University of Pittsburgh’s Working Group on Antisemitism issues final report

The University of Pittsburgh’s Working Group on Antisemitism has released its long-awaited final report.

Formed in 2025 in response to a rash of antisemitic activity on and around the university following Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 — including antisemitic graffiti, activity on a digital chat, damage to university property, anti-Zionist encampments and the physical assault of three Jewish students — the working group was charged with “making actionable recommendations to prevent and respond to antisemitism.”

Kathleen Blee, chair of the Working Group on Antisemitism, said that Chancellor Joan Gabel wanted the group to “think through the problem” and come up with a set of actionable recommendations.

Get The Jewish Chronicle Weekly Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

“Recommendations that fit Pitt, that aren’t just off the shelf, weren’t just copying what was going on in other places and would really work in the Pitt environment,” she said.

Blee said that the group was given no timetable for their work and felt no pressure from the university.

The report issued on July 20 contained recommendations in five broad areas:

• Institutional capacity to respond to antisemitism
• Institutional policies
• Training, education and contextual understanding
• Incident response and enforcement mechanisms
• External events and off-campus influences

The report recommended a unified bias and misconduct portal for reporting incidents, not limited to antisemitism, with case tracking capabilities which can be used to issue annual summaries of antisemitic incidents, and hiring staff, where possible, with an expertise in dealing with antisemitism for handling reports and staff training.

Blee said that the university already has the Concerns Connection system to report incidents but that over time, it may have become a bit clunky, so the recommendations made highlighted “what needs to be tightened.”

An important part of that, she said, was better feedback and “closing the loop” with the person who filed the complaint.

It also recommended addressing social media harassment, ensuring the university community understands that university policy regarding antisemitic harassment and discrimination applies to social media and other forms of electronic communications.

As part of the institutional capacity to respond to antisemitism, the group recommended regularly surveying antisemitism in the campus environment and formalizing the university’s consultation with external local Jewish leaders by creating an advisory council that included Hillel Jewish University Center of Pittsburgh, Chabad House on Campus, the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh and other groups.

University leadership, the report said, should continue to make clear that antisemitism has no place on the campus. It recommended reviewing training and education of faculty and staff to ensure this is addressed.

Included in the institutional policies section of the report is the recommendation that the university continue to develop its free-speech website, including the explanation of “time place and manner” polices that govern online and offline demonstrations and forums, as well as distinguish protected and unprotected conduct.

A recommendation that an independent Title VI unit be created was written without knowledge that the university was already creating more robust compliance by moving part of that responsibility to its compliance officer.

“That person deals with all kinds of compliance issues — rule-breaking, anything like that at the university,” Blee said, “so they’re going to handle that part.”

It also said that the university should “continue to create new and support existing partnerships and exchanges with Israeli” faculty and staff.

Antisemitism awareness and anti-harassment training should be provided to all faculty, staff, teacher assistants, resident assistants and students as part of their anti-discrimination training. The report also supports the expansion of course offering on topics such as antisemitism, Israel, Zionism and Jewish political thought.

Recommendations are included for university faculty, including adopting language to Pitt’s collective bargaining agreement that “Faculty members are entitled to speak and write as private citizens free from institutional censorship or discipline but as scholars and educators they should at all times be accurate, exercise appropriate restraint and show respect for the opinions of others.”

The safety and security of the university’s Jewish faculty, staff and students is addressed through the continual review of the university’s response to antisemitic incidents as well as areas on campus where Jewish students and faculty cluster, such as “Hillel, Chabad, and the offices, classrooms and events associated with the Jewish studies program.”

Continued coordination is recommended between the university’s public safety team and the security staff at the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh.

Regular outreach between Jewish organizations, programs and institutions, as well as communication with parents of Jewish students is stressed, as is “regular, proactive communication with students, parents and community members, during non-crisis times to lay the groundwork for helpful and effective communication during antisemitic crises.”

The university issued a response to the working group’s report and recommendations, which acknowledged that members “of our Jewish community have experienced harm.”

“We are committed to our Jewish community and to building a better tomorrow for our entire community,” the response said.

The university’s response said it agreed with the report’s emphasis on “strong institutional capacity to address discrimination, harassment and related concerns.”

To that end, it noted that it had already begun implementing updates to its organizational structure related to “compliance, investigations and wellbeing” intended to “strengthen institutional coordination, clarity and responsiveness regarding Title VI matter,” noting that those functions will now be administered by the Office of Compliance, Investigations and Ethics.

The university, the response said, will refresh its free-speech website by the end of 2026, continue reviewing its policies to ensure “antisemitism and other forms of harassment, intimidation and discrimination are addressed,” strengthen its “commitment to dialogue and civil engagement,” and ensure it adheres to applicable state law and “prohibit institutional participation in boycott, divestment or sanctions activity.”

It pledged to review its training portfolio to “determine where additional or enhanced training is needed” and to engage members of the university community in considering next steps.

The response said it will ask faculty to consider the report’s recommendations through “appropriate shared-governance and academic channels,” noting that it valued the role of the faculty in determining how “relevant issues are addressed in teaching, curriculum and classroom practice.”

It goes on to say it appreciates the recommendation for an external advisory council, will continue to gauge campus climate through its Student Experience and Research University survey, and review its processes and identify appropriate mechanisms to share “periodic summaries of reported incidents and institutional response to strengthen transparency and campus understanding of these processes.”

One recommendation not made by the report is the adoption of a single definition of antisemitism.

The university’s response said the group wasn’t charged with creating a single definition and would not adopt one, believing no “single definition fully captures and relates to the range of lived experiences, concerns and perspectives within and regarding the Jewish community.”

In an email to the Chronicle, the university wrote that it appreciates the “time, effort and care contributed by the Working Group and for the meaningful contributions of those whose lived experiences informed this work.”

“Our immediate priority,” it said, “is to implement the report’s recommendations, while also listening to our community’s feedback on an ongoing basis. The Working Group crafted its report to be both sustainable and adaptable, with continual review and input built into the process moving forward. The University is committed to ensuring implementation of the report is transparent, coordinated, and reflective of the Working Group’s recommendations.”

Blee said that committee took their job seriously.

“We had a lot of opinions about things,” she said. “People really wanted to come up with things that will work and that would really matter. I think we did a good job. We’re collectively proud of it.” PJC

David Rullo can be reached at drullo@pittsburghjewishchronicle.org.