When it comes to combating antisemitism, clarity and moral urgency are essential — but they are not enough. Even the most righteous message must be shaped with precision if it is to persuade, not merely proclaim. Tone, framing and strategy matter. And as new research shows, even well-intentioned efforts can backfire if the message provokes defensiveness rather than fosters understanding.
That challenge now sits squarely on the shoulders of the Anti-Defamation League. Founded more than a century ago to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people,” ADL has become one of the most visible anti-hate organizations in the world. Its budget has more than doubled in five years, topping $160 million, as antisemitism has surged to levels unseen in decades. In an era of multiplying hate crimes and normalization of conspiratorial rhetoric, ADL’s voice carries extraordinary weight.
But according to a new study by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University, that voice is not always heard the way it is intended. Researchers tested how more than 3,000 people responded to language taken from ADL curricula and speeches. The results were sobering. While some respondents showed support, others displayed heightened defensiveness and a measurable uptick in antisemitic sentiment. Messages framed in “anti-oppressive” language — often modeled on diversity, equity and inclusion frameworks — boosted defensiveness by 70% and antisemitic responses by 12%. The very language meant to challenge hatred risked amplifying it.
ADL acknowledges that some of its earlier messaging was flawed and says it has updated its materials. But critics argue the problem runs deeper than a few word choices. They see an organization too enmeshed in ideological battles, aligning with frameworks that treat identity as a zero-sum competition rather than a shared civic commitment. Instead of breaking down prejudice, that posture can entrench it. Messages designed to signal moral clarity to insiders can, at the same time, alienate those who might otherwise be persuadable.
This is not simply a communications failure — it is a strategic one. Antisemitism is not defeated by winning arguments with those already persuaded. It is countered, over time, by cultivating trust, creating shared narratives and appealing to universal democratic values. Messaging has to speak not just to one’s allies, but also to those outside the circle of agreement — people whose skepticism can harden or soften depending on how they are approached.
The burden for this work should not rest on ADL alone. Coalitions of advocates — Jewish and non-Jewish — can help refine messaging, coordinate responses and reach wider audiences with greater credibility and nuance. Faith communities, educators, philanthropies, civic leaders and civil society groups can play complementary roles, translating core messages into different idioms that resonate with distinct constituencies. A broad network of trusted messengers can succeed where a single institutional voice may falter.
Words alone will not end antisemitism. But careless words can make the task harder. ADL’s experience is a reminder that in the fight against hatred, language is not an afterthought. It is the front line of strategy. And that strategy demands partnerships, humility and persuasion — not just proclamation.
