A recent podcast published by the Rutgers Law School Center for Security, Race, and Rights (CSRR) featured Columbia University Professor Mahmood Mamdani comparing Israel’s creation to Nazi political ideology and arguing that “the two-state solution gave a longer lease to Nazism’s political agenda.”
Read more A US tariff that Beijing will love
(UPDATE: For those wondering about Mahmood’s last name, yes, he’s Zohran’s daddy.)
The episode was released by CSRR, a Rutgers Law-affiliated center founded and directed by Rutgers Law Professor Sahar Aziz.
During the discussion, Mamdani made several statements connecting Israel’s political foundations to historical systems associated with colonialism and genocide.
Mamdani stated: “Hitler drew two lessons from the U.S. First, that genocide is doable and therefore thinkable.”
He later argued: “The two-state solution gave a longer lease to Nazism’s political agenda.”
Mamdani also discussed “de-Zionization,” describing it as “undo[ing] the Jewish state.”
The remarks drew scrutiny because they move beyond criticism of a particular Israeli government, policy, or military action. Instead, they frame Israel’s existence as part of a broader political lineage associated with Nazi Germany and genocide.
By placing the creation of Israel within a framework associated with Nazi Germany, the argument uses the history of Jewish persecution to cast Jewish national self-determination as a continuation of the ideology that targeted Jews. This form of Holocaust inversion shifts the moral weight of the Holocaust onto the Jewish state and moves the discussion beyond criticism of a government or its policies.
The comments also raise concerns because they blur the distinction between criticism of a government and rejection of the legitimacy of a state’s existence. Presenting Israel itself as a continuation of oppressive systems creates a framework in which the existence of a Jewish state becomes the subject of condemnation rather than a political issue open to debate.
Read more Commiecrats once enthusiastically supported paper ballots
Mamdani previously drew controversy for his statements on Israel and campus antisemitism. He participated in Columbia University’s 2024 Gaza Solidarity Encampment and argued that accusations of antisemitism were being used by university administrators to discredit pro-Palestinian activism.
The controversy surrounding the episode extends beyond Mamdani’s statements and raises questions about the role of universities when affiliated centers publish politically charged content under institutional platforms.
CSRR operates within Rutgers Law School and distributes its programming through channels connected to Rutgers. Unlike an independent media outlet or private organization, the center benefits from the university’s academic reputation, institutional reach, and public credibility.
That affiliation creates a responsibility for Rutgers to explain how such centers are governed. The university does not need to endorse every view expressed by a guest, nor does academic freedom require institutions to prevent controversial discussions. However, universities must establish clear standards for the use of their names, resources, and public platforms.
Rutgers should clarify what oversight applies to CSRR programming, whether university officials review public-facing content produced by affiliated centers, and how the institution distinguishes the views of individual speakers from programming presented through a Rutgers Law platform.
The issue is particularly relevant because universities increasingly rely on centers and institutes to shape public conversations beyond the classroom. Those entities often serve as the public face of an institution on complex political and social issues, making transparency about their governance essential.
Academic freedom protects the ability of professors and universities to engage with controversial ideas, but it does not eliminate institutional responsibility.
Protect Our Campus, a nonpartisan organization documenting campus antisemitism, extremism, and inflammatory faculty rhetoric, contacted Rutgers requesting comment on Mamdani’s remarks and clarification regarding CSRR’s oversight. Rutgers had not responded before publication.
The broader question is whether universities can provide institutional platforms to faculty-led centers while avoiding responsibility for the standards, governance, and impact of the content distributed through those platforms.
Read more King Solomon solves the Daylight Savings Time dilemma
Image generated by ChatGPT.