Understanding How We Incorporate the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

On July 15, 2025, Columbia announced that the University would formally incorporate the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism into the work of our Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), alongside the definition of antisemitism recommended by our Antisemitism Task Force in August 2024. OIE will assess each reported incident of alleged discrimination or discriminatory harassment on a case-by-case basis, by considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding an alleged incident or course of conduct. OIE will consider both definitions as a resource. Neither is determinative.

As part of our earlier discussions with the government, in our March 21st commitments, Columbia announced we would incorporate the definition of antisemitism, as recommended by our Antisemitism Task Force in August 2024, into our policies. Our July 15 announcement about the IHRA definition reflects our own further thinking about these issues and was not part of our resolution agreement with the government. It’s also important to note that since 2019, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has considered the IHRA definition, and has reflected that in guidance issued in 2021 and 2024. 

The IHRA definition is similarly used by many universities and colleges across the country, including peers such as Harvard, Yale, Barnard, and NYU. We have carefully considered those examples, and the ability of faculty across the nation to continue to conduct coursework with all of the protections academic freedom has traditionally offered. We understand there is debate inside of our community, and more broadly, about this definition. Columbia’s consideration of this definition, as one of many factors used when considering complaints of discrimination, will strengthen our response to and our community’s understanding of modern antisemitism.

Columbia must be a place where all community members can respectfully engage with one another to discuss difficult—and sometimes uncomfortable—topics. By listening to differing perspectives, we open ourselves up to opportunities to learn and grow. Examining this definition, along with others, is another opportunity to do that. 

Question: What is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism?

IHRA adopted the following working definition of antisemitism: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The following are the IHRA examples accompanying the IHRA definition of antisemitism that the U.S. Department of Education identifies as relevant in considering, but not necessarily determining, discriminatory intent:

• “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

Question: What role does the IHRA definition play in antidiscrimination law? 

In 2019, Executive Order 13899 instructed federal agencies to “consider” the IHRA definition, and the IHRA’s accompanying examples “to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent,” when applying federal antidiscrimination law to Jews and Israelis as a protected class, while also directing that this definition should not be used in a way that “diminish[es] or infringe[s] upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment.” Since then, administrations from both political parties have used the IHRA definition in this way.

As a result, since 2019, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., has considered the IHRA definition and accompanying examples where useful when evaluating complaints of antisemitic discrimination or discriminatory harassment, as reflected in guidance issued in 2021 and 2024. 

Question: How does the University plan to consider the IHRA definition in its anti-discrimination policies? 

Columbia’s anti-discrimination policies reflect both our values and our obligations under federal, state, and local law. In general, we are obligated to afford the same treatment to all protected classes. This means that conduct that would be found to constitute discriminatory harassment or create a hostile environment when directed against one protected class generally must be treated the same as similar conduct when directed against another protected class.

Yet when these general rules are applied to specific protected classes, the details of what gives rise to discriminatory harassment or a hostile environment can vary. The IHRA definition is meant to provide guidance on this for purposes of the Jewish and Israeli communities. And, as noted above, all educational institutions that accept federal funding, including Columbia University, have considered the IHRA definition for many years in complying with Title VI. 

On July 15, Acting President Claire Shipman announced that the University would more formally consider the IHRA definition of antisemitism, among other definitions and factors, in the work of our Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), housed under the Office of the Provost. Consistent with Executive Order 13,899 and OCR guidance issued in 2021 and 2024, OIE considers the IHRA definition of antisemitism, among other resources—including the framework provided for by the Columbia Antisemitism Task Force—as part of a totality of the circumstances analysis of claims pertaining to antisemitism under the Anti-Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment Policies & Procedures for Students and Anti-Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment Policies & Procedures for Faculty & Staff (Anti-Discrimination Policies). 

Question: Does considering the IHRA definition abridge principles of academic freedom? 

As Columbia’s policies make explicit—and consistent with OCR guidance requiring us to consult the IHRA definition, but to do so in ways that do not abridge First Amendment principles—nothing in the Anti-Discrimination Policies may be construed to abridge academic freedom and inquiry, principles of free speech, or the University’s educational mission. Accordingly, expressing political views regarding a particular country’s policies standing alone would not constitute discriminatory harassment based on national origin. Members of any academic community must be able to engage in thoughtful discussion of controversial matters. The University encourages the free exchange of ideas, beliefs, and opinions, including on issues relating to armed conflict, human and civil rights, competing moral, historical, and political claims, and controversies such as the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. 

However, academic freedom is not a license to discriminate based on someone’s membership in a protected class. If harassing speech or conduct that otherwise appears to be based on views about a country’s policies or practices is infused with discriminatory comments about persons from, or associated with, that country or another country, then it may constitute discriminatory harassment. In addition, a hostile environment also can be created when students are not free to express their views about issues that are closely connected to their identity as members of a protected class.

As it does already, OIE will assess each reported incident of alleged discrimination or discriminatory harassment on a case-by-case basis, by considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding an alleged incident or course of conduct. The offensiveness of a particular expression as perceived by a complainant, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis to create a hostile environment. As required by applicable laws and guidance, reports of policy violations will be evaluated by OIE from the perspective of the complainant and from the perspective of a reasonable person in the complainant’s position, considering all the circumstances, including whether such speech or conduct is an exercise of academic freedom and inquiry.

As long recognized by the University, faculty are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their various areas of subject matter expertise, with the corollary commitment that students are also entitled to academic freedom protections. 

As has always been the case, when relevant to their courses, faculty can engage their students in discussions about issues that are contentious and emotionally charged, respond critically to students’ reasoning, and challenge them to reexamine deeply held beliefs. As the Faculty Handbook states, “Faculty should allow the free expression of opinions within the classroom that may be different from their own and should not permit any such differences to influence their evaluations of their students. This is an important part of the faculty’s responsibility to their students and the educational mission of the University, but it must be done with civility, tolerance, and respect for ideas that differ from their own.”