After October 7, much of the discussion about universities centered on their official statements. People wanted to know who condemned Hamas, who addressed antisemitism, who spoke about Palestinian civilians, and who chose not to say much at all. That made sense. A public statement is often the first thing people see when they are trying to understand an institution. But statements have limits. They are usually written quickly, revised by several people, and shaped by concerns that extend well beyond the issue itself. Regent University deserves a closer look because its response was larger than a single statement. The more revealing story is not only what Regent said, but what it went on to build.

Taken as a whole, Regent’s public record points in a consistent direction. The university has spoken clearly in support of Israel, condemned antisemitism without hesitation, and invested in educating its community about Israel and the Jewish people. It has said much less about Gaza as a humanitarian crisis, Islamophobia, or Palestinian political aspirations. That does not mean those subjects were absent from classrooms, private conversations, or pastoral care. It simply means the public evidence points much more strongly in one direction than the other. Judged by what the university has chosen to say and do publicly, the pattern is clear.

The first major piece of evidence came on November 20, 2023, when Chancellor Gordon Robertson signed Regent University’s “Statement on Antisemitism.” The statement said Regent “stands unwaveringly” against antisemitism on college campuses and used the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism as its reference point. It grounded the university’s position not only in campus safety, but also in Christian theology, religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and the protection of Jewish students and communities. The statement quoted both Jewish and Christian scripture and argued that antisemitism violates principles at the heart of Christian faith. That makes it different from a generic university statement against hatred. Regent was not just saying antisemitism is unacceptable; it was saying a Christian university has a theological reason to oppose it.

That distinction matters. Regent did not present antisemitism as simply one concern among many on campus. It treated antisemitism as something that directly implicates Christian moral responsibility. Many universities stopped short of framing the issue that way. That choice also reveals how Regent understands its own role. Regent never claims to speak from a position of neutrality. It speaks openly as a Christian university, grounding its public witness in convictions about Jewish dignity, religious liberty, and moral responsibility.

At the same time, the limits of the statement should be named clearly. Regent’s November 2023 statement was never intended to address every aspect of the Israel-Hamas war. It did not offer a detailed account of Gaza, Palestinian civilian suffering, ceasefire debates, Islamophobia, or Palestinian rights. Its center of gravity was antisemitism and Jewish safety. That does not make the statement inadequate. It simply defines what the statement set out to do. It should be read on its own terms rather than asked to answer questions it was never written to address. A serious analysis has to respect both what Regent said and what it did not say.

As a stated the other day in my article, Wheaton College took a stance that was diamterically opposed to this one.

The decisive move came later, in May 2024, when Regent announced the creation of the Institute for Israel Studies inside the Robertson School of Government. This is where the record becomes more unusual. Statements come and go. Creating an institute is something different. An institute brings faculty, courses, public events, research, and long-term institutional investment. It signals that a subject has become part of the university’s ongoing life rather than a response to a single moment. Regent described the institute as focused on the history, culture, society, and politics of contemporary Israel.

Chancellor Robertson said it amplified Regent’s commitment to Israel, and Dean Michele Bachmann said the coursework would help students understand the Jewish state and the Jewish people’s right to their land. That is not vague language. Regent gave........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)