Saving Northwestern University From Itself

Reports suggest the U.S. Department of Education is negotiating with Northwestern University to resolve allegations of antisemitism in exchange for the release of suspended federal grants. In my book, Conspiracy U: A Case Study, I detailed the systemic antisemitism and abandonment of academic standards at Northwestern long before these issues became widely recognized. This problem has deep roots; as late as 1970, Northwestern was the last major American university to abandon its quota system for Jewish applicants.  For real change to occur, any settlement must go far beyond a fine.

At Northwestern, like at most universities, academic departments operate as individual fiefdoms, especially concerning doctoral admissions. In many departments within the Humanities and Social Sciences, Jewish applicants who do not performatively disavow any affinity for Israel are effectively barred from Ph.D. programs. While a non-Jewish applicant might conceal pro-Israel views, this is not an option for Jewish students, who face a litmus test that serves as a clear form of ethnic discrimination.

Numerous faculty members who claim not to know any Zionist Jews are, in a sense, telling the truth—their own discriminatory practices ensure they never encounter them. To fix this, any settlement must mandate an outside monitor for graduate admissions and faculty hiring. This oversight should not only halt this specific antisemitic practice but also encourage a genuine diversity of fact-based views within departments.

Undergraduate admissions must also be addressed. The number of Jewish students at Northwestern has been plummeting as they feel increasingly unwelcome; some Jewish high schools that once sent numerous applicants now send none. Conversely, anti-Jewish activism appears to have become a “plus” for admission. Like Columbia University, which recently agreed to provide its admissions data to the government, Northwestern has forfeited its credibility in fairly judging applicants. An outside monitor is essential to ensure a return to fairer, more transparent standards that do not discriminate against Jews or Christian Zionists.

The administration’s pattern of gaslighting and intimidation must end. It routinely dismisses threats against Jewish students as “free speech,” no matter how malevolent. In one case, posters targeting a Jewish student by name and calling for her blood prompted no administrative action. Vandalism of university property goes unpunished if the message is anti-Jewish or anti-Israel.

This duplicity was on full display during negotiations to clear the Deering Meadow encampment. Administrators allegedly coached protestors on what demands to make so the university could publicly concede to them, using the pro-Israel Jewish community as a pawn. In an act of pure chutzpah, the administration even sought to fund and appoint an anti-Zionist rabbi to minister to Jewish students—an action comparable to the Chinese Communist Party seeking to appoint the Dalai Lama.

Furthermore, Northwestern’s actions have forced local Hillel and Chabad chapters to divert significant resources from programming to student safety. The university has also maintained a de facto permanent ban on the campus Chabad House since 2013 over allegations related to serving alcohol at religious events. While a temporary suspension may have been warranted, the refusal to rescind the ban exemplifies a double standard of justice. As part of a settlement, the university must make substantial contributions to both Hillel and Chabad and reinstate the Chabad House in full standing.

The hardest part to fix is the corrosion of the university’s core mission. Northwestern has largely abandoned its pursuit of truth and robust learning in favor of enforcing ideological conformity. Debate is only permitted within narrow, department-sanctioned parameters. Many departments wield political concepts like “settler colonialism” as if they were undisputed scientific laws, with a particular obsession on Israel, Jews, and Zionism that dwarfs nearly all other global issues.  The only advocacy that comes close is their criticism of “Ameiricanists”.  There should not be a de facto requirement that faculty members express a dislike for the United States.

Because faculty are a self-perpetuating group—determining their successors, research funding, and the pool for administrative leadership—internal oversight from the provost and trustees has become a rubber stamp. This leads to a difficult but necessary conclusion: any  settlement that does not include an outside monitor to approve faculty hires and grants of tenure, in addition to graduate admissions will be insufficient.

For the long run, the Northwestern community should welcome a renewal of its academic integrity. In the age of AI, teaching students to regurgitate ideological catechisms is worthless; learning how to think for themselves is more critical than ever. The professional schools have also suffered, with intimidating anti-Israel demonstrations distracting from their missions. Jewish students at the medical and law schools now feel compelled to hide any connection to Israel. Here, too, outside oversight is needed to ensure admissions are based on merit, not on ideological alignment or activism.  We need the best, most competent doctors and lawyers, not those best at yelling anti-Israel slogans or promulgating conspiracy theories about Jews.

No one should cheer about this situation. Northwestern is a storied institution with a proud history, and its betrayal of its own values is deeply dispiriting. My prediction is that Northwestern will seek a settlement because litigation is an untenable option for the university. The discovery process would likely expose internal communications and policies that are far more dire than what is publicly known, about its treating the Jewish community as sacrificial pawns and how the university obfuscated about its controversial relationship with Al Jazeera.

So, a settlement is coming. The Department of Education holds the cards.  The DOE must ensure it creates lasting, structural change and returns Northwestern to its rightful place as a gem of American academia.

Scott A. Shay is the author of Conspiracy U: A Case Study (Wicked Son, 2021) and In Good Faith: Questioning Religion and Atheism (Post Hill Press, 2017). He  has two degrees from Northwestern University.