As Student BDS Proposals Proliferate, the Abandonment of Due Process Enables Antisemitism

As colleges and universities convulse with controversy over the war between Israel and Hamas, many have seen campaigns by student organizations in favor of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement, which would isolate Israel—including Israeli academia—from the rest of the world. Such institutions would do well to learn from the mistakes made at Rutgers University, where I am a professor and co-chair of a grassroots group of Jewish faculty and staff that seeks to combat antisemitic and anti-Israel bias.

The problem of antisemitism at Rutgers goes back at least a century; since Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the university has become subject to a lawsuit, a Title VI investigation, and an inquiry by the U.S. House of Representatives. Yet things became even worse starting on March 7, 2024, when the Rutgers University Student Assembly (RUSA), the student governing body of Rutgers University-New Brunswick, suspended its own standing rules to approve two referenda for voting by the full student body: one on whether the university should divest its endowments from Israel and the other on whether the university should terminate its formal relationship with Tel Aviv University (TAU). Voting took place during the week of March 25; as of this writing, the outcome is unknown. But the process has contributed to the deterioration of an already hostile environment for Jewish students on campus, reportedly leading to alarming instances of overt antisemitism, including during classes.

The problematic wording of the first referendum should have been a signal to RUSA’s leadership that something was amiss: “Should Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, divest its endowment fund from companies and organizations that profit from, engage in, or contribute to the government of Israel’s human rights violations?” This is a classic example of a loaded question and clearly violates RUSA’s rule that the wording of referenda should be “neutral and unbiased.”

RUSA’s abandonment of its own processes have fanned the flames of hate. RUSA considered these referenda in a closed-door session, and it allowed the author(s) to remain anonymous, allegedly for fear of doxing. RUSA did not include these referenda in the agenda of the March 7 meeting, thus catching potential opponents off guard. Most significantly, RUSA suspended its own requirement that referenda be subject to “at least one week of discussion and debate.” The whole process, from presentation to unanimous approval, apparently took place in just over an hour.

By suspending its own rules, RUSA signaled to the campus community that rules do not apply where questions about Israel are concerned. This emboldened one of the sponsors of the referenda, the “Endowment Justice Collective” (EJC), to push the envelope even further by telling students to ask their professors’ permission to campaign during class. Jewish students have reported that their professors complied with these requests, and such campaigning took place during classes on subjects as disparate as Arabic language and calculus. Jewish students have described being taunted and silenced by other students during class as their professors stood by. In at least one case, a Jewish student walked out of class because he was prevented from participating in the discussion and was afraid that his continued presence in the room would convey his agreement with the referenda. As a result, that student missed a quiz and resigned himself to receiving a zero.

The professors who allowed such campaigning during class crossed a line. The American Association of University Professors, the national umbrella organization for the Rutgers faculty unions, is clear on this point: “Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matters which are unrelated to their subject, or to persistently introduce material which has no relation to the subject. This doesn’t mean teachers should avoid all controversial materials. As long as the material stimulates debate and learning that is germane to the subject matter, it is protected by freedom in the classroom.” That standard was repeatedly violated during the voting period.

The leadership of RUSA has argued that it was acting within its rights to suspend its standing rules. Perhaps. But was the suspension of rules wise? Given the controversial nature of the BDS movement, evidence of a correlation between BDS activism and antisemitism, and ample reports (including in testimony before Congress) that Jewish students at Rutgers have already experienced a hostile environment on campus this year, the answer must be a resounding “no.” In particular, neglect of the provision allowing for debate was a serious mistake that contradicts the very purpose of universities—to seek the truth. (It is not surprising that similar provision advanced by the Student Assembly at Cornell University was rejected following public debate, since discussion and deliberation are crucial to advance understanding.) RUSA’s suspension of its rules smacks of bias, and it has contributed to a sense of lawlessness that has only grown since the referenda were approved for voting. Moreover, this abandonment of the quest for truth diminishes the mission of the entire university—not just for Jews.

RUSA’s referenda will have no impact on Rutgers University policy. Changes to endowment investments must be made through petitions to the university’s Joint Committee on Investments, and RUSA has no authority over whether the university maintains its relationship with TAU. (Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway confirmed as much in a message to students after the vote was over.) What, then, was the purpose of these referenda? It can only have been to sow discord and rancor on campus. In facilitating this agenda, RUSA has abandoned its obligation to “[bridge] communities to establish productive lines of communication.” Intentionally or not, RUSA has contributed to the spread of antisemitism at Rutgers. Whatever the outcome of the voting, significant damage has been done.

Now is not the time to abandon due process, reasoned debate, and thoughtful deliberation. Doing so is tantamount to throwing Jewish students under the bus and giving up on the core mission of the university.

Let this be a cautionary tale for other institutions, including their student governments and organizations: no matter what you hear through social-media-friendly slogans, caricatures, and sound bites, now is not the time to abandon due process, reasoned debate, and thoughtful deliberation. Doing so is tantamount to throwing Jewish students under the bus and giving up on the core mission of the university.

Rebecca Cypess is a professor of music at Rutgers University and a faculty affiliate in Jewish Studies. She is co-chair of Rutgers JFAS (Jewish Faculty, Administrators, and Staff), a grassroots group of Jewish employees of Rutgers that combats antisemitism and anti-Israel bias and promotes a supportive environment for Jews on campus.