Exploring Narrative Imbalance, Victimhood, and Anti-Semitic Erasure in the Case of Ms. Rachel (Source: St. John’s University)

This is the title of an IRB-approved research study conducted by Hunter LaCroix (lacroixh@stjohns.edu), Principal Investigator, and Shevach Berkovits (shevach.berkovits19@stjohns.edu) at St. John’s University. I learned about it in a post in the r/JewsofConscience Subreddit. (The followers, including Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others have one thing in common: they’re all anti-Zionist, anti-genocide in Gaza, and anti-Israel.) LaCroix is an adjunct assistant research professor at SJU with a Ph.D. in Homeland Security and Berkovits is a part-time instructor in Security and Global Studies at American Public University, which is owned by American Public Education, Inc., a publicly traded private-sector corporation.

Who is Ms. Rachel, the Subject of this Hit Job Masquerading as a Research Study?

In case you’re not up-to-date, Ms. Rachel, whose full name is Rachel Anne Accurso (née Griffin) is a US educator, YouTuber, activist, and singer-songwriter. She created the eponymous YouTube series Ms. Rachel (originally known as Songs for Littles), a children’s music series focused on language development for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Her most important professional influence is Fred Rogers, one of my favorite US Americans.

YouTube: 20.9 million subscribers

Instagram: 5.3 million followers

Ms. Rachel’s “crime” in the eyes of US Zionists? She shone a spotlight on the suffering of Palestinian children in Gaza (Palestine), who comprise 30% of all the people who have been killed by Israel since 7 October 2023. Her advocacy hurt the feelings of the victimizers and their supporters. This is an example of payback laundered through a respected US institution of higher education.

Study Description

Here’s an introduction from the researchers:

Hello everyone! I am Dr. Hunter LaCroix and along with my colleague Dr. Shevach Berkovits we are conducting an IRB-approved academic research study examining how humanitarian messaging by Ms. Rachel is perceived by Jewish adults, including perceptions of narrative imbalance, victimhood, and antisemitic erasure.

We are seeking Jewish adults (18+) who are familiar with Ms. Rachel’s public content. You do not need to watch her children’s programming regularly—a general awareness of her public posts on social media is sufficient.

Study details:

• Voluntary and anonymous
• Approximately 10 minutes
• Available in English and Hebrew
• University-affiliated, IRB-approved
• Perception-based (this study examines audience interpretation, not intent or accusation)

Participation does not imply endorsement of any viewpoint. We are simply gathering perspectives to better understand how this messaging is received within the global Jewish community.

 Survey link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MsRachelMediaStudySJU (The survey is closed. Check below for a copy/paste of the questions and possible answers.)

Thank you for considering participation and for supporting our academic research. We believe this is a timely and relevant topic and all input is very crucial.

Selected Comments from the r/JewsofConscience Subreddit

ExtendedWallaby: This pisses me off so much because I had to do so much training for my job (where I’m a scientist but not the PI) on exactly how to conduct studies involving human participants. The three core principles (adopted in the wake of the Tuskegee syphilis study) are respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. I’d argue any study meant to defend a genocidal apartheid state violates all three, but even if the institution disagrees on that, a big part of “respect for persons” principle is informed consent. You have to tell all participants who is sponsoring the study, what it is trying to do, and what will happen with the data. This study is full of vague questions that, if you read between the lines, are obviously intended to be used to support Zionist narratives that *are not being polled*.

ETA: If you are able, please take a moment to contact the St. John’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) with your concerns over this study. If you have a doctorate, I encourage you to mention this, as the IRB will take you more seriously with an academic research credential. The following info is from the survey page:

> Researcher[s]: Dr. Hunter LaCroix, Professor, St. John’s University/Doctorate of Professional Studies/ Homeland Security Studies lacroixh@stjohns.edu, Dr. Shevach Berkovits, Professor, American Public University/Doctorate of Professional Studies/ Homeland Security Studies.
IRB #: IRB-FY2026-182
IRB Approval Date: Dec 17, 2025
**Questions about the research, complaints, or problems:**Contact Dr. Hunter LaCroix lacroixh@stjohns.edu
Questions about your rights as a research participant, complaints, or problems: Contact the St. Johns University IRB (Institutional Review Board) at 718-990-1440/ irbstjohns@stjohns.edu

ionlymemewell: People are rightfully picking this shitty study apart from a variety of angles, but one that I think is especially amusing is that both listed academics running the study have their doctorates in ‘Homeland Security Studies.‘

reenaltransplant: I responded that Miss Rachel’s messaging is extremely fair and reflective of the reality we live in, and that her care for Palestinian children is exactly what gives me confidence that she would be on the front lines as an advocate for Jewish Israeli children if God forbid they are ever stuck in communities starving for food, water, shelter, freedom of movement or access to basic medical care due to systemic dehumanization and the choices of our government.

toungepunckedpetunia: As a Jewish person I am disappointed by this survey. Many of the questions felt leading and framed in a way that assumed a particular conclusion rather than seeking unbiased feedback. Ms Rachel has consistently focused on the well being of children and I have not seen evidence that her content promotes antisemitism. I also found it unreasonable to suggest that her content could influence children in a way that causes antisemitism through their parents. Parents are responsible for deciding what their children watch and for the values they teach at home. If a parent believes any creator is not appropriate for their family they have every right and every ability to limit their child’s access to that content. That responsibility rests with parents, not with Ms Rachel. I hope future surveys are written in a more balanced and neutral way so that they accurately capture the views of all respondents rather than appearing to guide them toward a predetermined outcome.

Follow the Money and the Ideology (of Zionism)

According to its Wikipedia entry, StopAntisemitism is a US pro-Israel nonprofit advocacy group focused on exposing individuals for alleged antisemitic statements and behavior. Critics have said it relies on doxing and mostly focuses on anti-Zionist voices. This group, which should be honest and change its name to StopAntiZionism, nominated Ms. Rachel last year as “Antisemite of the Year” because of her… gasp!… advocacy on behalf of Palestinian children.

StopAntisemitism is a privately funded organization that receives the bulk of its financial backing through conservative, pro-Israel philanthropic foundations and public donations.

The watchdog group’s primary, publicly documented sources of funding include:

• The Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation: A known supporter of StopAntisemitism, this philanthropy is tied to Adam Milstein (adam@milsteinff.org), a prominent real estate investor and co-founder of the Israeli American Council.
• The Merona Leadership Foundation: Gila Milstein (gila@milsteinff.org?) serves as president of this foundation. It has been reported to provide the organization with roughly $270,000 annually to cover expenses, in addition to paying the salary of executive director Liora Rez.
• Impact Forum Foundation: The Milstein family sits on the board of this network of pro-Israel philanthropists, which supports nonprofits like StopAntisemitism.

The Survey

Here’s the survey, which I copied before it disappeared. I assume that LaCroix and Berkovits are busy “analyzing” the “data” as I write this. If you know anything about research study design, it crystal clear that this survey is replete with leading questions designed to elicit the answers the “researchers” are looking for.

Instructions

Please answer the following questions based on your perceptions of publicly available educational and humanitarian messaging associated with children’s media influencer Ms. Rachel (Rachel Anne Accurso), as well as public accountability efforts such as those by StopAntisemitism. These questions ask about perceived impacts and effects, not personal intent, motive, or wrongdoing. Your responses are anonymous.

Response Scale (unless otherwise noted)
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = I don’t Know
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree

Section A: Background Information

*1.What is your national identity? (in cases of Dual nationality place of primary residence) (Required.) American Israeli Other

2.(Optional) Would you like to share where you are from (for example, country, state, or region)?

*3. You are Religious (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

I don’t Know

Agree

Strongly Agree

*4. You are active in Jewish, Israeli, or antisemitism-related activism or advocacy (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*5. What is your age range? (Required.) 18–28 29–38 39–48 49–64 65+

Section B: Visibility and Narrative Framing

*6. Media messages about humanitarian crises influence which groups are publicly recognized as victims. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*7. Focusing on one group’s suffering can unintentionally downplay the suffering of others. (Required.)

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

*8. When Jewish suffering is missing from humanitarian messages, it feels intentional rather than accidental.(Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*9. Which victims are highlighted affects how people understand fairness, responsibility, and moral legitimacy in a conflict. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Section C: Ms. Rachel and Narrative Impact

*10. Ms. Rachel’s messaging about the Israel–Hamas conflict seems to focus more on Palestinian suffering than on Jewish suffering from the same events. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*11. This potential imbalance may influence how Jewish victimhood is perceived and discussed in public conversations. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*12. Even without intent, this kind of imbalance could contribute to the marginalization or underrepresentation of Jewish suffering, which may influence perceptions of antisemitism. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*13. Because Ms. Rachel is a children’s educator, her messaging may carry greater influence than that of non-educator celebrities, potentially shaping how children perceive issues of victimhood and empathy. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*14. You perceive Ms. Rachel to be a trustworthy advocate for children’s welfare in her public advocacy concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*15. When a children’s educator publicly engages with or amplifies content from highly partisan or extreme advocacy accounts, it may influence how those narratives are perceived and legitimized by audiences. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*16. As a children’s educator, Ms. Rachel should be held to higher standards of balance and objectivity when addressing global conflicts to avoid inadvertently perpetuating one-sided narratives that may contribute to antisemitic perceptions. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*17. The omission of Jewish suffering in Ms. Rachel’s messaging may contribute to the normalization of antisemitic narratives in online and media platforms. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*18. Ms. Rachel’s public statements on the Israel-Hamas conflict may warrant closer examination, given her influential position in shaping young children’s views, especially regarding perceptions of antisemitism. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Section D: How Narratives Spread Online

*19.Emotional humanitarian content spreads faster online than detailed or corrective information. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*20. Repeated exposure to one-sided humanitarian messaging can normalize those narratives over time, even without explicit endorsement. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*21. Because children’s media is shared repeatedly within families, one-sided narratives presented to children can influence adult perceptions over time. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*22. Even when posts are deleted after they have been debunked, their narrative impact often remains. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Section E: Antisemitism, Erasure, and Radicalization

*23. Antisemitism today can often appear as exclusion or silence in addition to open hostility. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*24. Selective humanitarian advocacy that consistently omits Jewish victims can contribute to antisemitic attitudes and structures, even when framed as compassion-focused. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*25. Ignoring or minimizing Jewish Indigenous ties to the land of Israel feels like a form of antisemitism. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*26. Antisemitic erasure can occur even when harm is not intended. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*27. Following or amplifying radical, extreme, or one-sided social media accounts can lead people toward more radical or extreme ways of thinking. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*28. Reposting radical, extreme, or one-sided content from social media accounts can legitimize radical or extreme ways of thinking. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Section F: Accountability and Public Response

*29. Public efforts by civil society organizations such as StopAntisemitism to raise concerns about influential educators reflect sentiments shared by many Jewish people. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

*30. Civil society groups play a valid role in holding influential educators accountable for narrative harm, even in the absence of malicious intent. (Required.)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Optional Open-Ended Question

31. Please feel free to share any additional thoughts about children’s media, narrative imbalance, antisemitic erasure, online radicalization, or public accountability.

I recommended that you consider the questions asked in this survey in the context of the Israeli (read Zionist) propaganda framework, as outlined by Craig Mokhiber, in which the persecutors claim to be the victims. Here are the key points:

1) to someone who has only ever known impunity, accountability feels like persecution;

2) the stripping away of privilege feels like discrimination;

3) criticism of their racism feels like a racist attack on them;

4) holding them to the same standards as everyone else is an intolerable denial of their superiority; and

5) facts, truth, law, human rights norms, and anything else that contradicts their political ideology feels like a personal threat. This is how a racist political ideology morphs into a kind of mental illness-and a very dangerous one.

In conclusion, shame on St. John’s University for taking money to fund this pseudoscientific “research study.” It’s glaringly obvious that you’re grinding a Zionist ax and catering to the pro-Israel, pro-genocide crowd. (Memo to the two researchers and SJU: It’s a full-blown, live-streamed genocide, not a conflict.) In addition to the two researchers, feel free to tell the SJU president, Rev. Brian J. Shanley, O.P, what you think: shanleyb@stjohns.edu.

Mark A. Ashwill, Ph.D.

Postscript: Ms. Rachel posted the first image on her Instagram account on 3 August 2026. Her unequivocal statement is one of many indicators of her integrity, allyship, and alignment with humanity. It reminds me of one of my favorite unattributed expressions: Success without integrity is failure.