Unsettled Ground: How Jewish Undergraduates are Negotiating Identity Shifts and (Un)civil Campus Discourse after October 7

Key Findings:

• October 7 intensified Jewish identification for many participants. Students who had previously described themselves as culturally Jewish, Reform, or unaffiliated began spending more time with Jewish friends, attending Shabbat, wearing visible Jewish symbols, and learning more about Jewish history and Israel.

• Their political identities became more complicated, but most did not become conservative. Many continued to identify as liberal or progressive while feeling increasingly alienated from progressive peers or organizations whose treatment of Israel and Zionism they experienced as hostile or antisemitic.

• Friendship and organizational ruptures were common. Participants described losing friends, ending relationships because of social-media activity, or feeling unwelcome in groups where identifying as Zionist or simply supporting Israel’s existence had become a social litmus test.

• Students were better able to resist binary “pick a side” pressures when they had three resources: 1. Accessible family stories of displacement or immigration. 2. Parents who modeled support for Israel alongside progressive American politics. 3. Independent, personal experience in Israel. These gave students greater confidence in their Jewish identity and knowledge.

• Avoiding discussion did not necessarily mean students were uninterested or uninformed. Many wanted to talk but first assessed whether a peer was knowledgeable, empathetic, and genuinely interested. Heavy reliance on social media was often interpreted as evidence that a peer lacked sufficient knowledge or seriousness, leading students to disengage before a conversation began.

• Productive conversations depended more on trust and intellectual seriousness than agreement. The successful Jewish–non-Jewish pairs had established relationships, tolerated ambiguity, sought information beyond social media, acknowledged each other’s emotional stakes, and did not demand an immediate binary position.

• Jewish campus organizations face a “unity without uniformity” challenge. The authors recommend that Hillels and other Jewish institutions create space for students who support Israel’s existence but strongly criticize its government, as well as students who are uncertain or non-Zionist. Otherwise, some may conclude that explicitly anti-Zionist organizations are the only places that will accept them.

• Universities should provide faculty-led settings for informed disagreement. The authors recommend courses that develop close reading, evidence evaluation, and civil-discourse skills related to Israel–Palestine and antisemitism, not only in Middle East studies, but also in communication, psychology, education, and teacher-training programs.

• Parents and Jewish educators can prepare students before college by transmitting family histories of Jewish displacement and resilience, modeling how progressive commitments can coexist with support for Israel, and giving young people opportunities to develop personal rather than inherited relationships with Israel.

• Further research is needed on social media and social trust. The authors argue that passive exposure to peers’ posts and “likes” may lead students to presume hostility and avoid face-to-face conversations even before a discussion is attempted.