Psychologists Confront Rising Antisemitism, Campuses

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/02

Malka Shaw, LCSW, is the founder of Kesher Shalom Projects, a trauma-informed initiative supporting Jewish identity and mental health after the October 7 Hamas attacks and rising antisemitism. She developed The Guard System, integrating CBT, DBT, and narrative therapy, and has trained over 3,500 professionals in Jewish cultural competence. Shaw also serves as the training and education coordinator for Gesher Campus Care, founded by Dr. Jessica Zmood and Dr. Shelly Steinwurtzel. Gesher bridges Jewish students on campus with vetted, culturally competent therapists. In a wide-ranging conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, the team discussed the psychological impacts of antisemitism, identity destabilization, indoctrination on college campuses, and the professional concerns arising from politicized therapy practices. They highlighted the misuse of “decolonization” rhetoric in clinical spaces and warned of therapy becoming ideologically coercive. The discussion emphasized the need for ethical, bias-free mental health care for Jewish communities facing increasing hostility.

With a rise in antisemitism U.S. college campuses after October 7, 2023, psychologists Jessica and Shelly founded Gesher Campus Care. It is a referral service connecting Jewish students and faculty to culturally competent therapists. The aim is to ensure safe, supportive mental health care where Jewish identity is respected and understood. Kesher Shalom projects was founded after October 7th. It was founded to equip professionals who address antisemitism and trauma. It started out with a grassroots call on Zoom. Now, Kesher Shalom offers education, support groups, training, intended to foster dialogue and resilience across diverse audiences to understand and respond to the clinical and emotional impact of antisemitism. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Malka Shaw, LCSW. She is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and founded Kesher Shalom Projects, an initiative focused on Jewish identity, resilience, and cultural competency. This initiative was developed in response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the rise in global antisemitism. Shaw created educational and therapeutic programming to support Jewish communities and developed The Guard System, a trauma-informed framework integrating CBT, DBT, EMDR, and narrative therapy. Shaw has trained over 3,500 mental health professionals in Jewish cultural competence and the psychological impact of antisemitism. She also plays a key role in Gesher Campus Care, providing culturally competent mental health resources for Jewish students in higher education. She is a member of the American Jewish Medical Association (AJMA), American Jewish Psychologists (AJP), and Psychologist Against Antisemitism (PAA).

Steinwurtzel: As you may already know from Malka, Kesher means “connection,” and Gesher means “bridge.” They share a similar Hebraic root but are distinct words. Jessica and I founded and directed Gesher Campus Care. Malka is our training and education coordinator. She has been leading our orientation training for therapists. We love Malka and work closely with her, but they are separate organizations. Gesher Campus Care is a nonprofit focused on bridging the gap between students on campus seeking mental health support in a safe, vetted, trauma-informed setting and connecting them with therapists who meet those criteria.

Jacobsen: We’re also here with Jessica Zmood, Psy.D., a New York State Licensed Clinical Psychologist in private practice in Manhattan since 2010. She earned a B.A. in English Literature and Spanish from Washington University in St. Louis. She completed a post-baccalaureate in psychology at Baruch College. Dr. Zmood received her M.A. and Psy.D. in Clinical Psychology from the Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology. Her clinical background includes work in substance abuse treatment, psychiatric evaluations, and therapy with Spanish-speaking clients. She specializes in stress, anxiety, depression, and relationships. She is a Level II certified Gottman therapist and an AJMA, AJP, and PAA member.

We’re also joined by Shelly Steinwurtzel, Psy.D., a New York State Licensed Clinical Psychologist specializing in treating children, adolescents, and adults. She holds a B.A. from Brandeis University, an M.S.Ed. in School Psychology (2008), and a Psy.D. in School and Clinical Psychology (2011). Her experience includes psychiatric hospital work and serving as Columbia University Medical Center’s NICU staff psychologist. Dr. Steinwurtzel was formerly the Assistant Director at Pace University’s McShane Center. Her additional certifications include EMDR, CBT, and perinatal mental health. She’s a member of APA, AJP, PAA, Postpartum Support International, and the National Network of NICU Psychologists. 

Thank you all three for joining me—I appreciate it.

Shaw: Thank you.

Zmood: Thanks for having us.

Jacobsen: Social work and clinical psychology are here today to explore antisemitism. This is going to be interesting. I have a background in psychology. I was in some psychology labs, but then I went into journalism—so this feels like home.

Zmood: What? I did the opposite. I used to be a journalist, and I left journalism for psychology. So there you go. 

Jacobsen: In New York?

Zmood: Yes. 

Jacobsen: The New York journalist went into psychology. How could you?

Zmood: It was too tough for me in the big city. I was writing too many articles about makeup and weddings, and I thought—”Oh, this is not what I want to do.”

Jacobsen: What part of New York were the makeup and wedding stories about?

Zmood: It was in Manhattan. I was trying to get jobs in magazines. Ironically—or maybe not ironically—all the places that hired me are now defunct. As most magazines are, I’m glad I jumped ship and went into psychology.

Jacobsen: Thank you. It’s hard out here. It’s hard in the hood. So, when we think of antisemitism vis-a-vis emotions and individual differences in psychology, what is happening with someone who harbours this style of prejudice and hatred? What are the impacts on individuals who have had this expressed toward them—on and off campus? It’s a general question for an overview.

Dr. Shelly Steinwurtzel: That’s an interesting question—your first question, about what generates antisemitism from a psychological perspective—is what you’re asking, right? What brings that about?

That’s a big question. I don’t know that there’s a single generalizable psychological characteristic that one can point to for antisemitism or any form of discrimination. There are so many factors that go into it. But certainly, at least on college campuses, what we’ve been seeing—and what experts are talking about—is that there’s much indoctrination.

Malka talks a lot about the role of indoctrination in this particular population. So this question of psychology and politics intersects with the work you do, Scott, in investigative journalism. Many people have been studying and bringing these issues to the forefront—experts across all these arenas.

You’ve got the BDS movement, which has been active in academia for a long time. You have SJP—Students for Justice in Palestine—which, I don’t know if you’ve seen some of the more recent documentation about its connections or alleged connections to other organizations.

Again, this leans more toward history and investigative research. Still, it speaks directly to psychology, especially because the psychology of adolescence is relevant to how propaganda has been strategically implemented in academia over the years.

I recommend looking into Lorenzo Vidino, who’s in the George Washington University program on extremism. They’ve published reports that date back to before the United States government designated Hamas a terrorist organization (in 1997). The FBI was reportedly able to link certain groups’ plans that would be enacted once Hamas was listed as a terrorist organization.

The Program on Extremism at GW outlines those early plans—strategies involving fundraising, philanthropy, advocacy, propaganda, and education. SJP, or Students for Justice in Palestine, eventually emerged from those broader plans.

All of this is currently being explored further in legal and academic investigations—there’s more to come. But I bring this up because these activities date back to the late 1980s and early 1990s. There has been a long-standing and intentional use of propaganda on college campuses. So, to your question—people engaging in antisemitic behaviour may not even identify as antisemitic themselves. Rather, they may be victims of propaganda.

From a psychological standpoint, we know that late adolescence and emerging adulthood—typically ages 17 to mid-20s—is a critical developmental period. During this time, the prefrontal cortex is still maturing. Research in neuropsychology shows that it is not fully developed until the mid- to late 20s.

We don’t fully understand how decades of screen exposure and constant social media might affect this development. But based on my observations—and supported by some emerging research—I hypothesize that executive functioning may already be declining due to fast dopamine hits from social media and excessive screen time.

But fundamentally, that stage of life is meant to be when individuals form their identity—when they leave the security of home and begin to develop a sense of self out in the world. Part of it is trying on many different styles, behaviours, and versions of self-learning from other people. Campus communities are meant to be a space for diverse perspectives and exposure to people from different backgrounds, which is beautiful when considering a university’s purpose.

But when you have intentional propaganda being espoused—with a very different intended outcome—and in this case, antisemitism, there’s much ideology that’s hyper-focused on a small region of the world and just 0.2% of the global population.

In terms of psychology, much of it comes down to being brilliant at identifying opportunities within a population and understanding the strengths and vulnerabilities of individuals during this period of psychological development.

Dr. Jessica Zmood: Yes, and I can give an example from a student at Columbia—a Jewish freshman who didn’t have any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Zionism. They were just a Jewish kid at Columbia who wanted to make friends, get involved, and join some clubs.

There’s a group at Columbia called C-U-A-D, which stands for Columbia University Apartheid Divest. It’s a coalition of about 20 to 30 student organizations. So, do you want to join the gardening, arts, or dance clubs? They might all be part of CUAD.

Now, imagine—you’re this Jewish student. You go to a club meeting and say, “Hey, can I garden with you?” And they respond, “We’re CUAD members. As part of this group, you need to renounce your Zionism. We know you’re Jewish. We don’t accept Jews or anyone who supports genocide, colonialism, or apartheid in our gardening club.”

So you could be in the group—but only if you denounce part of your identity, ancestral connection, and homeland. You’re asked to make a political statement about Israel. Now imagine being a 19-year-old kid who just left home and community, trying to make friends, settle into college life, worry about homework, social life, dating—and then being told that this is what you’re facing.

You’re backed into a corner. You’re meant to feel immediate shame about who you are—about your identity, your relationship to Israel, and your Jewishness. Then you’re presented with propaganda disguised as truth—told, “This is what’s happening. You either support it and conform, or you don’t.”

The information is false even at that starting point, so this student is incredibly precarious.

Asking students to walk into those situations, stand firm in their identity, and know who they are and where they come from—all while just trying to make friends and be college students—is asking them to do something incredibly difficult. But that’s what many are facing.

“I want to garden with you all, but I want to do it as someone who doesn’t believe what you’re saying—someone who feels that’s false. I’m a proud Jew. I’m a proud Zionist.” And for most Jewish people, those two identities go hand in hand. But in this scenario, they’re turned away. The door is shut on them.

To be socially included in the broader Columbia community, you must—quote—divest from your identity. This is incredibly damaging. And if you internalize this as a Jewish student on a college campus, it becomes painful and complex.

Steinwurtzel: Columbia’s been in the news a lot, but I want to clarify—and emphasize—that, unfortunately, this isn’t just Columbia. It would be one thing if this were limited to one campus, but we know it’s not. It’s pervasive.

We’ve spoken with faculty from other universities. One conversation stayed with me. A professor shared that, for the past year and a half, Jewish students on his campus had been essentially in hiding—afraid to speak up, afraid to be visible.

He described a turning point when, after a particular incident, some students finally came out of the closet—because they couldn’t bear it anymore. That language—”came out of the closet”—was so impactful. It speaks directly to Jess’s words about the shame and fear of being cancelled by peers when they want to have a normal university experience and become more of themselves. But instead, they’re made to feel they can’t share an important part of who they are.

That struck me deeply because we’ve worked hard in psychology and society to create inclusive, safe, and welcoming spaces. And yet, Jewish students, faculty, and staff are being made to feel that they must hide. That phrase—”in the closet”—is powerful because we’ve fought many social justice battles in the name of openness and acceptance. And now, this group is being pushed into silence.

Zmood: Cancel culture—the binary nature of all of this. The complete lack of nuance. It’s not “we disagree with certain actions of a government on the other side of the world.” It’s you—this individual student standing in front of me—you represent everything I hate. 

Jacobsen: And therefore, you can’t garden with us.

Zmood: Yes. That was the story I shared earlier. Students ask, “Let me find clubs that aren’t part of this coalition so I can show up as myself and be accepted.” As Shelly said, while Ivy League schools like Columbia get the headlines, we’ve heard some horrific stories from small colleges in New England that haven’t gotten much press.

Generally, most students tried to keep their heads down and focus on getting through school, hoping no one would notice them. But things are reaching a fever pitch now. As Shelly said, students are forced to leave hiding to advocate for their right to exist and participate in student life without shame.

I want to get through school without incident. To think that becoming invisible—just getting through without being abused—is now the goal of your college experience? That’s so, so sad. And let’s be honest: it would not be tolerated by any other ethnic, racial, or cultural group. Another anecdote: One student’s father told me, “Do you want to see the film on October 8?” It’s about people’s experiences in America—specifically on campuses—since October 7.

His son, a sophomore in college, said, “Why would I want to see that film with you? That’s my life. I live it every day. I get through it—but I don’t want to watch it. I don’t want to relive it.” The father visited the campus to understand it firsthand, and he came back traumatized. He told me he had no idea how his son had functioned in that environment. His son has since moved 40 blocks away from campus and now commutes daily to avoid being confronted by this. It’s such a difficult time for these kids.

Steinwurtzel: Malka, I believe you had something you wanted to add.

Malka Shaw: Yes, thank you. I have many thoughts about what Jessica just said, but I’d also like to return to the original question—Scott, could you repeat it? I think we veered off a bit.

Jacobsen: Sure—this session is exploratory, so I didn’t expect a strict structure. But to recap, Shelly’s response brought in developmental psychology and executive function—people like Adele Diamond come to mind—and Jessica followed with a case study and observations specific to New England campuses that aren’t getting media coverage.

This all stemmed from the original question: Psychologically, what is going on with an individual who harbours antisemitic prejudice? And conversely, what are the psychological effects on individuals targeted by it?

So far, the responses point to two themes: 1) the psychological systems of the aggressors are often overwhelmed or manipulated, and 2) the targets experience varying forms of stress and trauma—depending on individual differences.

Let’s turn to your social work lens now.

Shaw: Absolutely. From a social work perspective, there’s much to say about the social dynamics. But I want to return to the psychology of indoctrination for a moment—because it’s really important to name what’s happening.

Here’s the dynamic: the first student who says to another, “You can’t be in my gardening club,” genuinely believes he’s right. He thinks he’s standing up for justice. And why? Because Zionism has been misdefined and vilified so severely that it’s no longer recognized for what it truly is.

So, let’s define it clearly: Zionism is simply the belief that Jews have the right to exist, the right to defend themselves, and the right to live in their ancestral homeland. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with every action or policy of the modern State of Israel or reject peaceful coexistence with others in that homeland. But that’s not how it’s being framed today.

What’s happened is that a legitimate part of Jewish identity has been reframed as evil—and that’s what these students are absorbing. That’s what makes this so dangerous. It’s not just misinformation—it’s identity vilification.

Passover is coming up. It’s a major Jewish holiday that arrives in about two weeks. At the end of every Passover ceremony, called the Seder, we say, “Next year in Yerushalayim.” Yerushalayim—Jerusalem—is referred to as Zion in ancient Jewish texts. Zion is the root of Zionism. Zionism, therefore, predates both Christianity and Islam. It’s an ancient concept—thousands of years old.

So let’s return to that person—the student who believes they’re doing the right thing by excluding someone from a club. Part of the reason they feel morally justified is that moral superiority and cancel culture activate the dopamine system. It feels good. It gives them a hit of perceived virtue.

They genuinely believe they’re doing something right. In their mind, it’s like saying, “Well, I don’t want someone from the KKK in my gardening club.” That’s the false equivalence they’re drawing. But the reality is—that they’ve been indoctrinated. Once indoctrinated, someone begins to lose the ability to think critically.

I’ll give you a quick overview of neurology.

Zmood: I can share slides if that helps everyone.  

Shaw: I often show a set of slides that include statistics on what’s happening to students on campus and also how mental health indoctrination is occurring within the field through educators.

Yes, show him the DBT slides.  From a neurological standpoint, when someone has been indoctrinated, their brain begins to resolve discomfort by rejecting evidence and reinforcing existing beliefs.

Here’s what happens: Indoctrination leads to heightened amygdala activation, the part of the brain responsible for processing fear and emotion. As a result, the prefrontal cortex—which handles critical thinking, decision-making, and impulse control—becomes dampened.

Let’s say someone has come to believe that Zionism is evil. That belief becomes central to their new identity and their perceived moral standing. Now, any new evidence that contradicts that belief isn’t processed neutrally—it triggers a threat response. That’s when you get rigid neural pathways. The more these ideas are repeated, the more the brain hardwires them. Clinically, we refer to this as entrenchment. Colloquially, it’s doubling down.

You see this person dig deeper into their belief—not because they’re reasoning through it, but because it’s psychologically painful to unlearn it. They must admit that everything they’ve internalized and possibly acted upon is wrong.

That kind of rewiring is neurologically and emotionally difficult. We’ve studied this extensively in cult recovery; the same mechanisms apply here. When neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to adapt—is reduced, it limits cognitive flexibility and growth capacity.

Critical thinking reduces empathy in these cases because decision-making becomes fear-based. Once these neurological changes occur—heightened amygdala activation and diminished prefrontal engagement—the brain’s ability to produce empathy decreases. This can lead to an increased tolerance for violence and attitudes that would otherwise be morally unacceptable.

Now, you have a student who feels justified in believing that Jessica’s child cannot join the gardening club because they are certain they’re right. They’ll double down if you challenge them and don’t do it exactly the “correct” way. They’ve lost empathy because you’ve been redefined in their mind as “one of the bad guys.”

We need to consider empathy from all sides because, historically, we’ve seen where this can lead. Look at the youth movements under Nazi rule—many of those kids were indoctrinated. What we’re seeing now is not so different, and history is beginning to repeat itself.

Even more disturbing is that we now see this same dynamic creep into medicine and psychology.

Shaw: Jessica, can you show him the DBT slides?

Zmood: Yep, I’ve got them up.

Shaw: Great. I want Scott to see them. 

Jacobsen: For anyone reading this—DBT stands for Dialectical Behavior Therapy. Go ahead and share.

Shaw: Start with the one that shows the brain graphic—the one that labels Zionism and racism as diseases.

Jacobsen: Where is it sourced from?

Steinwurtzel: That’s the interesting part. If you look closely at the slide, it says “The Slow Factory.” This was presented as scientific data at a DBT workshop at the APA—the American Psychological Association.

However, The Slow Factory is not a research institution. It’s a consortium of artists and climate activists. They created this slide content based not on empirical science but on ideological messaging. And yet, it was shown to thousands of students and licensed clinicians at an APA conference.

Shaw: The slide suggests that there’s a part of your frontal lobe—your executive functioning center—that becomes infected by “Zionism,” which they claim must be decolonized and cured for someone to be psychologically healthy.

Jacobsen: The frame I’m getting here—as someone staunchly nonreligious—is that this sounds more like something you’d hear in the Middle Ages. It’s almost like saying someone is possessed and needs an exorcism. Suppose this isn’tbacked by data or empirical evidence. In that case, it’s closer to incantation—like casting out demons—than mental health science.

Zmood: Yes. So—this group’s mission is to “redesign socially and environmentally harmful systems” to align with what is good for the earth and good for people. But who are they? They’re designers—web designers, creative designers. This is a purely creative endeavour—these slides are fabricated visual content presented as if they were grounded in scientific research. They are also internalized by licensed clinicians, who bring these distorted frameworks into their therapeutic practices.

Now, therapy itself—a space that is supposed to be as apolitical and bias-free as possible—has been politicized. This contradicts everything we were taught in graduate school. 

Shaw: We were trained to be mindful of our projections, practice ethically, and maintain objectivity in the room. What’s happening now directly conflicts with the ethical codes of almost every professional licensing board—whether for LCSWs, MFTs, or psychologists under the APA. I have a slide listing all the different codes of ethics.

Zmood: I’ll show that next so you can see for yourself.

Steinwurtzel: But to take it even further: this same group includes people who describe themselves as queer abolitionist therapists, and when you research some of their platforms, you find that they are also advocating for eliminating mandated reporting laws. Essentially, they are arguing for anarchic frameworks in clinical practice. Scott, I know the laws are slightly different in Canada. Still, I can’t imagine they’re so different that a therapist wouldn’t be a mandated reporter. If any of us—therapists or teachers—suspect abuse, we are legally required to report it. That’s the law here. I assume it’s similar to where you are, but we can double-check.

Now, look at Lara Sheehi. She was the head of Division 39 of the American Psychological Association, the Psychoanalysis Division. That’s a significant position of influence. There’s a substantial body of material out there on her. These are typical things she posts publicly—every day—on Twitter. She’s not some fringe figure; she’s leading a division representing over 135,000 psychologists within the APA. That’s a serious ethical concern.

Jacobsen: So, when we do exploratory group discussions like this, the strategy we use is to identify points of traction so we can pursue them more deeply. When I see cases like what you’re describing, I draw a clear line between what’s happening here and something like the demonology and exorcism of the Middle Ages—because those were fantasy-based categories. Suppose someone came into your practice and said demons possessed them as a clinician. In that case, you’d have a professional response. But that belongs to a more obvious realm of irrationality. These categories being presented—Zionism, fascism, the Overton Window—are real concepts in political science and sociology. The Overton Window is the window of acceptable discourse. When people push increasingly extreme views into public dialogue, they shift that window—what was once radical becomes normalized.

So yes—Zionism, fascism, and the Overton Window are legitimate subjects of study. But what’s happening here is that, without any evidentiary foundation, these terms are being thrown together like a patchwork, as if they’re interchangeable psychological constructs. And that’s dangerous. It’s much more sophisticated to untangle that rhetorical collage than refuting something mythical, like demon possession. This is not pseudoscience in the traditional sense—it’s non-science cloaked in academic aesthetics.

Shaw: Well, this is what happened in Nazi Germany. They’re taking playbooks from that era—using fake science to justify harmful ideologies. This isn’t new. Throughout history, there have been many instances where science was warped to serve power. Entire communities were targeted. For example, there was a time when an entire Indigenous tribe was labelled “less worthy” and subjected to forced sterilization.

Science has been manipulated many times in history. And this is exactly why Gesher Campus Care needed to be created. Because we can’t just send Jewish college students—who are experiencing real antisemitism and psychological harm—to just any therapist, the therapists must be vetted and properly trained. Even Jewish-identifying therapists need specific training to understand this climate and the unique cultural, historical, and psychological needs of these students.

We touched on this in our last conversation. Still, I want to go deeper today into something I call “antisemitism of identity destabilization.” Identity destabilization can happen at any age, but it’s especially dangerous during late adolescence when young people figure out who they are in society. That’s why it becomes so critical on college campuses—students are forming identities, and now that identity is being challenged or vilified in profoundly harmful ways.

I have some of these examples on my phone, though not all are in my slide deck. Jessica, could you share that specific slide with me, too?

Jacobsen: Let’s pause here. I think I was the one who interrupted Jessica earlier—so if you have any other slides or points you want to finish, we can come back to that first.

Zmood: What we’re looking at here is a third set of examples—what I’d call a disturbing sample of what mental health clinicians are publicly posting on social media. These are licensed professionals, and their posts include statements like:

“I’m feeling urgency, anger, disgust, and avoidance when working with Zionist patients.”

“Jewish people are sexual predators.”

“Keep your crimes out of this country.”

“A large portion of my clients are Zionists. I never understood how that might impact their well-being. Any wisdom on this? None of them are seeing me with the intention of deconstructing.”

That word—”deconstructing”—is key. It ties directly into the previous slide we showed, where the therapist talks about “deconstructing the colonized mind.” The idea here is that the Zionist part of the brain—a part of someone’s identity—is considered an illness that must be “treated” or “removed.”

Another example reads:

“Zionism is a racist white supremacy ideology.”

This kind of statement completely erases Jewish identity. It’s not even factually accurate. 

Shaw: Because the truth is, Jews aren’t “white” in the monolithic, simplistic way these ideologues are framing it.

One of the most important points I emphasize is that Judaism is one of the world’s most ethnically and culturally diverse identities. Judaism predates modern categories like ethnicity, culture, and religion, which have only existed for the past few hundred years. Judaism has been around for over 4,000 years.

So what happens when you’re Jewish and something else? What if you’re queer and Jewish? What if you’re Black and Jewish? What if you’re Latino and Jewish?

And the irony here is staggering. Hitler targeted Jews because we weren’t “white enough.” Now, 70 years later, people are calling us white supremacists. It’s a complete reversal of history—a distortion that erases the trauma, displacement, and persecution that define such a lot of Jewish history.

We all originally came from the Middle East and were repeatedly expelled from our homeland. That created a diaspora that resulted in an incredibly diverse global community. Jews today come from every continent—we have Ethiopian Jews, Iranian Jews, Indian Jews, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, and so many others.

To reduce us to a single label—and then use that label to justify exclusion, dehumanization, or discrimination—it’s not only offensive, it’s historically false. And no other group would tolerate this kind of treatment. Why should we?

If we said these things about any other group—if we substituted the word Zionist with any other minority population—people would be rightfully disgusted. But somehow, Jews don’t count as minorities, even though the numbers clearly show we are. We are 0.2% of the global population. Yet, we’re treated as though our concerns are invalid because we’re perceived as a “successful minority” or somehow not “marginalized enough.”

That’s part of the paradox of antisemitism. It’s duplicitous and self-contradictory. On one hand, we’re portrayed as oppressors, and on the other hand, as “dirty Jews.” On one hand, we’re “not a real minority,” but on the other hand, we’re still subject to slurs, threats, and exclusion. These contradictions—this back-and-forth logic—are central to how antisemitism functions. It thrives on double standards and what I call macro gaslighting.

You’ll hear things like, “Well, that’s not antisemitism. I’m just anti-Zionist.” Or, “You’re being too sensitive,” or, “You’re calling it antisemitism just to silence my free speech.” These are gaslighting tactics.

And, Scott, have you heard of DARVO?

Jacobsen: Yes—deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. I first learned about it from people working in the space of clergy-related abuse. It’s become a recognized pattern in manipulative or abusive behaviour.

Shaw: That’s what we’re seeing here on a cultural scale. As clinicians, we all feel a strong responsibility to protect the next generation’s mental health. We already know the long-term consequences of the generation after the Holocaust survivors. This moment now requires the same level of care.

This is not just a community issue—it’s a mental health crisis, particularly for adolescents and late adolescents. Shelly and Jessica are truly heroes in this space. They saw a service gap and created a nonprofit that works daily to ensure students receive the culturally competent mental health support they need.

The goal isn’t to achieve a perfect identity development process—because that’s not realistic in this climate—but to at least make it as normative as possible in an environment that is anything but normal.

Steinwurtzel: Scott, there are so many layers here. I’ll share a couple of thoughts now.

First, it’s not just the students. Yes, they are at particular risk because they’re in the middle of developing their sense of self—figuring out how they want to show up in the world. That stage is critical.

But we’re also hearing from faculty and staff, which brings another risk layer. For example, untenured faculty members are afraid to speak openly. Many of them have anti-Zionist advisers or tenure board members, and some of these boards are holding class sessions in encampments. So, expressing their Jewish or Zionist identity can jeopardize their careers.

Then there are graduate students, many of whom are silently struggling. At Gesher, we aim to support anyone on campus who needs us—not just undergrads but faculty, staff, and grad students. Everyone is experiencing this differently, and campus communities are their microcultures. Each campus has its vibe and pressures, and people are tied to that culture in a way unlike any other environment.

That’s such an important point. The gaslighting that Malka described earlier? It’s not just happening on the individual level but at a mass scale. What we’re witnessing is an inversion of reality, where the victims are made to feel like the perpetrators and speech that defends identity is twisted into accusations of bigotry.

It’s not only harmful to Jewish students—it’s dangerous to democracy. We’re losing our ability to hold nuanced conversations. And that’s what college is supposed to be about—learning to wrestle with ideas, not silencing people or pushing them into hiding.

So we’re talking about both individual psychology and a broader cultural psyche—a kind of collective, ambient anxiety and reversal that’s deeply damaging. And yes, this is bigger than just the Jewish community. It’s a question of whether we still value intellectual honesty, diversity of thought, and the ability to disagree without dehumanizing.

How do we have real conversations without throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Can we agree with certain aspects of a person’s thought process or belief system without agreeing with every part? From a psychological perspective, we can’t diagnose an entire society, but we can observe a trend toward black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing reasoning, characteristic of psychological immaturity.

In healthy adult development, we should be able to hold on to complexity. We should be able to say, “This part I agree with, but that part I don’t.” Psychologically speaking, that’s called the ability to think in shades of gray. When we do this, we can hold multiple truths simultaneously—we can mourn and still feel joy or grieve and live fully. That’s a marker of emotional maturity.

But right now, what we’re seeing on many college campuses is something different—more aligned with what we would clinically call rigid thinking or even what resembles traits of borderline personality disorder. I’m sure you’ve encountered BPD in your psychology background, Scott. There’s a desperate need for many of these students to feel like they’re part of something meaningful. And to achieve that sense of belonging, they’re willing to sacrifice critical thinking, or as the saying goes, throw the baby out with the bathwater. And that’s a dangerous way to shape our future generations.

Shaw: Many students are willing to take social, academic, and psychological risks. And they may even know what they’re risking it for. They’ve been told this is the “right side of history,” so they follow it unquestioningly. Those were a couple of the thoughts that came to me as everyone shared.

And, if I may share something a little more personal—when all of this began unfolding, yes, it was shocking as a Jewish person. But it was profoundly horrifying to experience this as a Jewish mental health professional. Our professional identities are deeply tied to our values. We’ve pursued this field because it means something to us. So, to suddenly face antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism, not only from society but from within our field, has been devastating.

Zmood: I have to go. Shelly can continue in good faith without me—and Malka, too. Thank you, Scott.

Jacobsen: Thank you, Jess. Thanks for being part of this conversation.

Shaw: So, Scott, do you have any quick or specific questions you want to ask before we wrap up?

Jacobsen: Yes, I do. The one I had relates to your reflections—specifically on Jess’s presentation about some of these individuals and our observed trends.

I want to be clear—I’m not looking to “cancel” anyone’s business. However, many of these people have professional channels, and the concern is about the public messaging influencing clients and clinicians.

They share their qualifications—”Come see me; I’m open at these times,” “Here are my rates,” “Contact me for more information or special offers,” etc. This is standard professional practice. People are allowed to make a living as clinical social workers or psychologists.

But what stands out in these cases is that the commentary shared on their platforms is often political or personal and posted on their professional pages—as part of their brand. That’s an entirely different dynamic. If these views were expressed purely in personal spaces, that would be one thing. People are allowed to have opinions. But the issue is when those opinions—particularly antisemitic or ideologically aggressive views—are being shared in spaces used for clinical advertising and patient engagement.

In your analysis, are these statements posted in professional spaces like LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook pages representing their practices?

Shaw: Yes, it’s important to separate two things here. First, we’ve seen that the world of professionalism is becoming less professional overall. I might be the oldest on this Zoom. Still, when I graduated college, the expectation was that you interviewed in a blazer, wore closed-toe shoes, had no visible piercings or tattoos, and kept strict professional boundaries. That was the norm.

There’s been a cultural shift in attire and how people define “professionalism.” Personal branding has merged with professional identity. So yes, they’re posting political commentary—often deeply biased and, in many cases, explicitly antisemitic—on platforms where they are simultaneously offering services to clients. That is deeply troubling. There’s another piece we may not have time to unpack today fully, but it’s worth flagging: What role did the pandemic play in this?

Students currently in college were in middle school or high school during COVID-19. That means their critical identity formation years happened in isolation during a global trauma. That’s bound to have psychosocial impacts, including how they perceive relationships, authority, and ideology. The professional world also changed during that time. Work from home, telehealth, and TikTok therapy blurred boundaries even further. What we’re seeing now is a direct outcome of that shift.

But the fact remains: using professional platforms to promote antisemitic or biased materials is both appalling and heartbreaking. For Jewish mental health professionals like us, it’s a triple heartbreak.

First, there’s the ongoing trauma of what’s happening in Israel and with the hostages. Second, antisemitism is resurgent—especially in academic and mental health spaces. Third, there’s the sense of betrayal from our profession—a field to which we devoted our lives.

All three of us here are members of AJMA, the American Jewish Medical Association. AJMA was founded after October 7 to respond to the growing hostility within the medical and mental health fields. What’s happening in hospitals and therapy rooms is outrageous; we’ve been speaking out.

So yes, we’re all in this together because it’s not just personal—it’s professional, communal, and existential.

Steinwurtzel: To answer your question directly, yes, these attitudes are normalized in professional spaces. They are tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged or celebrated. That’s why we’re speaking up.

The American Psychological Association (APA) strongly advocates “decolonizing therapy.” On its face, this concept is not necessarily problematic. There’s room for discussion about how therapy can better serve diverse populations. However, politicizing this idea within the therapeutic frame is unacceptable.

I dropped in a reference to Thema Bryant, who was President of the APA. I have nothing personal against her—I don’t know her—but ‘decolonizing therapy’ was one of the main initiatives she advocated for during her presidency.

That’s part of how this has become so normalized. People are now putting this language—framed as clinical best practice—on their professional websites and social media. It’s become part of the expected rhetoric for anyone promoting therapy services. So, prospective clients encounter it and interpret it as evidence-based.

I have no issue with dialogue on these themes. We should always be evolving and engaging in complex conversations. But the problem arises when a specific group—in this case, Jews and Zionists—is singled out and mischaracterized as part of a global colonial enterprise.

The irony—and frankly, the absurdity—of this is striking. Israel is a tiny piece of land. The Jewish people make up 0.2% of the world’s population. To claim that Jews are somehow orchestrating global colonialism is historically, demographically, and logically flawed.

There are over two million Arab citizens living in Israel today. Zionism is not—and has never been—the desire to eliminate other people from Israel. As Mark already said earlier, that’s a complete misrepresentation of what Zionism means.

I also dropped in the Free Press article by Sally Satel. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, Scott, but it’s incredibly relevant. 

Jacobsen: I interviewed her several years ago. She is thoughtful and grounded.

Steinwurtzel: I shared the article not just because Gesher is mentioned in it but also because the letter it includes—written by the leadership of Psychologists Against Antisemitism, including Julie Ansis—is exceptionally well-crafted.

The letter outlines many growing concerns within the APA and, more broadly, across social work and mental health. It shows how ideologically driven frameworks—like unexamined uses of “decolonization”—are being normalized in professional spaces and how this creates an unsafe environment for Jewish professionals and clients alike. It’s part of why we’re so deeply concerned.

You asked earlier about the psychological makeup of someone who espouses antisemitic beliefs or engages in these behaviours on campuses. That’s a complex question, and honestly, it’s been quite a journey for us to witness our colleagues and peers—people who are intelligent, educated, and clinically trained—embracing these ideologies.

There isn’t a single psychological profile. As we’ve said before, it can happen to anyone. These ideas have become so entrenched, particularly under decolonization and equity.

But then, you look at the Jewish experience, and we become a conundrum within these frameworks. We are 0.2% of the population, but we’ve been relatively successful in certain fields. And that disrupts the equity narrative.

Jacobsen: Right—Jews make up a quarter of Nobel Prize winners. 

Shaw: It disrupts the narrative, and instead of embracing complexity, some people double down on simplified ideological thinking. And that’s when it gets dangerous. That’s also part of Jewish culture. The emphasis on education and literacy has been central to Jewish identity for millennia—even in the Middle Ages. 

Jacobsen: But here’s the thing: you don’t see people haranguing Hindu or Sikh women for success.

Shaw: There’s this persistent oxymoron—a contradictory double standard—that operates when it comes to Jews. Take one example from history: money lending. That role became stigmatized and portrayed as morally corrupt. But why did Jews become associated with money lending in the first place?

The truth is that, historically, Jews were excluded from owning land—so they couldn’t be farmers. They were barred from guilds so that they couldn’t become craftsmen. The only profession left open to them—due to restrictions imposed by Christian institutions—was money lending. Then, when the Catholic Church forbade Christians from lending money with interest, Jews became the only ones allowed to perform that necessary function. And suddenly, they were vilified for it. We were forced into that role, and then we were demonized for surviving.

Shaw: I often say Jews have had no choice but to excel—because the alternative was extermination. That’s the brutal historical reality. We had to become resilient, resourceful, and driven—not because we wanted to outshine others, but because our survival depended on it.

Steinwurtzel: I just returned from Israel. I want to share something because it speaks to both the psychology of survival and the emotional complexity that Israelis have developed—and that we in America are struggling to integrate.

This goes back to the black-and-white thinking we’ve been discussing—the rise of cancel culture, the borderline dynamics, and the erosion of nuance in how we relate to others and ideas.

Israel’s experience is completely different. This is a country in deep mourning. People are devastated by loss, angry, and actively surviving.

At the same time, there is joy, exuberance for life, sharper focus, and more vibrant energy. The emotional bandwidth is wide—they feel the full range of human experience, not collapsing into black-and-white modes.

One of the recently released hostages shared that Hersh Goldberg-Polin—while still in captivity—said something deeply profound to him, a paraphrase of Viktor Frankl: “When you have a why, the how becomes possible.”

That’s it. That’s the center of it. When you know your why, the how becomes more manageable. There’s clarity, purpose, and prioritization. You stop wasting energy on distraction or division.

That clarity drives our work. It’s what drove Malka to develop Kesher and our work with Gesher. These initiatives were born out of trauma, but they offer pathways to growth and resilience.

In psychology, we talk about this as post-traumatic growth. Trauma doesn’t always have to lead to long-term injury. Traumatic experiences don’t have to become traumatizing if we healthily process them and find meaning in the pain.

Malka covers this so beautifully in her training. I’ve seen it firsthand in my clinical work, especially in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). I wasn’t even working in the field of antisemitism before October 7. But that day changed everything.

In my practice, my personal political beliefs don’t come up because, as Jess and Malka said, we were trained to follow the patient. Our role is to guide them clinically, using neuropsychological, psychological, behavioural, and psychosocial frameworks. Our political opinions have no place in the therapy room.

That’s part of what we’re also training our Gesher therapists to remember. Even though the mental health field has become politically active, our therapeutic environments must remain safe spaces for patients—places where they can explore their “why,” not our “why.”

That’s where Gesher and Kesher became necessary.

Jacobsen: We saw quotes from therapists openly stating that they need to ‘decolonize the space of their patients'” That is not patient-centred care. That’s motivated therapy—it reflects the therapist’s agenda, not the client’s needs.

Steinwurtzel: And honestly, it’s strikingly similar to the rationale behind conversion therapy. The psychological field fought hard to remove conversion therapy from legitimate clinical practice because we came to understand the scientific and psychosocial basis of sexual diversity. We now recognize that trying to “convert” someone’s orientation is unethical and harmful.

But this idea of “decolonizing the Zionist mind”—that’s conversion therapy for Jews. It’s a nonreligious form, but the structure is the same: it assumes something fundamentally broken or wrong about a person’s identity. It seeks to change it against their will.

Shaw: It’s worth noting, too—this isn’t just a fringe issue. These perspectives are now mainstreaming in professional spaces, and they’re being positioned as therapeutic norms.

Here’s something random but relevant: I looked into the Jewish history there when we were in Spain. There are very few Jews left in Spain today, either due to conversion, exile, or mass murder dating back centuries. But historically, there was a large Sephardic Jewish population there.

Steinwurtzel: Recently, a genetic study found that about 30% of Spanish men—men who today identify as non-Jewish—carry Sephardic Jewish ancestry. That’s a huge percentage, and it tells us something about how deeply rooted Jewish identity is in many parts of the world.

Shaw: That ties into the larger conversation about Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews. In North America, Ashkenazi Jews are more visible and numerous. But in the global Jewish population, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews make up the majority. That’s an important correction to some of the misinformation being circulated.

This whole narrative that Jews are “white colonizers” in Israel? It’s absurd.

Go to Israel, you’ll find it’s an extremely diverse State.  Israel is majority Mizrahi—which is closer to North African. Sephardic Jews have more Mediterranean features. It’s not a white state in the way it’s often portrayed. 

Steinwurtzel: And don’t forget Ethiopian Jews. My cousin is married to an Ethiopian Jew—she’s Black. Her heritage is fully Jewish. There are Black Jews, Arab Jews, Indian Jews, Chinese Jews. The Jewish people are ethnically and racially diverse.

So this narrative that ‘Zionism is white colonialism’—it’s not just offensive, it’s categorically false. It erases centuries of history, migration, and survival. And it ignores the fact that Jewish diversity is central to who we are.

Her family came from Ethiopia in the 1990s. When you speak to Ethiopian Jews who made aliyah, their stories are often incredibly powerful. I remember being in Israel another time, eating in an Ethiopian restaurant, and this woman sharing her story. One of the things she said struck me deeply—and it speaks to what Zionism truly is.

She told us that her grandparents and earlier generations in Ethiopia had no idea other Jews existed. They thought they were the only remaining tribe of Jewish people—that they alone carried the tradition of Zion. They had no technology, no external communication, and no way to connect with Jews outside their isolated villages.

When they eventually learned about the State of Israel and that there were Jews all over the world, they were in shock. It was life-changing. It reoriented their entire understanding of their identity. This woman asked her grandmother, “What surprised you the most about coming to Israel?” And her grandmother responded: “I can’t believe there are white Jews.”

And for many of us, our reaction might be the reverse—”I can’t believe there are Black Jews.” But that’s the beauty of it. Judaism is so ethnically diverse. They didn’t have religious texts or educational resources—just oral traditions and prayers toward Jerusalem. And that’s the key: Jerusalem is our indigenous home. Our souls, as Jews, are deeply tied to that land. It’s not a slogan. It’s who we are.

That’s my little moment on the bully pulpit—I know I’ve been talking for a while. I need to go soon.

Shaw: Scott, do you have any final questions or thoughts before I go? Thank you for being so patient with us today and for reading all of this so thoroughly.

Jacobsen: Thank you—all of you—for your time. There’s still a lot more to explore.  And I know Malka needs to go now—so we can start wrapping up.

Shaw: Yes, Scott, thank you again. It’s always a pleasure working with you. You’re amazing, and I’m glad you’re shining a light on these important issues.

Steinwurtzel: Absolutely. 

Jacobsen: Not a problem at all. Thank you for your time, Malka.

Shaw: Bye, everyone!

All: Bye!

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.