Columbia’s New “Antisemitism Task Force” Won’t Say What It Thinks Anti-Semitism Is

A recent listening session hosted by Columbia University’s new Task Force on Antisemitism devolved into chaos, with a task force leader yelling at students who questioned the group’s refusal to define “antisemitism,” according to sources at the university. Meanwhile, the school is preparing to spend up to $135,000 to hire someone to support the task force, which was propped up just weeks after Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel.

During a closed-door meeting last week, Professor Ester Fuchs, who is one of the chairs of the task force, invoked a Supreme Court justice’s famous line about pornography: “I know it when I see it.” 

The task force is not going to parse words on the definition of antisemitism but will take an “experientially oriented approach,” Fuchs said. She added that they would not delve into which of the “25 definitions of antisemitism” the group would subscribe to, because “that’s not the purpose of what we’re doing.” 

The task force’s ambiguous mandate is concerning students and faculty who worry that not defining antisemitism could stifle criticism of Israel’s actions or hinder efforts to tamp down actual instances of antisemitism. In a leaked email exchange about the task force obtained by LitHub, one professor suggested that, since the task force is unwilling to define antisemitism, the group may as well be named “The Task Force on, Like, Campus Vibes.”

Amid the campus debate over the task force’s purpose, the university has opened a 35-hour per week job posting for a research director for the group, with a salary range of $110,000-$135,000. “The Director will work for at least one year with the possibility of an extension and will hire and supervise a staff of up to three Research Assistants,” the job description notes. Among the director’s responsibilities will be to “design and execute an academically rigorous program of qualitative research on anti-Semitism at Columbia.”

The resources the university is devoting to the task force stands in stark contrast to its handling of other issues plaguing the campus. While the task force has said it is concerned about other forms of discrimination, including Islamophobia and anti-Arab bigotry, Columbia has not set up any specific processes to study those issues. It has, however, banned two student groups for holding unauthorized protests for Gaza, and it has moved slowly on an investigation into a chemical attack during a Palestine solidarity protest in January. 

The task force, announced on November 1, released its first report of recommendations this week. The report addresses everything from campus demonstrations to disciplinary enforcement, leaving faculty worried that the task force has too broad of a scope. 

“If we wanted to have a task force on protests, we could have had one of those — except we already have a Senate Rules Committee.”

“I don’t even see why this task force gets to weigh in on events policies. If we wanted to have a task force on protests, we could have had one of those — except we already have a Senate Rules Committee that put in a lot of work on the new events policy,” said Professor Joseph Howley, a member of the university’s Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine group, and the chair of one of the school’s core undergraduate classes, Literature Humanities.

“I’m still waiting to hear from the administration anything about the only actual violence that has occurred on our campus around this conflict: which has been against Palestinian students and pro-Palestinian Jewish students,” Howley told The Intercept. “I’m still waiting to hear anything from the institution about that. Why have we not set up a task force just to look into that?”

Over the last several weeks, the task force has hosted open listening sessions with students. Sources familiar with the meetings have told The Intercept that faculty hosting the sessions have dismissed, belittled, and even forced students out of the room.

In a session on February 29, students asked how the task force defined antisemitism. Professor Gil Zussman said that defining antisemitism was not a “top priority” for the task force, which would rather move forward with its work. Numerous students pounced, objecting to the idea of moving forward without defining the term the task force was ostensibly focused on. Some argued that not defining it could stifle criticism of Israel’s actions. Others pointed out that not defining antisemitism could hinder enforcement against it.

In the session Fuchs and Professor Rebecca Kobrin hosted on March 1, similar rifts emerged.

Multiple Jewish students spoke up in that meeting, saying they were worried that their anti-Zionism could be conflated with antisemitism. One Jewish student, who said their grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, described feeling like their Judaism was being erased and worried that the task force wasn’t taking their perspective seriously. They said that they didn’t feel comfortable being on campus if other students could feel comfortable calling them a Nazi simply because they didn’t agree with what is happening in Palestine.

Much of the conversation centered on the lack of an agreed-upon definition for antisemitism. After Fuchs invoked the “I know it when I see it” line, a Jewish student said they were “extremely alarmed” over the task force not defining antisemitism. That led to a tense exchange in which Fuchs repeatedly interrupted the student and briskly reminded the room that the meeting was confidential. When the student pushed back, the task force co-chair called out the student for taking notes and beginning their question “in a very provocative, antagonistic tone.” 

For several minutes, Fuchs continued to interrupt the student as they expressed concern about how the group was put together and about how faculty and student dissent is being disregarded.

Fuchs at one point responded that it was “not appropriate” for the student to suggest that she had spoken over them.

“You think you’re so clever.”

Later, a student asked whether criticism of Israel is antisemitic, prompting Fuchs to escalate further. “You think you’re so clever,” she said to the student, accusing them of trying to back her into a corner. She told the student they were being disruptive and invited the student to leave. The student walked out.

“The clearly stated ground rules governing all Task Force listening sessions have been and continue to be that the proceedings are confidential and off the record,” Fuchs wrote in a statement to The Intercept. “I adhere to those rules even if other participants fail to do so.”

Kobrin, for her part, tried to calm tensions in the room. She suggested that they go around the room, giving everyone a chance to speak for five minutes. A student expressed support and suggested that while people speak, the co-hosts not, prompting Fuchs to yell once again. “I would suggest that you don’t make the rules,” the task force co-chair said. “This is my meeting, and you don’t make the rules,” she added, before saying that she’d never had such a disrespectful student. “Write that down,” Fuchs challenged.

Kobrin said the task force intentionally did not land on a specific definition of antisemitism so as not to alienate people with their perceived experiences. She offered that hate, discrimination, or prejudice against Jewish people was a definition, and affirmed a Jewish student who asked whether harassment from pro-Israel Jewish people would fit the definition. Fuchs ultimately said that the task force is not taking political positions and critiques of Israel as antisemitism.

Fuchs also apologized during the meeting, saying that she had felt personally attacked. She reportedly seemed genuinely apologetic for reacting how she did — though for some students, it was too little, too late.

On Thursday, a group of students sent a letter to Columbia University President Minouche Shafik, Interim Provost Dennis Mitchell, and other officials and student Senate representatives about the meeting. “We have no confidence in Dr. Fuchs’s ability to produce a report reflecting the experiences of all of the members of the Columbia community and ask that she be replaced,” they wrote, urging the university to replace Fuchs with an anti-Zionist member.

Despite the tumultuous meetings, the task force has continued its work. On Monday, the committee released its first set of recommendations, focused on the right to protest on campus, ensuring that protests don’t interfere with the rights of others at Columbia, and to combat discrimination and harassment.

“Although our report focuses on antisemitism, we hope our recommendations will also bolster efforts to combat Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism, and other forms of bigotry. We condemn all these toxic forms of hate, and we look forward to working with colleagues and to partnering on initiatives to counter them across the University,” wrote co-chairs Fuchs, Nicholas Lemann, and David M. Schizer.

In the report, the task force frames its mandate around federal laws around discrimination and harassment and calls on the university to clarify the meaning of “discriminatory harassment” and what “speech contributes to a hostile learning or working environment.”

“When members of our community exercise their right to protest, they must be free to do so in safety and without fear. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case in recent months, and this is not acceptable,” the report said. The report also notes that the university has a policy of completing investigations into conduct violations within 15 days and recommends that the timeline be extended, so as to give complainants more time, and encourage investigators to get all the facts before acting.

Despite the 15-day policy currently on the books, the university has yet to complete its investigation into an attack on a January 19 rally for Gaza, during which students described a noxious-smelling chemical substance being launched at the crowd. 

When asked about the status of the investigation, a university official pointed The Intercept to a statement from January 30 — 37 days ago — that said the investigation is “ongoing,” and referred to the New York Police Department for more information. The official reiterated that the suspected perpetrators are banned from campus as the investigation proceeds. In recent weeks, Columbia students have told The Intercept that they’ve repeatedly seen the suspected assailants on campus and reported them to the authorities. The university official said that the Department of Public Safety has investigated those claims each time and found them “to be unsubstantiated.”

An NYPD spokesperson told The Intercept that the case is still open and that the department is “still investigating on who the people who are wanted, they just haven’t caught them yet.” The spokesperson continued: “There’s some people who are wanted that are still, like, unknown.”

Meanwhile, in February, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce — led by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C. — sent a letter to university leadership, announcing a congressional investigation into Columbia’s “response to antisemitism and its failure to protect Jewish students.” Earlier this week, after a roundtable with Jewish students, Foxx spoke with Fox News about how no student should feel fearful on any college campus in the U.S. Foxx’s office did not respond to a question about the chemical attack on Columbia’s campus or whether the committee would look into the school’s response to it.