In the aftermath of the Hamas-led terrorist attacks on southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, many university campuses that once prided themselves on being bastions of open debate and intellectual freedom have morphed into arenas of hostility, particularly for Jewish students and academics. From the Ivy League to Cape Town, South Africa, antisemitism cloaked in the language of anti-Zionism has surged with alarming intensity.

South Africa has not been immune. On June 22, 2024, the University of Cape Town’s (UCT) top governing body adopted two highly contentious resolutions: to reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism and to effectively implement what is de facto an academic boycott of Israeli institutions and academics.

While these moves were presented as “symbolic acts of solidarity,” their real-world consequences have been tangible, far-reaching and deeply damaging—academically, financially and culturally.

The situation came to a head recently in Cape Town’s High Court, where a landmark “test case” was heard before three judges. Professor Adam Mendelsohn, director of UCT’s Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies, challenged the university’s council over procedural irregularities and lack of consultation in passing these resolutions.

Shortly after launching his legal challenge, Mendelsohn was suspended from his position as head of the Department of Historical Studies following complaints from colleagues about his opposition to the council’s decision. The suspension highlighted the deeply troubling development that underscored the increasingly hostile environment for Jewish academics at UCT.

Despite explicit warnings about the financial and reputational risks of such a move, UCT’s chair of council proceeded with the boycott and withheld critical information from council members. As a result of the adoption of the resolutions, the school lost significant funding, including a R200 million donation (about $11.4 million) from the Donald Gordon Foundation, while the Dell Foundation halted funding for 288 students. Had council members been given full information, UCT would not now be entangled in a fiscal crisis and reputational turmoil.

The council’s rejection of the IHRA definition in favor of the Jerusalem Declaration on antisemitism was especially troubling. Adopted by dozens of governments, universities and international institutions, the definition acknowledges that some forms of anti-Zionism can be expressions of antisemitism. The UCT’s move to replace it erased that connection, diluting officials’ ability to identify and respond to hatred when it is expressed through attacks on Jewish identity and affiliation.

What’s more, the decision was made without consulting Jewish academics, students, antisemitism experts or Jewish representative bodies. Those most affected by rising antisemitism were simply excluded from the conversation.

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) has joined the case as amicus curiae (friend of the court), submitting affidavits from Jewish students who describe the increasingly hostile environment on UCT campus they are subjected to: verbal abuse, kippot torn from students’ heads, vandalism of property, discrimination, doxxing, threats, villainization and the open mockery of their identity.

What is clear from these testimonies is that the UCT resolutions have emboldened those who use anti-Zionism as a smokescreen for antisemitism by reinforcing the notion that to be accepted on campus, Jewish students must leave their Zionist identity at the door.

As the body with the mandate to uphold and protect the civil rights of Jewish South Africans, we needed to ensure that UCT, as a public institution, is a safe and welcoming space where diversity of thought is respected, and where no individual is excluded or targeted based on their identity or beliefs, including being Jewish and Zionist. The SAJBD argued that the university’s approach has effectively turned the boycott into a political litmus test, where mere association with Israel is grounds for exclusion.

The advocate for the SAJBD, Mushahida Adikhari, pointed out that “definitional debates about antisemitism are interesting, but one must never forget that antisemitism is experienced by people, their lived reality, and conduct directed at them.”

At the University of Cape Town, Jews are required to prove that they suffer antisemitism with reference to a definition, while no other group is required to do this. As she argued in court, “It’s like a group of men sitting in a room and deciding on a definition of gender discrimination, and then handing it to women and saying, ‘There you go.’” Too often, these debates take place without Jews even being in the room, as if the very people targeted by this hatred are unqualified to define or describe it. It is both illogical and unacceptable for one group to presume the authority to define another group’s oppression or identity.

Her words echo the experience of Jewish communities on campuses around the world.

The UCT case is more than a South African story; it is a global one. Its outcome will help determine whether Jewish students and academics can rely on constitutional and institutional protections when their identity and safety are threatened in the name of politics. If a leading university in South Africa can, without consultation or accountability, isolate its Jewish community under the banner of “progressive values,” what message does that send to schools elsewhere?

This is a watershed moment—not just for UCT, but for Jewish life in academia worldwide. Whether in Cape Town or Cambridge, Jewish students and academics deserve universities that uphold diversity of thought, protect minority rights and recognize that antisemitism in all its forms is never an acceptable price for political posturing.

The post Bigotry rippling through Cape Town can become global tidal waves appeared first on JNS.org.