The spectacle of extreme polarization that is inflaming American society, particularly with regard to its university system, could make us forget the importance of the old tradition of liberal pragmatism. The interview we had with historian David Bell, professor at Princeton, reminds us of this, by refusing to exaggerate or euphemize the deeply divisive issue of antisemitism on campus. As Trump and the most radical fringes of campus progressivism battle for the right to sabotage the American university, David Bell points to the place where the fight against antisemitism and the defense of the university are intertwined.
Julia Christ: You have been teaching at Princeton since 2010 and come from an intellectual Jewish family in New York. Your father, Daniel Bell, is one of America’s most prominent sociologists, and your mother, Pearl Kazin Bell, was a renowned literary critic. Given your family and intellectual heritage, how have you perceived the events that have unfolded since October 7 on the Princeton campus, and more broadly on American campuses? What observations have you made about the reactions of your students, colleagues, and the administration? Have any moments particularly struck you or surprised you in the way your academic community has navigated this period?
David Bell: This is obviously a complex question. The answer depends largely on the institution in question. It is difficult to generalize about the reactions of either students or faculty. At Princeton, the events following October 7 were less dramatic than elsewhere. However, as I live in New York, where my wife teaches at Columbia, and our home is three kilometers from the campus, I was able to observe the developments there firsthand.
What really struck me was the extent of the division that emerged on American campuses. This situation differs considerably from that of the 1960s. During that period, when major controversies, demonstrations, and campus protests arose, a certain unity prevailed, at least on the East Coast at elite universities. Almost everyone opposed the Vietnam War. This time, however, a real divide emerged: some immediately took a hostile stance toward Israel, going so far as to express satisfaction with Hamas’s assault on Israel—rejoicing in its so-called victories.
They remained relatively few in number, it should be noted, but their presence was nonetheless noticeable. In addition, many claimed from October 7 onwards that Israel’s alleged crimes far exceeded the gravity of Hamas’ actions. Finally, many others, shocked by these reactions although not necessarily ardent Zionists, nevertheless defended the State of Israel’s right to exist. Indignation was particularly evident in response to statements perceived as antisemitic, including statements openly supportive of Hamas terrorists. However, the situation truly deteriorated in the spring with the establishment of encampments on campuses, particularly at Columbia.
On several campuses, when Jewish students attempted to engage in dialogue with the protesters, extremely violent rhetoric was frequently used—physical violence remained less prevalent, though it was present. It was at this point that we really began to see a resurgence of antisemitism on campus.
JC: And what happened at Princeton?
At Princeton, a camp was set up literally outside my office window. For two weeks, I was exposed to shouting, singing, and slogans chanting “Palestine will be free,” among other ones. Some of the protesters were, I think, acting with laudable intentions. They were protesting against the excesses of the Israeli campaigns in Gaza. The difficulty was that many of them went considerably further. At Princeton, some simply stated, “I oppose the actions of the State of Israel in Gaza.” On that point, I shared their sentiment. I felt that the Israeli response was excessive, particularly at the beginning. There was a desire for revenge. This is all certainly debatable, but there is nothing illegitimate about making arguments along those lines.
However, Hezbollah flags were also waved by protesters at Princeton. Many of them called for the return of Palestine to the Palestinians, which implied the expulsion of the Jewish population. Even more seriously, on several campuses, when Jewish students attempted to engage in dialogue with the demonstrators, extremely violent rhetoric was frequently used—physical violence remained less prevalent, although it was present. It was at this point that we really began to see a resurgence of antisemitism on campus.
JC: How did the academic community respond to this situation?
DB: A form of cognitive dissonance set in. Many of my friends and colleagues, especially at Columbia said: “Antisemitism cannot exist because some of the protesters are Jewish themselves. So talking about antisemitism is absurd.” On the other side, others argued, “These people on campus are almost like Nazis.” So there was an extreme divergence of opinion. I myself felt caught between these two extremes. The majority of the protesters did not profess antisemitism. Nevertheless, a number of them did engage in antisemitism, particularly when confronted by Jewish students who wanted to defend the existence of the State of Israel. In these circumstances, the situation took a particularly worrying turn.
JC: So the situation escalated when Jewish students took the initiative to engage in discussion?
DB: That wasn’t the only factor. From the outset, many protesters were not content with denouncing Israel, but also supported the attacks of October 7, shouting “Bravo Hamas,” among other statements. However, the situation deteriorated considerably when Jewish students began to confront the demonstrators.
JC: You yourself come from a Jewish family. Jewish identity is very important to you.
DB: Absolutely. My father was born Daniel Bolotsky…
The feeling of taking action, of doing something that has real consequences, of contributing to the end of the war, provides a form of relief [to the mobilized students], even if, in my view, these actions had absolutely no effect on the conflict itself. The psychological motivations behind such behavior seem fairly obvious.
JC: And your mother is Alfred Kazin’s sister. How did you personally experience this rise of antisemitism on campus? From a European perspective, where Jews remain very aware of the persistence of antisemitism, the impression prevails that, in the eyes of the American Jewish community, antisemitism is not really part of the landscape in normal times.
DB: Personally, I did not experience antisemitism directly in the US, even during the protests. I refrained from confronting the protesters directly, preferring to keep some distance. When I heard protesters denounce the existence of the State of Israel, I could certainly perceive these statements as antisemitic, but I did not feel they were a personal attack. These statements were not directed at me personally. I have had personal experience of antisemitism in my life, but that was in France.
JC: In what way?
DB: Near the law faculty on Rue d’Assas, individuals shouted “dirty Jew” at me, among other similar insults. In the United States, on the other hand, I have never had such an experience. It should also be noted that the protesters were largely ignorant. Some not only chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free,” but also chanted the Arabic version. However, the Arabic version literally means “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab.” I doubt that they were aware of the exact meaning of their words.
What really caused the situation to escalate—a phenomenon that can also be observed in France, if we think of Sciences Po Strasbourg—was the fact that the students who mobilized increasingly directed their protests against the university itself. They demanded that Princeton and Columbia divest their holdings in companies that do business with Israel.
They could have, for example, demonstrated in front of the Israeli consulate or the embassy in Washington. Street demonstrations would have been a viable option. However, their desire to take concrete action, to “do something,” led them to target the university itself, which I consider absurd. At Princeton, as at Columbia, they therefore set about putting pressure on the university as an institution. It was in this context that the occupations took place.
JC: How do you interpret this desire for action that is expressed neither in the appropriate places nor by the appropriate means? Did the students involved produce any substantial texts, for example?
DB: They wrote numerous texts, which were published in student newspapers: denunciations of Israel, of what they call “genocide,” and other similar themes. But let’s not forget that these are students, young people. Beyond expressing their opinions, they wanted to have a tangible impact. A deep sense of precariousness and anxiety pervades universities, both here and in France—there is a great deal of fear and uncertainty about the future. The feeling of taking action, of doing something that has real consequences, of contributing to ending the war, provides a form of relief, even if, in my view, these actions had absolutely no effect on the conflict itself.
I observed the Columbia encampment, where people claimed to have received messages of support from Gaza. These supposed letters from Gazan children expressing their support for the Columbia students were read aloud, a source of great pride for those who believed they were taking effective action. The psychological motivations behind such behavior seem fairly obvious.
In their eyes, Israel represents a colony, falling under what is known as “settler colonialism.” This identification of Israel with whiteness gives them an opportunity to protest against their own society and all the evils that plague it. Our history is marked by the genocide of the indigenous peoples of America and the enslavement of Africans. American history is undeniably criminal. For these protesters, Israel is part of the same historical trajectory.
JC: There seems to be a sense of satisfaction in this…
DB: Yes, there is a psychological satisfaction that comes from feeling that you are influencing reality, however fantastical that may be.
JC: But why has this desire for action arisen with such intensity specifically in relation to Israel? How do you explain this enthusiasm for this particular cause rather than others that deserve just as much attention from young people seeking global justice?
DB: This focus can be explained in part by the conviction that by attacking Israel, they can have a concrete effect. They could objectively have denounced the Chinese genocide against the Uyghurs, or the abuses perpetrated in several African countries, as well as in Burma and elsewhere in the world. But certain other criteria are at play in their focus as well. These situations do not, in their perception, involve white people—and for them, Israel embodies whiteness. In their eyes, Israel represents a colony, falling under what is known as “settler colonialism.” This identification of Israel with whiteness gives them an opportunity to protest against their own society and all the evils that plague it.
A crucial factor in the United States is the widespread tendency to view every situation through the prism of racial conflict. The United States itself is a “settler colonial society.” Our history is marked by the genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans. American history is undeniably criminal. For these protesters, Israel is part of the same historical trajectory.
Take Ta-Nehisi Coates, who published a book last year denouncing the State of Israel. The son of African-American activists and a leading figure in the Black movement in the United States, he naturally describes the events in the West Bank as if they were taking place in the southern United States before the civil rights movement.
JC: Do you consider this tendency to be blind to the historical specificities and unique evolution of other societies, combined with the projection of American historical logic onto fundamentally different situations, to be a typically American trait?
DB: Absolutely. This tendency stems largely from the education young Americans receive. I can attest to this from my own experience with my two children, who went through the US public school system. History education in the United States devotes very little time to European history. So-called world history is a kind of catch-all category. The focus is mainly on US history, and heavily on the history of racial conflicts: slavery, discrimination, the Civil War. While these are not the only topics covered, they tend to overshadow everything else.
Restoration is a fundamental concept aimed at restoring justice in the world. However, they tacitly acknowledge, albeit with regret, the impossibility of returning the United States to its indigenous peoples, or Canada and Australia to their original inhabitants. Israel, however, offers them a case where this restorative justice still seems achievable.
This is the historical lens through which young Americans view the world. They understand the world through this lens and naturally apply it, often without deep reflection, to the entire planet. This approach stems from their limited knowledge of the rest of the world. Foreign language skills are generally lacking. This perspective seems perfectly natural to them. When they take history classes at university, many of these courses focus on theories and analytical frameworks centered on colonization and racism. The attitude adopted by these young people toward Israel is therefore perfectly consistent with their education, as this interpretation of reality has become normalized.
JC: As a historian specializing in the Enlightenment and France, you have studied extensively the now well-known paradoxes inherent in the Enlightenment: while the Enlightenment was emancipatory, it also perpetuated and even developed antisemitism and racism. Do you see similar paradoxes in the so-called emancipatory struggles of this young generation? After all, their mobilization for greater social justice in the world remains undeniable, while also producing negative effects—notably antisemitism. One of these effects is a deliberate ignorance of the specific minority status of Jews, their particular history, and consequently the issues that Israel represents for Jews around the world.
DB: The comparison with the Enlightenment seems delicate to me. I would like these young people to be able to express themselves with the eloquence of Voltaire—which is unfortunately not the case. Their knowledge of the Enlightenment is too often limited to the history of racism, to the “misery of the Enlightenment,” to use Louis Sala-Molins’ expression. Those who know Kant generally recall only his racism and his writings on Black people. The thousands of pages he devoted to philosophy and morality remain unknown to them.
This gap stems from their education, which presents them with a world divided between oppressors and resisters. The oppressors are identified with the West – the enlightened West, one might say. So they support resistance wherever it manifests itself. Their worldview is characterized by a pronounced Manichaeism. From this perspective, it becomes extremely difficult for them to perceive Jews as minorities, since Jews are considered an integral part of the West.
Of course, they know about the Shoah – their ignorance does not reach such extremes. However, they generally do not understand why Jews need a country of their own, as their knowledge of Israel’s history is also very patchy. They simply believe that the Jews, who were expelled or driven out of Europe, stole this Holy Land from the Muslims. In terms of intellectual development, I don’t think there’s really any comparison with the Age of Enlightenment.
JC: You suggest that this struggle lacks a positive project, a vision of the world to build. Is resistance against oppression the only thing being expressed?
DB: I still thought there was a positive project for social justice and restoration. Restoration is a fundamental concept aimed at reestablishing justice in the world. However, they tacitly acknowledge, albeit with regret, the impossibility of returning the United States to the indigenous peoples, or Canada and Australia to their original inhabitants. Just as it would be illusory to return France to the Gauls. Israel, however, offers them a case where this justice of restoration still seems achievable.
Their criticism of Israel is not without foundation. The events in the West Bank call for an immediate end. The situation has taken a dramatic turn. The current government includes Smotrich and Ben Gvir, racist fascists who genuinely intend to drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza.
Israel does indeed represent a special case where they see both the opportunity and the possibility of winning a victory against the criminal West, and therefore against themselves.
Yet this is not the discourse of the protesters. A distinction must be made between legitimate protest against the actions of the Israeli government and the denial of the State of Israel’s right to exist, accompanied by demands to expel the Jewish population of Israel because of Israeli crimes or the alleged “genocide.”
JC: Your analysis reveals a fascinating dimension. You suggest that one of the factors that could explain the radical nature of anti-Zionist criticism on campuses is the students’ acute awareness of Western crimes and the accompanying feeling of powerlessness. It is as if they are aware of the impossibility of abolishing themselves at home, but find in Israel a place where the abolition of the West seems achievable.
DB: Israel does indeed represent a special case where they see both the opportunity and the possibility of defeating the criminal West, and therefore, in a sense, themselves. When it comes to Israel, they believe that the outcome is still open. They also believe that they can put an end to the crimes committed against the indigenous population. On this specific point, as I have just indicated, their claims are not without legitimacy.
JC: Certainly, but two radically different dimensions coexist: protesting against war crimes and wanting to…
DB: Erase crucial intellectual and moral distinctions. Indeed, these are two completely different realities that they are unable to distinguish between.
JC: The picture you paint of American youth and universities does not inspire much optimism.
DB: It should be remembered that the protesters were only a minority in the universities as a whole. At Princeton, a few hundred students out of the 6,000 on campus took part in the movements. PhD students were heavily represented. At Columbia, the protests heavily involved doctoral students and post-graduate law students. On all campuses, only a minority of students were involved. I know many moderate students who opposed the rhetoric of these activists and were shocked by it. The campuses were deeply divided. In addition, many deeply upset Zionist Jewish students organized counter-demonstrations. So this is not the whole of American youth, but its most vocal and militant fraction, which remains a minority.
JC: Let me return to my initial question: have American Jews had a European experience over the past two years?
DB: What exactly do you mean by a European experience?
A yawning chasm [has opened up] within the American left. The timing is tragic: just when the American left should be uniting against Trump, it is divided over the Israeli question. This situation is truly dramatic.
JC: The impression here in Europe is that you are now experiencing widespread, openly expressed antisemitism in the US. Jews have been killed in your country. How does the Jewish community perceive this situation? Is this the dawn of a new era? Do people believe that American society is undergoing a profound change?
DB: Many American Jews do indeed say this. They say, “Absolutely, we are entering our antisemitic moment.” My own tendency is to see every situation in its complexity. We are not in France in 1894 or Germany in 1933. To claim that a movement comparable to that of Édouard Drumont is beginning to emerge in the United States would be an exaggeration. The situation is radically different. Nevertheless, we may conceivably be at the very beginning of such a phenomenon. For now, the outcome remains uncertain.
Most of the incidents on campuses were not directed at Jews as such. The attacks occurred when Jews confronted the camp occupants.
Consider this: I walk the streets of New York every day. Countless people wear kippahs or tefillin. On the only two occasions when I witnessed antisemitic verbal attacks—expressions such as “dirty Jew” directed at Jews identifiable by their kippahs—the perpetrators appeared to me to be mentally ill.
However, violence, including deadly violence, has occurred, which is extremely serious. Violent incidents have taken place in Washington, D.C., and Harrisburg. This violence has its roots in part in the campus movements. Uncertainty remains as to whether this wave of antisemitism, fueled by anti-Zionism and linked to events in Gaza, is a one-off or a lasting phenomenon. Are we witnessing the beginnings of an antisemitic wave that will engulf Jewish-American communities, or is this a more limited phenomenon? Only time will tell.
JC: Certainly, but the situation nevertheless raises another issue. You yourself are a liberal in the American sense of the term, not an American progressive—the term “progressive” referring in your country to what we would call leftism. You therefore embody a moderate leftist.
DB: That’s right.
Trump is currently waging an offensive against universities that is unprecedented in American history. There has been almost no reaction from the progressive side. There is almost total silence from so-called left-wing students. The reason? Their refusal to support the “liberal and Zionist” university, even in the face of Trump.
JC: So I come back to the unique experience of the Jewish community. If Jews are categorized as white and associated with domination, we find ourselves in a relatively new situation where, suddenly, liberal American Jews can no longer fully align themselves with movements fighting for greater social justice. Identified with the oppressors, they find themselves unable to declare their solidarity with emancipation movements. This separation is an unprecedented phenomenon.
DB: Absolutely. Historically, Jews in the United States have identified with minorities. They have been active in the civil rights movement, the fight against segregation, and other struggles. My father, the sociologist Daniel Bell, was a socialist from his youth. He boasted that he could sing the Internationale in eight different languages—a necessity in New York: Yiddish, English, Spanish, Ukrainian, Greek, and so on. My family history is rooted in the leftist tradition.
However, the separation between Jews and the progressive camp that you mention is not new. This process began in the 1980s, when black movements gained considerable importance—legitimately, moreover—without, however, always making room for solidarity with so-called “white” Jews. From the 1960s onwards, with Malcolm X and the Islamic orientation of part of the Black movement, a distance developed between Jews and other minorities. Moments of rapprochement alternated with phases of separation in a continuous movement.
This time, the rupture is particularly serious. The example of the New York mayoral campaign illustrates this: Zohran Mamdani has just won the Democratic primary. His father is one of the leading theorists of “settler colonialism,” while his mother, a filmmaker and theorist, is a long-time supporter of the boycott movement against Israel. Zohran himself supports what he calls the intifada.
This emergence is a novelty in New York political history. Traditionally, a form of obligatory reverence toward the State of Israel prevailed, due to the importance of the Jewish community in local politics. Almost all candidates declared: “I fully support the State of Israel. Jerusalem will be among my destinations when I travel abroad.” Zohran Mamdani is breaking with this tradition.
This 33-year-old would, I think, find himself completely overwhelmed in the administrative maze of New York City Hall. Reasons unrelated to foreign policy lead me to doubt his qualities as a candidate. Nevertheless, I could overcome these reservations and support him as the Democratic candidate. But his position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes this extremely difficult.
Trump is currently waging an offensive against universities that is unprecedented in American history. There has been almost no reaction from the progressive side. There is almost total silence from so-called left-wing students. The reason? Their refusal to support the “liberal and Zionist” university, even in the face of Trump.
This situation has led to a break with several of my progressive friends, including many Jews who were willing to support him. These progressive Jews support the protests, calling antisemitism a myth or a mere pretext. A yawning chasm is opening up within the American left. The timing is tragic: just when the American left should be uniting against Trump, it is divided over the Israeli question. This situation is truly dramatic.
Trump is currently waging an offensive against universities that is unprecedented in American history. There has been almost no reaction from the progressive side. There is almost total silence from so-called left-wing students. The reason? Their refusal to support the “liberal and Zionist” university, even in the face of Trump.
This phenomenon can be observed at Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia. This attitude also extends to the destruction of the hard sciences. At Columbia, for example, the medical school is in danger of having to part with a substantial portion of its faculty and close some of its laboratories. Medical research in the United States depends almost entirely on the government, both for research funding and salaries. Faced with this threat, there is almost no support from professors, progressives, or students. This division will lead to the destruction of the American left.
JC: And of the university at the same time, if I understand correctly?
DB: The university as well, without a doubt. Progressive students and professors have defined themselves in radical opposition to the university institution. One of my colleagues, a very progressive professor, recently said in a video: “We must dismantle the university. We must train students to dismantle the university.” According to her, the university, not only in the US but universally, embodies colonialism, racism, and imperialism.
JC: So the attacks on the university do not come exclusively from Trump? You reveal that within the institution itself, the lack of resistance can be explained by the conviction that the university is intrinsically part of the system of white domination, to put it succinctly. Does this perspective lead to accepting its destruction?
DB: There were two waves of protests against Trump this year, in March and May. In both cases, the absence of students was striking.
We are thus witnessing the beginnings of the joint destruction of the university and the left, including the Democratic Party, on the altar of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
JC: A total absence?
DB: Almost. I was in Paris at the time and took part in the Paris demonstrations. I even spoke at the rally in Place de la République. The atmosphere was somewhat melancholic: I was one of the youngest participants (I am 63). The crowd was mainly made up of veterans of the 1960s protests. A guitarist struck up “We Shall Overcome.” The event was steeped in nostalgia for the 1960s. This situation was all the more saddening given that thousands of young Americans are studying in Paris. Their almost total absence was a sign of their disinterest. We are thus witnessing the beginnings of the joint destruction of the university and the left, as well as the Democratic Party, on the altar of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
JC: This aspect of America under Trump is completely beyond our European perception.
DB: A similar phenomenon can be observed in France. The French left is divided between LFI and the remnants of the Socialist Party. In my opinion, this problem affects the global left as a whole.
JC: Certainly, but I am inclined to think that if an RN government came to power and attacked the universities, a substantial protest movement would emerge. The idea of passivity based on the equivalence between the university and fascism in power would not prevail.
DB: There is still hope that there will be a reaction in France. However, France has a unified university system. In the United States, no such system exists. Universities differ radically from one another in an essentially private market. Even public universities are run by the states, not the federal government. The situation is even more critical in public universities, particularly in the state of Indiana, where the local Republican government is leading the assault on one of America’s great public universities. The tenure system will be partially dismantled and many programs eliminated. I believe the reaction will be minimal. The university system is truly threatened—more than threatened, in mortal danger—while the so-called emancipation movement remains inactive, considering that emancipation does not come through the education provided in these institutions.
The university system is truly threatened—more than threatened, in mortal danger—while the so-called emancipation movement remains inactive, considering that emancipation does not come through the education provided in these institutions.
JC: So the situation is characterized by a lack of academic solidarity, a lack of a sense of belonging to a community of knowledge worth defending?
DB: Indeed. The absence of unions and a unified student body exacerbates the situation. This reality is particularly distressing. The evolution of the situation this year, in the face of Trump’s continued attacks on the university, remains to be seen. For now, resistance is coming mainly from older professors like myself.
Let me illustrate the catastrophic situation with another example: elections are currently being held for leadership positions in the American Historical Association. This year, a group of historians who are highly critical of Israel is seeking to take control of the association. For years, their attempts to pass resolutions against Israel have failed. This year, they mobilized a large contingent at the Historians’ Congress in New York. They passed a resolution denouncing what they call Israeli “scholasticide” in Gaza—the destruction of Gaza’s universities.
The association’s board vetoed the resolution, arguing that condemning events in the Middle East is not the responsibility of a professional association of historians. In response, these historians decided to put forward their own candidates for the presidency and other leadership positions. I am part of a movement to counter this attempt, supporting the association’s official candidates. The election will conclude on July 15, and the outcome remains uncertain. Their victory would most likely lead to a proliferation of resolutions against Israel. And their anti-Israel focus will distract them from any effective protest against Trump. This seemingly minor anecdote nevertheless reflects the reality of professional academic life.
JC: On the contrary, this illustration is very relevant. It reveals that the guilty West’s desire for self-abolition is not only expressed in the struggle against Israel, but also has deleterious effects on American soil, here by making universities vulnerable to the reactionary offensive.
DB: Precisely. Without resorting to excessive exaggeration, a clear desire, or at least a pronounced desire, to do away with the system of production and reproduction of knowledge and elites is emerging. A paradoxical convergence unites the extreme left of academia and Trump on one fundamental point: the harmful nature of universities. For many of my progressive colleagues, the institution embodies neoliberalism, discrimination, racism, and white supremacy. For Trump, it obviously represents a liberal institution in the opposite, sense of leftist
Without resorting to excessive exaggeration, a clear desire, or at least a strong desire, to do away with the system of production and reproduction of knowledge and elites is emerging. A paradoxical convergence unites the extreme left of academia and Trump on one fundamental point: the harmful nature of universities.
JC: A perfectly absurd combination of struggles.
DB: Absolutely. Marxists of yesteryear would have called this situation an “objective agreement” between objective enemies momentarily pursuing the same goal.
JC: This political strategy seems utterly inept.
DB: It is, to say the least, an emotional response that produces counterproductive effects. I would emphasize again that this position is held by only a minority of the faculty—with the exception of a few departments at some universities: African-American studies, American studies, English, anthropology, and sociology. In my history department, only two or three people take this view, and many share my position. There are also a limited number of conservatives. Among scientists, this way of thinking remains extremely rare. Economists and political scientists do not subscribe to it. But this very vocal minority has been particularly active.
JC: The complexity of the situation far exceeds what we had understood. If I summarize correctly, on the one hand, an educational problem shapes young Americans to interpret all reality in terms of racial conflict, creating fertile ground for hatred of Israel since Jews are categorized as white. One can legitimately raise the issue of antisemitism, or at least a potentially fertile ground for antisemitism in universities, which has been developing for a long time. The events of October 7 did not therefore arise out of nowhere. On the other hand, we have an American president who, paradoxically, by fighting anti-discrimination measures and what he calls “wokism,” by opposing theories that conceptualize reality in terms of racial conflict and endless discrimination, is intervening in universities to destroy them as a whole. The moderate left, of which you are a part, finds itself caught in a vice.
DB: That analysis sums up our dilemma perfectly. The feeling of being trapped haunts me. There is a considerable power imbalance between Trump and the so-called “woke.” The latter have neither the capacity nor, in truth, the real will to destroy the university—my colleague mentioned earlier literally describes the institution as “the racist and white supremacist [one] which pays my salary.” Their desire for destruction remains rhetorical. Nevertheless, they provide a pretext for those who truly harbor this destructive ambition.
There is a considerable power imbalance between Trump and the so-called “woke” people. The latter have neither the capacity nor, in truth, the real desire to destroy the university—my colleague mentioned earlier literally describes the institution as “racist and white supremacist, which pays my salary.” Their desire for destruction remains rhetorical. Nevertheless, they provide a pretext for those who truly harbor this destructive ambition.
Until this year, the Republican Party did not have individuals in positions of power who were truly determined to destroy the university. The American university, particularly elite institutions, has always had a dual nature. Its intellectual side has long been opposed by Republicans, who denounce the university as a hotbed of leftism: Marxism, communism, wokism, depending on the era. But its social side, its function of reproducing elites, integrated Republicans into the system. As former students of these same institutions, they were largely determined to send their children there. Now, within the Republican Party, particularly in its populist wing embodied by Trump, anti-elitism has reached such a level that it also aims to destroy this social function of universities. For the first time, we are seeing not just intellectual opposition to universities, but institutional opposition, accompanied by a real desire and capacity to destroy them or, at the very least, inflict considerable damage on them. This is the radical new development.
This situation is fundamentally different from the Bush Jr. era, when the former Yale student mocked his alma mater, referring to “Yale socialists,” but without any real seriousness, since he ardently wanted his daughter to attend the university. With Trump, we have crossed a threshold in anti-academic hatred: it has become total.
JC: So progressives, in the American sense, are objectively providing the pretext for the Trump II administration?
DB: Absolutely. Trump, indifferent to the reproduction of elites, is opportunistically seizing on this. It suits him perfectly. We moderate academics find ourselves caught between two converging forces seeking to destroy the university as we know it. That said, on a personal level, the threat remains relative. Princeton enjoys considerable wealth. Our spending per student exceeds, I think, fifty times that of a Parisian university. Even if our capital is taxed, even if our federal funds are blocked, our resources allow us to resist. Columbia and other institutions have significantly fewer resources.
The danger is particularly acute for the hard sciences. Much of the Republican movement now displays a largely anti-scientific attitude. Devoid of any regard for American scientific research and convinced by zealots like Kennedy of the harmfulness of scientific research, they have no qualms about destroying this aspect of the university as well.
Trump sometimes professes a typically American form of antisemitism, associating Jews with money, media control, and so on. Like the contemporary RN, his apparent philosemitism stems from the perception of Jews as adversaries of Muslims and Arabs. From this limited perspective, he appears to be anti-antisemitic while remaining fundamentally antisemitic.
JC: We started with the question of whether there is antisemitism in universities. Your analysis, which broadens the scope of the problem, leads me to ask a second, related question: is there anti-intellectualism in universities?
DB: Definitely.
JC: The link between these two issues is not coincidental: historically, in modern times, anti-intellectualism has been one of the cardinal elements of antisemitism. Where anti-intellectualism flourishes, antisemitism is never far behind.
DB: For the far right, antisemitism is effectively integrated into this anti-intellectualism. Their discourse lumps “Jews, intellectuals, and leftists” together. The inherent contradiction between Jews and leftists today does not bother them in the least. Left-wing anti-intellectualism is also particularly interesting, especially when some people describe the cult of reason as a white attribute. The distance between this and the assertion that the cult of reason is Jewish remains tenuous. The evocation of a “Jewish science” has not yet come to pass. Perhaps we will never get there, perhaps we will.
JC: You describe a climate and a highly unexpected collision between two anti-intellectual camps that, without any coordination, reinforce each other.
DB: Exactly.
JC: Let’s talk about Trump’s so-called fight against antisemitism, which he uses to justify his destructive enterprise.
DB: It’s a pure pretext. Trump himself sometimes professes a typically American form of antisemitism, associating Jews with money, media control, and so on. This antisemitism follows a traditional pattern. His father, who participated in Ku Klux Klan demonstrations, was most likely a virulent antisemite. Antisemitic remarks were in all likelihood part of the family atmosphere during Trump’s youth. His statements regularly bear witness to this. Only recently, he referred to “Shylocks”. He has made statements such as, “I want my money managers to wear kippahs.” His affection for Israel and Netanyahu stems from his admiration for their strength and toughness in the face of Islam. Like the contemporary RN, his apparent philosemitism stems from his perception of Jews as adversaries of Muslims and Arabs. From this limited perspective, he appears anti-antisemitic while remaining fundamentally antisemitic. His stated desire to protect Jews on college campuses is merely a transparent pretext.
The Republican Party also harbors a less than flattering form of philosemitism linked to Christian evangelism. These millenarians believe that the apocalypse will begin with the reunification of the chosen people in Israel, hence their Zionism. They support Netanyahu, projecting US policy onto him. They see him as a resistance fighter against “wokeness” and the Arab equivalent of black radicalism. The projection of American history is therefore also at work in the reactionary camp.
I invoke the need for intellectual seriousness, the ability to make relevant distinctions and differentiations. This task defines the very vocation of the intellectual. This approach involves recognizing simultaneously the existence of a problem of antisemitism and a problem with Trump.
JC: How is the Jewish community reacting to this pretext invoked by Trump?
DB: Reactions vary according to the internal political divisions within the Jewish community. John Podhoretz, an American writer and editorialist, son of Norman Podhoretz, former editor-in-chief of Commentary, illustrates this diversity. He posted on X: “Trump bombed Iran. He can say Shylock 100 times a day forever as far as I’m concerned.”
The American Jewish community remains divided. Official Jewish organizations tend to take very pro-Israel, rather conservative positions. Divisions persist between unconditional supporters of Israel and moderates. The current US government’s overwhelming support for Israel discourages part of the community from openly criticizing Trump. Shocked by the changes within the Democratic Party, they are developing growing hostility towards it. Moderates like me remain cautious.
There is also an organized progressive Jewish community, embodied in particular by Peter Beinart. After working for The New Republic, where he was one of the ardent defenders of the Iraq War, he underwent a road-to-Damascus style conversion. He is now one of the most prominent anti-Zionists in the United States.
JC: When you denounce antisemitism on campuses, are you accused of facilitating Trump’s authoritarian and illiberal politics?
DB: Of course, these accusations abound.
JC: How do you respond to those who accuse you of playing into Trump’s hands by naming antisemitism?
DB: I invoke the need for intellectual seriousness, the ability to make relevant distinctions. This task defines the very vocation of the intellectual. My father always said that the mission of the intellectual is to make relevant distinctions. Without demonstrating in the streets, I strive to make meaningful distinctions. This approach involves recognizing simultaneously the existence of a problem of antisemitism and a problem of Trump. Otherwise, one is playing a different game, that of those who deny the existence of antisemitism. And once you enter that game, why privilege that argument over the one that denies the dangerousness of Trump?
I refuse to allow myself to be trapped in this ideological trap. Antisemitism exists on American campuses, and Trump is seeking to destroy those same campuses by using antisemitism as a pretext. Progressives who remain silent about antisemitism, or even deny its existence, also remain silent for the most part in the face of Trump’s attacks on universities. This is the complexity of reality that must be understood intellectually. Burying one’s head in the sand, a strategy aimed at not upsetting anyone, leads nowhere.
Interview conducted by Julia Christ
David A. Bell is the Lapidus Professor of History at Princeton University, where he has taught since 2010. He is the author of seven books, including ‘Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution’ (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020; French translation published by Fayard in 2022 under the title ‘Le culte des chefs : Charisme et pouvoir à l’âge des révolutions’), and ‘The First Total War: Napoleon’s Europe and the Birth of Warfare As We Know It’ (Houghton Mifflin, 2007; French translation published by Champ Vallon in 2010 under the title ‘La première guerre totale : L’Europe de Napoléon et la naissance de la guerre moderne’).
