Seanna Adcox
Tri City Herald
February 22, 2017

Supporters say a bill defining anti-Semitism for South Carolina’s colleges is designed to curb a national rise of anti-Jewish bigotry on campuses. Opponents argue it could limit First Amendment rights to criticize Israel.

The bipartisan bill advanced Wednesday by a House panel would require colleges to apply the definition when deciding whether an incident or speech violates anti-discrimination policies. Penalties would depend on each college’s policies.

“One must be blind to not see the ramp up in anti-Semitism in this country,” said the main sponsor, Rep. Alan Clemmons, a Mormon and Republican from Myrtle Beach.

Clemmons cited vandalism discovered Monday at a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis and a recent threat against a Myrtle Beach synagogue. Authorities say the white supremacist who posted that threat on Facebook told an undercover FBI agent he wanted to buy a gun to kill “in the spirit of Dylann Roof,” who has been sentenced to die for the massacre of nine people at a historic black church in Charleston.

The bill’s advancement comes a day after President Donald Trump condemned recent threats against Jewish community centers nationwide as “painful reminders” of lingering prejudice and evil.

South Carolina lacks a state hate crimes law, and this bill applies only to colleges. It doesn’t address hate crimes against people of other religions. Clemmons said it “takes the guesswork out” of deciding if incidents on campuses are based on anti-Jewish hatred.

The bill would require colleges to use the U.S. State Department’s 2010 two-page guidelines for defining anti-Semitism abroad. Opponents say they object only to the second page, which answers the question, “What is anti-Semitism relative to Israel?” in ways that opponents say would condemn any criticism of Israel’s government or its policies.

It cites what have become known as the three Ds in other debates about campus speech: Demonizing Israel, having a double standard for Israel, and delegitimizing Israel. These include, respectively, “blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions,” ”multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations” and “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.”

The State Department guidance also specifies that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic,” but opponents say the guidelines have been used elsewhere to stifle criticism of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian land and people.

The bill mimics federal legislation co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, which instructed the U.S. Department of Education to use the definitions when investigating reported discrimination. That bill died in the House after passing the Senate by unanimous consent in December.

Anti-Semitism is especially rampant on college campuses, said Kenneth Marcus, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law in Washington, who called the bill “vital and necessary” for protecting Jewish students and giving colleges the ability to fight discrimination against them.

“The point is not to censor, punish or restrict anti-Semitic speech. Anti-Semitic speech is typically protected by the First Amendment, and it should not be curbed,” Marcus told the panel. However, he concluded, “Anti-Semitism deserves the same condemnation as other forms of hate.”

Dana Al-Hasan, president of Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of South Carolina, agrees that “there’s definitely has been a rise in hatred” against people of various races and religions. But she said the proposed law would hinder her group’s ability to raise awareness about what it considers Israel’s discriminatory policies.

“It would allow legitimate criticism of the state of Israel to be equated with anti-Semitism,” said David Matos, president of the Carolina Peace Resource Center, and enable groups to sue universities “over supposed infractions because people are talking about Israel or Palestine in a way they don’t like.”

Rep. Beth Bernstein, who is Jewish, said that’s ridiculous. She says opponents misunderstand the bill.

“It’s actually to encourage tolerance and track brutal acts,” said Bernstein, D-Columbia, who’s among nearly 90 co-sponsors. “They’re making it more complicated than it is.”

Original Story

David R. Cohen
Atlanta Jewish Time
February 21, 2017

Reports in August from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville of anti-Semitic behavior by students caught the eye of Kenneth Marcus, an anti-Semitism expert and the president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.

Marcus was later invited to speak Jan. 26 at the university in combination with an International Holocaust Remembrance Day screening of Gloria Z. Greenfield’s film “Unmasked Judeophobia,” during which he detailed the rise in anti-Semitism on American college campuses.

Marcus spoke to the AJT by phone the day after his visit to Knoxville.

AJT: How did you end up getting invited to speak at UTK?

Kenneth Marcus

Marcus: Last year we responded to the dozens of anti-Semitic social media postings at UT by urging the university to investigate those students. One of our recommendations was that they utilize the various local resources, such as Gloria Z. Greenfield being an artist in residence at the school, to educate students by showing her film, and I was also invited to speak.

AJT: When we spoke to UTK Hillel Director Deborah Oleshansky, she said that reports of campus anti-Semitism had been overblown. Is that not the case?

Marcus: That’s not unusual. When we deal with large, complex research universities, we often find there can be a great deal happening beneath the surface. It’s hard for engaged local professionals to be aware of. Sometimes people will come to us with information that is not known to campus professionals. That’s not an indication that they aren’t doing their job right; it’s just difficult to get a bearing of what’s going on at a large institution.

AJT: How was the response of event attendees at the film screening?

Marcus: We had a very good event at UT last night. I could tell the audience was deeply moved by Gloria Z. Greenfield’s film. I think that watching her film about anti-Semitism and thinking about incidents at the University of Tennessee led people to ask what can be done to combat this problem.

AJT: So you would say that anti-Semitism is on the rise on college campuses?

Marcus: Anti-Semitism is definitely on the rise on American college campuses, and it is quite horrifying to see, after a half-century of making progress, we are now seeing a different environment. About a year and a half ago the Louis D. Brandeis Center partnered with Trinity College to do a study on Jewish college students. We found that, for the first time, over 50 percent of Jewish college students have personally experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism during the prior academic year.

AJT: What can we do about this issue?

Marcus: We need to educate people about the meaning of anti-Semitism so that palpable, hurtful, anti-Jewish activity cannot simply be denied. Earlier this month, a court in Germany held that it is not anti-Semitic to firebomb a synagogue. The court reasoned that the perpetrator might have been expressing a political opinion about Gaza by throwing Molotov cocktails. That shocking ignorance by a German court is the sort of thing that merits standard, clear, understandable guidance on this issue. At last night’s event we discussed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that was introduced last year in the U.S. Congress. We also discussed the state-level legislation which was introduced in Virginia and that we hope will be introduced in other states as well. People need to speak out and urge their legislators to support adoption of the State Department definition of anti-Semitism.

Tuesday, Feb. 21, University of Chicago Law School

On Tuesday, February 21, Professor Alex Tsesis will be speaking to the LDB chapter at the University of Chicago on the topic of, “Free Speech in the Age of the Internet.” Tsesis is a professor at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, and is an expert in Constitutional Law, the First Amendment, Civil Procedure, as well as civil rights issues and constitutional interpretation. He is a widely published author whose articles have appeared in a variety of law reviews across the country. Professor Tsesis is also a frequent presenter to law school faculties nationwide on issues involving constitutional law, free speech, and civil rights.

Veronike Collazo
Loudoun Tribune

February 20, 2017

Last fall, five Loudoun County, Virginia teenagers vandalized the historic African-American schoolhouse in Ashburn with an array of graffiti that included white supremacist slogans and Nazi swastikas. The fact that they desecrated a monument to black history with the symbol most closely associated with Jewish oppression was not lost on those monitoring anti-Semitism.

Most of that discussion and corresponding media coverage of incidents like this one and others around the nation have centered on African-Americans and Muslims. Many Jewish leaders say this conversation should be extended to their community as well, which has experienced both a long history of bias and persecution and a more recent rise in documented cases of anti-Semitism.

Since the start of 2017, the Jewish Community Center Association reports that there have been 69 bomb threats at 54 of their facilities spread across 27 states — all hoaxes. Jewish leaders are also concerned about a rise in hate speech on colleges and universities, a potential breeding ground for anti-Semitic thought and action.

Researchers at Trinity College and Brandeis University found that more than half of Jewish students reported experiencing or witnessing anti-Semitism on their campus in 2014 and 2015. Anti-Semitic incidents at universities increased by 45 percent from 2015 to 2016, according to a study by the AMCHA Initiative, a group committed to fighting anti-Semitism on college campuses. AMCHA also publishes the Swastika Tracker, a compendium of swastikas and what it characterizes as other anti-Jewish genocidal expressions on campuses and updated daily.

Virginia has been no exception. In the past year there have been high-profile incidents of anti-Semitism across the Commonwealth, including at William and Mary, the University of Virginia and Old Dominion University.

“What we’re seeing in Virginia is part of a broader trend,” said Kenneth Marcus, a lawyer and national expert on anti-Semitism. “Five years ago, we could predict which campuses would be troublesome in the next semester based on which campuses had been troublesome the prior semester.”
Marcus is the founder and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center. The Washington D.C.-based center aims to advance the civil and human rights of Jewish people generally, but the organization’s primary focus is fighting anti-Semitism on college campuses through law and public policy. The center has chapters at 18 U.S. law schools, including the University of Virginia, monitors universities around the nation to offer best practices for compliance, and engages in advocacy.

Anti-Semitism has become a renewed and growing problem since around 2001, Marcus said. Still, the recent spike on college campuses is notable, and more people are taking notice.

“There were a relatively small number of campuses that were problematic year after year after year, and they tended to be concentrated on the west coast, in the northeast, with maybe a few exceptions in the middle of the country. But what we’re seeing now is that it’s spreading a great deal more,” Marcus said.

“We’re finding that far more campuses that had been peaceful and harmonious are suddenly flaring up. There are universities where the administrators and staff have no idea how to deal with it because they haven’t had to deal with it before,” he said. “It’s no longer the case that the only places where there are significant problems are where there’s been training and education because they have the same issue year in and year out.”

Marcus said that to understand what’s happening today it’s imperative to reflect on history.

From the end of World War II to the early 2000’s, anti-Semitism was becoming a lesser problem worldwide. But even as Jews gained greater acceptance in Western society, the climate on American university campuses was not as amenable.

Marcus said since the 1967 Arab–Israeli War, Israel has been perceived as the Goliath and Palestinians Arabs as the David. For that reason, people who sympathize or identify with underdogs have tended to not only view themselves as pro-Palestine, but also as anti-Israel. This has been hard on Jewish college students who view themselves as progressive and are often excluded from engaging in the kind of advocacy they believe in, he said.

“Oftentimes, liberal social groups at American universities will exclude Jewish students who are pro-Israel. In fact, even progressive Jewish students who have no particular opinion on Israel, for or against, will often be pressured to make some sort of statement that is against Israel, otherwise they will not be included in the progressive social group that they identify with,” Marcus said.

This presents a problem because university administrators will often rely on social justice and multicultural groups to work with them to communicate on issues, Marcus said. Often these groups are not sensitive to anti-Semitic issues and may even be hostile.

“So it’s harder for Jewish college students to get respect and a fair hearing from administration than other groups because of that political dynamic,” Marcus said.

These problems began to grow at the beginning of the century. Jewish resentment became more mainstream around the time of the second intifada in Israel and the United Nations Durban Anti-Racism Conference, he said.

“Since roughly the end of 2001 and early 2002, there have been better years and there have been worse years, but generally, things have been getting worse more than they’ve been getting better,” Marcus said. “During those years when the Middle East conflict is in the news, we see more flare ups on U.S. campuses. But now we’re seeing problems on U.S. campuses whether the Middle East is flaring up or not.”

There has been a significant uptick in prominence from right wing extremist groups often called the alt-right or Neo Nazis. This is accompanied by anti-Semitism coming out of Muslim and Arab communities that is rooted in geopolitical or ethnic conflict and xenophobia. That’s combined with the still lingering history of European and Christian anti-Semitism, which is based on medieval stereotypes and defamations.

In today’s heated political climate Marcus said anti-Semitism is rampant in both pro-Trump supporters and anti-Trump groups, among others, and should not be attributed to one source.

Ken Marcus, left, said Trump supporters and detractors have spread anti-Semitism, and no one group is to blame.

Others more inclined to spout anti-Semitic rhetoric are young and less educated, Marcus said.

“They are often flailing out in different directions and for different reasons, and when they want to rebel, they might use a swastika or other symbols and sayings tied to anti-Semitism as a form of rebellion,” he said. In these cases, it is difficult to get to the root of the hatred, as it may be more generalized in nature.

“When people are happy, well-adjusted, prosperous and employed, they’re less likely to express anger at other people, including Jews. When they are angry, unemployed or otherwise unhappy and disrespected, they will often look for scapegoats. Jews have traditionally been the paradigmatic scapegoat in Western society,” Marcus said.

“I don’t think we can predict which way things could go, but I do think we could influence the result. That’s why I do what I do. I think it is up to us to make sure the recent pattern of ugliness becomes an exception and not the rule,” he said.

Most of the difficult problems universities face involve determining what makes an incident anti-Semitic, and that inspired Marcus to write The Definition of Anti-Semitism. It proved more difficult than he anticipated, but he also found a greater degree consensus than expected among scholars, governmental institutions and other groups that have examined the issue.

Marcus offers this definition in his book:
“Anti-Semitism is a set of negative attitudes, ideologies, and practices directed at Jews as Jews, individually or collectively, based upon and sustained by a repetitive and potentially self-fulfilling latent structure of hostile erroneous beliefs and assumptions that flow from the application of double standards toward Jews as a collectivity, manifested culturally in myth, ideology, folklore, and imagery, and urging various forms of restriction, exclusion, and suppression.”

Marcus was largely influenced by the working definition of anti-Semitism established by the old European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. That definition also became basis for the State Department’s approach, but had not been widely adopted elsewhere throughout the United States, he said.

“The insight on which the European Union working definition was based is that for practical purposes, it often does more harm than good to simply ask the question, who is and isn’t an anti-Semite? If you’re just asking whether individuals are anti-Semites or not, you may never get an answer, you’ll get people defensive and it’ll lead to a coarsening of the discourse,” Marcus said.

“Moreover, the problems that we face are often from unconscious expression of racist themes and ideas as opposed to the expression of a core belief of a small group of people. So instead of focusing on the question is this person an anti-Semite or not, we need to ask what forms of speech, what kinds of
activity are anti-Semitic so that we can identify it,” he said. “Then we can teach people to identify those practices that have a certain baggage to them, whether they understand them or not.”

Marcus believes universities should include anti-Semitism in their curriculum together with disciplines such as Women and Gender Studies and African American Studies. Of the universities that have Jewish studies programs, those programs tend to focus on Jewish texts or on the Holocaust, not on explaining or studying contemporary anti-Semitism.

This is increasingly important now, Marcus said. He noted that on many campuses the level of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism has gotten to the point where almost anything exacerbates it. Virtually any kind of social disturbance will have elements of anti-Semitism.

“For example, a couple of years ago it was the Occupy Movement. It didn’t seem to have anything to do with Jews or Israel and yet in some of the Occupy incidents, notably in Davis, California, anti-Israel animists became the centerpiece,” Marcus said.

“Similarly, last year with Black Lives Matter, that was a movement that was not about Jews or Israel and yet the Black Lives Matter movement adopted an anti-Israel and pro-boycott plank and developed Anti-Israelism as part of a minor but significant part of their program,” he said.

“We can’t predict what the next major social movement on college campuses will be but we can be assured, whatever it is, it will have some connection with anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism.”
From Richmond to California

Del. Dave LaRock (R-33) tried to tackle the issue by introducing a bill against anti-Semitism on college campuses in the Virginia House of Delegates last month. It would have included anti-Semitism under “because of religion” and “on the basis of religion,” and terms of similar import when used in the Code of Virginia and acts of the General Assembly in reference to discrimination.

HB 2261 would have required the board of visitors of Virginia’s public institutions of higher education to establish policies or institutional regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability in compliance with state and federal law.

Del. Dave LaRock (R-33) of Loudoun County, sponsored an anti-Semitism bill this year, but it did not advance.

The bill defined anti-Semitism as “a perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred toward Jews and includes rhetorical and physical manifestations of hostility or hatred that may be directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals or their property, the Jewish community, or Jewish institutions and religious facilities.”

It would also have provided for the investigating authority to consider the definition when investigating alleged violations of unlawful discriminatory practice on the basis of a person’s real or perceived Jewish identity.

Del. Jennifer Boysko (D-86) and Del. Mark Cole (R-88) were co-patrons of the bill, but it died in the General Laws Committee, ostensibly because the committee ran out of time to consider it during Virginia’s “short” legislative session.

LaRock said he is dedicated to reintroducing the bill during the 2018 legislative session. Marcus supports that effort and said schools shouldn’t wait.

“Every Virginia university can do this on their own. They don’t need to wait for legislation, they can start now. They can do it at the administrative level, faculty can get engaged and the trustees and visitors can take action,” he said.

Marcus said there hasn’t been a school to tackle anti-Semitism in completely the right way, but that the University of California regents did exemplary work in 2016 when they formed a high-level task force on intolerance. The primary focus of the task force was anti-Semitic incidents that had become
widespread throughout the California public university system. Marcus was one of California’s expert advisors.

The regents issued a formal statement of principles against intolerance that was notable because it explained the specific forms anti-Semitism has taken in recent years. The statement said that anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism and other forms of bigotry have no place at the University of California.

“The key here is that they were identifying anti-Zionism as potentially a form of bigotry, quite similar to other forms of bias that they’d seen. They acknowledged criticism of Israel is not bigotry, but some are and one needs to attend to what is and what isn’t,” Marcus said. “It would certain have been better if they had gone the next step if they had provided a definition with clarity, but I think what they did was important because they made a very clear and strong statement at a high level.”

Marcus said the next step in California is for each campus to develop implementation plans. The University of California at Irvine already has that process underway, and others need to develop policies, programs, education and training that is built on these principles opposing intolerance, Marcus said.
As far as progress in Virginia goes, Marcus met with George Mason University administrators a couple of years ago and said he felt good about the meeting. He has not had similar meetings with other Virginia campuses, and is not aware of any movement at the trustees or visitors level.
“It certainly would be commendable if the regents, the visitors of the respective Virginia public campuses followed the example of the University of California and looked at this issue on their own. It would be especially timely of them to do it in advance of the next legislative session,” Marcus said.

The Trump Administration could be another factor in the battle against anti-Semitism.

At his news conference on Feb. 16, President Donald Trump was twice asked about the increased number of anti-Semitic acts being reported across the nation. He spoke about his own views and rejection of anti-Semitism, but did not address the substance of the question.

Marcus credited the Trump campaign for issuing a statement expressing concern about campus anti-Semitism, and for comments indicating that the Department of Justice would address university suppression of Jewish pro-Israel speech. Marcus doesn’t know if any of this will translate into policy, but he’s hopeful.

However, Marcus also said the Trump Administration’s immigration ban directed toward seven predominately Muslim countries could ultimately lead to backlash against Jews.

“We know that when bigotry begins with Jews, it doesn’t end with Jews. Those societies that allow one kind of bias to flourish will find others as well. And everybody’s going to suffer in the end,” he said.

Even without support from Richmond or Washington there have been efforts locally to combat anti-Semitism. At an interfaith community service event following the Ashburn school house desecration, Holocaust survivor Susan Warsinger was asked to share her story. And last month the Sterling-based All

Marcus said community-based awareness is an important part of fighting the scourge of anti-Semitism.

“This is a form of bigotry that we thought we’d wiped out but it’s actually getting worse and not better. We know how horrific it can get. We also know that we can stomp it out because we’ve done it before,” Marcus said.

Original Article

Caitlyn Carmichael
Brandeis Blog
February 20, 2017

StandWithUs, an international non-profit organization dedicated to informing the public about Israel and combatting anti-Semitism, will be holding their third annual Anti-BDS conference in Los Angeles from March 4-6. For the past three years, StandWithUs has invited international experts to discuss strategies to combat the global boycott movement against Israel. LDB President & General Counsel Kenneth L. Marcus will be participating as an expert speaker for the third year in a row, discussing “BDS in Lawfare.”

The conference will focus on combatting the BDS movement as well as understanding the BDS movement’s new strategies and tactics. In addition to LDB’S President Marcus, internationally renowned experts will discuss the global boycott movement against Israel and how it targets college campuses, businesses, legislation, and more. The conference’s keynote speaker will be Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard Law Professor, Author, and Political Commentator. Other speakers include StandWithUs CEO and co-founder Roz Rothstein, New York Times Best-Selling author Edwin Black, Comedy Central and Showtime actor Avi Liberman, and many more.

The exact location of the event is sent to participants upon completion of reservation. To learn more about the event and speakers, click here.

Original Article

Bob Kellogg
One News Now
February 17, 2017

Despite a temporary setback, efforts to bring an end to the growing incidents of anti-Semitism on college campuses in Virginia have garnered some key support.
Virginia Delegates Dave LaRock and Mark Cole introduced HB 2261 to recognize anti-Semitism as a form of unlawful discriminatory practice. However, the bill was referred to the House Committee on General Laws where it was left last week, meaning it will have to be reintroduced in another session.

LeRock’s office reports, however, that even though Virginia’s 30-day legislative session ended before the bill was passed, Delegate C. Todd Gilbert (Virginia’s deputy majority leader) acknowledged the severity of the growing anti-Semitism on campus and committed to place the initiative at the top of the docket during next year’s legislative session.

OneNewsNow spoke with Kenneth Marcus, president of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which is based in Washington, DC. Marcus says there have been an increasing number of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses statewide.

“That’s not an indication that Virginia is any worse than any other place,” he shares. “It’s simply a sign of a growing national problem that we are seeing now in Virginia as other people are seeing around the country.”

Concerns about student freedom of speech were raised if the bill were passed. But Marcus says constitutional rights would be carefully protected.

“HB 2261 is very careful not to restrict any speech,” he says. “It deals with anti-Semitic conduct like assault or battery or vandalism of various sorts.”

According to research conducted by Trinity College and Brandeis University, more than half of Jewish students on U.S. campuses reported experiencing or witnessing anti-Semitism in 2014 and 2015. An AMCHA Initiative study showed anti-Semitic incidents at universities increased by 45 percent from 2015 to 2016.

Original Article

Caitlyn Carmichael
Brandeis Blog
February 13, 2017

The Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy (ISGAP) has announced the publication of “ISGAP Papers: Anti-Semitism in Comparative Perspective-Volume Two,” featuring an original article by LDB’s Kenneth L. Marcus. The publication of these papers is part of ISGAP’s ongoing work establishing anti-Semitism studies as a recognized academic discipline. ISGAP will continue to expand their educational efforts this summer at the ISGAP-Oxford Summer Institute for Curriculum Development in Critical Anti-Semitism Studies. University professors and doctoral/post-doctoral students are invited to apply.

The recently published “Anti-Semitism in Comparative Perspective” aims to inform readers on the changing realities of contemporary anti-Semitism and to explore manifestations of anti-Semitism through high-quality presentations and papers. Between 2012 and 2014, ISGAP hosted seminars at Harvard University, McGill University, Columbia University Law School, Fordham University, and other academic institutions. The ISGAP papers volume two contains a selection of papers presented during this period. These papers cover topics that better contribute to an in depth understanding of contemporary anti-Semitism and efforts to better battle it in our modern world. For example, this volume includes a paper that Kenneth L. Marcus delivered at a Harvard Law School ISGAP program. In taking a global perspective on anti-Semitism, ISGAP and all those connected hope that the publication of this latest volume will help combat anti-Semitism and inspire readers to take an educated approach to dealing with and understanding the affects of anti-Semitism.

Charles A. Small (pictured left), author of the book and Executive Director of ISGAP, is a member of LDB’s Academic Advisory board.l Included in Small’s “ISGAP Papers: Anti-Semitism in Comparative Perspective-Volume Two” is LDB President and General Counsel, Kenneth L. Marcus’s, publication, “Higher Education, Anti-Semitism, and the Law“. In this article, Ken analyzes key campus anti-Semitism legal cases that have been brought before OCR under Title VI.

Furthering their efforts in the critical development of anti-Semitism studies, The ISGAP-Oxford Summer Institute is currently seeking scholars-in-residence for an intensive two-week workshop-based curriculum development program in interdisciplinary critical contemporary anti-Semitism studies. The program will be held at St. John’s College, in Oxford, United Kingdom from July 16,2017 to July 29, 2017. The program is intended primarily for professors with full-time college or university positions. Under the guidance of leading international academics, scholars-in-residence will be required to develop a course syllabus and curriculum in the interdisciplinary study of critical contemporary anti-Semitism. The application deadline is February 22, 2017. Application information and requirements can be viewed here.

Original Article

In this new year, we are pleased with a slew of positive advancements in the fight against anti-Semitism.

Read Brief

On Thursday, February 9th, Professor Mark Goldfeder, Director of Law and Religion Student Program and Spruill Family Senior Fellow in Law and Religion at Emory University School of Law, will speak to the LDB chapter at the University of Chicago Law School on “BDS and the Law.” A scholar of law and religion and comparative Jewish Law, Goldfeder’s work examines issues of marriage, polygamy, and religious liberty.

An LLM/SJD graduate of Emory University School of Law, Goldfeder serves as a senior lecturer at Emory Law and as an adjunct professor in Emory University’s Department of Religion. He has also taught law and religion courses at Georgia State University College of Law. Goldfeder is the author of multiple articles and paper presentations on Jewish Law and marriage, polygamy, and Israeli law. He has presented at conferences and universities throughout North America, Europe, and Israel. In addition to his teaching and research, Goldfeder is responsible for leading the Law and Religion Student Program. In this capacity he has created a law and religion internship, a law and religion externship, a law and religion society, and a law and religion blog. Education: SJD, LLM, Emory University School of Law; JD, New York University School of Law; BA, Yeshiva University

Paul Miller
Observer
February 8, 2017

Conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos had been invited to speak last week at the University of California’s Berkeley campus. At the reported direction of campus police, university officials canceled the speech, citing public safety concerns, after a violent protest resulted in a reported six injuries and over $100,000 in property damage. Days earlier, a letter had been sent to the UC Board of Regents, expressing concern over “a sharp rise in hateful, intolerant acts directed at individuals holding divergent ideological and political viewpoints.”

Spearheaded by campus anti-Semitism watchdog AMCHA Initiative and co-signed by 47 education, Jewish and civil rights groups—including the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law—the letter urged UC administrators to “implement the Regents’ Principles Against Intolerance” adopted last March in the wake of increasing anti-Semitic activity throughout the UC campus system.

“Intolerance has become a serious and growing problem at UC. On too many campuses, one group’s freedom of expression has been used to denigrate, harass, intimidate, and shut down the expression of another group,” the letter stated. “Debate is veering into hate, and the campus climate is at risk of becoming toxic for a variety of students targeted for actions of intolerance.”

‘Colleges have become a place where they want everyone to look different but think the same.’

UC Santa Cruz lecturer and AMCHA Initiative Director Tammi Rossman-Benjamin responded to the Berkeley violence in an exclusive interview with the Haym Salomon Center:

“In the current climate of increasing polarization and rising levels of hatred and intolerance across our nation and particularly on our college campuses, as we saw last week when violence broke out at UC Berkeley, implementing policies that encourage tolerance among our nation’s youth and protect the right to free speech on campus, even speech we find hateful and offensive, couldn’t be more important.”

Rossman-Benjamin added:

“On a university campus, these acts of intolerance not only deprive individuals of their freedom of expression and their social, political and academic rights, they undermine the very mission of the university. The Regents’ statement couldn’t be more relevant, timely and important for all University of California students right now and should be implemented immediately.”

Concern over infringement of free speech rights is not limited to the UC system. Conservative political commentator and author Ben Shapiro was “banned” by DePaul University in Chicago this past August. California State University, Los Angeles President William Covino tried to cancel an appearance by Shapiro last February. He eventually caved after threats of lawsuits surfaced.

The Berkeley incident was only the latest Yiannopoulos speech to be canceled. The Breitbart writer has also been canceled at New York University and the University of Miami.

Attempts to silence conservative voices are nothing new. Harvard University professor Ruth Wisse cited incidents going back as far as 20 years, when she wrote in a May 2014 editorial for The Wall Street Journal:

“Pressure from faculty egged on by Muslim groups induced Brandeis University last month not to grant Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the proponent of women’s rights under Islam, an intended honorary degree at its convocation. This was a replay of 1994, when Brandeis faculty demanded that trustees rescind their decision to award an honorary degree to Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In each case, a faculty cabal joined by (let us charitably say) ignorant students promoted the value of repression over the values of America’s liberal democracy.”

Wisse added:

“Universities have not only failed to stand up to those who limit debate, they have played a part in encouraging them. The modish commitment to so-called diversity replaces the ideal of guaranteed equal treatment of individuals with guaranteed group preferences in hiring and curricular offerings.”

Rossman-Benjamin has been on the frontlines combating anti-Semitism and the silencing of pro-Israel voices for nearly a decade. She sees conservative thought on campuses under the same attack that Israel advocates have been enduring for decades.

“Colleges have become a place where they want everyone to look different but think the same,” explained Charlie Kirk, executive director of Turning Point USA, a free market, limited government student advocacy group. “The intolerance on our college campuses has overtaken the foundational aspect of free speech that once prevailed on our college campuses.”

Inquiries for comment to the UC Board of Regents by the Haym Salomon Center have gone unanswered.