Many universities in the US have changed their policies, but now they must enforce them - opinion

Since October 7, anti-Zionist and antisemitic agitators have participated in pro-Hamas campus protests, encampments, and other activities targeting and marginalizing Jewish and Israeli students across the US. Despite clear evidence of discrimination, harassment, and even violence, campus DEI and disciplinary offices regularly apply double standards and slaps on the wrist for policy infractions – as long as the victims of the offenses are Jews. At many universities, the agitators’ antisemitic calls for BDS in the spring semester became more vocal, were adopted by student organizations, and even promoted on official university websites and platforms.

However, after a number of high-profile congressional hearings, donor revolts, lawsuits, and Title VI administrative complaints, that trend is beginning to change. Several university president and deans were compelled to resign after their administrative failures were exposed. And in an apparent effort to escape further liability and public backlash, an increasing number of universities spent the summer finally clarifying and refining their codes of conduct and other policies to protect Jewish students.

These policy changes vary from school to school, but generally include common-sense time, place, and manner restrictions tailored to avoid the type of disruptions that occurred in the last academic year. For example, several major universities, such as the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Connecticut recently banned encampments, while others, like the University of South Florida and the University of Virginia, now require formal approval to set up tents.

Others imposed limitations on chalking (University of Minnesota), posters (Binghamton University), sound amplifications (Virginia Tech), and proximity of protests to university buildings (Indiana University). The University of California system now prohibits protesters from wearing masks that hide their identities on its campuses, and colleges like the University of Virginia now require masked individuals to show identification upon demand, effectively removing the erstwhile anonymity that emboldened unlawful and violent activity.

Other institutions, like the University of Texas, adopted policies of “institutional neutrality,” refraining altogether from institutional commentary on political issues. And other colleges, like Williams College and Amherst College, officially rejected the bigoted calls they received for divestment from Israeli companies.

Legal action undoubtedly played a significant role in this progress. As part of the settlement of a lawsuit against it, NYU confirmed that it will do what it should have been doing all along – treating allegations of discrimination against Jews the same way it treats such allegations when directed at other groups. It also announced the creation of a new “Title VI Coordinator” position to oversee compliance with anti-discrimination laws. And to demonstrate that it is taking the issue seriously, the university recently warned its students that using the word “Zionist” as a code word for “Jewish” will not immunize them from its nondiscrimination/harassment policies.

Other institutions facing lawsuits

The University of Pennsylvania, after facing its own lawsuits and Title VI administrative complaint, later echoed the idea of establishing an office to oversee compliance with antidiscrimination laws and policies, calling it the “Office of Religious and Ethnic Inclusion (Title VI) at Penn.” On the West Coast, UCLA had to be ordered by a judge not to allow discrimination against its Jewish students, but after initially signaling an outrageous intent to appeal that order, even that university reluctantly accepted the requirement.

While these policy changes are an encouraging sign, their efficacy will depend largely on the next, just as important, step – their enforcement. As Columbia University demonstrated by its failure to enforce existing policies and by treating even egregious violators leniently, merely having a policy is not the same as enforcing it. And enforcing a policy selectively is not the same as applying it equally to all students.

That is why the American Jewish community and its allies must continue to do everything in their power to hold universities accountable for their moral and legal obligations to keep their students safe from harm and to redress incidents of harassment and discrimination. Only by doing so can they ensure that the universities will not only continue to improve their policies, but that administrators at those universities will take prompt action to enforce those policies – fairly and without double standards – for all their students.

The writer is the assistant director of the StandWithUs Saidoff Legal Department, a division of StandWithUs, a nonprofit education organization dedicated to supporting Israel and combating antisemitism.