Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-01**Lead**
A major philanthropic commitment aimed at understanding and combating antisemitism in the United States was announced this week, with a pledge of several million dollars from the Mamdani family to support university-based research, curriculum development, and public outreach programs. The pledge, directed at a consortium of institutions, promises to expand the scientific study of contemporary antisemitism, yet it notably avoids addressing a foundational question that has long divided social scientists: what exactly counts as antisemitism, and how can it be reliably measured?
**Context**
The announcement comes at a time when reports of antisemitic incidents in the United States have reached historic highs, according to data collected by organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the FBI’s hate crime statistics. Academic institutions have become central battlegrounds in the debate, with tensions flaring over campus protests, speech codes, and accusations of bias. Researchers in sociology, political science, and psychology have intensified efforts to document the scope, drivers, and consequences of antisemitism, but the field remains fragmented by competing definitions.
Mahmood Mamdani, a prominent scholar of postcolonial studies and political science at Columbia University, has been a controversial figure in these debates. His academic work has often focused on the construction of historical narratives and the politics of identity, and he has previously critiqued what he sees as the instrumentalization of antisemitism accusations in political discourse. The pledge, made through a family foundation, does not carry Mamdani’s direct involvement in the research agenda, but his intellectual footprint is evident: the initiative emphasizes interdisciplinary approaches, historical context, and the inclusion of voices from diverse communities. The exact amount has not been disclosed publicly, but insiders place it in the range of $5 million to $10 million, funded over five years.
The unresolved question refers to the ongoing and often heated debate about the definition of antisemitism itself. Many researchers rely on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition, which has been adopted by numerous governments and universities. Critics, however, argue that the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, potentially chilling legitimate political speech. Alternative frameworks, such as the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document, offer nuanced distinctions, yet none has achieved universal consensus among scholars. The Mamdani pledge, while calling for rigorous data collection and analysis, does not specify which definition its funded projects will adopt, leaving a potentially destabilizing ambiguity at the core of the scientific enterprise.
**Analysis**
This lack of definitional clarity is not merely an academic quibble; it has profound implications for the validity and comparability of research findings. If one study counts a statement as antisemitic while another does not, meta-analyses become impossible, and policy recommendations derived from such research may be contradictory. The scientific study of prejudice has long struggled with operationalization—how to turn a complex social phenomenon into measurable variables. In the case of antisemitism, the challenge is compounded by historical trauma, political polarization, and the multiplicity of forms it takes, from far-right violence to left-wing rhetoric to religious anti-Judaism.
The pledge’s emphasis on funding empirical research could help standardize methodologies if researchers collaborate on instrument design. However, without an upfront commitment to a transparent, evidence-based process for defining the object of study, the risk is that funded projects will produce incompatible results, undermining the very credibility the initiative seeks to build. Moreover, the omission may reflect an awareness that forcing a single definition could alienate partners from different academic traditions or political orientations, thereby reducing the initiative’s reach and impact.
From a science policy perspective, the Mamdani pledge mirrors a broader trend in philanthropy: directing substantial resources toward complex social issues while leaving technical questions to grantees. This approach can foster innovation, but it also places the burden of resolving foundational disputes onto individual research teams, who may lack the authority or incentive to achieve consensus. The social sciences, unlike the natural sciences, rarely have the luxury of paradigm shifts that settle such debates once and for all. As a result, the pledge may energize a new wave of studies on antisemitism, but without addressing the definitional elephant in the room, the field may find itself producing more heat than light.
**Fontes**
This article draws on publicly available information from university press releases, academic publications on the measurement of antisemitism (including work in the journals “Social Forces” and “Contemporary Jewry”), and reports by the Anti-Defamation League and the FBI Hate Crime Statistics program. The details of the Mamdani family’s philanthropic activities are based on statements from Columbia University and independent media coverage. No direct interviews or internal documents were used.