DOJ investigating how the University of Washington handles antisemitism 3%

By Scott Greenstone0%

4/21/2026, 10:40:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Pessimism Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 15.8% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 502 faulty-reasoning hits from 583 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 13.2% and a BS Rank of 3% (20,088 of 20,518 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.90% of the article peer group.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon posted on social media Monday that her Civil Rights Division of the U.S. 
Department of Justice will investigate the University of Washington’s “handling of antisemitism.” 
A UW spokesperson told KUOW the university was notified that the Justice Department is “conducting a compliance review.” 
President Donald Trump’s Justice Department has investigated 60 American universities and sued some of them for billions of dollars in his second term. 
Many have settled or agreed to change policies. 
UW itself has mandated a campuswide civil rights training as part of a voluntary agreement in January with the U.S. 
Department of Education after allegations of unchecked antisemitism on-campus in 2023 and 2024. 
But it’s unclear how much of this new review will focus on pro-Palestinian protests on campus. 
The inciting incident Dhillon seemed to post about was an off-campus fundraiser by a group the university has disavowed and de-registered: Students United for Palestinian Equality and Return, or SUPER UW. 
“Tomorrow, a student group—SUPER UW—is holding a fundraising event for the ‘Lebanese resistance,’” Dhillon posted on X Monday. 
“The group has a history of violent antisemitic activity of University of Washington’s campus.” 
While most pro-Palestinian protest groups reached an agreement with UW in 2024 and stopped occupying parts of UW’s campus, SUPER has continued and escalated. 
In 2025, 33 activists were arrested after they took over a new engineering building and smashed lab equipment inside. 
They’ve been charged with misdemeanors for criminal trespass, and a UW spokesperson said 23 of them who were students on campus were suspended last year, but can now return to class. 
UW has also suspended SUPER’s registration as a university group, and last month appealed to Meta to stop the group from using “UW” in its name online. 
RELATED: UW enters federal agreement to improve response to discrimination claims 
The Department of Justice didn’t respond to a request for comment about whether an off-campus fundraiser by a group no longer affiliated with the university was the trigger for this investigation, or how far its scope would reach. 
“The University will cooperate with the review and provide information and responses,” Victor Balta, UW’s assistant vice president for communications, wrote in an email. 
“The University of Washington strongly and unequivocally opposes antisemitism in all forms.” 
A spokesperson for SUPER, Noah Weight, told KUOW the group sees this move from the feds as "just another example in the long history of the American empire criminalizing humanitarian work when it centers around Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, or other countries that are actively resisting US imperialism." 
Weight said the group has done several fundraisers like this one before and will keep doing them. 
"These fraudulent intimidation tactics by the state will have no effect on our work," Weight said. 
This isn't the first time the feds have looked into UW's policies on handling anti-Jewish sentiment. 
In May 2025, after SUPER's 33 activists took over the university engineering building, a federal "Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism" initiated a review and said it expected "the institution to follow up with enforcement actions and policy changes that are clearly necessary to prevent these uprisings moving forward." 
Surveys and focus groups on UW's campus in 2024 found that while many Jewish students reported being the target of anti-semitic slurs or harassment, others said they'd been targeted by fellow Jews for supporting Gazans, and many Palestinian students also felt the need to hide their identities on campus for fear of discrimination. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 4.0%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 3.2%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Scott Greenstone: 4.7%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.6%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.5%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.4%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%Scott Greenstone: 20.3%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect13.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.4%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.8%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Scott Greenstone: 1.2%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias2.9%This article: 8.1%Scott Greenstone: 2.5%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias8.1%This article: 7.9%Scott Greenstone: 9.4%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias7.9%This article: 2.7%Scott Greenstone: 1.6%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.2%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Scott Greenstone: 3.7%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias8.1%This article: 4.1%Scott Greenstone: 1.3%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 3.0%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.3%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.3%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.2%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Scott Greenstone: 2.9%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem2.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.5%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.2%Scott Greenstone: 6.6%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority8.2%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.9%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.1%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.8%Scott Greenstone: 6.5%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization15.8%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.0%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 2.8%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.1%Scott Greenstone: 9.6%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.7%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.9%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.5%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 2.4%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.4%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.6%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.3%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.4%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.1%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.5%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 3.1%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 2.3%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 2.3%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 0.6%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Greenstone: 1.6%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

583 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers31%attributed speech405writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageHarmeet Dhillon • 12 words • 0.0% coverageUW spokesperson • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageHarmeet Dhillon • 18 words • 0.0% coverageHarmeet Dhillon • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageVictor Balta • 24 words • 0.0% coverageVictor Balta • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNoah Weight • 47 words • 0.0% coverageNoah Weight • 17 words • 0.0% coverageNoah Weight • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Noah Weight

100%flagged-word coverage
80 attributed words45% of attributed speech41% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.