The future of American education is at a crossroads: The ideals of 鈥渧iewpoint diversity鈥 and 鈥渁cademic freedom鈥 increasingly conflict with rising antisemitism and the institutionalization of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.
As the Trump administration purports to promote ideological diversity among faculty, critics passionately defend academic freedom. Rather than harmonizing, these principles are weaponized in political battles where they are not mutually exclusive but inherently aligned.
At this week鈥檚 Congressional hearing of the Education and Workforce Committee, titled 鈥淎ntisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology,鈥 Representatives questioned the presidents of Georgetown University, UC Berkeley, and the City University of New York. Rep. Glenn Grothman raised concerns about ideological imbalance among university faculty, asking whether their departments reflect the ideological diversity of the broader American public. He specifically challenged the witnesses on whether it was problematic that up to 95% of faculty lean toward the progressive left, which animates contemporary antisemitism. The university presidents appeared largely untroubled by this ideological skew, so long as open debate was permitted on campus.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon鈥檚 before the House Education Committee last month underscored the confusion, too. California Representative Mark Takano (D-CA) asked whether refusing to hire a Holocaust denier at Harvard constituted an ideological litmus test. McMahon dodged the question, citing Harvard鈥檚 termination of its Middle East Studies leadership.
These exchanges highlighted a deeper dilemma: a lack of a clear definition of viewpoint diversity and the limits of academic freedom.
Both concepts should be anchored in a shared, apolitical standard: The duty of care. This principle demands that professionals act with prudence to avoid harm. Any breach can form the basis for claims of negligence. The duty of care should be practiced by professors but ultimately enforced by administrators. After all, both students and faculty enter into contractual obligations with the university鈥攖hrough codes of conduct agreed upon at the time of enrollment and hiring.
The duty of care should be practiced by professors but ultimately enforced by administrators.
Abandoning duty of care has proven dangerous. Professors aligned with Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine are falsely accusing Israel of and promoting that depict Israelis as violent settler-colonial aggressors. These claims fuel demonstrations that often cross into antisemitic abuse鈥 with Holocaust inversion, swastika-laced flags, and signs explicitly excluding Zionists, some 80% of Jews.
When politically charged teachings are masked as scholarship and left unchecked by administrators, a sanctioned atmosphere of hostility emerges. This hostility has extended beyond campuses and impacted our streets, as seen in the recent attacks in Boulder, Colorado and Washington, D.C.
Legitimizing the 鈥淔ree Palestine鈥 movement alongside Holocaust denial or revisionism reflects a serious breach of the duty of care. Neglecting it means allowing ideology to override academic integrity. Professors must provide accurate information, foster critical inquiry, and avoid foreseeable harm鈥攔esponsibilities that administrators must enforce to maintain a safe learning environment.
Appointing a Holocaust denier to teach history at Harvard, or permitting the likes of Columbia Professor Joseph Massad, an outspoken Hamas sympathizer, to lecture on Zionism amounts to a blatant dereliction of that obligation. So too does the appointment of Ussama Makdisi鈥攚ho wrote, 鈥淚 could have been one of those who broke through the siege on October 7鈥濃攁s the inaugural chair of a new endowed program on Palestinian and Arab Studies at UC Berkeley. That his colleagues made this decision based solely on his 鈥渁cademic standards,鈥 as Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons , while disregarding his apparent sympathy for terror, is a stark example of how ideologically skewed the department has become, and how normalized such sympathies now are within it.
Invoking 鈥渧iewpoint diversity鈥 to suggest there are two sides to the Holocaust is not intellectual pluralism; it鈥檚 a clear distortion of historical fact. So is the misuse of academic freedom to advance fabrications like the baseless of genocide leveled at Israel. Twisting facts to fit political ideology falls within the Federal Office of Research Integrity鈥檚 of research misconduct: 鈥渁 significant, intentional, or reckless departure from accepted practices.鈥
Academic freedom, though vital to intellectual inquiry, is not without limits. It is not a shield for indoctrination, intimidation or discrimination. The American Association of University Professors that faculty must foster diverse perspectives and independent thought. They cannot indoctrinate through censorship, impose conclusions and dogma, or promote falsehoods as fact. Speech crossing into harassment or disrupting a student鈥檚 educational experience is not academic freedom.
The nostalgic appeal to an era of politically neutral universities under the banner of academic freedom ignores reality. Such neutrality never existed. Even before Oct. 7, academic freedom was selectively applied.
At George Washington University, a professor who fostered hostility toward Israeli students was shielded by academic . Meanwhile, another professor was disciplined for quoting a statement by a Black author to prompt a class . The result: a perverse inversion whereby incitement is protected, and genuine academic engagement is punished.
Faculty are not free to recklessly distort facts or harass students. As in the sciences, academic conclusions must be grounded in evidence and adhere to legal definitions. Fact is not subjective, and legal standards cannot be exempted as racial or political critique.
A duty of care framework that integrates viewpoint diversity and academic freedom enables educators to explore false ideas, such as conspiracy theories or historical revisionism, without endorsing them. Teaching about dangerous ideologies is imperative. Teaching from them is professional malpractice.
For educational reform to succeed, policymakers must affirm that viewpoint diversity demands fidelity in truth and intellectual honesty. Universities, in turn, must recognize that academic freedom is not a shield for dogma, but a privilege contingent on scholarly integrity and accountability. When subsumed under a duty of care, these values no longer clash. They complete each other.
Sabrina Soffer presently works with the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) and is a recent graduate of the George Washington University.
The Duty of Care: Reclaiming True Viewpoint Diversity and Academic Freedom
Sabrina Soffer
The future of American education is at a crossroads: The ideals of 鈥渧iewpoint diversity鈥 and 鈥渁cademic freedom鈥 increasingly conflict with rising antisemitism and the institutionalization of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.
As the Trump administration purports to promote ideological diversity among faculty, critics passionately defend academic freedom. Rather than harmonizing, these principles are weaponized in political battles where they are not mutually exclusive but inherently aligned.
At this week鈥檚 Congressional hearing of the Education and Workforce Committee, titled 鈥淎ntisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology,鈥 Representatives questioned the presidents of Georgetown University, UC Berkeley, and the City University of New York. Rep. Glenn Grothman raised concerns about ideological imbalance among university faculty, asking whether their departments reflect the ideological diversity of the broader American public. He specifically challenged the witnesses on whether it was problematic that up to 95% of faculty lean toward the progressive left, which animates contemporary antisemitism. The university presidents appeared largely untroubled by this ideological skew, so long as open debate was permitted on campus.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon鈥檚 before the House Education Committee last month underscored the confusion, too. California Representative Mark Takano (D-CA) asked whether refusing to hire a Holocaust denier at Harvard constituted an ideological litmus test. McMahon dodged the question, citing Harvard鈥檚 termination of its Middle East Studies leadership.
These exchanges highlighted a deeper dilemma: a lack of a clear definition of viewpoint diversity and the limits of academic freedom.
Both concepts should be anchored in a shared, apolitical standard: The duty of care. This principle demands that professionals act with prudence to avoid harm. Any breach can form the basis for claims of negligence. The duty of care should be practiced by professors but ultimately enforced by administrators. After all, both students and faculty enter into contractual obligations with the university鈥攖hrough codes of conduct agreed upon at the time of enrollment and hiring.
Abandoning duty of care has proven dangerous. Professors aligned with Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine are falsely accusing Israel of and promoting that depict Israelis as violent settler-colonial aggressors. These claims fuel demonstrations that often cross into antisemitic abuse鈥 with Holocaust inversion, swastika-laced flags, and signs explicitly excluding Zionists, some 80% of Jews.
When politically charged teachings are masked as scholarship and left unchecked by administrators, a sanctioned atmosphere of hostility emerges. This hostility has extended beyond campuses and impacted our streets, as seen in the recent attacks in Boulder, Colorado and Washington, D.C.
Legitimizing the 鈥淔ree Palestine鈥 movement alongside Holocaust denial or revisionism reflects a serious breach of the duty of care. Neglecting it means allowing ideology to override academic integrity. Professors must provide accurate information, foster critical inquiry, and avoid foreseeable harm鈥攔esponsibilities that administrators must enforce to maintain a safe learning environment.
Appointing a Holocaust denier to teach history at Harvard, or permitting the likes of Columbia Professor Joseph Massad, an outspoken Hamas sympathizer, to lecture on Zionism amounts to a blatant dereliction of that obligation. So too does the appointment of Ussama Makdisi鈥攚ho wrote, 鈥淚 could have been one of those who broke through the siege on October 7鈥濃攁s the inaugural chair of a new endowed program on Palestinian and Arab Studies at UC Berkeley. That his colleagues made this decision based solely on his 鈥渁cademic standards,鈥 as Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons , while disregarding his apparent sympathy for terror, is a stark example of how ideologically skewed the department has become, and how normalized such sympathies now are within it.
Invoking 鈥渧iewpoint diversity鈥 to suggest there are two sides to the Holocaust is not intellectual pluralism; it鈥檚 a clear distortion of historical fact. So is the misuse of academic freedom to advance fabrications like the baseless of genocide leveled at Israel. Twisting facts to fit political ideology falls within the Federal Office of Research Integrity鈥檚 of research misconduct: 鈥渁 significant, intentional, or reckless departure from accepted practices.鈥
Academic freedom, though vital to intellectual inquiry, is not without limits. It is not a shield for indoctrination, intimidation or discrimination. The American Association of University Professors that faculty must foster diverse perspectives and independent thought. They cannot indoctrinate through censorship, impose conclusions and dogma, or promote falsehoods as fact. Speech crossing into harassment or disrupting a student鈥檚 educational experience is not academic freedom.
The nostalgic appeal to an era of politically neutral universities under the banner of academic freedom ignores reality. Such neutrality never existed. Even before Oct. 7, academic freedom was selectively applied.
At George Washington University, a professor who fostered hostility toward Israeli students was shielded by academic . Meanwhile, another professor was disciplined for quoting a statement by a Black author to prompt a class . The result: a perverse inversion whereby incitement is protected, and genuine academic engagement is punished.
Faculty are not free to recklessly distort facts or harass students. As in the sciences, academic conclusions must be grounded in evidence and adhere to legal definitions. Fact is not subjective, and legal standards cannot be exempted as racial or political critique.
A duty of care framework that integrates viewpoint diversity and academic freedom enables educators to explore false ideas, such as conspiracy theories or historical revisionism, without endorsing them. Teaching about dangerous ideologies is imperative. Teaching from them is professional malpractice.
For educational reform to succeed, policymakers must affirm that viewpoint diversity demands fidelity in truth and intellectual honesty. Universities, in turn, must recognize that academic freedom is not a shield for dogma, but a privilege contingent on scholarly integrity and accountability. When subsumed under a duty of care, these values no longer clash. They complete each other.
Sabrina Soffer presently works with the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) and is a recent graduate of the George Washington University.
Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.
Editor's Picks
Israel and the Internet Wars – A Professional Social Media Review
The Invisible Student: A Tale of Homelessness at UCLA and USC
What Ever Happened to the LA Times?
Who Are the Jews On Joe Biden’s Cabinet?
You鈥檙e Not a Bad 91传媒 Mom If Your Kid Wants Santa Claus to Come to Your House
No Labels: The Group Fighting for the Political Center
Latest Articles
Hope in Faith, Faith in Hope
Finding Communal Comfort
Leaving Behind a Better World
Boy George Releases Song Calling Out Israel鈥檚 Critics
Was Our Golden Age Fool鈥檚 Gold?
Genocide Shmenocide
Bibi鈥檚 Visit: Spin in the Air, Facts on the Ground
From Trump鈥檚 standpoint, the nuclear issue has been overtaken by the bedeviling problem of the Strait of Hormuz. What Trump sees now in Iran is a mess, not a victory.
The Obsession with Israel Is Becoming Creepy
The world鈥檚 fanatical fixation with a group that is less that 0.2 percent of the world鈥檚 population has crossed the boundaries of moral vocabulary and into creepiness.
What Will It Take?
An open revolt for 91传媒 rights and protections is going to have to come from Jews finally making demands and fighting back鈥攐r not at all.
Mamdani Needs to Pay a Price for Harming Jews
It鈥檇 be one thing if Mamdani were a lowly Israelophobe with a few hundred followers. But he鈥檚 not. He鈥檚 mayor of the city with the world鈥檚 largest 91传媒 population.
Rabbis of LA | Rabbi Geller鈥檚 Feminist Education
Third of three parts
Rabbi Artson Honored by WLCJ, Mem Global鈥檚 Embark Names Executive Director
Notable people and events in the 91传媒 LA community.
I Can鈥檛 Always 鈥 A poem for Parsha Va鈥檈tchanan
You Can鈥檛 Always Get What You Want came out the year after I was born.
A Bisl Torah 鈥 Senseless versus Sensible
The 9th of Av is an annual reminder to look inward and ask if any hatred has taken root within our hearts.
Moment in Time: Tisha B鈥橝v – A Time to Comfort
Poussin鈥檚 Menorah Chimes Without Jews at Midnight
Print Issue: Haredim at War | July 24, 2026
The Haredim who break out of their bubbles to join the IDF are often caught between faith, family and country. Here are some of their stories.
The Inversion of History
Molly Crabapple has written a work of great inversion and of ultimate betrayal.
From 鈥楾he Chosen鈥 to 鈥業maging Torah鈥: Jeremy Kagan鈥檚 Journey to Bring Torah to Life
For the director/artist, creating images inspired by Torah is a way of engaging with the stories, ideas and interpretations that have shaped 91传媒 life for thousands of years.
Three Dates to Dataland
I took three different dates, ages 6, 72 and 35, to see Dataland, the unusual digital art experience in downtown Los Angeles.
Hakol Shalom, All Is Shalom
This is the transcript of the speech Rabbi Dr. Bradley Shavit Artson gave at the 2026 AJU Gala on May 19, 2026.
A Slice of Aussie Heaven for the 91传媒 Day of Love
A classic Australian dessert chocolate coconut slice features a rich, dense, fudgy chocolate base packed with dried coconut, finished with a thick cocoa frosting and generously dusted with even more coconut.
Recipes that Celebrate Love for Tu b鈥橝v
This roundup has recipes from two matchmakers: one is perfect for a special date night, the other is the perfect representative of lasting love.
Table for Five: Va鈥檈tchanan
Secret Sauce
The Haredi Soldiers Caught Between Faith, Family and Country
For decades, the question of Haredi enlistment has remained one of Israel鈥檚 most sensitive and unresolved conflicts.
Why Are Jews Not Suing Mamdani for Slander and Defamation?
At the very least, the case would provide a global stage to debunk the genocide lie that is devastating world Jewry.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.