The American Studies Association (ASA) recently held its annual conference at Chicago’s Palmer House Hotel. The ASA’s misson and history statement claims a commitment “to the study and teaching of U.S. history and culture from multiple perspectives.” But the conference program reflected only one perspective about Israel.

The sessions included 23 that reference Palestine with titles such as “Dezionizing the U.S. University,” “Zionism Is Racism: Introducing the Critical Zionism Studies Syllabus,” “Against Zionist and White Nationalist Attacks on the Academy,” and “Resisting Zionism: Anticolonial Feminist Pedagogy and Practice.” These sessions raise important questions. How does this academic association reconcile its commitment to “multiple perspectives” with programming that presented only one political perspective on a complex topic of importance to most American Jews? And for scholars with significant ties to Israel, what was it like to be at a professional conference that only portrayed such ties as corrupt?

According to Pew Research Center reporting in 2020, for about 80% of American Jews, “caring about Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them.” Where was that perspective at the ASA conference?

This blatant bias in the substance of American studies scholarship was set in motion over a decade ago. In 2013, the ASA was one of the first major American scholarly associations to endorse an academic boycott of Israel. Supporters claimed solidarity with Palestinians and insisted that the target was institutions, not individuals. And indeed, at the annual meeting immediately following the vote, my proposal for a session challenging the boycott was accepted. The session was well attended by members on both sides of the issue.

This year’s program renewed and amplified those concerns. The implications of the boycott vote now extend far beyond academic relationships between institutions. Sessions on reshaping universities and introducing anti-Zionist syllabi reveal ambitions to carry the boycott into curricula and campus life in ways that have a direct impact on individuals. How will American studies students learn the whole story of Israel, which includes its importance to American Jews? What we are seeing is a blatant effort to keep knowledge about Israel, a bona fide country, away from people.

Criticism of Israel’s leadership, policies and politicians is certainly legitimate. In fact, many Israelis are deeply critical of their government. But Zionism, broadly understood as the reconstitution of a thriving Jewish society in the Jews’ ancestral homeland, is integral to the identities of most Jews around the world. Blanket condemnation ignores Israel’s established legitimacy on the world stage: its admission to the United Nations in 1949 and recognition, at present, by 164 of the world’s 195 countries. Programming that repeatedly presents Zionism — which usually means “Israel” — as something universities must work to eradicate leaves little room for inquiry that challenges those premises. It also leaves little room for reality. In many ways, the ideology of Zionism itself has run its course. There is a country now.

An academic climate that fosters inquiry and inclusion is still possible. At that conference after the boycott, I spoke with a graduate school acquaintance who had voted for it. We had a serious, honest conversation over lunch and parted on friendly terms, agreeing to disagree. Two years ago, I gave a talk about antisemitism at the university where that colleague now holds a leadership position. To my surprise, they introduced me by recalling our conversation and explaining that, after years of reflection, they had concluded that their vote had been wrong.

The Academic Engagement Network and the Anti-Defamation League recently called on ASA leadership to affirm that Jewish and Zionist scholars belong in the organization. ASA leadership should create meaningful opportunities for “multiple perspectives” about Israel to be taken seriously, and ensure a welcoming professional climate for all American studies scholars.

If the ASA favors conformity rather than diverse independent thinking, it fails by any standard of academic reliability. In fact, it is no longer a scholarly organization at all.

____

Nancy Koppelman is a professor at The Evergreen State College, adviser to the Academic Engagement Network and a Jewish studies educator.

___

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.