New research adds weight to the view that the driving force behind anti-Semitism on elite American university campuses lies mainly with students rather than faculty. This runs counter to what some have argued in the past.

Two professors at Brandeis university, Leonard Saxe and Graham Wright, are responsible for the new findings they outlined in a recent webinar for the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism at Indiana university. They accept that some faculty with extreme views teach the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in a biased way. But the two researchers argue such cases are relatively rare.

Their findings are also in line with others who have argued that anti-Semitism – including the denial of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state - is concentrated at elite universities. That was the conclusion of a statistical study in the Washington Monthly in 2024. The point was echoed more recently by Bret Stephens, a conservative New York Times columnist, who recently gave the state of world Jewry address 2026. Speaking on the Unholy podcast (13 April 2026) he described  his experiences of talking at elite universities where there was usually some kind of disturbance. In contrast at institutions such as Colorado and Florida there would not be.

Interestingly while Jewish students reported experiencing campus life as hostile, non-Jewish students expressed the opposite view. That is the non-Jews believed that anti-Semitism was not a feature of campus life. A similar pattern was found regarding views on prejudice or the lack of it among other groups. That is students of colour felt hostility to them was a reality whereas white students disagreed. 

Other findings were in line with what one might expect. For example, that traditional anti-Semitic tropes such as Jews have too much power were more prevalent among right-leaning students. In contrast, anti-Semitic attitudes relatred to views on Israel were more typical among extreme liberals.

Saxe and Wright argue their research could form the basis of a new approach to tackling campus anti-Semitism. They note that the numbers holding extremist views are small. These include those who deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and those who would not be friends with anyone who did.

The two researchers called for an approach based on treating faculty as allies rather than enemies. They also support building empathy at least with those on the liberal side of politics.

Christopher Rufo, an American conservative polemicist and activist, has drawn contrary conclusions to those of Saxe and Wright. For him campus anti-Semitism is more of a top-down phenomenon with faculty promoting ideas rooted in critical race theory. These include the demonisation of Israel as a settler colonial state and the portrayal of Jews as benefiting from ‘white privilege’

Bret Stephens, while not going as far as Rufo, argued in his state of world Jewry address that anti-Semitism is a psychological reflex. In his opinion it is a viewpoint which cannot be eliminated. Jewish organisations should, he argued, stop channelling money into tackling anti-Semitism. Instead they should direct that money into strengthening Jewish education and cultural life.

Rufo’s critique of Ivy League universities certainly has some merit although he does focus particularly on Columbia. That institution, justifiably or otherwise, earned a reputation of being the epicentre of anti-Semitic activity during the campus protests. It is reasonable to think that things might, at least to some extent have moved on. There is evidence that students have begun forming groups and societies aimed at trying to take the toxicity out of the atmosphere on campuses. They hope to keep some form of dialogue going.

There is also a lot to be said for the view expressed on the Unholy podcast (26 May 2026) by Franklin Foer, a staff writer at the Atlantic. He described approaches like those advocated by Stephens as unduly fatalistic. In Foer’s view there are people who can be reached through persuasion and dialogue.

In reality aspects of both strategies could be combined. The appropriate response will vary from campus to campus. 

At least it seems that thinking on campus anti-Semitism seems to have moved on from the extreme polarisation in the aftermath of 7 October.

Guy Whitehouse is a member of the Academy of Ideas. His views do not necessarily reflect those of that organisation.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Radicalism of fools project.