Author’s Note: This excerpt is from my weekly “Top of Mind” email, sent to subscribers every Thursday. For more content like this and to receive the full newsletter each week, sign up on Minding the Campus’s homepage. Simply go to the right side of the page, look for “SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER, ‘TOP OF MIND,’” and enter your name and email.
If you haven’t caught wind of it yet, Sam Abrams is neck-deep in the mire at Sarah Lawrence College (SLC).
Abrams, a supporter of Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, has found himself the latest target of a student-led vendetta. During course interview week—where professors present their classes via Zoom—leftist groups slipped into private chats, urging others to boycott his courses. Their ammunition? As seen in the message obtained by Minding the Campus, they despise his support for Israel and spread the malicious claim that he had likened “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) advocates to Nazis. The fallout? His courses, like a Presidential Leadership class—timely, in an election year, no less—saw unexpected drops in enrollment.
For Abrams, this is a darker evolution of cancel culture—one that operates behind closed doors, not in the public square. It’s a subtler, more personal attack, preying on students who might’ve otherwise enrolled.
But what deepens the madness is the administration’s response.
When Abrams reported the orchestrated boycott, the administration suggested he submit a bias report. This, they claimed, would spark a review to determine whether any college policies had been violated—as effective as shouting into the wind. For Abrams, this bureaucratic gesture felt like a refusal to confront the real issue—anti-Semitism, harassment, and the effect on his ability to teach.
Later, the administration claimed they’d tried investigating the source of the disruptive Zoom messages. But since Abrams used his personal Zoom account, he’d need to sort it out with the college’s IT team. “Not only is that unlikely to work,” he writes, “but there is a far more logical way to solve this ‘whodunit’—ask the Divestment Coalition, which publicly took credit for it. Its
leaders, members, and supporters are clearly visible on their social media channels;
these individuals can easily be reached.”
The DEI office, in Abrams’ eyes, paints an even bleaker picture. “Had [Abrams]
been targeted with a boycott for being a supporter of Black Lives Matter or LGBTQ issues, the same DEI apparatus that has a blind spot for anti-Semitism most certainly would have weighed in loudly against such behavior.” Anti-Semitism, it seems, is simply not on the same priority list.
The bias, Abrams suggests, is blatant—Jewish faculty and students are left unprotected, their complaints pushed aside, even in the face of targeted harassment.
As for me, I agree with Abrams, who concludes this week’s top article saying, “Administrators who cannot evenhandedly enforce school rules and policies—and articulate to students why this is important—are not fit to lead. If they cannot see their way to principled leadership, they should step down or be replaced by those willing to follow the courage of their convictions.”
Cover designed by the author using an image of SLC Westland building by Djrobgordon on Wikipedia and asset by Dmitriy on Adobe Stock; Asset ID#: 177946537
“Later, the administration claimed they’d tried investigating the source of the disruptive Zoom messages. But since Abrams used his personal Zoom account, he’d need to sort it out with the college’s IT team.”
I have a much more cynical view of this — in addition to being ineffective, one has to wonder what (unrelated) things the IT team might find if given this access, and if this is the actual motive behind this.
What might they find about Abrams, and what might they find about unrelated third parties who might be closeted conservatives?