When Tiffenia Archie attended IDEAL’s Teach-In on Tuesday, she was satisfied to witness an open dialogue which stemmed from a lecture about the complexities between antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
“We’re all about creating space for difficult dialogue,” said Archie, vice president of Temple’s Institutional, Diversity, Equity and Leadership office. “It’s the foundation of the work that we do. I’m happy that people came out and were vulnerable and engaged in what I thought was a really thoughtful conversation.”
Temple’s Feinstein Center for American Jewish History co-sponsored IDEAL’s Teach-In on antisemitism, anti-Zionism and free expression on campus alongside Temple’s departments of religion, history and Jewish studies. The forum aimed to educate attendees on language’s importance in campus advocacy while equipping participants with tools to navigate ambiguities between antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
Laura Levitt, a Jewish studies professor, introduced a screening model from the Nexus Task Force, a criteria designed to differentiate antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Nexus aligns with a definition of antisemitism which entails discrimination based on Jewish or Semitic identity, and a definition of anti-Zionism which indicates the protest of Zionism, or the creation of a sovereign Jewish state in Israel.
Levitt delved into these nuances, discussing how bias must be separated from academic discourse.
“I think all acknowledge that there are cases in which expressions of anti-Zionism use clearly antisemitic tropes and ideas and/or regard all Jews as if they are representatives of whatever actions the state of Israel is taking,” Levitt said. “It would be really helpful for us to leave this room with some tools that we can use as we try to assess whether an instance or allegation of antisemitism is indeed antisemitic.”
The Teach-In gradually progressed from a structured panel into a lively, candid forum as students and faculty confronted growing political tensions on campus head-on. Panelists cited anti-Zionist events on campus and used the Nexus model to determine whether they encroached on antisemitic. Nexus noted three key points for deliberation: stereotyping, violence, and the conflation of Jewish people with Israel.
Lila Berman, a Jewish studies professor, prefaced the lecture by addressing the responsibility frequently placed on universities to set an example for protest and disciplinary action.
Temple faced scrutiny in September when a pro-Palestinian student protest at a career fair on campus ended with four arrests and accusations of police brutality toward the school, leading to juratory meetings with civil liberties groups.
“There are a lot of groups putting a kind of magnification on what’s happening at universities that’s actually making it a little hard for us to do what we do best, which is to try to figure things out,” Berman said.
Framing the dialogue around the need for free expression, Levitt stressed the inherent role of open dialogue in academia.
“It’s important for those of us who do Jewish Studies to be able to say that Palestinian voices need to be heard on campus,” Levitt said. “We have to really recognize the ways in which the encroachment on free speech in university settings tamper with those important conversations [about Israel-Palestine] that have to happen in classrooms.”
The lecture’s format promptly dissolved as students raised questions for panelists about the application of Nexus to campus matters. Berman previously underscored “delegitimization” as a core Nexus concept. Holocaust denial was used as an example to illustrate the dangers of erasing historical trauma.
Following the arrests at the career fair on Sept. 26, Temple University Police Department faced backlash for targeted brutalization of protestors. Vice President for Public Safety Jennifer Griffin belatedly attended the panel, well-starched and grinning at students. Martin Beirne, a freshman liberal arts major, raised their concerns about the treatment of student protesters to Griffin.
“I think it’s important that we’re not denying the significance of a holocaust that is taking place right now against the Palestinian people,” Beirne said. “And I think it’s really important to recognize that and be aware of that context. Your forces have been brutal against students who are protesting [it].”
Griffin responded, telling Beirne that it is her duty to protect the rights of all students attending Temple.
Berman, a co-creator of the Nexus model, advocated for a measured approach to controversial student expressions about punitive responses.
“When we make some misjudgments or someone takes a wrong step or a student says something [controversial], our best approach is to have conversations,” Berman said. “To have education, not to resort to punishment as the first order or second order or even third order. But we’re in an environment in which that’s very difficult.”
Other students were concerned with Nexus’s examples of antisemitism. Lucy Lunay, a junior social communications major, connected this context to a pro-Palestinian protest held in front of Temple’s Hillel Center on Aug. 29, creating unease about antisemitism within its community.
Panelists cited this example when discussing separating identity from politics. Lunay argued that the panel’s example was inadequate for separating religion from identity, and made a counterclaim to earlier remarks.
“I think it’s important to talk about who exactly those Jewish spaces present themselves for,” Lunay said. “Because in personal experience there have been certain Jewish organizations who specifically exclude Jews who do not support the state of Israel.”
Be the first to comment