On Wednesday, Feb. 25, from 10 to 11:30 a.m., students, faculty, and community members gathered in 110 O’Dowd Hall for Civil Discourse and Antisemitism: Addressing the Oldest Hatred in 2026, an event led by Rabbi Jeremy Yoslonitz.
The meeting invited participants into a conversation about polarization on campus and beyond. It challenged attendees to rethink what civil discourse really means, and why it has become urgent not only for democracy, but for patient safety, campus culture and the fight against antisemitism.
Rabbi Yoslonitz began with a simple but demanding definition.
Civil discourse, he explained, is “mutually respectful conversation on topics of shared interest where there may be disagreement” and “communication for the purpose of objectively enhancing the understanding of matters of shared or public concern.”
He emphasized that this goes beyond politeness or surface harmony.
“Debate is something very, very different,” he said. “Debate is about winning. Civil discourse is about understanding.”
In a university setting shaped by hierarchy — faculty, graduate students, undergraduates and administrators — power dynamics inevitably shape conversations. Rabbi Yoslonitz encouraged participants to be mindful of those dynamics while resisting the instinct to prejudge motives.
Participants were urged to check their assumptions and approach each exchange in good faith, even when prior experiences make that difficult.
“Each time, we check ourselves and go in fresh with the intention of fully recognizing not just the good intentions of that individual, but keeping that as a given throughout the conversation, even if things get spicy,” he said.
Drawing from his experience in academic medicine, Rabbi Yoslonitz warned that polarization has tangible consequences beyond hurt feelings or political frustration.
“Polarization has become a patient safety issue,” he said.
Toxic professional relationships and eroded trust can compromise communication in hospitals and teaching environments, directly affecting patient care. When communication breaks down between colleagues, critical information can be lost. If a patient refuses care based on identity, or a provider feels unsafe treating a patient, the breakdown is no longer theoretical; it is dangerous.
Civility, he argued, is not simply about being nice; it is about protecting human well-being.
He described a “global erosion of trust,” where identity-based assumptions, insults and threats replace dialogue.
In a country as diverse as the United States, he noted, each person holds multiple identities, religious, racial, political, professional and more. Reducing someone to a single label fractures relationships and undermines institutions that depend on collaboration.
“Effective institutional leadership and cultural survival are at stake,” he said.
The event then turned to antisemitism, which Rabbi Yoslonitz traced from ancient theological anti-Judaism to modern racialized antisemitism, including its industrialized horror during the Holocaust.
He emphasized that antisemitism adapts to its environment, taking on new language and political frameworks while recycling old tropes.
Today, he argued, antisemitism appears across the political spectrum, from right-wing conspiracy theories about “globalists” and demographic “replacement,” to left-wing frameworks that erase Jewish history by categorizing Jews solely as privileged or white. Both, he said, flatten Jewish identity and distort reality.
On college campuses, the issue has intensified. He noted that many Jewish students report experiencing antisemitism, and families increasingly factor campus climate into college decisions.
Rabbi Yoslonitz referenced the widely adopted working definition from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, including the “3D test”: demonization, double standards and delegitimization.
Universities, he said, must move beyond general statements and adopt clear standards, enforce civil rights protections and reform diversity, equity and inclusion efforts to meaningfully include Jewish identity.
“Neutrality is complicity,” Rabbi Yoslonitz said. “We have to explicitly name antisemitism when it occurs.”
The path forward, he concluded, lies not in silencing disagreement but in strengthening civil discourse, choosing dialogue over debate, accountability over avoidance and courage over comfort.
