{I} n our current political climate, where appearances trump virtually all other considerations, seeming to combat bigotry is often substituted for the vital task of implementing effective policies to that end. This unsettling reality came sharply into focus following last week’s congressional testimonies by the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania (the last of whom is now ex-president). Their inability to unequivocally declare that calls for the genocide of Jews violates their institutions’ anti-bullying and anti-harassment codes sparked considerable and justifiable public uproar.

In reaction, other universities hastily issued their own condemnations of antisemitism and calls for Jewish genocide. However, various antisemitic incidents at these very universities since October 7, when the Hamas terror group executed the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, reveal the statements to be nothing more than cynical maneuvers to shield the schools from similar potential backlash over their abysmal handling of antisemitic incitement on their campuses.

Among the first to issue a post-hearing statement was Columbia University: In a post on X, the school wrote that “calls for genocide against the Jewish community or any other group are abhorrent, inconsistent with our values and against our rules. Incitement to violence against members of our community will not be tolerated.”

Despite these lofty words, Columbia has been a nexus for numerous incidents over the last two months in which Jews were harassed and, in some cases, threatened with violence. The university’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter swarmed the Columbia School of Social Work, chanting “Globalize the intifada.” The first and second intifadas were yearslong murderous campaigns, including suicide bombings, carried out by Palestinians against Israeli civilians, taking the lives of more than 1,200 Israelis. It was this very word, “intifada,” that Representative Elise Stefanik referred to when questioning the three university presidents about calls for Jewish genocide. Last week, students once again took to the social-work building to hold a “teach-in and discussion” — in direct contravention of the administration’s instructions — where students gathered to praise Hamas’s October 7 “counteroffensive.” The promotional flyer for the teach-in featured an image of an AK-47.

Next in line is Stanford University, which posted on X, “In the context of the national discourse, Stanford unequivocally condemns calls for the genocide of Jews or any peoples. That statement would clearly violate Stanford’s Fundamental Standard, the code of conduct for all students at the university.” And yet, on October 23, students marched across campus chanting, “Long live the intifada.” Ten days earlier, a New York Times opinion column noted that, in the days after the October 7 attack, multiple pro-violence incidents had taken place at the school. This included a message chalked on a sidewalk reading “Long live the intifada” and an event organized by Stanford’s SJP chapter during which a student proudly stated, “You ask us, do we condemn Hamas? Stop asking all these questions. I’m so proud of my resistance.”

Along came the University of Michigan with its own post on X, whose opening was directly copied from Stanford’s statement. The school condemned calls for genocide against Jews, but, unlike Stanford, fell short of explicitly clarifying that such calls would violate university policies. This is particularly strange since, just one day earlier, the university announced the establishment of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute “to leverage U-M research and scholarship around global antisemitism and divisiveness.” What good is an institute to study antisemitism if on-campus calls for the genocide of Jews don’t clearly violate campus policy?

And of course, there’s no shortage of antisemitic displays at UMich. On November 18, hundreds of students forcefully entered a locked campus building, took it over, and began chanting “Intifada, intifada, long live the intifada.” Forty students were arrested, and two officers were injured during the incident.

Then came Yale University, whose president likewise gave an evasive and inconclusive answer on December 7 as to whether calls for Jewish genocide would violate campus policies. Just two days later, dozens, if not hundreds, of students marched through the campus chanting “Intifada, intifada, long live the intifada.”

These and other institutions of higher learning are justifiably on edge about the recent wave of wealthy donors who have announced they are closing their checkbooks to the schools. Having woken up to the scourge of Jew-hate rampant on these elite college campuses, some donors have pulled gifts as large as $100 million from their alma maters. But these schools’ statements of solidarity with Jews are purely performative. Upon just the slightest bit of research, one sees the evidence of the colleges’ failure to confront antisemitism and threats to the safety of Jewish students.

This leads us to an inescapable conclusion: True accountability can come only from the public. The public cannot accept empty words in carefully crafted statements like those issued by Columbia, Stanford, UMich, and Yale.

Effectively countering anti-Jewish incitement — indeed any form of incitement on campus — necessitates a comprehensive approach. Decision-makers and concerned donors, both prominent and modest, must demand that statements are backed up by clearly defined, universally applied policies. These policies should aim to safeguard Jewish students (and all students) from violence and harassment. Universities should clearly state the consequences for such infractions and set up robust mechanisms for tracking and assessing the effective implementation of these policies.

Let that be the lesson to college administrators from the disastrous testimonies we heard last week.