Campus Antisemitism Report Card™: Frequently Asked Questions

85 colleges were selected for assessment this year, representing colleges in the U.S. with the highest Jewish student populations and top national and liberal arts colleges.

More specifically, the top 30 private and top 30 public campuses with the highest enrollment of Jewish students were selected from Hillel’s Top 60 Jewish colleges guide. Colleges with the highest % of Jewish students relative to the total student population were also included if the number of Jewish undergraduate students exceeded 500. Although we used Hillel’s guide, Hillel International was not a participant in this project.

The top 30 national colleges and top 10 liberal arts colleges were selected using the two separate U.S. News and World Reports rankings of top a) national and b) liberal arts colleges for 2024. Due to some overlap between these lists, the final number of colleges selected for assessment stands at 85. Schools with little publicly available information, such as military academies and universities with student populations that were almost entirely Jewish were excluded from assessment. U.S. News and World Report was also not a participant in this project.

The number of Jewish students at each institution, as well as the percentage of Jewish students relative to the total student population, is listed at the bottom of each college or university profile, with the information having been sourced from Hillel’s campus profiles.

This approach positions us well to expand our list of campuses assessed in future years to capture more universities attended by many Jewish students, as well as top universities and universities with alternate education models that students should have the option of critically reviewing.

In consultation with the panel of experts and based on ADL’s asks of campus administrators and the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, ADL drew up a list of 21 criteria for assessment. The 21 criteria were categorized into three broad groups: administrative action and policies, incidents on campus, and Jewish student life on campus. To learn more about the criteria used for assessment, please see here.

Once criteria were established, a multi-pronged approach to grading the campuses was used:

• A short questionnaire was distributed to campuses to allow colleges to self-report which of the criteria they fulfilled or have pledged to fulfill in 2024.
• Secondary research was conducted to assess which of the criteria each campus fulfilled and to gather case-by-case information, such as high-profile investigations, on each campus. For the incident category, ADL researchers established incident rates using open-source research methods. Much of the data on campus-based incidents used to inform assessments and narratives came from incidents collected by ADL’s Center on Extremism (COE), based on reports by students and faculty, the AMCHA Initiative’s antisemitic and anti-Zionist incident reporting, as well as news media sources. The team also reviewed data published by other organizations. In cases where we obtained information from the media or from third parties, we consistently sought out primary sources to substantiate the reporting.
• A short survey was distributed by College Pulse to a sample of 160 Jewish college students to learn which of these criteria students see as more important. These answers helped inform how criteria were weighted, with categories ranked as most important generally being given a higher weight and those as least important a lower weight. Weightings were reviewed by ADL’s panel of internal and external experts to ensure alignment and accuracy.
• Contributions from campus stakeholders (e.g., campus Hillel and Chabad directors) were also utilized to inform the campus profile narratives.

A qualitative assessment also contributed to a small proportion of the grading to reflect certain campus efforts (i.e., enforcement of codes of conduct and other policies) that were otherwise not captured in the quantitative analysis. More on the overall weighting approach, qualitative assessment and incident scoring can be found here.

Integral to our grading approach was our reliance on a panel of experts, which includes former college presidents, non-profit leaders, and Jewish student organization representatives. The panel provided invaluable insights throughout the development of this project and their guidance helped to ensure our assessment of each college was comprehensive and fair. Experts provided insight on the evaluation, but all decisions were made by ADL and should not be assumed to reflect any individual expert’s opinion. Experts included Rabbi Kevin Fried (Managing Director at The Jewish Graduate Student Initiative), Sally Mason (Former President of the University of Iowa), Dr. William "Brit" Kirwan (Chancellor Emeritus of the University System of Maryland), Dr. Jeffrey Kopstein (Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the University of California, Irvine), Dr. Richard Arum (Professor of Sociology and Education at the University of California, Irvine), Melissa Kish (Executive Director at Sigma Delta Tau), Libby Anderson (CEO at Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity), Andy Huston (Executive Director at Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity), Bonnie Wunsch (Executive Director at Alpha Epsilon Phi Sorority), Matthew Berger (President and CEO of Mashber Strategies and former Executive Director at Foundation to Combat Antisemitism) and a number of others.

Specifically, experts were engaged to assess the college selection approach and grading approach, including the criteria considered, and the weightings attributed to the criteria.

Prior to publication, ADL shared a subset of the raw data used for the assessments with the assessed colleges and universities, offering them an opportunity to corroborate the data and/or rectify any errors.

While we understand that campus climates may differ for graduates and undergraduates, the Report Card project assesses each college/university as a whole, rather than assessing undergraduate versus graduate experiences. The Report Card also took into account state law restrictions, so that colleges in states that constrain mandatory DEI education were not penalized for not offering mandatory antisemitism education.

Yes. We applied the same criteria and methodology to all schools in our assessment, regardless of whether the school is private or public. In our view, all schools, regardless of whether they are public or private, should be able to fulfill ADL’s administrative policies and actions criteria, as well as our criteria pertaining to Jewish life on campus. That said, both public and private schools do have limitations (and in some cases, different limitations) when it comes to responding to (and therefore preventing) antisemitic incidents on campus. For instance, is important to remember that private colleges and universities are not bound by the First Amendment, and therefore generally do have more leeway to respond to certain antisemitic incidents on campus. However, these schools must still adhere to their existing policies and procedures, which in many cases are not that different from those of public colleges and universities.  At the same time, while public colleges and universities are constrained by the First Amendment, they are not powerless in the face of antisemitism – they can speak out in response to incidents, enforce time, place and manner restrictions, and ensure there are consequences for conduct that crosses the line – e.g., harassment, vandalism, assault, etc.

We nevertheless chose to include incident-related criteria in our Report Card (and apply them evenly to both public and private schools) in order to provide interested stakeholders with the most comprehensive and realistic assessment of campuses in this moment – an assessment that considers campus climate as well as implementation of best practice policies. We encourage you to use the “public” vs. “private” filter to compare schools if this is a relevant factor for you.   

Letter grades were assigned to schools based on each college’s fulfillment of a set of weighted criteria, as discussed above. Letter grades should help students, parents, guidance counselors, admissions consultants, college staff and faculty, concerned alumni, and other interested members of the general public better assess how these schools are performing based on the criteria outlined above and relative to each other.

IMPORTANT: Letter grades should nevertheless be interpreted with caution.  Just because a school has received a letter grade A or B based on the above methodology does not mean that the school does not have an antisemitism problem. It also does not mean that the school is in compliance with existing legal frameworks, including but not limited to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, just because a school has received a C or D does not mean that the school is failing to support its Jewish students. For example, some schools received lower grades relative to others due to the severity and prevalence of incidents on campus, administrative policies notwithstanding. Visitors are encouraged to review each campus profile in full in order to understand where there has been meaningful progress and/or where there is still room for growth.

This Report Card has been developed for use by students, parents, guidance counselors, admissions consultants, college staff and faculty, concerned alumni, and other interested members of the general public. The Report Card can be used to not only assess campuses of interest, but also to more broadly identify best practices in terms of college responses to campus antisemitism.

Each campus profile opens with a letter grade and a selection of icons highlighting some of key features on campus. The available icons are:

1. Active Litigation/Investigation: An icon applied to colleges and universities with on-going lawsuits or investigations into antisemitism on campus.
2. Participant in CCI: An icon applied to colleges and universities that have participated in, or are currently participating in, Hillel’s Campus Climate Initiative.
3. Uses IHRA: An icon applied to colleges and universities that have adopted, or otherwise adhere to, the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
4. Active Jewish Life: An icon applied to colleges and universities with a Hillel, Chabad, or other Jewish student organizations and/or Jewish Greek life organizations on campus.
5. Recent Action Taken: An icon applied to colleges and universities that have taken action post-October 7th to address campus antisemitism or otherwise safeguard the wellbeing of Jewish students on campus.
6. Recent Anti-Zionist Student Government Activity: An icon applied to colleges and universities wherein the student government has, in 2023 and/or 2024, participated in anti-Zionist activity, such as voting for a BDS resolution.

The profile then transitions into a narrative overview that covers Jewish population and the presence of some important Jewish organizations on campus; a brief overview of notable recent incidents; and an overview of notable administrative policies in place and administrative responses to antisemitism on campus.

Following the narrative, the profile displays the 21 criteria on which the colleges and universities were assessed, sub-divided into the categories of administrative policies and actions, Jewish student life on campus, and incidents. Green Harvey balls represent full fulfillment of criteria, yellow represent partial fulfillment, and red represent lack of criteria fulfillment.

Two of the incident criteria - severe antisemitic and anti-Zionist incidents and other antisemitic and anti-Zionist incidents – are based on calculations of incident rates relative to the size of the Jewish student population on the campus.

Following the criteria grid, the campus profile showcases total Jewish undergraduate and graduate student populations, as well as a noting whether the school provided information to ADL.

On the Report Card landing page, users will be able to select up to three colleges for side-by-side comparison, enabling them to simultaneously view the grades and the fulfillment of criteria for all three. This feature is designed to enable users to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of each college, thereby facilitating more informed analysis.

Colleges are encouraged to let us know if there are any changes to their administrative policies, so that we can update their profiles and grades. An overall update of all college profiles, that will include expanding the initiative to assess more colleges, will happen on an annual basis.

ADL produced this Report Card during a time of incredible volatility on college campuses.  We set a cutoff date for data collection and analysis, which means that some of the information contained in the Report Card may need to be updated in the coming weeks and months. Our goal in producing this Report Card is to serve students and their families looking for information about the current state of antisemitism on campus and how particular universities and colleges are responding. We hope and expect that the institutions profiled in this first iteration will view this Report Card as taking the temperature at a particular moment in time and providing a roadmap for improving campus climate. Accordingly, we view this as Report Card version 1.0. We expect that in future versions, more institutions will be assessed, more data points will be considered, and the tool will expand to include more information.

In January, 2024, in an effort to protect the safety, wellbeing and civil rights of Jewish students, ADL launched the Not On My Campus campaign to demand that U.S. colleges and universities commit to No Tolerance for Antisemitism.

This hub contains key commitments colleges should be making to address hostile environments on their campuses, several actions individuals can take to personally counter campus antisemitism, and mechanisms to report incidents.

1. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign (BDS) is an international campaign aimed at delegitimizing and pressuring Israel, through the diplomatic, financial, professional, academic and cultural isolation of Israel, Israeli individuals, Israeli institutions, and, increasingly, Jews who support Israel’s right to exist. Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, which effectively reject or ignore the Jewish people’s right of self-determination, or that, if implemented, would result in the eradication of the world’s only Jewish state, are antisemitic. More on the campaign can be found here: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-campaign-bds
2. The Hillel Campus Climate Initiative (CCI) is a program that provides a comprehensive strategy to help college and university presidents and campus administrators counter antisemitism and build a campus climate in which Jewish students feel comfortable expressing their identity. More on the initiative can be found here: https://www.hillel.org/campus-climate-initiative/
3. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism is the preeminent and most widely accepted definitional and learning tool used around the world when it comes to understanding manifestations of antisemitism today. This definition was embraced in the 2023 U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism and has been adopted or endorsed by more than half of the U.S. states as well as the District of Columbia. More on the definition can be found here: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
4. Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is a radical anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activist group that advocates for the boycott of Israel and eradication of Zionism. More on JVP can be found here: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/jewish-voice-peace-jvp-what-you-need-know
5. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is a network of pro-Palestinian student groups across the US that regularly demonizes Jewish students who identify as Zionists or proud supporters of the State of Israel. In the days following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, invasion of Israel, the national leadership of SJP and many of the organization’s campus chapters explicitly endorsed the actions of Hamas and their armed attacks on Israeli civilians and voiced an increasingly radical call for confronting and “dismantling” Zionism on U.S. college campuses. More on SJP can be found here: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/students-justice-palestine-sjp.