Campus Antisemitism Report Card™: Frequently Asked Questions

In the April 2024 inaugural Campus Antisemitism Report Card, ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) assessed 85 colleges and universities in the U.S. These institutions were selected based on Jewish student population and national rankings. 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.

For the second iteration of the Report Card, launched in March 2025, ADL expanded the assessment by adding an additional 50 colleges and universities, leading to a total of 135 schools assessed. This expansion was informed by submissions from ADL’s regional offices, who have unique on-the-ground perspectives of campus antisemitism.

This approach positions ADL well to further expand its list of assessed campuses in future years, capturing more colleges and universities with significant Jewish student populations and allowing for critical review of top universities and those with alternative education models.

In 2024, in consultation with a panel of 22 experts and based on ADL’s asks of campus administrators, ADL drew up a list of 21 criteria for assessment. For the March 2025 Report Card, through additional consultations with our expert panel, that list was expanded to 30 criteria. The 30 criteria were categorized into three broad groups: administrative action and policies, campus conduct and climate concerns, and Jewish life on campus. The “campus conduct and climate concerns” category replaced the “incidents” category utilized in the April 2024 version of the Report Card – to reflect the category’s broader focus. Learn more about the criteria used for assessment.

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

• A survey was distributed to campus administrators to allow colleges to self-report which of the administrative policy and Jewish life on campus criteria they fulfilled or have pledged to fulfill in 2025.
• A survey was distributed to representatives of Hillels and Chabads on each of the campuses to allow them to self-report which of the Jewish life on campus criteria their college fulfilled.
• Secondary research was conducted to assess which of the criteria each campus fulfilled and to gather case-by-case information, such as high-profile incidents and how they were responded to for each campus. For the incident criteria within the campus climate and conduct concerns category, ADL researchers established incident rates using incidents collected and vetted by ADL’s Center on Extremism (COE). Only incidents that had occurred between April and December 2024 were counted.
• A campus climate survey was distributed by College Pulse to a sample of 1,030 Jewish and 1,140 non-Jewish college students to learn which of these criteria students see as more important to inform our weighting of the criteria. Students from all 135 colleges assessed in the Report Card were surveyed, although responses from Jewish students were only able to be gathered from 128 of the colleges. These answers helped inform how criteria were weighted, with criteria that were identified by students as being important 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.

A qualitative assessment also contributed to a 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, qualitative assessment and incident scoring approaches can be found in the methodological appendix.

Integral to our grading approach was our reliance on a panel of 22 experts, which includes former college presidents, current students and recent graduates, 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 Dr. Caryn Block (Professor of Psychology and Education at the Teachers College, Columbia University); Dr. Richard Arum (Professor of Sociology and Education at the University of California, Irvine); Libby Anderson (CEO at Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity); Andy Huston (Executive Director at Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity); Remy Rabin (Student); Scott Levenson (Managing Partner at Private Prep); Bonnie Wunsch (Executive Director at Alpha Epsilon Phi Sorority); Alona Shaked (Director of Advocacy & Partnerships at the Jewish Grad Organization); Dr. William "Brit" Kirwan (Chancellor Emeritus of the University System of Maryland); Jonathan Amaral (Student); Katie Cunningham (Assistant Director of the Stan Greenspon Holocaust and Social Justice Education Center); Shaul Kelner (Associate Professor of Jewish Studies and Sociology, Vanderbilt University); Dr. Pnina Weiss (Professor of Pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine); Julia Jassey (CEO of Jewish on Campus) and a number of others.

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

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 diversity education were not penalized for not offering mandatory antisemitism education.

Schools were assessed using the same criteria, which included tracking antisemitic incidents across campuses. Importantly, the methodology accounted for variations in school populations, meaning that a school with a smaller population would need to experience fewer incidents to reach a higher incident threshold category compared to larger schools. This approach ensures that incident rates are evaluated in a manner that acknowledges the unique demographic characteristics of each institution, thereby providing a fair and comprehensive comparison across different campuses.

The only exception applied when a school reported just one incident in each category, which was considered a one-off. In the few instances where this was the case, the school was assigned a 'low' incident rate, regardless of its size, to prevent small schools from being disproportionately penalized for isolated incidents.

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, it 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 campus has no antisemitism. 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.

To ensure that colleges and universities with robust policies, minimal campus climate concerns, and/or robust Jewish life on campus are fairly commended, Report Card 2.0 has been updated to reflect specific assessments for each of the three overarching categories: administrative policies, Jewish life on campus, and campus conduct and climate concerns.

Now, alongside a singular grade for each campus, there is a specific assessment showing how the school has performed in each of these categories, with performance options including:

• Administrative Policies
  • Above Expectations
  • Meeting Expectations
  • Below Expectations
• Jewish Life on Campus
  • Excellent
  • Satisfactory
  • Subpar
• Campus Conduct and Climate Concerns
  • Low to None
  • Medium
  • High

This structure allows users to delve beyond the single letter grade for a more nuanced evaluation of each campus, according to what matters most to them. Additionally, it provides administrators with a clearer insight into key areas of strength and improvement on their campuses.

Some schools with identical performance labels in each category receive different overall letter grades due to variations in their percentage scores or qualitative assessments. Additionally, since some universities have only recently enacted important policies, the impact and enforcement of these policies may not yet have been fully realized, resulting in higher campus conduct and climate concerns.

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. Learn more about the best practices of the assessed schools.

Each campus profile opens with a letter grade and a non-grade assessment of how the school performed in each of the three overarching categories: administrative policies, Jewish life on campus, and campus conduct and climate concerns.

On the right-hand side of the profile for the original 85 schools assessed both in 2024 and 2025, there are tabs labeled "2025" and "2024" that show how the assessment and the school's performance has changed year over year.

The profile then transitions into a narrative overview that covers the presence of some important Jewish organizations on campus; a brief overview of notable recent and past incidents and events on campus; and an overview of notable administrative policies in place and administrative responses to antisemitism on campus. Because the Report Card’s Campus Conduct and Climate Concerns category assessment only reflects incidents that occurred between April 2024 and December 2024, not all incidents mentioned in the narrative impact the campus’ grade.

Following the narrative, the profile displays the 30 criteria on which the colleges and universities were assessed, sub-divided into the categories of administrative policies and actions, Jewish life on campus, and campus conduct and climate concerns. Green ticks represent full fulfillment of criteria, yellow dashes represent partial fulfillment, and red warning signs represent a lack of fulfillment.

Two of the campus conduct and climate concerns 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 total student population on the campus.

Following the criteria grid, the campus profile notes whether the school provided information to ADL and includes a timestamp to show when the profile was last updated.

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.

An overall update of all college profiles, that will include expanding the initiative to assess more colleges, will happen on an annual basis. However, colleges are encouraged to let us know if there are any changes to their administrative policies throughout the year, so that we can regularly highlight new policies as best practices for other administrators.

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 to reflect current events. Our goal in producing this Report Card is to provide information about the current state of antisemitism on campus and how particular universities and colleges are responding.

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.

If you are a current student, alumni or staff or faculty member at one of the assessed colleges or universities and would like to share your feedback on your experiences with Jewish life and/or antisemitism on the university or college campus, please fill out the below form. Your insights are extremely valuable in helping us reflect the student experience on this campus.

Responses will be evaluated and may be chosen for publication on the Campus Antisemitism Report Card website. If you prefer, your response can remain completely anonymous and confidential. Please note, these responses will not affect the existing grades.

If you have experienced or witnessed an incident of antisemitism, extremism, bias, bigotry or hate, please report it to ADL.

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, mechanisms to report incidents and best practice guides and other toolkits for administrators to leverage in order to improve their policies to combat antisemitism on campus.

In Spring 2024, to keep our campus stakeholders updated on the state of the campus antisemitism crisis, ADL also launched the Campus Crisis Alert, a daily newsletter outlining major developments on campuses and providing opportunities for our audiences to take action and call on administrators to do better. Sign up for the Campus Crisis Alert newsletter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) is a network of pro-Palestinian faculty groups launched after Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. These groups regularly demonize Jewish members of campus communities who identify as Zionists or proud supporters of the State of Israel. Members of these groups are known to leverage their academic positions to promote anti-Zionist rhetoric, BDS and academic boycotts of Israel.