The University of Pennsylvania has spent months claiming it is serious about confronting antisemitism, restoring trust, and repairing the damage caused by campus unrest after Oct. 7, 2023. Yet, Penn has apparently now granted tenure to Sukaina Hirji, whose public activism sits at the center of the very crisis the university claims it is trying to repair.
The university now needs to explain how that decision aligns with the standards it has publicly promised to uphold.
Recommended Stories
Hirji was not a passive observer of the encampment that disrupted Penn’s campus for over two weeks. She publicly acknowledged helping lead “teach-ins” on the protest site, promoted civil disobedience as a necessary form of protest, and defended a movement that violated university policy, obstructed and hindered campus life, and caused deep concern among Jewish students and alumni.
DOJ SUES UCLA FOR FOSTERING ‘HOSTILE’ ANTISEMITIC ENVIRONMENT FOR JEWISH AND ISRAELI STUDENTS
Hirji’s activism has also extended beyond the encampment itself. She has amplified boycott campaigns that call for academic and cultural isolation, co-hosted programming using terminology of “resistance” when discussing events that targeted civilians, and remained involved with Writers Against the War on Gaza, an organization that has circulated material praising figures associated with designated terrorist organizations. The context of her activism cannot be separated from Penn’s broader credibility crisis over antisemitism.
The issue is not whether Hirji has a right to political views. She does. The issue is whether a university that claims to be addressing antisemitism should reward a faculty member publicly associated with a movement that helped fuel hostility, disruption, and fear on campus.
Tenure is one of the strongest endorsements a university can give. It grants long-term authority, institutional protection, and influence over students, curriculum, and campus culture. When that endorsement is extended to a faculty member publicly associated with the 2024 Gaza encampment movement and Penn Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine, the decision deserves scrutiny.
For more than two years, Jewish students have been told that universities are listening. Administrators have issued statements, formed committees, and promised change. But accountability is measured by institutional decisions, not public relations language. Penn cannot demand accountability from students while appearing to reward faculty who helped legitimize the same disruptive movement.
If Penn has granted Hirji tenure as she claims, the university should answer basic questions. Did it consider her public role in the encampment? Did it evaluate the effect of her activism on campus climate? Did Jewish students’ concerns matter in the review process? And how does this decision align with Penn’s public commitment to fighting antisemitism?
THE PARTY OF NAZI ACCUSERS IS AWFULLY SILENT ABOUT JEW HATRED AFTER NYC SYNAGOGUE TERRORIZED
At a time when universities are facing lawsuits, donor backlash, congressional scrutiny, and federal investigations over antisemitism, Penn should be showing moral clarity.
Instead, this reported decision suggests that faculty can help legitimize disruptive activism, contribute to a hostile climate for Jewish students, and still receive one of academia’s highest institutional rewards.
Anna Miller is a communication expert and the spokeswoman of Protect Our Campus, a nonpartisan initiative documenting antisemitism, extremism, and institutional failures on American university campuses. Her knowledge of and interest in Jewish and American history drive her fight against all forms of extremism and radicalism.
