In early August, mainstream outlets repeated the findings of a flawed report describing alarming levels of antisemitism on university campuses. Two weeks later, the authors stated that 92 per cent of…

In early August, the Canadian government released a report on the “alarming prevalence of campus antisemitism” at postsecondary institutions. The mainstream media was quick to uncritically parrot the report’s findings, despite early alarm bells raised by independent organizations about the report’s methodology.

  • Otter@lemmy.caM
    9·
    24 hours ago

    What is the justification for rolling disclosure? That seems like a very obvious problem for this kind of a report

    The above methodological concerns, however, are amplified by a rhetorical concern, obscured by what one might call the CASE report’s “rolling disclosure” — an opaque process by which the report’s findings are slowly and partially revealed over time, rather than all at once. This complicates the ability for readers to scrutinize the report’s raw data, as well as its author’s interpretation of that data.

    When the CASE report was first released on Aug. 5, it exclusively highlighted the experience of Zionist Jewish respondents, while making zero reference to the experience of those anti-Zionist students who participated in the survey.

    In stark contrast, amongst anti-Zionist Jewish respondents, a whopping 92 per cent said their campuses were safe and inclusive for Jewish students. In the National Post column, the authors try to write off the anti-Zionist data as a “psychological or social” phenomenon rooted in “a desire for social acceptance.”

    The reality seems much simpler: Zionist Jewish students conflate hostility towards Israel with hostility towards Jews, whereas anti-Zionist Jewish students do not.