports in a timely, transparent, and serious manner.
5. Protect open inquiry and intellectual exchange.
6. Adopt a policy disallowing investment decisions to be driven by politically motivated ideologies.
7. Establish and enforce policies to ensure safe and full participation for all attendees at association events.
8. Adopt a disclaimer policy for online member forums and discussion boards, which often include postings that demonstrate hostility, insensitivity, and a lack of concern regarding antisemitism. In addition, implement moderation for content that violates the association’s non-discrimination policies.^[7]

ADL and AEN will continue to support U.S.-based Jewish and Zionist faculty and staff and will continue to closely monitor their experiences on campus and in other academic arenas. We remain steadfast in working in partnership with the faculty and staff in our networks, as well as with committed leaders in the academy, to effectively combat antisemitism and anti-Israel bias.  Through our advocacy, we will continue to hold academic institutions accountable, push for transparency, and demand meaningful action.

Methodology

This survey was conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in collaboration with the Academic Engagement Network (AEN). It was a non-representative, convenience/snowball sample survey designed to gather insights into faculty perceptions and experiences of antisemitism on campus and within other academic spaces, such as associations.

The survey was distributed via AEN and ADL's networks between April and July of 2025, emphasizing voluntary and anonymous participation to encourage candid responses from faculty members. We intentionally distributed the survey to faculty members who were likely to identify as Jewish by leveraging the existing AEN and ADL faculty networks and contacts. These networks include individuals who have previously engaged with Jewish communal organizations or participated in related programming, increasing the likelihood of reaching our target demographic. Our analytical sample includes 209 faculty members who are currently or were recently (within the last 18 months) employed at a U.S. college or university who identify as Jewish (religiously or otherwise). To ensure maximal data integrity with an online survey, our analytical sample excludes suspected bots and duplicate responses based on Qualtrics’ established thresholds for detecting these responses, and we excluded any incomplete survey submissions (submissions that were not marked as finished by Qualtrics). Additionally, prior to fielding the survey, we obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from Gratz College.

The sample was 52.6% men, 46.9% women, and 0.48% prefer not to say in terms of gender. Surveyed faculty had varied types of academic appointments (including lecturers, adjunct faculty, and others), but the overwhelming majority (80.9%) were either an assistant professor, associate professor, or professor. Respondents came from a variety of academic fields, including the sciences, engineering, humanities, business, and others.

The survey aimed to explore perceptions and experiences of antisemitism, observations of faculty behavior or discourse related to Jewish identity, Zionism, Israel, and antisemitic tropes, as well as experiences with institutional responses to reported antisemitism and academic boycotts. The survey is not representative of the full population of Jewish faculty. Reaching Jewish faculty members directly poses a significant challenge due to the lack of a centralized or public directory for contact, and many are cautious about participating in surveys on sensitive topics like antisemitism. Institutional gatekeeping, concerns about retaliation and professional repercussions, and survey fatigue further reduce response rates. Despite these limitations, the survey provides meaningful insights into Jewish faculty experiences and perceptions, serving as a valuable foundation for future, more targeted research and advocacy.

Acknowledgements

The work of the ADL Ronald Birnbaum Center to Combat Antisemitism in Education (CCAE) is made possible by the generous support of: 

• Amy P Goldman
• Lillian Goldman Charitable Trust

AEN would also like to thank a number of its faculty members who provided helpful feedback on early drafts of the survey instrument. We are grateful for their time and expertise.

Appendix

Table A1. Percentage of surveyed faculty who have experienced each of the following on campus since October 7, 2023

N=209. Results are based on a select all that apply question, so the sum of these percentages exceeds 100%.

Table A2. Percentage of surveyed faculty who have experienced each of the following on campus since October 7, 2023, based on their real or perceived Jewishness or support of Israel
 

N=209. Results are from a select all that apply question, so the sum of these percentages exceeds 100%.

Table A3. Percentage of surveyed faculty who have experienced each of the following since October 7, 2023 within professional academic associations
 

N = 190. Respondents who indicated that they were not a member of any professional academic associations were excluded from these analyses. Results are based on a select all that apply question, so the sum of these percentages exceeds 100%.

Table A4. Percentage of surveyed faculty who have experienced each of the following in academic associations since October 7, 2023, based on their real or perceived Jewishness or support of Israel
 

N = 190. Respondents who indicated that they were not a member of any professional academic associations were excluded from these analyses. Results are based on a select all that apply question, so the sum of these percentages exceeds 100%.

Endnotes