Campus Hillels Should Make Their Own Choices

Last year, the Open Hillel movement formed after Harvard Hillel refused to host an organization that advocates the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement against Israel. Existing Hillel International policies ban organizations that advocate BDS or similar views that Hillel International frames as anti-Israel. Open Hillel seeks to make Hillel inclusive of all political views concerning the state of Israel.

In early December, Swarthmore’s Hillel became the first Open Hillel, officially opening its doors to speakers who oppose Israel. In response, Hillel International President Eric D. Fingerhut released a statement affirming that no organization that welcomes “anti-Zionists” will be permitted to use the Hillel name. This sentiment is consistent with Hillel International’s “Standards of Partnership,” but it denies individual chapters the freedom to define their communities as they see fit.

Hillel International’s Israel Guidelines, adopted in 2010, stipulate that no Hillel chapter may host or partner with any individual or organization that opposes the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, “demonizes, delegitimizes, or applies a double standard to Israel,” or endorses “boycott of, divestment from, or sanctions against the State of Israel.” At the same time, Hillel International emphasizes its status as an organization that “welcomes students of all backgrounds.” Many Jewish students—including Jewish students at Harvard—support allowing pro-BDS speakers at Hillel, or may even support BDS. Those students, despite being part of Jewish communities on campuses across the country, have official constraints imposed on their political ideals in most Hillel chapters.

At the least, Hillel International should not castigate chapters such as Swarthmore that choose to be “open.” Swarthmore is in a unique position compared to many Hillels in that it receives no funding from Hillel International—but even those Hillels that are funded by the central organization should be free to define their communities. Hillel International’s reaction to Open Hillel at Swarthmore, however, suggests that the organization will not tolerate adoption of alternative Israel guidelines by its campus chapters.

College campuses ought to be places of deep and thoughtful debate. As an organization that characterizes itself primarily as a pluralistic center of Jewish life, Hillel International should not make participation in Jewish life contingent on holding particular political views about the Middle East. Hillel should allow Swarthmore Hillel to remain open and encourage all of its chapters to decide on their own levels of “openness.”