In the campus war against Israel, the all too familiar refrain from anti-Israel activists, many of whom form the loose coalition of groups and individuals spearheading the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, is that their quarrel is only with Israelis and their government’s policies, not with Jews themselves. But that specious defense has fallen away of late, revealing some caustic and base anti-Semitism, representing a seismic shift in the way that Jews now are being indicted not just for supporting Israel, but merely for being Jewish. It was not without some historical irony, then, when student council leaders at Durban University of Technology (DUT) in South Africa in early February floated a proposal that suggested, apparently without shame, that Jewish students should be expelled from the institution, that, as the student body’s secretary, Mqondisi Duma, put it, “We took the decision that Jewish students, especially those who do not support the Palestinian struggle, should deregister.” This is, one would think, a rather shocking sentiment from students who themselves benefited from a world-wide campaign in the 1970s and 1980s to end South Africa’s racist apartheid system. Also in February at UCLA, several councilmembers on the USAC Judicial Board, UCLA student government’s highest judicial body, grilled Rachel Beyda, a second-year economics student, when she sought a seat on the board. The focus on her candidacy was not her qualifications for the position (which no one seemed to doubt), but on the fact that she was Jewish and how her “affiliation with Jewish organizations at UCLA . . . might affect her ability to rule fairly on cases in which the Jewish community has a vested interest in the outcome, such as cases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” as the student newspaper described it. “Ruling fairly” in this case, of course, meant that she was likely not to support the increasingly virulent anti-Israel campaign on the UCLA campus, so she failed to pass the political litmus test that so-called progressive students see as their default position: namely, being pro-Palestinian. It was the same thinking that inspired a similarly discriminatory proposal last May by two members of UCLA’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine which attempted to bar Jewish candidates from filling council positions if they had taken trips to Israel subsidized by the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, or other organizations, which, according to the brazen SJP students, “have openly campaigned against divestment from corporations that profit from Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights.” (more…)
Download PDF Washington, D.C., : This afternoon, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law www.brandeiscenter.com expressed “outrage” at anti-Semitism within the University of California at Los Angeles’ Undergraduate Student Assembly Council (USAC). In a letter to UCLA leadership, the Brandeis Center specifically expressed legal concerns over this videotape https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuvqeVL05UA of the USAC’s debate over whether a student who is involved in the Jewish community could properly be appointed to the Judicial Board. The Center criticized the treatment of this Jewish student as “outrageously discriminatory,” stating that it “blatantly violates UCLA rules, and raises serious questions of federal civil rights compliance.” LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus commented, “This deplorable UCLA student government debate raised old-fashioned canards about whether Jews could be entrusted with delicate positions in light of supposedly divided loyalty. It is a throwback to old racist views of the sort that have long since been discredited. Shame on UCLA’s student government for indulging in this display of stereotypes and defamations.” The Brandeis Center, a national civil rights organization, was joined by its UCLA law student chapter in criticizing the discussion that took place on February 10 at a USAC meeting. At this meeting, the USAC considered an appointee for a Justice position on their Judicial Board. The Brandeis Center presented UCLA’s chancellor and vice chancellor with online videotape evidence (on YouTube) demonstrating that a candidate viewed as a highly qualified and bright young woman was criticized for her involvement in the Jewish community. Specifically, two UCLA USAC councilmembers questioned whether a Jewish student’s involvement in Jewish organizations cause her to have an irremovable bias and make her unfit for the UCLA Judicial Board. USAC ultimately confirmed the candidate but not before broadcasting its suspicions about whether Jewishly active Jewish students could be entrusted with membership on the Judicial Council. The Brandeis Center and its UCLA law student chapter urged Chancellor Block and Vice Chancellor Montero to immediately investigate the situation take prompt remedial measures, publicly condemn the action, and meet with LDB’s UCLA law student leadership to discuss this matter further. BRANDEIS CENTER LETTER TO UCLA February 16, 2015 Via overnight delivery and email to: Chancellor Gene D. Block Vice Chancellor Janina Montero University of California – Los Angeles 2147 Murphy Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 chancellor@ucla.edu Dear Chancellor Block and Vice Chancellor Montero, We represent the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, an independent non-partisan organization with a mission of advancing the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and to promote justice for all; and the LDB Law Student Chapter at UCLA, an organization of UCLA law students who share in the mission of the national organization. We write out of serious concern for the discussion that took place on February 10 at a UCLA Undergraduate Student Assembly Council (USAC) meeting. At this meeting, the USAC considered an appointee for a Justice position on their Judicial Board. We have heard disturbing reports, substantiated by videotape evidence, indicating the following: this particular candidate was a highly qualified and bright young woman, but some USAC members were unable to get over the fact that she was Jewish and involved in Jewish organizations on campus. Specifically, two different councilmembers questioned whether her involvement in Jewish organizations cause her to have an irremovable bias and make her unfit for the Judicial Board: · “My issue is, I’m going to be upfront about it, I think she’s clearly great. She’s smart, she like knows her stuff, like probably going to be a really great lawyer. But I’m not going to pretend this isn’t about conflict of interest . . . . I just think this is a stupid political move, and it really bugs me and that’s how I see it and I can’t separate that out. . . . It’s not her fault… but she’s part of a community that’s very invested in USAC . . . . and I can’t separate those two from being together, even if she’s the right person for the job . . . .” · “For some reason, I’m not one hundred percent comfortable. I don’t know why . . . . I’ll go through her application again. I definitely see that she is qualified for sure, I just worry about her other obligations, obviously.” In other words, based on her Jewish identity and Jewish communal involvement, they questioned her ability to remain unbiased in this position. In other words, they engaged in classic discriminatory stereotypes and defamations. After much debate, which was only stopped when USAC faculty advisors stepped in, the council voted to approve the candidate’s appointment. (You can watch the meeting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuvqeVL05UA). Despite the favorable outcome, this treatment was outrageously discriminatory, blatantly violates UCLA rules, and raises serious questions of federal civil rights compliance. The USAC’s discussion surrounding the vote appears to have violated UCLA’s Principles of Community and nondiscrimination policies and raises concerns under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Principles of Community state, among other provisions, that, We do not tolerate acts of discrimination, harassment, profiling or other conduct causing harm to individuals on the basis of expression of race, color, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, religious beliefs, political preference, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship, or national origin among other personal characteristics. Such conduct violates UCLA’s Principles of Community and may result in imposition of sanctions according to campus policies governing the conduct of students, staff and faculty. The nondiscrimination policy states that, “The University of California, in accordance with applicable Federal and State law and University policy, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition, ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services. . . . This nondiscrimination policy covers admission, access, and treatment in University programs and activities.” Furthermore, discrimination against Jewish students, or the creation of a hostile environment thereof, on a college or university campus is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even though the student was eventually voted in as a Justice, the discussion surrounding her appointment was blatantly discriminatory. In addition to being unlawful, their conduct has made a mockery of the university’s guiding Principles of Community. Instead of fostering a climate of mutual understanding, respect and civility, they have divided the student government in a way that must be quickly and firmly addressed. In the past Chancellor Block, you have rightly observed “Political speech that stigmatizes or casts aspersions on individuals or particular groups does not promote healthy debate but debases it by trying to intimidate individuals and groups.” Chancellor Napolitano similarly noted, with respect to an early unfortunate episode at this university, that while the UC campuses value the freedom of speech, the “principles of civility, respect, and inclusion, and should also govern our campuses.” To address the foregoing problem, we respectfully urge you to take the following steps: 1) Conduct a full, prompt investigation into this situation and take whatever responsive actions are required. OCR has made clear that such investigations must be “immediate and appropriate”: “When responding to harassment, a school must take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred.” 2010 Dear Colleague Letter: Bullying and Harassment, available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf. The inquiry should be “prompt, thorough, and impartial,” and if “an investigation reveals that discriminatory harassment has occurred, a school must take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment, eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and prevent the harassment from recurring….” Id. 2) Issue a strong public rebuke of statements made during the USAC meeting, reaffirming the university’s position that discrimination in the form of anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. 3) Finally, the LDB law student chapter at UCLA requests a meeting with you to discuss this matter further. Please respond to Joshua Greer and Amanda Hassid with your availability for this meeting.