Aviva Vogelstein Brandeis Blog June 21, 2017 Today, the Brandeis Center wrote to University of Wisconsin – Madison (“UW”) Chancellor Rebecca Blank, applauding her administration for castigating the Associated Students of Madison’s controversial April 26, 2017 Student Council (“ASM”) divestment measure, and urging further action from her administration. This past semester, the ASM introduced various versions of BDS resolutions, violating the ASM Constitution & Bylaws in the process and discriminating against and harassing Jewish students and their allies. Though the UW administration castigated the ASM’s April 26 BDS resolution, more must be done to correct the campus environment and discipline certain students. LDB urged action, including: • Addressing the statement from former ASM Chair that “All white people are racist.” Such negative racial stereotypes are unacceptable, and is especially damaging to the campus environment when conveyed by a person with official stature, even within the student body. As explained in LDB’s Best Practice Guide, it is necessary for university leaders to exercise moral leadership by expressing their views of difficult subjects. • Taking responsive actions consistent with UW nondiscrimination policies and Wisconsin Statute. • Requiring orientation and training for all ASM Members on the nature of and different manifestations of anti-Semitism, and the appropriate means of addressing it. Additionally, requiring orientation and training for all new students on the nature of and different manifestations of anti-Semitism, and the appropriate means of addressing it. • Updating the “UW Student Handbook, Policies on Accommodating Students’ Religious Beliefs” to include that the ASM Student Council should be accommodating to students’ religious beliefs. • Creating more academic and extracurricular programming to raise community awareness about global and campus anti-Semitism, making use of valuable UW resources, such as the UW Hillel and the UW Mosse/Weinstein Center for Jewish Studies. • Adopting a uniform definition of anti-Semitism, such as the definition used by the U.S. State Department or the recently adopted University of California Regents’ Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, in order to avoid and properly identify anti-Semitism should it arise in the future. The full text of LDB’s letter can be found below (*with student names redacted): June 21, 2017 VIA EMAIL (rblank@chancellor.wisc.edu) Chancellor Rebecca M. Blank University of Wisconsin – Madison 161 Bascom Hall 500 Lincoln Drive Madison, WI 53796 Dear Chancellor Blank, We write on behalf of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, at the request of our friends at the University of Wisconsin Hillel, to applaud your administration for castigating the Associated Students of Madison’s controversial April 26, 2017 Student Council (“ASM”) divestment measure (hereinafter “Divestment Measure”) and to urge further action from your administration. The Louis D. Brandeis Center is a national public interest advocacy organization dedicated to the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and justice for all. We appreciate your April 26, 2017 online statement that the Divestment Measure does not control the policies or practices of the University of Wisconsin – Madison (“UW”) or the UW Foundation (“WFAA”) and will not change your approach. You exercised commendable leadership by clarifying your opposition to the anti-Semitic movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel (“BDS”). We further applaud the ASM Student Judiciary for voiding a discriminatory bylaw change at the April 12 ASM meeting, which took place on the Jewish holiday of Passover. The Student Judiciary properly voided the bylaw change; suggested that the former ASM Chair attend tolerance training and apologize for her discriminatory actions; and mandated the incoming ASM Chair to send a letter to the Student Council explaining why her motion to waive the rules was wrong, why the nondiscrimination clause of the ASM constitution is essential, and why Passover is important to the Jewish community. We urge you to build on this good start, keeping in mind your important observation that Jewish students felt targeted by the ASM’s actions. You say that “UW-Madison values and welcomes members of all faiths and identities,” and we take you at your word. We ask that you demonstrate this with further actions to correct the hostile campus environment created for Jewish students on campus, and prevent such discrimination and harassment from recurring. The comments made during and in the wake of the ASM meetings demonstrate a lack of understanding and respect for Jewish students and the Jewish religion. Some statements demonstrated gross insensitivity, at best, as well as negative ethnic and racial stereotypes. They include, for example, sweeping offensive generalizations. Jewish students present at the various ASM meetings, and students who attempted to speak up on behalf of Jewish students, felt targeted and harassed. Some of the discriminatory statements and actions that occurred include the following: • The statements demonstrated blatant disregard for the concerns of Jewish students and for Jewish religious observance. For example, the ASM introduced a bylaw change at the April 12 meeting that fell on Passover, despite the expressed concerns of Jewish students. Furthermore, the ASM suspended its acting rules so that they could vote and pass this bylaw change at the introductory meeting, when such legislation usually requires two votes. In doing so, the ASM violated their own bylaws and the Constitutional rights of Jewish students, and demonstrated a blatant disregard for excluding Jewish students from participating. (This is the bylaw change that the Student Judiciary has since voided.) • At the April 26th ASM meeting, ASM members carefully orchestrated a campaign to introduce BDS amendments to a resolution on human rights. They failed to give Jewish students and pro-Israel students proper notice about these planned amendments, not allowing them to come and voice their opinions and again in violation of ASM bylaws, ignoring previous concerns that Jewish students had expressed. The legislation passed. Jewish students felt harassed and intimidated at this meeting, which will be explained below. • Also at the April 26 meeting, speakers made a variety of harassing and discriminatory comments in open forum against Jewish students and their allies, including: o Several speakers likened Jewish students to white supremacists. For example, a student member of the organization Students for Justice in Palestine said, “Judaism is not Israel, Israel is not Judaism. This is not about the Jewish community on campus, it is about the Zionist community, and these two are mutually exclusive . . . We stand for black, brown and indigenous lives and are sick of being silenced by your white supremacist voice” (see Audio of April 26 ASM Meeting, beginning at 1:26:12). In this problematic statement, the speaker denied the fact that Israel is central to Jewish identity and likened all statements that come from non-black, brown, or indigenous people as statements coming from white supremacists. She essentially lumped together all individuals against this legislation, a great majority of whom were Jewish, into one group and labeled them White Supremacists. o Comments by several speakers dismissed the realities of anti-Semitism. For example, a UW alumnus and former Equity & Inclusion Chair spoke at the meeting. He pulled out a copy of the Badger Herald, stating, “The Badger Herald put out a very misleading headline on one of its infographics, it said ‘Anti-Semitic divestment from Israel initiatives scorecard . . . ’” [interrupted by Chair, saying his time was up]. The alum continued, referring to the article – “that’s not true.” He proceeded to rip up the newspaper (see Audio at 1:12:44). o Several students sought to intimidate the Jewish students in the room by changing the direction of the podium to face the small group of Jewish students who were sitting together, and directing their comments at the Jewish students. One student said, “clearly I’d like to address the elephant in the room . . . clearly I’m talking to you” looking directly at [name redacted] (see Audio at 1:19). o Comments by one student demonstrated complete insensitivity to Jewish students’ religious beliefs and cultural practices. Representative and Student Activity Center Governing Board Chair [name redacted] (who will be next year’s ASM Chair), stated: “It’s funny how…. You say you’re here for transparency, but then we bring legislation for it on April 12 meeting that calls for just that you’re against it cuz its on Passover? Even though there is no university policy that requires ASM to observe holidays” (see Audio at 1:45:38). o Students acted disrespectfully when Jewish students, or their allies, attempted to speak. For example, after ASM members introduced their carefully orchestrated BDS amendments, there was debate on the amendments. Chair [name redacted] spoke for the first time, expressing concern with the amendments, asking to what extent the ASM could add amendments that were similar, if not the same, to legislation that was tabled indefinitely at the March 29th meeting. When she finished speaking, lots of Pepsi cans were opened in what appeared to be a coordinated effort. Some ASM members opened the cans directly into their microphones. (Someone brought several cases of Pepsi to the meeting and Representative [name redacted] handed the cans out to ASM members. Pepsi has come to symbolize “white supremacy” and trivializing the struggle of Black Lives Matter movement following a heavily criticized Pepsi commercial.) Opening the Pepsi cans in unison was likening [name redacted] to a white supremacist, and signaling that anything she said was erasing the struggle of brown, black, and people of color bodies (see Audio at 2:54:32). o After [name redacted] spoke, Representative [name redacted] spoke in a mocking tone – seemingly against [name redacted] – in favor of the amendment. Then Vice Chair [name redacted] (acting as Chair, because Chair [name redacted] passed over her Chairship to the Vice Chair so that she could participate fully in debate, even though a Chair is meant to preside and not debate) asked for any other points of debate on the amendment. Chair [name redacted] said, “Sorry this Pepsi is kickin’ [took a sip] . . . Fuck White Supremacy.” The response in the room was cheering and clapping (see Audio at 2:55:00). o Students expressed lack of respect for the voices and opinions of Jewish students and those who associate with them. When [name redacted] spoke again, she said “this is now, I guess, the second time that the Jewish community has been excluded. This is because members who co-sponsored this legislation and other members who spoke tonight knew full well that there would be amendments presented and voting members of this body did not know that, and that is undemocratic. I stand firm by that. It was undemocratic to hold a vote knowing full well that people would not be in attendance. Nobody on this body gets to decide at what point that information stopped being relevant to the Jewish community. . . . This has crossed the line from legitimate conversation to a point where I consider it malicious… this has now been over a month of ASM harassing the Jewish community on this campus, I’m ashamed of this body….” [Name redacted] was interrupted with screaming. Someone shouted “Undemocratic like you” (see Audio beginning 3:04:18). When [name redacted], a non-Jewish ASM Representative and ally of the Jewish students, spoke against the legislation, he was met with someone screaming “shut up.” When he finished speaking, another Pepsi can was opened (see Audio at 3:06:19). • Students expressed anti-white sentiment, anti-Jewish sentiment, and anti-Semitic-masked-as-anti-Israel sentiment after the April 26th meeting, as well (see attached LDB Fact Sheet on the Elements of Anti-Semitism). For example: o ASM Chair [name redacted] announced that “All White People are racist” in a public letter to the Campus Community (See Letter from former ASM Chair [name redacted], “My Last Words as Chair of ASM,” Appendix 1). o On April 27, Representative [name redacted], (who will be next year’s ASM Chair) sent an “apology” to the ASM for her behavior at the April 26th meeting, but she failed to acknowledge why excluding Jewish students was a problem. She wrote: “I apologize for the way I communicated my opinion’s at last night’s meeting. I fully recognize that I actively shut down opposing points of view by yelling and screaming . . . I am sorry for not expressing myself constructively.” Nine minutes later, she followed up with a second email saying, “Follow up: please don’t interpret this as me apologizing for what I said. I am apologizing for how I said it.” (See screenshots, Appendix 2). o A Jewish student member of the group “Badgers United Against Hate,” a pro-Israel group, received the following Facebook message: “yo fuck israel and fuck their war crimes and fuck zionism in palestine it’s racist and so are you” (see screenshot, Appendix 3). o When the names of ASM Representatives for next year were announced, a Jewish student who will be an ASM Member next year received the following Facebook message: “hey israel is a shit racist country and asm is shit racist org and i swear i will boycott every asm meeting just becaus you are their you racist zionist shit.” (See screenshot, Appendix 4.) Some of these revive anti-Semitic, anti-white, and discriminatory tropes. While we respect the right of students to express themselves, even outrageously or hurtfully, we are concerned that such bigotry could create an environment that many of your students will reasonably perceive to be hostile. We urge your administration to exercise its obligation to address the harms that arise when speakers – especially campus leaders – misuse that right in ways that poison the environment and send a message of exclusion and hate. Such messages are potentially incompatible with federal civil rights law. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal funds. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has announced that Title VI applies to discrimination on the basis of Jewish ethnicity or ancestry in guidance issued in 2004 (see attached Kenneth L. Marcus, Dear Colleague Letter (Sep. 13, 2004)). In 2010, OCR clarified that unlawful harassment need not include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents (see attached Russlynn Ali, Dear Colleague Letter (Oct. 26, 2010)). Speech that invokes anti-Semitic stereotypes against Israelis and Jews can create a hostile environment for Israeli and Jewish students on campus in violation of Title VI. Chancellor Blank, your administration acknowledged that “UW-Madison values and welcomes members of all faiths and identities.” The messages here are incompatible with UW’s values. Further, they are against school rules and state law. The UW Student Handbook prohibits “members of the university community from engaging in any form of unlawful discrimination or harassment . . .” Wisconsin State Statue prohibits student discrimination: “No student may be denied . . . participation in or the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the system or its institutions because of the student’s race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin . . . .” Further, “[t]he missions of the University of Wisconsin System and its individual institutions can be realized only if the university’s teaching, learning, research and service activities occur in living and learning environments that are safe and free from violence, harassment . . . disruption and intimidation. In promoting such environments, the university has a responsibility to address student nonacademic misconduct . . . .” We encourage you to take appropriate responsive actions, such as taking necessary disciplinary action in line with your important policies; providing necessary training and education to students and faculty members on your campus; speak out against such discrimination, and more. We further hope that you seize this as a teachable moment to educate your students about anti-Semitism, racism, inclusion, and tolerance. The following may provide a good start: • The statement from former ASM Chair [name redacted] that “All white people are racist” must be addressed. Such negative racial stereotypes are unacceptable, and is especially damaging to the campus environment when conveyed by a person with official stature, even within the student body. As explained in LDB’s Best Practice Guide (see attached), it is necessary for university leaders to exercise moral leadership by expressing their views of difficult subjects. A good example of a strong leadership statement was seen by UCLA Vice Chancellor Janina Montero, in which she issued a statement to her university community in response to anti-Semitic Facebook postings by a UCLA student, stating in part that the “hurtful and offensive comments displayed ignorance of the history and racial diversity of the Jewish people, insensitivity and a disappointing lack of empathy. Bigotry against the Jewish people or other groups is abhorrent and does not represent the values of UCLA or the beliefs of our community.” • Ensure that the May 10th ASM Student Judiciary Ruling, which voided the “Bylaw Change for the Creation of Financial Transparency and Ethics Subcommittee,” and required disciplinary sanctions for certain ASM members, is enforced. • Take responsive actions consistent with your policies and Wisconsin Statute. For example, see Wis. Stats., Section 36.12 (1) – “Student discrimination prohibited” – and Wis. Stats. Chapter 17 – “Student Nonacademic Disciplinary Procedures.” • In addition to training that the ASM holds for itself, set a policy to provide training to ASM members to ensure the Code of Conduct is enforced. • Require orientation and training for all ASM Members on the nature of and different manifestations of anti-Semitism, and the appropriate means of addressing it. Additionally, require orientation and training for all new students on the nature of and different manifestations of anti-Semitism, and the appropriate means of addressing it. • Update the “UW Student Handbook, Policies on Accommodating Students’ Religious Beliefs” to include that the ASM Student Council should be accommodating to students’ religious beliefs. • We commend your administration for your engagement with Hillel and Jewish community leaders. As a best practice, continue to reach out to targeted student groups, local community leaders, and experts, including UW Hillel and the Jewish Federation of Madison, and offer support and resources as needed. • Create and fund meaningful programs that bring communities of identity together, including the Jewish community. • Create more academic and extracurricular programming to raise community awareness about global and campus anti-Semitism, making use of valuable UW resources, such as the UW Hillel and the UW Mosse/Weinstein Center for Jewish Studies. • Adopt a uniform definition of anti-Semitism, such as the definition used by the U.S. State Department (see attached) or the recently adopted University of California Regents’ Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, in order to avoid and properly identify anti-Semitism should it arise in the future. We urge you to take these actions to remedy the current situation, and lower the likelihood that anti-Semitic discrimination will recur. We are available to share our expertise on these issues, and further discuss our recommendations with you, and can be reached by e-mail at klmarcus@brandeiscenter.com or by phone at (202) 559-9296. Thank you in advance for your serious consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Kenneth L. Marcus President & General Counsel The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law klmarcus@brandeiscenter.com CC: Greg Steinberger Executive Director, UW Hillel gsteinberger@uwhillel.org Cheryl Rosen Weston Board Chair, UW Hillel crosenweston@gmail.com Sarah C. Mangelsdorf Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UW-Madison sarah.mangelsdorf@wisc.edu Lori Berquam Vice Provost for Student Life and Dean of Students, UW-Madison lberquam@odos.wisc.edu
On June 19, 2017, The Lawfare Project and Winston & Strawn LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of six students and several members of the Bay Area Jewish community against San Francisco State University (“SFSU”). The complaint alleges that the university has fostered a climate of anti-Semitism on campus, violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection, as well as their rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Leslie Wong, the California State University Board of Trustees, and other top administrative officials were named as defendants. SFSU Anti-Semitism The lawsuit was prompted by alleged complicity of university administrators and police officers in the disruption of an April 2016 event, when San Francisco Hillel invited the Mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat, to speak on campus. At the event, audience members were allegedly “subjected to genocidal and offensive chants and expletives by a raging mob that used bullhorns to intimidate and drown out the Mayor’s speech and physically threaten and intimidate members of the mostly-Jewish audience.” Protesters yelled and chanted “Intifada,” [Arabic for “uprising,” the term “Intifada” has come to mean a call for violence against innocent Israeli civilians. The First and Second Intifadas in Israel resulted in 170 bombings perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli civilians between 1989-2008], “Get the [expletive] off our campus,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” [the destruction of Israel entirely] while university administrators allowed the disruption to continue and instructed campus police to “stand down.” The plaintiffs also allege that Hillel was unfairly excluded from a campus “Know Your Rights” fair aimed at members of vulnerable populations on Feb. 18, 2017. The complaint contends that the way administrators handled the April confrontation and the most recent exclusion is consistent with other incidents on SFSU’s campus over the years. According to the complaint, “SFSU and its administrators have knowingly fostered this discrimination… SFSU has not merely fostered and embraced anti-Jewish hostility — it has systematically supported … student groups as they have doggedly organized their efforts to target, threaten, and intimidate Jewish students on campus and deprive them of their civil rights and their ability to feel safe and secure as they pursue their education.” Readers may recall how a SFSU professor of ethnic studies, Rabab Abdulhadi, used university tax-payer funds to finance a student trip to the Palestinian territories, where they were met by Leila Khaled, a Palestinian heralded as the first woman to have hijacked an airplane in an act of terror in 1969; or former student Mohammad Hammad, who infamously posted a picture of himself holding a blade on social media, saying: “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.” Further, the complaint notes that “no actions were ever taken by SFSU against the disruptive students, no disciplinary charges were ever filed, and no sanctions were ever imposed against the groups or students responsible for committing these acknowledged violations.” Lawyers for the students hope the case will set a precedent under Title VI, which protects Jewish students from being targeted for their ethnic or ancestral identity. “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the underpinning of the modern American ethos of equal protection and anti-discrimination. This case isn’t about Jews, it’s about equal protection under the law,” Brooke Goldstein, director of The Lawfare Project, said in a written statement. “If the courts fail to apply Title VI in this context, we are creating a massive loophole that will ultimately be exploited at some point to target other marginalized minority communities. If we refuse to enforce anti-discrimination law for Jews, if we say Jews don’t deserve equal protection, it will erode constitutional protections for everyone.”
On June 19, the Supreme Court decided in Matal v. Tam that the government cannot refuse to trademark potentially derogatory or offensive names, a decision that will likely impact the national debate about hate speech and the First Amendment for decades. This ruling means that though hate speech remains constitutionally protected as a general matter, harassing conduct remains subject to civil rights laws. The Supreme Court of the United States The case arose when a rock band known as “The Slants” attempted to trademark their band name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The band’s request was denied because the trademark would be in violation of the Lanham Act, a federal statute that includes a “disparagement clause” that precludes the PTO from trademarking names that may “disparage” individuals or groups. The term “slant” is considered an ethnic slur directed towards the Asian community. The Court unanimously agreed that the “disparagement clause” violates the First Amendment, but was split as to how. The Court unanimously agreed that the trademarks are not government speech but are inherently private speech because they are the mental creation of a private party. Previously, the Court had determined that government speech was not subject to the First Amendment, and in this decision, Justice Alito warned against the danger of applying the government-speech doctrine too liberally. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Then, Justice Alito was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Breyer in refuting the government’s claims that trademarks were government-subsidized speech, which is not subject to the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that because the filer of a trademark was the party paying a trademark fee, instead of vice versa, this argument was invalid. Then, Justice Alito rejected the government’s argument that a trademark is commercial speech, which is subject to less First Amendment protection. Alito worte that even if it were commercial speech, the denial of a trademark application would not pass the test used to evaluate restrictions on such commercial speech. In a separate opinion, Justice Kennedy was joined by Justices Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor in determining that the “disparagement clause” was solely unconstitutional because it is an example of the government using its own judgment to discriminate against certain trademark requests, while allowing for others it finds more appropriate, constituting what the Court deems “viewpoint discrimination.” Justice Kennedy concludes by stating that “viewpoint discrimination” inherently violates the First Amendment and its purpose to create a “free and open discussion in a democratic society.” The Court’s decision builds upon a trend taken by the Supreme Court in recent years to rule in favor of free speech protections, perhaps most notably in 2011, when the Court in Snyder v. Phelps protected the Constitutional right of protesters to use homophobic and otherwise offensive language outside of a military funeral. Many free speech advocates are calling the Matal ruling a victory for the First Amendment, with the Court further defining free speech jurisprudence that will check government interference with even limited restrictions on free speech. In particular, the Matal decision is being celebrated by the Washington Redskins, the professional NFL team that has been engaged in legal battles since 2014, when PTO refused to renew the team’s trademark over the term “Redskins”, which is perceived to be an offensive slur for Native Americans. Others fear the Matal decision, asserting that it could provide new grounds for hate groups and others looking to trademark names and other materials that could incite hatred or worse for minority groups. The Court has long upheld that hate speech that rises to the level of harassment- at least in cases of race or gender-based harassment- violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This is unlikely to change going forward, but the Matal decision could further blur the line between what constitutes Constitutionally protected hate speech and what is speech that is harassing and/or likely to incite public disorder. The debate around hate speech and the First Amendment is especially pertinent on college campuses, where in recent years administrators, advocacy groups and other stakeholders have argued over what are the appropriate legal steps to take when students are subjected to hateful language by other students. More than half of all American college and university campuses, including many public institutions, have enacted speech codes which seek to limit when and where students can express themselves on campus. This has coupled with a rise in the occurrence of hate-based incidents on campus, including acts of anti-Semitism. Student protesters at UC Irvine assemble an “apartheid wall” on campus In recent years, numerous speeches and lectures organized by pro-Israel students and faculty on college and university campuses have been silenced by protestors. Notable incidents include Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat being shouted down by student protestors at San Francisco State University, the physical provocation of an Israeli professor by a student protestor during a private event at the University of Texas at Austin, and most recently last month, the sabotage by student protestors of an event at University of California-Irvine featuring Israeli veteran soldiers with loud chanting, profanity and accusations of genocide. Various state and municipal statutes and university codes of conduct prohibit the disruption of lawful meetings, affirming that the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to deprive others of their First Amendment rights. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has worked to protect the rights of Jewish and pro-Israel campus communities to safely and peacefully express themselves.
Today, the Brandeis Center wrote to University of Wisconsin – Madison (“UW”) Chancellor Rebecca Blank, applauding her administration for castigating the Associated Students of Madison’s controversial April 26, 2017 Student Council (“ASM”) divestment measure, and urging further action from her administration. UW Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank This past semester, the ASM introduced various versions of BDS resolutions, violating the ASM Constitution & Bylaws in the process and discriminating against and harassing Jewish students and their allies. Though the UW administration castigated the ASM’s April 26 BDS resolution, more must be done to correct the campus environment and discipline certain students. LDB urged action, including: Addressing the statement from former ASM Chair that “All white people are racist.” Such negative racial stereotypes are unacceptable, and is especially damaging to the campus environment when conveyed by a person with official stature, even within the student body. As explained in LDB’s Best Practice Guide, it is necessary for university leaders to exercise moral leadership by expressing their views of difficult subjects. Taking responsive actions consistent with UW nondiscrimination policies and Wisconsin Statute. Requiring orientation and training for all ASM Members on the nature of and different manifestations of anti-Semitism, and the appropriate means of addressing it. Additionally, requiring orientation and training for all new students on the nature of and different manifestations of anti-Semitism, and the appropriate means of addressing it. Updating the “UW Student Handbook, Policies on Accommodating Students’ Religious Beliefs” to include that the ASM Student Council should be accommodating to students’ religious beliefs. Creating more academic and extracurricular programming to raise community awareness about global and campus anti-Semitism, making use of valuable UW resources, such as the UW Hillel and the UW Mosse/Weinstein Center for Jewish Studies. Adopting a uniform definition of anti-Semitism, such as the definition used by the S. State Department or the recently adopted University of California Regents’ Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, in order to avoid and properly identify anti-Semitism should it arise in the future. The redacted text of LDB’s letter can be found below: —- June 21, 2017 VIA EMAIL Chancellor Rebecca M. Blank University of Wisconsin – Madison 161 Bascom Hall 500 Lincoln Drive Madison, WI 53796 Dear Chancellor Blank, We write on behalf of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, at the request of our friends at the University of Wisconsin Hillel, to applaud your administration for castigating the Associated Students of Madison’s controversial April 26, 2017 Student Council (“ASM”) divestment measure (hereinafter “Divestment Measure”) and to urge further action from your administration. The Louis D. Brandeis Center is a national public interest advocacy organization dedicated to the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and justice for all. We appreciate your April 26, 2017 online statement that the Divestment Measure does not control the policies or practices of the University of Wisconsin – Madison (“UW”) or the UW Foundation (“WFAA”) and will not change your approach. You exercised commendable leadership by clarifying your opposition to the anti-Semitic movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel (“BDS”). We further applaud the ASM Student Judiciary for voiding a discriminatory bylaw change at the April 12 ASM meeting, which took place on the Jewish holiday of Passover. The Student Judiciary properly voided the bylaw change; suggested that the former ASM Chair attend tolerance training and apologize for her discriminatory actions; and mandated the incoming ASM Chair to send a letter to the Student Council explaining why her motion to waive the rules was wrong, why the nondiscrimination clause of the ASM constitution is essential, and why Passover is important to the Jewish community. We urge you to build on this good start, keeping in mind your important observation that Jewish students felt targeted by the ASM’s actions. You say that “UW-Madison values and welcomes members of all faiths and identities,” and we take you at your word. We ask that you demonstrate this with further actions to correct the hostile campus environment created for Jewish students on campus, and prevent such discrimination and harassment from recurring. The comments made during and in the wake of the ASM meetings demonstrate a lack of understanding and respect for Jewish students and the Jewish religion. Some statements demonstrated gross insensitivity, at best, as well as negative ethnic and racial stereotypes. They include, for example, sweeping offensive generalizations. Jewish students present at the various ASM meetings, and students who attempted to speak up on behalf of Jewish students, felt targeted and harassed. Some of the discriminatory statements and actions that occurred include the following: (more…)
JV Staff Jewish Voice June 21, 2017 Fifty Jewish, civil rights and education advocacy groups recently wrote to University of California Irvine (UCI) Chancellor Howard Gillman demanding he publicly address the latest in a slew of disruptions of pro-Israel events on campus within the framework of the UC Regents’ Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, which Chancellor Gillman had committed to implementing last year. On May 10, forty memiously intolerant behavior,” wrote the groups in the letter coordinated by AMCHA Initiative. “Any student group whose members have openly stated their commitment to shutting down the freedom of expression of other students on campus and have carried out their malicious intentions on multiple occasions should not be allowed to operate freely at UCI.” Disrupting pro-Israel events at UC Irvine has become an annual occurrence: • May 18, 2016: Jewish and pro-Israel students had to be escorted by campus police from the room in which an Israel-themed film, Beneath the Helmut, was being screened, after an angry mob of protestors stood right outside the event, loudly chanting, pounding on the room’s door and preventing students from entering and exiting. • April 23, 2015: An Anteaters for Israel event was disrupted by protesters who chanted loudly to drown out the event and blocked the walkway leading to the event. • May 8, 2014: Members of anti-Zionist student groups assaulted three female Jewish students and pushed others away from information booths at a pro-Israel event. “For four years in a row now, members of Students for Justice in Palestine and other anti-Zionist groups have been permitted to intentionally and successfully disrupt a student-organized, pro-Israel event,” wrote the groups. “None of these incidents was spontaneous. Rather, the disruptions and attempted shut-downs of pro-Israel events were carefully planned by members of anti-Zionist student groups, particularly SJP, as part of an ideologically motivated campaign to suppress any and all Zionist or pro-Israel expression on campus.” Noting UCI’s commitment to implement the Regents Principles Against Intolerance after last year’s disruption, the groups emphasized, “Your failure to adequately address this most obvious case of intolerant behavior is deeply troubling and suggests that your plan for implementing the Regents’ Principles may also be inadequate. We therefore ask you to tell us how UCI’s current plan for implementing the Regents Principles Against Intolerance will adequately address the current incident and ensure that Jewish students, and all students, are protected now and in the future from intolerant behavior which denies them freedom of expression and the right to fully participate in campus life.” Letters raising concern and frustration with Gillman’s handling of the disruption have also been sent by Hillel International; Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and StandWithUs; Students Supporting Israel along with other groups and the Zionist Organization of America. Original Article