On the eve of Tisha B’Av, the Jewish calendar’s annual day of mourning commemorating the destruction of the First and Second Temples and other historic tragedies, Hillel International found itself at the center of a controversy that raises difficult questions about Jewish leadership, institutional accountability, and who speaks for Jewish students at a time of unprecedented campus antisemitism.
This is not simply a story about an amicus brief that was filed and then withdrawn. It is a story about trust.
Recommended Stories
Hillel International’s decision to withdraw an amicus brief supporting Harvard University’s effort to restore approximately $2.7 billion in federal funding came only hours after the filing sparked widespread criticism from Jewish leaders, alumni, and advocates.
I WENT TO ISRAEL WHERE MANY EXPECT CONFLICT. I FOUND A HOSPITAL THAT’S SOLVING IT
“The brief was filed without having gone through our internal review process,” Hillel International spokesperson Kenneth Baer said in a statement announcing the organization’s decision to withdraw it.
Hillel’s explanation answered one procedural question.
It did not answer the one that matters most.
Harvard has become the defining symbol of the national debate over campus antisemitism. Congressional hearings, lawsuits, federal investigations, and the testimony of Jewish students have transformed the university into a case study of what many believe happens when institutions fail to confront antisemitism with the urgency it demands.
Against that backdrop, Hillel International’s decision to initially support Harvard’s legal challenge surprised many who believed the organization would instead prioritize standing alongside Jewish students who have accused the university of failing to protect them.
Among those who have been at the forefront of confronting campus antisemitism is Shabbos Kestenbaum, who is known for helping lead a lawsuit against Harvard University filed in January 2024.
In an interview with me, Kestenbaum said the controversy is about far more than Harvard. In his view, it raises broader questions about when major Jewish organizations choose to deploy their institutional influence and on whose behalf.
“It’s not merely that Hillel International decided to defend Harvard University,” Kestenbaum said. “It raises the question of why they didn’t support Jewish students at Tulane, Harvard, Columbia and Penn with similar alacrity and similar legal support.”
For Kestenbaum, the withdrawal itself is not the central issue.
“The broader question isn’t why they retracted it,” he said. “The broader question is why they did this to begin with.”
He is asking the same question I am. The withdrawal explains the process. It does not explain the decision. Why did Hillel International choose to file an amicus brief supporting Harvard before publicly demonstrating that same level of institutional urgency on behalf of Jewish students who say they were failed by their universities?
The 22-page amicus brief argued that freezing Harvard’s federal funding was an overly broad remedy that could ultimately harm Jewish students by weakening research, academic programs, and campus initiatives. Whether one agrees with that legal argument or not, it reflected a strategic choice: to intervene on behalf of an institution that many Jewish students believe failed them.
For many in the Jewish community, that decision appeared fundamentally at odds with Hillel’s mission of supporting Jewish students. Within hours, the organization reversed course.
According to Kestenbaum, Hillel International President Adam Lehman told him he had not seen the brief before it was filed. Hillel International has not publicly confirmed that account. Harvard Hillel also stated publicly that it played no role in preparing or submitting the filing.
To me, those details only deepen the underlying questions. If the organization’s president had not reviewed the filing, and Harvard Hillel was not involved, who authorized it? What internal process allowed a major federal court filing to be submitted under Hillel International’s name? And how did that process break down?
These are not merely procedural questions. They go to the heart of institutional trust, particularly at a moment when Jewish students are looking to national organizations for leadership.
That is why this controversy has resonated so deeply. For many Jewish students, this is no longer about one legal filing. It is about whether the institutions created to advocate for them will consistently do so when it matters most.
Reasonable people can disagree about the best legal strategy for combating antisemitism on campus. Some believe engagement with university leadership remains the most effective path forward. Others argue that litigation, congressional oversight, and financial consequences are necessary to force meaningful change.
What should not be open to debate, however, is the importance of transparency when organizations entrusted with representing Jewish students make consequential decisions in their name.
Hillel International acknowledged that the brief bypassed its internal review process and chose to withdraw it. That was the right decision. But the retraction should not end the conversation.
Accountability does not require condemnation. It requires clarity.
If this episode ultimately leads to greater transparency, stronger governance, and a renewed commitment to the students these organizations exist to serve, then something worthwhile may come from it.
THE MAMDANI LEFT ISN’T GOVERNING — IT’S CLOUT-CHASING
Because the question that continues to linger is not why the brief was withdrawn.
It is why it was filed in the first place.
Ariella Noveck is a journalist specializing in antisemitism and Middle East affairs, with extensive experience covering Jewish communities worldwide.
