Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and the UCLA Controversy: Untangling the Rhetoric and Reality
by Donald Harvey Marks
Physician scientist and 3rd generation veteran
Much has been made recently of the history of blatant
anti-Semitism in ivy league schools on the east coast of the United States and centrally. I have even observed what I personally consider to be anti-semitic activity in a smallish university close to me, Drew (definitely past tense) University in Madison, New Jersey. Unlike in the 1920s 1930s and 1940s, where anti-semites were identified as fascist and ultra conservatives, it's very clear from activities at UCLA, USC Drew and the east coast elite universities that the new anti-semite is more likely to be a liberal, a leftist or a communist.
Understanding the Terms
Antisemitism, at its core, refers to prejudice, discrimination, or hostility against Jews as a people, religion, or ethnic group. Its manifestations range from derogatory speech and stereotypes to systemic exclusion, violence, and genocide. Antisemitism is not a mere disagreement with certain Jewish individuals or policies—it is an ideology rooted in centuries-old myths, scapegoating, and dehumanization.
Zionism, by contrast, is the movement supporting the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. One can debate aspects of Israeli politics, government policies, or treatment of Palestinians—criticism that exists both inside and outside Israel and the Jewish diaspora in general—without being antisemitic. However, the line is crossed when such criticism morphs into delegitimization of Israel’s very existence, denial of Jewish self-determination, or the use of classic antisemitic tropes.
Anti-Zionism in its purest form, and contrasted to anti-semitism, opposes the idea of a Jewish state. While some anti-Zionists claim their stance is strictly political, rooted in opposition to nationalism or to specific Israeli policies, in practice, the rhetoric often slips into antisemitism. For example, targeting Jewish individuals or institutions unrelated to Israeli policy, holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, or applying double standards to Israel not applied to other nations are all considered antisemitic by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.
This is why the claim “I’m not antisemitic, I’m just anti-Zionist” must be examined critically. While it’s possible to oppose Israeli policies without prejudice against Jews, history shows that many who adopt the anti-Zionist label use it as a socially acceptable veneer for antisemitic sentiment. Hiding behind the “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” slogan often functions as a rhetorical shield, enabling individuals to deny prejudice while promoting ideas that echo longstanding antisemitic narratives.
There is historical evidence that the University of California system, like many U.S. universities in the first half of the 20th century, informally limited the admission of Jewish students, though the UC system did not have official, written “Jewish quotas” like some Ivy League schools.
Context and evidence for quotas of Jews
Early 20th century climate: In the 1910s–1940s, many elite U.S. universities, especially in the Northeast (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia), implemented explicit or covert quotas to limit Jewish enrollment. This was often justified under euphemisms like “geographic diversity,” “character,” or “fit.”
UC’s practices:
At the University of California, Berkeley and later UCLA, admissions were nominally merit-based, but historians have found evidence that admissions officers and professional schools applied subjective criteria (interviews, letters, “character” assessments) in ways that reduced Jewish representation.
UC Medical Schools (especially UCSF and UCLA after 1949) often admitted disproportionately few Jewish applicants despite high academic qualifications — a pattern noted in the 1940s–1950s by Jewish advocacy groups.
The UCLA School of Dentistry and UC law schools in the mid-20th century were reported to have “gentlemen’s agreements” limiting Jewish (and also Black, Asian, and Catholic) admissions.
No formal statute:
Unlike Harvard’s openly discussed cap in the 1920s (15% Jewish), UC policies were more covert, using subjective personality ratings, “geographic balance,” and alumni interview reports to shape class composition.
Decline of such practices
By the late 1950s–1960s, civil rights pressures, California’s large Jewish population, and faculty opposition reduced or ended discriminatory screening. UC Berkeley’s radical expansion in the 1960s made merit-based admission the standard, with less room for subjective “filters.”
UCLA as a Case Study of anti-semitism
The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) has long been viewed as one of America’s premier public universities—an intellectual powerhouse, a cultural hub, and a symbol of California’s global reach. But beneath its reputation for openness and diversity lies a complex and, at times, troubling history of antisemitism. Anti-semitism evolved from the mid-1960s to the present, from subtle, often unrecorded bias to the highly publicized and politically charged controversies of the 21st century.
1960s–1990s: A Quiet but Unrecorded Era
Publicly documented antisemitic incidents at UCLA from the mid-1960s through the 1990s are sparse. This does not mean they did not occur—rather, the evidence suggests under-reporting and limited press coverage.
The broader political environment in California during the post-McCarthy era shaped campus life. State-mandated loyalty oaths, originally introduced in the 1950s, continued to cast a shadow, disproportionately affecting politically active faculty, including Jewish professors. While no major antisemitic scandals are recorded in UCLA’s archives from this period, oral histories suggest that Jewish students and faculty navigated subtle barriers to advancement and representation.
Jewish student organizing gained momentum in the late 1960s, partly influenced by the global student protest movement. Groups connected to the World Union of Jewish Students emerged, advocating for cultural and religious rights—but such activity was often overshadowed by the more visible anti-Vietnam War protests dominating campus politics.
I definitely was aware of a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism in Southern and central California during my high school years in the 1960s, culminating in my graduation from Hollywood High School in 1967. Although I did not take part in political activities while a student at UCLA, I did attend school there from 1993 to 2000. In 1997 I received a Ph.D. in Microbiology from the (now) Department of Microbiology Immunology and Medical Genetics. In 1980 I received my medical degree from the David Geffen School of Medicine.
2000s–Early 2010s: Institutional Growth
By the early 21st century, UCLA had become home to a vibrant Jewish community. The 2010 establishment of the Nazarian Center for Israel Studies reflected institutional recognition of Jewish scholarship and Israel-related academic inquiry.
Yet this period was also marked by an increasingly polarized debate over the Israel–Palestine conflict, which would soon spill into open controversy.
2014–2016: The First Modern Flashpoints
In 2014, several student organizations supported a pledge to boycott Israel-sponsored educational trips. Critics—including the AMCHA Initiative—condemned the move as discriminatory, and Chancellor Gene Block publicly opposed it. The episode highlighted a growing rift on campus between advocates of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and Jewish students who saw such actions as targeting their identity.
In 2015, a Jewish student running for a seat on the Judicial Board was grilled by fellow students about whether her Jewish identity and affiliations made her biased. The moment, captured on video, sparked national outrage.
The “Milan Chatterjee affair” of 2015–2016 further exposed the tensions. Chatterjee, then president of UCLA’s Graduate Student Association, implemented a funding rule that penalized student groups for taking positions on the Israel–Palestine conflict. Pro-Israel advocates argued this policy disproportionately harmed Jewish student organizations, and the university eventually found that the neutrality requirement violated its own rules.
2023–2025: The Breaking Point
The aftermath of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel triggered the most severe wave of antisemitic hate incidents to date in UCLA’s modern history.
In spring 2024, a pro-Palestinian encampment effectively blocked access to central campus areas for Jewish students, with protesters establishing what some described as a “Jew Exclusion Zone.” Jewish students and faculty reported being harassed, threatened, and, in some cases, physically assaulted. Swastikas appeared on classroom boards, and demonstrators carried signs reading “Israelis are native 2 hell.”
A university-appointed Task Force concluded that UCLA administrators allowed an atmosphere of hostility to flourish under the guise of protecting free expression. I personally felt a similar attitude of hostility against Jews in the Drew University community of Madison, New Jersey, near to my home. Jewish students at UCLA filed suit (Frankel v. Regents of the University of California), alleging systemic discrimination.
In July 2025, UCLA settled for over $6 million, agreeing to policy changes ensuring that Jewish students could not be excluded from campus areas. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Education opened investigations, finding that UCLA’s handling of complaints violated federal civil rights law.
By August 2025, the situation had escalated to the point that the Trump administration froze $584 million in federal research funding, demanding a $1 billion settlement. California Governor Gavin Newsom denounced the demand as “politically motivated extortion.”
Reform and Reflection
In early 2025, new Chancellor Julio Frenk announced a campus-wide “Initiative to Combat Antisemitism,” promising stronger protections, improved complaint procedures, and expanded Jewish cultural programming. The challenge ahead will include balancing legitimate political expression with the obligation to ensure that no student feels targeted or unsafe due to their identity.
Conclusion
From the under-reported biases of the 1960s to the overt hostility of the 2020s, the history of antisemitism at UCLA mirrors broader American trends—initially hidden, then simmering in political disputes, and finally exploding into public crises. Universities from UCLA to Drew now face a defining test: whether they can preserve the principle of free speech while guaranteeing the safety and dignity of their Jewish communities.
Recent events at UCLA underscore the dangers of blurring the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-zionism. Reports from the Los Angeles Jewish community and national watchdog organizations describe a troubling increase in hostile campus incidents targeting Jewish students get her number of universities including UCLA and USC. These overly hostile and subtle activities include harassment, exclusion from campus groups, and intimidation during public events.
In late July 2025, Jewish student leaders at UCLA publicly accused certain faculty members and student groups of fostering an environment hostile to Jews under the guise of anti-Zionism. The allegations point to situations where opposition to Israeli policy quickly turned into targeting Jewish individuals, regardless of their political stance on Israel.
One notable incident occurred when a Jewish student, unaffiliated with any pro-Israel group, was heckled and called a “Zionist pig” during a student government meeting. Another involved Jewish student organizations being denied co-sponsorship of events on unrelated topics because of their presumed connection to Zionism.
While UCLA’s administration has issued (seemingly perfunctory) statements reaffirming its commitment to free speech, critics argue that it has not done enough to address discriminatory behavior that clearly violates university policy and the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Some faculty members have defended their colleagues’ conduct as “legitimate political discourse,” but Jewish students counter that the impact—exclusion and intimidation—cannot be dismissed.
Why the Distinction Matters
Conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is dangerous in both directions:
For the Jewish community, it risks allowing open prejudice to flourish unchecked under the cover of political activism.
For legitimate critics of Israeli policy, it risks having their arguments dismissed outright as bigotry.
It seems to me that the key is to evaluate not just the stated intent of speech or action, but its content, tone, and real-world effects. If rhetoric about Israel relies on antisemitic stereotypes, denies Jews equal rights afforded to other peoples, or singles out Jewish individuals or institutions for harm, then it has crossed into antisemitism—regardless of whether the speaker claims otherwise.
Looking Forward
The UCLA controversy serves as a cautionary example for universities nationwide. Academic institutions must be spaces where robust political debate can occur without devolving into identity-based harassment. That requires administrators to distinguish between legitimate criticism of a government and hate speech directed at a people.
Universities should adopt clear antisemitism definitions like the IHRA’s, provide training for faculty and student leaders, and enforce policies consistently. Pretending the problem does not exist—or hiding it behind semantic debates over “anti-Zionism”—is a recipe for escalating division and harm.
References
1. International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Working Definition of Antisemitism. https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
2. American Jewish Committee. When Does Criticism of Israel Become Antisemitic? https://www.ajc.org/news/when-does-criticism-of-israel-become-antisemitic
3. Los Angeles Jewish Journal. “UCLA Students Report Spike in Antisemitism Disguised as Anti-Zionism.” (2025).
4. Anti-Defamation League. The Double Standard Test: Applying It to Israel. https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-to-combat-antisemitism
5. AMCHA Initiative. Responses to UCLA Incidents. https://amchainitiative.org/amcha-responses-ucla
6. “UCLA announces Initiative to Combat Antisemitism.” UCLA Newsroom. 2025. https://newsroom.ucla.edu/ucla-announces-initiative-to-combat-antisemitism
7. “Task Force Says UCLA Let Antisemitism Fester.” Times of Israel. 2024. https://www.timesofisrael.com/task-force-says-ucla-let-antisemitism-fester-amid-pro-palestinian-anti-israel-protests
8. Daily Bruin. “US House Finds UCLA Did Not Address Antisemitism.” 2024. https://dailybruin.com/2024/11/05/us-house-finds-ucla-other-universities-did-not-address-antisemitism-amid-protests
9. Reuters. “Newsom Calls Trump’s $1 Billion UCLA Settlement Offer Extortion.” 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/newsom-calls-trumps-1-billion-ucla-settlement-offer-extortion-says-california-2025-08-09
10. Associated Press. “UCLA Settles Antisemitism Lawsuit.” 2025. https://apnews.com/article/216b78e0ea29e529668aecf5d1019b47
11. University of California. “Combating Antisemitism.” 2025. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/combating-antisemitism
12. Los Angeles Times. “UCLA Faces Federal Civil Rights Complaints Over Antisemitism.” 2024. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-12-20/ucla-federal-civil-rights-complaints-antisemitism
13. “After Israeli hostage posters disappear at Drew University, Jewish students on edge” — USA Today Network NJ piece syndicated on Yahoo News
Posters of Israeli hostages put up around Drew’s campus were torn down/removed; Jewish students described feeling targeted and unsafe; administrators responded.
14. Follow-up on Drew’s federal agreement over antisemitism complaints — AOL rehost of a USA Today Network NJ report
Provides context on Drew U entering a federal resolution agreement after complaints by Jewish students; recounts earlier incident where hostage-release posters were removed on campus and the fallout.
15. Rutgers Center for Security, Race & Rights “in the news” page (indexing outside media)
This article explicitly lists the NorthJersey.com story titled “After Israeli hostage posters disappear at Drew University, Jewish students on edge” — corroborates the local USA Today NJ origin of the Yahoo/AOL mirrors when the original is geoblocked.
16. Elitists Neocons Neolibs, oh my. What are they, who are they, and why should I care? by Donald H. Marks, an article in this personal blog
17. How Woke can we be? The meaning of Woke, by Donald H. Marks, an article in this personal blog
18. You're just another damn progressive, aren't you? by Donald H. Marks, an article in this personal blog
0 Comments
Comment from personal blog