StopAntisemitismʼs 2025 Campus Antisemitism Report evaluated 90 colleges and universities selected for their scale, national relevance, incident volume, and student reported vulnerability. The list includes large public institutions, elite private universities, regional colleges, and campuses with significant Jewish populations. Schools were chosen based on high rates of antisemitic activity, ongoing federal Title VI investigations, substantial Jewish enrollment, and broad public influence. These criteria that allow for consistent year-to-year comparisons and a representative national overview. A nationwide survey gathered firsthand accounts from Jewish students enrolled at these schools, capturing both quantitative indicators and optional qualitative descriptions. Students reported whether they experienced antisemitism, hid their identity, felt unwelcome, believed their school protected them post–October 7, or saw Jews included in DEI efforts. The results revealed widespread fear, marginalization, and dissatisfaction with institutional protections; for example, 58% experienced antisemitism, 39% hid their identity, and only 12% felt incidents were properly investigated. Aggregated responses helped reveal national patterns and informed campus-specific evaluations. StopAntisemitism also evaluated administrative responses to the school surveys through public statements, policy updates, disciplinary records, cooperation with federal inquiries, engagement with Jewish groups, and evidence of transparent reporting systems. Student feedback on the quality of investigations—88% dissatisfied—was cross-referenced with documented actions such as suspensions, expulsions, and task-force creation. Administrations were evaluated for consistency, speed, effectiveness, and adherence to civil-rights obligations. Finally, the report tracked and verified hundreds of incidents across the 90 campuses, including harassment, vandalism, threats, encampments, faculty misconduct, and administrative failures. These were sourced from student submissions, media reports, police logs, federal findings, social media, and campus organizations, with every incident confirmed through at least one public or institutional source. Patterns of repeat or severe misconduct received additional weight. Each schoolʼs grade reflected incident volume and severity, administrative response quality, student-reported safety, presence of federal investigations, and evidence of accountability or neglect, providing a comprehensive and multi-layered assessment. METHODOLOGY