Earlier this month, the Anti-Defamation League gave Princeton a C on its annual campus antisemitism report card. It would make sense that the University, like many of its students, wouldn’t be used to receiving grades lower than an A. But this C is one we shouldn’t worry about. The ADL’s assessments of colleges and universities don’t actually measure antisemitism in any meaningful way, nor do they measure the quality of Jewish student life.
For the past three years, the ADL has released a set of grades for 150 schools across the U.S., grading them on criteria ranging from the vibrancy of the campus’s Jewish life to whether they have Kosher dining options or pro-Israel advocacy groups. From there, the rankings are used by politicians like Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., to deride schools for their supposedly high levels of antisemitism.
The ADL groups its grading parameters under three broad umbrellas: publicly disclosed administrative action, campus Jewish life, and so-called campus climate concerns, or the pervasiveness of antisemitic incidents on a campus. This third category encapsulates any action ranging from physical assault or threats towards Jewish students to “workshops and trainings organized by students,” or advocacy for divestment from Israeli companies.
The first umbrella, administrative action, measures whether schools have certain rules or positions surrounding issues related to antisemitism, and includes parameters set by the ADL.
But the ADL is not — nor should it be — the sole arbiter of what qualifies as antisemitism. In fact, the ADL’s definition of antisemitism creates problems for Jews in a broader sense: While the organization explains that criticism of Israel’s government is not antisemitic, they also state that language that demonizes or delegitimizes the state does count as antisemitism.
That is duplicitous. Indeed, as Rob Eshman argued in The Forward, an American Jewish publication, there exists a contradiction for a group that claims to both battle antisemitism while also advocating the interests of Israel. Not all Jews are Zionist, and for those of us who aren’t, classifying criticism of Zionism as antisemitism circumscribes the scope of a vigorous debate – a deep-seated Jewish value – within the Jewish diaspora.
The organization’s report card considers whether schools have study abroad options in Israel or partnerships with Israeli institutions, and the prevalence of “anti-Zionist student government activity.” But for many Jews, who do not feel connected to Israel or actively oppose settlements in the West Bank or a ruthless military campaign in Gaza that many consider genocide, grounding a campaign ostensibly against antisemitism in wholehearted support of Israel doesn't accurately reflect their experience.
The second ADL parameter is the quality of Jewish life. This is an arbitrary metric. Some schools that don’t have a Jewish studies program or Kosher dining options, like Carleton College, were given the same grade on quality of Jewish life as Princeton, which has both. Princeton, though, received an overall letter grade lower than Carleton, primarily because of its “campus climate.”
This ever-nebulous “campus climate,” the third parameter on the ADL’s report card, is both oversimplified and overbroad in its categorization of “anti-Zionist,” and by its logic, “antisemitic” incidents. Whenever an organization tries to distill the attitude of a campus into a singular letter grade, it is obvious that there is egregious generalization involved.
No matter how many polls or surveys are distributed, the nuances of specific campus communities cannot be generalized out to the broader higher education community. Moreover, the ADL conflates actions like physical violence against Jewish people with protests or other student events surrounding Israel and Palestine that do not subscribe to the ADL’s view of Zionism. While such oversimplification may be helpful in pushing a political message solely in support of the state of Israel, it does not help fight antisemitism, an issue that is complex and multifaceted.
All of this might be overlooked, though, if Jewish students felt actively unsafe on Princeton’s campus. Except they don’t.
This paper’s own reporting included quotes from a number of Jewish leaders on this campus explaining that they felt the grade didn’t reflect how they felt about antisemitism on Princeton’s campus. In 2024, J Street U, a center-left Jewish advocacy group which has a chapter on Princeton’s campus, criticized the ADL’s report card as “counterproductive” because of the ways that it oversimplifies complex issues related to antisemitism.
As I’ve previously noted, Jewish students at Princeton have some of the highest levels of satisfaction with our Princeton experience. This is, of course, not to say that antisemitism does not pose a problem on our campus and beyond. But it is disingenuous for the ADL to claim that antisemitism is pervasive on Princeton’s campus, because evidence continues to show that it is not true.
Through conflating antisemitism and anti-Zionism, the ADL is not making an innocuous error. Such a conflation has serious consequences for the ability to rationally evaluate and discuss Israel’s actions in Gaza and elsewhere. When calls for divestment or student protests are treated as hostile antisemitic activity, the ADL does a serious disservice to the fight against antisemitism.
Head Opinion Editor Charlie Yale is a sophomore from Omaha, Neb. You can reach him at yale[at]dailyprincetonian.com. Yale is a board member of the Alliance of Jewish Progressives.
Read More
Princeton’s cultural festivals deserve a place in lecture halls
Cathleen BalidCultural festivals provide food and entertainment, but each performance and meal offers only a brief snapshot and glimpse into a potential culture. And if a performance does generate interest, there’s no place for that interest to go.
Cultural festivals provide food and entertainment, but each performance and meal offers only a brief snapshot and glimpse into a potential culture. And if a performance does generate interest, there’s no place for that interest to go.
Abolish Ivy Day
Audrey TanWhen a student is receiving up to eight high-stakes decisions in the same day, they may not be able to separate and process each decision. The University should strive to release decisions earlier to be fair to its applicants.
When a student is receiving up to eight high-stakes decisions in the same day, they may not be able to separate and process each decision. The University should strive to release decisions earlier to be fair to its applicants.
Continue funding access and opportunity
Vitalia SpatolaReducing funding for EBCAO, especially alongside layoffs and program restructuring elsewhere, would disproportionately affect students — both Princeton and transfer — who already face systemic barriers.
Reducing funding for EBCAO, especially alongside layoffs and program restructuring elsewhere, would disproportionately affect students — both Princeton and transfer — who already face systemic barriers.