On disagreements - Lee Yaron in Haaretz:

‘Schizer, who has worked at Columbia for over 25 years, says he is concerned about the inability of opposing groups on campus to have discussions with each other. "There used to be healthy discussion, including debates about Israeli government policy and the occupation," he says. "However, since October 7 the conversation has changed, with many asserting that Israel itself is illegitimate, and with students who disagree refusing to speak and study with one another.

"Part of what a great university does is introduce us to people with different opinions," he continues. "For a democratic society to flourish, we need shifting coalitions, not warring camps. People can agree about X and disagree on Y. The situation now on campus is not healthy. We're really missing something because we see the world as divided into two opposing camps that have nothing to do with each other."
One of the key points emphasized by task force members is that, unlike past protests at Columbia, which were directed at the establishment and the university itself, this protest has in many ways been aimed at students who lack the tools to cope with the intensity of the anger directed against them.
Student protesters targeting other students "are causing pain and isolation in a way I have never seen before on campus," Schizer says.’

(…)

‘Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups have demanded that the task force provide a legal definition of antisemitism to address the burning questions: Is anti-Zionism a form of antisemitism? Is challenging the right of the State of Israel to exist antisemitic? Is criticizing the Israeli government antisemitic, as some Israelis believe? However, the task force members told Haaretz that providing a specific definition in the university's rules would contradict federal law – specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that policy definitions of discriminatory harassment be general and not treat separate groups differently. Title VI stipulates that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.’

(…)

‘"We are not trying to draw a very thick boundary around what is antisemitic and say everything outside that boundary is fine," Lemann explains. "However, certain kinds of statements can make a lot of Jewish and Israeli students at Columbia feel intensely uncomfortable. This does not necessarily mean that you will be forbidden to say those things – but you should understand how they are received."’

(…)

‘In response to this story, a Columbia University spokesperson said: "We are committed to combating antisemitism and taking sustained, concrete action to ensure Columbia is a campus where Jewish students and everyone in our community feels safe, valued and able to thrive."’

Read the article here.

People can agree about X, disagree about Y. But the longing for purity makes this difficult.
Ideology, even if’s not named ideology, has replaced religion in many parts of society.

Many branches of Christianity are less interested in purity and adherence to articles of faith than most ideology-driven moments nowadays.

People are looking for someone or something to put their faith in.
As with desire, the object is less important than the desire itself.