A panel discussion at Wichita State over how the Nazi regime impacted the humanities fields turned into an argument about anti-Zionism and antisemitism. The history, anthropology and philosophy departments hosted the faculty-led panel on Oct. 25 to discuss the betrayal of humanities under the Nazi regime. 

The discussion started with the idea that the historical experience of universities under the Nazi regime still resonates with modern culture today. 

Jeff Hayton, associate professor of modern European history, discussed how the Nazis overtook every part of German societies through the process of Gleichschaltung, or synchronization. 

“German institutions, organizations and individuals were to be controlled, permeated and influenced by the Nazis and their ideas,” Hayton said. “The Third Reich was popular … Germans enthusiastically set about fashioning the Nazi regime.” 

In the mid-1940s, several students and professors in Germany subscribed to the Nazi belief system and put pressure on universities to conform. Hundreds of Jewish, communist, and socialist professors were chased from their profession, with little to no outcry from others. 

“About 15% of professors were immediately forced out, about 1,100 or so,” Hayton said. “Those who stayed either stayed silent or enthusiastically supported the Nazi regime.” 

The new structure of universities taught the racial sciences of the Third Reich, ignoring theories or subjects that were considered “Jewish.” 

Associate professor Rannfrid Thelle brought up that many of the Nazi race theories and hypotheses brought up in 19th-century humanities scholarship are still impacting current scholarship. Several books featured Jewish stereotypes perpetrated by Aryan nationalists, and some are still cited today. 

Jeffrey Hershfield, associate professor of philosophy and the final speaker, discussed how antisemitism is alive on American college campuses under the guise of anti-Zionism. 

“In today’s current academic climate, antisemitism masquerades as anti-Zionism or opposition to Israel,” Hershfield said. “When one out of five Jewish students is compelled to disguise his or her Jewish identity for self-protection, then I submit that we have a problem with antisemitism in American universities.” 

In his presentation, Hershfield discussed three cases that he said fit the definition of antisemitism as provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The organization defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” and those beliefs are “directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

According to Jewish Voice for Peace, which calls itself “the largest progressive Jewish anti-Zionist organization,” anti-Zionism is the “criticism of the current policies of the Israeli state, and/or moral, ethical, or religious criticism of the idea of a Jewish nation-state.” It emphasizes not conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism.

Hershfield’s first case of antisemitism in his presentation was when Hamas, a Palestinian militant group, launched an attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7. 1,400 Israeli people were killed, many of them civilians. Hershfield calls himself a “firm and steadfast supporter of the state of Israel.”

When Israel was created in 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinians were displaced, and 78% of the region’s land was captured. After Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7, the Israeli government began bombing the Gaza Strip. The death toll in Gaza has reached over 8,000 Palestinians as of Oct. 29. 

The next case Hershfield discussed was the American Anthropological Association (AAA) voting to endorse a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions in July, making Israel the first and only country to be boycotted by the AAA. 

According to the AAA, the boycott is due to the Israeli government violating Palestinians’ rights, and it only refers to the Israeli institutions and not the scholars or students affiliated with them. Because the boycott is a response to the Israeli government’s policies and not to Jewish individuals, this does not fit the IRHA’s definition of antisemitism; it does fit with anti-Zionism.

Hershfield said the third case of antisemitism occurred at Stanford University after the events of Oct. 7, when an instructor had all Jewish students raise their hand, took the belongings of one student, had them stand apart from the class, and said that that was what the Israelis did to Palestinians. 

Following Hershfield’s presentation, the panel of faculty opened the floor for audience Q&A, and much of it was dominated by arguments of the definitions of anti-Zionists and antisemites. Many guests expressed concern with the attempts to conflate the ideas of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. 

“I’m very strongly opposed to the notion of discriminating against people because they’re Jewish,” an audience member said. “And I’m concerned that some in the academic community and Jewish community want to conflate those and prevent any discussion of Zionism or colonialism as something that has merit to discuss …. and I’m concerned you’ve done that just now.” 

Despite moderator and history professor Keith Pickus’ attempts to keep the Q&A on track with actual questions, arguments continued to break out. Hershfield insisted on responding to each commenter, defending his position. 

In a separate interview with The Sunflower, Pickus said that the history department doesn’t plan what any speakers will say during their events.

“We tried to provide an opportunity for people to speak,” Pickus said. “One of the things when you try to organize any talk, at least the way we approach it in the history department on campus, is we don’t dictate what people are going to say.” 

Peer Moore-Jansen, an audience member and anthropology department chair, commented on the arguments and the idea of antisemitism versus anti-Zionism.

“Are we back to the question of us versus them?” Moore-Jansen asked. “And it seems to be a question of humanity and how we deal with that question.”