When Academia Enables Harm: Antisemitism in Mental Health Scholarship – The Times of Israel
In July 2025, I published an article focused on the abandonment of Jewish therapists within the mental health field, shedding light on pervasive antisemitism in the discipline. The responses to my article were revealing: “Stop killing babies,” “the new Fourth Reich killing women and children,” “Looking at you people in the diaspora supporting war crimes in Gaza – why the fuc* would I want a [J]ewish shrink,” and “We should end this by slaying the Jew [sic].” Others shared painful accounts of professors in clinical training programs posting vile content, heartbreaking testimonies from Jewish students, and harmful reactions Jewish clients received from therapists after disclosing post-October 7 distress.
These experiences confirmed the persistence of deeply embedded antisemitism in mental health practice and associated professional organizations. Yet, the impact of this bias is not confined to practice alone; disturbingly, it also permeates the very scholarship meant to guide the field.
In May-June 2025, American Psychologist published a special edition, Practicing Decolonial and Liberation Psychologies, which featured an article titled, Supervision as decolonial love: Toward a transformative training process for Palestinian community health workers. This article not only asserted that Palestinians are enduring “some of the harshest conditions of genocide and colonial violence known today in the 21st century,” but also described Israel as a “settler colonial” and “apartheid” state, accused it of “genocide,” and employed the term “Palestinian freedom fighters.” Despite ample evidence dispelling these false narratives—particularly those alleging colonialism, apartheid, genocide, such terms have become so entrenched within academia and mental health spaces that peer reviewers have allowed them to be published without challenge or dispute.
The normalization of these narratives extends beyond psychology. Just months later, similar rhetoric surfaced in social work literature. In September 2025, Abolitionist Perspectives in Social Work launched a special edition, Thinking and Practicing Abolition Through Palestine, in which the editor and guest editor described Palestine as “a compass for social work now and until liberation” before asserting that the “supremacist Zionist project of erasure has always been met with Palestinian resistance and love; love for life, culture, and land.”
This framing of “resistance” obscures the reality of October 7, which was marked by the slaughter of nearly 1,200 Jewish and Israeli citizens and foreign nationals, the use of mass sexual violence as a weapon of war, and the abduction of 251 individuals between the ages of nine months and 86 years—many of whom were, or have since been, brutally murdered, and 48 of whom remain in captivity as of this publication. Regrettably, as may be expected, sole mentions of October 7, 2023 within the article were offered only in the context of justification, thereby omitting any acknowledgment of the massacre, its victims, or its continuing devastation.
Scholarly literature is a cornerstone of the mental health profession, providing clinicians and academics important insight into the efficacy of treatments, public policy considerations, and emerging issues in the field. Yet, when academic writing becomes ethically compromised and biased, it risks transforming falsehoods into accepted beliefs among professionals, legitimizing antisemitic and antizionist tropes through peer-reviewed publication. This climate normalizes unethical and discriminatory treatment of Jewish and Israeli clinicians and clients alike, commonly disguised as antizionism.
It is, unfortunately, not surprising that firsthand testimonies from social workers describe being blamed, gaslit, pathologized, blacklisted, and often cast as “oppressors,” while antizionism gains increasing traction within the field. Alongside hostile and concerning behaviors within the field of social work and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), widespread failures to address antisemitism within the American Psychological Association (APA) have also been highlighted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Academic Engagement Network (AEN), and U.S. Congressman Ritchie Torres. In fact, the ADL, AEN, and Psychologists Against Antisemitism have recently issued a joint statement noting the enabling and validation of “antisemitic narratives under the pretense of scholarship,” which runs counter to the APA’s commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).
Beyond any individual article or special edition lies a deep-seated concern reflecting a broader academic culture in which much of the literature demonizing Zionism is authored by non-Jews or tokenized Jews who redefine Zionism as anything but the Jewish people’s right for self-determination in their ancestral homeland of Israel. Equally troubling is the presumption that those outside the Jewish community should have the authority to dictate what does or does not constitute antisemitism.
When academia permits such discourse to be published and disseminated as scholarship, it raises urgent questions: how long can the mental health profession ignore the harm inflicted on Jewish and Israeli colleagues, students, and clients? And at what point will the discipline confront the hostility, harassment, and institutional biases that have become ingrained within higher education, along with the broader traumatic invalidation the Jewish community has endured since October 7?
Academic scholarship has the potential to shape practice and policy in ways that advance well-being (APA), benefit society (American Counseling Association [ACA]), and serve the welfare of society (NASW). When it targets the Jewish community and Israel under the guise of “antizionism,” it not only jeopardizes Jewish safety and dignity but actively betrays the very mission of these mental health professions. The integrity of the profession and its scholarship relies on confronting this harm, promoting accountability, and upholding the ethical standards meant to safeguard society at large—without selectively deciding who is included in those protections.
—
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the United States government, or the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.
© 2025 The Times of Israel, all rights reserved
