BDS is back on American college campuses, especially on the West Coast — if indeed it ever left. For the last several months, public attention has been focused on successful boycott campaigns staged by anti-Israel groups at American academic associations such as the American Studies Association and the Asian American Studies Association. Now the energy in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is returning to American college campuses. Anti-Israel groups, such as Students for Justice in Palestine, are preparing to mount massive BDS campaigns on campuses across the country, such as the University of California at Los Angeles. Once again, we can expect Jewish students to face a barrage of anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamations, anti-Israel smears, factual exaggerations, and outright falsehoods, together with just enough factually accurate criticism to disguise the entire charade as a legitimate political movement. Until recently, campus-based BDS campaigns were all losers. Student groups inevitably saw these tawdry efforts for what they were. Even then, the Jewish community paid a price, as Israel’s image was falsely connected in students’ minds with incomparable topics such as South African apartheid and Nazi Germany. Last year, the situation deteriorated, especially in California, as several student governments actually passed BDS resolutions. Ultimately, these resolutions are empty gestures. American student governments have no power to act on the resolutions by, e.g., divesting from companies that do business by government. And university administrators, being grownups, invariably reject the motions. But the damage is nonetheless done, even when ultimately BDS fails, because the anti-Israel groups often smear Israel and the Jewish community with impunity. In the wake these campaigns, the campus situation for Jewish students often deteriorates, and Jewish students are sometimes spit at, threatened, and assaulted. The Louis D. Brandeis Center continually monitors problematic campuses, sometimes with personnel on the ground, for evidence that Jewish students are being harassed. In some cases, anti-Israel extremists create a hostile environment for Jewish students that violates state and federal laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In other cases, anti-Jewish attacks involve criminal activities, such as vandalism or assault. Public universities also sometimes violate the constitutional rights of Jewish and pro-Israel students, sometime suppressing their lawful right to free speech. Not all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic, and not all anti-Semitism is unlawful. Even the vilest of anti-Semites is entitled to the full protections of the First Amendment and the doctrine of academic freedom. Nevertheless, when BDS campaigners cross the line into unlawful harassment of Jewish and Israeli students, the community needs to stand ready to protect them. (more…)
Clemens Heni The Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (BICSA), headed by German political scientist Clemens Heni, has just issued its first newsletter. It is available on the internet, and it consists of several articles that may be of interest to Brandeis Center readers. An article by Ron Jontof-Hutter addresses the abuse of the South African “apartheid” term to vilify Israel. Dr. Elena Zaharieva’s article describes current trends in antisemitism in Bulgaria and features an analysis of the Bulgarian Center for Global and Middle East Studies (MESBG). Prof. Gerald Steinberg discusses NGOs and antisemitism, a topic on which he is an internationally recognized authority. Finally, Heni himself addresses a new book by a member of European Parliament “Deconstructing Zionism,” co-edited by Gianni Vattimo, an Italian philosopher. (more…)
Eugene Volokh Can Congress withhold funds from universities that adopt anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) policies? Two widely respected First Amendment experts disagree. Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment practitioner, argues that the new Roskam-Lapinski Bill is unconstitutional. Eugene Volokh, a leading First Amendment scholar at UCLA, disagrees. Readers of the Brandeis Center Blog will remember that Representatives Roskam and Lapinksi’s newly introduced bill, HR4009, and provides, part that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an institution of higher education shall not be eligible to receive funds or any other form of financial assistance under this Act [not including student aid funds] if the Secretary determines that such institution is participating in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars…. For purposes of this section, the Secretary shall consider an institution of higher education to be participating in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars if the institution, any significant part of the institution, or any organization significantly funded by the institution adopts a policy or resolution, issues a statement, or otherwise formally establishes the restriction of discourse, cooperation, exchange, or any other involvement with academic institutions or scholars on the basis of the connection of such institutions or such scholars to the State of Israel. Floyd Abrams Mr. Abrams has reportedly argued that Roskam-Lapkinski would be unconstitutional: The notion that the power to fund colleges and their faculties may be transformed into a tool to punish them for engaging in constitutionally protected expression is contrary to any notion of academic freedom and to core First Amendment principles…. I believe that academic boycotts are themselves contrary to principles of academic freedom but that does not make the legislation being considered any more tolerable or constitutional. Volokh disagrees, arguing that the bill is likely constitutional. His arguments, posted at the Volokho conspiracy at WashingtonPost.com, include the following: 1. Most important, the bill doesn’t restrict university speech based on content or viewpoint — a university doesn’t lose money just for condemning Israel or even praising a boycott, but only for actually boycotting Israel: refusing to deal with Israeli institutions or scholars…. 2. Now the bill may affect a university’s speech decisions. A university department’s choice of speakers for a conference, for instance, is a decision about what speech to present, and is thus potentially protected by the First Amendment: It constitutes exercise of the university’s freedom of speech, and the related right of freedom of expressive association, which is triggered by association restrictions or association mandates that “affect[ a] group’s ability to express its message.” … If the government made it a crime for universities to refuse to invite Israeli speakers, that might well be unconstitutional. But the question is whether the government can say, “if you take our money, you can’t discriminate against people or institutions because they are connected to Israel.” (Note that the bill would be narrower than an anti-discrimination provision, because it bans only outright boycotts, and not all discrimination, but it’s comparable enough to an anti-discrimination rule that I’ll treat it similarly.) And as to such questions, the Court has generally said yes…. (more…)