By SUSAN JONES

The University’s Working Group on Antisemitism, which was chartered in late 2024, issued its report last month, along with a University response from the Office of the Chancellor.

But if several people on campus have their way, those won’t be the last words on the subject. Concerns include a lack of shared governance and possible threats to academic freedom. (See related story on responses from campus groups.)

The working group was formed after several troubling incidents on or near campus against Jewish members of the Pitt community, including two attacks where three students were injured. These incidents came in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on southern Israel and the subsequent war by Israel against Gaza, which sparked pro-Palestinian protests on campuses throughout the U.S.

In November 2024, leaders of Senate Council tried to form an ad hoc committee on antisemitism, but were met with resistance from several people who feared the committee would impinge on academic freedom to discuss controversial topics.

At that time, Senate Vice President (and now President) Kris Kanthak said: “We have really been inundated from the beginning of this semester with really hair-curling stories of antisemitism from faculty, staff and students. … These are people who don't feel like the University right now is addressing those issues in an important and meaningful way.”

In December 2024, Chancellor Joan Gabel and Provost Joe McCarthy, in collaboration with the Senate, authorized the formation of a University-level working group that included faculty, staff, students and community members. The group was chaired by Kathleen Blee, former dean of the Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences and professor of sociology, with vice chairs Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili, director of the Center for Governance and Markets and professor in the School of Public and International Affairs, and Paul Wallach, vice chancellor for health sciences education.

Murtazashvili said last week that “when I was named to the committee’s leadership, my home was targeted, and I was subjected to extensive online hatred and harassment. No faculty member should have to endure that for serving the University. It should serve as both a lesson and a warning to all of us about the current environment in our country, in our city, and on our campuses. I hope these facts alone underscore the urgency of this work to members of our community.”

Other members were not announced when the committee was formed, but the final report identified them as: Barton Branstetter, chief of neuroradiology, School of Medicine; William M. Carter Jr., professor in the School of Law; Laura Cherner, community relations council director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh; Justin Reck, Pitt Police officer; Olivia Shaw, Frederick Honors College and Dietrich School student and member of Hillel Jewish University Center of Pittsburgh; and Kevin Washo, senior vice chancellor for external relations.

The group was charged with improving “our procedures, programs and support systems through an honest assessment of where we are and how we can be better.”

In response to questions from the University Times, a Pitt spokesman stressed that, “The Working Group was advisory. It was charged with exploring these questions and making recommendations. The University’s response reflects that advisory role. Some recommendations identify actions the administration can take directly; others would require consideration through the University’s established shared governance processes.”

Kanthak expressed gratitude for the work of the committee on complex issues. “I also see the report as a beginning rather than a culmination. I think these are the times when the urge to get out the red pen and criticize is powerful, but I hope that’s not how our community reacts,” she said. “The report and the response aren’t exactly what I would have written, but that is beside the point. This isn’t the last word. We are a community, and we decide as a community how we will respond.

“Bad-faith actors do not deserve our energy. But Pitt is made up almost entirely of people who believe in the power of both speaking from the heart and of being kind to our neighbors. Typically, those beliefs are not in tension. For those of us who are trying our best to act in good faith, the current war in Gaza represents a time when that tension exists for many of us. A report and a response are not going to tell us how to defuse that tension. We can only hope to do that if we, in community, continue talking to and caring for one another. I look forward to the Senate, through our system of shared governance, being an important part of that process.”

Murtazashvili agreed that the report is the “beginning of a longer institutional process.”

“When I joined this committee, my goal was to contribute to outcomes that would improve life for everyone at Pitt, not only Jewish and Israeli members of our community,” she said. “The University should be truly open fora where anyone should feel safe to express any idea. Clear free-speech rules, visible time, place, and manner restrictions, strengthened reporting systems, and consistent enforcement protect both the right to protest and the right of others to teach, learn, and work without harassment, intimidation, or disruption.

What does the report say?

The working group’s report addresses Pitt’s capacity to respond to antisemitism; institutional policies; training and education; and incident response and enforcement mechanisms.

Some of its key recommendations, and the chancellor’s response, include:

• Launch a unified bias and misconduct portal for reporting incidents, including but not limited to antisemitism, with case-tracking capabilities.

• Increase the visibility of religious life accommodations for Jewish students through heightened messaging about the University’s religious accommodation policy.

University response: Gabel’s report said that efforts were already underway to “strengthen institutional coordination, clarity and responsiveness regarding Title VI matters.” Under the new structure, Title VI compliance functions will be within the Office of Compliance, Investigations & Ethics, which will be responsible for receiving reports, initiating investigations, tracking compliance and overseeing reporting under Title VI and other civil rights authorities. The Office of Institutional Engagement and Wellbeing will continue to handle outreach, support, engagement, training, accommodations and more.

• Address social media harassment of Pitt faculty, staff and students by clarifying that University policies regarding antisemitic harassment and discrimination also apply to actions that occur via social media and other forms of electronic communication.

University response: The University agrees that social media and online harassment are important concerns and that they can significantly affect campus climate and individual well-being. The University will continue to assess how existing policies and reporting mechanisms apply when online conduct affects members of the campus community or implicates University processes.

• Integrate antisemitism awareness and anti-harassment training into all mandatory anti-discrimination training for faculty, staff, TAs, resident assistants and students.

University response: The University will review its current training portfolio in partnership with the Office of Compliance, Investigations & Ethics and the Office of Institutional Engagement and Wellbeing to identify gaps and determine where additional or enhanced training is needed.

The goal is to ensure that students, faculty and staff have access to information and learning opportunities that support understanding of identity-based hate including antisemitism, institutional expectations, reporting processes and respectful community engagement.

• Expand offerings of workshops and programs that promote academic freedom, respect for diverse viewpoints, pluralism, intellectual humility, respectful disagreement and civil discourse for faculty and students.

University response: The University agrees that workshops, programming and opportunities for engagement are important parts of this work. The University has been expanding efforts in this area over the past two years through initiatives focused on civil discourse, dialogue and constructive engagement, including work through the Institute of Citizens & Scholars (C&S) and campus-wide Discourse and Dialogue programming.

These efforts are being advanced through ongoing work across campus, with a focus on supporting faculty, students and staff in navigating complex and often challenging topics through respectful dialogue and engagement across differences. These initiatives aim to strengthen the University’s capacity to foster inclusive, academically grounded conversations on issues that affect campus climate.

• Adopt language on the pedagogical expectations for all relevant faculty modeled after the University of Pittsburgh’s Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement that “Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom to discuss their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce controversial material that has no relation to the subject and should provide an atmosphere conducive to learning.”

University response: The University recognizes the importance of the report’s recommendations related to academic content, pedagogy and classroom climate. At the same time, the University affirms that pedagogy and curricular integration are appropriately matters for faculty review and shared governance.

Accordingly, the University will ask faculty to consider these recommendations through the appropriate shared-governance and academic channels. The University values the role of faculty expertise and perspective in determining how relevant issues are addressed in teaching, curriculum and classroom practice. This work should reflect both institutional concerns and the central role of faculty in shaping pedagogy. This process also will consider how to support faculty in navigating difficult classroom dynamics related to these issues.

• All relevant documents should include a clear statement that antisemitism has no place at the University of Pittsburgh.

• Assess relevant existing policies, re-examine the infrastructure for enforcing such policies and re-evaluate the training and education of faculty and staff regarding such policies to ensure that antisemitism will not be tolerated at the University of Pittsburgh and that antisemitism is addressed with at least the same high level of importance and priority afforded to other forms of discrimination.

University response: The University affirms the report’s call for continued attention to University policies and to ensuring that antisemitism and any other kind of harassment, intimidation and discrimination are addressed through clear and enforceable institutional standards. We value the important concerns raised in the report and the importance of ensuring that our policies are transparent and responsive.

At the same time, we also recognize that the free exchange of ideas is not easy, particularly when members of our community hold differing views on complex and deeply personal issues. Our path forward as a community is to further strengthen our commitment to dialogue and civil engagement. It is to promote initiatives that elevate respectful discourse, academic inquiry and engagement across differences. It is to further opportunities for students to engage with diverse perspectives, from academic coursework and dialogue-based programming to international exchange.

Susan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu or 724-244-4042.

Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.

Follow the University Times on Facebook.