For Another Year, BU’s Conference on Jewish Left Only Platforms Anti-Zionism

Academic conferences should foster inquiry, test ideas, and widen intellectual horizons. The third annual “Jewish Conference on the Left” held at Boston University (BU) last month was certainly presented in those terms. However, as time went on, it became clear that something else was afoot: Anti-Zionism framed as academic exploration, and a social structure encouraging the marginalization of Jewish students who fail to conform to their narrow and bigoted politics.

The gathering took place on BU’s main campus, reinforcing the perception that the conference’s ideology sits comfortably within the university’s academic culture.

The conference, which I attended, was dominated by anti-Zionist speakers, such as Peter Beinart, Fadi Quran, Dove Kent, and Arielle Angel. Beinart advocates for the dissolution of a Jewish-majority state, insisting Jews revert to once again existing as a vulnerable minority everywhere. Quran associates with the BDS movement. Kent’s org “Diaspora Alliance” rejects the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism definition. Angel is an ardent anti-Zionist. These are not neutral voices. They are activists representing an ideology that is effectively hostile to the idea of Jewish civil rights in our ancestral homeland. Several statements during the conference illustrated this bait and switch from policy debate to brazen indoctrination.

Numerous statements were made attacking Zionism and any Jews who believe in Israel’s right to exist. Neither the crowd, nor any other panelists, bothered to push back. Their only response was applause. It felt more like a political rally than a serious discussion on scholarship. 

Unsurprisingly, there were no pro-Zionist leftist perspectives, not even modest discussions about classic topics like two-state coexistence. There were no voices articulating how Jewish self-determination might co-exist with Palestinian statehood. There was only delegitimization, double standards, and dehumanization of Zionists and Israel masked by reasonable-sounding language and boilerplate euphemisms.

The organization fair held at BU only hosted radical left groups including Jewish Voices for Peace and IfNotNow. Tables included various infographics urging the IHRA definition be banned from schools, BDS graphics, comparisons between ICE and Nazi Germany, banning the ADL from schools, among others.

Clearly there was no room for dissenting views on the podium, and I observed the same mentality among its audience. At one point, I was berated by a stranger: “Shame on you for not clapping, you can’t even show respect for Fadi Quran.” 

While I did not overtly present myself as a Zionist, I also did not mask my beliefs. Throughout my many conversations, I was repeatedly quizzed about my personal and professional background, as if my fellow attendees were actively looking for a reason to dismiss my position. Suspicion was immediate and hovered over every conversation whenever I questioned the status quo. 

This is how ideological capture operates. It does not require formal censorship, all it needs is a couple of slogans and some bullies.

When a conference is promoted under the language of scholarly exploration to students and presents itself as an all-encompassing gathering of “Jewish left values,” the university’s association becomes part of the message. 

For students who identify as both Progressive and Zionist, events like these reinforce the idea that there is no place for them. Many already navigate campus environments in which Zionism is treated as morally suspect. Student government resolutions single out Israel. Activist rhetoric regularly distorts Zionism into a kind of racism or colonialism. Institutional repetition normalizes and enables these intellectual boundary-breakers. 

If Boston University intends to uphold its mission toward promoting intellectual diversity, it should clarify the distinction between providing space and conferring academic legitimacy. If organizers are truly acting in good faith, they should at least try to ensure that their conferences reflect the actual diversity within that tradition, or otherwise rebrand. 

After three consecutive years of hosting this conference, the issue is no longer whether individual speakers have the right to present their views. They do. The question is whether a major university should repeatedly platform a singular ideological current while presenting it as representative of a broader intellectual tradition.

Melody Kaye is a Boston-based Campus Advisor for CAMERA.