A Swedish diplomat shared troubling experiences at Georgetown University, where he encountered anti-Western and anti-Semitic views in the curriculum. He criticized a course that focused on the negative impact of the West, only to be harassed by peers who labeled him “privileged” and racist. His dissent led to the removal of his course review and escalating hostility from fellow students, further supported by the passivity of university authorities.
The situation worsened after the October 7 Hamas massacre, with some students celebrating the attack as “decolonization.” This increased fears among Jewish students, prompting some to organize their own protection in response to pro-Hamas demonstrations on campus. Despite this, the administration showed little action to address the rising anti-Semitism.
The diplomat’s concerns deepened when he confronted Georgetown’s leadership about their failure to address anti-Semitic behavior. In a meeting with Dean Joel Hellman, he received a vague answer, reflecting the school’s lack of commitment to protecting Jewish students. The hiring of Aneesa Johnson, who had a history of anti-Israel views, only heightened these concerns.
Alarmed by the increasing ideological shift within the university, the diplomat observed that some students aimed to influence U.S. foreign policy from within, with figures like Sylvia Yacoub advocating for a change in approach to Gaza. He highlighted how some faculty members, such as John Esposito, invited known Hamas sympathizers, further signaling Georgetown’s ideological leanings.
The diplomat faced significant personal risks for speaking out, including death threats from students and the devaluation of his concerns by faculty. As tensions escalated, Jewish students took matters into their own hands, organizing patrols to protect their community in light of the administration’s inaction. Despite the challenges, the diplomat saw hope in the united efforts of the Jewish community.
