Alexander Joffe
Algemeiner

In December, the most important BDS-related developments came in the wake of the Trump administration’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This designation will eventually culminate in the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, reportedly within the next three years.

Despite loud complaints from the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, their calls for “Days of Rage” produced only minor protests in the Arab and Muslim world. In US and European cities, there were a number of large protests — many of which were organized by the BDS movement and by Muslim and Arab groups; in Sweden, several Jewish institutions were firebombed.

In America, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters at various universities took leading roles. Their overall tone was expressed by social media postings from the New York City chapter, which stated: “jaffa, where the US embassy is currently located, is no less palestinian than jerusalem, and it is ours just as jerusalem is ours just as the rest of the land from the river to the sea is ours.”

More ominous were public protests in Times Square, at which calls for “intifada” were heard, along with chants of “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammed is returning” — an Islamic reference to a 7th century massacre of Arabian Jews. Representatives of communist groups also participated in the protests and hailed Palestinian “resistance.”

The various protests served — once again — to clarify the goals and motivations of the BDS movement and its allies. Simply put, the BDS movement reject’s Israel 1948 “borders,” not simply the 1967 “occupation” borders, which usefully exposes the BDS movement’s core rejection of Israel as a state. The invocation of genocidal Islamic tropes and the rhetoric of “resistance” shared by Islamist and communists during these protests also demonstrated a shared commitment to violence.

Elsewhere on campus, the first ever divestment resolution passed by a student government at the University of Michigan drew a response from the school’s regents. In a statement, the regents made it clear that they would not form a committee to investigate the school’s investments in Israel, nor would they actually divest from companies working in Israel.

While the Michigan announcement was a setback for BDS activists, at the University of California, Irvine, the administration has relaxed sanctions on the local SJP chapter. That SJP chapter had been placed on probation after violently harassing participants at a pro-Israel event in May. The university gave no explanation for removing the group from probation, more than a year earlier than initially mandated.

During the fall semester, the BDS movement’s legal strategy of crying “racism” — and associating itself with other causes — became even clearer. At the University of Wisconsin, a November letter from Palestine Legal, the legal support wing of the BDS movement, complained that restrictions on pro-BDS students and “people of color” constituted harassment and infringement of freedom of speech. In general, universities have indulged SJP harassment of Israelis and Jews, imposing sanctions only reluctantly and after interminable “investigations.” The BDS strategy of accusing universities of “racism” will certainly exacerbate this trend.

At the same time, a small-scale survey of campus attitudes towards Israel and BDS indicated that Jewish students generally did not perceive antisemitism to be present at their schools, or think that their campuses were hostile to Jews or Israel. Some students, however, did claim to have witnessed anti-Israel hostility. But these cases were limited, and centered on a relatively small number of a highly vocal student activists and faculty supporters, especially at certain schools.

Regarding faculty, one of two lawsuits against the American Studies Association was dismissed on the grounds that no injury occurred when the organization began to support a BDS policy. A second lawsuit that effectively alleges that BDS members undertook a conspiracy to assume control of the organization is still being litigated.

BDS efforts to control the narrative regarding anti-Israel bias and antisemitism expanded in December. Strong opposition continued to the nomination of Kenneth Marcus as assistant secretary of education for civil rights. Marcus, the head of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, has been a leader in pushing for definitions of antisemitism that include anti-Israel bias, and in defending rights of Jewish students on campus.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has been particularly vocal in its opposition to the nomination. That group also continued its efforts to control narratives regarding antisemitism — and to exclude anti-Israel abuse — with a panel discussion at the University of Massachusetts co-sponsored with the local SJP chapter. One speaker there characterized antisemitism as “a very, very effective silencing mechanism” aimed at quashing criticism of Israel. This came on top of JVP’s seasonal efforts to subvert the Hanukkah holiday by decrying Israel and celebrating Palestinian terrorism, and its increasingly routine protests aimed at Birthright.

Efforts to create pro-BDS Jewish groups to subvert Jewish support for Israel have also recently advanced in Britain.

A new Labour Party group, “Jewish Voice for Labour,” was created to fight the correct impression that the party has a severe and growing antisemitism problem in both its leadership and grassroots, as well as an explicit anti-Israel animus. The new group is also intended to “break the Zionist monopoly” by directly challenging the long-established Jewish Labour Movement and its pro-Israel orientation.

In the US, there were several incidents where BDS leaders were accused of behaving abusively. In one, Hatem Bazian, an SJP co-founder, “Islamophobia” pioneer, and a faculty member at the University of California, Berkeley, tweeted a number of images depicting Israelis as Nazis, and accusing them of murdering Palestinians for their organs. Despite an outcry from students, faculty and Jewish leaders, the university has taken no action against Bazian.

In another strange turn, noted BDS supporter and recent left-wing icon Linda Sarsour was accused of enabling the sexual harassment of a junior colleague while on the staff of the Arab American Association. Sarsour, who recently headlined a discussion of antisemitism at the New School, is alleged to have told the victim — a Muslim woman — that “sexual harassment doesn’t happen to someone who looks like you.” Sarsour has denied the charge, as have a growing number of defenders. Recent reports indicate that this defense extends to Wikipedia, where editors have repeatedly undone changes to Sarsour’s page regarding the incident.

The Bazian and Sarsour cases demonstrate that certain left-wing figures are protected, despite their actions. But it also demonstrates how BDS leaders are frequently both crude antisemites and duplicitous individuals willing to sacrifice the well-being of others.

The tendency for the BDS movement to infect completely unrelated areas of politics — and to declare itself the victim when this is pointed out — also expanded in December. A noted BDS supporter on the Berkeley City Council was accused of dismissing a city transportation commissioner because he declined to answer questions regarding his attitude toward Israel. In response to news coverage of the incident, the city council member claimed that, “For this to be considered news worthy is another reflection of the ongoing suppression campaigns to smear anyone who supports Palestine.”

In the international sphere, Denmark and Norway both announced that they would cease funding NGOs that promote the BDS movement. The moves came after reports detailed how Scandinavian countries were funding the “Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat” and other BDS groups. The decisions were particularly interesting given Norwegian and Danish hostility towards Israel, and growing antisemitism in both countries. Danish interests were also affected when New Jersey announced that it was ending its investments in the Danske Bank as a result of the Garden State’s new anti-BDS law. The bank has been targeted by various US states due to its refusal to do business with several Israeli firms.

Less positive was the decision by the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to downgrade South Africa’s relations with Israel. The country’s embassy in Tel Aviv will be renamed a ‘liaison office.’ While activists claimed the move was in response to the American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, observers noted that the ANC has longstanding relations with Hamas — who were present when the vote to downgrade relations was taken.

Finally, in the cultural sphere, the New Zealand pop singer Lorde abruptly canceled her scheduled performances in Israel after pressure from BDS activists. Reports indicated, however, that she would continue with her performances in Russia. The Tel Aviv-based promoter the concert expressed sorrow at her decision, but also noted that Lorde is a young person who should not have been expected to have the maturity to withstand pressure from the BDS movement.

Lorde was excoriated by music industry professionals, Jewish groups and pro-peace activists, who complained about her decision to boycott Israel and her hypocrisy of performing in Russia. This unusually severe backlash is unlikely to produce a change of course when it comes to the singer, but it usefully highlights the hypocrisy of artists who routinely perform in actual human rights abusing states, including their own “settler-colonial” countries.

The calendar year ended with the BDS reliant, as always, on its masquerading as a human rights movement and on hijacking other causes — but with few tangible gains. The movement’s underlying antisemitism is harder to disguise, but, as figures like Sarsour show, all will be forgiven if a specific offender falls into a category protected by a larger cultural trend.

By Sergio Carmona
Florida Jewish Journal

Bal Harbour Mayor Gabriel Groisman describes the support he’s received from the South Florida community regarding the recent passage of the village’s anti-Semitism definition ordinance, which expands police officers’ ability to investigate such anti-Semitic incidents as hate crimes, as overwhelming.

This ordinance was passed unanimously by the Bal Harbour Village Council on Dec. 13 and went into law immediately upon passage. The ordinance directs officers to the U.S. State Department’s 2010 definition of anti-Semitism but allows discretion in determining whether a crime qualifies as a hate incident.

“I applaud the Bal Harbour Village Council for standing with me and supporting the passage of this historic ordinance,” Groisman, who pushed the measure, said. “This ordinance protects the interests of our residents by providing our law enforcement officers a clear definition of anti-Semitism, thereby helping to ascertain the intent of persons who engage in unlawful activities, such as assault or vandalism.”

Groisman thanks Congressman Alan Clemmons of the South Carolina House of Representatives, Joseph Sabag from Israel Allies Foundation and Kenneth Marcus from the Louis D. Brandeis Center, amongst others, for providing useful research, policy and support in making this ordinance happen. He also thanks U.S. Reps Carlos Curbelo (R-Miami), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Miami) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Weston) for providing public letters of support of this ordinance to the council.

Jewish organizations have also supported and applauded the village in this ordinance.

Sharona Whisler, the Zionist Organization of America’s Florida Region executive director, noted that ZOA strongly commends Bal Habour and Groisman for leading the way with “this unprecedented ordinance codifying the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism.”

“This definition recognizes the reality that anti-Semitism today takes many forms and that sometimes, criticism of Israel crosses the line into anti-Semitism,” Whisler continued. “Bal Harbour Village plainly understands that in order to effectively combat anti-Semitism, a clear definition of anti-Semitism is essential. This ordinance will give law enforcement an important tool in investigating crimes and determining when an anti-Semitic act is committed and be classified as a hate crime.”

Whisler continued, “Each one of us has a role in fighting against bigotry and Jew-hatred.

The city council of Bal Harbour Village has laudably chosen to take a pro-active one. Bal Harbour Village is an excellent example for cities across the country.”

Sara Gold Rafel, StandWithUs/ Southeast’s executive director, noted, “Up to now, when people committed crimes against Jews, it was not clear if it was anti-Semitism.

This new ordinance, by defining anti-Semitism, makes it easier for police departments to prosecute hate crimes. StandWithUs Southeast works with universities and now campus security and police can consider this definition when investigating crimes, consistent with the federal and state hate crime statutes. We congratulate Mayor Groisman and Bal Harbour for taking the lead on this important civil rights issue.”

Two years ago, Groisman wrote and supported a similar ordinance that barred the village from contracting with any businesses engaged in anti-Israel boycotts.

“Bal Harbour was the first municipality to pass an anti-BDS [boycott, divestment and sanction] ordinance in the country, and now we are the first government in the country to codify this definition of anti-Semitism to assist law enforcement,” Groisman noted. “This shows that our small municipality has a sustained commitment to leading the nation in fighting hate and bigotry.”

Groisman noted there have been attempts in the past to codify a definition for anti-Semitism, most recently in South Carolina.

“A similar bill passed in one of their houses of Congress but was then filibustered. They were never ever to vote on it.”

Groisman feels passage of this ordinance will pave the way for similar ones to pass in other government entities.

“Many times, governments and elected officials need somebody to go first before thy have the courage to go forward with something new and I think this will be the wind behind the backs of other elected officials around the country looking to pass similar laws in their government.”

Groisman noted that he is glad neighboring cities Miami Beach, Surfside, Sunny Isles Beach and North Miami, as well as other cities across the country, have all followed Bal Harbour’s lead and are moving forward with similar ordinances and resolutions.

By Mitchell Bard
The Algemeiner

Supported by antisemitic faculty who seek to redefine Jew hatred in such a way that excludes themselves, American students seem to be unable and unwilling to accept the definition of antisemitism. They should take a cue from their peers in Australia, who condemned antisemitism and pledged to counter its rise on university campuses.

The National Union of Students (NUS) in Australia did not accept the nonsensical arguments made in the US, such as suggesting that antisemitism is in the eye of the beholder or that the word is used to silence critics. They agreed on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Examples of antisemitism cited by the Alliance include:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitism is not like the old saying about pornography: you know it when you see it. Instead, we have concrete, objective ways to identify antisemitic behavior and speech.

In the United States, the First Amendment gives people the right to say things that are antisemitic, but that does not preclude us from naming and shaming them for doing so. It also does not require universities to accept hate speech directed at Jews, when it does not tolerate this kind of hate speech when directed at other groups.

One striking aspect of the step taken by the NUS was its broad-based support. While in the United States, the extreme right and left on campus often ally with Israel’s detractors and traffic in antisemitism, the situation was very different in Australia. Student groups affiliated with both the left and right wings of the Australian Labor Party, as well as the ruling Liberal Party and independent delegates, all supported the motion to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The only outliers were the Marxists.

Unlike student governments at universities here that have been hijacked by antisemites who seek to demonize their Jewish peers, the NUS committed itself to working with the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) to ensure that the national union’s programs and spaces “are inclusive and welcoming of Jewish voices and perspectives.”

The contrast is particularly stark given efforts by many antisemitic individuals and groups here to torpedo the adoption of the US State Department’s definition of antisemitism as a tool for judging campus abuses. Using the specious argument that critics of Israel will be muzzled, a furious lobbying campaign is being waged against the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” by Israel’s detractors, including many supporters of the antisemitic boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. Many of the same people are also smearing President Trump’s pick to lead the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, Kenneth Marcus, who advocated for this legislation before his appointment, and promises to be a vigorous supporter of measures to protect Jewish students on campus.

Students should do all they can to promote the adoption on their campuses of a standard definition of antisemitism, either the one used by the State Department, or the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (which was adopted by the European Union). Defining and combating antisemitism should be a simple matter for universities; sadly, too many administrators, faculty and students lack the intelligence, moral fortitude and integrity to take what should be a sensible and non-controversial approach to keeping their campuses safe and sane.

Dr. Mitchell Bard is the author/editor of 24 books including the 2017 edition of “Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” “The Arab Lobby,” and the novel “After Anatevka: Tevye in Palestine.”m>

By Miriam Elman

Legal Insurrection

Last week the U.S. Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee concluded its hearings regarding the confirmation of Kenneth L. Marcus, President Trump’s pick for the position of Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights.

We noted in a post back in October, when the White House first announced the nomination, that Marcus is extraordinarily qualified for the job and is an excellent pick for heading the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Trump appoints attorney who combats antisemitism to key civil rights post.

Marcus is the founder of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a globally renowned civil rights advocacy and research organization, and has formerly served as Staff Director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and as Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights and Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

An expert on antisemitism, he’s been a leading voice for years in the fight against the discriminatory boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement and rising anti-Jewish bigotry on American colleges and universities. At the Brandeis Center, he’s been an outspoken supporter of Jews on campus, who are increasingly threatened, harassed, shut down, and ostracized by virulently anti-Israel student groups and even faculty, who are often allowed by administrators to act with impunity.

With all this expertise and considerable past experience on the issues at stake for the OCR, Marcus should’ve been a shoo-in for the job. He should’ve easily received the HELP committee’s endorsement when it met again last week to vote on his confirmation.

But instead, Marcus’ confirmation appears to be held up in committee on account of a sustained and vocal outcry against him by an assorted array of virulently anti-Israel organizations and activists. They’ve been mobilizing their members to bombard the HELP Committee Senators with smears against the nomination, which is likely turning at least some Democrats on the committee against his appointment.

That’s why it’s really important to call or write the Senators on the HELP Committee and to clearly relay your strong support for the confirmation of Kenneth L. Marcus as Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights. A list of the 23 members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, along with their mailing addresses, phone numbers and email addresses, is here, and also copied below (a sample script for your message can be found here).

Anti-Israel Groups Launch Smear Campaign Against Marcus

After Trump announced Marcus’ appointment on October 26th, virulently anti-Israel organizations and activists, including Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), If Not Now, Palestine Legal, the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), the U.S. Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI), and the Arab American Institute, mobilized against Marcus.

Initially, they focused on falsely accusing Marcus of suppressing the criticism of Israel on campus and warning that, if confirmed, he would continue to repress college students from organizing for Palestinian rights.

That is, before the December 5th Senate HELP committee hearing, the smear campaign against Marcus was almost entirely centered on delegitimizing him as an “anti-Palestinian crusader”—someone who opposes Palestinian rights because he allegedly “bullies students and faculty who advocate for Palestinian rights”, “undermines pro-Palestinian activism on campus”, tries to get “student activists disciplined” and works to “defund” university Middle East Studies program.

Multiple statements, Action Alerts, petitions, videos, and editorials (see, for example, here and here) were written and produced during this time centering on the free speech of Palestinian student activists and the ways in which Marcus would supposedly trample on it.

They’re ludicrous accusations. As we discussed in our prior post, Marcus has never said anything anti-Palestinian and actually objects to silencing any voice on campus (he has even publicly stated that “people who hate Israel” should “not be silenced”). His position is rather that anti-Jewish harassment and intimidation on campus should be addressed with the same vigor as would any other type of bigotry—so that ALL students are able to learn in a welcoming and safe environment.

As we also noted in our prior post, should he be confirmed, what Marcus will do as the OCR’s new head is work to ensure that federally-funded Middle Eastern Studies research centers on university campuses provide a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives on the region, in compliance with the Higher Education Act’s mandate.

Smear Campaign Against Marcus Intensifies 

In recent weeks, this ugly smear campaign has expanded from just opposing Marcus on account of his position on BDS and antisemitism—the central messaging before the December 5th confirmation hearing—to an effort over the last several weeks aimed at destroying his civil rights record in general.

Basically, his application of civil rights protections for other minority groups is now coming under attack.

Code Pink’s Ariel Gold, a viciously anti-Israel activist who disrupted prayers at the Western Walland snuck a Palestinian activist who embraces using children to confront soldiers into a third-grade classroom, is among the leaders of the campaign against Marcus:

By tracking the social media of JVP, Palestine Legal, and USCPR, for example, you can literally see how the messaging shifted after the Senate hearing earlier this month, during which Marcus’ opposition to the Israeli boycott didn’t come up at all in the questioning.

That’s probably the main reason that the attacks against Marcus are now addressing a wider range of civil rights issues that are of interest to the HELP Committee.

The shift in focus may also be due to the fact that Marcus’ position on BDS and his preferred definition of antisemitism aren’t at all controversial and represent mainstream viewpoints. Anti-Israel groups and activists may have wisely calculated that harping on these topics, while galvanizing their base of Israel-haters, wouldn’t have all that much of an impact on the majority of Senate HELP Committee members.

So after the December 5th hearing, the smear campaign clearly shifted to distorting Marcus’ entire civil rights record.

But they’re still grasping at straws.

That’s because in legal circles, Marcus is credited with “energetically enforcing anti-discrimination measures” and, specifically, with having pushed the Bush administration to take a “stronger approach to enforcing civil rights law”.

It means that anti-Israel zealots have had to resort to making stuff up.

For example, Palestine Legal’s new ‘factsheet’ and a recently published article by the virulently anti-Israel Ariel Gold in the online site Mondoweiss, whose material often trades in antisemitic tropes and canards, directs people to two journal articles (see here and here) that Marcus wrote nearly a decade ago as “proof” of his discriminatory attitudes toward minorities. His arguments in these essays are distorted in order to absurdly cast him as someone whose concern for civil rights is highly selective and doesn’t include women, LGBTQ, or African-Americans.

Anti-Israel activists are also now working hard to turn the nomination into a partisan issue, trying to tightly connect Marcus’ civil rights record to Trump’s controversial positions, statements, and policies, thereby energizing the left-wing opposition to his confirmation.

In particular, there’s been an effort to deride Marcus’ answers during his confirmation hearing. The reality is that he responded thoughtfully to the questions, most of which focused on federal Title IX policies. But the smear campaign has unfairly glommed onto Marcus’s remark during the hearing when he declined to disparage Trump (as if it’s customary for nominees to castigate their would-be bosses in such settings)

Conclusion

In an important op-ed for the Boston Herald, Jeff Robbins, an attorney who served as a U.S. delegate to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in the Clinton administration, urges Democratic legislators to support the administration’s appointment of the “eminently qualified” Kenneth L. Marcus to a high-ranking position in the DoE—even if it’s Trump who tapped him for the post.

Robbins devotes considerable space to summing up why Marcus is a “natural fit” for the job of assistant secretary for civil rights. But he also points out why so many “fringe and unhinged groups who operate something of an anti-Semitism lobby” have been bitterly criticizing his nomination:

These include groups rabidly opposed to the existence of a Jewish national homeland, who fund and carry out efforts to scare the daylights out of pro-Israel students and faculty on American campuses, and whose hate speech can take on a hair-raising quality—even while they profess to be human rights activists.

Marcus’ work at the Brandeis Center has often brought him into conflict with this crowd, which has already begun to smear him.

Democrats in the Senate would do well not to fall for it. The impulse to decide that ‘the-appointee-of-my-enemy-is-my-enemy’ may be tempting. But in the case of Ken Marcus, it is the wrong one.”

Will the Senate HELP Committee really reject Robbins’ advice and that of other prominent civil and human rights lawyers, First Amendment scholars, legal and civil rights organizations, and major American Jewish and Christian groups, who have also rallied around Marcus?

Will these Senators instead cater to the unsubstantiated diatribes of anti-Israel propagandists and zealots affiliated with ADL-flagged hate groups—which, as we’ve shown in dozens of posts, are themselves a big part of the problem on America’s campuses and are therefore opposing Marcus’ nomination solely because they’re worried that, if confirmed, he’d be someone who could take appropriate steps against them?

Probably not.

Still, the strong resistance to Trump shouldn’t be underestimated here. In the current political climate, virulently anti-Israel groups bent on derailing Marcus’ nomination have made a savvy move by linking it to anti-Trump hostility. So far, they’ve only succeeded in delaying the confirmation, but the longer the delay the more time they have to spin opposition to the nomination as a defiance of Trumpism, and the more likely other members of the Senate HELP committee will sour on the appointment.

Because of this, they might actually win.

Bottom line: Despite his impeccable credentials and his years of public service fighting discrimination, the Senate confirmation of Kenneth L. Marcus is not guaranteed. So it’s imperative that pro-Israel supporters—and really everyone committed to seeing a college campus climate that is respectful and free of intimidation and harassment—take immediate action by contacting the individual legislators on the HELP Committee. You can let them know that you support Marcus’ confirmation and also find unacceptable the attempts by anti-Israel activists to derail it, by besmirching the reputation of a fine civil rights advocate.

Here’s the list:

Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions

Chairman: Senator Lamar Alexander (R- TN) 455 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4944 Email: click here

Senator Michael B. Enzi (R- WY) 379A Senate Russell Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3424 Email: click here

Senator Richard Burr (R -NC) 217 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3154 Email: click here

Senator Johnny Isakson (R -GA) 131 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3643 Email: click here

Senator Rand Paul (R- KY) Russell Senate Office Building #167 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 224-4343 Email: click here

Senator Susan Collins (R- ME) 413 Dirksen Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-2523 Email: click here

Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R- LA) 520 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-5824 Email: click here

Senator Todd Young (R- IN) 1007 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (202) 224-5623 Email: click here

Senator Orrin Hatch (R- UT) 104 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-5251 Email: click here

Senator Pat Roberts (R -KS) 109 Hart Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4774 Email: click here

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R- AK) 709 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-6665 Email: click here

Senator Tim Scott (R- SC) 717 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-6121 Email: click here

Ranking Member: Senator Patty Murray (D -WA) 154 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2621 Email: click here

Senator Bernie Sanders (D -VT) 332 Dirksen Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-5141 Email: click here

Senator Robert P. Casey, JR (D- PA) 393 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20002 (202) 224-6324 Email: click here

Senator Al Franken (D- MN) 309 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-5641 Email: click here

Senator Michael F. Bennet (D- CO) 261 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-5852 Email: click here

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D- RI) Hart Senate Office Building, Room 530 Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-2921 Email: click here

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D- WI) 2446 Rayburn Hob, Washington, DC 20515 (202) 224-5653 Email: click here

Senator Christopher S. Murphy (D- CT) 136 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4041 Email: click here

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D- MA) 2 Russell Courtyard Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4543 Email: click here

Senator Tim Kaine (D- VA) 388 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-4024 Email: click here

Senator Maggie Hassan (D- NH) 330 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3324 Email: click here

By Larry Yudelson
New Jersey Jewish Standard

It turns out that anti-Semitic Facebook posts have consequences.

On Friday, two months after a blog called IsraeliCool first reported the anti-Semitic social media habits of Rutgers professor Dr. Michael Chikindas, the university’s leaders announced that they were taking action.

While Jewish groups welcomed the action, they called on the school to take a stronger stance against attacks on Jews. They plan on continuing to put pressure on the university to heed their concerns, which also involve two other faculty members the Rutgers administration did not condemn last week.

In a letter sent Friday to Rutgers faculty members, University President Robert Barchi and Chancellor Debasish Dutta announced four steps the school will take concerning Dr. Chikindas.

He will no longer teach required courses, so students can avoid him.

He has been removed as director of Rutgers’ Center for Digestive Health at the Institute for Food, Nutrition, and Health. “No Rutgers employee will be required to work in an administrative unit that he heads,” the Rutgers leaders wrote.

Dr. Chikindas also “will be required to participate in a cultural sensitivity training program, and will be subject to ongoing monitoring if and when he returns to the classroom.”

Finally, the university is seeking further disciplinary actions, which could include a semester’s leave without pay and possibly dismissal. Under the school’s policy for tenured faculty members, if the university president wants to fire Dr. Chikindas, he would have to convince a five-member faculty panel that the professor is guilty of “failure to maintain standards of sound scholarship and competent teaching,” “gross neglect of established University obligations appropriate to the appointment,” or “incompetence.”

According to the letter, “A fundamental expectation of a university is to provide an environment in which students can learn, discover their passions, and do research free from fears of discrimination, harassment, or disruption.

“So, too, should our faculty and staff expect a professional environment that is welcoming and free from discrimination.

“Earlier this fall, Michael Chikindas, a Rutgers–New Brunswick tenured professor, was found to have posted extensive bigoted, discriminatory, and anti-Semitic material on social media. This material perpetuated toxic stereotypes and was deeply upsetting to Jewish students, faculty, and staff across our community. The fears and concerns they have expressed to us and many university leaders are both justified and understandable.”

“This is a good first step,” Rutgers freshman Miriam Waghalter said.

In October, Ms. Waghalter launched an online petition calling on Rutgers to “to take swift and necessary action to suspend Professor Chikindas, pending further investigation.”

Ms. Waghalter, who is from Los Angeles, is the president of Scarlet Knights for Israel, a student-run campus Israel advocacy organization. (The Scarlet Knights is the school’s nickname for its athletic teams.)

“I think more can be done, but it’s understandable that the university wants to be meticulous in making sure they’re not violating his First Amendment rights or anything,” Ms. Waghalter said. “Hopefully, as the administration continues its investigation they will take more action on this matter.”

She will continue to seek a meeting with the university president.

Rutgers Hillel issued a statement praising the administration actions toward Dr. Chikindas as “significant and welcome steps.” But it noted the continuing problems posed by Jasbir Puar, who accused Israel of “what amounts to a modern blood libel,” and Mazen Adi, who spread anti-Semitism as a spokesman for the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

“It is imperative that University leadership exert whatever moral authority is has and condemns anti-Semitism in its midst, including the anti-Semitism voiced by Professors Puar and Adi,” Hillel’s statement said. “Even if the University lacks the will or ability to take action against these professors, it has a moral responsibility to reject the messages of hate for which they stand.”

Similarly, off-campus Jewish groups have no plans to stop the pressure. “I think there was a lot of pressure on Barchi, and finally he had to cave on what was right,” said Jason Shames, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey.

“But this is not satisfactory to us,” he continued. “It’s in a vacuum. There needs to be a more comprehensive plan that doesn’t allow hate rhetoric to fly under the First Amendment or tenure. Our patience is shot. The anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist rhetoric has got to be called out and people need to be aware of it.”

Mr. Shames is a member of a working group established by the New Jersey State Association of Jewish Federations to coordinate a response by statewide Jewish leaders. Jacob Toporek, the association’s executive director, said the group wants a meeting with the Rutgers leadership.

“We have to talk about what is the best approach to prevent” anti-Semitism from faculty members, “and if something does occur in the future, how to take steps so there is the least amount of conflicts,” Mr. Toporek said. His group wants to work with Rutgers “in setting guidelines to ensure that Rutgers remains a welcoming place for Jewish students.”

Gordon Haas, president of the State Association, said that the group has been “working sort of behind the scenes to get some action, through people on the board of Rutgers and various people who have influence.

“You can see from Friday’s statement that something changed the president’s mood.”

Mr. Haas said that the community previously had effected change on the campus. “At one time Rutgers was one of the most virulently anti-Israel campuses in the country,” he said. “With the help of the Israel Action Network” — a division of the Jewish Federations of North America that the State Association again is consulting with — “we brought in Israeli professors, and Rutgers became a model of how to counter BDS.”

The BDS push was caused by students, he said. But “now, this is not the students. This is three members of the faculty.”

A week and a half ago, on Wednesday, December 6, local elected officials told Dr. Dutta that were upset by the three faculty members’ overt anti-Semitism. Dr. Dutta already had scheduled a meeting with State Senator Loretta Weinberg of Teaneck and State Assemblyman Gordon Johnson of Englewood, as part of an effort to meet lawmakers he began his job as chancellor on July 1.

The first thing Dr. Dutta heard from those legislators was their concern over anti-Semitism.

Dr. Dutta told them that “we’re an equal opportunity campus,” Mr. Johnson reported. “He said, ‘I’m new on the campus. I will get back to you.’”

Rutgers is a public state university. While the governor appoints only a minority of board members, “they get funding from the state,” Mr. Johnson said. “They want to be partners with state legislators.

Mr. Johnson said that he advised the chancellor to set up a meeting with the Simon Wiesenthal Center. “I was so impressed with what they’re doing in teaching tolerance from all ethnicities,” Mr. Johnson said; recently, he had visited the center’s Manhattan office.

As it happened, the Wiesenthal Center had met repeatedly with students on campus in the past months. “We want the students who are active fighting hate on campus to feel they have Jewish institutional allies helping them in whatever way possible,” Michael Cohen of Englewood, the Wiesenthal Center’s eastern director, said. Mr. Cohen has met with some Jewish professionals on campus.

And the Wiesenthal Center also made a federal case about Rutgers. Or, more precisely, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the center’s Los Angeles-based director of global social action, brought it up last month when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee, talking about anti-Semitism on campuses across the country. He showed the members of Congress an enlarged copy of a Facebook post by Dr. Chikindas that blamed hook-nosed Jews for everything from cancer to the Internet.

The Judiciary Committee hearing was about the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which would define anti-Semitism for the purpose of applying existing federal anti-discrimination laws, including those that regulate universities.

Rabbi Cooper called on Congress to adopt the definition of anti-Semitism used by the State Department. This defines as anti-Semitism language that “demonizes” Israel, meaning “[u]sing the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, blaming Israel for all interreligious or political tensions.”

That State Department definition, Rabbi Cooper said, “offers an important tool for clarifying when legitimate criticism of Israel crosses the line into anti-Semitism.”

The new definition, he said, would allow the Department of Education to defend students who are harassed for their support of Israel. “In the dozen years since the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights committed to investigating anti-Semitism under Title VI,” Rabbi Cooper said, “OCR has not found a single civil rights violation in any claim filed on behalf of Jewish students on college or university campuses.

“Given the frightening levels of harassment that Jewish students have experienced on several U.S. campuses, why have all of the Title VI complaints filed on their behalf been rejected by the OCR, while many of those made on behalf of their peers been successfully resolved?

“It all boils down to a definition — or the lack of one,” he said.

Cooper’s testimony, and a similar plea from the Anti-Defamation League, were not the only view the Judiciary Committee heard last month. Kenneth Stern, who helped draft the State Department language when he was an official with the American Jewish Committee in 2004, said he opposed codifying the definition for use by the Department of Education. He argued that a standard set up for diplomats should not be applied to students who are testing boundaries. The committee has not yet acted further on the bill.

Even if Congress does not act on the bill, it’s possible that the Department of Education will adopt the standard on its own. The Trump administration has nominated a strong advocate of the State Department definition, Kenneth Marcus, to lead the education department’s Office of Civil Rights. Mr. Marcus now heads the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a nonprofit that has taken a lead role in fighting campus anti-Semitism using the State Department definition.

That makes it likely that as the Jewish community continues to push Rutgers on the issue, it soon will have the strong support of Washington on its side, possibly determined to set new legal precedents.

In short: While Michael Chikindas has been disciplined, the case of Rutgers and the anti-Semitic professors has only begun to play out.

Alyson Klein and Christina A. Samuels
Education Week

Democrats on the Senate education committee had some tough questions for President Donald Trump’s picks to head up civil rights and special education policy at the U.S. Department of Education as the members vetted them for confirmation.

Kenneth Marcus, who is currently the head of a Jewish civil rights organization and has been tapped to lead the department’s office for civil rights, and Johnny Collett, the program director for special education at the Council of Chief State School Officers, are likely to be confirmed. But Democrats used the Dec. 5 hearing to air deep concerns about the Trump administration’s record on both civil rights and disabilities issues.

“One of the most appalling ways that President Trump has damaged our country is when it comes to civil rights—and undermining the rights and safety of women, people of color, and people with disabilities,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the panel.

Murray said Marcus appears to “share the goal of halting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion,” particularly on college campuses. But she worries about his ability to stand up to Trump and to U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

And she expressed qualms about Collett’s record as head of special education in Kentucky. She noted that the state was criticized for allowing frequent use of seclusion and restraint in schools, which are used to a disproportionate degree on students with disabilities.

“Only after public outcry and work from the [state’s] protection and advocacy agency did Kentucky take steps to address this,” Murray said. “Additionally, you told my staff you support Secretary DeVos’ privatization agenda, which includes a $20 billion school voucher proposal. Voucher programs do not support all of the needs of students with disabilities.”

But Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the chairman of the committee, defended both nominees. He said Marcus “has a deep understanding of civil rights issues having founded the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights and having served as staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for four years.” He said he had letters from 10 individuals and organizations supporting Marcus’ nomination. And he said that Collett is “widely supported by the special education community.”

Civil Rights Protections

Marcus served as the acting assistant secretary at the office for civil rights during President George W. Bush’s administration. During his testimony, he played up his record of looking out for disadvantaged groups of students.

For instance, he noted that during his tenure, OCR worked to make sure that racial and ethnic minorities and English-language learners were not placed in special education programs that didn’t meet their needs.
But Marcus also did not distance himself from any of the president’s past statements about women’s rights and civil rights when questioned about them.

If confirmed, Marcus said he would, “work to strengthen OCR, to preserve civil rights, to seek equal justice for all, to respect the rule of law, and to promote public confidence.”

Under the Trump administration, OCR has shifted away from examining each civil rights complaint for evidence of systemic discrimination.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., asked Marcus about that change. He said that there is a role for both systemic and individual investigations, and that the decision on which way to go needs to be made on a case-by-case basis.

In response to a question from Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Marcus said that if a school disciplines African-American students more harshly than their white peers, that could be grounds for a complaint. Marcus’ comments are particularly relevant now because the Trump administration is considering scaling back or reworking Obama-era guidance aimed at ending discipline disparities.

“If even one child is punished because of their race, or punished worse because of their race” that would be “a significant concern,” Marcus said. But he said that each complaint needs to be investigated individually and fairly to make sure there is really discrimination going on, as opposed to say, paperwork problems.

Special Education Questions

Murray asked Collett about disproportionality in identifying minorities for special education, placing them in restrictive settings, or disciplining them. The Education Department is considering delaying a new rule that would require states to take a stricter approach in evaluating whether their districts are disproportionate in those areas.

“Are you going to fight rolling that back?” Murray asked.

“I will uphold the protections in IDEA,” Collett said, adding that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on the Education Department’s actions if they’re related to Trump administration efforts to cut agency regulations. (The Education Department set off a mini-furor in October after rescinding older guidance.)

“I would find it appalling if after 15 years, we delay it,” said Murray.

She continued with another point: The Every Student Succeeds Act states that no more than 1 percent of students, equivalent to about 10 percent of students in special education, be allowed to use alternate assessments. These tests are intended for students with the “most significant” cognitive disabilities. The concern among some advocates is that loosening this rule means more students with disabilities will be shifted to less-rigorous coursework, even if they could tackle grade-level content with appropriate supports.

States are asking for waivers from this 1 percent rule, Murray noted. “Will you commit to standing up to the secretary and telling her that waiving this requirement will lower expectations and hurt the future of these children?” Murray asked.

Collett pivoted off that question. “I talk every day about having high expectations and ensuring appropriate supports for each child, and that includes children with significant cognitive disabilities,” he said.

By Rachel Hirshfeld
ISGAP

In recent decades, academics promoting pseudo intellectual studies have sought to advance the notion that antisemitism in the contemporary context, and specifically on college and university campuses, is a mere illusion, created by a group of alarmists,”^[1] attempting to exaggerate the severity of threats against the Jewish community. Recently, this phenomenon received attention when the Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies at Stanford University published a September 2017 report, entitled “Safe and on the Sidelines: Jewish Students and the Israel-Palestine Conflict on Campus.”^[2] The report, which has been presented in testimony before the US House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee,^[3] attempts to discredit the argument that colleges and universities have become “breeding” grounds and “hotspots of antisemitism.” While the report acknowledges that “[s]ince 2014, there have been at least seven separate studies^[4] dedicated to tracking campus political discourse as it pertains to antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment,” it argues that “what [these studies] offer in numerical impressions, they obscure in the subtleties of student experience.” While the existing studies –conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (2015)^[5], the AMCHA Initiative (2015, 2016, 2017)^[6], Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar (2015)^[7], Leonard Saxe et al. (2015, 2016),^[8] and others — generated extensive data and statistics, using reported incidents, surveys, polls, and questionnaires, the study by the Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies at Stanford University is based solely on personal interviews with sixty-six undefined students across five California university campuses^[9]. In fact, the study acknowledges that it “intentionally sought out Jewish students who were either unengaged or minimally engaged in organized Jewish life,” thereby excluding students who are most likely to either be the targets of antisemitic attacks or be cognizant of antisemitism on campus. In light of these findings, this paper will illustrate that the study by the Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies at Stanford University contains fundamental methodological flaws, omissions, and distortions, thereby presenting a highly inaccurate and misleading account of antisemitism on campus.

Given the atmosphere on many university campuses, which often curtails and inhibits freedom of speech and dissenting views, as illustrated by Jonathan S. Tobin¹⁰ and others, it is no surprise that the report was “approved and supervised by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board,”^[11] when it, in fact, is devoid of scholarly merit. One must look no further than the cover page of the report to see that the authors include Abiya Ahmed, a former employee of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with close political and ideological ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Ari Y. Kelman, a member of the Academic Council of Open Hillel, which seeks to overturn Hillel International’s guidelines that proscribe partnering with anti-Israel groups or individuals. Open Hillel gives recognition to supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, including Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), two of the organizations most directly responsible for creating a hostile campus environment saturated with anti-Israel sentiment.

While the report claims that, “students feel safe on campus” and that “[n]ot a single one of [the] interviewees described their campus as hostile to Jewish students,” its assertions are empirically false. In fact, it altogether discounts seven crucial studies, including claims that, “Student groups sponsored at least 520 anti-Israel programs on U.S. campuses in 2014-15, a 38% increase from the 375 anti-Israel campus programs during the previous academic year.”^[12] It ignores similar claims that, “Antisemitic activity on campuses most popular with Jewish students continued to rise, increasing by 40% from 2015 to 2016”^[13] and data indicating that, “While the number of anti-Zionism-motivated acts of anti-Jewish hostility stayed approximately the same from 2015 to 2016, the number of acts motivated by classic antisemitism rose sharply, with anti-Jewish genocidal expression more than doubling from 2015 to 2016.”^[14] The report additionally overlooks evidence that suggests that, “Nearly three-quarters of [survey] respondents reported having been exposed at one time during the past year to at least one of six antisemitic statements,”^[15]including claims likening Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi treatment of the Jews during the Holocaust. In addition to the studies and data dismissed in the report, the Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies at Stanford University also fails to comment on similarly disturbing studies conducted by the FBI^[16] and NYPD^[17].

Yet, even if one were to only consider the sixty-six handpicked student interviews highlighted in the Stanford study, there is reason for concern. In fact, the study often seems to be proving an argument that is diametrically opposed to its underlying conclusion. For example, one interviewee, Amanda, a senior from UC Berkeley, “reported seeing swastikas on campus,” yet the study notes that, “her response was to be unintimidated and almost casual about them, as if student callousness was part of every day life.” She states that she has seen “maybe three or four” during her entire time on campus. She then corrected herself to say that she has seen “[m]aybe five. Actually, maybe more than five.” While the report maintains that Amanda “did not consider this to be part of a pattern of harassment,” it is safe to say that swastikas are arguably the most notorious hate symbol, evoking one of the most horrific periods in Jewish history, and certainly do not cultivate a safe or inviting atmosphere for Jewish students.

We must not forget that the antisemitism of today is not the antisemitism of the 1930s or 1940s. One does not have to witness swastikas on a regular basis or soldiers clad in Nazi-like uniforms marching through university dormitories or student libraries for antisemitism to exist on campus. In the contemporary context, attacks on the Jewish people, and on Jewish students and faculty, most often take the form of onslaughts against the State of Israel, the central manifestation of contemporary Jewish identity. While BDS campaigns^[18], “Israel Apartheid” Weeks^[19], mock checkpoints^[20], mock eviction notices^[21], and “die-ins”^[22] pervade campus grounds, the report cloaks tactics of double standards, demonization and delegitimization in the language of political activism, when they are, in fact, manifestations of contemporary antisemitism, as explained by former Soviet dissident and Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky in his 2004 book, The Case For Democracy^[23]. Indeed, while criticism of Israeli government policies – like criticism of all government policies – is not only entirely legitimate, but a necessary and productive means of ensuring a thriving democratic society and vigorous pluralistic debate, BDS activists seek to conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with the complete delegitimization of Israel in the international arena. By exploiting the rhetoric of “human rights” and other universal moral principles, anti-Israel activists attempt to portray Israel as inherently racist, thereby questioning the very existence of the Jewish state and seeking to cast it as the pariah among nations.

The study notes that, “[w]hen students do feel threatened, the feeling derives generally from campus activism related to the tone of the debate about Israel-Palestine conflict,” which is described as “severe, divisive, and alienating.” In fact, according to the report, many students “fear that entering political debate… will carry social costs that they are unwilling to bear.” Elisheva, like many other interviewees, “keenly felt the social implications of political engagement” and “demurred from outright conflict, usually concluding that fierce political battles were not worth the high social cost they exacted.” Elisheva “observed that stating that her commitment to Israel might cost her friendships.” Similarly, Todd, a sophomore at Stanford, criticized the informal norms about political speech on campus, saying, “There’s definitely kind of a sentiment that you should stay within what Stanford students consider acceptable in terms of what you’re saying.” According to the report, he felt that violating these norms and expressing his support for Israel could have “negative repercussions.” The report goes on to state that, “[s]tudents who wish to speak up often opt out, choosing silence and avoidance,” while others “avoid spaces on campus where they know that they are likely to encounter uncomfortable confrontations.” As Elizabeth, a senior at UCLA, noted, “It’s easier to just stay out of it.” Ultimately, according to the authors of “Safe and on the Sidelines,” it is tolerable for Jewish students to be silenced, ostracized and sidelined, as the report’s title – intentionally or unintentionally – implies.

Academia prides itself on open scholarly inquiry, intellectual pluralism, and freedom of expression; universities are intended to be the epicenters of knowledge, ingenuity, and curiosity. Yet, the report points to an atmosphere that proscribes academic pluralism rather than advancing it and allows divisive speech to impede freedom of speech. While the Stanford report is both an academic debacle and a distorted narrative of events, it, like many other mendacious studies, is repeated on the global stage, thereby presenting a highly inaccurate and misleading account of antisemitism on campus. While the aforementioned studies documenting Jewish student life are extremely pertinent, additional high caliber, scientific, and scholarly research would be valuable to augment the current data and methodically ascertain the atmosphere on university campuses and its effects on Jewish students and faculty, as well as the Jewish community at large. Such research should rightfully supplant disingenuous “studies” and help inform domestic and international opinion. Indeed, we live in a world in which antisemitism masquerades as anti-Zionism; hatred, once again, casts a dark shadow on “liberal” societies; and “enlightened” institutions of higher education trample on the very ideals they claim to espouse. At this point, it seems that Jewish students and faculty may, indeed, be unsafe and on the sidelines.

***********************************************************************************

^[1] Josh Nagli, “Anti-Semitism is not rife at universities – to suggest so is alarmist and wrong,” The Telegraph, December 23, 2016.

^[2] Ari Y. Kelman, Abiya Ahmed, Ilana Horwitz, Jeremiah Lockwood, Marva Shalev Marom, and Maja Zuckerman, “Safe and on the Sidelines: Jewish Students and the Israel-Palestine Conflict on Campus,” The Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies, Stanford University, September 2017.

^[3] Liel Leibovitz, “Jewish Studies Professor to Congress: No Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, Nothing Wrong With Comparing Israel to Nazis,” Tablet Magazine, November 7, 2017.

^[4] Anti-Defamation League, “Anti-Israel Activity on Campus, 2014-2015: Trends and Projections,” 2015; The AMCHA Initiative, “Report on Antisemitic Activity in 2015 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Undergraduate Populations,” 2015; The AMCHA Initiative, “Report on Antisemitic Activity During the First Half of 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2016; The AMCHA Initiative, “Antisemitism: At the Epicenter of Campus Intolerance Antisemitic Activity in 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2017; Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, “National Demographic Survey of American Jewish College Students 2014: Anti-Semitism Report,” February 2015; Leonard Saxe, Theodore Sasson, Graham Wright, and Shahar Hecht, “Antisemitism and the College Campus: Perceptions and Realities,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2015; Leonard Saxe, Graham Wright, Shahar Hecht, Michelle Shain, Theodore Sasson, and Fern Chertok, “Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Sentiment on US Campuses,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2016.

^[5] Anti-Defamation League, “Anti-Israel Activity on Campus, 2014-2015: Trends and Projections,” 2015.

^[6] The AMCHA Initiative, “Report on Antisemitic Activity in 2015 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Undergraduate Populations,” 2015; The AMCHA Initiative, “Report on Antisemitic Activity During the First Half of 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2016; The AMCHA Initiative, “Antisemitism: At the Epicenter of Campus Intolerance Antisemitic Activity in 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2017.

^[7] Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, “National Demographic Survey of American Jewish College Students 2014: Anti-Semitism Report,” February 2015.

^[8] Leonard Saxe, Theodore Sasson, Graham Wright, and Shahar Hecht, “Antisemitism and the College Campus: Perceptions and Realities,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2015; Leonard Saxe, Graham Wright, Shahar Hecht, Michelle Shain, Theodore Sasson, and Fern Chertok, “Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Sentiment on US Campuses,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2016.

^[9] Stanford University, UC Berkeley, San Francisco State University, UCLA, and UC Irvine.

^[10] Jonathan S. Tobin, “Who’s shutting down the debate on Israel?” Jewish News Service, November 10, 2017; Jonathan S. Tobin, “Silencing Israel on Campus,” Jewish News Service, November 13, 2017; Hannah Dreyfus, “‘Free Speech’ Comes At High Cost For Jewish Students,” The Jewish Week, October 25, 2017.

^[11] Ari Y. Kelman, Abiya Ahmed, Ilana Horwitz, Jeremiah Lockwood, Marva Shalev Marom, and Maja Zuckerman, “Safe and on the Sidelines: Jewish Students and the Israel-Palestine Conflict on Campus,” The Research Group of the Concentration in Education and Jewish Studies, Stanford University, September 2017.

^[12] Anti-Defamation League, “Anti-Israel Activity on Campus, 2014-2015: Trends and Projections,” 2015.

^[13] The AMCHA Initiative, “Antisemitism: At the Epicenter of Campus Intolerance Antisemitic Activity in 2016 at U.S. Colleges and Universities with the Largest Jewish Undergraduate Populations,” 2017.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Leonard Saxe, Theodore Sasson, Graham Wright, and Shahar Hecht, “Antisemitism and the College Campus: Perceptions and Realities,” Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2015.

^[16] Federal Bureau of Investigation, “2016 Hate Crime Statistics,” accessed November 28, 2017, https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/tables/table-1.

^[17] Will Bredderman, “NYPD Reports ‘Huge Spike’ in Hate Crimes Since Donald Trump’s Election,” The Observer, December 5, 2016.

^[18] Anti-Defamation League, “BDS: The Global Campaign to Delegitimize Israel,” accessed November 28, 2017, https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/bds-the-global-campaign-to-delegitimize-israel.

^[19] Anti-Defamation League, “Israeli Apartheid Week: A Year-by-Year Report,” accessed November 28, 2017, https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/israel-international/Israeli-Apartheid-Week-Year-by-Year-Report.pdf.

^[20] Jenna Lyons and Nanette Asimov, “UC Berkeley students stage mock checkpoint in protest,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 2, 2016.

^[21] Alina D. Sharon, “Campus eviction notices are fake, but their anti-Semitism is real, experts say,” Jewish News Service, June 22, 2014.

^[22] “‘Die-Ins’ Spread To NYC,” Jewish News Service, July 23, 2014.

^[23] Natan Sharansky and Ron Dermer. The Case For Democracy: The Power Of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny And Terror (Cambridge, MA: PublicAffairs, 2004).

Rachel Hirshfeld is a Strategic Consultant for the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). Rachel attended New York University and served as the Jewish Agency’s representative on campus, combating anti-Israel delegitimization campaigns. She previously worked at NGO Monitor, where her research focused on the funding and political advocacy of Israeli, Palestinian and international NGOs (non-governmental organizations), as well as NGO involvement in the United Nations and NGO exploitation of international legal mechanisms to demonize Israel.

By Malcolm A. Kline
Accuracy in Academia

Did antisemitism somehow become a job prerequisite in academia? “We are horrified by the reports that we are hearing from Virginia Tech students,” Jennifer Gross, an attorney with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights under Law says. “The problem is not just that Virginia Tech employs an avowed white supremacist as a graduate student instructor and that many undergraduate students are required to take his course.”

“Worse, he has allegedly urged his associates to violently attack a Virginia Tech student who has stood up to him.” One of the courses he teaches is freshman composition. Wonder if he is a member in good standing of the Modern Language Association….