Catholic University Demands ‘Both Sides’ on Antisemitism

By William S. Harris

Saturday, April 18, 2026

 

Apparently, the Catholic University of America thinks opposition to antisemitism is too one-sided. This semester, Students Supporting Israel sought school approval for two campus events, one featuring Congressman Randy Fine speaking about antisemitism on American campuses and the other featuring Dany Tirza, a retired Israeli colonel, speaking about the West Bank barrier that he helped build. University administrators said no to both. Their reason? The events did not include speakers representing “both sides.” The school justified its decision by pointing to a requirement in the school’s policies for a “balanced presentation” of views.

 

But a political student group exists to advance a viewpoint, not to perform ideological hostage exchange on command. Students Supporting Israel is not a university office. It’s not a debate commission. It’s not a faculty symposium where professors have chosen to curate a perfectly symmetrical discussion for public consumption. It’s a group of students with certain views who want to hear from aligned public figures. Isn’t that also part of education? They’re seeking mentorship and intellectual leadership in areas that matter to them, no differently from when they choose courses. Should we also force students to take a men’s studies seminar for every feminist workshop they attend?

 

At CUA, the rules of student life appear to change when the group in question is Students Supporting Israel. Even just a cursory glance at recent campus events shows that other student organizations have hosted partisan and ideological speakers, including Democratic officials and pro-life advocates, without being forced to stage a counter-program. CUA even approved an event with Dr. Martin Shaw, whose scholarship posits that Israel has committed genocide — without requiring the pro-Israel side to be presented. Clearly, CUA is not neutrally applying a principle but selectively burdening one group, on one issue, under one of the oldest bureaucratic disguises for censorship in higher education: false balance.

 

Other school policies say the institution values and defends the right to free speech, especially the freedom of its community members to express themselves on university property. The university professes a commitment to the free and open discussion of ideas and opinions on its campus, making big promises about freedom but with an asterisk next to the word — *pending administrative approval. This doesn’t square with CUA’s accreditation requirement to demonstrate “a commitment to academic freedom, intellectual freedom, and freedom of expression.” As the Middle States Commission on Higher Education assesses CUA for re-accreditation (currently underway), CUA’s inconsistency on free speech should be penalized.

 

Universities often claim they want more dialogue — and that’s fine. Civil discourse is a good thing. But Students Supporting Israel is not a debate society or a BridgeUSA chapter. It’s an advocacy group dedicated to a single cause, and that cause is being undermined when “more dialogue” becomes “you may not speak unless you also make your opponents’ arguments for them.”

 

The university’s “balanced presentation” policy applies only in limited circumstances in which a speaker promotes views contrary to official Catholic Church teaching. But CUA did not explain how a talk on rising antisemitism, or a presentation by the designer of a barrier, fit that category. That raises an open question: Does CUA believe advocacy against antisemitism is contrary to the teachings of the church?

 

After the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote to CUA over its abandonment of its free speech promises, administrators doubled down on their position that Students Supporting Israel needed to present both sides. Not only that, but CUA went behind its own students’ backs, communicating directly with the national Students Supporting Israel organization rather than CUA’s student chapter — all to try to reschedule a “balanced presentation.”

 

At a time when antisemitic incidents are at their highest levels in almost 50 years, CUA should reverse course, approve the events as submitted, and make clear that student organizations may invite speakers of their choosing without being compelled to furnish ideological opposites on demand. A campus committed to free expression does not force students to engage in ersatz balance. It lets them speak.