Alyza Lewin - Brandeis Center

The Louis D. Brandeis Center recently signed a statement calling on Twitter to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism to better enable it to identify and remove anti-Semitic content on its platform. Last week, extremist Internet content made it to the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket. The court heard oral arguments in the companion cases Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh. In those cases, the Court will address whether the families of terrorist victims can recover under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for social media companies’ recommendations of ISIS content and allowing their platforms to be used for ISIS recruitment. The outcome could significantly reshape the digital landscape.

Both cases involve victims of ISIS attacks. American student Nohemi Gonzalez was shot and killed by ISIS members while she was eating at a café with her friends during the “Paris Attacks” of 2015. At the time, Gonzalez was participating in a foreign exchange program to learn French. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in a YouTube video.

In the Taamneh case, Nawras Alsaaaf, a Jordanian citizen, was also shot and killed by an ISIS member. In 2017, Alsaaf was vacationing in Istanbul with his wife. He was at the Reina nightclub when ISIS members attacked it. He and 38 other people died in the attack. ISIS claimed responsibility the next day. 

Social media companies claim immunity from ATA suit under 47 U.S.C.A. § 230. Section 230 was enacted in 1996 and provides that interactive service providers are generally not liable for what users, referred to as “information content providers,” say on their platforms. However, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), allows for terrorist victims to recover primary and secondary liability against any person who “aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed” an act of international terrorism.

Evidence shows that ISIS has used social media sites, including Twitter and Facebook, to spread extremist propaganda, recruit members, instill fear, and plan attacks. A 2015 study found that ISIS supporters controlled between 46,000 and 70,000 Twitter accounts. Included among the posts were graphic videos of their attacks.

The plaintiffs argue that Google and Twitter have crossed the line from interactive service provider to internet content provider by implementing their advanced algorithms. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants’ algorithmic recommendations convey a message distinct from the recommended videos or posts they present to users by implying that users will enjoy them. As such, they have created additional content and would not be protected under Section 230. Thus, the plaintiffs contend the defendants should be held liable for aiding and abetting ISIS under the ATA. 

The defendants claim that this interpretation of Section 230 is too expansive. The defendants argue that Congress intended the Act to help the internet grow by reducing website operators’ obligation to ensure all posts on their websites are legal. Holding for the plaintiffs, the defendants argue, would defeat this intent. The defendants further argue that even if they are not afforded immunity under Section 230, they did not aid and abet ISIS because their algorithms operate automatically, and therefore they did not aid and abet “knowingly,” which the statute requires. Conversely, the plaintiffs claim that the companies did aid and abet “knowingly” since they knew the recommendations were helping ISIS.

Both cases highlight the difficult balance between the rights of victims of terrorism to recover damages from companies which facilitated the work of the terrorist groups which targeted them, and the need to promote free expression and innovation on the Internet. The Supreme Court will decide the cases later this year.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear Groff v. DeJoy (No. 22-174), paving the way for a possible landmark expansion of protections for Americans’ religious rights in the workplace. The United States Postal Service (USPS) denied Petitioner Gerald Groff’s request to accommodate his Sunday sabbath observance. Instead, Groff was repeatedly required to work on his Sunday day of rest. Groff chose to quit rather than violate his sincerely held religious belief. He then took USPS to court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious belief unless accommodating the belief would cause an “undue hardship” on the employer’s business. Title VII provides important protections for Americans of faith, as explained in the Brandeis Center’s recent fact sheet and webinar.

However, dicta in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) defines “undue hardship” as anything imposing “more than a de minimis cost” (i.e., anything more than a minimal financial burden) on an employer’s business. This limited Title VII’s protections. Dissenting from the TWA v. Hardison decision, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a sharp criticism of the Court’s opinion which he said struck a “fatal blow” to Title VII’s protections for Americans of faith. “I seriously question whether simple English usage permits ‘undue hardship’ to be interpreted to mean ‘more than de minimis cost.’” Justice Marshall further noted that Congress had imported the “undue hardship” language from earlier Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance which discussed very difficult or even impossible accommodations. That guidance considered it an undue hardship “where the employee’s needed work cannot be performed by another employee of substantially similar qualifications during the period of absence” (emphasis added).

In a recent Brandeis Center Webinar on Religious Accommodations in the Corporate Workplace, Richard Foltin of the Freedom Forum noted that Congress has repeatedly tried and failed over the years to enact bipartisan legislation strengthening Title VII protections for religious freedom. But federal agencies have found other ways to strengthen Title VII. The Brandeis Center’s recent fact sheet on Religious Accommodations in the Corporate Workplace noted these laudable developments including changes made in the 2021 EEOC Guidance. The Guidance emphasizes that employer denials of employees’ requests for religious accommodations must include evidence-based reasons for the refusal, that adverse employment actions in anticipation of possible religious accommodations violates Title VII, and that employers must grant accommodations to the extent possible without creating an undue burden on their business.

Groff v. DeJoy is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to restore protections to religious Americans going forward, and the Court may be poised to do so. As noted by Brandeis Center Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi in the Brandeis Center’s recent webinar, “litigants bringing claims based on legal protections for their faith have had as much success at the Supreme Court recently as at any time in memory in litigation against government authorities.”

The restored legal protections would be particularly important for members of religious minorities, whose holidays and associated religious restrictions on work may be less commonly understood. Consequently, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Seventh Day Adventist groups all submitted briefs informing the Supreme Court of the hardships that have burdened people of faith for decades.

For instance, Brandeis Center Advisory Board Member Nathan Lewin, who drafted Title VII’s undue burden language and argued in TWA v. Hardison, wrote for nine Jewish organizations imploring the Court to take Groff v. DeJoy. Lewin argued that the Hardison Court had misinterpreted Title VII and “severely impaired employment opportunities of Jewish sabbath-observing Americans.” Lewin described the experience of Orthodox Jewish groups in supporting their members forced to choose between their faith and their work because of Hardison.

The Brandeis Center will continue tracking this litigation carefully and advocating for Jewish and other employees’ civil rights.

Joel Taubman is a Brandeis Center JIGSAW Fellow. He recently served as a Law Clerk at Lewin & Lewin, LLP, where he contributed to the firm’s Amicus Brief in Groff v. DeJoy.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center (LDB or the Brandeis Center) has published an important new fact sheet on its website on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and its application in asymmetric warfare, or conflicts between a state or traditional force and a non-traditional or non-state force (e.g., Israel and Hamas). This fact sheet educates students and others and helps them counter ill-informed criticisms of Israel, which will almost surely be on the rise as students return to campus and events in Gaza and Israel continue to feature in the media, including the press and social media.

LDB starts by briefly explaining what IHL is and where it comes from, and provides definitions of four core IHL principles—necessity, distinction, proportionality, and precautions. These terms are frequently invoked by media, governments, and college activists in accusing Israel, and specifically the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), of violating international law when conducting military operations. A proper understanding of these terms, however, and their application in asymmetric conflicts demonstrates the extent to which Israel’s military defense honors these principles—and the extent to which non-state actors like Hamas do not.

By L. Rachel Lerman, LDB Vice Chair and Senior Counsel

ICYMI: New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens’ recent article “discusses the Brandeis Center’s case against Stanford University as a prominent example of the folly in using a “new racism” to solve an “old racism.” The new version of “equity,” he argues, has developed an “antiracist discrimination” to remedy older forms of racial discrimination, only to become a new form of racism:

To have something called a “whiteness accountability” group is insulting to everyone who still believes we should be judged by the content of our character. To expect Jewish staff members to be assigned to that group is obscene, particularly when the Holocaust is still a living memory.

Stephens argues that the “white accountability” groups described in LDB’s complaint are “insulting to everyone who still believes we should be judged by the content of our character” rather than their race or ethnicity. Stephens concludes that “it shouldn’t be hard to see that trying to solve the old racism with the new racism will produce only more racism. Justice is never achieved by turning tables.”

The full article is accessible here with a New York Times subscription.

The Brandeis Center recently joined thirty Jewish and civil rights organizations in signing a letter encouraging 350 different university presidents to formally adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. The letter, led by the Zionist Organization of America, addresses the spike in anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic acts—particularly in Europe and the United States—following Israel’s response to rocket attacks by Hamas in Gaza. It lists numerous examples, including:

“In Los Angeles, a caravan of men waving Palestinian Arab flags physically attacked a group of Jewish diners outside a restaurant, shouting anti-Semitic slurs…

Over a recent 10-day period, the United Kingdom saw a 438 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents, mostly related to Gaza and Israel.”

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) found that nearly half of all Americans either had not heard the term anti-Semitism or could not define it. This “disturbing lack of awareness” becomes problematic in academic settings, too.

A study by the University of Arkansas supports this claim. The Arkansas researchers found that despite a theoretical access to resources that teach anti-Semitism, people in educational settings often use learned information to “couch” anti-Semitic tropes in a “sophisticated and socially acceptable” manner.

It is therefore the responsibility of universities, the letter argues, to provide the resources and training necessary to fight against anti-Semitism on campuses. Among other measures, the letter urges the adoption of the IHRA definition, which has already been approved by many universities and student governments, including Oxford University and Cambridge University. In response to critiques of the IHRA definition, the letter maintains:

“[T]here is nothing in the definition that restricts speech. It is simply a tool for understanding how anti-Semitism can be expressed today. Knowing how to identify anti-Semitism is the first step to fighting this ugly problem.”

Read the full letter here.

On June 23, as part of its Summer Speaker Series, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) hosted Professor Oren Gross, the Irving Younger Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and LDB Academic Advisory Board member. Professor Gross explained his recent resignation from the University’s Center for Jewish Studies (CJS) following its “deafening silence” in response to the recent unprecedented rise in anti-Semitism across the country and globally.

Professor Gross explained that Jewish studies programs have been largely reluctant to respond to anti-Semitism that emanates from progressive circles, which is often disguised as anti-Zionism. Gross decried the hypocrisy of Jewish scholars who are quick to denounce other forms of prejudice such as Islamophobia but remain silent about “anti-Semitism dressed up as anti-Zionism.” As Gross has described, when the perpetrators do not “wear MAGA hats” or conform to the archetypal right-wing anti-Semite, academics remain quiet.

Professor Gross attributed the silence of these Jewish scholars to the decision they have made to relinquish any connection to or support of Israel as a condition of admittance and acceptance into the progressive social justice circles of liberal academia and beyond. Effectively, Jewish scholars must “check” their Zionist identity at the door or face exclusion from the progressive community.

In a discussion with LDB Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus and LDB President Alyza D. Lewin, Professor Gross shared his insights about how to respond strategically and productively to inflammatory and anti-Semitic rhetoric about Israel.

The full event can be accessed here.

You can register for upcoming online events here.

Washington, D.C.: The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (the Brandeis Center) is pleased to welcome four summer interns: Nathaniel Berman, Samantha Crane, Joni Rosenberg, and Chloe Shrager.

The Brandeis Center continues to lead a robust and strategic legal response to the alarming increase in anti-Semitism on college and university campuses; from a notable case exposing pervasive anti-Semitism at Stanford University’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion program for mental health counselors, to an emergency webinar with leading legal experts addressing the legal response to the surge of anti-Semitism targeting Jewish and pro-Israel students after recent hostilities in Israel. Through various programs, like the JIGSAW Fellowship for law school students and undergraduate internships, the Brandeis Center continues to educate and engage with students in its efforts to combat anti-Semitism and discrimination in higher education.

Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus commented, “I am delighted to welcome our college interns. I look forward to educating them about the pressing issues facing the American Jewish community and involving them in the Center’s work to combat the unprecedented rise in anti-Semitism on campus.”

Alyza D. Lewin, Brandeis Center President, added, “Our college interns are an integral part of our Brandeis team. They play a key role in educating and empowering students by taking the knowledge they glean from their LDB experience and sharing it with others. I’m excited to welcome these young leaders and I look forward to working with them.”

Nathaniel Berman is from Upper Saddle River, New Jersey and recently completed his undergraduate degree in geoscience and Hebrew at Tufts University. On campus he served as the Campaigns Director for Tufts Friends of Israel, led a student movement against a referendum introduced by the Tufts chapter of SJP, and created and edited The Burning Bush, an online zine for the Tufts Jewish community. Mr. Berman plans to attend law school in the future.

Samantha Crane has interned with the Brandeis Center since October 2020. Ms. Crane hails from Chicago and recently graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. At Wisconsin and while studying abroad at Tel-Aviv University in Israel, she pursued a bachelor’s degree in political science, journalism, and Jewish studies. Ms. Crane also interned for Representative Lisa Subeck at the Wisconsin State Capitol. She ultimately plans to enroll in law school.

Joni Rosenberg is a Chicago-area native and a rising senior at Northwestern University. She is a pre-law student studying history, art history, and political science and plans to attend law school. Before joining the Brandeis Center, Ms. Rosenberg was a grant writing intern at the Illinois Holocaust Museum & Education Center and worked as a research assistant in Northwestern’s History Department.

Chloe Shrager is a rising sophomore at Stanford University completing an interdisciplinary major in Computer Science, Philosophy, Psychology, and Linguistics with a double minor in Economics and Jewish Studies. She has been involved in Jewish advocacy through Jewish Family and Children’s Services, Stanford Hillel, Wave Learning Festival, and now the Brandeis Center. In the future, she aspires to attend law school and serve as a human rights lawyer for the American Jewish community.

LDB extends a warm welcome to our summer 2021 interns!

Recognizing Anti-Zionist Anti-Semitism by Russell Shalev ~

The recent global wave of anti-Semitic attacks that accompanied the May 2021 conflict between Israel and Hamas has torn the mask off the disingenuous claim that anti-Zionism is unrelated to, not motivated by and wholly distinct from hostility towards Jews.

The Anti-Defamation League recorded a 75% increase in antisemitic incidents in the United States during the 11-day conflict. Meantime, according to the Community Security Trust, there was a staggering 500% increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the United Kingdom since hostilities began.

Opponents of Jewish self-determination took a short break from lecturing Jews that “anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism,” only to vandalize Jewish institutions, threaten random Jews in heavily Jewish neighbourhoods and violently attack Jewish individuals.

While this project has been in preparation for many months, the International Legal Forum has released, on the heels of this antisemitic onslaught, an unprecedented and comprehensive guide for policy-makers, entitled: “Recognizing Anti-Zionist Antisemitism.” The guide explains the nature, characteristics, and manifestations of anti-Zionist or anti-Israel anti-Semitism, as well as provides some practical tools to combat it.

Indeed, the move from hostility towards the existence of the State of Israel to open attacks on Jewish communities in the Diaspora should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the rhetoric, aims and methods of the anti-Zionist movement.

Zionism is the Jewish people’s national liberation movement, dedicated to the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel. Beyond that, Zionism is an integral part of how many Jews see themselves today, flowing out of Judaism’s most sacred and fundamental texts, narratives, beliefs, history and practices, all of which uphold the centrality of the land of Israel to Jewish identity.

Despite the myriad of national movements worldwide, and the various ethnic and national groups clamouring for independence, only Zionism, the Jewish national movement, is singled out, falsely condemned as racist, and delegitimized. Only Zionism, which most Jews view as integral to their Jewish identity, is disallowed, often by those who wish to erase and deny the Jewish people’s ancient connection to the land of Israel. Anti-Zionism engages in a systematic falsification of Jewish history, thus robbing Jews of their identity and heritage. It consistently denies thousands of years of Jewish history in the land of Israel and the centrality of Israel to Jewish identity.

The ultimate goal of the anti-Zionist movement is the dismantling of the State of Israel. Of course, “dismantling” the State of Israel is a euphemism for its violent destruction. Given that the majority of the citizens of the State of Israel remain committed to its continued existence, and have proven themselves ready to fight for it, the “dismantling” of the state would require the subjugation of its population, and their subsequent expulsion or massacre.

A constant feature of anti-Semitism in its many expressions throughout history is the association of Jews with the most heinous crimes or the violation of a society’s most sacred beliefs. In the highly religious Middle Ages, Jews were accused of deicide, and of colluding with the devil to undermine Christian faith. As nationalism replaced religion during the modern period, Jews were seen as a noxious racial element, undermining European nations from within. Today, Jews and the State of Israel are accused of violating the most sacred values of human rights and equality. For anti-Zionists, Israel has become the symbol of racism, apartheid and even genocide.

Anti-Zionist anti-Semitism legitimises attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions due to their supposed affiliation with Israel’s purported war crimes. Given that modern society, post-Second World War and the civil rights movement, rightfully regards racism as repugnant, the branding of Zionism as racism invites discrimination and exclusion against Jews.

Anti-Zionist campaigns create an atmosphere of toxicity and harassment for Jews. Historically, this form of anti-Zionism has made Jewish life impossible in societies where anti-Zionism was elevated to an ideological tenet. On college campuses, Jewish students are routinely faced with harassment and calls to be excluded and barred from aspects of student life, such as student councils.

Anti-Zionism poisons and attacks other aspects of Jewish life, often tangentially related to Israel. For example, many kosher products worldwide are imported from Israel, especially in places with smaller Jewish communities. These kosher products, a basic necessity of orthodox Jewish religious practice, are often the target of anti-Zionist ire due to ties with Israel of the Jewish organization promoting the campaign.

The recent attacks must serve as a wake-up call for policy-makers and civil society leaders – anti-Zionism, if tolerated, eventually seeps out into violent attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions. Anti-Zionist anti-Semitism is one of the most acute threats to the survival and flourishing of Jewish communities worldwide. As the ILF’s report shows, most states possess the necessary legal framework to combat hate and discrimination. The key is educating law enforcement and legal professionals of the characteristics and nature of anti-Zionist antisemitism in order to properly apply the laws that already exist.

The report concludes with a number of key recommendations and practical legal tools for combating this virulent antisemitism:

• Full adoption and implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, as the basis upon which to identity antisemitism in all its manifestations.

• Closer cooperation with law enforcement authorities.

• Greater education and training of legal professionals, attorneys and judges, including with reference to the IHRA working definition.

• Working closer with University administrations to actively affirm the right of Jewish students to express their Jewish and Zionist identities free from punishment, repercussion or harassment. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism should also be incorporated into university codes of conduct and anti-discrimination guidelines.

Russell Shalev is an Israeli lawyer at the International Legal Forum. He’s worked at the Israeli Ministry of Justice, commenting and working on relevant policy. He also clerked at Herzog, Fox, Neeman in the International Public Law department, focusing on security export control, anti-bribery and anti-corruption compliance. Mr. Shalev has a BA in political science from McGill University, an MA in Middle Eastern studies from Bar Ilan University, and an LLB from Bar Ilan.

June 18, 2021 ~ A Chance to Right a Wrong Decision by Diane B. Kunz ~

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Judicial Circuit has granted a rehearing en banc of the 8th Circuit Court’s decision in Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, (No. 19-1378, 8th Cir. 2021), which partly struck down Arkansas’ anti-Boycott Divestment Sanctions (”BDS”) law. This rehearing will give the full 8th Circuit a chance to reverse a decision which was not only legally unsound but one, which upheld, could be used to invalidate other states’ anti-BDS laws.

A word about how we got here. The Arkansas Times sued to invalidate the Arkansas anti-BDS law, passed in 2017. The federal District Court ruled against the newspaper. The Arkansas Times, supported by lawyers from CAIR and Palestine Legal, among others, who saw the potential of this case to further their anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic BDS campaign, then appealed the District Court’s decision to the 8th Circuit. The three-judge appellate panel, by a vote of two to one, struck down part of the Arkansas law. Now, the 8th circuit has granted an en banc rehearing, which means that all active 8th Circuit Court judges will review the decision of the three-judge panel.

BDS supporters and their allies hailed the ruling as “a good day for the freedom of speech in Arkansas” which will lead to a general invalidation of all state anti-BDS statutes (Arkansas Times, February 12, 2021, https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2021/02/12/arkansas-times-wins-challenge-of-states-israel-boycott-rule). It is important to note that depicting the Circuit Court’s ruling as holding that anti-BDS laws violate the First Amendment is a mischaracterization of the decision. The Circuit Court’s opinion hinged on the interpretation of one phrase, “other actions,” as used in the statute; its decision did not invalidate the anti-BDS statute as a whole. However, BDS supporters are already using the decision to buttress the false proposition that all anti-BDS laws infringe on free speech.

The Circuit Court’s decision was wrongly decided because it violated two rules of constitutional and legal construction. The first is that a statute should be interpreted, if possible, to avoid “not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, but also grave doubts upon that score.” (United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 401 (1916)). As the Brandeis Center wrote in its amici brief, by misinterpreting the phrase “other actions,” the 8th Circuit decision created constitutional doubts. By contrast, “interpreting “other actions” as covering only additional forms of commercial activity raises no First Amendment issue.” (Brandeis Brief, p. 4.)

The decision of the 8th Circuit also incorrectly applied the general principle of statutory construction known by the Latin phrase ejusdem generis (of the same kind). This rule governs how a general word or phrase, in this case, “other actions,” should be construed, if it follows specifically enumerated terms. As Judge Jonathan Kobes wrote in his dissent, “The specific phrases before the ‘other actions’ provision—‘engaging in refusals to deal’ and ‘terminating business activities’—relate solely to commercial activities. It follows that the more general phrase “other activities” does as well.” (p. 19). Instead, the majority erroneously concluded that the meaning of “other activities” should be contorted to include the regulation of speech, which would be a violation of the First Amendment, as well as commercial activities.

It is worth noting how anti-Israel prejudice has distorted the stance of the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) stance on anti-boycott laws. The ACLU, which joined the Arkansas Times’ appeal, has been actively championing the overturning of all state anti-BDS laws. Previously, the ACLU had viewed anti-boycott legislation as consistent with First Amendment protections. As Eugene Kontrovich pointed out, “state anti-BDS laws do not infringe on speech. They don’t regulate speech at all. That’s exactly what the ACLU has said when states passed similar antiboycott laws that weren’t about Israel.” (Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-the-aclu-antipathy-to-israel-trumps-antidiscrimination-11549928620). On its website, the ACLU proclaims that “the ACLU stands on principle.” (https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu). Apparently its principles do not apply to BDS campaigns.

Diane Bernstein Kunz is an American author, historian, lawyer and executive director of a not-for-profit adoption advocacy group, the Center for Adoption Policy. She is the author of Butter and Guns (1997), an overview of America’s Cold War economic diplomacy.

A Victory for Campus Freedom ~ June 9, 2021 ~ by Diane B. Kunz

The decision is now final. After a five-year battle, the New York courts have upheld Fordham University’s ability to deny Students for Justice in Palestine (“SJP”) the right to register as a recognized student organization (Matter of Awad v. Fordham Univ., 2020 NY Slip Op. 07695, December 22, 2020). This decision demonstrates that universities can stand up for academic freedom and fight against the “long march through the institutions” that SJP has launched. That phrase, coined by German Communist Rudi Dutschke in the nineteen sixties, has inspired students and faculty in the United States to launch their own long march to substitute an anti-Semitic narrative for objective debate on Israeli-Palestinian issues and grievously erode the right of Zionist students to live and study in peace and safety on American campuses.

Fordham had based its denial of accreditation on the grounds that SJP was “affiliated with a national organization reported to have engaged in disruptive and coercive actions on other campuses.” Fordham’s decision is well buttressed by the evidence. In the last two decades, SJP has disrupted numerous academic classes, public meetings, and invited-speaker presentations at campuses from coast to coast. Rather than promote dialogue, SJP has created a network of campus chapters dedicated to using obstructive and intimidating tactics to promulgate the Big Lie—that Israel is an apartheid state, that Jews have no right to be in their indigenous home, and that the Jewish state alone, of all the world’s nations, is illegitimate, notwithstanding all evidence or facts to the contrary. As the National SJP umbrella organization puts it, ”the fight for justice for the Palestinian people cannot “be attained within a Zionist framework.” (https://www.nationalsjp.org/2019). In other words from the river to the sea, the state of Israel will be purged from existence.

Moreover, as testimony before Congress in 2016 disclosed, SJP has “strong ties to American Muslims for Palestine (AMP)…,” some of whose most important members have been also responsible for funding the Hamas terrorist organization (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20160419/104817/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-SchanzerJ-20160419.pdf).

What stands out from the New York Appellate Court’s decision is the Court’s firm statement that “on the merits of the case, Fordham’s conclusion that SJP “’would work against, rather than enhance [Fordham’s] commitment to open dialogue and mutual learning and understanding’ was not ‘without sound basis in reason’ or ‘taken without regard to the facts.’” (The actual decision turned on standing). For too long universities have allowed themselves to be intimidated into allowing SJP, an anti-Semitic hate group, to hide behind legitimate free speech concerns. As a result, SJP has weaponized academic freedom to spread hate and prejudice, and to frighten students into passive acquiescence of SJP’s eliminationist platform.

As the Court made clear, Fordham’s administration had the right to distinguish SJP from existing registered student groups on its campus and deny it recognition. SJP is not the same as the Muslim Student Association, the Black Student Alliance, the Korean Student Alliance, or the Jewish Student Alliance, all of which are registered campus cultural organizations. Nor is it akin to the Humanitarian Club or the Environmental Club, both of which are recognized campus special interest organizations. Indeed Fordham has no recognized student organizations that advocate for political causes. On those grounds alone, Fordham’s decision was justified. But more importantly, the Appellate Court recognized that a university administration has the right to refuse accreditation to an organization that specializes in intimidation in the service of propaganda or worse. As LDB’s chairman Kenneth L. Marcus explained, “This is a huge loss for SJP.” And it is a larger win for campus freedom.