Inside the Movement to Legitimize Hate Speech in Psychology

There is a lot of antisemitic rhetoric in psychology. The people spouting it are pushing a rules change to officially permit it

Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

The process to go from a policy idea to its implementation in the American Psychological Association (APA) is complex, and so for this entry, I’ll try to skip past the rules and get to the main point. But before I go on, it must be made clear that this post is not about a problem with the APA, but a problem within the APA. And for that, a tiny bit of explanation of the general structure is needed.

There is the overall APA organization. Under the organization's umbrella are numerous divisions representing different areas of specialization or interest. Most of these divisions focus on the stated areas implied in their titles. So, for example, the health psychology division remains primarily focused on that topic.

However, there are several divisions and members that are monomaniacally focused on relitigating the existence of Israel. The language is often couched in terms related to the decolonial movement in psychology. I discussed this at length in relation to the activism present at the APA convention in Denver last month.

Here’s where I skip a lot of internal APA bureaucracy and get right to the point. A change to how APA defined antisemitism was proposed. The proposal was put forward by leaders of Division 35 (Society for the Psychology of Women) and Division 39 (Society for Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Psychology). This change prompted an ad hoc group of fourteen of us, all psychologists involved in research and activism regarding antisemitism in psychology (and beyond), to respond with a detailed letter describing all the ways that the proposed change was itself outright antisemitic, as well as subverting a process APA itself just put in motion to address antisemitism. As our criticisms are so detailed and includes enough information that a reader could readily understand the offending proposal without reading it directly, I am posting our full letter in this entry. Also, it is essential to keep in mind that the proposal has not been voted on or adopted by APA; it has only been presented to the body that will ultimately vote on it. Our alarm was that it was proposed at all, considering the serious discriminatory content of the proposal. When you read our letter, you will understand why we were so alarmed.

The underlying point to keep in mind while reading this is that, beyond the named individuals who put the proposal forward, there are many in the profession who have been complaining about being ‘silenced’ when they’ve faced pushback from Jewish colleagues regarding their extremely harmful rhetoric. I’ve written previously about the weaponization of mental health concepts against us as just one example of the kind of harm these colleagues have perpetrated. There are numerous others, and I’ve discussed some here, here, and here. In truth, free speech is not being curtailed. What the promoters of proposals like the one being decried here get wrong is that free speech is not speech without consequence. If they wish to engage in antisemitic rhetoric, they can, but they may also face well-earned criticism for being discriminatory and for being out of step with professional ethics.

There is one more important point. The two divisions named here that sponsored this proposal did so from their respective elected boards. Elections to board positions in professional organizations are often low-voter-turnout affairs. To illustrate, when I was elected President of another psychology organization, approximately 30% of the membership voted. This is a fairly typical turnout. In some recent board member elections for major psychological organizations, candidates have run unopposed. With this kind of low engagement with candidate positions and board activity, many members may not even know what their elected leaders are endorsing, and if they knew, they may find it appalling. If you are reading this and are a member of either Divisions 35 or 39, consider contacting their elected leadership to demand change.

Below is the full letter we sent to the key members of the organization and those responsible for developing the proposal. Again, this letter was carefully crafted by thirteen other truly amazing colleagues (ten of us signed, with the other 4 not officially signing on for reasons related to not being members of APA any longer, or due to restrictions from their professional institutions). Many of us gathered together for the first time, but this will represent only the start of our collective professional advocacy work.

---

Re: Aug 20 Legislative Council New Business Item titled "Updating 2007 Resolution on Anti-Semitic and Anti-Jewish Prejudice"

Summary: We are alarmed and dismayed at the New Business Item (NBI) that details recommendations for updating the 2007 Resolution on Antisemitism, and we urge the Council to reject the NBI as written. After careful reading, it is clear that this NBI would have the damaging effect of allowing and even promoting what would be considered hate speech against the Jewish Community. Rather than address the challenges of antisemitism, the phrasing and political emphasis expressly marginalize the largest proportion of the global Jewish community, for whom Zionism (a movement which advocates for “Jewish self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel” [Anti Defamation League, 2016]) represents a central component of their identity. We recognize that it has not been adopted, but the mere fact that it was proposed with the blessing of the representative divisions is an alarming development that deserves a fulsome and detailed response.

The resolution lacks the necessary introspection required for serious professional reform; cites old and outdated data on the incidence and prevalence of antisemitism; attempts to delegitimize the Jewish people's right to self-determination in part of their ancestral indigenous homeland; ignores efforts to integrate Jews into EDI initiatives that impact them; includes criticisms of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition that are not factual; removes accountability for anti-Jew hatred from any other groups aside from far right extremists; excludes anti-Zionism from the definition of antisemitism; and if the resolution stands, undermines the as-yet-unformed membership of the Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists (CJP). This resolution, if passed, would greatly worsen the problems the profession and organization face regarding antisemitism and is itself a document espousing antisemitic viewpoints.

Antisemitism is not a mere policy disagreement; clinically, it functions as chronic traumatic stress layered on top of intergenerational trauma. As documented in recent peer-reviewed work on traumatic invalidation (Bar-Halpern and Wolfman, 2025) of Jewish experiences, dismissing, minimizing, or politicizing Jewish harm reliably predicts hypervigilance, sleep disturbance, intrusive memories, anxiety/depression, and shame – over and above exposure to distressing news itself. In organizational contexts, these dynamics map onto institutional betrayal, where signals from leadership communicate that Jewish safety is contingent or negotiable. Language that narrows antisemitism or reframes Jewish self-definition as “political” predictably amplifies these risks.

Recent research by Silverstein and Block (2025) underscores that antisemitism is not confined to overt acts of hate. In a study of Jewish students, faculty, and staff on North American campuses, nearly all respondents (98.8 percent) reported antisemitic experiences, with subtle microaggressions such as gaslighting and exclusion from diversity initiatives most prevalent. Critically, these experiences were as strongly associated with depression, hypervigilance, and other stress symptoms as overt assaults. Importantly, the most frequently reported form of invalidation was collective delegitimization, defined as denying Jewish indigeneity or applying double standards to Israel, which demonstrates that anti-Zionist framings are among the most common and harmful ways Jewish identity is undermined today (Silverstein & Block, 2025).

The effects of antisemitism have intensified dramatically since October 7, with Jewish mental health organizations such as the Jewish Community Mental Health Initiative (JCMHI) facilitating over 1,600 support groups worldwide to address the ongoing trauma. The widespread demand for such interventions underscores that rising antisemitism is not an abstract debate but a profound mental-health crisis that APA, by its own mission, should be prioritizing. Put plainly, an NBI that legitimizes anti-Zionism invalidates critical aspects of Jewish identity, detrimentally impacting the mental health of Jewish members of APA and the profession.

We conclude this critique with specific recommendations for an alternative to this NBI that respects the nascent CJP and would accomplish true progress toward addressing antisemitism.

Detailed critique: We have identified the serious problems in the NBI and arranged them by category:

1) Politicization that creates permissibility of hate- Disparate Jewish psychologists (individually and in groups) have repeatedly pointed out to the leadership of the organization that antisemitism manifests across the political spectrum. The resolution, as currently written, presents the dangers of antisemitism as solely a politically right-wing phenomenon. Embedded in this issue is the demand for "evidence-based criticism of Israel's institutions, founding principles, practices, policies and actions," which is a thinly veiled attempt to connect a desire from the political left in our profession to relitigate the existence of the state of Israel. This is a demand that is not made of any other country, including many countries formed after 1948, which still face border disputes. This represents a specific double standard that is part of the Sharansky 3D model of antisemitism. It is also in keeping with the ongoing demonization of Israel, which constitutes one of the other "Ds" in the Sharansky model. In practice, it marginalizes the largest proportion of the global Jewish community for whom Zionism is an integral identity marker. Importantly, Jewish individuals are being targeted with antisemitism regardless of whether or how they personally identify with Zionism, and anti-Zionist rhetoric has been used to rationalize antisemitic hate crimes, including recent murders in Washington, D.C., and Boulder, Colorado, Therefore, this NBI is not just alienating Zionist-identified Jews but inadvertently fueling antisemitism against all Jews.

2) Outdated or selective data- The NBI cited nationally representative data to suggest that generally favorable views toward Jews were held in the U.S. That study was published two decades before October 7, 2023; since that time, the rate of anti-Jewish hate crimes has spiked, with an influx of anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric and action originating from the political left, including from within our profession. This is well known, as a sitting Democratic Congressman, Ritchie Torres (D-NY), has called it to your attention publicly, and there have been numerous public condemnations issued by national-level organizations. Weiss (2019) has written extensively about how recent antisemitism has emerged simultaneously from both the far right and far left, making reliance on two-decade-old national survey data inadequate for capturing the full scope of the contemporary threats being examined. Recent monitoring and analyses, including some of our own collaborative work with the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCAS), a premier nonprofit research and hate-monitoring organization, demonstrate the dramatic acceleration of antisemitic discourse and associated hate in digital spaces following October 7th.

Research from numerous organizations has demonstrated massive spikes in antisemitic incidents, documented by the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, BBYO, and Foundation to Combat Antisemitism. In 2024 alone, the Anti-Defamation League reported 9,354 antisemitic incidents in the U.S., which represented a 54% increase from 2023, a 344% increase over the past five years, and an 893% increase over the past 10 years. For the first time in the history of the Anti-Defamation League audit, most (58%) incidents contained elements related to Israel or Zionism. These data are supported by FBI data accumulated across both Democratic and Republican administrations. By claiming the rates of antisemitism are at the low levels suggested in this NBI, the delegitimization of claims of anti-Jewish bias fulfills the third "D" of the Sharansky model of antisemitism, making this NBI itself antisemitic.

3) Improper Conflation with Anti-Muslim bias- The opening parenthetically yokes antisemitism to anti-Muslim bias. Both forms of hate deserve serious attention, and APA should address each on its own terms. Pairing them inside a single antisemitism resolution dilutes specificity, encourages competitive suffering frameworks, and is misattuned to the Jewish experience this resolution is meant to address. Per FBI hate crime statistics (09/02/2025), after the past 10 years, antisemitic hate crimes are approximately six times as common as anti-Muslim crimes. Since September 2023, antisemitic attacks have risen to eight times as frequent as anti-Muslim crimes in the United States. The specificity, gravity, and extent of antisemitic attacks were highlighted by former FBI Director Wray in testimony before the Senate in November 2023. The authors of this statement condemn any and all hate crimes against any group targeted because of their identity or affiliation, but these should be treated as independent issues.

4) Excluding Jews from EDI- The persistent denial of the minority status of Jews contributes to the lack of awareness and understanding that Jews must be included in EDI efforts. This problem was documented in careful detail in Walker et al. (2025). In order to properly address this ongoing serious problem, the field requires a thorough understanding of Jewish culture and the religion, which is missing from this NBI.

Indeed, under the diversity impact statement, the document claims that the resolution "should have a positive effect in allowing psychologists to more effectively advocate against antisemitism." It will not. By narrowing the definition in the way this NBI does, it opens the doors to anti-Zionism, an express modern form of left-wing anti-Jewish animus, as recognized by Jewish groups across the political spectrum. It should be emphasized that the vast majority of world Jewry (over 90%) believes in the Jewish people's right to self-determination and governance in the present-day state of Israel. Anti-Zionism is not a political statement about the policies of the Israeli government, but rather seeks to destroy Israel's existence and revoke Jewish rights and heritage. Rather than create an atmosphere of inclusion, this NBI creates a yawning chasm between Jews and other minoritized groups by expressly ignoring the repeated concerns raised by Jewish members about the specific nature of antisemitism experienced within the profession and APA as an organization.

5) Mischaracterization of the IHRA definition- The IHRA definition of antisemitism is by far the most widely used and accepted definition of antisemitism, and the only consensus-driven one. It has been adopted by 1,266 global governmental entities, 45 countries, including the U.S., 37 U.S. states, 98 U.S. cities and county governments, the Canadian government, and the Global Imams Council (GIC, 2020; IHRA, 2025; U.S. State Department, 2016). As an objective standard, it is widely accepted by diverse groups and is an essential tool for the identification of contemporary anti-Jewish bigotry. It is also important to note that false accusations and mistruths have been leveled against the IHRA. These are refuted elsewhere (Goldfeder, 2023). The IHRA definition was carefully written to protect freedom of speech by distinguishing between criticism of Israel’s policies and conspiracy theories or antisemitic tropes that violate the civil rights of Jewish individuals. Regarding Israel, the IHRA definition specifically covers (1) denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, (2) the use of Holocaust imagery to characterize Israel (Holocaust inversion) including drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, (3) the use of double standards to demonize Israel or Israelis, (4) accusations of dual loyalty and/or (5) use of conventional antisemitic imagery (i.e. conspiracy theories stating that Jews have some sort of hidden power that they use to promote a self-serving agenda) to characterize Israel and/or Jews. The IHRA definition also explicitly states what is not antisemitism, namely, criticism of Israeli policies, and does not infringe on First Amendment Rights as the NBI alleges. Collectively, these important facets are the cornerstone of the IHRA definition, and the absence of any understanding of the underlying basis as expressed in this NBI makes clear that the developers were uninformed and possessed a political agenda in advancing this proposal.

The NBI further misleads the Council of Representatives when it states that Stern was the lead author of the IHRA. He was not. The remaining drafters of the statement all stand behind this extremely carefully crafted definition that was 16 years in the making. The tactic of specifically citing Stern in the fashion this NBI does is referenced in the IHRA handbook as follows:

“... the Definition had many drafters and contributors over a 16-year-long iterative process. Attributing the development of the Definition to a single individual undermines the contributions of countless others who continue to support and stand behind it. Furthermore, overstating the role of a specific contributor in the development of the IHRA Definition misinforms the public and tends to be used in efforts to undermine the definition. Importantly, the other contributors who played crucial roles in the 16-year-long development of the definition continue to support and stand behind the definition.”

Finally, the report appears to imply that adoption of the IHRA as a federal civil rights policy has led to worsening antisemitism. This is simply not accurate, and the spike in left-wing antisemitism has been documented in detail in Ginsberg (2024) and described in innumerable articles across the political spectrum. Additionally, while the developers of this proposed NBI attempt to delegitimize the use of the IHRA statement by noting that it was adopted under the Trump administration in 2019, they fail to recognize that it was also adopted during the Obama administration in 2016, shortly after it was finalized. Further, the Biden administration continued the policy of using the IHRA definition as a benchmark across the federal government. In short, the IHRA definition has enjoyed bipartisan support and directly contradicts the heavy-handed attempt to politically delegitimize the statement.

6) Process breach by pre-empting the Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists- It is unclear whether those advancing this NBI possess recognized expertise in antisemitism, Jewish identity, or Jewish mental health. The recent call by APA for the nomination of members of a Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists (CJP), appears to be aimed at assembling such a group. However, the CJP, which, among its charges, will be a specific revision of the 2007 Resolution on antisemitism, is rendered irrelevant should this NBI pass and get enacted. For a matter of such significance, subject-matter expertise does not seem optional but is rather essential.

7) Ethical Concerns Regarding the NBI and Antisemitism inherent in similar documents-

The NBI raises grave ethical concerns, including the following:

• Principle A: Beneficience and Nonmalificience: The NBI is demeaning, demonizing, and delegitimizing, and inflicts psychological harm on Jewish psychologists. By accepting/ratifying the NBI, APA would be condoning and supporting malificience toward Jewish psychologists

• Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility: We are concerned that the NBI violates trust with Jewish psychologists, and presents a conflict of interest by putting politics over the science of psychology and practice of alleviating human suffering, singling out Jewish psychologists as unworthy of having legitimate concerns

• Principle C: Integrity: Disseminating outdated data as if it is current is a misrepresentation of facts. Ignoring the impact of the recent escalation since 10/2023 of violence against Jewish people and institutions, including our children’s schools and our community centers and synagogues, delegitimizes Jews’ suffering.

• Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity: This NBI undermines the autonomy and rights of Jewish individuals to define antisemitism for themselves based on the mainstream widely accepted definition of antisemitism. The NBI would compromise the safety of Jewish psychologists, trainees, and patients by allowing demeaning and harmful rhetoric and behavior in APA spaces.

• 3.01 Unfair Discrimination and 3.03 Other Harassment: As above, demonization, delegitimization, and double standards are demeaning toward Jews and constitute discriminatory harassment.

• 3.04 Avoiding Harm: Agreeing with the misleading claims therein inflicts the mental anguish of traumatic invalidation on APA’s colleagues, Jewish psychologists, as well as the public we serve. This is a specific harm inherent in this NBI.

In sum, were the APA to adopt and enact this NBI, it would be violating its own well-intentioned and well-crafted Ethical Code. If the APA truly values equity, the organization cannot, in good conscience, accept a document that is so profoundly out of step with our professional values.

In light of the criticisms of this NBI, we offer the following recommendations/action items:

• Table and reject the current NBI as written.

• Defer revisions of the 2007 Resolution to the CJP process and commit to genuine engagement with Jewish APA members with diverse viewpoints that are representative of the views held by the mainstream majority of the Jewish community, not fringe extreme ideology on either side of the political spectrum.

• Use current, credible antisemitism data (e.g., Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Center for Combating Antisemitism/StandWithUs, Foundation for Combating Antisemitism) rather than selective or outdated citations.

• Work with national, representative Jewish organizations to address issues institutionally and within the field, such as Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee, or the Anti-Defamation League.

• Affirm inclusion of Jews in EDI frameworks across APA divisions, units, training, and policy.

• Correct the record on IHRA: acknowledge its consensus status, clarify misstatements (including authorship and scope), and fully recognize its bipartisan adoption. Post this on the APA webpage and promote it widely.

• Name antisemitism from both left and right; remove language that collapses antisemitism into a single partisan frame.

• Clarify boundaries in APA spaces (conferences/listservs/meetings/courses): speech rights remain intact, but APA environments must be safe for Jews, consistent with APA ethics.

As Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt has observed, antisemitism comes from both left and right; those who only see one side are “blind in at least one eye.” We ask Council to restore full vision: reject this NBI, empower a balanced and apolitical CJP, adopt accurate definitions and current data, and ensure that APA spaces are safe for Jews, consistent with our ethical mandate to avoid harm and respect dignity.