A recent report released by the AMCHA Initiative on Wednesday examines the prevalence of genocide accusations against Israel within American university programming, linking these claims predominantly to academic units led by officials who publicly supported boycotts of Israel prior to the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict in October 2023.
The report analyzed activities on 12 campuses between October 10 and October 24, 2023—just prior to Israel's major ground invasion of Gaza—finding that 14 academic units hosted events or issued statements alleging Israel was committing genocide. Notably, each of these units was headed by senior figures with a history of endorsing academic boycotts of Israel. These institutions included the University of California Santa Cruz, California State University San Bernardino, Syracuse University, University of California San Diego, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a multi-campus teach-in series involving Harvard, Brown, and the University of Chicago.
Researchers examined 278 publicly available recordings of Israel-related events held during the 2024–2025 academic year across 51 U.S. campuses that attract significant Jewish student populations. The study classified speakers based on whether they had expressed support for boycotting Israel or the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement before October 7, 2023. Out of the total events, 93 featured at least one speaker who supported BDS or related boycotts, while 185 did not.
The findings revealed stark differences between these groups. Events including BDS-supporting speakers were approximately 40 times more likely to make genocide accusations against Israel compared to those without such speakers—85% of BDS-speaker events contained such claims, versus only 2% of events without. Among the 83 events that addressed the genocide issue, the number of references ranged widely, with a median of seven mentions per event. Furthermore, events with BDS-affiliated speakers were nearly nine times more likely to be organized by academic units led by boycott supporters. When accusations appeared directly in event titles or promotional materials, 96% of those events were sponsored by academic units whose leadership supported boycotts before October 7.
The report contextualizes these findings within the BDS movement’s anti-normalization approach, which aims to discourage standard academic engagement with Israel by framing it in morally charged terms. The authors caution that when academic departments host such narratives, political advocacy can gain the perceived legitimacy of scholarly inquiry, potentially broadening the impact of these claims beyond activist circles.
Beyond implications for foreign policy discourse, the study highlights concerns about campus climate, suggesting that portraying Israel as a genocidal state can lead to stigmatization of Jewish and pro-Israel students. This dynamic may transform political disagreement into moral judgment, increasing risks of exclusion, harassment, and hostile environments on campuses.
To address these issues, the report recommends universities implement content-neutral policies preventing academic departments from using institutional resources to advance political campaigns or take partisan positions. It also advocates for independent enforcement mechanisms and suggests that state and federal funding be tied to compliance with these safeguards. Additionally, the report calls on state legislatures to consider banning public universities from enacting politically motivated academic boycotts.