Exploiting the accusation of "anti-Semitism" to restrict academic discourse in the United States

In an unprecedented joint report, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) published an extensive study last week revealing an increasing use of the accusation of "anti-Semitism" as a means to restrict academic and student activity in American universities, particularly related to defending the rights of Palestinians and criticizing Israeli policies.

This report is the first in-depth study documenting how civil rights legislation, originally enacted to protect victims of racial discrimination, has become a legal tool used to silence political discourse on campus, amid rising tensions regarding the stance on the war in Gaza and student activism supporting Palestinians.

The report notes a sharp increase in the number of government investigations related to allegations of "anti-Semitism" since October 7, 2023.

Twenty-five investigations were opened in just the following two months, more than had been conducted in all previous years combined.

In 2024, the number reached thirty-nine investigations, while in 2025 it reached thirty-eight by the fall of the year, with expectations of surpassing the record before its end.

Vina Dubal, the general counsel for the American Association of University Professors, states that these figures represent "a cynical use of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to suppress discourse advocating for Palestinian rights," considering what is happening "a serious deviation from the essence of the law that was originally enacted to protect equality and freedom of expression."

The report shows that the administration of former President Joe Biden did not differ fundamentally from that of his successor Donald Trump on this issue.

Between late 2023 and the end of 2024, the administration opened sixty-five investigations related to allegations of anti-Semitism, compared to only thirty-eight in cases of racial harassment.

These investigations have prompted more than twenty universities to amend their internal policies or adopt new measures that limit political activity related to the Palestinian issue.

The report's authors believe that these shifts represent "a troubling politicization of the concept of legal protection," as academic institutions have become more inclined to impose self-censorship for fear of prosecution or defamation.

The report also indicates the continued influence of Trump's anti-Semitism task force, despite budget cuts to the Department of Education, as the Department of Justice has taken a more direct role in these matters.

In the summer of 2025, the department issued findings from investigations that condemned major universities such as George Washington University and the University of California, Los Angeles, and announced the opening of new cases involving the University of California system, Columbia University, and California State University.

The study shows that the vast majority of the complaints filed – totaling 102 complaints – are directly related to Israel, with only one complaint not referencing criticisms directed at the Israeli government.

It also reveals that the source of these complaints comes from a limited group of pro-Israel organizations and individuals, most notably Zachary Marshall, editor of the Campus Reform website, who alone filed 33 complaints that led to 16 official investigations.

In a parallel political context, the Israeli newspaper "Times of Israel" reported that Israeli business circles in New York are increasingly concerned following the election of politician Zahran Mamdani as mayor of the city.

Mamdani is known for his support of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and his outspoken criticism of Israeli policies.

In an interview with MSNBC, Mamdani stated: "Criticizing Israel is a criticism of a government, not of a people or a religion," emphasizing that he will represent all New Yorkers without discrimination.

However, these statements have sparked discontent among some Israeli businessmen who expressed concern that his positions could lead to tension in the economic cooperation environment between the city and Israeli companies.

This parallel between the rise in academic investigations and the emergence of political figures adopting a critical discourse towards Israel reflects a deeper shift in the general American mood, where spaces for discussion about Palestine and Israel have become more sensitive and restrictive.

While successive American administrations justify these policies under the pretext of protecting minorities and preventing hate speech, many see the increasing accusations of anti-Semitism as being used to restrict freedom of expression, not to protect diversity.

Thus, fundamental questions arise about the future of free discussion in American universities: Has defending Palestinians become a crime cloaked in legal language? Or is the country witnessing a redefinition of the very concept of freedom amid increasing political alignment with Israel?

These developments reveal that the battle for freedom of expression in America is no longer just about the limits of speech, but about the identity of the discourse that is politically and morally permissible.

Transforming civil rights law into a tool for pursuing political positions threatens the foundations of intellectual pluralism in universities, making solidarity