Download PDF Washington, DC, : Today, the Brandeis Center announced its next batch of law student events. LDB, a national non-profit legal advocacy organization that works to combat anti-Semitism in higher education, started its law student chapter initiative in early 2014 to train the next generation of lawyers to use their legal tools to combat anti-Semitism, anti-Israelism, and other forms of discrimination, while in law school and in their future legal careers. LDB’s 18 nationwide law student chapters will be hosting the following events over the next few weeks: LDB Attorney Aviva Vogelstein on “Fighting the New Anti-Semitism” Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, September 28, 2016 On Wednesday, September 28, LDB Attorney Aviva Vogelstein will address the LDB Chapter at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law on “Fighting the New Anti-Semitism.” Vogelstein, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (BA ’10) and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (JD ’13) has worked with the Brandeis Center for two years. Her work focuses on combating the resurgence of anti-Semitism on American university campuses through legal and public policy approaches, as well as growing LDB’s Law Student Chapter Initiative, to train the next generation of lawyers to use their legal tools to fight anti-Semitism. LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus, “Making Dollars or Making Change: Big Law, Human Rights, and Becoming a Purposeful Lawyer” University of Virginia, Thursday, September 29, 2016 On Thursday, September 29, LDB President & General Counsel Kenneth L. Marcus (http://brandeiscenter.com/about/fullbio/kenneth_l_marcus ) will address the LDB Law Student Chapter at the University of Virginia (UVA) on the topic of, “Making Dollars or Making Change: Big Law, Human Rights, and Becoming a Purposeful Lawyer.” Marcus will describe his career path and discuss his current work in the area of civil rights law. Marcus is the author of The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford University Press: 2015) and Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America (Cambridge University Press: 2010). Marcus founded the Brandeis Center in 2011 to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism in American higher education. During his public service career, Marcus served as Staff Director at the United States Commission on Civil Rights and was delegated the authority of Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights and Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Shortly before his departure from the Civil Rights Commission, the Wall Street Journal observed that “the Commission has rarely been better managed,” and that it “deserves a medal for good governance.” Before entering public service, Mr. Marcus was a litigation partner in two major law firms, where he conducted complex commercial and constitutional litigation. He has published widely in academic journals as well as in more popular venues such as The Jerusalem Post, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, and The Christian Science Monitor. Mr. Marcus is a graduate of Williams College, magna cum laude, and the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. LDB Litigator Jennie Gross at UC Berkeley UC Berkeley School of Law, September 29, 2016 On Thursday, September 29, LDB Senior Staff Attorney Jennie Gross will address the LDB Law Student Chapter at the University of California at Berkeley on anti-Semitism, civil rights, and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement. Jennie joined LDB earlier this year with ten years of experience litigating in federal courts on behalf of plaintiffs in class actions, mass torts, including the Vioxx litigation, antitrust litigation against Microsoft, and complex litigation against the tobacco industry. Jennie also has strong background in policy analysis, and is the co-author of the textbook Class Actions Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, which has been used to teach complex litigation to law students. More recently, Jennie completed a fellowship in Tobacco Regulatory Science at FDA. Jennie graduated from Emory University (BA, Economics) and the University of Southern California Law Center (JD). She is also a former Doctoral Fellow in public policy at the RAND Corporation. LDB Litigator Jennie Gross at Kent Chicago-Kent College of Law, October 11, 2016 On Tuesday, October 11, LDB Senior Staff Attorney Jennie Gross will address the LDB Law Student Chapter at Chicago-Kent School of Law on anti-Semitism, civil rights, and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement. LDB Litigator Jennie Gross in the Twin Cities University of St. Thomas and University of Minnesota, October 18-19, 2016 LDB Senior Staff Attorney Jennie Gross will also head to the Twin Cities and address the LDB Law Student Chapter at the University of St. Thomas on Tuesday, Oct. 18, and at the University of Minnesota on Wednesday, October 19. Ms. Gross will speak about anti-Semitism, civil rights, and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement. Prof. Amos Guiora, “Complicity of the Bystander in the Holocaust” University of Virginia School of Law, October 24, 2016 On Monday, October 24, the University Virginia LDB law student chapter will host Prof. Amos Guiora, to speak about the complicity of the bystander in the Holocaust. Prof. Guiora, Professor of Law and Co-Director at the Center for Global Justice at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, teaches Criminal Procedure, International Law, Global Perspectives on Counterterrorism and Religion and Terrorism, incorporating innovative scenario-based instruction to address national and international security issues and dilemmas. Eric Fusfield on Global Anti-Semitism, Law, and Policy University of Pennsylvania School of Law, October 26, 2016 On Wednesday, October 26, Eric Fusfield, Deputy Director of the B’nai B’rith Center for Human Rights and Public Policy and Director of Legislative Affairs for B’nai B’rith International. will speak at the University of Pennsylvania School on law on the topic of Global Anti-Semitism, Law, and Policy. Mr. Fusfield is responsible for B’nai B’rith’s policy advocacy and government relations, including formulating and promoting B’nai B’rith’s agenda on Capitol Hill and representing the agency before Congress, the Executive branch, foreign governments, and international organizations, and helps oversee B’nai B’rith’s public policy operations in Washington, New York, Brussels, and its other offices abroad. Prof. Avi Bell on International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict University of St. Thomas School of Law, October 31, 2016 On Monday, October 31, the LDB chapter at University of St. Thomas School of Law will host Professor Abraham Bell, to speak on the topic of “International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” Professor Bell teaches at the University of San Diego School of Law Bar Ilan University, and teaches and writes in the areas of property, copyright, international law, and economic analysis of law. Prof. Bell clerked for Justice Mishael Cheshin of the Supreme Court of Israel and for the High Court of Justice Department within the Israeli State Attorney’s office, and he is a veteran of the Israel Defense Forces. A highly sought-after expert on international law and the Arab-Israeli conflict, he has advised officials on four continents. His published articles on the subject include Palestine, Uti Possidetis Juris and the Borders of Israel (with Eugene Kontorovich); A Critique of the Goldstone Report and its Treatment of International Humanitarian Law; and The Mythical Post-2005 Israeli Occupation of the Gaza Strip (with Dov Shefi).
LDB’s Kenneth L. Marcus joins Chloe Simone Valdary and Stacy Aviva Flint for a symposium on “Building a Hate-Free Campus Through Civil Discourse” sponsored by Oberlin Alums for Campus Fairness
Wednesday, 7-9pm, Harvard Law School On Wednesday evening, September 21, Harvard Law School’s LDB chapter will host a panel on social media incitement. The panel will feature Israeli attorney, human rights activist and the founder of Shurat HaDin Israeli Law Center Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, among others.
Andrew Pessin Algemeiner September 21, 2016 You can’t make this stuff up. Some alumni at Oberlin College are unhappy with the way things are going at their alma mater. Some students at Oberlin are unhappy with the alumni’s meddling. A tempest in a teapot, perhaps, except that the issues are large and also sprouting on many other campuses. It’s about Israel, and the Jews, of course. The Oberlin Student Senate has just issued a striking condemnation of the Oberlin chapter of Alums for Campus Fairness (ACF). It’s not clear precisely what this means — did they pass this by a vote, do they claim to represent the student body on this issue, etc.? — but obviously at least the members of the Senate are upset. Most immediately the Senate is upset about an off-campus symposium that ACF is sponsoring tomorrow night, but in fact its complaints go further back. In the fall of 2015 some Oberlin alumni and students began a private Facebook page, “Obies Against BDS [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions],” an ancestor group to ACF, to discuss not merely the increasing anti-Israel atmosphere on campus but worrisome reports of campus antisemitism. These discussions produced an open letter sent to the Oberlin administration in January 2016. Student leaders from Hillel, Chabad, Oberlin Zionists and J Street U wrote an annoyed response, published in February, complaining that the alumni organizing that open letter had little interest in their (the students’) perspective. Shortly thereafter the big story broke about Oberlin Professor Joy Karega, who had long been filling her public Facebook page with straightforward classic antisemitic rants. The Student Senate is not happy about ACF’s role in that affair either. That’s a lot to untangle, but let’s try by taking a look at the most recent Senate condemnation. First, it was written “in consultation with current and former members of ABUSUA [a Black student organization], Oberlin J Street U and Students for a Free Palestine.” How odd, for several reasons, though I’ll just mention one. A major theme of the complaint is the unwelcome meddling by alumni, but among those making this complaint are “former” members of these groups — presumably alumni. So apparently some alumni are permitted to share their perspectives on campus matters — as long as they agree with the students? The Senate complains that Oberlin alumni have “driven a narrative of rampant antisemitism at Oberlin.” There is something disingenuous here. The alumni aren’t alone in their concern about the antisemitism at Oberlin. The January open letter included the signatures of at least twenty current Oberlin students plus quite a few very recent alumni, and reported several antisemitic campus incidents. I have myself seen lists of quite a few more. And the fact that Karega was openly doing her thing with nobody protesting, not to mention that so many campus members defended Karega after she was exposed, suggests that perhaps ACF is right to be concerned about Oberlin. The complaint continues to say that ACF has “blatantly disregarded students’ well-being and perspectives in order to push their chosen narrative.” I’m not sure, but it sounds like these students feel a little unwell when their perspectives are challenged. And that is precisely the point here: perhaps ACF is bringing alternative perspectives to that campus, about Israel and about the acceptability of certain views and behaviors with respect to Jews. But that is what a liberal arts education is supposed to do, to confront you with a diversity of perspectives (including challenges to your own perspective) as you find your way toward truth. The Senate writes that the ACF’s open letter in January rejected the perspective on Israel of student leaders of Jewish organizations. What perspective was that? In their February letter, these annoyed student leaders explained: We asked for language which included a call to end settlement expansion and other obstacles to lasting peace and a two-state solution. We all agreed that working to end the occupation and achieve a two-state resolution is vital for the future of a Jewish and democratic Israel. Fair enough. They are entitled to that view. But is it any wonder that a group dedicated to opposing the lies of the BDS movement and specifically to battling the antisemitic consequences of BDS activism for campus Jews might not want to include such language? Indeed, if the student leaders of Hillel, Chabad, and even the campus Zionists all place the blame for the lack of peace entirely on Israel — they make no reference to Palestinian intransigence, incitement, and violence, for example — then no wonder some alumni are worried that the student perspective has become so poisoned on that campus. (And not just alumni, again: there were at least twenty current students who feel that their perspective is suppressed on campus.) The Senate then provides a quite unclear complaint about ACF “changing narratives” over the course of several months: the ACF’s initial open letter didn’t mention antisemitic Facebook posts by professors; then ACF helped break the Karega story, and suddenly the “antisemitic narrative” included those rants front and center. But — of course. There was antisemitism before the Karega story; then there was more, with the Karega story. The Karega story confirms the problem; it epitomizes the problem. Of course it would, and should, become a primary focus, at least for a time. In fact the only downside to all the attention paid to Karega is that it might distract from the larger campus issues that helped make a Karega possible in the first place. Indeed, I surmise that it is partly to avoid precisely that outcome that ACF has put together its symposium for tomorrow — because the underlying institutional problems remain. Consider the fact that Oberlin hosted a two-day Social Justice Institute for incoming first-year students earlier this month. The public description stated that it would “explore issues of privilege and oppression, classism, heterosexism, racism and sexism.” No reference to dealing specifically with antisemitism, despite the events of the preceding semester. I wrote to the administration to inquire if they would address antisemitism and how, and was told that the details of the program were private. But why should they be so secretive about this? Is that what we expect in a liberal arts environment, not transparency and openness but secret cabals? And why wouldn’t they explicitly address antisemitism? When I learned that ACF was sponsoring their own symposium I thought, “Bravo! If the school won’t address the issue then let someone else address it.” And they could not have put together a more impressive program: renowned legal thinker Kenneth Marcus speaking about “Civil Rights and the Jewish Experience,” charismatic non-Jewish activist Chloe Valdary speaking on “Courage and Self-Respect in an Era of Antisemitism” and student activist Stacey Aviva Flint speaking on “Building Bridges: The Interstitiality of Jews of Color.” What a terrific learning opportunity! Students should welcome hearing this perspective, these perspectives, if only because they are, apparently, perspectives not adequately represented on that campus. But no: “Student Senate does not support the content or approach to this conversation.” They don’t support the content? Did they really say that? Note, the symposium is not about Israel. It’s about being Jewish. About the Jewish experience with the civil rights movement, and about promoting civil rights for Jews. Are they opposed to that? It’s about Jews having “courage and self-respect.” Are they opposed to that? It’s about the relationship between being Jewish and being a person of color. Recall that one of the groups “consulted” for the Senate letter was ABUSUA, a Black student organization. One wonders why it would be so invested in this issue of how Jews are treated on campus — until one notes that both Chloe Valdary and Stacey Aviva Flint are African-American, the latter also Jewish. What exactly is ABUSUA opposed to here? Is it unacceptable to them that an African-American might be proudly Jewish? Are the Students for a Free Palestine and J Street also opposed to that? (Wouldn’t that be a little — you know — racist?) Are they worried that these speakers may undermine their cherished narrative that “Jews are white” and “Palestinians are people of color”? Or are they all simply opposed to the idea that an African-American might support Israel? As for the “approach,” just what is the problem? That Oberlin alumni have chosen to remain engaged with their alma mater and sponsored a learning opportunity to expose interested students to perspectives not currently well represented on campus? To the contrary: would that more alumni remain engaged, and that students open themselves to the possibility that they might learn something from such a symposium. They should be thanking these alumni, not condemning them. But instead the Oberlin Student Senate describes a symposium entitled “Building A Hate-Free Campus Through Civil Discourse” as “a clear representation of [the alumni’s] flagrant disregard for students’ interests.” Is the Senate not interested in building a hate-free campus through civil discourse? (Or are they merely opposed to building a campus free of hate for Jews?) They complain that “student organizations were not involved in the planning or promotion of this symposium.” Student organizations are not significantly involved in most matters of the curriculum either, from the hiring of professors to the designing of syllabi and curricula, to the sponsoring of many lectures, performances, etc. So what? Have they not considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, people other than themselves might have something to offer them? Or even that people from outside the College — in particular those heavily invested in it, as alumni — might offer a perspective that is invisible to them, but worth at least contemplating? What the Oberlin Student Senate wants, apparently, is to call the shots — for students to decide for themselves what they learn, and to reject the injection into their campus of any perspectives they have already decided are not welcome. So much for the liberal arts education. The Senate writes that “these alumni have tirelessly campaigned to create a false image of Oberlin, damage the value of an Oberlin education …” Regrettably, the very letter in which the Senate makes this complaint demonstrates precisely why the Oberlin ACF is so necessary and must be commended for its efforts. That the Student Senate would passionately condemn this symposium and the conversations it should inspire tells you that it is they, not the alumni, who have damaged the value of the Oberlin education. Original Article
Download PDF Washington, D.C: Brandeis Center’s Kenneth L. Marcus will speak at a symposium at Oberlin College on Thursday, September 22, on “Building a Hate-Free Campus Through Civil Discourse.” Marcus will be joined by Stacey Aviva Flint and Chloe Simone Valdary. The Brandeis Center (www.brandeiscenter.com) is a national non-profit, civil rights legal advocacy organization, best known for work fighting anti-Semitism in higher education. President Marcus will discuss “Civil Rights and the Jewish Experience.” “I’m pleased to be speaking at a symposium that addresses such important issues of our generation, on a campus that has recently been a lot of problematic activity,” Marcus said. Oberlin College, a private liberal arts school in Oberlin, Ohio, has dealt with significant anti-Semitism allegations over the past year. Initially, Oberlin came under much scrutiny when Oberlin professor Joy Karega’s controversial social media posts were revealed. Recently, the College announced that Karega will be on academic leave and not teaching this Fall, as the school investigates. Marcus will be joined by Chloe Simone Valdary, an influential figure for Pro-Israel activism among the college generation as well as having a visible presence through outlets like Prager U, Jerusalem U, The Wallstreet Journal, The Times of Israel, and more, who will discuss “Courage and Self-Respect in an Era of Anti-Semitism,” and Stacy Aviva Flint, an active member of the African-American Jewish community, who will speak on “Building Bridges: The Intersectionality of Jews of Color.” Flint has spoken on matters pertaining to the Black Lives Matter position on Israel and continues to be an important figure in both communities. The event, sponsored by Oberlin Alums for Campus Fairness, will take place at The Local (23 S. Main Street, Oberlin) from 6:30-9pm. RSVP to Obiesymposium@gmail.com. More info on the attached flyer.
Download PDF Washington DC – The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights under Law (LDB) is pleased to welcome their newest member, Kailee Jordan, who will be joining the LDB team as a Communications and Development Intern. LDB is a national non-profit, civil rights legal advocacy organization, best known for its work fighting anti-Semitism in higher education. Kailee graduated with a Bachelors Degree in Sociology from San Francisco State University. She completed part of her undergraduate degree studying abroad in Israel for a year. Part of Kailee’s work at San Francisco State included serving as a fellow with CAMERA, [The Center of Accuracy for Middle East Reporting in America] where she was a media activist for bias against Israel as well as a visible activist on campus. Kailee has written articles pertaining to anti-Israel activity on campus. LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus welcomed Kailee, commenting, “we look forward to her contributions and passion for our work and are honored Kailee is here to be a part of our battle against anti-Semitism and various other instances of injustice. Kailee’s addition brings a wide range of unique experiences and skills to the organization and will assist LDB as it continues its mission to combat campus anti- Semitism.” Kailee joins fellow interns Michelle Yabes, who has been with LDB since Fall 2015, and Daniela Hovsha, was has been with LDB since July 2015.
In Berlin, Germany, LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus will address anti-Semitism in the BDS movement at 7:30 p.m. on September 16, 2016, in in der Amadeu Antonio Stiftung, Novalisstraße 12, 10115 Berlin. Donnerstag, 16. September 2016 um 19.30 Uhr Einlass und Registrierung ab 19.00 Uhr in der Amadeu Antonio Stiftung, Novalisstraße 12, 10115 Berlin Anmeldung (erforderlich) unter: https://bata.typeform.com/to/q8tyjd
Please join UK Lawyers for Israel at an 8:30 a.m. breakfast event with Kenneth L. Marcus, President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and author of The Definition of Anti-Semitism in London. (venue TBC) To register your interest, please contact Caroline Kendal at caroline.kendal@uklfi.com.
Download PDF Earlier this month, San Francisco State University released a 24-page investigative report, compiled by the Van Dermyden Maddux Law Corporation, detailing the disruption by anti-Israel student activists of an April 6, 2016, event featuring Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. This morning, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) expressed concern that the San Francisco State response demonstrates a lack of understanding about anti-Semitism on SFSU’s campus – and an apparent unwillingness to address it. LDB President & General Counsel Kenneth L. Marcus said, “San Francisco State needs to take anti-Semitism, including anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism, as seriously as it takes the other issues described in the Van Dermyden report. It would be terrible for San Francisco State, in its response to the Nir Barkat incident, to fail to do anything whatsoever to improve the climate for Jewish students – and yet that is precisely what is implied by the university’s response, since there is nothing at all in there about what they will do to address anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism. Extraordinarily, it appears as if they have missed this issue altogether – even though it is staring them right in the face. This report does nothing to address the concerns of those Jewish San Francisco State students who fear for their safety.” Marcus continued, “To give praise where praise is due, we need to recognize the San Francisco State University administration for publicly acknowledging its complete failure at handling this disruption. This was a breakdown of colossal proportions, and President Les Wong deserves acknowledgement for having the courage to recognize this. However, we also need to recognize that this report fails to address the current problem of anti-Semitism on SFSU’s campus and does nothing to require SFSU administration to support the Jewish community or to address misconduct by the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS).” The facts are as follows: on April 6, 2016, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat was scheduled to speak at San Francisco State University. At the event, dozens of anti-Israel protestors from GUPS and affiliated groups gathered and disrupted Mayor Barkat’s speech with loud chants, and using amplified sound, of “Intifada! Intifada! Long Live the Intifada!” [a term long associated with violence against Jewish Israelis, and especially troubling in the context of recent attacks on Jewish civilians in Israel], “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free!” [a chant calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel], “You are not welcome on our campus,” and “Get the f*** off our campus!,” among other hateful things. The Mayor was not able to conduct his speech as planned. Instead, a small group of students interested in hearing him huddled closely around him. Several Jewish students were crying, and others left because they felt unsafe. The chanting lasting for over 45 minutes, while the law enforcement officers in attendance stood by doing nothing. Marcus commented, “Significantly, neither the Van Dermyden report, nor President Wong’s statement, acknowledge that these chants reflect an eliminationist form of anti-Zionism. They miss the issue altogether.” Following this extraordinary disruption, San Francisco State University received numerous letters, complaints, and negative media attention. SFSU retained an outside group, the Van Dermyden Maddux Law Corporation, to conduct an “independent investigation” into the events surrounding this April 6, 2016 disruption. Their findings were summarized in an “Independent Review Regarding April Event” report. The report had six primary findings: (1) There Was Not Enough Lead Time To Properly Plan The Event And Key Pre‐Event Planning Did Not Occur [according to the report, the event was organized on or around March 28, 2016, which gave the organizers and the administration less than two weeks to prepare]; (2) The Protestors Disrupted The Event; (3) Student Affairs’ Inaction Impliedly Sanctioned The Protest; (4) There Was No Credible Threat To Public Safety; (5) The Actions Were Directed Towards The Mayor, Not The Audience; (6) Student Affairs Did Not Follow Clear Processes In The Aftermath Of The Event. The report also gave guidance for moving forward. The report accurately found that the protestors disrupted the event, that San Francisco State University’s Office of Student Affairs’ inaction impliedly sanctioned the protest, and that the Offices of Student Affairs and Student Conduct did not follow clear processes in the aftermath of the event. The report noted that “n the end, the process they chose to use was not implemented correctly. . . . Student Affairs, including the Student Conduct Office, failed to acknowledge or respond to three student complaints that were filed shortly after the Event.” However, as LDB President Marcus explained, “Despite certain accurate findings, the report has major flaws. In neither the findings nor the recommendations for moving forward did the investigators mention the root cause of this disruption was anti-Semitism, or that SFSU administrators need to address anti-Semitism on SFSU’s campus.” President Les Wong, in his accompanying statement, did not address anti-Semitism, either. Instead of addressing anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism in a constructive manner, the report describes an environment in which anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism are viewed as acceptable as long as they do not directly target students. For example, the report cited a student who said: “I have no problems with the students on campus. They are peers to me. I do not talk to them, I do not make eye contact. We make it a thing to not talk to an Israeli student …” LDB’s President Marcus commented, “For the Report to acknowledge that students of Israeli national origin are deliberately shunned in this manner, and to find nothing wrong with that, demonstrates an unacceptable acceptance of prejudice. I don’t know what is worse: that SFSU students are behaving like this or that SFSU’s administration is okay with it.” Additionally, of the many outside groups that reached out to San Francisco State University for guidance and assistance, only a staff attorney from Palestine Legal, an anti-Israel legal advocacy organization was interviewed in the report. This staff attorney gave biased and distorted explanations to the students’ anti-Semitic chants, saying that, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” means: “I want dignity and justice through the region. People call it a one state solution. It is the end of Israel in its current formation. That is not a call for Jews to be pushed into the sea, it is a vision of freedom for all people who live there.” This explanation runs counter to the common interpretation of this phrase – backed by leaders of the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and leaders of the terrorist organization Hamas – which is that it is a call for Israel’s destruction. The report also said that she “explained the meaning of ‘intifada’ from the Palestinian viewpoint: …an Arabic word translated as struggle or shaking off. Saying we are going to resist and work against our historical experience of having our land stolen and having to live under military rule. It has meant violent resistance. It means resist and protest. The staff attorney asserted that the Palestinian activist students do not know how the term “intifada” is interpreted by the Zionist community, although they have since learned because of this process. She commented, ‘This campus is where you learn.’” While the literal Arabic translation of Intifada is “uprising,” the three periods of Palestinian Intifadas have unfortunately come to mean violent terror attacks within Israel, leading to the deaths of hundreds of innocents. The Palestine Legal attorney is admitting here that intifada is a call for violence. Her explanation that Palestinian activist students do not how “intifada” is interpreted is incredibly hard to believe. The report also noted that “[t]he protesting students and other witnesses pointed out that the campus has a history of emotional protests, and that amplified sound is often used in a manner that was arguably also a violation of this same policy, yet without any ramifications to the offenders.” However, the administration and law enforcement’s improper enforcement of school policy in the past should not be a defense for this disruption being acceptable. This plays into the overall theme of complete administrative failure in the organizing of and carrying out of the event. SFSU has a long history of controversial events. In 2013, a GUPS student leader posted a photo of himself holding a knife on social media with the caption, “I seriously cannot get over how much I love this blade. It is the sharpest thing I own and cuts through everything like butter and just holding it makes me want to stab an Israeli soldier.” In 2014, LDB, the AMCHA Initiative, and six other organizations wrote a letter to SFSU demanding an investigation into the misuse of taxpayer funds in a SFSU professor’s trip to the Middle East to meet with persons affiliated with terrorist organizations. In addition to the report, SFSU’s Office of the Vice President & Title IX Coordinator issued a list of “Immediate & Short-Term Responses” to the incidents at the Mayor Nir Barkat event. Some of the current and future responses do have potential to make change on campus. For example, the current Student Organization Conduct Policy underwent minor cosmetic changes in Summer 2016, and SFSU has pledged for it to undergo a full review and overhaul during the 2016-17 academic year. “SFSU’s pledged policy changes are certainly a step in the right direction,” commented LDB President Marcus, “but SFSU’s administration must acknowledge the damage that this disruption caused for Jewish students on SFSU’s campus, and acknowledge the anti-Semitic aspects of the disruption in order to more appropriately address and prevent anti-Semitism on campus in the future.” Marcus commented, “Rather than ignoring the issues of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism, San Francisco State should tackle them head-on. The Regents of the University of California provided an instructive example earlier this year of how a university system can seriously study and address the problem of campus anti-Semitism. At a minimum, the leadership of the California State system should study their example.” Marcus concluded, “The fact is that nothing in the new report even addresses the core problem at SFSU, which is the aggressive, disruptive, emergence of extreme anti-Israel activists who are not only silencing pro-Israel speech but also intimidating Jewish students.”
The Tower September 6, 2016 Following a string of scandals that erupted after The Tower reported that an Oberlin College professor had posted anti-Semitic material on Facebook, Marvin Krislov announced Tuesday that he is stepping down as president of the private liberal arts school at the end of the 2017 academic year. The Tower reported in February that Joy Karega, an assistant professor of Rhetoric and Composition, called the Islamic State “a CIA and Mossad operation,” endorsed claims that “Israeli and Zionist Jews” were behind the 9/11 attacks, and accused Jewish banker Jacob Rothschild of controlling “your news, the media, your oil, and your government.” Despite national coverage and outrage, Krislov’s first response to the postings was hesitant, writing a day after the news broke that “Oberlin College respects the rights of its faculty, students, staff and alumni to express their personal views.” A second statement released by Krislov the following week distanced the school from Karega’s comments, but did not explicitly condemn them. The university’s failure to denounce Karega’s views was criticized by Kenneth Marcus, the founder and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. “This is really outrageous conduct by the professor, and the university should address it promptly, effectively, and consistent with all of the university’s own internal policies,” he told The Tower at the time. “The question is not whether the professor is free to say outrageous things or to post hateful materials but whether the university will meet its obligation to address the resulting harm to the students.” Seth Frantzman, the op-ed editor of The Jerusalem Post, similarly wrote, “Propagating anti-Semitism on social media is public. You can’t expect an African-American student to take a class from a professor who proudly posts about the greatness of the KKK, and you can’t expect students to accept a professor who shares claims the Rothschilds are behind AIDs and downing airliners.” In contrast to Krislov, Oberlin College Board of Trustees chair Clyde McGregor unequivocally condemned Karega’s comments as “anti-Semitic and abhorrent” in a statement released a week after they came to light, and asked the school to “challenge the assertion that there is any justification for these repugnant postings.” In April, Melissa Landa, president of the Oberlin chapter of Alums for Campus Fairness, issued a statement charging that the “persistent hostile campus atmosphere” had been reported by Jewish students several months earlier, but the college’s administration had taken no action. Landa called on the administration to acknowledge the seriousness of the anti-Semitism on campus, and address it effectively in order to restore Oberlin’s “legacy of academic rigor and social justice.” About the same time, Emily Shire of The Daily Beast quoted a group of Jewish Oberlin students who identified as “not anti-Zionist” and said they “feel increasingly threatened, censored, and silenced by their peers and the Oberlin community who are impatient and dismissive of complaints of anti-Semitism.” Shire observed that Oberlin, “a standout even among the safe space’-friendly environs of small liberal arts colleges,” has a “big exception: Jews and especially those who voice (even mildly) favorable views of Israel.” Last month, Karega was put on paid leave and barred from campus while the university reviewed her case. In its statement announcing Krislov’s resignation, who became the college’s president in 2007, Oberlin credited him with leading “efforts to make Oberlin more diverse, inclusive, and accessible to students from every socioeconomic background” and with completing a seven-year campaign that exceeded its fundraising goals. In addition to his duties as president, Krislov taught a politics course every semester during his tenure. “Marvin has always embraced Oberlin’s students and its great tradition of transformational teaching, research, scholarship and mentoring,” McGregor, the head of Oberlin’s Board of Trustees, said after Krislov’s announcement. “I deeply appreciate his unwavering leadership and vision through good times and difficult times. His many contributions will benefit generations to come.” Plans to choose a new president will be announced “in the coming weeks” by the Board of Trustees, the university said. Original Article