Reposted with permission from the author, from VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY, Response to Clark Hall By Baruch Nutovic (President of the LDB Law Student Chapter at the University of Virginia School of Law; UVA Law ’19) Response to Clark Hall When I was a freshman at University of California Berkeley (UC Berkeley), I came back to my dormitory one night to discover a swastika on my door. That was just the start. Over my years as an undergraduate, I routinely found swastikas and anti-Semitic scribbling, like the “kill Jews” I found in the library bathroom. I found Swastikas painted around town as well, and the city seemed in no hurry to remove them. The Daily Californian, UC Berkeley’s student newspaper, published anti-Semitic op-eds and cartoons on multiple occasions. A Jewish student was rammed in the back with a shopping cart during an anti-Israel event and subsequently had to seek a restraining order. As bills to boycott the Middle East’s only democracy, Israel, were debated by UC Berkeley’s student government, I heard Jews called Christ-killers and bloodthirsty child-killers. Old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jewish domination of the media, finance, government, etc. were aired over and over again. My experience is common for Jewish students in the University of California (UC) system. In recent years, swastika incidents have become commonplace, and at UC Davis, swastikas were even painted on the Jewish fraternity house. At UC San Diego, at a pro-Israel event, a student declared support for gathering all Jews in Israel, that they might be killed more easily. At UC Los Angeles, a Jewish applicant for the Student Council’s Judicial Board was asked whether being Jewish would get in the way of her doing her job. At UC Irvine, an anti-Israel mob harassed and chased a female Jewish student trying to enter an Israeli film event. The movement of hate against the Jewish state often predictably results in hate crimes, intimidation, and violence directed at Jewish students. I bring all this up for a reason. On February 22, the Brody Jewish Center at the University of Virginia (UVa) hosted an event in Clark Hall called “Building Bridges.” A panel of Israeli Defense Force reservists were to share their personal stories and answer questions from students. The objective was to humanize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, offer students a chance to learn about Israeli society, and create a dialogue about peacemaking. During the event, a group of students and non-students stormed in, yelling anti-Israel slogans and trying to intimidate Jewish students. The militants ignored entreaties to be part of the event and ask tough questions of the panelists. They continued harassing attendees until campus police were called, and then they finally dispersed. It is disturbing to see the anti-Israel hate movement’s campaign of violence and intimidation against Jewish students, which has become an established part of campus life at the University of California and other major universities, being brought to UVa. It was still more disturbing to see the undergraduate Minority Rights Coalition deny the Jewish Leadership Council membership, on the grounds that one of the council’s five organizations was a pro-Israel group. Thankfully, this has not been an issue at UVa Law. One of the main strategies of the anti-Israel hate movement is to try to drive a wedge between Jews and other minorities, suggesting that Jews are not a minority group in an effort to isolate Jews. The facts say otherwise. According to FBI statistics for 2016, the last year for which data is available, Jews were subject to more hate crimes per capita than any other minority group. And according to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2017 anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. surged nearly 60 percent, the largest single-year increase on record. It is no accident that when the white supremacists came to Charlottesville to intimidate African-Americans and other minorities, one of their chants was “Jews will not replace us.” Of course, when a culture of hate against one group is tolerated, the result tends to be the targeting of other groups as well. It was not a coincidence that while I was at UC Berkeley, there were numerous racist incidents targeting other minorities, including a fraternity hanging a noose outside their window for Halloween. And I’ll never forget my horror when I sat down at a desk in the UC Berkeley library to find “kill N*****s” written on it. Hate crime statistics bear out the connections between different forms of hate on the national level too. In 2016, 50.2 percent of racially-motivated hate crimes targeted African-Americans, and 54.2 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes targeted Jews. These are strikingly similar numbers. Benjamin Franklin once wrote “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” In the 1960s, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and Martin Luther King marched arm in arm at Selma, with Rabbi Heschel calling on Jews to “hearken” to Dr. King’s call for equality, and Dr. King denouncing anti-Zionism as a reincarnation of anti-Semitism. We need to rekindle the spirit of those times, and remember that all of us share a commitment to equality. In the coming weeks, the UVa chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights and allied organizations will be partnering for two events. On March 19, veteran civil rights litigator Joel Siegel will speak about how Title VI and Title IX claims can be used to address race and sex discrimination in educational institutions. On April 4, civil rights scholar Alexander Tsesis of Loyola Law and Dean Kendrick will discuss campus hate speech and the First Amendment. We hope both events will spark a meaningful conversation about discrimination in educational institutions.
Anti-BDS bills seek to combat the discriminatory Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. To date, nearly half of U.S. states have passed anti-BDS legislation while bills have been introduced in several others. Nonetheless, anti-BDS legislation has become a controversial topic that has engulfed state legislatures. Arizona’s anti-BDS bill has been at the forefront of the controversy for several months now. In December of 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit challenging the First Amendment implications of the law. In response to this lawsuit, the Brandeis Center filed an amicus brief in support of Arizona’s anti-BDS bill, noting that this law regulates discriminatory conduct, not speech. Relatedly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in early March against Arizona State University (ASU), the ASU Board of Regents, and the Arizona Attorney General claiming that American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and Dr. Hatem Bazian – a founder of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and AMP – were prohibited from presenting at an on-campus event because they would not agree to a “No Boycott of Israel” clause that was included in the university’s standard outside speaker contract. This prevision was allegedly included because of Arizona’s own anti-BDS legislation that prevents the state from entering into contracts with anyone who advocates for boycotts of Israel. Further, the lawsuit alleged that preventing Bazian and AMP from speaking is a violation of Muslim students’ free speech and equal protection rights. However, Arizona State University recently announced that an on-campus event featuring American Muslims for Palestine founder Dr. Hatem Bazian will continue despite the ongoing lawsuit filed against the university pertaining to its anti-BDS requirements. A spokesperson for ASU said that an outdated speaker contract was mistakenly given to AMP and Bazian, and that the updated version includes no such anti-Israel-boycott prevision. Bazian will be free to speak at the on-campus event being held on April 3. Arizona’s anti-BDS legislation, as the Brandeis Center argued in its Amicus Brief, was never meant to violate First Amendment Rights. The BDS movement is just one of the many vessels through which anti-Semitism is spread, and combating it through legislation and campus policy should remain one of the highest priorities.
On March 20, the Wisconsin State legislature passed Assembly Bill 553—an anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel) bill that prohibits any state agency or other body in state government or local governmental units from adopting a rule, ordinance, policy, or procedure that involves the agency or governmental unit in a boycott of Israel or a person doing business in Israel or Israeli territory. In addition, the bill requires contracts between the state and nongovernmental entities to include a provision affirming that signatories are not, and will not engage in a prohibited boycott. In October of 2017, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed an anti-BDS executive order into law, which was of a very similar nature to the recently passed bill. Considering Governor Walker’s demonstrated commitment to combating the discriminatory BDS movement, his signature is likely forthcoming. Once signed, this bill will make Wisconsin the 25th state to enact anti-BDS legislation. In recent years, the BDS campaign has emerged as one of the most misguided and virulent vessels for anti-Semitism. This intolerant movement, which seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel, should captivate the attention of both observers and policymakers alike. Fortunately, the passage of Wisconsin’s anti-BDS bill suggests some policymakers understand the threat of the BDS Movement. Speaking in support of the bill, Wisconsin State Senator Leah Vukmir pronounced, “Boycotts of Israel must be fought because they do not just attack the Jewish state. This propaganda campaign is also the basis for newly emboldened and destructive anti-Semitic attitudes.” Wisconsin now joins other states such as North Carolina, Kansas, and Nevada in enacting anti-BDS legislation. Unfortunately, those who wish to challenge this success do not lack in number. One of the most vocal opponents of these anti-BDS bills has been the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who has filed two lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of the legislation. The first lawsuit, which was filed in late 2017, challenged the First Amendment implications of a Kansas anti-BDS statute. More recently, the ACLU filed a nearly identical lawsuit challenging the legality of Arizona’s anti-BDS statute. The ACLU claims that these laws conflict with the First amendment’s right to free speech by, among other things, restricting political expression. However, this claim is misguided. In the wake of the ACLU’s lawsuit, the Brandeis Center filed an amicus brief in support of Arizona’s anti-BDS law. In this brief, the Brandeis Center highlights the difference between discriminatory speech and discriminatory conduct, arguing that the Arizona bill only prohibits the latter and is therefore not infringing on First Amendment protections. Commenting on the brief, LDB’s Chief Operating Officer and Director of Policy Alyza D. Lewin noted, “Laws discouraging the discriminatory conduct espoused by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign combat anti-Semitism in the United States and protect free commerce with America’s ally. They do not suppress or interfere with constitutionally protected speech.” Striking yet another significant blow to the BDS movement, Wisconsin’s recently passed anti-BDS bill represents a momentous achievement in the battle against resurgent anti-Semitism. While the battle against the BDS campaign will wage on, achievements like this give hope for a future in which this anti-Semitic movement is eradicated.