Maya T. Prabhu
Post and Courier
May 11, 2017

COLUMBIA — The South Carolina Senate on Thursday put the brakes on a bill that would spell out a specific definition for anti-Semitism on state college campuses.

Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, earlier this week said he wanted the bill to include actual language defining anti-Semitism within the text of the proposed law.

That insertion would be instead of referring schools to a federal fact sheet published by the U.S. State Department for guidance.

On the last day of the 2017 legislative session, Hutto said he planned to work on drafting an appropriate amendment during the summer.

Senators had given the bill its second reading on Tuesday without much debate to allow Hutto time to create an amendment this week while planning to debate the bill on third and final reading.

On Thursday, senators agreed to withdraw their second-reading approval, moving the legislation back a step in the legislative process. Lawmakers can pick the measure up again when the 2018 session convenes in January.

The proposal quickly and easily passed the House earlier this year, receiving a vote of 103-3 and having about 115 of the 124 state representatives co-sponsoring it.

Main sponsor Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach, has made a name for himself in pro-Israeli circles for drafting and sponsoring pro-Israel legislation, including those that seek to undermine public campaigns calling for economic boycotts of Israel because of the country’s continued expansion of settlements in West Bank.

Clemmons on Thursday afternoon decried Hutto’s stalling of the bill.

“By doing so he is refusing South Carolina an opportunity to push back against the noxious bigotry,” Clemmons said. “It empowers forces of Jew hatred to go unchecked on South Carolina campuses.”

The proposed definition in the bill is pulled from an example provided on the State Department’s website that defines anti-Semitism as justifying the killing or harming of Jews, making dehumanizing allegations about Jews or accusing Jews of being responsible for “real or imagined” wrong-doing committed by Israel.

But college students and professors argued the proposed definition in the bill, speaking during hearings in both the House and Senate, was overly broad and could limit academic discussion and debate over the continued Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Original Article

Edward Kunz
Brandeis Blog
April 25, 2017

On April 19, 2017, the Associated Students at San Diego State University passed “A Resolution to Condemn Anti-Semitism.” The resolution takes a strong line against anti-Semitism, both in its addressing of a series of broad issues and its strict reliance on established definitions and law. The resolution cites both the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism and the Marcus Policy which applies to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Marcus Policy, penned by Louis D. Brandeis Center President Kenneth Marcus, allows Jewish students to be protected under Title VI, based on their status as an ethno-religious minority.

This resolution follows in the footsteps of similar resolutions adopted by universities across the United States, such as UCLA, UCSB, UC Berkeley, Capital U, and Indiana U. Ryerson, a Canadian university based in Toronto, has also adopted a similar resolution. These resolutions mimic the similar legislative attempts to pass bills that define anti-Semitism on both a statewide and federal level. Recently, there have been attempts in South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee all aimed at adopting the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism as it relates to public universities. On the congressional level, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which passed the Senate in December, is awaiting reintroduction in congress this term.

Such resolutions have an impact that cannot be understated when it comes to the fight against anti-Semitism. These resolutions display to the state government that their schools want a stronger definition of anti-Semitism, and one that includes examples of anti-Semitism relative to Israel, in order to combat its resurgence.

Original Article

Bob Kellogg
One News Now
April 24, 2017

Members of a national academic association are suing the organization itself after it chose to adopt a boycott of all Israeli academic institutions.

Pro-Palestinian members of the leadership of the American Studies Association abused their positions by forcing adoption of the boycott. So says Kenneth Marcus, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Marcus’ group is representing the plaintiffs who argue that violates ASA’s own rules and mission (more details).

“The mission of the American Studies Association is to promote the scholarly study of the United States; it is not to promote the study of the Middle East,” he emphasizes. “And it is certainly not to engage in political activism about countries outside of North America.”

Marcus points out that two of the four plaintiffs are well-respected ASA award winners and another is one of the organization’s founding members.

“They are upset,” he explains, “not just because they view the boycott as anti-Semitic and a violation of academic freedom, but because it undermines the scholarly quality of an organization that they worked so hard to build.”

Despite attempts by the defendants to have the lawsuit suppressed, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras recently ruled the plaintiffs can move forward with most of their claims.

The Brandeis Center leader calls the decision an important victory – not just their clients “but for everyone who is concerned about the anti-Semitic BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] movement and its deleterious impact on academic institutions.”

Original Article