Immediately after October 7, 2023, Columbia University’s leadership issued statements, implemented policies, engaged its disciplinary procedures, and took many other actions that made clear that it would brook no tolerance for members of the community who held beliefs or views that conflicted in any way with an ardently pro-Zionist and pro-Israeli position, even, or especially if, those community members were Jewish. They were called “kapos”, “self-hating Jews”, and other epithets, labeled antisemites, suffered unfounded and harassing disciplinary investigations, received death threats, and otherwise made to feel that they were unwelcome on Columbia’s campus. Some were fired, forced into retirement, removed from important administrative positions, or otherwise punished for taking positions that conflicted with the University's favored, pro-Zionist views.
Columbia University has permitted and contributed to the creation of a campus climate that was manifestly hostile to Jewish members of the community who held beliefs and/or expressed views that were critical of the state of Israel’s disproportionate military response to those attacks. So too, non-Jewish members of the community who affiliated themselves with disfavored Jewish colleagues experienced serious harassment and discrimination from the University and members of the Columbia community.
In July 2025, Columbia University entered into an agreement with the Trump administration, the text of which remains secret, that establishes a $21 million fund to be disbursed to Jewish employees of Columbia who claim to have “experienced antisemitism” on campus which, like the $1.8 billion “MAGA” fund currently being set up by the Justice department, appears explicitly designed to reward claimants whose political views align with the Columbia and Trump administrations.
On June 2, 2026, a number of Jewish Columbia professors, whose views and identities do not fall within these narrow definitions, filed claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the discriminatory harassment they experienced as Jews by Columbia University. Although they hold a range of relationships to Judaism and to Israel, these professors tell a chilling story of a university that took sides in a complex international crisis, and punished faculty and other employees who did not step in line with the university’s official position. They recount a severe and pervasively hostile climate in which their voices were not heard and their Jewishness was officially maligned. It is worth noting that as the deadline for submission of claims approached, many faculty rethought filing a claim. They were very concerned about retaliation by the Columbia administration, even though they were informed that Title VII includes strong protections against retaliation. Many expressed the view, "why would Columbia start following the law now?" This is a salient reflection of how many faculty have come to not only mistrust, but fear, the University administration. Ironically, this is borne out in a process that is designed to repair that very mistrust and fear.
The following are excerpts from the statements submitted along with their claims:
“It was clear that the University’s leadership embraced a stereotype that all Jews think alike, something that I find deeply offensive. What is more, the University’s position on what the “Jewish community” at Columbia felt about the current crisis in Israel/Palestine - as Jews - invited and enabled the hostile attacks I received both within and outside the Columbia Community.”
“As a Jew, I experienced a hostile work environment because the Columbia administration acceded to and acted upon a false and insultingly narrow definition of who counts as a Jew. Furthermore, it singled out Jews with particular viewpoints for special protection while ignoring the pain and concerns of students of Palestinian and Middle Eastern descent.”
“The composition of and charge to the anti-Semitism Task Force communicated a clear message to the community that a diversity of views held by Jewish members of the Columbia community about the meaning of the October 7th attacks and Israel’s military response thereto were not going to be tolerated or welcome.”
“When it created a Task Force on Antisemitism, Columbia staffed it not with scholarly experts in antisemitism, Jewish history, or the nature of prejudice, but with ardent Zionists who set about to amplify what the administration had already pronounced: That anti-Zionism, criticism of Israeli state actions, and support for Palestinian self-determination are inherently antisemitic. Though the task force stated that one of its purposes was “to ensure that protection, respect, and belonging extends to everyone” on Columbia’s campus, that principle did not apply to those who don’t endorse contemporary Zionism.”
“I was subjected to insults (called a “kapo” and “fake Jew”; publicly maligned in an official university report as calling for the destruction of Israel, when I have never done, nor would do, any such thing). My knowledge and views of and identification with Jewish history and values were discounted to such an extent that, between October 7, 2023, and July 25, 2025, I experienced a pervasive sense of alienation and repudiation from the university on account of my Jewish identity.”
“Jewish faculty (experienced) a climate of fear and concern about repercussions the university might take against Jewish faculty who did not embrace the university's official position on how Jewish affiliates understood this political crisis.”
“I was repeatedly called a Kapo and a self-hating Jew. This constitutes discrimination against Jews, like me, who support Palestinian freedom and the freedom to express that support. This was all the more frightening for my childhood under Soviet -era communism and the fearful dreams I still carry with me from that time. Such threatening silencing was common under that regime and my family came to the United States precisely to flee from it. Jews were specifically targeted under communism and thus were forced again and again to declare their support of the regime. These demands to tow a specific line made me especially vulnerable to such injunctions here at Columbia. The only acceptable way to be Jewish was to support Israel. There was no longer a way for me to be Jewish on Columbia’s campus.”
“In community announcements, published reports, and Congressional testimony, leaders of Columbia equated Zionism with Jewishness -- political ideology with identity -- thereby erasing more than a century of Jewish historical debate and experience and thereby declaring Jewish members of the Columbia community who do not embrace Zionism (a particular idea of Zionism, at that) somehow not genuinely Jewish. Such erasure is itself antisemitic, and those of us who expressed support for Palestinian rights and dignity, and who raised legitimate political criticism of Israeli governmental actions or about the nature of contemporary Zionism, were targets of this bigotry … I experienced a pervasive sense of alienation and repudiation from the university on account of my Jewish identity.”
“This experience of harassment and abuse encouraged and condoned by Columbia University has had a disastrous impact on my health and my work life … I have not fully recovered and may never. Columbia University, which had been my home, was not then and is not now a safe environment for someone like me, a non-Zionist Jewish faculty member who believes strongly in human rights and justice and is not afraid to say so.”
"Beginning in October, 2023 and up to the present, Columbia has created a hostile work environment for Jews like myself who, based on our Jewish beliefs and values, are deeply opposed to Israel’s enduring and criminal oppression of the Palestinians. This includes deep opposition to Israel’s almost complete destruction of Gaza and Gazan civilian life in its war launched after the appalling and criminal attack on Israeli civilians of October 7 2023. Columbia has in many ways established that the only legitimate Jewish identity it recognizes is one that supports Israel in these efforts, and that it rejects the Jewish tradition from which I come, and indeed considers my Jewish beliefs to be anti-semitic and potentially punishable if expressed."
“Jews, we were continually told [by the Columbia administration], were unsafe and in need of protection. But by ‘Jews,’ it became clear, they meant only certain Jewish members of the Columbia community were protected. Others were not protected; rather, many of us were seen as a threat for challenging the narrative of defenders of Israel who broadly defined all criticism of Israel as antisemitic.”
“As a Jewish person, I experienced this ‘protection’ [for Columbia’s Jewish community] as the creation of a climate of fear – one where I was afraid to speak out and participate in the intellectual life of the community, since I lacked the protections of tenure … the pervasive harassment of and lack of institutional support for Jewish colleagues who spoke critically of Israel created a climate of fear and deepened concerns about repercussions that the University might take against Jewish faculty who held views different from those of espoused by the Anti-Semitism Task Force and enshrined in public statements made by University officials (in a variety of venues on and off-campus).”
“How dare the University, even through implication, affirm that all its Jewish employees or students support or are to be identified with a foreign government? This is an offensive position to take and announces openly the institution’s contempt for non-Zionist Jews, anti-Zionist Jews, and Jews who simply dissent from the modern state of Israel or its most ardent American supporters.”
“I and others attempted to conduct the business of the university and of democracy, and we were met with a climate, created and nurtured by the University’s actions and inactions, of direct, personal insult and attack. We spoke as Jews about the University and how we thought it should protect its interests; we were attacked as Jews, or as bad Jews, or as fake Jews, by people who carried the University’s authority or knew they had its implicit support.”
“I do not feel safe walking around campus knowing that the University’s surveillance apparatus may be directed against me for my Jewish identity and politics, nor do I feel confident that future promotion or other decisions concerning me will be carried out fairly. Thanks to the hostile climate created for dissenting Jewish faculty like myself, I no longer consider Columbia University a safe place to work for Jews who dare to dissent from the political agenda of its most ardently pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian donors and trustees.”
"I was shocked when I learned the student group Jewish Voice for Peace had been banned from campus after their criticisms of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza were labeled antisemitic. This was terrifying to me as a Jew also critical of that campaign, because it meant that the University had decided to take a stand on what it was appropriate for a Jew to believe. In fact there were many many Jews, both at Columbia and around the country, who were highly critical of many of Israel’s actions, especially in Gaza. I felt singled-out for rebuke by my University not for any actions I took but for my principles and core beliefs. This was frightening and made me feel extremely unsafe. Every time I shared my own beliefs with anyone on campus, it required bravery on my part and risk."
"The University’s position making it clear that Jewish community members were expected to feel and express a strong loyalty to Israel even as the horrific reports of mass murder in Gaza grew ever more dire turned campus into a place where I felt unwelcome and unsafe. Having (mostly non-Jewish) University administration members lecture the community about antisemitism while describing views that closely resembled my own views based on the Jewish values I was raised with as antisemitic was a truly grotesque and distressing experience that has forever changed my view of Columbia."
In filing their claims, these professors do not dispute that members of the Columbia community did experience what they regarded as antisemitism on our campus during these two years. They insist, however, that Title VII prohibits discrimination against all members of a protected class, not merely those who hold a particular, favored political viewpoint. As such, the professors submitting the claims referenced above must be included in the class of eligible claimants, along with all other Jewish employees of Columbia. In demanding compensation for the exclusion they have experienced, they contest the university’s discriminatory practices and aim to repair the ruptured fabric of trust that Columbia has lost.
It is important to note that many professors did not submit claims to the EEOC because they feared retaliation from Columbia, from the U.S. government, and/or from non-governmental actors. Their concerns are not ungrounded, as so many of them have already suffered severe forms of doxxing, stalking, threats, and harassment on account of their teaching, speech, advocacy, or beliefs that do not reflect an unquestioningly pro-Zionist or pro-Israeli viewpoint.