More than 200 Brown University students gathered outside University Hall where roughly 40 students sat inside demanding the school divest from weapons manufacturers amid the Israel-Hamas war. Photo: Amy Russo / USA TODAY NETWORK via Reuters Connect

Last month, I attended the “Non-Zionist Jewish Traditions” conference hosted by the Cogut Institute for the Humanities at Brown University.

The conference consisted of five panels and two roundtable discussions across two days. While I did not experience the full program, the combined four hours I spent at the conference provided me with an eye-opening window into the world of anti-Zionist academia and the danger of echo chambers.

I remain convinced that to pursue truth and not ideology, anti-Zionist and Zionist academics must seriously engage with counter-narratives.

Before the conference, I naively believed that the event would simply examine the fascinating stories of non-Zionist Jews through history. What I instead saw was an extreme portrayal of Israel as the pinnacle of evil in the world. Though I’ve encountered this position amongst my peers at protests, I have never heard it so explicitly stated by faculty members.

During the final panel titled “Roundtable: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the Stakes of the Debate,” one professor of Palestinian studies at Brown remarked that “Global Israel” has become the north star of the rise of fascism. The room responded to this proclamation with head nods and snaps.

Someone else asserted “that in order to pursue a liberatory imagination of what it means to be a Jew, the first move is to become an Anti-Zionist,” a questionable characterization from someone who is not themselves Jewish.

I am wary of mischaracterizing this gathering as monolithic, given that the conference was open to everyone — apparently, some attendees identified as liberal Zionists. However, the anti-Zionist perspective monopolized the discussions that I attended. The characterization of Zionism as inherently racist and genocidal went unchallenged, creating a hostile environment for anyone inclined to “own up” to their Zionism, even if it included fierce criticism of contemporary Israeli policy. This hostility became clear to me during a question I posed about antisemitism.

During the same panel, the speakers discussed how the pro-Israel lobby suppresses anti-Zionist speech, especially at universities. While I agree that some Zionist groups mischaracterize any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, I also know that antisemitism is often part and parcel of anti-Zionist activity. In response to the panelists’ points about free speech, I asked: How should administrators engage with the real concerns on behalf of Jewish students that anti-Zionist protests are often entangled with antisemitism? When I finished my question, many in the room laughed, and one of the panelists audibly scoffed.

This conference highlights the ever-deepening polarization surrounding conversations about Zionism and Israel. Professors did not merely criticize the Jewish State, they attacked the founders of Zionism and their adherents as genocidal, Jewish supremacists.

The issue with this conference was not that academics spoke vehemently against Zionism, but rather that no voices offered opposing perspectives. Brown is not lacking in Zionist professors, particularly in our outstanding Judaic Studies department, yet none of them were present at the event. Whether their absence is attributable to themselves or that of the conference organizers, I cannot know. But it was an absence that I felt poignantly.

The Cogut Institute received more than 1,500 emails in protest of the conference. Although many Zionist students and alumni pressured the administration to cancel the event, this would have been a mistake. Counteracting extreme distortions of Zionism does not require shutting down conferences. After all, suppressing false and skewed narratives does not eliminate the beliefs underlying them, and restricting the free exchange of ideas contradicts the University’s epistemic mission. An honest pursuit of truth demands that we allow for the expression of ideas that might be perceived by some as uncomfortable or even dangerous.

When I attended the “Non-Zionist Jewish Traditions” conference, I stepped into an echo chamber. Though I do not expect Zionist professors to sway their fellow academics, their mere presence at a conference like this would signify that anti-Zionism is not a mandate within the academy. If our mission is to examine Zionism, non-Zionism and anti-Zionism in a rigorous, academic manner, it is imperative to include professors who do not consider Zionism a fundamentally fascist, genocidal, and Jewish supremacist movement, and who are willing to speak to this effect.

I am thankful that those who sought to cancel the conference failed; I am also hopeful that next time around, such gatherings will resemble more of a scholarly dialectic than a party convention.

Maya Rackoff is a senior at Brown University majoring in History. She plans to move to Israel in September for a master’s degree in Security and Diplomacy at Tel Aviv University