by Ambreen Khan, Kim Zayhowski, Robert Resta, and Laura Hercher
This piece is our team’s account of censorship and threats from members of the genetic counseling community. It is both testimony and a demand that our profession do better. We were twice scheduled to present a webinar on the threat of modern eugenics – only for both events to be canceled after anonymous complaints and undisclosed claims about threats and safety. When organizations shield reputation over transparency, they marginalize dissent and chill scholarship that is essential to our clinical and ethical responsibilities. Institutional silence is not neutrality.
What actually happened?
Our webinar’s purpose was simple and urgent: to connect the historical roots of eugenics to the present. Genetic counseling partly emerged as a response to twentieth‑century eugenic abuses rooted in Francis Galton’s nineteenth‑century theories. We aimed to show that these ideologies are not relics but active influences – visible in the United States president’s eugenics-coded rhetoric, in technocratic visions of positive eugenics, and in colonialism and imperialism across the globe. We planned to demonstrate how sloppy science, genetic determinism, dehumanization, and essentialist language flatten human complexity and create openings for misuse; to interrogate whether elements of contemporary genetic counseling echo eugenic logic; and to engage participants in concrete strategies for explicitly anti‑eugenic practice.
Timeline of cancellation #1:
- January 31, 2025: The proposal was submitted for the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Annual Conference for a presentation on modern eugenics.
- March 28, 2025: NSGC asked that the proposal be recast as a “Community Conversation” – a recorded webinar with a facilitated live discussion intended to extend reach.
- June 4, 2025: We returned the revised proposal to NSGC. The final speaker team was Robert Resta, Laura Hercher, Ambreen Khan, and Kim Zayhowski. The live discussion was scheduled for September 29, 2025.
- Summer 2025: We had many meetings as a presenter team about the content of each of our presentations. We assembled volunteer moderators, developed the session as a dialogic educational space, and stayed in regular contact with NSGC liaisons, sharing the slide deck and session plan for review.
- September 4, 2025: The final recordings were submitted to NSGC, which were then posted for NSGC membership. We were informed several hundred people signed up for the event.
- September 16, 2025: NSGC removed Ambreen Khan’s segment (“Reconsidering Eugenics through a Global Lens”) from the posted materials pending “fact‑checking” after complaints about alleged inaccuracies.
- September 22, 2025: Following NSGC’s “fact-check,” the segment was restored with an appended reference list, and an overall disclaimer NSGC required stating that views expressed were the presenters’ own.
- September 25, 2025: Four days before the scheduled live conversation, NSGC canceled the webinar and removed the recording. NSGC emailed the presenters and attendees, and referenced threats of violence to leadership and the organization as the cause of the cancellation. They provided presenters with no details, documentation, or evidence of those threats. Both emails said that the topic of eugenics would be addressed at a later date. NSGC paid presenters their honoraria.
- October 6, 2025: One presenter followed up via email to request specific information regarding the nature of the threats, whether their source had been identified, what content provoked them, and if law enforcement had been involved. The presenter emphasized that, as a speaker for the upcoming annual conference, understanding any security risks related to the presentation’s content was essential for safely preparing future talks.
- October 8, 2025: NSGC acknowledged that the questions were “very reasonable” and stated that the source of the threat had been identified and “addressed” with legal counsel, leaving “no ongoing concern.” They offered no specifics on the threats’ content, their origin, how they were handled, or what material had provoked them. Without these details, the presenter team could not evaluate their own safety for future engagements. To date, the talk has not been rescheduled and no explanation has been provided for why restoring the recording is not possible if the threat has been fully resolved.
Timeline of cancellation #2:
- December 16, 2025: A genetic counseling graduate program’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice Committee reached out to the presenter team and invited a similar presentation on modern eugenics for a webinar open to genetic counselors and students. The event was organized by students and approved by program leadership for February 9, 2026.
- January 28, 2026: The program emailed the presenter team and canceled the webinar, citing concerns about “belonging for all” and “potential lack of balanced perspectives” that they claimed would violate the university’s nondiscrimination policy, along with anticipated safety concerns. The email stated that the messages sent to the University expressing concerns had assumed the event’s material was the same as the Community Conversation referenced above. The program confirmed the content had not been fully reviewed before making the determination to cancel. One presenter noted that the cited university policy explicitly protects academic free speech even when it may provoke opposition or external pressure directed at the faculty or the institution. Promotional social posts (which had attracted 100+ likes and supportive comments) were deleted without announcing the cancellation.
Targeting and double standards
During NSGC’s “fact-checking” process, one speaker, Ambreen, was singled out for the portion of her presentation which analyzed genocides in the United States, Germany, Rwanda, and Gaza through the lens of medical ethics and eugenics. Complaints about her presentation were framed as questions of academic veracity. NSGC restored her content after review with appended references. In our view, this outcome indicates that the complaints were motivated less by demonstrable concerns about factual integrity and more by ideological opposition to her inclusion of Gaza and her critique of Israeli policies.
Ambreen and the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) sent NSGC a formal letter on November 10, 2025, urging procedural reforms. CAIR offered to help NSGC “review internal procedures for handling complaints to ensure that concerns about content do not serve as a pretext for suppressing marginalized voices or politically sensitive topics.” To date, more than three months later, neither Ambreen nor CAIR has received any acknowledgement or follow-up.
The CAIR letter underscored the harm of institutional repression, stating:
“One of the so-called citation concerns involved Ms. Khan failing to include a reference to Israel’s offer to treat Gazans in Israeli hospitals. It appears that Ms. Khan’s detractors simply disagree with her assertion that what Israel has done in Gaza is tantamount to genocide, which is a position they are able to hold and argue, but it should not result in the systematic silencing, censorship, and reputational harm to Ms. Khan. To be clear, Ms. Khan’s citations appear to be adequate; the disagreement appears to rest not on the veracity of her sources but on interpretation and analysis, which is within the scholarly discretion of any presenter. Singling out her presentation for heightened scrutiny and censorship has created a hostile and chilling environment for scientific and ethical dialogue. … Unfortunately, this is not the first time NSGC has censored members regarding the genocide in Gaza. We view this as an opportunity to engage in reasonable and appropriate restorative steps.”
What is at stake?
Censorship is not new to genetic counseling: our profession has navigated pressure over which histories, patient stories, and ethical critiques are acceptable to teach and debate. In recent years that pressure has intensified, playing out both publicly – high‑profile cancellations, wide-spread written petitions, and calls for professional sanctions – and privately, as quieter demands to remove material from syllabi, discourage certain research topics, or advise speakers to avoid specific language.
When educators and researchers preemptively “tone down” lectures, avoid case studies, or divert research away from challenging topics out of fear, they inflict a lasting corrosion of knowledge. Self‑censorship is the stealth weapon: curricula thin, research agendas narrow, and trainees learn that caution equals professionalism. Unlike an explicit ban, self‑censorship is invisible – until whole domains of knowledge vanish from professional discourse. That quiet retreat institutionalizes ignorance.
When a government or institution decides which ideas are acceptable, it ceases to be a sanctuary for inquiry and becomes a tool for social control. Across the world we see a coordinated strategy to suppress scholarship: in Hungary, the government outlawed gender studies to replace independent scholarship with state-sanctioned curricula; in India, the state uses police, laws, and bureaucracy to silence critics; in the United States, topics like Palestinian rights and Critical Race Theory are suppressed through legislation and institutional pressure.
This is not about ideological grandstanding; it is about clinical competence. Clinicians who cannot name the political and historical dimensions of eugenics are ill-equipped to safeguard patients from coercive programs or discriminatory allocation of care. Patients most at risk – disabled people, people seeking reproductive care, BIPOC communities, immigrants – pay the price. If our institutions silence education on the role of eugenic impulses in shaping border policy, how can genetic counselors recognize its modern iterations targeting immigrant patients? And if we cannot name Gaza or Sudan as sites where medical ethics are violated, what framework do we have to recognize – much less resist – the same violations anywhere else?
Teaching should be emancipatory, not neutral. Thinkers from Paulo Freire to bell hooks and Henry Giroux frame teaching as naming injustice and treating the classroom as a site of ethical resistance. The Palestinian ideal of Sumud (صمود) – a steadfast, rooted perseverance against erasure – extends this vision: learning itself becomes a daily act of standing against oppression.
Yet educational institutions too often prioritize procedural risk management over ethical clarity. When institutions invoke “safety” without sharing assessments or supporting speakers, the loudest and most aggressive opponents effectively decide what may be taught.
Eugenics thrives not only on coercive policy but on silence – on what is not taught, not researched, and not challenged. When institutions bow to intimidation and erase critical inquiry, they remove guardrails that might otherwise prevent discriminatory policies and coercive practices.
A call to action
We as a genetic counseling community must decide whether genetic counseling will be a profession that names power, confronts history, and defends the scholarship our patients depend on, or one that retreats into procedural silence when challenged. That choice belongs to all of us. The genetic counseling community does not have to, and should not, agree about everything but we should be able to respectfully, thoughtfully, and safely engage in debate and discussion.
Our team asks academic programs and professional societies to adopt the following policies to protect both safety and academic integrity:
- Publish transparent moderation policies and threat-protocols
- Make public criteria for removing or modifying recorded or live content, including what level of threat justifies cancellation and what evidence is required.
- When “safety” is cited, share a summary of the threat assessment with presenters and with the membership (while protecting any legitimately confidential investigative details).
- Include presenters in safety planning
- Share threat assessments and possible mitigation strategies with speakers.
- Collaborate on concrete steps (e.g., moderated Q&A, delayed posting, platform security, legal support) before deciding to cancel.
- Provide visible, material support to targeted scholars
- Offer logistical, legal, and public backing (e.g., an institutional statement affirming vetted content, assistance with security measures, and a designated liaison for harassment complaints).
- Establish clear anti-retaliation policies for educators, students, and members who report censorship or advocate for reinstating removed content.
- Create an independent appeals and review mechanism
- Establish a review process for decisions to remove content or cancel events, with a timetable for review and public reporting of outcomes.
- Commit to essential curricula
- Ensure core training includes the political and historical forces shaping medical care in general and genetic counseling specifically, and defend those curricular commitments from suppression.
- Remedy past harms
- Publicly acknowledge cancellations that lacked transparency, reinstate or re-record content where appropriate, and issue formal apologies and restorative steps for presenters who suffered reputational harm.
Credible threats of violence are serious matters that deserve careful attention and response. Our demand is procedural: when safety is invoked, institutions must show evidence of due process, involve presenters in mitigation, and exhaust alternatives to cancellation before erasing vetted educational content.
In an era when threats are weaponized to control knowledge, yielding to intimidation forfeits our capacity to confront hard truths about power, policy, and medicine. Our duty is twofold: protect people from immediate danger and protect the integrity of knowledge itself. Silence may be easier, but it is a dangerous abdication. We are all responsible for the profession we build. Defend evidence. Defend teaching. Defend the people – patients, students, clinicians, and scholars – who depend on both.
Author note: This account is based on our direct involvement as presenters and on preserved documentation and correspondence with the institutions referenced. It reflects factual information available to us through our participation and our professional judgment. We remain available to address and correct any substantiated factual inaccuracies. The opinions and interpretations herein are exclusively our own and do not necessarily reflect the positions of our employers or affiliated institutions.
The DNA Exchange 
This makes me so angry. The genocide of Palestinians is not a difference of opinion or alternate view. It’s an uncomfortable conversation when you learn that your view has been distorted by propaganda and it’s threatening to the people who benefit from sweeping this under the rug. Our country has supported the genocide whether we all understood what was happening or not. I recommend a book by Omar El Akkad “One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This” for those who want to learn more about, as well as a novel based on the events that happened before “Mornings in Jenin” by Susan Abulhawa.
what does any of that have to do with genetic counseling?
I am asking as a very genuine question: do you think eugenics is related to genetic counseling? I believe that it is – and I was taught that it is!
My graduate program (and I know several other programs) have made the history of eugenics part of their early curriculum because they felt it was crucial for counselors to understand the unflattering context that built our profession. It is also important to consider how this history may alter the perception of our role by patients and/or the general public. This is especially true as it relates to marginalized communities and we were encouraged to learn more about the populations specific to the areas we work in.
As the authors of this post so elegantly stated “This is not about ideological grandstanding; it is about clinical competence. Clinicians who cannot name the political and historical dimensions of eugenics are ill-equipped to safeguard patients from coercive programs or discriminatory allocation of care”
Does eugenics exist solely in the past? Why is it important for counselors to consider how current policies, practices, and world events might reflect eugenics theory? What is our role in identifying and addressing it? Why is eugenics an important concept to understand in the specific definition of a genocide?
I think these are important questions- and ones that I would have liked the space to explore in graduate level discussions! To me, the title of the book OP mentioned “one day, everyone will have always been against this” is emblematic of the issue addressed in this post: the past history of eugenics is known and has been robustly denounced so programs feel comfortable teaching about it – but they are scared to address any current event that mirrors that history until, eventually, everyone will have always been against it.
I think students (and professionals) ought to be given more credit for their critical thinking skills in digesting what they’ve learned about the past and applying it to the world they live in – it would seem that is the purpose of teaching us about the past in the first place!
Is this a real question?
Thank you for your work in bringing these topics to the attention of our field. I would love to see this presentation in the future and improved discourse on the wariness of eugenics.
It saddens me to think we work in a community that would threaten each other. As you said, the fact that these threats exist means this presentation is important. I appreciate the vetting thats been done (and its clear that the presenters were well prepared for questions with their supporting evidence). I’ve already learned something from this blog post alone. The only way we grow is to be challenged. We remain weak if kept away from hard things. It doesn’t mean it won’t be hard to listen to and we might not agree on all points. But I too would love to hear this presentation.
It saddens me that we work in a community that would threaten each other. This is not reflective of the community that I love.
Its clear to me that the presenters were prepared, with supporting evidence, to present on a challenging topic. We learn from doing hard things. We might not like what we hear and we might not agree, but this is how we grow. I’ve already learned things just from this blog post and I too would love to see hear this presentation when it comes to fruition.
Most of these authors have insisted time and again the last two years in twisting their political and personal opinions about a war in the Middle East to some how being relevant to genetic counseling. I have never seen them acknowledge or mention the genocide Hamas committed October 7 2023. They know this is a highly volatile topic and painful for many of us who lost friends and family in Hamas’ genocide on Israel and that doesn’t seem to matter to them.This insistance on making Gaza a primary focus in genetic counseling is tearing our professional organization and our profession apart.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10911359.2025.2503441
https://www.rmmj.org.il/issues/65/articles/1949
Thanks for so nicely proving the point of the article Jessica
are you purposely not reading anything that was said in this article and how its relevance or are you just stupid?
Can we find a way to make this presentation available without the sponsorship or involvement of a larger institution? Maybe in a digital format if safety is a concern? I’d gladly attend.
I agree. If two institutions have already rejected this talk (though that leaves me concerned there’s more to this story than what was outlined here), just do the talk yourself. Just offer it to the general public and that way no one needs to review your slides. Go for it, release the presentation to the general public. If you stand behind your talk helping your profession, offer it to your peers.
Thank you for sharing this and bringing it to our attention. I am highly disappointed in NSGC’s actions — what concrete action can I do to help support getting this presentation available agan?
Really ‘Throwaway’? How nice of you to discount another perspective and the personal experiences and feelings of a colleague. I am seriously concerned about the safety and bias against Jewish and Israeli patients, students, co -workers and colleagues that come into contact with these authors.
gwas- if it’s so important to discuss why didn’t their webinar highlight the genocide Hamas committed in Israel on October 7? — And from the leadership of Gazans who state they do it again and again. Wasn’t it eugenics when my friend’s son had his arm blown off and was kidnapped to Gaza and murdered in a tunnel with other Jews and Israelis? And simply stating in a webinar that the country of Israel is an example of colonialism and that’s an example of eugenics is neither factual nor historically accurate. They are simply picking and choosing narratives and sides to be on when talking about eugenics. Acknowledging that the Holocaust happened isn’t good enough. They need to take a long hard look at what started the Holocaust, which was words, lies and propaganda about Jews. People who genuinely care about DEI and minority perspectives, should not be so naïve to think they are not subject to propaganda on social media. I can’t believe I even have to have this ‘conversation’ within a professional space. it’s so inappropriate. And what other minority would be given the disrespect of demeaning someone’s personal experiences and perspectives? I know this will fall on deaf fears, and I’m so so very disappointed in our professional leadership and this whole charade. Keep your opinions about Gaza in your personal social media space unless you are actually gonna be balanced and truthful about it.
I’m sad that this was your takeaway from this post. I felt that the authors were balanced and they gave several examples beyond Israel in the original presentation that was censored. If you just glossed over the other parts of the presentation or chose to disregard them entirely, I wouldn’t know, but I see you’ve chosen to only comment on one aspect of this post.
In regards to keeping it out of the profession, I would counter that it’s naive to pretend geopolitical events don’t affect us in our personal and professional lives. If co-founders of nationally recognized laboratories like Natera can publicly air pro-IDF sentiments on a professional platform like LinkedIn (which they have), then I as a counselor can rightfully be skeptical of sending samples there for any of my patients, but especially those of Middle Eastern descent. If I saw the co-founder or CEO of any company I utilize (whether professionally or personally) was posting pro-ICE content or even pro-military content generally, I would be skeptical about using their services knowing how other forms of identifiable information have illegally been used to track down people! I care about how laboratories are funded (and by whom) and with what technology they interface with in a rapidly advancing surveillance age. I care if biotech start-ups promising “better babies” are funded by christian nationalists and employ genetic counselors because why would I want people representing my profession to be intrinsically tangled in clear eugenics goals!
The personal is political and the professional is political. Paying attention to the world around us and integrating it into the various aspects of our lives is a normal thing to do. You’ve chosen to engage publicly on this platform (as you have the right to!) because your politics is important to you – as mine are to me. Just because they don’t align doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be space for them or that they should be censored.
This IS my personal social media space. And you don’t know my views on Gaza, because I have never publicly shared them. The point of this post is not adherence to a certain point of view but a shared belief that no single point of view should be silenced.
You’ve chosen to make clear your anger and sadness, but wish to deny that right to others. There’s so much horror in this world, and no one has a monopoly on victimhood. I can see that you have experienced trauma. You are not alone, alas.
The Holocaust was rooted (explicitly) in eugenics. So was slavery. Right now, today, we are experiencing a resurgence of eugenics vocally endorsed by people with money and power (so much in the zeitgeist that it even turns out to be a part of the jeffrey epstein affair, because of course it is. (See: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/02/epstein-emails-eugenics-chomsky-altruism-billionaires/). They are weaponizing and abusing the science to that end. They are pushing these messages on our patients and sometimes they are selling this shit and calling it medicine. So YES it is important to genetic counseling.
And hundreds of people signed up, so I guess they felt it was relevant to them. So the question is not, do you disagree with something someone might have said, but do you (or anyone else) have the right to dictate what gets said. I control this space (with a few others, TBF). I could block you or take down your comments. But I have no interest in doing that. I invite you to speak. I think you should extend others the same courtesy. I think it is essential for our democracy and our profession that you do.
THIS is your personal public social media space, but not a webinar for CEUs or a webinar sponsored by a a graduate program – that is the point being made above (I think). AND if the webinar did have some biases or harmful content to directed at a group of people, give those people the benefit of the doubt and check the language on the webinar– same courtesy you would give any group of people, you know? Be kind, rewind attitude (can you tell I am old?). Also, Laura, I don’t think it was your part of the webinar, or Bob’s or Kim’s part that made people concerned…. just saying.
But listen, if >100 people signed up, why not just give the webinar to the general public? Is there a reason it has to be sponsored or endorsed by a GC program or NSGC? I think so many people want to watch it, can that be done? I know I signed up! but I signed up, to be honest, because of the controversy- ha- I’ve been in genetics for over 28 years and I know this webinar will not help me as a genetics provider in my clinical care for patients (I rather learn about long reads or new tech for my patients), but hey, now I am curious about what all the hubbub is.
Anyone else think that there’s more to this story? Unusual to see cancellation by two separate organizations unless there are real concerns of either bias or something similar. I’d be doing some soul-searching if I was cancelled twice and looking at my own biases rather than blame the organizations. Organizations have to protect ALL their members, and that does not mean silencing, it’s basic codes of conduct. Seems like these authors are not doing any self-reflection.
As someone in a genetics program, we do talk about eugenics history but the war in Gaza, Iran or Ukraine does not enter our chats. Linking these to our job is waaaaaay out there. You want to protect integrity? Start with sticking to your expertise.
“Unusual to see cancellation by two separate organizations unless there are real concerns of either bias or something similar” is a wild accusation to make when the reason for each cancellation can be substantiated. What are you trying to gain by intentionally introducing doubt here?
Copying directly from the email that was sent by the NSGC Executive Office on Sep-26 to members who had registered for the Community Conversation:
We are writing to inform you that NSGC has made the decision to cancel the Community Conversation scheduled for Monday, Sept. 29 and address the topic of eugenics at a future date.
As an organization, NSGC is committed to learning and growth, and Community Conversations was initiated as a way to support that growth and allow for members to exchange ideas, hold open discussion, and share sometimes very divergent opinions on challenging topics in facilitated spaces.
NSGC had received feedback from members related to content presented in the didactic portion of the lecture. We have been working with these members and the speakers over the past several weeks to address these concerns while preserving the opportunity for discussion.
However, yesterday, leaders of NSGC received specific threats of violence in relation to the Community Conversation. We will not move forward with holding the Community Conversation in an environment that carries risk for attendees, moderators, speakers and our organization.
A student involved in the organization of the second event has also posted publicly about its cancellation, specifically naming disappointment in the genetic counselors who wanted to silence the conversation, in their university for being spineless in the face of threats, and in their graduate program for professing to value DEIJ while turning their back on those values and their students.
It is deeply shameful to know that there are people within our community that would resort to making threats of violence. I must have missed that chapter when I was a trainee being taught how to navigate difficult conversations! When are we going to start holding these members accountable for their harm?
Hey K — I can sense your frustration, and that makes it harder for me to respond calmly, but I’ll try.
Your post actually reinforces the point Kelly K was making: it seems like there is something about the original cancellation of the NSGC webinar that isn’t being fully discussed here, and that missing context may explain why the situation escalated the way it did.
I read the email you shared, and even after reading it, the only explanation given for the cancellation is “threats.” But threats don’t appear out of nowhere. There is usually context behind them, and I don’t think the right questions are being asked.
For example, this line stood out:
“NSGC had received feedback from members related to content presented in the didactic portion of the lecture. We have been working with these members and the speakers over the past several weeks to address these concerns while preserving the opportunity for discussion.”
To me, that reads like a very carefully worded statement. What it likely means is that NSGC received feedback that parts of the webinar included rhetoric that some members viewed as antisemitic. The question I keep coming back to is: why couldn’t NSGC say that directly? If they had been clearer, it might have helped people understand the concern rather than speculate.
Instead, the webinar was first halted with a very neutral explanation, and that left no real space for dialogue or transparency about what the concerns actually were.
So when people focus only on the cancellation or the threats, I think they may be missing an important part of the story. It seems possible that the webinar contained language that some members found harmful, and yet that part is not being acknowledged — not by NSGC, and not by the authors of the post.
If someone told me that my presentation contained language that could be antisemitic, my first instinct would be to review it carefully and consider whether revisions were needed. I think that’s an important part of engaging in good-faith dialogue, especially in a professional space. I’ts DEIJ 101.
This is also why I think some frustration may be misdirected. Rather than focusing only on the cancellation, it might be worth asking why the concerns raised by members weren’t more openly addressed or reflected upon.
I also want to be clear about something: I don’t support threats, and I don’t think they are ever the right response. But at the same time, I think it’s fair to question whether the authors are presenting the full picture. From my perspective, it seems likely that concerns about bias or harmful content were raised, and instead of revising or engaging with that feedback, the situation escalated and moved to other venues.
And when something is framed as being “silenced,” it naturally draws more attention — people become more curious about what was canceled and why.
Ultimately, this may just be one version of the story. I’m not claiming to have the full truth, and I’m not trying to change your perspective. I just wanted to share how I’m seeing it.
The issue many of us raised was not disagreement with the topic of anti-eugenics itself, but the framing used in portions of the webinar. Elements of the presentation echoed narratives that have historically been used to stigmatize Jewish people and portray them in harmful ways. When such rhetoric appears in a professional educational setting, it has real impact on Jewish members of the community. Some portions of the webinar used harmful outdated definitions, disinformation, political activism and concerns of the relevance to the practice of genetic counseling. That is why the response from many attendees focused on accountability and reflection, rather than suppression of ideas.
In a professional space connected to the genetics community, discussions about history, ethics, and power carry significant responsibility. When concerns are raised that a presentation included antisemitic framing, it is important for presenters to engage with that feedback seriously and reflect on how their language and sources may have contributed to harm. Unfortunately, the post does not appear to address those concerns directly.
A constructive response would include acknowledging those concerns, examining the language and frameworks used in the webinar, and being open to the possibility that aspects of the presentation may have crossed into harmful territory.
I also know that most of these concerns, if not all, were communicated personally with Mr. Resta by concerned colleagues (not anonymously), though he chose to leave that out of this post. He was told of these concerns, and even if he did not see or understand the concerns (being he is not of the community being harmed), he had a duty to examine the concerns once being made aware and examine the language used by some of the presenters and do the right thing. Seems like a missed opportunity for Mr. Resta and the other presenters to practice what they preach.
What I find interesting is the disparity in response to different marginalized communities. We’ve heard that, for instance, if someone who is BIPOC tells you that what you’ve said is offensive or racist…it is. If you are someone not within that community, you don’t get to define or judge how it feels to them. If someone in the queer community shared that something feels offensive or homophobic, that would also be taken seriously by anyone in our profession, and would be remedied immediately.
So why when a Jewish person shares that something is offensive to them and feels anti-Semitic, is that not taken seriously? Jews make up 0.2% of the World’s population and around 2% of the US population. They faced near-annihilation only 80 years ago. So why are Jewish concerns so easily brushed aside?
I believe it’s important to understand what makes these kinds of remarks different. Another commenter in another thread mentioned that the Zionist agenda (not to be conflated with the beliefs of Jewish communities at large) is to reclaim their indigenous land. As it has been made clear over the last two and a half years, the IDF will carry this agenda out through any means necessary, i.e. ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. To say that pointing out that what is happening in Gaza is a genocide is antisemitic, and akin to brushing off a queer person saying a remark is homophobic, severely diminishes the atrocities that are being perpetuated to this day.
BIPOC communities at large are not seeking to harm or eliminate white people. Queer communities at large are not seeking to harm or eliminate cis/hetero people. UNICEF reports that more than 50,000 children in Gaza have been killed or injured since October 23. That is the magnitude of difference that we are talking about here.
How someone feels about something that was said to them is valid. How they react or respond is another thing altogether. People feeling uncomfortable about this discussion of the ongoing genocide is understandable; seeking to silence those who speak on it, especially through threats, is not.
And we shouldn’t pretend that our profession isn’t prone to brushing off the concerns from all those who come from all sorts of marginalized backgrounds, whether Jewish, Muslim, BIPOC, queer, disabled, etc. There are many, many instances of these kinds of things not being remedied, let alone immediately.
None of this is to say that Jewish people don’t experience antisemitism, because they certainly do. The polarizing perspectives on the ongoing genocide in Gaza is actively harming both Jewish and Muslim communities. But seeking to placate those who refuse to call the deaths of ten of thousands of Palestinian children a genocide, and will go so far as to threaten their colleagues? That is far from a remedy. And NSGC not providing the speakers any details for them to assess their own safety following those threats is shameful to say the least.
Hi Lucas,
I think it’s important to note that the individuals with concerns (as I am reading in the comments) did not ask NSGC to cancel the webinar. That was a NSGC decision. The concerns were pointed out and asked to be amended (ie if you are presenting a UN resolution, it would be balanced to also include that it was rescinded). In the examples provided by RedRobin, they do not state that “pointing out the genocide in Gaza is anti-semetic”. The group of concerned genetic counsellors provided concrete examples of what they felt were misinformation.
By cancelling the talk altogether and not re-instating it with transparency, the speakers were not able to share their information and viewpoints, and a group of genetic counsellors raising concerns are now vilified, thus invalidating both.
If you read the timeline, the concerns were taken into account, and the content was appended with the concerns in mind including providing an appended reference list. It seems like threats of violence were made after that.
Comments are focused more on the politics than on the safety of the speakers, which seems like it deserves more attention.
As an organization, NSGC has a duty of care to warn when a credible and foreseeable threat is made. If they were not credible threats, NSGC should not have cancelled the talk. Changes and compromises could have been made if needed, without cancelling the talk. The alleged lack of details given to the speakers about these threats is negligence on the part of NSGC.
The NSGC Code of Ethics emphasizes integrity, accountability, and the obligation to prevent harm. It does not provide guidance on how professional organizations should respond to external threats of violence toward members or presenters, but it should.
NSGC: Sincerely apologize for the way the situation was handled. Update the CoE. Create and follow-through with concrete actions on how we can all do better.
As an Australian it’s so hard to read between the lines and figure out what is going on here. It feels like any criticism of Israel leads to being called antisemitic? In Australia we have many Jewish people who stand for Palestine and do not agree with the actions of the IDF. Surely discussing the actions of Israel against Palestine is acceptable when discussing eugenics?
I think making this comment before knowing what was in the webinar adds a level of invalidation and harm to the people who gave the feedback. We should always strive to listen to those affected by harm before dismissing or invalidating their experience.
I don’t like NSGC handled this- but please, if you didn’t watch the webinar, careful what you say.
I watched the webinar and yes, there was criticism of Israeli policies but I only saw mention of Jewish people in the context of eugenics used to commit Holocaust against them.
This is the issue here, right? Education about what modern day antisemitism looks like.
Some people didn’t realize it- while some people were very much harmed by it. Hence the controversy, right?
But once you’re told it’s there- you start seeing it – and Ambreen and the other speakers didn’t take a moment to see it. They doubled down on it and didn’t take a moment to reflect. Opportunity to be educated -lost. Opportunity to reflect- lost. It’s not what we teach people who are dedicated to care for others.
Perhaps you can ask the authors to share the “feedback” NSGC gave them of the concerns raised.
Eugenics is an important and necessary topic for genetic counselors to examine. The profession has an ethical responsibility to understand the historical harms of eugenics and to critically reflect on how those lessons inform present-day practice. Open discussion, scholarship, and thoughtful debate on this subject are essential.
However, the issue surrounding this presentation was not opposition to discussing eugenics. The concern — raised by multiple genetic counselors — was that the presentation contained antisemitic propaganda, which has no place in a professional educational setting.
Contrary to the characterization presented in this article, concerns were not merely anonymous complaints motivated by ideological disagreement. Several genetic counselors raised these issues directly and openly with Bob Resta, not anonymously. The article’s omission of this fact creates a misleading narrative about the nature of the objections and the professional dialogue that occurred.
Professional critique of antisemitic material is not censorship. Academic freedom and ethical responsibility must coexist. Educational spaces — especially within healthcare professions — must remain environments where difficult topics can be examined rigorously without promoting rhetoric that marginalizes or targets any group.
It is also worth noting that two separate institutions independently chose to cancel the talk after concerns about antisemitic content were brought forward. When multiple organizations, reviewing the same issues, reach similar conclusions, it suggests that the concerns warranted serious consideration rather than dismissal as ideological suppression.
Genetic counseling as a profession should absolutely continue engaging critically with the legacy and modern manifestations of eugenics. At the same time, we must uphold standards that ensure education remains accurate, respectful, and free from discriminatory or propagandistic content directed at any community. These goals are not in conflict; they are mutually necessary.
Are you able to share what was antisemitic? I remember seeing the recording and only noticed criticism of Israeli policies, involvement of Israel in expanding settler violence and comparison of various global genocides.
Visual juxtaposition of Holocaust victims with images from the Gaza war, creating an implied equivalence that distorts the historical reality of the Holocaust.
Assertions suggesting a connection between Israeli politics and eugenics, presented without scholarly support.
Use of the term “medical apartheid” in reference to Israel while omitting relevant factual context, including the historical and ongoing provision of medical care to Gazan patients within Israeli medical facilities.
Presentation of Zionism as “racism,” framed as fact rather than as a contested political position.
Mischaracterization of UN Resolution 3379 without acknowledgment of its revocation or its recognition as discriminatory.
Characterization of Israel as a “colonizer nation,” presented without appropriate historical nuance.
Repeated references to Israel and Zionism within a webinar ostensibly focused on eugenics, creating an unfounded implication that the State of Israel or Zionism is engaged in eugenic practices.
and I would add that the presentation was biased based on what examples of eugenics were Not mentioned- nothing about Hamas’ genocide committed in Israel 10/7/26; nothing about the Hamas charter and their expressed goals to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible in the world, which would seem to me the epitome of eugenics; I don’t believe the webinar included the gender and LGBTQIA+ apartheid that exists in Gaza and surrounding countries; as already stated about misleading and inaccurate information- one slide noted that UNGA Resolution 3379 declared Zionism Is Racism in 1975. They conveniently left out that this resolution was revoked in December 16, 1991.
They also found it relevant in the webinar to post some statistics about how many Gazans didnt get health care because they couldnt get into Israel. Convenient to not include how many Gazans DID get care in Israel with the help of Israelis, some whom lived in the Kibbutzism where Hamas and other terrorists burned them in their homes 10/7/23. Vivian Silver z’l, was the co-founder of the organization Women Wage Peace – an organization of Jewish and Arab Israeli women from all sides of the political and religious spectrum, that advocate for a mutually binding non-violent agreement between Israelis and Palestinians with women at the forefront in all aspects of the negotiation. Vivian was murdered on 10/7/23 by Hamas.
I admittedly am having difficulty giving the authors the benefit of the doubt with regards to lack of bias against Jews and Israel. I have seen some of their social media posts that inform this. One author can’t wear blue eyeliner anymore because ‘Eww, Israel…Israel is a bitch. ’ Another was surprised that their Perspectives article was accepted for publishing because “NSGC used to support Zionists.’ And they accused us of being anti-black and anti-LGBTQIA+ because we objected to a speaker – who blatantly and unapologetically -posted antisemitic tropes on social media just days after 10/7/23 – from coming into our organization to speak. And they have continually misconstrued this as the speaker simply being ‘pro-Palestinian’ and us against their talk for that reason, while the real reason was due to their posts displaying images reminiscent of the oldest antisemitic trope there is (Jews/Israel control the world) and shutting down dialogue from anyone w a different perspective (‘Zionists go away’).
by the way, Zionism refers to Jewish self-determination and the right for Israel to exist. It has nothing to do with whether you like Netanyahu or not. The vast majority of Israelis that are on the streets protesting Netanyahu are not saying that they think their own country shouldn’t exist or that they are colonialists of their own indigenous land.
So if we are gonna argue that all this has something to do with genetic counseling, lets include all perspectives and accurate information in webinars, shall we?
Apologies I dont know why my post is here 3 times
and I would add that the presentation was biased based on what examples of eugenics were Not mentioned- nothing about Hamas’ genocide committed in Israel 10/7/26; nothing about the Hamas charter and their expressed goals to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible in the world, which would seem to me the epitome of eugenics; I don’t believe the webinar included the gender and LGBTQIA+ apartheid that exists in Gaza and surrounding countries; as already stated about misleading and inaccurate information- one slide noted that UNGA Resolution 3379 declared Zionism Is Racism in 1975. They conveniently left out that this resolution was revoked in December 16, 1991.
They also found it relevant in the webinar to post some statistics about how many Gazans didnt get health care because they couldnt get into Israel. Convenient to not include how many Gazans DID get care in Israel with the help of Israelis, some whom lived in the Kibbutzism where Hamas and other terrorists burned them in their homes 10/7/23. Vivian Silver z’l, was the co-founder of the organization Women Wage Peace – an organization of Jewish and Arab Israeli women from all sides of the political and religious spectrum, that advocate for a mutually binding non-violent agreement between Israelis and Palestinians with women at the forefront in all aspects of the negotiation. Vivian was murdered on 10/7/23 by Hamas.
I admittedly am having difficulty giving the authors the benefit of the doubt with regards to lack of bias against Jews and Israel. I have seen some of their social media posts that inform this. One author can’t wear blue eyeliner anymore because ‘Eww, Israel…Israel is a bitch. ’ Another was surprised that their Perspectives article was accepted for publishing because “NSGC used to support Zionists.’ And they accused us of being anti-black and anti-LGBTQIA+ because we objected to a speaker – who blatantly and unapologetically -posted antisemitic tropes on social media just days after 10/7/23 – from coming into our organization to speak. And they have continually misconstrued this as the speaker simply being ‘pro-Palestinian’ and us against their talk for that reason, while the real reason was due to their posts displaying images reminiscent of the oldest antisemitic trope there is (Jews/Israel control the world) and shutting down dialogue from anyone w a different perspective (‘Zionists go away’).
by the way, Zionism refers to Jewish self-determination and the right for Israel to exist. It has nothing to do with whether you like Netanyahu or not. The vast majority of Israelis that are on the streets protesting Netanyahu are not saying that they think their own country shouldn’t exist or that they are colonialists of their own indigenous land.
So if we are gonna argue that all this has something to do with genetic counseling, lets include all perspectives and accurate information in webinars, shall we?
and I would add that the presentation was biased based on what examples of eugenics were Not mentioned- nothing about Hamas’ genocide committed in Israel 10/7/26; nothing about the Hamas charter and their expressed goals to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible in the world, which would seem to me the epitome of eugenics; I don’t believe the webinar included the gender and LGBTQIA+ apartheid that exists in Gaza and surrounding countries; as already stated about misleading and inaccurate information- one slide noted that UNGA Resolution 3379 declared Zionism Is Racism in 1975. They conveniently left out that this resolution was revoked in December 16, 1991.
They also found it relevant in the webinar to post some statistics about how many Gazans didnt get health care because they couldnt get into Israel. Convenient to not include how many Gazans DID get care in Israel with the help of Israelis, some whom lived in the Kibbutzism where Hamas and other terrorists burned them in their homes 10/7/23. Vivian Silver z’l, was the co-founder of the organization Women Wage Peace – an organization of Jewish and Arab Israeli women from all sides of the political and religious spectrum, that advocate for a mutually binding non-violent agreement between Israelis and Palestinians with women at the forefront in all aspects of the negotiation. Vivian was murdered on 10/7/23 by Hamas.
I admittedly am having difficulty giving the authors the benefit of the doubt with regards to lack of bias against Jews and Israel. I have seen some of their social media posts that inform this. One author can’t wear blue eyeliner anymore because ‘Eww, Israel…Israel is a bitch. ’ Another was surprised that their Perspectives article was accepted for publishing because “NSGC used to support Zionists.’ And they accused us of being anti-black and anti-LGBTQIA+ because we objected to a speaker – who blatantly and unapologetically -posted antisemitic tropes on social media just days after 10/7/23 – from coming into our organization to speak. And they have continually misconstrued this as the speaker simply being ‘pro-Palestinian’ and us against their talk for that reason, while the real reason was due to their posts displaying images reminiscent of the oldest antisemitic trope there is (Jews/Israel control the world) and shutting down dialogue from anyone w a different perspective (‘Zionists go away’).
by the way, Zionism refers to Jewish self-determination and the right for Israel to exist. It has nothing to do with whether you like Netanyahu or not. The vast majority of Israelis that are on the streets protesting Netanyahu are not saying that they think their own country shouldn’t exist or that they are colonialists of their own indigenous land.
So if we are gonna argue that all this has something to do with genetic counseling, lets include all perspectives and accurate information in webinars, shall we?
What’s happening in Palestine is affecting the entire world. Anywhere outside of the US, you don’t see this exceptionalism. Plus our tax dollars are funding weapons that kill children. People also defending slavery. When people including scholars of genocide and the majority of the world is talking about, how in good conscience can you omit it when talking about eugenics.
If you look at the comments above about what is being considered ‘anti-semitic’, it is not anything to do with Judaism (ie. Principles of Tikkun Olam), but instead about a nation state that has been clearly labeled as committing genocide. You can call the ICJ “anti-Semitic” for issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials, but conflating a nation state with the actions of the religion is not safe for actual Jewish people. Just like talibans used religion and make it unsafe for Muslims, Israel is using Judaism to make it more unsafe for Jewish people.
For those who were concerned with this event, can you point out examples of the antisemitic material included? Was it, for example, references to the genocide of Palestinians that was determined by multiple international bodies including a UN special committee, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the ICJ, and multiple human rights organizations including Israeli ones to be a genocide? Or, was it a reference to the state of Israel as an ethnostate and a colonial project, all of which are facts and not political opinions? You see, you need to be clear about what defines antisemitism because it has become clear over time that any criticism of the horrific, indiscriminate, and barbaric extermination of the Palestinians that has been happening for 78 years counts as antisemitism which is part of the narrative created and not the objective truth on the ground. How do we have a whole talk on antisemitism at the NSGC Conference, but a community conversation about eugenics and genocide are not related to genetic counseling?
absolutely none of what you just stated as ‘facts’ are, in fact, actually true.
Thank you for this convincing response. Like I said, they are facts that you can look up, not political opinions.
Yes, of course we should have a conversation about eugenics, no one is stating we should not– but it should be done with respect. Again, the issue many of us raised was not disagreement with the topic of eugenics itself, but the framing used in portions of the webinar. If the Embracing Humanity conversation at the AC was able to move forward with dignity and respect, I am sure this talk could as well.
As I said previously, a constructive response from the authors should have also included acknowledging the concerns raised by their colleagues, examining the language and frameworks used in portions of the webinar, and being open to the possibility that aspects of the presentation may have crossed into harmful territory. That’s part of embracing humanity, is it not?
I’m just a genetic counselor standing in front of other genetic counselors, asking them to stop making everything about a geopolitical conflict half a world away. No matter your opinion on the conflict, isn’t the singular focus on Israel/Palestine bizarre? Do you care about anything else? Do you really think a bunch of genetic counselors are going to fix the situation?
Sigh- did you read the article I posted? What is the definition of genocide? Is that what is actually happening? Or is it simply the jewish people trying to defend themselves (and YOU over here in the west- by the way) from a bunch of genocidal terrorist maniacs in a war? And if this was really about criticism of the state of israel, and not jews…. why has there been an 1000% increase in antisemitism worldwide (including violence, slurs, hate crimes, etc…) the likes of which we have not seen since Europe before the Holocaust? Just because you intellectuallize hate, does not mean it isn’t still hate. Don’t be a useful idiot. I could go on and on…
I am wondering if this talk had not been censored, if we would have heard more about what ways GCs can be involved, how this is relevant to the GC world and why the inclusion of genocides includes the mention of Palestine/Israel.
On a separate note, when you focus on indigenous ways of knowing, you start to understand that everything is interconnected. The ‘geopolitical conflict half a world away’ is generating toxins polluting our soil and water. The ‘geopolitical conflict half a world away’ is also funded by our tax dollars, when we do not have free healthcare or education, but Israel does. If we stopped bankrolling the genocide, maybe we would have better healthcare here? The ‘geopolitical conflict half a world away’ also has the highest mortality rate for healthcare workers and journalists. The police and ICE officers that are on our streets are trained by IDF. The technology used to surveil people is tested in Palestine and used on us, locally.
If none of that is relevant for you, I wonder if it is relevant that you live and work among people who have lost entire family lines in the genocide. Just like Holocaust is relevant for us to do better, especially when it comes to ethics of research and abuse of medical practices, so is what is happening currently.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/imperial-boomerang-ice-violence_l_69839eaee4b053ac3e172baf?origin=life-featured
I’m not saying all the things you said aren’t important. I said they aren’t important or relevant to GENETIC COUNSELING. Go to a conference on war crimes or environmental science or geopolitics. Switch careers if this is the most important thing in your life.
I think that might have been the point of the presentation – to parallel how this IS relevant to genetic counseling.
Gretchen, stop trying to make Gaza relevance to genetic counseling happen. It’s not going to happen.
Baha! While your reply legitimately made me laugh out loud, human rights are relevant to genetic counseling and all healthcare professions.
I understand the point you’re making about interconnected systems and global events. But many of us are still struggling to see how the war in Gaza is directly relevant to the practice of genetic counseling. Our profession is centered on patient care, genetics, and medical ethics. If this webinar had moved forward, I would have wanted to hear clearly: what specifically are genetic counselors expected to do with this information, and how does it relate to our clinical work?
The issues you’re raising—U.S. tax policy, environmental effects of war, or claims about agencies like ICE and the IDF—are broad geopolitical and political debates. That’s quite far from the scope of genetic counseling as a profession. It’s fine if you have an interest in this personally, and many of us do, but to insert this into our profession as something that is connected to our practice, is far-fetched. If you do not agree, ok, let’s agree to disagree but do not get upset about that- we do not all need to think in a binary fashion. Sometimes we can linger in the middle.
It’s also important to be honest that for some of us, the concern wasn’t just that the topic could divide the community. The webinar materials themselves contained wording, misinformation, and rhetoric that many experienced as antisemitic. That made it much harder to view the webinar as credible or professionally appropriate. Again, you may have not notice these concerns (perhaps you are not of the community that was harmed), but some of your colleagues did- give them the benefit of the doubt and work with them so we can all learn from the experience.
Personally, I do not think portions of this webinar was appropriate, though it could have been revised to be grand. I also think some responsibility falls on NSGC for not recognizing these issues before posting it. According to Mr. Resta, the slides were reviewed in advance. That raises a real concern about whether leadership is adequately recognizing antisemitism (and other forms of hate) and carefully vetting the content they endorse.
We absolutely should learn from history—especially how the Holocaust shaped medical ethics and the field of genetics. But introducing current geopolitical conflicts into professional programming, particularly when the framing is concerning to members of the community, risks undermining trust rather than strengthening our profession.
For those of you who are actually interested and actually want to really understand more about why it was offensive I beg you to read this article. I won’t write a long response here. I want to be very clear about why this is antisemitic. But I also think, more importantly… why do jewish people have to explain when something is antisemitic? If you really believe in DEIJ principles, just take a hard stop and think about your own reactions to this.
https://jewishpress.com/perspectives/anti-zionism-is-antisemitism/2026/02/22/
I think part of the complexity is that many of us have Jewish friends and colleagues who feel the opposite of what you write, that they too agree that what is happening in Gaza is genocide.
So you chose to dismiss the harm of one group of Jews because another group of Jews says it’s ok? That’s the complexity ? Hun, there’s so much more to this than people realize… the god damn world is unsure what to make of the war but suddenly GCs know what’s happening ?
Be a genetic counselor, it’s what you’re trained to do. Don’t be a geopolitical analyst. These 4 authors have no background in this – they’re not experts in this subject. They had no business writing about the complexities of a current war. No business. They’re genetic counselors.
For goodness sake – Be genetic counselors and help your patients. No wonder this profession is going down. This isn’t what any of you should focus on. And if you think genocide or eugenics is what you need to focus on- your patients may disagree.
I think we can all agree that there are differing viewpoints on both sides and it’s a very hotly contested topic. So maybe let’s just not discuss it in a professional setting b/c it is irrelevant. These speakers knew what they were doing by making it a focus. If they really wanted to educate genetic counselors about the topic of eugenics and genocide, they could have chosen not to speak about this one, specific war and nobody would have had a problem. They deliberately included it to provoke the exact drama and response we are seeing. It’s embarrassing to our profession.
Pssssst… Does anyone have the code for this? I’d like to collect my CEUs and move on.
I have a question and it is coming from a place of legitimate curiosity.
When people say that Israel (the country) is killing Palestinians, why do people make it like that means that the person saying that they hate Jewish people? Or that is is anti semitic?
Based on the definition of genocide, it doesn’t sound like what Hamas did in Oct was genocide. It was STILL terrible and unforgivable, but not genocide. Now this might be semantics and opinions but I view the death of everyone as terrible in the end, no matter if they are Jewish or Palestinian.
Now my question is, when we talk about the holocaust, we say that Germany did terrible things. The Germans do not then say “THIS IS ANTI GERMAN AND YOU ARE HATING ON US”. Then why do Jewish people view any opinion that is negative towards what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as hate towards them? Most people understand that YOU as a Jewish person, do not want anyone to die. But YOU have to logically see that Israel is killing a lot of people no? And YES, Jewish people have also been killed, no one is saying no or saying that the suffering of the Jewish people does not matter. BUT can we all agree that killing and bombing hospitals with babies is bad?
I am just tired of seeing this constant hate while I am being persecuted in own state because I immigrated here when I was a child (and my native language is not English or my name is Hispanic). If my country were to kill a bunch of people and others would talk about it, I would not use my current suffering and fear to silence any type of opinion, fact, commentary about the deaths that my country is inflicting on others. I can hold my own pain, while making space for others’ – I think this is what makes me a great GC. I use my own experiences (as an immigrant, as a carrier, etc.) to get closer to people, not to push them away.
Why don’t we get this mad when we talk about what ICE is doing to my people?
Hi Caro,
I take you at your word that your questions and interest are genuine. If you are interested in learning (as well as anyone else reading this comment), there was an antisemitism webinar presented this year at the NSGC meeting. It highlights historical and modern antisemitism. While I can’t speak for them, I have a hunch that the organizer(s) of this talk would be happy to share their materials with individuals who could not attend but are earnestly interested in learning.
Through DEIJ education, I can appreciate how important it is to recognize microaggressions and offensive material/language that one would not otherwise pick up on. I can see that from your personal experience this is important to you too. I commend you on your drive to support other marginalized groups, which starts with and open and earnest understanding.
Excellent question, Caro. In my opinion, it’s due to the unique nature of the Zionist movement and what is commonly known as “Zionist propaganda.” If you enter this term in a search engine, it will explain its core components. This is not meant as an insult to anyone with a deep belonging to a Jewish homeland, but an explanation for why the dismissal of things like genocide and settler violence occurs, including by smart people like genetic counselors who can critically assess information. Responses often come from a victim mentality, and attempts at critical discussions lead to no where.
Hi Caro,
If you really are trying to understand, I suggest reading the article I linked above. What Hamas did on October 7th is ABSOLUTELY a genocide. The legal definition of genocide involves intention. In fact, it is the most important part of the definition. If you want to learn, you should also read a little bit more about Hamas and who they are. Their stated intention (in their charter) is to kill all jews. At all costs. They are terrorists. And then finally, if you’d like to learn about jewish indigineity in the land of israel, I’d be happy to give you some readings and sources about zionism as a core belief of Judaism. But again, if you really want to know why antizionism is antisemitic, start with the article I posted. It pretty much sums it up. I see that others here are not interested in actually learning.
Yes, Caro. This has been labeled as the ‘Palestine exception’ or ‘PEP’ which is progressive except for Palestine. As you have seen in the comments above, people are saying that criticizing a nation state’s policies, no matter how harmful are justified because it is anti-Semitic to criticize them. AND, that may Israelis are protesting on the streets. But why are they protesting? Why did students risk their careers during encampments? Why are bridges and weapon factories being shut down? Why are dockworkers refusing to load weapons? Why are people across all political spectrums criticizing our taxes going to Israel? Why is everyone running for electric positions being asked if they get money from AIPAC? Somehow, a small group of people on this forum have decided that they have the power to not only email their concerns, but also take over the comments to air them out. Which again is freedom of speech. But they have also decided that anyone within our profession cannot exercise the same freedom of speech and must be censored. So, I am also just as confused as you why we cannot call it Gaza genocide when scholars of genocide are calling it that? How can everyone else be wrong?
These comments are hard to read. NSGC did not cancel the talk because the content was inaccurate. As the post explains, NSGC received complaints alleging factual errors and safety concerns, removed the posting while those complaints were reviewed, consulted the presenters, verified the citations, and then reposted the material when it was found to be factually accurate. The cancellation was driven by threats of violence to leadership and the organization, which NSGC has publicly disclosed.
The university likewise canceled the event without reviewing the full content. Their stated reason was concern about the same violent threats NSGC received, along with anonymous complaints that assumed the content mirrored what had been submitted to NSGC — content that NSGC had already reinstated after verifying its accuracy. It is presumptuous for some commenters to suggest the presenters did not reflect on or engage with feedback they received.
This cancellation was driven by outside pressure and threats, not by a finding that the content itself was biased or inflammatory. If NSGC (or a university) intends to adjudicate what is acceptable in their forums, they should publish clear, consistent rules and procedures; without that transparency, decisions look arbitrary and allow external actors to dictate who can speak (and, as seen in these comments, try to re-write the chain of events and reasoning behind the cancellations).
For the record, I watched the webinar and want to clarify that it was not primarily about Gaza: roughly two minutes of the 70-minute presentation addressed anything about that topic.
This post is about censorship and about how institutions respond to both content concerns and safety threats. It calls for institutional accountability and for transparency with presenters about threats so they can take steps to protect themselves. I urge people to thoughtfully read the piece before commenting.
Kate – I agree that the lack of transparency contributed to a lot of misinformation and ultimately perpetuated harm for all involved. I fully support the authors’ recommendations.
But just to clarify, UW did not receive complaints anonymously, and NSGC did not verify the accuracy of webinar’s content. As noted in the essay, “the segment was restored with an appended reference list, and an overall disclaimer NSGC required stating that views expressed were the presenters’ own.”
I saw the reinstated webinar before it was removed from the NSGC website – no content was changed and instead multiple slides of illegible references, without the ability to access directly via hyperlinks, were added at the beginning of Ambreen’s slides. And adding a disclaimer, simply noting that the content are the ‘views’ of the presenters does not exonerate NSGC for failing to do their due diligence in addressing the legitimate concerns raised by several Jewish GCs and ensuring content being offered with CEUs does not include disinformation.
Finally, using CAIR, an organization with ties to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, to support your claims, is concerning to me.
https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/2025-11/CAIR_Revisded.pdf
I think it’s important to be careful here. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has not been designated as a terrorist organization and making that comment offhand is dangerous and hypocritical in the context of what you are trying to say. When we casually describe mainstream Muslim civil rights groups as having terrorist “ties” without clear, current legal findings, it reinforces the idea that Muslim organizations are inherently suspicious. Your comment feeds broader Islamophobic narratives. Especially right now during Ramadan and in the US in general, when Muslim communities are already feeling vulnerable and there have been reports of anti-Muslim incidents, repeating unproven allegations can contribute to fear and hostility. If we’re worried about misinformation or harmful rhetoric, we should make sure we’re not repeating claims that fuels the very frenzy we’re criticizing.
I watched the webinar. The anti-Israel propaganda was a very small section, almost a side point. If you weren’t paying attention or already sensitive to that type of rhetoric, it would just wash over you. “Oh yes, of course Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Oh yes, of course this is an example of modern day eugenics.”
Except they aren’t, and it isn’t.
Anyone who tells you that what is going on in Israel or Gaza is straightforward, easy to understand, or “just that simple”, is lying to you.
I could list a bunch of bullet points explaining the nuances and all of the details that make what has happened for the last 2+ years (or 100 years or 1,000 years) very complex, but honestly it is exhausting and after 2+ years of trying to explain that this is a complicated situation, I have found that most people are not really interested in more than the version of Middle East politics that they have seen on tiktok or the Hamas propaganda that they are parroting.
Doubling down on using Israel and Gaza as your modern-day example of eugenics, and just sliding it in there as if it is truth and fact while this is a controversial point, is the problem. If the education about modern-day eugenics is what is important then do the webinar without that controversial example.
In the world we live in, combatting disinformation is more than half the problem. “But of course Israel is committing genocide and eugenics, I saw it in an educational webinar about genetic counseling.” When wild accusations go unchecked and uncontested we end up where we are now, without the ability to discern fact from fiction.
And so a bunch of genetic counselors watched the webinar and had significant concerns about anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda being shared as fact and expressed their concerns, to not let it go unchecked or uncontested. And so here we are.
Your word against the word of the speakers as it is mentioned above:
‘detractors simply disagree with her assertion that what Israel has done in Gaza is tantamount to genocide, which is a position they are able to hold and argue, but it should not result in the systematic silencing, censorship, and reputational harm’
I think this very clearly sums it up. The portion about Palestine was not even the entire presentation when I watched it. I am shocked at the scrutiny when you clearly state your opinion freely, while refusing others the right to do the same.