Create a designated Title VI office and appoint a Title VI Coordinator (independent from but with similar authority as the coordinator in your Title IX office, or its equivalent) with experience in identifying and addressing incidents involving antisemitism, including its anti-Zionist forms. The Title VI Coordinator should report directly to the university administration, not to faculty. The coordinator should be tasked with: addressing complaints of discrimination and harassment involving race, color, and national origin, including shared ancestry, and overseeing training and disciplinary processes, ensuring that civil rights protections are enforced. All staff within the Title VI Office must also be trained to recognize antisemitism and should be guided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s Working Definition of Antisemitism, along with its illustrative examples of its contemporary manifestations.

Issue a formal statement from your institution recognizing that for many Jewish people, Zionism is an integral part of their Jewish identity, and that using code words like “Zionists” for “Jews” will not immunize students or faculty from your university’s antidiscrimination and anti-harassment policies.

Additionally, formally adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s Working Definition of Antisemitism, including all of its examples, for use in codes of conduct, bias and reporting systems, and in disciplinary procedures. We note that this definition is already used by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in its investigation into complaints of antisemitic discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As such, it is logical for institutions receiving federal funding, and thus subject to Title VI, to utilize this definition in a similar fashion.

Issue a public statement disavowing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and similar efforts now and in the future that foster exclusionary or hostile climates for Jews and Israelis.

Universities nationwide, including Amherst, Williams, Occidental, Brown, the University of California system, Barnard, and others - have rejected divestment campaigns, affirming that endowments should not be used as a political tool. Yet, such efforts must also be condemned on a moral grounds.

According to The New York Times and other reports, the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, which is listed as part of the BDS National Committee, includes U.S. designated terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP. The Harvard Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias has further linked BDS activism, particularly its promotion of anti-normalization, to rising hostility against Jewish and Israeli students. For these reasons, universities must reject divestment not only as a matter of financial stewardship but as a moral imperative. Endorsing or entertaining BDS legitimizes extremism and fuels antisemitism.

Guarantee that complaints of antisemitism are handled with transparency and appropriate urgency by clarifying and publicizing procedures for complaints involving antisemitic harassment and discrimination. Responses to such complaints should address the substance of the antisemitic incident, rather than defaulting to mental health referrals or generalized Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) messaging. Public processes and procedures should be publicly shared and adhered to, including timeframes for issuing decisions and taking administrative action. These processes must be reinforced through mandatory training for students, staff, and faculty–both identifying this type of discrimination and clarifying how students can file complaints and associated procedures.