In a sharp rebuke of censorship trends sweeping across American academia, former U.S. President Barack Obama urged universities to reflect on their commitment to free expression. But his call, delivered last week at Hamilton College, remains incomplete unless it includes an uncomfortable truth: academic freedom must apply equally to Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and researchers.
“We Believe in Free Speech—But for Whom?”
Obama asked a crucial question: “Do we stand up for free speech when someone says things that infuriate us, that are wrong or hurtful?”
That question hits differently in today’s university climate—especially for those holding pro-Israel views.
From Columbia to UCLA, Jewish students and Israeli scholars report a surge in campus hostility. In some cases, it’s verbal harassment. In others, it’s the silent exclusion from coalitions and panels. The result: self-censorship and intellectual isolation. Ironically, the very communities expected to embrace pluralism have become spaces where one narrative dominates—and dissent is treated as betrayal.
That’s not academic freedom. That’s academic tribalism.
When Ideology Trumps Inclusivity
Many institutions now find themselves walking a fine line between upholding the right to protest and protecting students from targeted hate. But the line is getting blurrier—and some universities are choosing sides.
In March, faculty members at a prominent public university boycotted a scheduled lecture by an Israeli academic. The rationale? “Solidarity with Palestine.” The event was canceled.
No violent outbursts. No safety threats. Just political pressure.
It’s not an isolated incident.
Since the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent military response in Gaza, the atmosphere on many U.S. campuses has changed dramatically. According to the Anti-Defamation League, reports of antisemitic incidents at universities have spiked by over 400% compared to the same period last year.
And yet, the voices defending Israeli scholars—or even Jewish students generally—have been notably quiet.
Obama’s plea to “ask hard questions” is valid. But institutions must also ask this: Are we comfortable with an environment where certain groups are implicitly—or explicitly—unwelcome based on nationality or religion?
The Dangerous Costs of One-Sided Activism
When Israeli researchers are blocked from publishing in collaborative journals, when Jewish professors face calls for dismissal over tweets, when students are told to hide their Stars of David or Hebrew name necklaces—it isn’t just about free speech anymore.
It’s about intellectual gatekeeping. And it harms more than the individuals involved.
It undermines the very essence of academia: diversity of thought.
In a globalized world, Israeli academia contributes significantly to innovation—in tech, medicine, agriculture, security. Cutting those voices off for political optics isn’t resistance. It’s regression.
Obama’s Legacy—and Missed Opportunity
As a former constitutional law professor and two-term president, Obama’s words carry weight. His warning about democratic backsliding and institutional self-censorship is timely.
But if he truly wishes to defend the sanctity of academic freedom, his advocacy must extend to all voices—including those many find politically inconvenient.
As one Israeli-American Ph.D. candidate at NYU put it, “I used to feel like I belonged here. Now I just try not to be seen.”
That’s not the spirit of a free university. That’s fear.
Final Thought
Obama’s speech may have reignited the debate over academic values. But defending freedom of speech only when it’s popular or palatable is an empty gesture.
If America’s universities want to remain beacons of open inquiry, they must ensure that Jewish and Israeli voices aren’t shouted down, shut out, or silenced altogether.
