On October 27, the Brandeis Center hosted a Capitol Hill briefing on the rise of anti-Semitism in America after Hamas’ deadly October 7th attack on Israel, and the dire need for universal adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. U.S. Representative and Co-Chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism Brian Fitzpatrick served as the event’s honorary host. Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus delivered opening remarks, while Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin moderated a panel discussion with Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center Director Mark Goldfeder, Director of StandWithUs Center for Combatting Antisemitism Carly F. Gammill, and B’nai B’rith International Director of Legislative Affairs Rabbi Eric Fusfield. Speakers discussed the consensus surrounding the exclusive adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and the rejection of all watered-down substitutes. The IHRA working definition provides examples of how anti-Zionism is used as a cover for anti-Semitism, including holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel or drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Representing their respective major Jewish organizations, speakers also provided Capitol Hill staffers with examples of anti-Semitic incidents occurring across the country, with most being reported by Jewish university students. These incidents included physical, verbal, and online harassment. “Without the IHRA working definition, anti-Semites will continue to get away with their bigotry and discrimination, masking it as anti-Zionism or political speech,” said Brandeis Center Director of Policy Education Emma Enig. “I can guarantee that those supporting Hamas and chanting ‘resistance by any means necessary’ do not just have a bone to pick with the State of Israel. They are calling for the genocide of innocent Jewish civilians, in Israel and abroad. That’s anti-Semitism, plain and simple.” FBI Director Christopher Wray has warned that anti-Semitism in America is reaching “historic levels.” Since October 7th, countless anti-Semitic incidents have been reported on college campuses. A student from Cornell was arrested for making anti-Semitic rape and death threats against Jewish students on campus. Jewish students at Columbia University have reported death threats and swastika graffiti. Jewish students at Cooper Union in New York City were forced to seek refuge in a library as pro-Palestinian demonstrators banged on the walls of the building. At a pro-Palestinian protest near Tulane University, at least two Jewish students were physically assaulted. The White House has acknowledged the rise in anti-Semitism on college campuses, including directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to work with state and local law enforcement and reach out to provide support directly to college campuses.
In honor of Jewish American Heritage Month, which is celebrated during the month of May, Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus and President Alyza D. Lewin addressed a Congressional breakfast on Thursday, April 27th, sponsored by Combat Anti-Semitism Movement (CAM). The bipartisan event sought to highlight the accomplishments of the American Jewish community while also bringing attention to a rise in anti-Semitism across the country. National leaders came together to discuss security threats against the Jewish community, interfaith relations, campus anti-Semitism, and implementation of the IHRA Working Definition. . In a panel titled “Understanding Threats to Jewish-American Life: Challenges of Antisemitism Today,” Lewin spoke about the challenges the younger generation of Jewish Americans currently face. She explained how contemporary anti-Semitism has become pervasive on American university campuses, targeting Jewish students who have received little support from administrators. While university administrators can usually identify classic, traditional acts of anti-Semitism – such as swastikas being carved into Hillel buildings and mezuzahs being ripped down in dorm halls – they are unable to identify a more modern, insidious form of anti-Semitism which frequently manifests itself as anti-Zionism. University leaders mistakenly view anti-Zionism as a political issue that warrants no intervention. Unfortunately, Jewish students face civil rights abuses, as they are forced to hide their identity and stay silent or else face social and academic ramifications on campus. Lewin cited recent examples of students being penalized for their Jewish heritage: exclusion from a sexual assault support group at SUNY New Paltz, efforts to impeach a Zionist student body vice-president at USC, and passage of discriminatory bylaws by Berkeley Law School. . Lewin explained how anti-Semitism has morphed over the years, necessitating immediate education for campus leaders. Without an understanding of how Israel is an integral part of a Jewish American’s ethnic, ancestral, cultural, and religious identity, those who are supposed to protect and promote students’ civil rights are left in the dark. Lewin stated, “What we really want is to make sure that Jews in America and around the world are able to celebrate our ancestral and ethnic heritage – freely and with pride. We should be able to fully engage in society without having to hide who we are.” . In a panel titled “Implementing the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism: The Mainstream Tool to Combat Contemporary Antisemitism,” Marcus highlighted the benefits of having an internationally recognized, gold-standard definition of anti-Semitism. The IHRA Working Definition is the only internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism, adopted by over 40 counties and by both Republican and Democrat administrations in the United States. Marcus cited the significant historical expertise that went into creating the Definition and the importance of being able to compare data across multiple jurisdictions. Having constancy, he explained, is crucial in the fight against Jew-hatred on both sides of the political spectrum. . While the debate around IHRA adoption continues, Marcus pointed out that many institutions are already legally responsible for addressing certain anti-Semitic incidents as defined by IHRA under E.O. 13899. E.O. 13899 ensures the robust enforcement of Title VI by mandating all executive departments and agencies to consider the IHRA Working Definition and its “Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism.” For example, the IHRA Definition must be used as a means of evaluating alleged anti-Semitic conduct on university campuses. By using clear, plain language that any leader, political or academic, can follow, anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish Americans can be identified and remedied. Marcus said, “Where there’s a question of identifying what is and what is not anti-Semitism, there is no substitute for IHRA.” . Marcus pointed out that in an era where American Jews should be celebrating their accomplishments in the United States Capitol, countless community leaders, organizations, and Congress members are forced instead to speak on the pressing issue of rising anti-Semitism. With May being Jewish American Heritage Month, the Brandeis Center commends the Counter Anti-Semitism Movement’s bipartisan efforts to defeat anti-Semitism. . Congressional speakers included Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX), Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA), Rep. Tom Keane (R-NJ), Rep. Tracey Mann (R-KS), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL) and Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY). Other speakers included Former US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Elan Carr, CEO of B’nai B’rith International Dan Mariaschin, and Very Rev. Dr. Mark M. Morozowich. . To watch Lewin’s full remarks, click here. To watch Marcus’ full remarks, click here.
A recent essay by Josh Halpern and Lavi Ben Dor has provided a much needed analysis of the historical and constitutional basis for “anti-BDS laws.” Boycotts: A First Amendment History provides insight into the long-held tradition of government compulsion or prohibition of economic boycotts. They conclude that modern anti-boycott laws are constitutional, enjoy wide historical and bipartisan support, and improve upon historical precedent. . In response to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (“BDS”) movement against Israel, the majority of U.S. states have passed anti-BDS laws, which require recipients of public contracts and state investments not to join these discriminatory boycotts. The language and purpose of these anti-boycott laws focus solely on the act of boycotting, while not affecting a recipient’s First Amendment right to free speech. The question for lawyers and free speech advocates becomes whether or not boycotting is a legally protected expression under the First Amendment, or whether it is a form of economic discrimination that can be regulated by the government. . Halpern and Ben Dor find that boycotts have been subjected to “aggressive governmental control” since the early days of this country. Colonists that refused to boycott British goods were subject to trial, civil forfeiture, and criminal punishment. After the Founding, Americans were compelled to boycott foreign merchants and “Buy American” instead. At common law, American courts consistently held boycotters liable under civil and criminal conspiracy laws when they “unjustifiably” interfered in a third party’s business enterprise. Judges employed an ad hoc balancing test to determine whether a boycott was economically and socially “justified.” . Boycott regulation continued into the second half of the twentieth century, with governments pushing private companies into compliance with the boycott of apartheid-era South Africa. At the same time, they were using regulations to deter companies from participating in the Arab League boycott of Israel. Instead of the mandates and injunctions used by their predecessors, modern state governments now utilized contracts and tax benefits to promote their “preferred boycott policy.” Throughout this time, there was no charge of First Amendment violations, and governments at all levels touted their authority to implement boycott-related laws. . Starting in the 1970s, both federal and state governments compelled individuals and companies to participate in an economic boycott of apartheid-era South Africa. By 1990, the majority of states had “taken some form of binding economic action … by divesting public funds from companies that did business with South Africa or by conditioning public contracts on a company’s commitment not to do so.” States required contract recipients to certify their compliance with the state’s boycott laws. The federal government, too, promoted the boycott through the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 and the Rangel Amendment to the budget Reconciliation Act in 1987, which imposed import bans and tax penalties on those doing business with South Africa. . During this time, state and federal governments implemented deterrence policies against those adhering to the Arab League’s boycott of Israel, which was widely held to be discriminatory and anti-Semitic in nature. The federal government imposed civil and criminal penalties and assessed tax penalties. In 1975, President Ford directed the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations that prohibited companies from “complying in any way with the [discriminatory] boycott requests. Bipartisan congressional efforts led to the Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976, which implemented tax penalties against those who “participate[] in or cooperate[] with” the Arab League’s Boycott. The bipartisan Export Administration Amendments of 1977 directed President Carter to “direct the President to issue regulations prohibiting ‘any United States person … from taking or knowingly agreeing to’ a boycott, ‘with intent to comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States.’” Additionally, state and local governments withheld public contracts and investments from those who would not comply with anti-boycott measures. By the early 1980s, 13 states had enacted anti-boycott measures of varying degrees. These boycott regulations stemmed from the widespread understanding that the government has full authority to regulate economic boycotts, since it is “not an inherently protected medium of expression.” . This tradition of boycott regulation continues to this day, along with the government’s decision to support or deter participation in certain economic boycotts. Halpern and Ben Dor find that “consistent with centuries of American legal history, the officials who advance these boycott policies conceive of the boycott as regulable economic conduct well outside the heartland of First Amendment expression or association.” . Today, the government continues to compel compliance with boycotts they endorse, such as boycotting Russia over the country’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In April, President Biden declared that it is illegal for U.S. citizens to make new investments in the Russian Federation. Multiple states have enacted boycott regulations, declaring that they will not provide state contracts or investments to companies that refuse to boycott the Russian Federation. States like New York have mandated that state contract bidders provide certifications regarding their Russia-related operations. New Jersey‘s governor issued a mandatory review of all state contracts with businesses that have some affiliation with the Russian government, which is “consistent with states’ ‘long history of leveraging [their] economic power,’ through mandatory boycott and divestment laws, ‘to further the[ir] values [and interests] throughout the world.’” This recent regulatory activity confirms that boycotts are regulable conduct, since “no federal court has ever sustained a First Amendment challenge to sanctions regimes like these. . The government also continues to deter participation in boycotts they oppose, such as the BDS movement against Israel. Currently, 35 states have enacted anti-boycott legislation related to BDS. Halpern and Ben Dor conclude that the anti-boycott laws do not violate the First Amendment, because “they are regulating disfavorable economic conduct, and do not target protected speech or association.” The authors argue that while a boycotter might be hindered in their “methods and objectives,” anti-boycott laws “do not silence dissent or political debate on that subject.” In other words, the anti-boycott laws only target conduct by requiring companies to certify that they will not engage in a boycott of Israel. They are still able to express themselves and engage in their First Amendment rights through other mediums. . Halpern and Ben Dor also conclude that “today’s anti-boycott laws are not merely consistent with past practice; they actually reflect a constitutional improvement over the regimes of old.” Indeed, modern anti-boycott laws are more precise and targeted, and consequences for noncompliance are less severe than those implemented in the early days of America. Those who violate an anti-BDS law “are not fined or otherwise subject to legal sanction, but merely lose their access to certain privileges like state contracts or investments.” . By providing the first historical breakdown and analysis of anti-boycott laws, the authors have solved an issue that many in the legal field have grappled with in recent years. The Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware led scholars to ask an important question: is boycotting an expressive behavior protected under the First Amendment or an economic behavior subjected to government control? Modern anti-boycott laws solve this issue, by making it clear that boycott regulation only affects the act of boycotting and not any expressive activities that a boycotter may want to engage in. As a result, if someone wants to both picket and boycott a company over a perceived disagreement, the laws permit them to picket but may forbid them from boycotting, compel them to do so, or take no position, depending on underlying state policy. This is consistent with America’s legal tradition, which has consistently treated the act of boycotting as conduct, not as expression protected under the First Amendment. . The authors’ findings confirm that (1) boycotts may be regulated as any other form of economic discrimination, (2) modern anti-BDS laws have broad historical and constitutional support, and (3) modern anti-boycott laws improve upon their historical predecessors. La réglementation juridique des boycotts est essentielle, en particulier dans des secteurs tels que les casinos en ligne, car les casinos mobiles, comme ici : https://topcasinosuisse.com/mobile/, qui offrent un large éventail de jeux d’argent, ont connu un regain de popularité. Toutefois, ce secteur en plein essor n’est pas exempt de controverses. Le concept de boycott de certains casinos ou établissements de jeu a pris de l’ampleur parmi certains groupes militant pour diverses raisons, telles que des préoccupations concernant les pratiques éthiques, la prévention de la dépendance ou le traitement équitable des clients. La mise en œuvre de réglementations légales concernant les boycotts dans l’industrie des casinos en ligne peut fournir un cadre structuré pour répondre à ces préoccupations. En établissant des lignes directrices claires, les autorités peuvent s’assurer que les boycotts sont menés dans le respect de la loi, ce qui permet d’éviter toute utilisation abusive de cette pratique. En outre, la surveillance juridique peut favoriser la transparence et la responsabilité des exploitants de casinos et des partisans des boycotts.
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons On May 15th, 85 organizations, including the Louis D. Brandeis Center, signed a letter organized by the AMCHA Initiative that commended University of Michigan’s adoption of a Blue Ribbon Panel report, which stated that faculty should base decisions, such as letters of recommendations and other academic judgments, “solely on educational and professional reasons.” This panel was established by the University after professor Cheney-Lippold refused to write a letter of recommendation for a student who was planning on studying abroad in Israel. The goal of the panel was to investigate the question, “What ought to be the intersection between political thought/ideology and a faculty member’s responsibility to students?” The panel’s recommendations center around the belief that: “… As faculty members make judgments and act in their role as teachers, they must do so based solely on educational and professional reasons. The recommendation honors the dual rights and responsibilities of faculty members––their fundamental rights to academic freedom as scholars and their concomitant responsibilities as teachers employed by an educational institution.” Additionally, the report recommends “a supplemental governing principle regarding the need for a clear process for students or other faculty to bring concerns safely to the attention of the unit in which the faculty member teaches.” Finally, since the goal of the report is to “safeguard the integrity of the academic enterprise, these principles must also apply to the university’s practices and decisions.” The letter, addressed to University of Michigan (UM) President Schlissel and Provost Philbert, applauded the “adoption of this core statement of principles and your commitment to establishing explicit procedures for bringing forward concerns about faculty who violate it will make a significant and positive difference for the entire UM community.” AMCHA Initiative also said, “This is a precedent-setting report that we hope will influence school administrators on other campuses where faculty are brazenly attempting to implement an academic boycott of Israel and limit their students’ opportunities.” While the report was not specific to Israel-related incidents, students are experiencing an increase in backlash for their pro-Israel sentiment on college campuses. Professor Cheney-Lippold was acting in compliance with an academic boycott of Israel when he refused to write a letter of recommendation once he realized they intended to study in Israel. As the letter said, “Faculty who use their academic positions to implement an academic boycott of Israel, or to engage in any other type of ideologically-driven behavior, are impeding the educational rights of their students, blocking access to a body of knowledge critical for understanding a complex topic of global importance, and are in direct violation of UM’s new core statement of principles.”
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons On April 29th, the State of Florida’s Senate unanimously passed an “Act relating to anti-Semitism.” This bill will ensure that schools address anti-Semitic behavior in the same manner as other forms of discrimination, while also defining anti-Semitism. The passage of the bill comes just a couple days after the horrific attack at Chabad of Poway, where a gunman left one dead and wounded three others (including a child) on the last day of Passover. In addition to defining the term “anti-Semitism,” the goal of the bill is “prohibiting discrimination in the Florida K-20 public education system based on religion” and “requiring a public K-20 educational institution to take into consideration anti-Semitism under certain instances of discrimination.” The bill will help ensure that Jewish students in Florida’s public schools and universities are protected from discrimination. The bill includes examples of anti-Semitism, such as: Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews, often 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 a collective, 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, the State of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. Accusing Jews as a people or the State of Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. Additionally, the bill includes examples of anti-Semitism that are specifically related to Israel:. Demonizing Israel by using 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, or blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions. Applying a double standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on Israel. Delegitimatizing Israel by denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and denying Israel the right to exits. These examples follow the worldwide “gold standard” definition of anti-Semitism, and one used by the U.S. Department of State. The bill also clarifies that legitimate criticism of Israel will not be considered anti-Semitic. While the bill has passed both the House and Senate, it will now go to Governor Ron DeSantis to sign into law. Florida would follow South Carolina, who officially adopted a definition of anti-Semitism into law in 2018 in their budget. Bipartisan legislation, such as the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (AAA) has also been introduced federally in order to tackle the rise in anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses.
Re-posted from the The Emory Wheel, 4/17/19 By Sydney Kaplan, Jordan Weber and Justin Kanoff Earlier this month was Emory Students for Justice in Palestine’s (ESJP) Israeli Apartheid Week, and the Wheel published an op-ed discussing an event that occurred on campus that troubled members of our campus community. For unfamiliar readers, several students awoke on April 2 to find flyers posted to their apartment and dorm room doors that, at first glance, warned of eviction from their residences. These flyers, however, were not eviction notices but rather flyers promoting the Palestinian rights movement by analogizing the evictions of Palestinians in Israeli territories with the hypothetical eviction of students on and off Emory’s campus. The organization that posted the flyers claimed to seek to raise awareness about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, other flyers posted around the School of Law during Israeli Apartheid Week depicted the Earth in chains superimposed upon the logo of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organization that works to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. The AIPAC logo is a stylized version of the Star of David, probably the most recognizable symbol of Jews and Judaism worldwide. Text below the image read, “Stand Up To AIPAC! Resist the US/Israeli War Lobby!” This flyer, posted only days after the jarring eviction notices, directly invokes centuries of classic anti-Semitic tropes that portray grotesque Jewish caricatures as literally placing chains on the earth by promoting a nefarious “Jewish agenda” through greed, power and corruption. Both of the flyers coincided with ESJP’s Israeli Apartheid Week programming which aimed to “commemorate the ongoing abuses of human rights in Palestine, including the large-scale massacres of protesters at the Gaza border, with educational events, flyers and protests“ according to the statement released by ESJP. A recent Wheel op-ed by Anthony Wong (21C) noted that even though the eviction notices were eventually taken down, the “conversation about Palestinian rights is one that must continue.” In one way, Wong is right. College campuses are places where diverse opinions on all topics should flourish. In particular, Emory enjoys a robust tradition of fostering the exchange of ideas. The ongoing situation in Israel is not immune from this debate. As a dynamic, evolving and sometimes deeply personal conflict, thoughtful discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be encouraged, with every perspective on the issue given space to speak up. Any other way would be an affront to our Emory values of diversity, inclusion and respect. Respectfully, Wong failed to consider how lauding the fake eviction notices and the Israeli Apartheid Week programming only intensified the pain that many students at Emory were already feeling in its wake. Posting flyers that cause students to fear that they have been evicted is not starting a conversation — it is an unwelcome confrontation for students across Emory’s diverse campus that disagree with ESJP. Furthermore, these flyers were only a small part of ESJP’s Israeli Apartheid Week. From the Facebook event graphic alone, which depicts an unarmed woman in the crosshairs of a gun, you can see that ESJP did not seek to begin an educated conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may have raised awareness, but their messaging and tactics detracted from any productive conversation and pushed students further apart. Any honest conversation about furthering Palestinian rights should focus on understanding the complex web of historical actors and actions that have shaped the current crisis. Furthermore, productive conversation should focus on the opportunities that exist for peace and prosperity for Palestinians and their neighbors in the future. Instead, Israeli Apartheid Week focuses on blaming only the Israeli government for the ongoing crisis. By creating a week of programming exclusively devoted to attacking Israel instead of exploring and celebrating Palestinian past, present and future, ESJP failed to spark any productive conversation about the conflict that should be expected by our Emory community. Students at Emory and groups like ESJP undeniably have the right to question the Israeli government’s policies, just as we frequently question the policies of our own government. However, when we question decisions made by the U.S. government, we do not call for this country to cease to exist altogether or to not be able to protect itself against bad actors and terrorist threats. The National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) organization calls for a de facto collapse of the only Jewish state in the world when it identifies one of its goals as “ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall.” Without strategic territory like the Golan Heights and self-defense mechanisms like the wall, Israel would have indefensible borders and be at even more risk of attacks by neighboring nations and U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, like Hamas or Hezbollah. It is proper to question the Israeli government’s, or any government’s, political and policy choices. But, NSJP’s questioning applies a double standard to Israel that is not required of any other nation, demonizes the country and its Jewish residents, and delegitimizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. This crosses the line from appropriate questioning of a political entity to anti-Semitism. The line between placing blame on the world’s only Jewish state and placing blame on the collective Jewish people is very fine. Instances of when anti-Israel rhetoric crosses the line into anti-Semitism often invoke complex cultural and historical factors, like when activists compare past atrocities committed against Jews, like the Holocaust, to the current state of Israeli-Palestinian relations. In recent years, student activists on campuses nationwide have crossed the line between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel speech again and again. Just earlier this month, Columbia University’s (N.Y.) Students for Justice in Palestine was accused of using a poster with a cartoon image of an Israeli soldier with horns to promote Israeli Apartheid Week, (which SJP denies). We, as an Emory community, should be sensitive to the devices used throughout history to separate Jews from larger society and should hold ourselves and others accountable to make sure that political protest never devolves into hate. As Jewish and non-Jewish members of the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian community here at Emory, who strongly support a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict created through bilateral negotiations, we personally feel attacked by the events of ESJP’s Israeli Apartheid Week. We hope this op-ed reaffirms like-minded students that they are not alone on this campus and that they are part of a strong community that will not be intimidated by threats to our beliefs and identities. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, like so many other topics we are confronted with in our complex world, is a multifaceted issue. However, ESJP was undeniably wrong when it chose to use cheap shock tactics and stereotypes to share their one-sided, subjective and dishonest agenda instead of engaging with all sides of the debate in a way that is in line with the values that our Emory community holds dearly. *** Sydney Kaplan (19L) is president of the Graduate Student Government Association. Jordan Weber (19L) is president of the Emory Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Justin Kanoff (20L) is the president of the Emory Jewish Law Students Association. Assistant Opinion Editor Zach Ball (21C) previously served as president of Emory Students for Justice in Palestine and was not involved in editing this op-ed. This op-ed is supported by Emory Eagles for Israel and the Emory-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons On April 9th, anti-Israel protesters disrupted a talk by George Mason University School of Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich, an International Law expert who was invited to speak to the LDB chapter at the University of Chicago Law School about anti-BDS laws and the First Amendment. The disruptors, one of whom was a UChicago law student, were first asked to leave by the law school administration. When the non-students refused to leave and continued chanting and disrupting, the police had to be called to remove them from the room. During the talk, a group of about five protesters from Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) interrupted and began chanting, “Free, free Palestine, protesting is not a crime!” One student who attended the lecture said, “After about five minutes, we gathered around Professor Kontorovich, and he attempted to resume the talk. The protestors raised their voices.” Kontorovich attempted to engage with the protesters, but they refused. Charles Todd, Law School Dean of Students, requested that the protesters leave the room. When they did not leave, the police had to be called to escort the disruptors out of the room. In an email to the school community, Todd stated that the “disrupters were issued trespass warnings and asked to leave the premises.” Todd’s email explained why the protesters were removed by the police. He clarified that the University’s Student Manual explicitly states that there are limits to free expression on campus. These include “violations of the law, defamation of individuals, invasion of privacy or confidentiality, and disruption of ordinary University activities.” Todd went on to say that: This chanting did violate the University’s policies. It is the right of any speaker invited to our campus to be heard and for all who choose to be present to hear the speaker. Moreover, it is the right of members of the audience to ask tough questions of those speakers. The heckler’s veto is contrary to our principles. Protests that prevent a speaker from being heard limit the freedoms of other students to listen, engage, and learn. Todd also made an important distinction between protests conducted by university students versus protests conducted by those who are unaffiliated with the university, saying, “When non-students disrupt, our procedure is to ask the individuals to cease the disruption. When those engaging in disruptive conduct refuse to comply with this directive, the next step is to request the assistance of UCPD.” In response to the disruption, Kontorovich said, “This is not a terribly effective tactic of persuasion, loudly yelling so students can’t hear. It’s not going to convince you of the justice of anyone’s cause. What’s ironic is that these [protesters] are the ideological allies of the people who favor safe spaces, who say that speech that makes them uncomfortable is violence and hearing things they don’t like silences them. Yet they come and make it so people can’t hear things they don’t like.” This is certainly not the first time anti-Israel disruptors have tried to silence pro-Israel voices on college campuses. For example, last year, protesters disrupted a Students Supporting Israel (SSI) event at University of California Los Angeles, leading students to file formal criminal complaints with the UCLA police department, with the assistance of attorneys from LDB and StandWithUs. In 2017, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) disrupted an on-campus discussion sponsored by SSI at University of California at Irvine. As Kontorovich said, the ultimate goal of these event disruptions is to “create an atmosphere of toxicity around Israel-related issues so that speakers are just not interested in coming.”
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons A group of economically disadvantaged Israeli children were given the opportunity to travel to Germany to see German soccer club Borussia Dortmund play at their home stadium. Unfortunately for them, the group was harassed by staff onboard a bus to an Amsterdam airport because of their Israeli passports. Itamar Eli, the group’s tour guide, said that “when the bus driver saw our Israeli passports, they immediately became aggressive and humiliated us.” The driver, who was reportedly “very aggressive and angry,” refused to allow the Israeli group to bring food onto the bus even though the bus company’s policy allowed for passengers to bring their own food onboard. Non-Israeli passengers were allowed to bring their own food onto the bus, thereby showing that the Israelis were singled out. Additionally, another bus staffer pretended that he could not speak English when confronted by Eli. As Adam Lahav, head of Borussia Dortmund’s Israel fan club, said, “It’s very sad that something like this can happen. The group had such a great weekend – and then it ends with this humiliation.” The German Bus Company, Flixbus, denied the accusation, saying “We regret if there were any communication difficulties, due to the language barrier,” a company spokesperson said. “We take discrimination of all kinds very seriously and promote people regardless of their origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.” Daniel Poensgen, a spokesperson for the German government’s Research and Information Center on Antisemitism (RIAS) said that this is not an isolated incident, saying “The report of the Israeli travel group corresponds with a pattern of incidents that we observe more frequently. Israel-related antisemitism as a manifestation of antisemitism is something we record in many incidents.” A prime example includes a violent assault against an Israeli woman who was grabbed by the hair and thrown to the ground by a man on a bus after he heard her speaking in Hebrew. Israeli flags and photographs placed around Germany in memory of Dalia Elyakim, a victim of the 2016 terrorist attack in Berlin, have been defaced or removed. In a recent study by social anthropologist Dr. Dany Kranz, it was discovered that more than 20% of Israelis in Germany have experienced anti-Semitism based on their nationality. While anti-Semitism has become increasingly common in Europe, this incident is an example of what could become a worrying trend of people with Israeli passports being harassed.
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons On March 20th, California State University (CSU) agreed to a landmark settlement with The Lawfare Project and Winston & Strawn LLP to safeguard Jewish students’ rights. The settlement came shortly before the case was set to go to trial this month for a lawsuit brought by two Jewish students who alleged that San Francisco State University (SFSU) and the Board of Trustees of CSU discriminated against them. The most recent lawsuit, filed in February 2018, was focused on an event from 2017, where San Francisco Hillel was barred from participating in a “Know Your Rights” fair on campus. The lawsuit claimed that this was an act of discrimination, and that the “decision to exclude Hillel from the event was made, and then sanctioned by high-ranking university officials.” After an investigation by the university, it was determined that Hillel was discriminated against. The lawsuit cited “total lack of follow up from [SFSU President Les Wong] or other university officials” as evidence of systematic discrimination. Additionally, the lawsuit also accused the CSU system and Chancellor Timothy White of inaction “while the campus climate for Jews in fact deteriorated.” The settlement applies to both the state case, and the appeal of a federal lawsuit which had previously been dismissed. As part of the settlement, SFSU agreed to the following: Issue a statement affirming that “it understands that, for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity.” “Hire a Coordinator of Jewish Student Life within the Division of Equity & Community Inclusion” and dedicate suitable office space for this position. “Retain an independent, external consultant to assess SFSU’s procedures for enforcement of applicable CSU system-wide anti-discrimination policies and student code of conduct.” “SFSU will, for a period of 24 months, assign all complaints of religious discrimination under either E.O. 1096 or E.O. 1097 to an independent, outside investigator for investigation.” “SFSU will allocate an additional $200,000 to support educational outreach efforts to promote viewpoint diversity (including but not limited to pro-Israel or Zionist viewpoints) and inclusion and equity on the basis of religious identity (including but not limited to Jewish religious identity).” Engage in the SFSU process to allocate “space on the SFSU campus for a mural to be installed under the oversight of the Division of Equity & Community Inclusion, paid for by the University, that will be designed by student groups of differing viewpoints on the issues that are the subject of this litigation to be agreed by the parties (including but not limited to Jewish, pro-Israel, and/or Zionist student groups, should such student groups elect to participate in the process).” Executive Director of The Lawfare Project, Brooke Goldstein, said: California State University’s public recognition that Zionism is an integral part of Jewish identity represents a major victory for Jewish students at SFSU and across the country. Today, we have ensured that SFSU will put in place important protections for Jewish and Zionist students to prevent continued discrimination. We are confident that this will change the campus climate for the better. The Lawfare Project was proud to play a role in securing justice for Jewish and Zionist students at SFSU. We commend the student plaintiffs who showed the courage to stand up and advocate for their civil rights. Ross M. Kramer of Winston & Strawn LLP is also happy with the results, saying “Our clients’ goal was to bring about meaningful, lasting change at San Francisco State University and throughout the California State University system, and to make sure that the rights of all Jewish students are safeguarded now and into the future. That’s what this settlement achieves.” The university issued a statement, saying that, “Today’s settlement… brings an end to what has been a very emotional and challenging issue for all parties involved. We are pleased that we reached common ground on steps for moving forward … The settlement emphasizes the importance of improving student experiences and student lives. It allows SF State to reiterate its commitment to equity and inclusion for all – including those who are Jewish – and reaffirms the values of free expression and diversity of viewpoints that are so critical on a university campus.”
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons A group of French lawmakers have proposed a bill that would make anti-Zionism a criminal offence. The bill would conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and comes on the heels of an increase in anti-Semitic attacks in France. Sylvian Maillard, a deputy from French President Emmanuel Macron’s ruling party, currently leads the Antisemitism Study Group in the country’s National Assembly. Maillard said that the group has been examining the roots of anti-Zionism and antisemitism for “several weeks” and that they have concluded that “hatred of Israel is the new way of hating Jews.” He went on to say, “We can criticize the government of Israel, but not question the very existence of this state. Nobody questions the existence of the French state or the German state.” The European Jewish Congress (EJC) has applauded the debate in the French Parliament. President of the EJC Dr. Moshe Kantor said, “We absolutely welcome this discussion and hope to see it lead to concrete action because it is clear that the overwhelming majority of those who claim to be anti-Zionist use it merely as a cover for their anti-Semitism. We are, of course, making a huge differentiation between completely legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies, and singling out and isolating the Jewish people as not being allowed to express its right to self-determination and to live in its national homeland.” Referring to Natan Sharansky’s 3D Test of Anti-Semitism (which has been incorporated into the definition of anti-Semitism used by the U.S. Department of State and countless worldwide government bodies and agencies), Dr. Kantor pointed out the fact that “Anti-Zionists never claim that any other nation on earth, apart from the Jewish State, should be dismantled or is illegitimate, so it is clear that this meets any standard of delegitimization, demonization, and double-standards.” On February 19th, thousands of people rallied in the streets of Paris against recent anti-Semitic attacks. Attendees included Prime Minister Edouard Philippe and former French presidents. Parliament suspended their work for several hours to enable MPs to attend the protests, while 18 different political parties encouraged citizens to attend. These rallies come after a recent wave of anti-Semitic attacks. A Jewish cemetery in eastern France became the most recent target of anti-Semitic attacks. 96 graves were desecrated with swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans. “Yellow Vest” protesters were also recently caught hurling anti-Semitic insults like “Dirty Zionist” and “Dirty race” at Alain Finkielkraut, a French Jewish philosopher and writer. A new study exposed just how dire the situation is, showing that there were more than 500 anti-Semitic attacks perpetrated in France in 2018, which is a 74% increase from 2017.