C ommencements canceled. Ceremonies disrupted. Buildings and spaces damaged. Exams and classes moved online. One set of students has been suspended, expelled, and arrested. Another group of students is scared, frustrated, and silenced. Universities continue to fail to quell the pro-Hamas demonstrations and encampments that have erupted on hundreds of campuses across the country because they misdiagnose the problem. Antisemitism commissions and reviews of speech-and-assembly policies do little to address the question of why so many university students and faculty have such abhorrent views about Jews and America. Instead, university leaders should examine whom they are admitting and why they are educating their students to think this way.

Universities’ whack-a-mole strategies for calming their campuses have failed. They suspended pro-Hamas student groups for violating university policies only to have such groups continue to operate on their campuses. They created antisemitism commissions only to have many of the members resign, complaining that the commissions were toothless. They refined and clarified permissible protest spaces and times only to have protesters transform into rioters. They restricted certain campus spaces to university affiliates only to realize that many of their own affiliates were offenders. They sought to appease the protesters by letting them violate scores of university policies only to have them violate the law by attacking fellow students and damaging university property. Having seemingly exhausted all approaches, some universities had no choice but to call in law enforcement and restore order, while many others pursued appeasement.

What would it look like for universities to grapple with the fact that the antisemitic views roiling campuses are features rather than bugs of their admissions and academic policies? It would entail changes in what schools look for when they admit students, in what they look for when they hire and tenure faculty, and in the nature of the education students receive.

First, universities should look for students who are readers, not revolutionaries. Schools should be looking for capable students eager to learn rather than those focused on activism. Grades, scores, and community-service commitments should form core criteria for admissions. Harvard and Columbia both ask undergraduate applicants to write about how their personal experiences can contribute to a “diverse student body” or an “equitable and inclusive community.” Not a single one of the Common Application essay prompts is scholastic in nature. A fuller picture of an applicant is important, but it also provides platforms for students to talk about everything except learning.

Second, universities need to review whom they hire as educators. It is tempting to chalk the views and behavior of students up to youthful exuberance, but no such excuse exists for faculty. Many faculty have joined or aided the encampments, canceled classes or exams in solidarity, and called for amnesty for rule- and law-breakers. Their abetment is unsurprising when you consider their views. A recent survey of the Harvard faculty shockingly revealed that while it is Jewish students that feel under assault, 37.5 percent of faculty feel there’s systemic anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias on campus whereas only 25 percent think there’s systemic antisemitism on campus. Even worse, 28 percent of faculty believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. A recently released report by the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance details in depth the number of faculty who support violence against Israel and how that has colored the curriculum and events they sponsor. Just as a university should not want someone who supports the KKK to educate its students, it should not want those who glorify Hamas and seek the elimination of the state of Israel to be molding young minds either.

Third, universities need to stop letting students have a choose-their-own adventure curriculum. Over the years, universities transitioned away from a standardized curriculum to entrusting students with responsibility for determining their own learning paths. Core curricula have given way to distribution requirements and, in some cases, minimal or no requirements at all. This spring, Harvard offered 13 courses that have the word “decolonize” in the title or description, 25 that have the word “oppression”, and six that have the words “white supremacy.” Columbia has similar numbers. The core ethos of the antisemitic encampments should be no surprise when this is the sort of education on offer. In the words of the American Enterprise Institute scholar Yuval Levin, institutions have transitioned from being “formative” to “performative.” Universities are no longer molds of character and conduct, but are instead platforms for branding and activism.

Determining a curriculum and what constitutes a core body of knowledge is a difficult but essential task that universities are shirking. At future hearings on the subject, Congress should ask university officials some hard questions: How do they define a well-educated graduate? What is the core knowledge their students should be learning? Do they believe the Western canon is a core component of a good education?

Thus far, universities are engaging in curricular capitulation. To appease the pro-Hamas mob, a number have pledged to increase the admission of Palestinian students on full scholarships, hire more Palestinian faculty, create Arab or Muslim cultural centers, deepen partnerships with Palestinian universities, and expand their academic commitment to the conflict. To avoid divesting from Israel — a core demand of the encampments — universities will instead further invest in the type of education that is producing these very antisemitic views, behaviors, and demands in the first place. Academic appeasement is easier than educational reform.

These three reforms are mutually reinforcing. Students prioritizing learning over demonstrating would seek thought-provoking rather than thought-affirming courses. Committed faculty would prioritize real scholarship and pedagogy over activism. Universities valuing character formation would adjust admissions and hiring incentives accordingly.

The universities’ responses thus far have failed to address the root cause of the problem. Real changes in student admissions, faculty hiring, and curriculum are badly needed.