Strategies for Research Institutions, Think Tanks, and Scholars: Understanding, Responding to, and Preventing Antisemitism

AJC's Combating Antisemitism Playbook
Photo of a university in spring

Table of Contents

Antisemitism is one of the world’s oldest and most adaptive forms of hatred, yet it remains insufficiently integrated into many contemporary research and policy frameworks. Antisemitism intersects with national security, civil rights, religious freedom, digital ecosystems, geopolitical instability, and democratic resilience—but is often treated as peripheral in analyses of those very issues.

When antisemitism is siloed or overlooked, policy insight is incomplete. When it is integrated thoughtfully, scholarship becomes sharper, more credible, and more comprehensive.

In recent years, the politicization of antisemitism and its frequent association with debates about Israel have made objective analysis more difficult. Jewish organizations and community institutions—often closest to the problem—are sometimes perceived as biased, even when presenting well-documented evidence. This makes the role of independent research institutions, think tanks, and scholars essential. 

When they maintain high standards of methodological rigor, transparency, and independence, think tanks and research institutions can produce trusted analysis that empowers governments to act wisely, enables communities to prepare effectively, and distinguishes fact from rhetoric in polarized environments. 

Back to Table of Contents

AJC’s Priority Recommendations for Research Institutions, Think Tanks, and Scholars:

  1. Study what works and share the findings: Move beyond documenting incidents to evaluating prevention strategies, interventions, and policies. Identify which approaches reduce harm, publish results widely, and speak out clearly when research reveals emerging risks or effective solutions.
  2. Integrate antisemitism across disciplines and policy research: Treat antisemitism as a cross-cutting issue in research on extremism, democratic stability, digital ecosystems, national security, and social cohesion. Interdisciplinary collaboration strengthens analysis, improves policy relevance, and prevents blind spots.
  3. Invest in scholars, networks, and collaborative research hubs: Build the field by supporting scholars, strengthening academic networks, and establishing research hubs that connect universities, think tanks, and policymakers. Sustained collaboration ensures research drives decision-making.

 

Back to Table of Contents

Understanding Antisemitism

Understanding focuses on building accurate knowledge: identifying how antisemitism functions, where it comes from, how it evolves, and how it intersects with broader societal trends.

  • Define contemporary antisemitism clearly and credibly: 
    • Incorporate lived experience, centering on how Jews define and experience antisemitism, reflecting real-world harms and acknowledging victim perspectives.
    • Examine contemporary manifestations: Produce accessible scholarship explaining both historical and modern forms of antisemitism which often manifest indirectly, with traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes projected onto Israel or expressed through proxy language such as “Zionist.” 
    • Recognize cross-ideological sources of antisemitism, including the far right, far left, religious extremism, conspiratorial movements, and populist politics. Highlight how antisemitic narratives evolve and adapt across political and cultural contexts.

 

Best Practice: Landmark research from the Segerstedt Institute in Sweden 

We must update our measurement tools to better capture actual perceptions. The Segerstedt Institute at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, found that respondents were more likely to endorse statements commonly understood as antisemitic when the term ‘Zionists’ was used in place of ‘Jews.’ This pattern suggests that such substitutions may increase the social acceptability of expressing these views, a phenomenon some scholars describe as the ‘Israelization of antisemitism,’ and indicates that conventional survey measures may underestimate its prevalence.

This underscores the need for rigorous, objective research that can identify when anti-Israel discourse contains antisemitic elements.

 

  • Study antisemitism within broader societal and geopolitical contexts: Examine how antisemitism interacts with political polarization, foreign influence, conflict narratives, and democratic stability to help explain why antisemitism rises and spreads during crises. 
    • Expand interdisciplinary collaboration: Promote collaboration across institutions and disciplines to reduce fragmentation by strengthening shared knowledge from social science, psychology, history, political science, and digital media studies. 
  • Prioritize research that informs prevention and policy:
    • Study what works—not only what exists: Expand beyond measuring attitudes and incident counts to evaluate the effectiveness of policies, interventions, and prevention strategies. 
    • Examine the real-world consequences of digital antisemitism: Study how online antisemitism influences offline behavior, including harassment, radicalization, and violence.
    • Analyze the financial and organizational drivers of antisemitism: Examine how funding, networks, and institutional incentives sustain antisemitic movements and narratives.
  • Strengthen analytical rigor and research standards:
    • Apply consistent definitions and methodological standards: Distinguish carefully between legitimate policy criticism and rhetoric rooted in delegitimization, collective blame, or conspiratorial tropes.
    • Incorporate subject-matter expertise into peer review and research design.
    • Maintain intellectual independence: Balanced understanding of antisemitism strengthens credibility across political divides while respecting both free expression and anti-discrimination principles.
    • Promote transparency and reproducibility: Where appropriate, publish methodologies, datasets, and evaluation criteria to strengthen credibility and support independent review.

Best Practice in Collaboration to Prevent Extremism: The PERIL Lab at American University

American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research & Innovation Lab (PERIL) is an applied research lab that takes a multidisciplinary and preventative approach to addressing hate and radicalization to violent extremism by strengthening community resilience against misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, conspiracy theories, and extremist content both online and offline. 

PERIL, composed of a diverse team with different disciplinary backgrounds and subject matter expertise, partners with educators, local government and community groups, and other civil society actors to design, test, and scale up evidence-based tools and intervention strategies to prevent extremist radicalization. Examples of partner organizations include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Department of Homeland Security, Everytown for Gun Safety, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and the City of Seattle.

Back to Table of Contents

Responding to Antisemitism

Responding focuses on how research institutions communicate findings, inform public discourse, guide decision-makers, and provide timely analysis during moments of heightened risk or public debate.

  • Advance clarity around antisemitism: Provide analysis that helps policymakers and the public distinguish between legitimate discourse and harmful rhetoric.
    • Offer nuanced analysis that avoids oversimplification or partisan framing.
    • Clarify distinctions that are often blurred in public discourse, including the boundaries between criticism, discrimination, and incitement.
    • Ensure research can be readily understood; it has the greatest impact when it is accessible beyond the academy.
  • Coordinate research efforts across institutions to align methodologies, share data, and reduce duplication.
    • Establish shared standards for data collection and analysis.
    • Share findings across institutions to strengthen consistency and comparability.
    • Coordinate publications and briefings to increase policy impact and public trust.
  • Model analytical integrity and intellectual independence: 
    • Apply the same, consistent analytical standards regardless of ideology.
    • Strive for transparency when distinguishing analysis from advocacy.
    • Ground public commentary in research, historical context, and empirical data.
  • Respond to the scale and speed of digital antisemitism: 
    • Produce timely analysis of emerging online narratives and trends.
    • Translate complex research into clear, accessible guidance for policymakers, media, and the public.
    • Partner with technology companies, journalists, and civil society to share findings and improve response strategies.
    • Examine how online discourse influences offline behavior, public safety, and community trust.

 

Best Practice: Advancing Digital Hate Studies – The Work of AddressHate

Studying antisemitism within broader digital ecosystems provides actionable insights for prevention. AddressHate researches how harmful narratives on social media, gaming, and AI systems originate, spread, and influence behavior. Their work integrates data science, social science, and policy analysis to identify patterns of online hate and inform real-world responses.

Key Takeaways:

  • Digital Hate Studies is a critical, emerging field.
  • Integrating antisemitism into digital literacy and social media research facilitates understanding of how online ecosystems shape attitudes and behavior.
  • Connecting research to prevention ensures findings inform policy, platform governance, and public education.
Back to Table of Contents

Preventing Antisemitism

Preventing focuses on building long-term scholarly infrastructure, strengthening research ecosystems, and generating evidence that helps reduce antisemitism over time.

  • Promote academic accountability and self-reflection: Research institutions should regularly evaluate how their scholarship, teaching, and public engagement shape public understanding of antisemitism. Transparent reflection strengthens academic credibility, improves research quality, and builds public trust.
  • Establish antisemitism studies as a recognized field of research: Universities and research institutions should invest in dedicated academic programs, research centers, and interdisciplinary networks focused on antisemitism. Building a sustained field of study strengthens expertise, improves policy relevance, and ensures long-term knowledge development.
  • Integrate antisemitism across disciplines and policy research: Antisemitism should be examined as a cross-cutting factor in research, rather than a specialized or isolated topic. It should be considered wherever relevant, including:
    • National security, extremism, and political violence
    • Civil rights, religious liberty, minority protections, and identity-based violence
    • Digital governance, online harms, and privacy
    • Democratic resilience and governance
    • Foreign policy and geopolitics
  • Establish collaborative research hubs and networks: Governments, universities, and philanthropic institutions should support interdisciplinary research hubs and international networks that connect scholars, policymakers, and practitioners working on antisemitism and Jewish life. These hubs can coordinate research priorities, share data, and translate findings into practical prevention strategies. 
  • Invest in scholarship and evidence-based prevention research: 
    • Support and fund empirical research on contemporary antisemitism.
    • Develop measurable frameworks for evaluating which prevention strategies reduce harm and improve resilience.
    • Translate research findings into practical guidance for policymakers and communities.

 

Best Practice: Research Hubs and International Scholar Networks

Interdisciplinary research hubs strengthen both scholarship and policy relevance by connecting scholars, policymakers, and practitioners working on antisemitism across countries and disciplines. The London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, Gratz College, and the Comper Center at the University of Haifa have built a growing international network through major conferences held in London (2022, 2025), Haifa (2026), and Philadelphia (2027). Together, these institutions are establishing the Contemporary Antisemitism Studies Association (CASA) to institutionalize global collaboration in the field. Planned initiatives include an open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal based at Gratz College and a major research hub at the University of Haifa supporting international fellowships and collaborative scholarship. CASA reflects the increasingly global and interdisciplinary nature of contemporary antisemitism studies, bringing together Jewish and non-Jewish scholars and ensuring Israeli researchers remain fully integrated into international academic and policy conversations.

 

Back to Table of Contents

Key Resources

Educational Resources

Practical Resources

 

Back to Table of Contents

 

 

Return to the Playbook

 

Back to Table of Contents

More AJC Resources on this Issue

Free Palestine Sign
6 “Pro-Palestinian” Protest Chants You’ve Heard—And How They’re Being Used to Target Jews
AJC- American Jewish Committee
Jewish Students' Bill of Rights to Help Parents, Schools Combat K-12 Antisemitism
Campaign poster for Alice Weidel of AfD
What Is Germany’s AfD, and What Does Its Rise Mean for Jews?
Jewish American Security
What Is the Jewish American Security Act and What Would It Do?
Alice Weidel, federal chairwoman and candidate for chancellor of the AfD
“Friendly Faces” of Antisemitism? Political Antisemitism in the Alternative for Germany Party
AJC - American Jewish Committee
Anti-Jewish Hate Crimes Decline, But Remain the Most Reported Religion-Based Crimes
AJC - American Jewish Committee
AJC Statement on the Appointment of California's First Office of Civil Rights Director
AJC- American Jewish Committee
AJC Welcomes Federal Court Dismissal of Challenge to California Anti-Discrimination Law