A Green Light for Authoritarianism by Cameron W. Rasmussen

Columbia became the second university this year to adopt the IHRA framework, following Harvard, which adopted the definition in January. While the IHRA’s usage has been debated on campuses across the U.S., its adoption at Columbia and Harvard are significant because of the IHRA’s incorporation into anti-discrimination policy, and the circumstances under which they occurred. Both campuses have faced attacks from the federal government since the spring of 2024 under the pretense of their alleged failure to address antisemitism. The attacks only increased following the election of Donald Trump, who leveraged hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding in an attempt to force universities to capitulate to his demands.

Columbia caved to the pressure early on. But while Harvard is notably fighting the Trump administration’s withdrawal of federal funds in court, they nonetheless adopted the IHRA definition as part of the settlement agreements of separate lawsuits. Both universities have also begun partnerships with the Anti-Defamation League, a fervent supporter of Israel, Zionism and the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The organization has played a significant role in attempts to repress speech and activism for Palestinian human rights, including on college campuses.

Historian and McCarthyism scholar Ellen Schrecker argues that the repression of today is much worse than that of the McCarthyist period because it “the repression that’s coming out of Washington, D.C., attacks everything that happens on American campuses.” During the McCarthy era, roughly 100 professors were targeted for being affiliated with the Communist Party or even having progressive political leanings. Today, faculty and staff have been targeted and fired for supporting Palestine, and students have been abducted by ICE, threatened with deportation, arrested, suspended, and expelled from their campuses for their expressed beliefs. Notably, universities are not alone in their increasing capitulation to the federal government, as prominent law firms, news outlets, and social media organizations have also caved in to the administration.

The attempts to limit debate and critique of Israel and of Zionism alone warrant alarm, and in the context of an ongoing genocide, should be understood as complicity. But the willingness of institutions to bend and manipulate the definition of antisemitism has even more far-reaching implications. By turning discrimination on its head to protect only certain political identities, these institutions are giving a green light to an authoritarian executive to set the limits of political debate and inquiry.