City University of New York School of Law is under scrutiny after hosting a lecture that critics say portrayed Hamas tunnel operations in a controversial manner. The presentation reportedly framed the tunnel system as a strategic military response rather than focusing on its use in terrorist attacks against Israel. The event has intensified debate over academic standards and ideological bias in publicly funded universities.
The lecture examined Hamas tunnel infrastructure in Gaza, which has been used to transport weapons, launch attacks, and conceal fighters. According to critics, the discussion emphasized engineering complexity and military tactics while giving limited attention to the tunnels’ role in deadly assaults on Israeli civilians. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States government.
Jewish advocacy organizations and several public officials condemned the event. They argue that presenting the tunnels primarily as defensive infrastructure risks sanitizing the actions of a group responsible for violence and hostage-taking. Concerns center on whether the event crossed from academic analysis into ideological advocacy.
CUNY has faced repeated criticism in recent years over campus events and faculty statements related to Israel and the Middle East. Lawmakers have previously questioned whether antisemitism and political activism are being sufficiently addressed within the university system. The latest controversy adds to those ongoing concerns.
University representatives have cited academic freedom as a guiding principle, stating that law schools must examine complex global conflicts. Critics counter that academic freedom does not eliminate responsibility to provide full context, especially when discussing organizations formally designated as terrorists by the U.S. government.
The dispute unfolds amid heightened tensions in the Middle East and increased scrutiny of campus programming nationwide. Public institutions supported by taxpayer dollars face growing pressure to ensure balanced, fact-based discussions that do not legitimize extremist groups.
