Mondavi Center at UC Davis After a long semester of anti-Semitism on North American college campuses, the Student Senate at UC Davis has voted overwhelmingly to pass an Israel divestment resolution, by a final vote of 10-0, with two abstentions. This is not the first resolution that the students of UC Davis have passed, however. Earlier in the semester, on January 29, the ASUC (Associated Students of UC Davis) passed a divestment resolution by a vote of 8-2-2. The California Aggie, the student newspaper, reported that document called for the school to pull its investments from, “corporations that aid in the Israeli occupation of Palestine and illegal settlements in Palestinian territories.” However, this first divestment resolution was later overturned! About two weeks following the initial vote, the Court of Associated Students, voted of 5-0 (with one abstention), to overturn this resolution, on the grounds that the vote violated the school’s constitution, citing that the document did nothing to provide for the betterment of student welfare, as required by the Constitution, and was simply a political document. The Israel education group, StandWithUs, voiced their praise for the court saying, “Great job to UC Davis students for seeing the light—that BDS (the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement) is a narrow-minded agenda to target only the Jewish state.” The most recent divestment vote strategically included language dealing with the welfare of students. The affirmed anti-Israel group, SJP (Student for Justice in Palestine), at UC Davis released a statement saying, “Although SR 9 was deemed ‘unconstitutional’ by the UC Davis Campus Court back in February, the Divestment Community views this second victory as further affirmation of student concern in their university’s complicity with the Israeli occupation. The two resolutions are nearly identical with the exception that SR 17 includes direct ties to the resolution’s effects on ‘student welfare.’” The most recent divestment vote supposedly included strategically placed language dealing with the welfare of UC Davis students, however it only includes the following on the subject: “WHEREAS, divesting from these funds will create a climate of tolerance and open channels of dialogue between campus communities…” The argument therefore seems to be, if and only if, UC Davis divests from companies that do business with Israel, the only Jewish state in the world, the campus climate will be one of harmony and tranquility. This new resolution reeks of Israel demonization and Jew bashing, and does nothing to increase the quality of student life. However, realistically, nothing is expected to come of this decision. The Sacramento Bee reported in February that the Office of the UC President said their stance has been the same since 2010. They will “not divest from Israeli-tied businesses and expressed concern that Israel was being unfairly targeted in the resolutions.” These recent events at UC Davis are only a microcosm of what have been happening all over the State of California. UC Santa Cruz, UCLA, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Riverside, and UC Berkeley have all passed divestment resolutions over the past few years. However some schools are making positive changes on campus. At UC Berkeley this year, the Associated Students unanimously passed a bill that condemns campus anti-Semitism. UCLA followed Berkeley’s lead, and the student government passed a bill, by a vote of 12-0, that denounces all forms of anti-Semitism and protects Jewish students from discrimination. The latest bill condemning anti-Semitism, which was the strongest yet, was at UC Santa Barbara. The UCSB Resolution condemned the growth of Anti-Semitism on campuses and adopted the U.S. State Department’s Definition of Anti-Semitism. Just one week later, the Student Senate rejected a BDS resolution by a vote of 13 to 12 with one abstention, showing the impact of this bill. UC President Janet Napolitano publicly stated this past May that she personally supports the State Department Definition of Anti-Semitism, which includes demonizing, applying double standards to, and singling out Israel. We hope that the UC Board of Regents will adopt the State Department’s definition, to help curb the ever-growing anti-Semitism on UC campuses.
Rayburn Congressional Building Washington, D.C., (June 8, 2015) – On Wednesday, Brandeis Center President Kenneth L. Marcus and Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) President Sarah Stern educated congressional staff and others on the history, current status, and problems of Title VI of the Higher Education Opportunities Act. This year, the failed government program, which funds many controversial Middle East Studies outreach programs, is up for its tenth reauthorization. Before dozens of congressional staffers, Marcus and Stern educated key policymakers on the problems with Middle East Studies and the opportunities to make these programs more effective. Title VI of the Higher Education enacted in 1958, was specifically intended to prepare America to address the then-present Soviet threat, by giving federal money to universities to strengthen their language programs and area studies departments in order to train future national defense, intelligence, and military staff. The money was therefore used to assist the United States national defense system in achieving its goals. As the military’s focus shifted from the Soviets to where it currently stands, many schools began developing Middle East studies programs to study geo-political, ethnic, and cultural activities. However, as the Brandeis Center reported last September in a joint statement, the program has gone astray. “The evidence shows that many centers funded under Title VI still do not serve the basic objectives of the program, namely, to advance American national security and international relations interests.” LDB President Ken Marcus There are three main issues with Title VI right now. First, the way it is executed, Jewish students or students of perceived Jewish heritage are learning in a hostile environment that is not conducive to respectful dialogue. AMCHA Initiative, a non-profit organization driven to fix the problem of anti-Semitism on college campuses, produced a report in 2014, where it found that at UCLA’s Center for Near East Studies, at events held or co-sponsored by the Center between Fall 2010 and Spring 2013 where Israel was involved, 93% of the time, Israel was made out to be the aggressor, almost always at fault. This means that Israel is given a double standard compared to other countries around the world. And it’s not simply at UCLA. A recent joint LDB and Trinity College report presented results from a national demographic survey of American Jewish college students. The widely distributed report revealed that more than 50% of 1,157 self-identified Jewish students at 55 campuses declared to have experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism during the last academic year. In addition, a 2014 report by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) found that, out of 6 billion people polled, 26% of people worldwide harbor anti-Semitic attitudes or beliefs. Statistics such as the aforementioned symbolize all across the country what LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus refers to as the ”resurgence of anti-Semitism” due to immensely harsh “rhetoric emitted from Middle East Studies programs.” EMET President Sarah Stern It becomes very much a legal issue in this case, because according to the landmark Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination at federally-funded programs on the basis of race, color, or national origin, is prohibited. Jewish students are protected under this because they consider Judaism to be their ethnicity, more than it is their religion. Second, these Middle East Studies programs, which were originally supposed to strengthen U.S. foreign policy, have grown to do the exact opposite. But, as EMET leader Sarah Stern, said at the briefing, “The original intent has been turned on its head.” This may be due to, says Stern, the fact they follow the late Edward Said’s theory of post-colonialism that follows the story of the perceived colonialism of the West, and Israel as a puppet state of capitalist America. Since these programs are anti-America and anti-Israel from the start, there is an environment that is innately not friendly to Jewish students. Third, there is no way to enforce the key provisions of the Higher Education Act because Congress did not establish any accountability measures. Under the current system, the Education Department has asked universities who wish to receive money under Title VI grants to, essentially, promise that they will uphold standards within the Act. When programs ask for Title VI money, the Department does not probe applicants evaluate applicants’ assertions that they will provide a “diversity of perspectives” in their outreach programs, as required under the statute. Instead, it merely checks to make sure that they have provided the proper certification. Worse, neither Congress nor the Department of Education has established definition for what constitutes the proper “diversity of perspectives” in Middle East Studies. This is not the first time The Brandeis Center has been to Capitol Hill, or spoken to Education Department officials, to stress the importance of these regulations. Last year, Kenneth L. Marcus spoke on an earlier Capitol Hill panel, educating Congressional staff and others about the need to reform Middle East Studies. He stated in an article, “One idea would be to defund it…but de-funding is not the only option. If Title VI funding is to be salvaged, some measures can be taken. They include: [to] properly evaluate university promises to ensure diverse perspectives…[and to] establish a formal grievance procedure independent of the campuses.” In addition to the joint statement and the Hill briefings, LDB has also produced an influential white paper on “The Morass of Middle East Studies: Title VI of the Higher Education Act and Federal Funded Area Studies.” This important policy paper explains the history of Title VI, its misuse, and options for reform. The white paper notes, “Most notably, the 2008 reauthorization required Title VI grant applicants to demonstrate that their programs would be non-biased…they all require Title VI programs to provide “diverse perspectives” and a “wide range of views to generate debate on world regions and international affairs” in order to receive federal funding.” What the reauthorization did not take into account, was any sort of oversight or regulation as it pertains to Middle East Studies outreach programs. In the end, Stern comments, “Title VI requires a great deal of Congressional oversight,” and perhaps more attention than the government than it has thus far given to the issue.
Download PDF Washington, D.C.: The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB), expresses its disappointment over the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a Congressional law that would have allowed Americans born in Jerusalem to list their birthplace as Israel on their U.S. passports. LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus said of the Supreme Court’s decision, “It seems that both the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Supreme Court seem to have forgotten that Jerusalem is in Israel. This is a regrettable decision. It will no doubt be revisited during the coming U.S. presidential campaign. With any luck, rationality will prevail in the end, although it may take another presidential administration to get this right.” As an organization fighting anti-Israel bias, LDB expresses its concern over the refusal to accept Jerusalem as within the sovereign of Israel because, as it explained to the court, “the discussion of matters pertaining to Israel often invokes double standards and unduly tortured logic that would uniquely disfavor the Jewish national homeland, and thus negatively impact the status and personal security of Jews the world over.” In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that Congress did not have the authority to pass the law since it ran counter to the State Department’s policy of not recognizing any nation as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. LDB is a national, non-partisan, Washington, D.C. based non-profit organization that works to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. Last summer, LDB filed an amicus brief on the ‘Jerusalem Passport Case’ before the Supreme Court in support of the plaintiff’s wishes to have “Israel” listed as his place of birth on his passport. The brief, co-authored by leading scholars Alan Gura and Eugene Kontorovich, argues that the that this case “lends itself to a much simpler resolution than would a true dispute between the president and Congress regarding the powers to recognize the legal status of states and foreign sovereigns.” The brief further argues that if Congress is to exercise its powers over immigration, nationality, foreign commerce, and war, then the President cannot override Congress’s ability to identify the present on-the ground reality of who governs a particular patch of land. As a result, since the United States indisputably recognizes both the sovereign State of Israel, and its (Jerusalem based) government, the question here is not about “recognition,” but rather about mere acknowledgment of Jerusalem’s location. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down the Congressional law in what Chief Justice Roberts casts in his dissent as dangerously groundbreaking. “The court takes the perilous step — for the first time in our history — of allowing the president to defy an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs,” Roberts wrote.