Flawed by Design: Jewish Faculty Network Response to Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) Report

We write this letter as members of the Jewish Faculty Network, convening Jewish faculty at universities and colleges across Canada, to urge the withholding and withdrawal of support for the Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) report, commissioned by the Federal Government of Canada. We are deeply concerned about antisemitism on our campuses, and we are also concerned about the weaponization of false charges of antisemitism. The CASE report is flawed by design. We are extremely worried about the ways in which this report can be leveraged to limit and even silence free political expression, threaten academic freedom, and physically endanger people speaking their minds. We are deeply concerned that it can be turned against Jews acting on their conscience in ways that target sections of the Jewish community. It is not the role of the government to become arbiter of 'intergroup' struggles over self definition, though that is precisely what this report appears to aim to accomplish.

The CASE report draws on alarmingly unsound methodological choices, and as a result fails to accurately document antisemitism. Reliance on the findings of this report threatens to silence critiques of the State of Israel, stifle free speech and academic freedom on our campuses, and endanger Jewish campus members. It risks fuelling false charges of antisemitism and trivializing actual instances of antisemitism.

There are three core methodological problems with the report and its foundational study: inaccurate definitions of key terms, a biased method of recruiting participants, and biased wording of the questionnaire. These problems discredit the validity and reliability of the findings. As Jewish scholars, we of course agree on the importance of identifying and addressing antisemitism, prejudice, and hatred on campuses. Yet, in this report there is no way of knowing how much of the antisemitism reported by participants (in the quantitative portion of the survey) did not involve hatred of Jews because they are Jews but rather involved criticism of Israel and its policies toward Palestinians.

By treating objection to or critique of Zionism – the foundational ideology of the State of Israel – as inherently antisemitic, the CASE report treats many expressions of criticism of the State of Israel and advocacy for the rights of Palestinians as forms of or indications of antisemitism. This methodological flaw is itself antisemitic. It fails to recognize the diversity of Jewish opinion, particularly Jewish traditions of social justice which oppose all forms of oppression, racism and genocide. Multiple surveys and polls document this diversity, showing that a substantial and growing proportion of Jews in Canada and beyond are critical of Israel.

The study problematically uses the widely discredited International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as a foundational premise. As has been pointed out by one of the drafters of the IHRA working definition, that definition is unusable for academic and policy purposes because it conflates, in its examples, criticisms of the state of Israel with antisemitism, treating support for the Palestinian people and antisemitism as one and the same. The IHRA working definition has not been adopted by universities or colleges across Canada; some, such as the University of Toronto, have explicitly rejected the adoption of this or any definitional approach to antisemitism. Indeed, the IHRA definition also has been rejected by numerous Canadian faculty associations as well as the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).

The report also relies on troubling, unsubstantiated definitions of Zionism and anti-Zionism while ignoring a considerable and longstanding body of critical scholarship on these topics, including by Jewish scholars.¹ The report defines Zionism simply as Jewish people having “the right to self-determination in part of their ancestral homeland.” This inaccurate definition ignores a rich body of research establishing that Zionism is a political perspective that, like others, has been debated over decades within and beyond the Jewish community. Significant Jewish criticism of Zionism emerged as the doctrine was originally defined and has persisted ever since. Because Jewish Zionism is based on a pessimistic view that Jews and non-Jews cannot live in peace together, it therefore sees a Jewish ethnostate as necessary. Other strategies to address antisemitism have historically been much more widely adopted in the Jewish diaspora, including at times assimilationism, religious orthodoxy, and socialism. Many Jews around the world have turned to solidarity, shared community and “doykeit” (hereness), living and working where we are and overcoming differences in practice.

Similarly, in its definition of anti-Zionism, the report uses a partisan definition linked to charges of “blood libel” and the supposedly unique demonization of Israel. While the report asserts that “scholarship defines antizionism” in this way, the only “scholarship” cited is a magazine article and a partisan submission to a Senate committee. A second definition refers to anti-Zionism as “a movement that calls for the annihilation of Israel.” This novel definition, both inflammatory and inaccurate, is not cited. The report’s authors apparently failed to consider the vast trove of scholarship on anti-Zionism, racism, imperialism, apartheid and occupation in Israel/Palestine.

The report’s conflation of antisemitism with criticisms of the state of Israel and its misrepresentations of Zionism and anti-Zionism place undue stress on Jewish students and faculty members who hold diverse opinions and scholarly positions. This not only has led to faulty findings and conclusions, but also has real implications for Jewish safety on our campuses. As noted by a number of prominent scholars writing on the issue, such as Judith Butler (2012), and Shaul Magid (2026), the conflation between antisemitism and anti-Zionism disproportionately hurts Jewish students, activists, and academics who write, speak, and advocate against Israeli policies as well as Palestinian, BIPOC and other marginalized students and scholars. We have noted the recent overrepresentation of Jewish students and scholars among those facing “antisemitism” charges for expressing solidarity with Palestinians, especially in the United States and Germany. Many Jewish academics are also featured as “antisemites” on the pro-Israel Canary Mission website and other public watchlists, which extremist groups such as Betar use to expose people to firing, expulsion, enhanced border security and deportation.

A second troubling methodological problem of the report is the evident selection bias in the recruitment of study participants. Rather than recruiting a diverse sample of Jewish students from across the political, cultural and religious spectrum, the authors circulated invitations to participate in this study through Jewish organizations that explicitly support Israel. The many non-Zionist and anti-Zionist organizations across Canadian university campuses and spaces were not similarly engaged to circulate the study. This excluded a substantive section of Jewish students from the findings. It is well known that a growing section of Jewish youth, when permitted to freely express their views, are skeptical or deeply critical of Israel’s actions. Even the CASE authors’ own second report - which was conspicuously released weeks after the first one - noted that of the few anti-Zionist Jews that participated, 92% did not report antisemitism on their campuses.

A third methodological flaw of the report is the biased wording of the closed-ended questions in the study questionnaire. The phrasing offered few or no clear, affirmative, or substantive ways for Jews with other relationalities to Israel, Zionism, and anti-Zionism to register in the report findings. For example, some questions on experiences of antisemitism failed to differentiate between the topics of “Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Zionism.” The phrasing of questions could prime respondents to view relation to Israel and Zionism as manifestations of Jewish identity and attachment, generating skewed findings. It also might have deterred Jews with anti- or non-Zionist beliefs from participating in the survey and shaping its conclusions. This, in turn, would exacerbate the selection bias of the flawed recruitment strategy.

These many methodological flaws, all rooted in disregard for the diversity of Jewish opinion, cast serious doubt on the validity of many of the report’s findings, and therefore on the report as a whole.

Given these fundamental methodological issues, this study is not, by any stretch of the imagination, measuring antisemitism. While there are clear examples of antisemitism provided, many of the examples are about discomfort felt by students due to criticism of Israel and Zionism. Irritation with opposing political positions is not evidence of hatred.

We trust that you will consider these severe methodological issues and withdraw and oppose any support for this report.

Signed,
Jewish Faculty Network
https://www.jewishfaculty.ca/

Endorsed by:
Independent Jewish Voices
https://www.ijvcanada.org/

United Jewish People's Order
https://www.winchevskycentre.org/united-jewish-peoples-order/

Lire en français