What is the connection between the Bondi Beach massacre and Rice University, which is over 8500 miles away? To answer that question we must go back to the events of February 15, 2024, which is when the “campus Intifada” broke out at on the Rice University campus. The protest movement at Rice started with a group of pro-Palestinian protesters disrupting a presentation by by Antonio Neri, Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett Packard Enterprises, organized by the Rice Center for Engineering Leadership and attended by approximately 200 guests. The response by Rice to this clear violation of the university’s Code of Student Conduct, as well as Policy 820, was a thundering silence. In fact, the only public response to the disruption was an op-ed article at Rice’s student newspaper, The Thresher. The article ended with “This is an institutional matter, and I wait for an institutional reply from the Rice president, provost and other authorities.” No institutional reply ever came. When explicitly asked, the response from Provost Amy Dittmar was “We cannot comment due to students’ privacy”, even though they could have commented without mentioning students’ names. Opacity is an instrument to evade accountability.

After the disruptors were expelled from the auditorium by the Rice University Police Department (RUPD), they regrouped outside the Brochstein Pavilion at the center of the campus, where they mounted a loud demonstration. As on other campuses, the demonstrators did not call for a ceasefire or for an independent Palestinian state. Rather, their loud chants included “From the river to the sea, Palestinian shall be free”, “Intifada Revolution is the only solution”, and “Globalize the Intifada”. There has been an extensive debate whether such chants are or not antisemitic. But I am an Israeli Jew (Israeli, for short). We hear people say these days, “I am not antisemitic; I am anti-Zionist.” I doubt that these people can define “Zionist”; “Zionist” for them has just become a code word for “Israeli” or “Jew”. I challenge anyone to argue that such chants are not anti-Israeli. As Judith Shulevitz wrote, “A close look at the words being shouted at protests on campuses across the country reveals why some see the pro-Palestinian cause as so threatening.”

Israelis (there are about 15 Israelis on the Rice campus) view chants about the Intifada as threatening, rather than merely offensive. The Second Intifada was a 2000–2005 terror campaign aimed at Israeli civilians — which included suicide bombings, shootings, and stabbings — resulting in over 1,000 people murdered. I lost a very good friend in the Passover Massacre, a suicide bombing carried out by Hamas at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel in March 2002, during a Passover festive meal, in which 30 civilians were killed and 140 were injured. To me “Globalize the Intifada” means that not only Israelis in Israel are legitimate targets, but that Israelis everywhere are legitimate targets. The Intifada chants are simply calls for violence. As Jonathan Chait recently wrote about the recent US campus-protest movement: “The movement’s ideological character invites rage and violence.”

My response to these threats was to launch a formal complaint with RUPD. On February 16, 2024, I informed RUPD, as well as Rice’s leadership, that threats of violence have been issued against me and against other Israelis on the Rice campus. The only response I received was that I should download an alert app to my phone. (Other Israelis received similar advice.) Inquiries as to what happened with my RUPD complaints have been answered with “We cannot comment due to students’ privacy.”

I and others also filed complaints with Rice’s Office of Equal Opportunity Services, arguing that the threatening chants violate Rice’s Policy 830 on Discrimination and Harassment. (See Rice’s definition of Harassment here.) EOS investigated if the chants that we found threatening are truly threatening. Perhaps “From the river to the sea” is just about freedom, never mind that the origin of the phrase, as coined by the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the 1960s, was “from the water to the water, Palestine will be Arab”, which is what protesters at the Rice “liberated zone” (see below) have been chanting in Arabic. Perhaps, “Intifada” just means ““shaking off injustice”, and “resistance is justified” is just about “self-defense”, never mind the 1,000 Israelis that were murdered in the Second Intifada, and the 1200 Israelis that were murdered on Oct. 7.

After a six-months long investigation, EOS dismissed the complaint, arguing that the Intifada chants do not meet the Texas Penal Code standard of “threats of violence”, which requires the threat to imply imminent harm. But the complaint was not based on the Texas Penal Code, but on Rice’s Policy 830, which refers to conduct that is “severe or pervasive enough to create a work or educational environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.” In mid-April 2024, a group of about ten Israelis — faculty members, staff members, and students — held a meeting with the leadership of the university, including President DesRoches and EOS Director, Dr. Richard A. Baker. We made it clear that we do not feel safe on the Rice campus. Two people pulled out pocket knives that they carry with them for self defense while on the Rice campus. The leadership listened with interest, but no promise of concrete steps to address these issues was made. Apparently, they have decided that all ten Israelis that came to the meeting are not reasonable persons.

A couple of weeks later, at the end of April 2024, Rice SJP declared a “liberated zone” on campus. Rice said that this “encampment” had their approval, and called it a “student-led teach-in event”, but the approval — acquiescence may be a better description — came after the fact and was not obtained 48 hours in advance, as required.

The image below is of a poster distributed at the Rice encampment. It clarifies what the chant “Free Palestine” mean; it means “Zionists get out”, i.e., ethnic cleansing. Another chant glorifies violence against Israelis, “with blood we redeem you Palestine”. The chant “We don’t want Zionist here”, turn the “liberated zone” into a Israeli-exclusion zone. Yet, in an end-of-semester email sent to campus April 28, 2024, President DesRoches described the encampment activities as “responsible, personal expression”. So Rice students are calling on the Rice campus for ethnic cleansing, and President DesRoches refers to that as “responsible expression”.

In early September 2024, in preparation the first anniversary of Oct. 7, 2023, RiceSJP posted the following image on their Instagram page.

In response, I filed another complaint with EOS, arguing that the image implies violence and therefore amounts to intimidation, according to Policy 830. A ten-months long investigation ensued. At this point Rice was quite aware that it is a fairly bad idea to get in the crosshairs of the Trump Administration (which came into power in January 2025), so the investigation did conclude that the Instagram image did amount to intimidation. So what did Rice do about this? The only answer I got was “the appropriate measures were taken”. There was no public response. The usual excuse for such silence is “students’ privacy”. But while students are entitled by law to privacy, students clubs have no such privilege, so the excuse is just that, an excuse.

What happened on the Rice campus happened also on numerous other campuses in the US and internationally. Incitement for violence was normalized under the cover of “freedom of expression” and “support for Gaza”. While the vast majority of those who engage in such conduct have no intention to proceed from words to actions, incitement does have an significant impact on the small number of individuals who are inciteful, if I may coin a word. By now we know what “Globalize the Intifada” chants do lead to violence. On May 21, 2025, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, two Israeli Embassy staffers, were murdered in Washington, DC. The murder suspect, Elias Rodriguez, told police on the scene, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza,” according to the charging documents. Witnesses recounted hearing him chant, “Free Palestine” after he was taken into custody. A week and half later, on June 1, 2025, a group gathered in Boulder, Colorado, to raise awareness for hostages held in Gaza was attacked, leaving 12 people injured. The suspect, Mohammed Sabry Soliman, accused of throwing incendiary devices at them, allegedly planned the attack for a year, and told police he wanted to “kill all Zionist people,” according to court documents. On October 2, 2025, during the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, man drove a car into pedestrians before stabbing worshippers at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation, a synagogue in a suburb of Manchester, UK. As we see from this list of incidents, the fine distinction between Zionists and Jews is lost on the inciteful.

The “Globalize the Intifada” chant is finally recognized as an incitement for violence. The Australian state of New South Wales is planning to ban such chants, according to recent news, amid a crackdown on “hateful” rhetoric and slogans. Other countries are taking similar measures. But, at Rice University, such a chant is apparently still accepted as a legitimate expression of opinion. ‘From the river to the sea’ chant is antisemitic, said France’s human rights envoy after the Bondi Beach massacre. But at Rice University, it is another legitimate expression of opinion.

There is no direct causal chain from the events on the campus of Rice University to the atrocity at Bondi Beach. But Rice does have a few drops of blood on its hand, I believe.

Let’s us first recapitulate what Rice has determined was not intimidation.

1. Chanting “Intifada revolution is the only solution” is not intimidation, and neither is “Globalize the Intifada”. Never mind that the Second Intifada was a 2000–2005 terror campaign aimed at Israeli civilians — which included suicide bombings, shootings, and stabbings — resulting in over 1,000 people murdered. (I lost a very good friend in the Passover Massacre, a suicide bombing carried out by Hamas at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel in March 2002, during a Passover festive meal, in which 30 civilians were killed and 140 were injured.) Never mind that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed he believes that the call to “internationalise the intifada” is a “call to attack Jewish communities around the world”.
2. Erecting an unauthorized encampment at on the Rice campus and Chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be Arab”, is not intimidation, and neither is chanting “We don’t want Zionists here”. (Who are these Zionists? The chants “Zionists get out, free Palestine” makes it clear that the reference is to Israeli Jews.) Furthermore, in an end-of-semester email sent to campus April 28, 2024, Rice’s President Reginal DesRoches described the encampment activities as “responsible, personal expression”. So Rice students are calling on the Rice campus for ethnic cleansing, and President DesRoches refers to that as “responsible expression”.
3. When on April 7, 2024, I wrote to the Director of Human Resources at Rice to tell her that “I am a faculty member of Rice University, and I do not feel physically safe on the campus,” the response on April 12 was that if I do not feel physically safe, I should call RUPD and if I do not feel emotionally safe, I should seek counseling. So there was no intimidation; it is all in my head, apparently.
4. In mid-April 2024, a group of about ten Israelis — faculty members, staff members, and students — held a meeting with the leadership of the university, including President DesRoches. We made it clear that we do not feel safe on the Rice campus. Two people pulled out pocket knives and Pepper Spray (allowed by Policy 835 on Weapon Prohibition) that they carry with them for self defense while on the Rice campus. Some students cried when describing their experience at Rice since October 7, 2023. The leadership listened with interest, but no promise of concrete steps to address these issues was made, other than a vague statement about something to be done during Orientation Week in the fall. But no plan has ever been announced on how to keep Israelis safe on the Rice campus.

5. In early June 2025, my colleague, Craig Considine and I brought an internationally recognized ‘Woman Life Freedom’ mural to make its US debut at Rice University. RiceSJP “condemned” us as “Zionist faculty” who spread “Zionist propaganda” on campus. Apparently, this is not intimidation.

The argument given by Rice as to why none of the above constitutes intimidation is that there has been no provable intent of intimidation. For example, Intifada literally means “shaking off,” so that the term does not inherently imply violence. (Also, the word “holocaust” means a burnt offering.) In December 2023, Rice’s president, Reginald DesRoches issued a strong. but rather generic, statement condemning antisemitism and calls for violence against Jewish students or any other group of people, but President DesRoches never addressed explicitly the threatening chants against Israelis on the Rice campus. (For a detailed analysis of antisemitism at Rice University since Oct. 7. 2023, see here.)

The other justification for the finding of “no intimidation of Israelis on the Rice campus” is that we did not received direct personal threats of violence, unlike, for example, Israeli-born professor, Professor Michael Ben-Gad, at City University of London, where masked demonstrators stormed his classroom and issued direct threats of violence. But as the political scientist Robert A. Pape argued, public support for political violence encourages volatile people — those who may actually use force — to act on their worst impulses. Indeed, acts of violence towards towards Jews and Israelis have occurred. A campus atmosphere of hate towards Israelis is indeed intimidating even without direct threats.

The best summary of the campus climate for Jewish and Israeli students at Rice during Academic Year 2023–4 was given to me by a Jewish student in Spring 2024, while the campus was flooded by unauthorized disruptions, protests, and posters:

“I used to brag to my Jewish family and friends that Rice was a place where
Jewish students like myself could experience campus life without having to
encounter anti-Israel rhetoric, the BDS movement, and antisemitism more
generally. My sense was that Rice’s student body was largely apolitical.
Sadly, I have been proven wrong since last September, starting when Rice
Pride severed ties with Houston Hillel, and continuing after October 7th
when I was forced to reconcile with the fact that many of my classmates,
some of whom I once viewed as friends, were posting extremist and
hate-filled content on their social media accounts, in addition to attending
protests and other events on campus where antisemitic rhetoric has been
prevalent.

I soon realized that if I ever were to express my views publicly at Rice, I would become an outcast simply because I believe that Israel has a right to exist, regardless of any nuances that may exist in my views on what is actually happening with the conflict itself and specifically the conduct of the Israeli government. Thus, to avoid this fate, I have largely kept my silence. In the conversations that I have had with my close friends, I have found myself again and again being forced into argumentative corners where I have “agreed” to ideas and conclusions that do not reflect my true views, but really my “agreement” has only served to protect me from again becoming known as a zionist on campus.

And I am not alone. With so few Jewish students at Rice to begin with and so many of us sharing the same fears as me, we have been largely unable to organize to defend ourselves from antisemitism and to defend our ability to live a normal life at Rice free from the extremist actions of students hellbent on imposing their views on everyone at Rice. Even worse, we are at the mercy of an administration that cares far more about optics than actually responding to the concerns of its Jewish students, an administration whose “efforts” to combat antisemitism have clearly been performative and not conducted with an actual desire to change the situation for the better.

In the meanwhile, I have had to sadly watch my few brave Jewish friends who have spoken out be outcast just as I have feared may happen to me. I once believe Rice’s care-drive culture was unique amongst elite universities, that I could at the very least trust my classmates to avoid antisemitism in their activism. I now know better. Rice may not be getting as much attention as Harvard or Penn, and I do not have to fear for my safety when I walk to class, but my classmates have shown that too many of us are just as problematic as our peers in the Northeast.”

But finally Rice has found that intimidation did take place, and I am the perpetrator. Let’s review the facts.

On the evening of Saturday, May 10, 2025, at the procession leading to the undergraduate commencement ceremony at the Rice University football stadium, two Rice faculty members were marching wearing regalia, and, on top of that, keffiyehs. The Keffiyeh is a traditional headdress worn by men from parts of the Middle East, but it has recently come to symbolize not only solidarity with Palestinians, but also support for Palestinian violence.

Rice’s Policy 820 does state that “Rice must provide its community of students, faculty, and staff multiple avenues for the safe and robust expression, discussion, and exchange of diverse points of view, even if they are unorthodox, unpopular, or controversial.” But the policy requires such protests to be approved 48 hours in advance. No approval has been granted to wearing keffiyehs during the academic procession, which was clearly an act of protest, so this act was a clear violation of Policy 820.

Some parents who attended the commencement ceremony were outraged by the politicization of an event that is supposed to highlight their children’s academic achievements. On May 13, 2025, I received emails from parents, with photographs of these two faculty members. Some parents wanted to confront these faculty members, but their children stopped them, as they were afraid of being “outed” as Jewish. (Of course, this does not “count” as intimidation.) The parents wished to submit a complaint to President Reginald DesRoches, so they asked me if I knew who these two faculty members were. I recognized one, a senior faculty member, but not the other, so I posted the photograph on X, asking if anyone recognized the photograph. Before posting, I checked X’s policy on posting personal information. X prohibits posting of private information, a practice known as doxxing. Since, however, the photograph was taken in public, it is not private information, and its posting is permissible by X’s rules.

On June 6, 2025, I received an email from a colleague whom I esteem. She identified the unknown faculty member, and asked me if I’d remove the X post with the photograph. I did remove the X post. Furthermore, as it became clear to me that my kefiyyeh-clad colleague (KCC, for short) is a junior faculty member, I decided not to pass the name to the irate parent and not to submit a complaint regarding the policy violation. Instead, I published A Letter to a Keffiyeh-Clad Rice Colleague.

On July 24, 2025, I learned that KCC submitted an ethics complaint against me, arguing that my posting of her photo on X was an act of intimidation, prohibited by Rice’s Policy 401. An ethics investigation was launched and on Oct. 14, 2025, I was informed that the investigation concluded that I have indeed violated Policy 401 and my posting of the photo on X is considered an act of bullying. The evidence is that KCC and her colleagues testified that KCC did indeed feel intimidated, even though she did not face any direct personal threat. The investigator considered that sufficient evidence for the claim that I performed an act of intimidation.

So, apparently, intent does not matter and direct threats do not matter. The fact that I removed the post as soon as it was requested of me and that I wrote “Causing harm to you, my kefiyyeh-clad colleague, is furthest from my intentions” also does not matter. KCC felt intimidated, so I have committed an act of intimidation, end of story. No one, it seems, suggested to KCC to seek counseling to address the feeling of intimidation. (Regardless, I did not mean for KCC to feel intimidated, and I do regret that this was the result of my actions.)

But the moral turpitude I referred to in the title is not merely about the double standard that Rice exhibits in its investigations. It goes deeper. Probably due to my public disagreements with Rice’s Office of Equal Opportunity Services (EOS), the investigation was assigned to an outside counsel. When I asked the investigating counsel what code of ethics governs the investigation to guarantee a fair and neutral hearing, she referred me to a generic marketing blurb on her firm web page. When I asked her for details of her firm’s engagement with Rice, she referred me to Rice’s EOS. When I posed that question to EOS, I was told that the arrangement is confidential. In other words, this was an investigation with no fairness and no neutrality. Rice is the client of the outside counsel, and the primary ethical obligation of said counsel is to serve their client, i.e., Rice University, zealously. It seems that the the purpose of assigning the investigation to an outside counsel was not to eliminate a conflict of interest; rather it was to hide a conflict of interest behind an opaque arrangement.

Hence the title: From Moral Rot to Moral Turpitude at Rice University.

P.S. On May 29, 2025, I submitted an ethics complaint against the senior Keffiyeh-clad faculty member, arguing that wearing keffiyeh in the academic procession is an act of political protest, which requires pre-approval according to university policy. Five months later, I received a formal response: “Thank you for your report. Your concerns were reviewed and resolved in accordance with University policies and procedures.”

I did receive a follow-up clarification:

“ Your complaint alleges that a Rice professor wore a keffiyeh during the pre-Commencement procession on May 10, 2025. You also allege that her act of wearing the keffiyeh was a political protest, and so it should have been registered and approved under Policy 820.

The wearing of this garment is not, by itself, a protest, counter-protest, or similar activity that fits Policy 820’s examples of a demonstration. In
addition, I do not see any evidence that the professor communicated or expressed views or grievances. Lastly, there is no Rice policy on what faculty may or may not wear during Commencement events. Therefore, this occurrence was not a demonstration as defined by Policy 820, and it did not violate the policy not to request a permit.”

So a keffiyeh is just a garment, even though in the eyes of the law (specifically First Amendment jurisprudence), wearing a keffiyeh is classified as symbolic speech or expressive conduct. But a post on X with a photo of a professor wearing such a garment is intimidation.

P.P.S. I have made little secret of my unhappiness with Rice’s Office of Equal Opportunity Services (EOS, previously, Access, Equity, and Equal Opportunity). See From Moral Rot to the Rule of Lawlessness at Rice University, The Moral Rot Deepens at Rice University, and The Moral Rot Goes Even Deeper at Rice University. Finally, in the summer of 2025, I decided to file an ethics complaint against Dr. Richard A. Baker, the director of that office. The investigation was assigned to an outside counsel. The standard process in such investigations is for the investigator to interview the complainant, ask the target of the complaint to respond, ask the complainant to respond to the response, and then make a final determination. In this case, the investigator interviewed me, asked Dr. Baker to respond, and proceeded essentially to write that response as her final report. Here too, the investigator was not operating under any Code of Ethics and the arrangement between Rice and outside counsel was opaque — another example of moral turpitude.

I. Executive Summary

The climate surrounding antisemitism at Rice University has emerged as a significant area of concern, particularly in the period following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. While the university has publicly articulated strong condemnations of antisemitism and initiated various programs aimed at fostering dialogue and understanding, a persistent challenge lies in the perceived effectiveness and consistent enforcement of its stated policies. This has contributed to a notable sense of insecurity among some Jewish students and faculty members.

Incidents documented on campus include disruptive protests organized by groups such as the Rice chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), featuring chants widely interpreted as antisemitic or anti-Israeli, such as “From the river to the sea” and “We don’t want Zionists here”.1 In response, Rice University’s leadership, including President Reginald DesRoches, has issued statements denouncing hate speech.3 The institution has also launched educational initiatives, exemplified by the “October 8” documentary screening 4 and the “Rice Reflects” program.5 However, these efforts have faced considerable criticism. Prominent among these critiques are those from faculty member Moshe Vardi, who characterizes the university’s responses as “total inadequacy” and points to a perceived “moral rot” and “lawlessness” on campus due to inconsistent policy enforcement.1

External evaluations further underscore these concerns. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) assigned Rice University a “D” grade in its 2024 report card, which improved marginally to a “C” in 2025.2 Additionally, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has initiated a Title VI investigation into Rice University. This investigation stems from a discrimination complaint related to a proposed divestment resolution by the Student Association, highlighting federal scrutiny over the university’s handling of such matters.8

II. Introduction: The National Context and Rice University

The landscape of antisemitism on U.S. college campuses has undergone a dramatic shift, particularly since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. This period has witnessed a significant surge in antisemitic incidents across higher education institutions nationwide. Data from Hillel International illustrates this alarming trend, reporting a tenfold increase in antisemitic activity during the 2024–2025 academic year compared to the 2022–2023 academic year, with a total of 2,334 incidents tracked.10 This drastic escalation has cultivated an environment where a substantial number of Jewish students report feeling scared and uncertain on their campuses.10 Complementing this, a separate ADL survey revealed that 83% of Jewish college students experienced or witnessed antisemitism since the onset of the conflict, and a concerning 66% expressed a lack of confidence in their school’s capacity to prevent antisemitic incidents.11 This pervasive national trend provides the essential backdrop for understanding the specific dynamics and challenges confronting Rice University. The incidents and the overall campus climate at Rice are not isolated occurrences but rather reflect a broader systemic issue impacting higher education institutions across the country. This suggests that any effective strategy to address antisemitism at Rice University must extend beyond internal policy adjustments and campus-specific initiatives, incorporating an understanding of the wider societal and geopolitical forces that shape student activism and campus discourse. Universities are not insulated from external events, and their responses must account for these broader influences.

This report aims to deliver a comprehensive analysis of the nature and scope of antisemitism at Rice University. It seeks to evaluate the institutional responses implemented, assess their perceived effectiveness, and integrate relevant external evaluations to offer a holistic understanding of the campus climate. The scope of this report encompasses reported incidents, university policies, administrative actions, community perceptions — with a particular focus on the experiences of Jewish students and faculty — and external assessments conducted by organizations such as the ADL and the U.S. Department of Education. The primary temporal focus will be the period since October 7, 2023, given the heightened prominence of the issue during this time.

III. Documented Incidents and Their Impact on the Jewish Community

A. Manifestations of Antisemitism and Anti-Israelism

The campus of Rice University has experienced various manifestations of antisemitism and anti-Israelism, predominantly through protest activities and their associated rhetoric. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations, largely organized by the Rice chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), gained significant traction by December 2023 and escalated in boldness by late April 2024.1 These protests frequently featured chants such as “From the river to the sea, Palestinian shall be free,” “Intifada Revolution is the only solution,” and “Globalize the Intifada”.1

Critics, including faculty member Moshe Vardi, have voiced strong interpretations of these chants, particularly phrases like “Zionist get out, free free Palestine,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab,” and “We don’t want Zionists here.” These are viewed as explicitly anti-Israeli and antisemitic. The argument posits that “Zionist” has, for some, become a veiled term or “code word” for “Israeli Jew,” implying that calls to exclude “Zionists” effectively translate into calls for the ethnic cleansing or exclusion of Jewish individuals from campus spaces.2 To illustrate the perceived discriminatory nature of these chants, Vardi suggests substituting “Zionists” with “Blacks”.2 This ongoing debate over whether “anti-Zionism” constitutes “antisemitism” 12 is central to the conflict on campus. When the term “Zionist” is perceived by many Jewish individuals as a direct proxy for “Israeli” or “Jew,” then calls to exclude “Zionists” are understood as direct calls to exclude Jewish individuals. This semantic ambiguity, or deliberate conflation, poses a significant challenge for university administrations, allowing expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment to be cloaked under the guise of political criticism. This makes it difficult to consistently and effectively enforce anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, resulting in Jewish students feeling targeted and unsafe, even when explicit language avoids traditional antisemitic tropes, because the impact of the language is discriminatory.

Beyond rhetoric, protest activities have included direct disruptions of campus events. On February 15, 2024, Rice SJP members disrupted a public presentation by Hewlett Packard Enterprises CEO Antonio Neri. This action was characterized as a “clear violation” of the university’s Code of Student Conduct and Policy 820.1 Following their escort from the auditorium, the group reconvened for a loud demonstration outside.1 In late April 2024, Rice SJP established a “liberated zone” on campus. While Rice University stated this “encampment” had its approval and was a “student-led teach-in event,” reports indicate that this approval was granted after the fact and did not adhere to the required 48-hour advance notice stipulated by university policy.1 Furthermore, it has been alleged that an encampment poster, which reportedly violated Rice’s Policy 856, remained displayed in front of the Multicultural Center for over two months without disciplinary action.7 This pattern of inaction or perceived reluctance to enforce its own established rules effectively signals to protesters that such violations will not face serious consequences. The university’s inconsistent or lenient enforcement of its own policies creates a perception of impunity among certain student groups, leading to increased brazenness and a perceived “lawlessness” on campus. This, in turn, directly contributes to a hostile and unsafe environment for targeted communities, as the rules intended to protect them are not seen as being upheld.

The controversy surrounding Rice Pride’s decision to cut ties with Houston Hillel further illustrates the complex dynamics on campus. Some observers, including an author in The Rice Thresher, argued that this decision was inherently antisemitic, contending that it held all Jewish students collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, applied double standards exclusively to a Jewish organization, and disguised contempt for Jews as “anti-Zionism”.14 These critics argued that Hillel’s pro-Israel advocacy was unfairly conflated with being “anti-Palestine,” leading to the ostracization of the Jewish community and falsely portraying Jews as privileged aggressors or as being against the LGBTQ+ community. This conflation of Jewish institutions with oppression was seen as potentially deterring interactions with Jewish organizations.14 Conversely, some Jewish Rice students, alumni, and community members publicly supported Rice Pride’s decision. They asserted that Zionism is a political ideology that manifests through the “colonization of Palestine,” and that rejecting this ideology and organizations that promote it is a principled stand against colonialism and racism.15 They contended that Houston Hillel’s explicit pro-Israel advocacy, including its adherence to “Standards of Partnership” and promotion of the “Perspectives Trip” sponsored by the Maccabee Task Force, posed a threat to the safety of Palestinian and Arab students.16 They also maintained that Rice Pride’s decision did not exclude queer Jewish students and that Hillel did not provide meaningful Jewish engagement for all Jewish students.15 This controversy highlights a critical internal dynamic within the Jewish community itself: the definition and experience of “antisemitism” are not monolithic. Some Jewish individuals and groups explicitly distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while others view them as inextricably linked, especially when anti-Zionist rhetoric targets individuals based on their perceived connection to Israel. This internal disagreement complicates the university’s ability to respond uniformly and effectively, as actions taken to address one group’s concerns might inadvertently alienate or be perceived as hostile by another segment of the Jewish community. This conflict underscores the profound challenge for universities in navigating complex geopolitical issues that inevitably manifest as identity politics on campus. It highlights the necessity for nuanced approaches that acknowledge the diversity of viewpoints within identity groups while simultaneously upholding fundamental principles of non-discrimination and ensuring a safe environment for all students. A failure to appreciate these internal complexities can inadvertently exacerbate divisions rather than foster genuine understanding and inclusivity.

B. Perceived Campus Climate and Safety Concerns

The documented incidents and ongoing debates have significantly impacted the perceived campus climate and safety for Jewish students and faculty at Rice University. On April 18, 2024, a meeting with university leadership, including President DesRoches and Vice Provost Alexander Byrd, brought together approximately ten Israeli faculty members, staff members, and students. During this meeting, these individuals explicitly conveyed feeling unsafe on campus, with two reportedly showing pocket knives carried for self-defense and two students becoming emotional while describing their feelings of fear and vulnerability.2

This perception of unsafety stands in stark contrast to President DesRoches’ initial statement in December 2023, which claimed that Rice had “not received any reports of these incidents on our campus”.3 This discrepancy points to a significant disconnect between official reporting mechanisms and the actual lived experiences of affected individuals. Such a gap could indicate that incidents are severely underreported due to a lack of trust in existing reporting channels, or that the university’s interpretation of what constitutes a “reportable incident” of antisemitism is too narrow, failing to capture the full scope of the hostile climate. This disconnect, where concerns are not formally acknowledged or effectively addressed by the administration, can lead to a worsening of the campus climate for affected groups.

The ongoing debate and differing interpretations of anti-Zionism and antisemitism directly influence the sense of belonging and safety for Jewish students. When “Zionist” is used pejoratively to exclude or demonize, it can lead to Jewish students feeling targeted for their identity, even if they do not actively engage in pro-Israel advocacy. This creates a campus environment where Jewish identity itself, particularly when associated with Israel, can become a source of vulnerability and perceived hostility.12

Table 1: Timeline of Key Antisemitism-Related Incidents and University Responses at Rice University (Post-October 7, 2023)

Table 1: Timeline of Key Antisemitism-Related Incidents and University Responses at Rice University (Post-October 7, 2023)

IV. Rice University’s Institutional Framework and Responses

A. Official Statements and Condemnations

Rice University’s leadership has publicly addressed the issue of antisemitism on campus. President Reginald DesRoches issued a clear statement in December 2023, unequivocally condemning any calls for violence or genocide against Jewish students or any other group. He asserted that such actions are inherently “evil, wrong and immoral” and constitute violations of both university policies and potentially federal law. The President emphasized Rice’s strong denouncement of hate speech and antisemitism, affirming a commitment to vigilance and prompt action upon receiving reports of such incidents.3 He also articulated the university’s dedication to free expression, while drawing a firm boundary at calls for genocide, stating that there is “no room to disagree about genocide”.3

While these official statements are strong and clear in their condemnation of antisemitism and calls for violence, a recurring observation from various sources, particularly faculty member Moshe Vardi, indicates that these declarations are perceived as “bland” or “empty” and are not consistently followed by effective enforcement or tangible action on campus.1 This creates a significant perception gap where the university’s public stance, commendable in its language, is not seen as being matched by its internal actions or the lived reality on campus. This disconnect can lead to an erosion of trust in university leadership and policies among affected community members, who may view the statements as performative rather than indicative of a genuine institutional commitment to their safety.

B. Educational Initiatives and Dialogue Programs

Rice University has implemented several educational initiatives and dialogue programs aimed at fostering understanding and combating antisemitism. On April 15, over 100 individuals attended a screening of “October 8,” a documentary that explores the rise of antisemitism and radicalization on college campuses following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. This event was hosted by Craig Considine, a senior lecturer in Sociology, in collaboration with the Evelyn Rubenstein Jewish Community Center of Houston, Houston Hillel, and StandWithUs. The stated objective was to foster understanding, critical thinking, and dialogue on topics that are often polarizing and misunderstood. The screening was followed by a discussion with student activist Eyal Yakoby, whose personal reflections aimed to bring lived realities into the conversation.4 Considine highlighted that antisemitism directly threatens Jewish individuals and communities, undermining principles of equality, and that such university-hosted events contribute to critical thinking and positive social change.4

Another significant initiative is “Rice Reflects,” launched by the Office of the Provost on February 11, 2025. This program aims to create and highlight opportunities for constructive conversations across various differences — ideological, political, religious, and cultural — informed by scholarly expertise from both within and outside the Rice community.5 The inaugural event of “Rice Reflects” was a talk on March 10, 2025, by Sandy Tolan, titled “After Gaza: Free Speech and the Power to Imagine a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine”.5 Other educational efforts include a voluntary, half-day workshop conducted in September 2024 on “Jewish Inclusion and Effective Responses to Antisemitism” for university leaders, faculty, and staff, as well as an interactive workshop in April 2025 on “Classroom Dialogues Across Differences” designed for educators.6

While initiatives like “Rice Reflects” and other educational programs are ostensibly designed to foster “constructive conversations across differences” and are informed by “scholarly expertise” 6, the selection of key participants has drawn significant concern. Specifically, the inclusion of Professor Abdel Razzaq Takriti in an advisory group and Sandy Tolan as a speaker has been strongly criticized by faculty like Vardi due to their perceived “virulently Israelophobic” views or actions.5 This situation presents a paradox: efforts to be inclusive of a wide range of perspectives can inadvertently legitimize or amplify voices that are perceived by other segments of the community as biased, hostile, or actively contributing to the very issues (like antisemitism) the initiatives aim to address. If key participants are not seen as genuinely neutral or committed to a balanced dialogue, these initiatives can exacerbate existing divisions and further alienate the very groups they are meant to support, undermining the university’s stated goals of fostering understanding and a welcoming environment.

C. Policy Enforcement and Administrative Actions

Rice University operates under a framework of policies designed to govern campus conduct and address discrimination. Policy 830, on Discrimination and Harassment, explicitly prohibits conduct that is “severe or pervasive enough to create a work or educational environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive”.1 This policy also clarifies that “hate speech” does not encompass speech generally considered constitutionally protected expression.18 Policy 820, pertaining to Campus Demonstrations, permits protests within “reasonable limits” but stipulates that approval may be denied or revoked if a demonstration involves or threatens violence, harasses individuals or groups, constitutes hate speech, violates the law, or impedes free movement.1 It further outlines specific rules for the time, place, and manner of demonstrations, including a requirement for 48-hour advance approval for encampments.1 Additionally, Policy 856 governs campus flyers and posters, imposing requirements regarding their location, format, and identification.2

The Office of Access, Equity and Equal Opportunity (AEEO), also referred to as the Office of Equal Opportunity Services (EOS), is the central authority responsible for enforcing the university’s anti-discrimination policies. Its mandate includes investigating complaints related to sexual harassment/Title IX, discrimination, and other equal opportunity compliance matters, working with affected parties to respond to issues brought to its attention.19 However, the effectiveness of AEEO’s actions has been questioned. Complaints filed with AEEO concerning threatening chants that allegedly violated Policy 830 were reportedly dismissed, with AEEO asserting that the complainant was “unreasonable” for perceiving “Intifada” chants as threatening.1 Furthermore, AEEO’s investigation into a student’s discrimination complaint, which led to the Student Association tabling a resolution to divest from Israel-aligned companies, was described by critics as a “ruse” to suspend a “politically inconvenient BDS resolution” and was subsequently dismissed.7

Rice University has clearly articulated policies prohibiting harassment and regulating demonstrations.1 However, a persistent critique is that these policies are not consistently or effectively enforced, leading to a perceived “rule of lawlessness”.7 The specific instance of the AEEO dismissing complaints regarding “Intifada chants” as non-threatening directly contrasts with the reported lived experience of Jewish and Israeli students who felt unsafe and even carried self-defense items.7 This indicates a significant difference in how the university’s enforcement arm interprets policy and what constitutes a violation, versus how affected individuals experience the campus climate. This inconsistent or lenient policy enforcement can lead to a perception of “lawlessness” and an unsafe environment, which further exacerbates feelings of vulnerability and distrust among targeted groups.

In terms of security, President DesRoches stated that Rice had developed an “enhanced security posture” to maintain a welcoming and safe campus environment.3

D. Support for Jewish Life on Campus

Rice University has engaged with Jewish organizations and implemented various initiatives aimed at supporting Jewish life on campus. An informal task force has been established, including the Hillel director, students, and administrators, with the purpose of keeping the university informed about the campus climate for Jewish students.2 Additionally, a faculty advisory group comprising scholars on antisemitism, Judaism, and Middle Eastern history was convened.2

Other initiatives include the expansion of kosher food options on campus.7 The Program in Jewish Studies offers academic courses, such as “Antisemitism and Islamophobia,” which explores the historical and ideological ties between these two forms of discrimination.26 The program also sponsors travel courses to locations like Jerusalem and runs fly-in programs for Jewish high school students, aiming to increase the size of the Jewish community at Rice.27 Chabad at Rice actively contributes to Jewish life by hosting various events, including Hanukkah celebrations and “Mega Shabbat” dinners, designed to enrich Jewish identity and heritage.28

While the university has implemented various “soft” support measures, such as expanding kosher food options and establishing informal task forces 2, critics argue that these initiatives do not adequately address the core issue of physical and emotional safety on campus. The sentiment expressed by Vardi that “Kosher food does not make Israelis feel safe on the Rice campus” 7 highlights a significant disconnect between the administrative efforts and the fundamental concerns of the affected community. This suggests that addressing antisemitism effectively requires more than just symbolic gestures or general support for religious life. It demands concrete actions to enforce policies, ensure physical safety, and directly confront hate speech and discriminatory behaviors. Without these more direct and forceful measures, “soft” initiatives may be perceived as inadequate, dismissive of the severity of the problem, or as attempts to deflect from deeper institutional issues.

V. Critical Analysis of Rice’s Response

A. Allegations of Inadequate Policy Enforcement

A central and persistent critique of Rice University’s response to antisemitism revolves around allegations of inadequate policy enforcement. Faculty member Moshe Vardi has consistently asserted that the university has demonstrated a “reluctance to enforce its rules and policies,” which he believes has fostered a “rule of lawlessness” on campus.2 Specific examples cited include the unapproved encampment that Rice reportedly “acquiesced to,” as well as the routine violation of Policy 856 (campus flyers and posters) by the Rice SJP Club without any public disciplinary measures being taken.2 Vardi also points to a revision of Policy 856 in August 2024, which removed the threat of disciplinary consequences for violations, a change he views as promoting “vigilante justice” rather than institutional accountability.2

Concerns have also been raised regarding the handling and dismissal of discrimination complaints by the Office of Access, Equity and Equal Opportunity (AEEO). Vardi claims that numerous complaints, including his own concerning threats of violence, were dismissed by AEEO with what he describes as “flimsy arguments”.7 He specifically highlights that AEEO reportedly deemed him “unreasonable” for perceiving “Intifada chants” as threatening.7 The investigation into the Student Association’s divestment resolution, which initially led to its tabling, was reportedly “dragged into the summer, and then dismissed,” despite initial administrative intervention.7 Vardi’s repeated characterizations of the campus environment as experiencing a “moral rot,” “lawlessness,” and “deliberate indifference” 1 suggest a perception of systemic institutional failure, rather than just isolated incidents or minor missteps. If university policies, designed to maintain order and ensure safety, are not consistently enforced or if complaints are dismissed without satisfactory resolution, it establishes a dangerous precedent. This signals that certain behaviors are tolerated, effectively undermining the entire regulatory framework of the university and its stated values. A perceived “rule of lawlessness” can lead to a breakdown of civil discourse, increased tensions among different student groups, and a profound loss of confidence in university governance and its ability to protect its community members. It implies that addressing antisemitism effectively requires not just the articulation of new policies or public statements, but a fundamental and unwavering commitment to consistent, transparent, and equitable enforcement of existing rules for all members of the community, regardless of their political stance or perceived influence.

B. Controversies in Advisory and Programmatic Selections

The university’s efforts to foster dialogue and understanding through advisory groups and programs have also drawn criticism, particularly regarding the selection of certain individuals. Vardi strongly criticized the inclusion of Professor Abdel Razzaq Takriti in a “faculty experts” advisory group convened by Rice leadership. Professor Takriti serves as the faculty advisor to Rice SJP, a group identified as the “major instigator of Israelophobic protests” on campus, known for chants such as “We do not want Zionists here”.2 This selection raised concerns about the neutrality and effectiveness of the advisory group.

Similarly, significant concern was expressed about the choice of Sandy Tolan as a speaker for the “Rice Reflects” initiative. Vardi pointed to Tolan’s “virulently Israelophobic” social media activity and his signing of a letter protesting a New York Times story on Hamas’s sexual violence during the October 7 attacks, despite UN Security Council findings confirming such violence.5 The university’s stated commitment to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” 29 and fostering “constructive conversations across differences” 6 is a core institutional value. However, the selection of individuals who are perceived by some as having extreme or biased views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict creates a significant paradox. These selections, while perhaps intended to represent diverse perspectives, are seen by critics as actively contributing to the very hostile environment they are meant to address. In highly polarized contexts, universities face an inherent tension between upholding principles of academic freedom and open dialogue, and simultaneously ensuring a safe, inclusive, and non-discriminatory environment for all students and faculty. The careful selection of speakers and advisory group members becomes paramount to avoid inadvertently legitimizing or amplifying voices that contribute to a hostile climate for certain groups, even when framed under the umbrella of “diverse perspectives.” A failure to critically assess the potential impact of such selections can undermine the credibility and effectiveness of dialogue initiatives, exacerbating existing tensions rather than resolving them.

C. Perceptions of Institutional Failure

The cumulative effect of these incidents and the university’s responses has led to profound perceptions of institutional failure among some members of the Rice community. Moshe Vardi, a faculty member with 30 years of service at Rice, has publicly articulated a strong and consistent critique, describing a “moral rot” and “lawlessness on campus” that he observed beginning in December 2023.1 His public statements convey deep chagrin, as he states that he can “no longer say” he is proud to be a faculty member at Rice.5 Vardi directly questions whether Rice leadership is “incompetent” or has “also been infected by the virus of antisemitism and Israelophobia,” deeming either option “sobering”.5

When a long-standing and respected faculty member publicly articulates such strong negative sentiments, using terms like “moral rot” and expressing shame in their affiliation, it signifies a severe erosion of morale and trust within the institution. This goes beyond mere disagreement over specific policies or incidents; it points to a fundamental questioning of the university’s core values, ethical compass, and the competence of its leadership. Such profound internal critiques, especially from tenured faculty who are integral to the university’s academic mission, can have significant long-term negative impacts. It can damage the institution’s reputation, affect its ability to attract and retain high-quality faculty and students, and create a deeply fractured and unproductive internal environment, making it exceedingly difficult to address any complex issue effectively.

VI. External Assessments and Oversight

A. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Campus Antisemitism Report Card

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) provides an external evaluation of antisemitism on U.S. college campuses through its annual report card. On March 3, 2025, the ADL released its latest assessment for 135 colleges and universities, assigning Rice University a grade of “C.” This marked a marginal improvement from the “D” grade Rice received in the ADL’s 2024 report.2 The ADL’s evaluation criteria encompass three primary areas: administrative action and policies, campus conduct and climate concerns, and Jewish life on campus. The report also integrates qualitative assessments of how universities enforce policies, engage with Jewish communities, and respond to incidents.11

While Rice’s grade improved, the ADL’s overall assessment indicated that a considerable number of institutions continue to “fail their Jewish students,” despite a national trend of improvements in policy changes regarding antisemitic activity.11 Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, emphasized that “Every single campus should get an A,” indicating that a “C” still signifies “Corrections Needed” and falls short of the desired standard for campus safety and inclusivity.11 Rice’s grade improvement from a “D” to a “C” might initially appear positive. However, a “C” grade still signals that “Corrections Needed” according to the ADL.31 Furthermore, the ADL CEO’s statement that “Every single campus should get an A” 11 sets a clear expectation that a “C” is far from satisfactory. This suggests that while Rice may have implemented some procedural or superficial changes to address ADL’s criteria, it has not fundamentally transformed the campus climate to ensure Jewish students feel truly safe and included. The improvement from D to C might reflect minimal compliance or a response to external pressure, rather than a deep-seated change in the campus environment or a proactive approach. External ratings, while providing valuable benchmarks, require critical interpretation within context. A slight improvement in a low grade might conceal persistent underlying issues, especially if the criteria for “improvement” are met through policy revisions or symbolic gestures rather than demonstrable, consistent changes in campus conduct, climate, and the lived experiences of affected students. The ultimate measure of success should be the feeling of safety and inclusion among Jewish students, not merely a numerical grade.

Table 3: Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Campus Antisemitism Report Card Grades for Rice University (2024–2025)

YearADL GradeKey ADL Evaluation AreasSpecific ADL Comments/Reasons for Grade (if available)Relevant Snippet IDs2024DAdministrative Action and Policies, Campus Conduct and Climate Concerns, Jewish Life on Campus(Implicitly, areas needing significant improvement)22025CAdministrative Action and Policies, Campus Conduct and Climate Concerns, Jewish Life on CampusUnderplayed anti-Israeli virulence of encampments; Informal task force launched; Commitment to improving campus climate; Changes to protest policies.2

B. U.S. Department of Education Title VI Investigation

Rice University is currently under federal scrutiny, as the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has launched an investigation into the institution for a complaint of discrimination involving shared ancestry.8 This investigation was initiated following a student’s discrimination complaint filed with Rice’s Office of Access, Equity and Equal Opportunity (AEEO). The complaint subsequently led to the postponement of a Student Association vote on a resolution to divest from Israel-aligned companies.9 The basis for this investigation is Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.8

A federal Title VI investigation by the U.S. Department of Education is a serious matter, indicating that the university’s actions or inactions may have potentially violated federal civil rights law. This external legal pressure significantly elevates the stakes, as it carries potential financial implications, such as the loss of federal funding, if non-compliance is determined. Such investigations often compel universities to address issues more rigorously than internal complaints might, due to the direct regulatory oversight and potential penalties. The initiation of a federal investigation can force a university to undertake significant policy revisions, enhance enforcement mechanisms, and allocate more resources to addressing discrimination. The ultimate effectiveness of this pressure, however, depends on whether the university’s response is merely compliance-driven or if it leads to a genuine, sustained commitment to fostering an inclusive and safe environment beyond the immediate legal obligation.

C. Broader Context from Hillel International

Hillel International’s national tracking of antisemitic incidents on college campuses provides valuable context for understanding the situation at Rice. Hillel’s data indicates a massive surge in antisemitic incidents nationwide during the 2024–2025 academic year, with 2,334 incidents recorded, representing a tenfold increase from the 2022–2023 academic year.10 Interestingly, despite this drastic overall increase, Hillel’s data also reveals a positive shift in the nature of these incidents, with violent and threatening incidents decreasing between the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 academic years.10 This suggests a qualitative shift in how antisemitism is manifesting on campuses, including Rice. It implies that while physical threats might be less common, there is a more pervasive presence of other forms of antisemitism, such as verbal harassment, social ostracism, or institutional discrimination (e.g., through student government resolutions or hostile academic environments, as suggested by the ADL’s evaluation criteria and Vardi’s reports). This information is critical for universities because it highlights that effective responses to antisemitism must be comprehensive and adaptable. It is not sufficient to focus solely on preventing physical violence; institutions must also develop robust strategies to address more subtle yet equally damaging forms of discrimination, hostile rhetoric, and social exclusion, which can significantly impact the campus climate and the well-being of Jewish students. Houston Hillel, specifically, maintains student centers at Rice and the University of Houston, aiming to enrich Jewish identity and heritage for students.32

Table 2: Summary of Rice University Policies Relevant to Campus Conduct and Discrimination

Policy Number/NameKey Provisions (Relevant to Antisemitism)Relevant Snippet IDsBrief Note on Perceived Enforcement/CritiquesPolicy 820: Campus DemonstrationsPermits demonstrations within “reasonable limits”; denies/revokes approval for violence, harassment, hate speech, law violations, or restricted movement; specifies time, place, and manner restrictions (e.g., 48-hour advance approval for encampments).1Critics allege inconsistent enforcement, particularly for SJP protests and encampments; perceived “acquiescence” to violations.Policy 830: Policy on Discrimination and HarassmentProhibits discrimination and harassment, including conduct severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or abusive environment; “hate speech” defined as inciting imminent criminal activity or specific threats, not constitutionally protected speech.1Complaints regarding “Intifada chants” dismissed by AEEO as non-threatening; perceived as misinterpreting impact on Jewish students.Policy 856: Campus Flyers and PostersImposes requirements on location, format, and identification for campus materials.2Violations reportedly unaddressed; revised policy (Aug 2024) removed threat of disciplinary consequences, criticized as promoting “vigilante justice.”

VII. Conclusion and Recommendations

A. Key Findings and Overall Assessment

Antisemitism at Rice University presents a multifaceted and urgent challenge. The campus environment has been significantly impacted by a rise in anti-Israel protests following the October 7, 2023, events, often featuring rhetoric and chants widely perceived by many Jewish students and faculty as antisemitic or anti-Israeli. This has fostered a climate where a notable segment of the Jewish community reports feeling unsafe, excluded, and targeted for their identity. While Rice University has issued strong condemnations of antisemitism and implemented various educational programs and policy initiatives, these efforts are met with considerable criticism from within the community. These critiques frequently highlight perceived inadequacies in policy enforcement, inconsistent application of rules, and concerns regarding the neutrality or appropriateness of certain selections for advisory roles and dialogue programs.

The university’s responses appear to be a combination of proactive educational efforts aimed at fostering understanding and reactive policy adjustments intended to manage campus conduct. However, a persistent and central critique revolves around the perceived gap between the university’s stated policies and condemnations and their consistent, transparent enforcement. The ongoing federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Education and the ADL’s “C” grade for Rice underscore that significant challenges persist despite the university’s efforts. This indicates that current measures may not be fully effective in creating a consistently safe and inclusive environment for all Jewish community members.

B. Strategic Recommendations

To address the complexities of antisemitism at Rice University and foster a truly inclusive and safe environment for all members of its community, the following strategic recommendations are put forth:

1. Strengthening Policy Enforcement and Accountability

• Recommendation: Conduct a comprehensive, independent review of the Office of Access, Equity and Equal Opportunity (AEEO)’s complaint handling process, particularly concerning antisemitism and anti-Israelism. This review should aim to ensure consistent, fair, and transparent application of Policy 830 (Discrimination and Harassment) and Policy 820 (Campus Demonstrations).
• The repeated complaints from faculty like Moshe Vardi regarding dismissed concerns, “flimsy arguments,” and perceived “opacity” in AEEO’s investigations 7 indicate a significant lack of confidence in the office’s effectiveness and impartiality. An independent review would be instrumental in identifying any systemic issues in policy interpretation, investigative procedures, or enforcement consistency. This process is crucial for restoring trust among affected communities, ensuring genuine accountability, and directly addressing the pervasive concern of a “rule of lawlessness” on campus.
• Recommendation: Establish clear, publicly accessible guidelines for distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and antisemitic or anti-Israeli hate speech. This framework should explicitly reference the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as a guiding framework, while also acknowledging and educating on diverse Jewish perspectives on Zionism.
• A core source of conflict and perceived antisemitism on campus is the ongoing debate over the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.13 Providing clear, institutional guidelines, informed by widely accepted definitions like IHRA, can help the university consistently apply its hate speech policies 18 and reduce ambiguity for all community members. Simultaneously, acknowledging and educating on the spectrum of Jewish views on Zionism would foster a more nuanced understanding and prevent the alienation of Jewish students who may hold diverse political opinions.
• Recommendation: Implement clear, pre-emptive, and consistently applied enforcement mechanisms for campus demonstration policies (Policy 820) and campus flyers/posters (Policy 856). This includes ensuring that violations of time, place, and manner restrictions, or the use of hate speech, result in swift, proportionate, and transparent disciplinary action against individuals or groups responsible.
• The documented instances of unapproved encampments, disruptive protests, and unaddressed policy violations 1 contribute significantly to the perception of “lawlessness” 7 and an unsafe environment. Consistent and visible enforcement would deter future violations, demonstrate the university’s commitment to maintaining an orderly and respectful campus environment for all, and directly address the ADL’s concerns regarding campus conduct and climate. The current policy revision allowing “vigilante justice” 2 is counterproductive and warrants re-evaluation.

2. Enhancing Support and Safety for Jewish Students and Faculty

• Recommendation: Establish a formalized, standing task force or committee specifically focused on Jewish campus life and combating antisemitism. This body should have robust representation from Houston Hillel, Chabad, Jewish faculty, and students, ensuring that their concerns about safety, climate, and inclusion are regularly heard, prioritized, and demonstrably acted upon by university leadership.
• While an informal task force exists 2, the continued feeling of unsafety and the reported need for self-defense 7 suggest that current engagement is insufficient. A formalized, empowered body would provide a consistent, official channel for addressing concerns, ensuring that “soft” support measures are complemented by tangible improvements in safety and campus climate, and that Jewish voices are genuinely integrated into decision-making processes.
• Recommendation: Implement mandatory, comprehensive antisemitism education for all incoming students, faculty, and staff. This curriculum should be developed in close consultation with Jewish community organizations and experts, covering the historical roots of antisemitism, its contemporary manifestations (including anti-Zionism when it crosses into antisemitism), and practical strategies for fostering an inclusive environment.
• The former university president noted “ignorance” about Jewish history and Israel among some protesters.9 Education is a crucial proactive measure to combat prejudice and foster understanding.14 While “Rice Reflects” offers voluntary sessions 6, mandatory training would ensure a broader reach and establish a foundational baseline of understanding across the entire university community, addressing the root causes of some antisemitic expressions and behaviors.

3. Proposals for Fostering More Effective and Inclusive Dialogue on Campus

• Recommendation: Re-evaluate the selection process for speakers and advisory group members involved in university-led dialogue initiatives like “Rice Reflects.” The process should prioritize perceived neutrality, academic credibility, and a demonstrated commitment to fostering respectful dialogue, explicitly avoiding individuals whose public statements or affiliations might undermine the initiative’s goals or alienate specific community groups.
• The controversies surrounding Professor Takriti and Sandy Tolan 5 demonstrate that even well-intentioned dialogue programs can inadvertently exacerbate tensions if key participants are seen as biased or as actively contributing to the very issues they are meant to resolve. Ensuring a truly balanced, credible, and widely accepted platform is essential for fostering genuine understanding and rebuilding trust across diverse campus constituencies.
• Recommendation: Actively promote and support a wider range of Jewish student voices and organizations on campus beyond the established Hillel and Chabad, particularly those that offer diverse perspectives on Jewish identity, culture, and engagement with Israel.
• The Rice Pride-Hillel controversy highlighted internal divisions and the complexity of Jewish identity on campus.16 Supporting a broader spectrum of Jewish voices can prevent the perception that one organization speaks for all Jewish students and can foster more nuanced and inclusive conversations about Jewish identity and its multifaceted relationship with Israel, thereby strengthening the overall Jewish community at Rice.

Works cited

1. The Moral Rot Deepens at Rice University | by Moshe Vardi | Medium, accessed July 19, 2025, https://medium.com/@vardi/the-moral-rot-deepens-at-rice-university-459ef6ceca34
2. Rice received a C from ADL. Does it deserve it? | by Moshe Vardi — Medium, accessed July 19, 2025, https://medium.com/@vardi/rice-received-a-c-from-adl-does-it-deserve-it-09638e035b6b
3. President DesRoches statement on antisemitism — Rice News, accessed July 19, 2025, https://news.rice.edu/news/2023/president-desroches-statement-antisemitism
4. Understanding the unthinkable: ‘October 8’ screening sparks reflection at Rice, accessed July 19, 2025, https://news.rice.edu/news/2025/understanding-unthinkable-october-8-screening-sparks-reflection-rice
5. Antisemitism and Israelophobia at Rice University — Rice Just Cannot Get It Right | by Moshe Vardi | Medium, accessed July 19, 2025, https://medium.com/@vardi/antisemitism-and-israelophobia-at-rice-university-rice-just-cannot-get-it-right-40688ba13b94
6. Rice Reflects | Office of Provost, accessed July 19, 2025, https://provost.rice.edu/rice-reflects
7. Lawlessness at Rice — Rice Responds, at Last | by Moshe Vardi …, accessed July 19, 2025, https://medium.com/@vardi/lawlessness-at-rice-rice-responds-at-last-f5712eb1721f
8. Rice University, 44 others under investigation for ‘illegal discrimination’ in DEI crackdown, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.khou.com/article/news/education/rice-university-investigation-dei/285-65df8fa1-9ec6-4330-84f0-fb03a6bff0aa
9. Rice University faces Title VI investigation, gets ‘C’ on ADL report card — JNS.org, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.jns.org/rice-university-faces-title-vi-investigation-gets-c-on-adl-report-card/
10. Antisemitism on College Campuses: Incident Tracking — Hillel International, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.hillel.org/antisemitism-on-college-campuses-incident-tracking/
11. ADL report card finds some campuses fixing responses to antisemitism | The Times of Israel, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-report-card-finds-campuses-fixing-responses-to-antisemitism/
12. Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Israelophobia | Moshe Vardi — The Blogs, accessed July 19, 2025, https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/antisemitism-anti-zionism-and-israelophobia/
13. From Moral Rot to the Rule of Lawlessness at Rice University | by Moshe Vardi — Medium, accessed July 19, 2025, https://medium.com/@vardi/from-moral-rot-to-the-rule-of-lawlessness-at-rice-university-9f028c5f2e33
14. Students’ silence on antisemitism scares me — The Rice Thresher, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.ricethresher.org/article/2023/10/students-silence-on-antisemitism-scares-me
15. Jewish students being ostracized by Pride at Rice University — Reddit, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/16uffrk/jewish_students_being_ostracized_by_pride_at_rice/
16. Reject attempts to label Rice Pride ‘antisemitic’, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.ricethresher.org/article/2023/10/reject-attempts-to-label-rice-pride-antisemitic
17. Rice Reflects offers discussions on academic freedom, global conflicts, civic engagement, religious diversity and more, accessed July 19, 2025, https://news.rice.edu/news/2025/rice-reflects-offers-discussions-academic-freedom-global-conflicts-civic-engagement
18. 830. Policy on Discrimination and Harassment | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.thefire.org/colleges/rice-university/830-policy-discrimination-and-harassment-0
19. Policy on Discrimination and Harassment | Policies | Rice University, accessed July 19, 2025, https://policy.rice.edu/830
20. Campus Demonstrations | Policies | Rice University, accessed July 19, 2025, https://policy.rice.edu/820
21. Equal Opportunity/Non-Discrimination Policy — Rice University Policies, accessed July 19, 2025, https://policy.rice.edu/815
22. Equal Employment Opportunity | Office of Equal Opportunity Services (EOS) | Rice University, accessed July 19, 2025, https://eos.rice.edu/equal-employment-opportunity
23. Equal Opportunity Services — Rice University, accessed July 19, 2025, https://eos.rice.edu/
24. After discrimination complaint, Rice orders SA to table resolution divesting from Israel-aligned companies, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.ricethresher.org/article/2024/03/after-discrimination-complaint-rice-orders-sa-to-table-resolution-divesting-from-israel-aligned-companies
25. Code of Student Conduct — Student Judicial Programs — Rice University, accessed July 19, 2025, https://sjp.rice.edu/code-of-student-conduct
26. Entangled Others: Antisemitism and Islamophobia | Program in Jewish Studies, accessed July 19, 2025, https://jewishstudies.rice.edu/branches/winter-2024/entangled-others-antisemitism-and-islamophobia
27. Areas to Support | Program in Jewish Studies — Rice University, accessed July 19, 2025, https://jewishstudies.rice.edu/areas-support
28. Program in Jewish Studies | Rice University, accessed July 19, 2025, https://jewishstudies.rice.edu/
29. Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Commission — Rice University Student Association, accessed July 19, 2025, https://sa.rice.edu/dei
30. Rice University: Office of Access and Institutional Excellence | Office of Provost, accessed July 19, 2025, https://aie.rice.edu/
31. New ADL Campus Report Cards Released — Baltimore Jewish Times, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.jewishtimes.com/new-adl-campus-report-cards-released/
32. Rice University — Hillel International, accessed July 19, 2025, https://www.hillel.org/college/rice-university/

Dear Colleague:

On the evening of Saturday, May 10, 2025, at the procession leading to the undergraduate commencement ceremony at the Rice University football stadium, two Rice faculty members were marching wearing regalia, and, on top of that, keffiyehs. The Keffiyeh is a traditional headdress worn by men from parts of the Middle East, but it has recently come to symbolize also solidarity with Palestinians.

Some parents who attended the commencement ceremony were outraged by the politicization of an event that is supposed to highlight their children’s academic achievements. I received emails from parents, with photographs of these two faculty members. Some parents wanted to confront these faculty members, but their children stopped them, as they did not want to be “outed” as Israelis. The parents wished to submit a complaint to President Reginald DesRoches, so they asked me if I knew who these two faculty members were. I recognized one, but not the other, so I posted the photograph on Twitter, asking if anyone recognized the photograph.

Today I received email from a colleague whom I esteem. She identified you as the second keffiyeh-clad faculty member, and asked me if I’d remove the Twitter post with your photograph. Out of respect for her, I removed the post, even though I did not find her rationale compelling.

“ It makes her feel vulnerable to being doxxed”, said the email. Really? Doxxing is a form of cyber-bullying that uses sensitive or secret information, statements, or records for the harassment, exposure, financial harm, or other exploitation of the intended victim. Another colleague of yours even accused me of doxxing you. But you chose to wear a keffiyeh in a very public event to make a strong political statement. Did you think you are anonymous? My Twitter post gave you additional publicity, which one would think would make your political statement stronger, but suddenly you are publicity-averse.

“We are in a very complicated political moment, as you know all too well,” elaborated the email request, “and there are people who are eager to find targets for their bad behavior. So I am asking, for community, for the sake of protecting each other in this awful moment in which so many of us are feeling very vulnerable, if you could help make my colleague feel just a little safer.”

Causing harm to you, my kefiyyeh-clad colleague, is furthest from my intentions, but where were you when my safety at Rice was ignored since February 2024? On Feb. 15, 2024, anti-Israeli protesters on the campus of Rice University, for whom your keffiyeh presumably expressed support, chanted “Globalize the Indifada”. As I have explained last year, The Second Intifada was a 2000–2005 terror campaign aimed at Israeli civilians — which included suicide bombings, shootings, and stabbings — resulting in over 1,000 people murdered. I lost a very good friend in the Passover Massacre, a suicide bombing carried out by Hamas at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel in March 2002, during a Passover festive meal, in which 30 civilians were killed and 140 were injured.

In fact, the keffiyah that you wore is not only a symbol of Palestinian aspirations, it is also a symbol of Palestinian violence, as demonstrated by the following image, posted by the Rice student club of Students for Justice in Palestine on their Instagram page last fall:

Complaints by me and other Israelis on the Rice campus were dismissed by Rice University. “Intifada”, we were told, symbolizes the Palestinian aspiration for Palestinian freedom. If we do not feel safe, we were told, we should seek counseling. Except that by now we know what “Globalize the Intifada” means. On May 21, 2025, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, two Israeli Embassy staffers, were murdered in Washington, DC. The murder suspect, Elias Rodriguez, told police on the scene, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza,” according to the charging documents. Witnesses recounted hearing him chant, “Free Palestine” after he was taken into custody. A week and half later, on June 1, a group gathered in Boulder, Colorado, to raise awareness for hostages held in Gaza was attacked, leaving 12 people injured. The suspect, Mohammed Sabry Soliman, accused of throwing incendiary devices at them, allegedly planned the attack for a year, and told police he wanted to “kill all Zionist people,” according to court documents. On June 5, 2025, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Public Service Announcement to highlight potential public safety concerns related to ongoing threats to Jewish and Israeli communities.

So no, I am not safe at Rice. This is why I avoided attending commencement this year, as well as last year. Your wearing keffiyehs during commencement does not make the campus safer for me. Yet, I do want you to feel safe at Rice, my keffiyeh-clad colleague, which is why I removed the Twitter post. I just wish you, and Rice University, would care also about the safety of Israelis and Jews on the Rice campus. How do you think your public display of support for Palestinian violence affect Israeli and Jewish students who may be sitting in your classroom?

If you were to respond to me directly, I suspect that you’d argue that your kefiyyeh wearing is a legitimate protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza, and it is covered under Rice free-expression policies. In fact, Rice’s Policy 820 does state that “Rice must provide its community of students, faculty, and staff multiple avenues for the safe and robust expression, discussion, and exchange of diverse points of view, even if they are unorthodox, unpopular, or controversial.” But the policy requires such protests to be approved 48 hours in advance. To the best of my knowledge, no such approval has been granted to you.

P.S. Do you think your colleagues would have also risen to defend you had you chosen to wrap yourself in a Confederate flag, rather than a keffiyeh?

P.P.S. The fact that there has been no public response from the leadership of Rice University, either President Reginald DesRoches or Provost Ami Dittmar, about keffiyeh wearing during commencement is another stitch in the thick tapestry of evidence for Rice’s failure to create a safe campus for Israeli and Jewish students since the October 7, 2023 massacre. As a popular quote asserts, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

1. “In April 2024, at an anti-Israel encampment organized by groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine and Palestinian Youth Movement at Rice University, protesters displayed signs with messages that included: `We must divest from Zionism,’ `Zionists stay mad’ and `Ugly Zionist says what?’”

These quotes significantly underplay the anti-Israeli virulence of the 2024 encampments, which includes chants such as “Zionist get out, free free Palestine”, “From the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab”, “We don’t want Zionists here”. As the first chant makes it clear, “Zionist” refer to Israeli Jews. The second chant then calls for ethnic cleansing, and the third one declare Israeli Jews persona non-Grata on the Rice campus. To appreciate the vileness of this chant, just replace “Zionists” by “Blacks”.

2. “Rice has launched an informal task force, which includes the Hillel director, along with several students and administrators. The group began meeting weekly to keep the University informed of the climate on campus for Jewish students.”

So the university was informed. How has that made Rice safer for Jewish and Israeli students?

3. “The University has also convened a faculty advisory group composed of scholars on antisemitism, Judaism and the history of the Middle East.”

As I pointed out, even when Rice tried to do the right thing, it could not do it right. That “faculty advisory group” included Professor Abdel Razzaq Takriti. Professor Takriti is a historian of the modern Arab world, so he does seem to be indeed a “faculty expert”. But he is also the faculty advisor of Rice’s student club of Students for Justice in Palestine (RiceSJP), which has been the major instigator of Israelophobic protests at Rice. To get a better picture of how objective is Professor Takriti with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I suggest browsing his Twitter stream, which is virulently Israelophobic. (Since this blog was first published, Professor Takriti has deleted his Twitter account. ) Is he the right person to advise Rice leadership on how to deal with the tensions on campus? I doubt it.

4. “In December 2023, President DesRoches issued a statement making clear that calls for violence or genocide against Jewish students or any other group of persons would violate Rice’s policies.”

Indeed, the 2023 statement included “Rice unequivocally considers calls for violence or genocide against Jewish students or any other group of people to be evil, wrong and immoral and they violate Rice’s policies and could violate federal law. We strongly denounce acts of hate speech and antisemitism and will not tolerate them.” But subsequent complaints about chants such as “Globalize the Intifada” were dismissed, claiming that such chants do not rise the a threat of violence under Texas Penal Code.

To put things in historical context, the Second Intifada was a 2000–2005 terror campaign aimed at Israeli civilians — which included suicide bombings, shootings, and stabbings — resulting in over 1,000 people murdered. I lost a very good friend in the Passover Massacre, a suicide bombing carried out by Hamas at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel in March 2002, during a Passover festive meal, in which 30 civilians were killed and 140 were injured. For Israelis, “Globalize the Intifada” means that not only Israelis in Israel are legitimate targets, but that Israelis everywhere are legitimate targets. Yet Rice dismissed many complaints against such chants. So the December 2023 statement by President DesRoches had no effect in Rice making the campus safe for Israelis on campus.

5. “In May 2024, the University expressed a commitment to improving the campus climate for Jewish students by raising awareness of Judaism and antisemitism and promoting religious diversity within educational efforts, among other items.”

This is another empty statement. In an end-of-semester email sent to campus on April 28, 2024, President DesRoches described the encampment activities as “responsible, personal expression”.

On April 7, 2024, I wrote to the Director of Human Resources at Rice to tell her that “I am a faculty member of Rice University, and I do not feel physically safe on the campus.” I added that Rice has a duty of care to provide a workplace that is physically and emotionally safe. The response on April 12 was that if I do not feel physically safe, I should call RUPD and if I do not feel emotionally safe, I should seek counseling. Following that deeply unsatisfying answer, a group of about ten Israelis — faculty members, staff members, and students — held a meeting in mid April with the leadership of the university, including President DesRoches. We made it clear that we do not feel safe on the Rice campus. Two people pulled out pocket knives that they carry with them for self defense while on the Rice campus. The leadership listened with interest, but no promise of concrete steps to address these issues was made, other than a vague statement about something to be done during Orientation Week in the fall. So far, no plan has been announced on how to keep Israelis safe on the Rice campus.

6. “In advance of the 2024–25 academic year, Rice made changes to protest and demonstration policies, including outlining time, place and manner restrictions, to ensure the University can be more proactive and responsive to conduct that violates school policies.”

But the problem in the spring of 2024 had nothing to do with vague policies. Rather, Rice was reluctant to enforce these policies and sanction violators. For example, the Rice encampment was not pre-approved, as required, but Rice acquiesced to it. Furthermore, Rice allowed an encampment poster, which clearly violated Rice’s Policy 856, to stand in front of the Multicultural Center for over two months.

7. “New roles were also assigned to current facility employees to monitor and report any posters that do not comply with campus policies.”

Both the old and new versions of Policy 856 impose requirements on location, format, and identification. These requirements were widely violated at Rice during spring 2024, but with no disciplinary consequences, as Rice could not decide who should adjudicate such violations. The new policy, revised in August 2024, removes the threat of disciplinary consequences, and allows any Rice community member to remove posters that violates these requirements. So Rice decided that the solution to violations of of the policy is “vigilante justice”. I consider this a very bad approach. After all, humanity has concluded a long time ago that law enforcement has to be institutionalized.

Summary: At the start of the 2024 fall semester, RiceSJP posted the following threatening image on its Instagram page:

Rice does not have an explicit policy about social-media posts, but Policy 830 prohibits conduct that “a reasonable person would consider intimidating”. I, and several Israelis at Rice decided to play it safe and avoided the campus on Oct. 7, 2024. I submitted a complaint to the Student Judicial Programs. Four months later, the complaint is still under investigation. (The Week of Rage referred to in the post did not materialize, but there is no reason to believe that this happened due to actions by Rice.)

So does Rice deserves a grade raise from D to C? This seems to be a “gentleman’s C”. Rice does not deserve a real C, according to the the grading standards of this professor.

P.S. On April 29, 2025 it was reported that “A Harvard task force released a scathing account of the university on Tuesday, finding that antisemitism had infiltrated coursework, social life, the hiring of some faculty members and the worldview of certain academic programs.” In contrast, Rice never bothered to engage in such self-reflection.

Starting in December 2023, I have documented at length the proliferation of antisemitism and Israelophobia at Rice University, and the total inadequacy of Rice’s response.

Amazingly, even when Rice tries to do the right thing, it does not seem to be able to get it right. For example, in the spring of 2024, Rice leadership, President Reginald DesRoches and Provost Amy Dittmar, convened an advisory group of “faculty experts”. Sounds like a good move. But that group included Professor Abdel Razzaq Takriti. Professor Takriti is a historian of the modern Arab world, so he does seem to be indeed a “faculty expert”. But he is also the faculty advisor of Rice’s student club of Students for Justice in Palestine (RiceSJP), which has been the major instigator of Israelophobic protests at Rice. For example, one of the chants at the RiceSJP encampment in the spring of 2024 was “We do not want Zionists here”. To appreciate the vileness of this chant, just replace “Zionists” by “Blacks”. To get a better picture of how objective is Professor Takriti with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I suggest browsing his Twitter stream and his YouTube videos, which are virulently Israelophobic. (Since this blog was first published, Professor Takriti has deleted his Twitter account. Current rumors are that he has left the US.) ) Is he the right person to advise Rice leadership on how to deal with the tensions on campus? I doubt it.

On Feb. 11, 2025, the Rice Office of the Provost announced a new initiative, Rice Reflects, “to highlight opportunities for students, faculty and staff to have constructive conversations across differences, informed by scholarly expertise from within and outside the Rice community. The events and educational offerings address ideological, political, religious, cultural and other differences.” The first even in this initiative is a talk, on March 10, 2025, by Sandy Tolan, professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Professor Tolan was selected, I assume, as the author of The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East, described as “The tale of a simple act of faith between two young people, one Israeli and one Palestinian, that symbolizes the hope for peace in the Middle East.” So far so good, but I decided to dig a little deeper, and I went to Professor Tolan’s Twitter stream. I found another virulently Israelophobic stream. Here is an example of a repost by Professor Tolan: “Palestinians: We just want to live freely and in peace in our homeland. Zionists: We would push a button to kill every man, woman and child in Gaza if we could. Idiots: It’s such a complex conflict, a riddle really, who even knows who is at fault?”

Professor Tolan is also a signatory of an April 2024 letter to the New York Time, protesting their December 2023 story about sexual violence by Hamas on October 7, 2023, notwithstanding the fact that in March 2024, the UN Security Council was informed by Pramila Patten, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, that sexual violence did occur in Israel during the October 7 attack.

And Professor Tolan is coming to Rice University to lead a “constructive conversation across differences.” Pardon me if I elect not to attend his talk. As I wrote in December 2023: “I have always been proud of being a faculty member at Rice University. With deep chagrin, I have to admit that I can no longer say that.”

But the following question must be asked: Why Rice just cannot get it right when it comes to antisemitism and Israelophobia on the Rice campus? Is the leadership at Rice, starting from the very top, incompetent or has it also been infected by the virus of antisemitism and Israelophobia? Either option is sobering.

On Oct. 27, 2024, I used EthicsPoint to submit an ethics complaint against Catherine Clack, Associate Vice Provost for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Director of the Multicultural Center. The text of my complaint was as follows.

My conversations with dozens of Jewish and Israeli students since Oct. 7, 2023 have made clear that the University community has not treated them with the standards of civility, respect, and fairness it promises to all its students. Yet the Office of DEI, which is is part of the Office of the Provost and has inclusion in its title, has been utterly silent on this issue. Apparently, inclusion does not include Jewish and Israeli students. Furthermore, Rice’s Multicultural Center (MCC), under the leadership of Catherine E. Clack, Associate Vice Provost for DEI, played a key role in the anti-Israeli agitation on campus. On October 17,2023, Ms. Clack called for “civil disobedience”, that is, breaking Rice’s rules. On Oct. 18, 2023, members of the Rice community gathered in the Multicultural Center Courtyard for a vigil titled “Honoring Our Martyrs”. An organizer from Rice SJP said they identify “martyrs” as all Palestinians “killed as a result of Israel’s actions”. The organizers declined to comment on whether Hamas militants are included as “martyrs.”
https://www.ricethresher.org/article/2023/10/all-out-for-palestine-protest-sees-2000-at-houston-city-hall
https://www.ricethresher.org/article/2023/10/rice-students-for-justice-in-palestine-holds-honoring-our-martyrs-vigil

Then on April 20, 2024, National Students for Justice for Palestine, launched the Popular University for Gaza initiative, as “a coordinated pressure campaign against university administrations and trustees to immediately divest from the Israeli state.” A Popular University for Gaza mural was posted right in front of the MCC from early May to early July, 2024. This mural was posted by Rice SJP with Rice’s approval, but it violated Rice’s poster policy in several ways: it was not posted on space designated for postering, it was quite larger than 11 inches by 17 inches, it did not identify the sponsor of the poster, and it was not removed within 10 business days after the date of postering. Rice’s poster policy states that “Permission to post under this policy does not imply University endorsement of the content of any posting.” But given that the mural display blatantly violated the policy in many ways, and yet it had Rice’s approval, it is difficult not to see its display as an endorsement of its content. The mural’s location, right in front
of the MCC, sends a clear message that the MCC, and, by extension, the Office of the DEI, and, by extension, the Office of the Provost, has planted itself firmly in the anti-Israeli camp. (The mural was eventualy blown away by Hurricane Berryl.)

https://medium.com/@vardi/from-moral-rot-to-the-rule-of-lawlessness-at-rice-university-9f028c5f2e33

Ms. Clack is, of course, entitled for her personal political opinions, but, as an Associate Vice Provost at Rice University, she is an officer of Rice University and she must leave her political opinions at home. For her to act in such a brazenly political way is unethical, especially given her position as Associate Vice Provost for DEI.

EthicsPoint has assigned my complaint to be handled by Rice’s Office of Access, Equity, and Equal Opportunity (AEEO), where it was handled by Dr. Toya Sherman, a Senior Equal Opportunity Specialist. As I have documented in the past, AEEO is where complaints about antisemitism and Israelophobia go to die. But at this point I was committed to the process and decided to go along with it.

In response to AEEO’s request for further clarification, I elaborated on Nov. 19, 2024:

1. To understand how I and other Israelis have been harmed, see https://medium.com/@vardi/antisemitism-anti-zionism-israelophobia-and-the-us-civil-rights-act-5d7fcbfec0b7 (This is now the subject of an active Title VII complaint.)
   2. Let me quote form that article: “A group of about ten Israelis — faculty members, staff members, and students — held a meeting in mid April with the leadership of the university, including President DesRoches. We made it clear that we do not feel safe on the Rice campus. Two people pulled out pocket knives (allowed by Policy 835 on Weapon Prohibition) that they carry with them for self defense while on the Rice campus. Students cried when describing their experience at Rice since October 7.”
   3. Ms. Clack is associate vice-provost for DEI. The DEI Office seeks to support and guide the university in fulfilling its mission of cultivating a diverse community of learning and discovery by facilitating a campus environment that promotes diversity, inclusion and academic achievement through active engagement with all areas of campus life. Such inclusion should cover also Israeli and Jewish students.
   4. Policy 830 prohibits discrimination at Rice. Ms. Clack is an officer of Rice University, as such she also has an ethical professional responsibility to act in a fair and evenhanded way towards all students at Rice, to send a message of broad inclusion across all students at Rice.
   5. By taking a firm position on the anti-Israeli side of the divide, as documented in the complaint, Ms. Clack sent a message that the Office of DEI is taking an anti-Israeli position. Since the Office of DEI is part of the Office of the Provost, this sends a message that the Office of the Provost, and, by extension, Rice University is taking an anti-Israeli position.
   6. In the context of ongoing harassment and intimidation of Israelis at Rice, Ms Clack’s conduct sent a message that Rice University does not care about Israeli students.
   7. This violation of the professional responsibility to act fairly and evenhandedly towards all students at Rice is a breach of her ethical responsibility as an officer of Rice University.
   8. Note that while Ms. Clack had academic freedom as a faculty member, she does not have academic freedom as an officer of the corporation, since her actions reflect directly on Rice University.
   9. For remedy, I seek the following: a communication from Ms. Clack to the Provost, with a copy to me, that she understands that she must act in a fair and evenhanded way, that she understands that she has violated this in the past, and she commits to adhere to fairness and even-handedness in the future. Alternatively, the Provost can communicate to Ms. Clack, with a copy to me, that Ms. Clack must act in a fair and evenhanded way, that Ms. Clack must understands that she has violated this in the past, and that Ms. Clack must commit to adhere to fairness and even-handedness in the future.

On Dec. 6, 2024, AEEO informed me that it has asked the Office of DEI to respond to my complaint. On January 13, 2025, I was informed that the response was received and is being reviewed. Then on on January 31, 2025, I received the following brief statement from AEEO: “Thank you for submitting your concerns. We have reviewed the allegations presented in accordance with Rice’s processes and guidelines. After a careful review, we were unable to substantiate the accusations against Ms. Clack and the DE&I office. As such, no further review is recommended for this case, and it is now considered closed.”

So my complaint was dismissed without even sharing with me the response of the DEI Office, with no analysis, and with no explanation. In the past, AEEO has has at least tried to offer a rationale for dismissing complaints. Now it does not even bother with that — “Case dismissed, end of story, move on.” And this is from an office that describes itself as “neutral and independent resource office responsible for ensuring the enforcement of the institution’s anti-discrimination policies”.

Postscript. On January 29, 2025, a draft statement on academic freedom was posted on the Wiki page of the Rice University Faculty Senate. The following sentence caught my eye: “leading Rice officers (including the President, Provost, deans, vice presidents, and other senior leaders) might not be neutral regarding political and social issues as individuals, but as representatives of an institution that values free inquiry and scrutiny for the betterment of society, they must weigh their words carefully and prioritize the mission of the university over their own participation in political discourse.” The restriction to “leading Rice officers” almost seems specifically tailored to exclude university officers such as Catherine E. Clack, Associate Vice Provost for DEI.

Post-Postscript: In mid-April 2025, the campus was invited by the Office of Access and Institutional Excellence (which used to be known as DEI) to join a celebration of Catherine Clack’s “43 years of incomparable leadership
at Rice University”. The public invitation did not say that Ms. Clack is retiring from Rice, but her current affiliation at Rice is now listed as “retiree”. Coincidence?

Post-Post-Postscript: The rumor on campus is that Ms. Clack was fired from Rice. Apparently, I was not the only one who complained about her biased conduct.

Starting at December 2023, I wrote about the climate of antisemitism at Rice University. I wrote about what I perceived as moral rot, about lawlessness on campus, about Israelophobia, and about the deepening moral rot. Throughout most of 2024, Rice was silent about these issues, other than issuing bland statements, generically denouncing genocide and antisemitism, but ignoring what was happening on campus. But on August 28, 2024, Provost Amy Dittmar gave a presentation at a Faculty Senate meeting on Free Speech and Campus Climate. Let me review and comment on that presentation. (The full presentation is available on the Rice Faculty Wiki Page.)

1. “Academic Freedom and Personal Expression are core values and foundation for the mission of Rice and are reflected in our policies and other important university documents.”

I strongly support this and I exercise this freedom often. But both Rice’s Policy 830 and the Code of Student Conduct prohibit intimidation and harassment, so this freedom of expression is not without limits.

2. Under “Commitment to have a safe community free of hate speech, harassment, and discrimination”, The Provost quoted From Policy 830 “Hate speech is any act of harassment that incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person because of that person’s membership to a protected class.”

What was not quoted from Policy 830 is this text: “Harassment violates this policy and is subject to disciplinary action when … the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work or educational environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.”

As I wrote in the summer: “On April 18, 2024, a group of about ten Israelis — faculty members, staff members, and students — held a meeting with the AAEO Office and the leadership of the university, including President DesRoches and Alexander Byrd, Vice Provost for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. We made it clear that we do not feel safe on the Rice campus. Two people pulled out pocket knives that they carry with them for self defense while on the Rice campus. Two students cried when describing how they feel on campus.” And yet AEEO argued that I am being unreasonable when I perceive Intifada chants as threatening.”

3. “Rice had 7 registered and 9 total Protests or other demonstrations (some over multiple days), not including vigils. Many of these followed Rice’s policies, some disruptions were in violation of policies and the typical processes were followed.”

Opacity is a standard bureaucratic tool to avoid accountability. Student privacy means that Rice cannot comment on disciplinary processes as they pertain to specific students. Rice is definitely allowed to comment beyond “the typical processes were followed.”

This bland statement also smoothed the fact that Rice did have an encampment. The encampment was not pre-approved, as required, but Rice acquiesced to it. Furthermore, Rice allowed an encampment poster, which clearly violated Rice’s Policy 856, to stand in front of the Multicultural Center for over two months. The encampments’ protesters chanted “We don’t want Zionists here”, practically excluding me and other Israelis from a part of the Rice campus, yet President DesRoches praised the encampment’s organizers in Rice’s end-of-semester email.

4. “Administration met concerned groups and individuals in multiple meetings with president, provost, deans of graduate and undergraduate, vice provost, and many others in leadership.”

Meetings are useless if they do not lead to action. As I mentioned earlier, a group of ten Israelis met with the leadership, but our concerns for physical safety were met with deliberate indifference.

5. “Created Policy 856 (campus flyers and posters) – Feb 2024.”

But the policy was routine violated by the RiceSJP Club, and yet no public disciplinary measures were taken against that club. Note that unlike the case with individual students, there is no privacy protection when it comes to student clubs.

6. “Rice and other universities across the country saw an increase in complaints of discrimination filed to AEEO. The vast majority of open investigations are complete and involved parties have been notified. Rice does not publicly comment on specific investigations, especially regarding students.”

There we have opacity again. I have talked to numerous people who submitted complaints to AEEO. They all told me that their complaints were dismissed. My own complaint was dismissed, using flimsy arguments.

7. “Last spring, the Thresher reported that several students were under investigation by Rice’s AEEO office for the wording of the SA resolution. It also reported that Rice was ordering students not to vote on the resolution. AEEO office does not have any open investigations related to the SA resolution.”

As I argued last April, the investigation was a ruse used by Rice to suspend a politically inconvenient BDS resolution by the SA Senate. The investigation could have been completed within a week, as a quick phone call to experts on BDS issues would have revealed that BDS does not amount to harassment of Jewish or Israeli students. Instead, AEEO dragged the investigation into the summer, and then dismissed it. Now the SA Senate has resurrected their BDS initiative, this time via a student referendum, and Rice has been silent on this issue so far.

8. Summer 2024: Responses to concerns raised — “Expanded Kosher food options in serveries”.

This is nice, but Kosher food does not make Israelis feel safe on the Rice campus.

9. “Reviewed our policies to determine where clarity and revisions were needed to facilitate community’s efforts to engage in personal expression and discourse, foster safety, and operate our education and research programs with minimal disruptions.”

The problem in the spring of 2024 was not with unclear policies. The problem was that Rice was reluctant to actually enforce these policies and apply sanctions to violators. Without enforcement of policies, the result is a “rule of lawlessness”. “Clarifying” the policies does not mean that Rice intends to enforce them.

10. “Revised Policy 820 on campus demonstrations.

The previous version of Policy 820, which can be found on the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive, included the following clause: “Interrupting a lecture, event, meeting, debate, class or forum on University property is considered an unacceptable form of protest,
demonstration, or organized expression of opinion.” The new version omits this clause. Is interrupting a lecture, event, meeting, debate, class or
forum on University property now considered an acceptable form of protest, demonstration, or organized expression of opinion?

As it happens, the Code of Student Conduct prohibits “obstructing or
interfering with University functions or any University activity”. But this
applies only to students. So the new Policy 820 seems to allow faculty
members, for example, to disrupt university events. I doubt that this is wise.

Bottom Line: Dealing with an aggressive protest movement is challenging, and requires walking a fine line between respecting freedom of expression and maintaining a safe campus. Rules and policies are supposed to guide university administrations in walking this fine lines. Rice was reluctant to enforce its rules and policies, which resulted in a campus that was unsafe for many students, faculty, and staff members. There is no indication so far that this reluctance — due to political-expedience calculation, I suspect — has changed.

PostScript: The image at the top is from the Instagram account of RiceSJP. The image seems to be a clear exhortation for violence. Yet the campus has been rather quiet during this fall semester so far, as RiceSJP seems to have moved its efforts to the political front. This trends is consistent with what is happening on other US campuses. Yet, if this quiescence at Rice is the result of some concrete actions by the Rice Administration, I’d be delighted to give them credit for it.

I woke up on Nov. 6, 2024 and found myself in a new USA. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected as US president, but the country did not know exactly who he was and what he stood for. In 2024, the country knew exactly who he was and what he stood for, and yet he was re-elected. How did that happen?

Earlier this year, I wrote an article about “US Campus Antisemitism — How Did We Get Here?”. Looking back at that article, I realized that it also answers my question from the above paragraph. So let me just quote below from that article.

How Neoliberalism Gave Rise to Identity Politics

About what did the political Left and political Right traditionally argue? Going back to The Communist Manifesto, the debate has been about states and markets: should markets be left alone (hence the term “free market”), as the Right believes, or should governments insert themselves into the economy to address undesirable societal impacts of free markets, as the Left believes? This debate raged among economists, e.g., Hayek vs Keynes (regarding government intervention in the economy to lift it out of recessions), and it raged among political parties, with US Democrats pulling left and US Republicans pulling right.

The political debate, however, rather died out with the election of Ronald Reagan as president of the US in November 1980. Following the failure of Keynesian policies during the 1970s, Reagan ushered the era of Neoliberalism, which emphasize the use of market mechanisms to solve most of society’s problems and needs and is generally associated with policies privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. The American historian Mark Lilla described Neoliberalism as the “Reganite idolatry of individual property rights and the market.” After landslide defeat to the Republican Party led by Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the 1980s, and the demise of Soviet-style communism — based on central economic planning — in the late 1980s, the Democrats reacted by shifting to the right, which led to the rise of the New Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, who went on to win the presidential election in 1992. In 1996, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton proclaimed, “The era of big government is over.” What Reagan created, Bill Clinton consolidated, described Gary Gerstle, in his 2022 book, “The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order.” A similar phenomenon happened in the United Kingdom. In 2002, twelve years after Margaret Thatcher left office, she was asked at a dinner what was her greatest achievement. Thatcher replied: “Tony Blair and New Labour”. Indeed, “Thatcherism with a younger face” was a famous political critique used to describe Tony Blair’s New Labour era. (Note, however, that Republicans have accepted government intervention during financial crises; see the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.)

The neoliberal era has not been kind to poor and working-class people. As described by the historian James G. Stahlman: “A stunning U-turn in the fortunes of poor and working-class whites began in the 1970s, as de-industrialization, automation, globalization, and the growth of the high-technology and service sectors transformed the U.S. economy. In the decades since, many blue-collar jobs have vanished, wages have stagnated for less educated Americans, wealth has accumulated at the top of the economic food chain, and social mobility has become vastly harder to achieve.” In particular, as described by Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman, White rural voters hold the greatest electoral sway of any demographic group in the United States, yet rural communities suffer from poor healthcare access, failing infrastructure, and severe manufacturing and farming job losses.

In their 2020 book, “Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism,” economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, set out to understand what accounted for falling U.S. life expectancies. They learned that the fastest rising death rates among Americans were from drug overdoses, suicide, and alcoholic liver disease, and these deaths disproportionately occurred in white men who had not earned college degrees. They argued that a key driver of these deaths is economic misery. Nicholas Eberstadt wrote in 2017 about “Our Miserable 21 Century”. “From work to income to health to social mobility,” he wrote, “the year 2000 marked the beginning of what has become a distressing era for the United States.”

The Democrats did not completely abandon their traditional Leftist leanings. President Clinton signed the 1993 expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor, and President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) in 2010. Yet, these initiatives made only a small dent in the overall economic decline of poor and working-class people. (Some economists criticized Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as too small to address the Great Recession adequately.) “That might explain why the slogan of the Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump — `Make America Great Again!’ — sounds so good to so many of them”, wrote Stahlman, just before the 2016 presidential election. In 2023, Donald Trump declared to his working-class supporters, “I am your warrior! I am your justice!”

In her 2022 book, “Left Behind — The Democrats’ Failed Attempt to Solve Inequality”, Lily Geismer described how, eventually, the Democrats lost interest in working-class people and started courting Silicon Valley and college-educated urbanites. “The modern Democratic Party, and liberalism itself, is to a substantial extent a bastion of college-educated, upper-middle-class professionals,” wrote recently Michael Powell. While the COVID-19 pandemic may have signaled the end of the Neoliberal era, that 40-year long era will surely have a lasting impact.

In another trend, the post-World War II period saw growing recognition that various segments of the population have traditionally suffered oppression, exclusion, and/or marginalization. The Democrats, which used to be the pro-slavery party in the 19th Century, and the Jim Crow party after the Civil War, have become, by the middle of the 20th Century, the party of liberation from societal oppression, giving the word “liberal” its current American meaning. (Classical liberals believed in a free economy with minimal government interference.) President Truman integrated the US Armed Forces racially by executive order in 1948. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Congress passed The Equal Rights Amendment, which sought legal equality for women and banned discrimination based on sex, in 1972 (but, following a conservative backlash, was never ratified by enough states to become law). The Clinton Administration prohibited in 1993 military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants (“Don’t ask, don’t tell”). The policy still prohibited people who “demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” from serving in the US Armed Forces. The Administration of President Obama removed that ban in 2011.

From 1992, the phrase “social justice” for the Democrats gradually lost its connotation of economic justice, and became more and more focused on racial, ethnic, and sexual justice, and, thus, the Democrats drifted towards identity politics. As described by the philosopher Susan Neiman, “It begins with concern for marginalized persons, and ends by reducing each to the prism of her marginalization.” As Thomas Piketty explained in his 2020 book, Capital and Ideology: “When people are told that there is no credible alternative to the socioeconomic organization and class inequality that exist today, it is not surprising that they invest their hopes in defending their borders and identities instead.” In fact, Clinton’s “The era of big government is over” expresses disillusionment with President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” ambition, which was to addresses societal inequities via policy. This disillusionment explains the somewhat religious tone of today’s identity politics.

The identity-politics trend has accelerated following the founding of the Black-Lives-Matter movement in 2012, and the murder of many Black men by law-enforcement personnel during the 2010s. Since these identity-based social-justice issues did not resonate with white working-class people — all the way to the civil-right struggle of the 1960s — Republicans were happy to emphasize that focus of the Democrats, launching the so-called “Culture Wars” to gain political advantage. These efforts go back to Republicans’ Southern Strategy in the 1960s, but as the Democrats leaned more into identity politics, the Republicans leaned more into the culture wars, where they even found an ally in Russian president Vladimir Putin, as the latter has made the culture war an important aspect of his war on the West. As Fareed Zakaria wrote, “politics is moving away from the left-right divide over economics to an open-closed one centered on cultural issues such as immigration, identity and multiculturalism.”

While identity politics has had some notable successes, e.g., the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US, it is sometimes preoccupied with terminology, but with little progress to show for it. In early 2024, Google’s Gemini software created images of historical figures in variety of ethnicities and genders, forcing Google’s CEO to apologize. Pundits ask “What happened to identity politics?” Even after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, Democrats kept pushing for identity politics. (See this recent account of the Democratic Party current “identity crisis”.) Some on the Left have complained that identity politics has “abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any left-wing standpoint.” Identity politics is today such a strong theme of the Democratic Party that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now fracturing the Party.

Bottom line: Democrats lost in 2024 because they have abandoned the working and middle classes. Plain and simple.

Academic Year 2023–24 on US college campuses was like no other in the past 50 years. The Hamas-Israel 2023 war erupted on Oct. 7, 2023, a day which will be remembered in infamy. Almost ten months later, the tragic war is still raging, with no end in sight. The so called “campus intifada” movement on US campuses erupted on Oct. 8, 2023, and is ramping up again, now that the fall semester is starting.

From the start there have been charges of antisemitism and Israelophobia leveled at the campus protests movement. As a recent Stanford University report on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias asserted: “But the encampments and other protests have, at times, gone beyond these lines of argument and advocacy to call, implicitly or even explicitly, for violence, as in `Death 2 Settler Colonial Projects,’ `Long Live Palestine, Die Israel,’ `Decolonization is not a metaphor,’ and numerous calls and chants for Intifada. Additionally, the chant of `From the river to the sea, Israel will be Arab’ is hard to view as anything other than a call for ethnic cleansing.” Harvard’s antisemitism task force recently found a ‘dire’ situation for Israelis on campus and urged swift action. Columbia University’s Task Force on Antisemitism concluded that “the testimonies of hundreds of Jewish and Israeli students have made clear that the University community has not treated them with the standards of civility, respect, and fairness it promises to all its students.”

The anti-Israeli protest movement was a bit slow to start at Rice University. But by December 2023, I have seen enough to write about a “A Moral Rot at Rice University”. “I am a second-generation Holocaust survivor”, I wrote, “I recognize antisemitism when I see it. You do not need to be a user of derogatory epithets to be antisemitic; using double standards qualifies. It is ok to criticize Israel, but not ok to pay lip service to Palestinian atrocities. It is ok to call for a cease-fire, but not ok to ignore the hostages. It is ok to call for a two-state solution — which I strongly support — to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not ok to talk about Palestinian liberation, while mentioning the 1948 Nakba, implicitly suggesting ethnic cleansing of Jews in Israel. It is ok to express sympathy with Palestinian refugees. It is not ok to ignore close to one million Jews that were pushed out of Arab countries after the 1948 war. It is ok to talk about Palestinian casualties. It is not ok to ignore Jewish casualties and civilian casualties elsewhere in the Middle East. (Civil wars are raging in Syria, Yemen, and Sudan.) It is ok to express concerns about anti-Palestinian hate crimes. It is not ok to ignore anti-Jewish hate crimes. It is ok to demand a culture of care for Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students, faculty, and staff. It is not ok to ignore Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff.”

The Campus Intifada arrived at Rice on February 15, 2024, when a group of pro-Palestinian protesters, organized by the Rice chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), disrupted a public presentation by by Antonio Neri, Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett Packard Enterprises. The public response by Rice to this clear violation of the university’s Code of Student Conduct, as well as Policy 820, was a thundering silence.

After the disruptors were escorted out of the auditorium by Rice University Police Department (RUPD) they regrouped outside the Brochstein Pavilion at the center of the campus, where they mounted a loud demonstration. (Another demonstration was held to protest the visit to the Baker Institute of Condoleezza Rice.) As on other campuses, the demonstrators did not call for a ceasefire or for an independent Palestinian state. Rather, their loud chants included “From the river to the sea, Palestinian shall be free”, “Intifada Revolution is the only solution”, and “Globalize the Intifada”. There has been an extensive debate whether such chants are or not antisemitic. But I am an Israeli Jew (Israeli, for short). We hear people say these days, “I am not antisemitic; I am anti-Zionist.” I doubt that these people can define “Zionist”; “Zionist” for them has just become a code word for “Israeli”. I challenge anyone to argue that such chants are not anti-Israeli. As Judith Shulevitz wrote, “A close look at the words being shouted at protests on campuses across the country reveals why some see the pro-Palestinian cause as so threatening.”

As Paul Berman recently wrote: “Except that everyone knows that, on the contrary, those slogans are ventures into transgression, which is why young people like to chant them. And no one wants to acknowledge what the transgression is. And no one wants to acknowledge how shocking it is that, in the United States and in France and perhaps in other places, a mass movement of students, led by the student elite, has arisen in favor of those unacknowledged transgressions.”

I view chants about the Intifada as threatening, rather than merely offensive. The Second Intifada was a 2000–2005 terror campaign aimed at Israeli civilians — which included suicide bombings, shootings, and stabbings — resulting in over 1,000 people murdered. I lost a very good friend in the Passover Massacre, a suicide bombing carried out by Hamas at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel in March 2002, during a Passover festive meal, in which 30 civilians were killed and 140 were injured. To me “Globalize the Intifada” means that not only Israelis in Israel are legitimate targets, but that Israelis everywhere are legitimate targets. The Intifada chants are simply calls for violence. As Jonathan Chait recently wrote about the recent US campus-protest movement: “The movement’s ideological character invites rage and violence.” My personal sense of threat is sharpened by the fact that many of the protesters at Rice may not even be Rice students. In campuses where arrests have been made, a significant fraction of those arrested were not affiliated with the campus, and there is evidence that also at Rice demonstrations were attended by non-students. There are about 15 Israelis at Rice. We find the Intifada chants highly threatening.

I and others also filed complaints with Rice’s Office of Access, Equity and Equal Opportunity (AEEO), arguing that the threatening chants violate Rice’s Policy 830 on Discrimination and Harassment. (See Rice’s definition of Harassment here.) AEEO, directed by Richard A. Baker, has been investigating if the chants that we found threatening are truly threatening. Perhaps “From the river to the sea” is just about freedom, never mind that the origin of the phrase, as coined by the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the 1960s, was “from the water to the water, Palestine will be Arab”, which is what protesters at the Rice “liberated zone” (see below) have been chanting in Arabic. Perhaps, “Intifada” just means ““shaking off injustice”, and “resistance is justified” is just about “self-defense”, never mind the 1,000 Israelis that were murdered in the Second Intifada, and the 1200 Israelis that were murdered on Oct. 7. In May 2024, I wrote about the “rule of lawlessness” at Rice University. I concluded that the failure to enforce university rules is so pervasive and systemic at Rice, that it cannot be accidental. It must have been explicitly directed by the university leadership, including President Reginald DesRoches and Provost Amy Dittmar.

On August 15, 2024, about six months after my complaint, I finally received a response from the AEEO Office. The complaint has been dismissed. The legal reasoning seems tortuous to me. (Which is perhaps the reason that the response was shared with me in a file-sharing mode that did not allow me to print a hard copy.) The response argues for example, that the chants are not specific enough to be viewed as threats. What are they threatening to do? How are they going to do it? To whom they are going to do it? When are they going to do it. The response also relies on the Texas Penal Code, according to which a threat against someone’s physical safety has to threaten the target with imminent bodily injury.

But my complaint was not a criminal complaint. It was a complaint based on Rice’s Policy 830. That policy makes no reference to the Texas Penal Code, rather it talks about conduct that “reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.” Was I reasonable in finding the Intifada chants intimidating? On April 5, 2024, the AEEO Office held a virtual meeting with ten Rice Israelis. They all stated that they do not feel safe on the Rice campus. On April 18, a group of about ten Israelis — faculty members, staff members, and students — held a meeting with the AEEO Office and the leadership of the university, including President DesRoches and Alexander Byrd, Vice Provost for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. We made it clear that we do not feel safe on the Rice campus. Two people pulled out pocket knives that they carry with them for self defense while on the Rice campus. Two students cried when describing how they feel on campus. In fact, RUPD considers public lectures by me on the Rice campus as events that should be monitored. And yet AEEO argues that I am being unreasonable when I perceive the Intifada chants as threatening.

It is important to note that, following the impunity under which they allowed to operate, Rice SJP has become more brazen. In late April 2024, Rice SJP declared a “liberated zone” on campus. Rice said that this “encampment” had their approval, and called it a “student-led teach-in event”, but the approval — acquiescence may be a better description — came after the fact and was not obtained 48 hours in advance, as required. The chants at that encampment were much more explicit than those at the February 25 protest. A flier distributed at he encampment clarifies what the chant “Free Palestine” mean; it means “Zionists get out”, i.e., ethnic cleansing. Another chant glorifies violence against Israelis, “with blood we redeem you Palestine”. The chant “We don’t want Zionists here”, turned the “liberated zone” into a Israeli-exclusion zone. And yet AAEO chose to focus narrowly on the events of February 15, and pretend that the encampment never happened.

To understand the absurdity of AAEE’s response, imagine a hypothetical situation where Rice Students for Southern Heritage invite a KKK Chapter to march at Rice. Imagine the marchers wearing white robes and hoods, and carrying burning crosses. Would Black students at Rice feel intimidated? I strongly believe that they would, even though no specific threats were made. The historical context is that such KKK marches predict violence targeted at Blacks, hence the sense of threat. The Intifada was a campaign of terror against Israeli. Intifada chants to Israelis are what burning crosses are to Blacks. In fact, imagine a protest at Rice where protesters are chanting, “Blacks are not welcome here.” Does anyone believe that Rice would tolerate it? In fact, Rice’s own security training considers the following situation a hate crime, which must be reported: Eight male college freshmen shared a dorm suite; some are White and some are Black. The White students posted a confederate flag on the wall and wrote racial slurs on a white board.

I am not the only one who submitted complaints to AAEO. Several people told me that they have submitted complaints, which have been dismissed by AAEE. It is difficult not to reach the conclusion that Rice does not want to sanction the anti-Israeli protesters and used a tortuous legal reasoning to justify that. For example, the AAEO response claims that the Feb. 15 protest was pre-approved by Rice. Why did Rice not say that half a year ago? There is no privacy issue here. Was the disruption to HP’s CEO talk also pre-approved? Rice never said how they responded to that disruption, which was a blatant violation of university rules.

Of course, tailoring legal reasoning to a desired outcome is a standard operating procedure for lawyers. But AAEO is not a branch of Rice’s General Counsel Office, whose job is to represent Rice University zealously. AAEO describes itself as “neutral and independent resource office responsible for ensuring the enforcement of the institution’s anti-discrimination policies”. Neutral and independent? Really?

But I should have realized that AAEO operates instrumentally already last April, when the Rice Student Association (SA) had to table a resolution to boycott and divest SA funds from Israel-aligned companies after a student filed a discrimination complaint with the Office of Access, Equity and Equal Opportunity (AEEO) . According to Rice Thresher, a student newspaper, AAEO notified the SA of the complaint. The complainant had requested that the SA’s Senate withhold voting on the resolution, which AEOO granted while the complaint was being investigated. I have done my own legal research on the topic, and the consensus among legal experts is that such boycotts, as objectionable as many people find them, do not amount to harassment of Jewish or Israeli students. AAEO could have concluded its investigation in one week, with a few phone calls, allowing the SA to reinstate the resolution. But the resolution, which included a boycott of Chevron, caused quite a stir in Houston, resulting in a large number of letters and emails addressed to President DesRoches in protest of the resolution. Rice needed the resolution to be tabled. As I argued elsewhere, Rice could have just told the SA that the resolution exceeds their authority. But Rice did not want to take such an assertive position, so AAEO was the instrument used to get the resolution tabled. Again, instrumentality seems to be the modus operandi.

But I have had my run-in with AAEO’s instrumentality already in 2020. In the summer of 2020, with COVID raging, Rice decided that we must “return to campus” for in-person instruction. I was highly critical of that decision, and compared it to the decision by the Ford Motor Company not to recall the Ford Pinto, in spite of clear evidence for its non-safety. As part of the plan to return to campus, Rice decided to deploy an extensive COVID-testing program. Sample collection and testing was to be performed be a medical outfit, but Rice decided (probably to save money) that administrative staffing would be done by Rice administrative staff members. To that end, Human Resources (HR) attempted to pressure Rice administrative staff members to volunteer to that job. An HR employee, let’s call her Alice, sent email to all Rice administrative staff members arguing that it was their moral duty to volunteer for this risky job. When I heard about this, I was outraged. I sent email to the whole campus arguing that this pressure was unethical. My outburst was effective and clarifications were sent that volunteering for that task was truly voluntary.

But shortly after that, I was contacted by AAEO. Apparently, Alice had filed a complaint against me for Policy 830 violation. She argued that she was “bullied” by my email. I shared all the information I had with AAEO, explaining that if any bullying took place, it was by HR bullying Rice employees into volunteering. I was certain that this would close the matter, but AAEO decided to continue the investigation. A mediation session was proposed. In that session, I explained to Alice that my outrage was directed at HR and not at her personally, and I apologized if it seemed otherwise. I asked her if she realized that she was, in effect, bullying Rice staff members. She denied that, and we were at an impasse.

Following that, I was informed by AAEO that the investigation would continue. My response was that if the investigation continues, I would file a Policy 830 complaint against Alice, as well as her manager, the Director of HR, as well as her manager, the Vice President for Administration. Furthermore, I wrote, I would file a complaint against AAEO, arguing that since AAEO sits organizationally under the Vice President for Administration, it must recuse itself from handling both Alice’s complaint and mine. Shortly after that, I was informed that the complaint against me had been withdrawn.

But AAEO is not the only Rice office that is failing at fulfilling its stated mission. Rice’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), under the leadership of Alexander Byrd, aims at promoting diversity, inclusion and academic achievement. My conversations with dozens of Jewish and Israeli students since Oct. 7, 2023 have made clear that the University community has not treated them with the standards of civility, respect, and fairness it promises to all its students. Yet the Office of DEI, which is is part of the Office of the Provost and has inclusion in its title, has been utterly silent on this issue. Apparently, inclusion does not include Jewish and Israeli students. Furthermore, Rice’s Multicultural Center (MCC), under the leadership of Catherine E. Clack, Associate Vice Provost for DEI, played a key role in the anti-Israeli agitation on campus. On October 17,2023, MCC Director called for “civil disobedience”, that is, breaking Rice’s rules. On Oct. 18, 2023 members of the Rice community gathered in the Multicultural Center Courtyard for a vigil titled “Honoring Our Martyrs”. An organizer from Rice SJP said they identify “martyrs” as all Palestinians “killed as a result of Israel’s actions”. The organizers declined to comment on whether Hamas militants are included as “martyrs.”

Then on April 20, 2024, National Students for Justice for Palestine, launched the Popular University for Gaza initiative, as “a coordinated pressure campaign against university administrations and trustees to immediately divest from the Israeli state.” A Popular University for Gaza mural was posted in front of the MCC from early May to early July, 2024. This mural was posted by Rice SJP with Rice’s approval, but it violated Rice’s poster policy in several ways: it was not posted on space designated for postering, it was quite larger than 11 inches by 17 inches, it did not identify the sponsor of the poster, and it was not removed within 10 business days after the date of postering. Rice’s poster policy states that “Permission to post under this policy does not imply University endorsement of the content of any posting.” But given that the mural display blatantly violated the policy in many ways, and yet it had Rice’s approval, it is difficult not to see its display as an endorsement of its content. The mural’s location, right in front of the MCC, sends a clear message that the MCC, and, by extension, the Office of the DEI, and, by extension, the Office of the Provost, has planted itself firmly in the anti-Israeli camp.

As I wrote last year, I can no longer say that I am proud of being a faculty member at Rice University. I write about the deepening moral rot at my beloved university with deepening sadness, hoping that my essays may help bring a moral awakening.