On December 4th, Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus testified before the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee as a proponent of S.B. 297. The bill would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism into Ohio law and expand legal protections by broadening the definition of “ethnic intimidation” to include crimes such as riots or aggravated riots motivated by hate based on religion, race, color, or national origin. Marcus highlighted the benefits of legislation that responds to an increase in antisemitic incidents in Ohio and the broader United States, including physical assaults, harassment, and vandalism. The IHRA definition provides a framework for identifying antisemitic intent in discriminatory acts, enabling authorities to effectively recognize and prosecute hate-driven crimes. The federal government and 35 other states (including the District of Columbia) have already adopted it through executive orders, resolutions, legislation, or executive proclamations, believing that IHRA is a key tool in combating anti-Semitism. In 2022, Governor DeWine issued Executive Order 2022-06D (“Defining and Combating Antisemitism”), which formally adopted the IHRA definition. S.B. 297 seeks to further codify it into Ohio law. Marcus assuaged free speech concerns surrounding the IHRA definition. The proposed bill focuses on regulating conduct rather than speech, using the IHRA definition to determine if discriminatory acts were motivated by antisemitic intent. It aligns with Supreme Court precedent (Wisconsin v. Mitchell) that allows enhanced sentences based on a defendant’s motive without violating free speech rights. Additionally, the bill explicitly states that it will not infringe on First Amendment protections, ensuring free speech is preserved. Importantly, the IHRA definition distinguishes between legitimate criticism of Israel, which remains protected, and antisemitism, providing a clear framework to address hate-driven conduct effectively. “It is carefully constrained within guardrails so that it is constitutionally compliant but at the same time it is more than just educational or symbolic,” Marcus said. “It is a definition that would be used by officials in actual cases.” The proposed legislation comes on the heels of anti-Semitic incidents in Ohio. Recently, neo-Nazis marched through Columbus, brandishing flags adorned with swastikas and shouting racist and anti-Semitic slurs. Over the summer, nearly 200 Jewish gravestones were vandalized or destroyed at two cemeteries in Cincinnati, shattering not only monuments but the sense of security within the community. At Ohio State University (OSU), Jewish students have faced a series of violent and intimidating attacks, prompting a Title VI complaint filed by the Brandeis Center, StandWithUs, and ADL. In the aftermath of October 7th, two Jewish students were physically assaulted, suffering severe injuries, including a broken nose and a broken jaw. During the attack, they were targeted explicitly for being Jewish and subjected to vile anti-Semitic slurs, including being called ‘Zionist kike[s].” Also at OSU, Jewish students seeking signatures for a petition against anti-Semitism were confronted by a man saying he wanted to “kill Jews,” a peaceful Shabbat dinner at the campus Hillel was disrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters, and Jewish students have faced door vandalism in their residences. Anti-Israel encampments and protests have also devolved into a hotbed of anti-Semitism, with demonstrators targeting Jewish individuals and communities through physical assaults, harassment, and vandalism. Read the full written testimony or watch here.
August 26, 2024 (Santa Ana, Calif.): Motion filed supports allegations that SAUSD intentionally violated the Brown Act, California’s open meetings laws, to develop and approve antisemitic curriculum “under the radar.” Santa Ana, Calif., August 26, 2024… ADL (the Anti-Defamation League), The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, AJC (the American Jewish Committee), and Covington & Burling announced today that they filed a motion adding supporting evidence to the suit they filed in September 2023 on behalf of the Brandeis Center and its membership arm, So-CUE (Southern Californians for Unbiased Education), against the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) for violations of California’s open meetings laws. Evidence uncovered during discovery supports the Plaintiffs’ allegations that the Board kept information about proposed ethnic studies courses “under the radar” (in the words of one employee) to prevent the public, and the Jewish community in particular, from becoming aware of antisemitic and unlawfully biased content in ethnic studies curricula. For example: When members of SAUSD’s Ethnic Studies Steering Committee were apprised of the Jewish community’s concerns about antisemitism in ethnic studies plans, they noted in an official agenda that they would need to “address the Jewish question.” Senior officials mused about using Jewish holidays to approve courses at the Board level to prevent Jews from attending. The Steering Committee hired an external consultant whose writings equate Israel with “settler colonialism” and who uses social media to actively promote anti-Israel bias with antisemitic tropes, including a post about “Zionist control of the CA Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum” and a comment that the Legislative Jewish Caucus needs to “stay in their lane,” claiming “the Zionist CA Jewish Caucus hijacked Ethnic Studies,” as well as “a small white minority” should not “dictate a curriculum that is not about them.” A Committee leader referred to the only Jewish member as a “colonized Jewish mind” and a “f—ing baby” for expressing concerns over antisemitism on the Committee. An SAUSD Board member suggested that Jewish Americans do not belong in ethnic studies because they are “racialized as under the White category.” A Committee leader referred to the Jewish Federation of Orange County as “racist Zionists” and suggested SAUSD should not “cave” to their representatives. Members of the Steering Committee reportedly said, “Jews are not a disadvantaged ethnic group in the U.S. because they were never slaves,” that “Jews greatly benefit from white privilege, so they have it better,” and “we don’t need to give both sides. We only support the oppressed, and Jews are the oppressors.” Jewish staff members at SAUSD wrote about how they were “sick” of the “thinly veiled antisemitism” coming from Committee leaders and were “hurt by some of things” they “said about Jews.” Under the Brown Act (California’s open meeting laws) and AB 101 (the 2021 statute making ethnic studies a requirement for graduation from public high schools), California school boards are required to take specific steps to make members of the public aware of proposed curricula and allow for public comment. The motion and supporting evidence proves that SAUSD knowingly circumvented these laws to approve curricula with dangerously anti-Jewish teachings before the public became aware of them. The lawsuit asks the court to declare that SAUSD violated the Brown Act, to bar SAUSD from teaching courses that were unlawfully approved, and to order SAUSD to follow open meeting laws going forward so that new ethnic studies courses are not pushed through without community input. “Both the Brown Act and AB 101 require transparency and opportunity for public comment on proposed ethnic studies curricula that deviate from the state-approved model curriculum,” said L. Rachel Lerman, General Counsel of the Brandeis Center, which is both a plaintiff and counsel in this matter. “Governor Newsom swore that biased and antisemitic content taken out of early (and disapproved) versions of the model curriculum would ‘never see the light of day.’ He did not mean that this content should be snuck back in under cover of darkness, but that appears to be what has occurred.” “Open meetings are required by law specifically to prevent this type of situation,” said James Pasch, ADL Senior Director of National Litigation. “As the evidence shows, the district intentionally hid information from the public, to try to get away with teaching antisemitic lies to the next generation in Santa Ana. The antisemitism that infected this process sent a clear message to Jewish students and families that their voices are not welcomed, and that they were intentionally excluded.” “This is not speculation. Discovery in this case has revealed a persistent pattern of antisemitism in the steering committee,” said American Jewish Committee Chief Legal Officer Marc Stern. “Antisemitism has no place in any governmental body and it is doubly concerning when it involves children and their education. That proponents of this proposal made a concerted effort to hide their antisemitism is yet further evidence that they knew what they were doing was wrong and did not want it disclosed publicly.” “As Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously observed, ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant.’ The shocking evidence our team has uncovered shows that SAUSD deliberately tried to keep the public in the dark about the extreme biases and antisemitism that infected the District’s ethnic studies curriculum. In doing so, SAUSD violated State law,” said Dan Shallman, lead counsel from Covington & Burling LLP. “We look forward to making our case in court that SAUSD’s actions must not stand. We are proud to stand with our partners at the ADL, the Brandeis Center, and AJC, in seeking to hold SAUSD accountable.” ADL, the Brandeis Center, AJC, and Covington & Burling serve as the plaintiffs’ counsel for this case. A hearing is scheduled for September 19, 2024. ADL Contact: Laura Fennell, lfennell@adl.org, 310-633-1435 Brandeis Center Contact: Jake Sporn, jake@tuskstrategies.com, 516-946-5253 AJC Contact: Steve Gosset, mediacomms@ajc.org, 212-891-1363 Covington & Burling Contact: David Schaefer, dschaefer@cov.com, 202-662-6687 ADL is the leading anti-hate organization in the world. Founded in 1913, its timeless mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Today, ADL continues to fight all forms of antisemitism and bias, using innovation and partnerships to drive impact. A global leader in combating antisemitism, countering extremism and battling bigotry wherever and whenever it happens, ADL works to protect democracy and ensure a just and inclusive society for all. More at www.adl.org. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is an independent, unaffiliated, nonprofit corporation established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. LDB engages in research, education, and legal advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism in educational institutions and beyond. It empowers students by training them to understand their legal rights and educates administrators and employers on best practices to combat racism and anti-Semitism. (The Brandeis Center is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.) See www.brandeiscenter.com. AJC is the global advocacy organization for the Jewish people. With headquarters in New York, 25 offices across the United States, 14 overseas posts, as well as partnerships with 38 Jewish community organizations worldwide, AJC’s mission is to enhance the well-being of the Jewish people and Israel, and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United States and around the world. In an increasingly regulated world, Covington & Burling LLP provides corporate, litigation, and regulatory expertise to help clients navigate their most complex business problems, deals, and disputes. Founded in 1919, the firm has more than 1,300 lawyers in offices in Beijing, Boston, Brussels, Dubai, Frankfurt, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, New York, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Seoul, Shanghai, and Washington. Covington is honored to serve as pro bono counsel for Petitioners in this matter. The firm is frequently recognized for pro bono service, including 12 times being ranked the number one pro bono practice in the U.S. by The American Lawyer. Much of our pro bono work is anchored in meeting local needs, serving economically disadvantaged individuals and families in our surrounding communities, but the firm also has a long history of serving vulnerable clients and important causes throughout the U.S. and the world. #####
Published by Atlanta Journal-Constitution on 8/14/22; Story by Martha Dalton Three Jewish advocacy organizations have filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights alleging routine bullying and harassment of Jewish and Israeli students in Fulton County Schools. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education and the National Jewish Advocacy Center filed the complaint last week. It accuses the school district of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. The organizations announced Tuesday that they filed the complaint. “Jewish and Israeli students have been routinely subjected to frequent incidents of bullying and harassment by their peers — in hallways, in classrooms, on buses, and in schoolyards —simply due to their Jewish identity or Israeli national origin, while their teachers and administration, well-aware of the incidents, have either tacitly condoned it, or refused to take any real action to protect them,” the complaint states. Fulton County Schools denied the allegations in a written statement to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The complaint alleges Jewish students have been targeted and harassed in Fulton since Hamas launched an attack against Israel on Oct. 7. The strike killed an estimated 1,200 Israelis and foreigners. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed during the ensuing conflict, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. An estimated 1.9 million people have been displaced from Gaza, according to some estimates. The complaint alleges several incidents of antisemitism occurred in Fulton, including an altercation at a middle school where a student allegedly told an Israeli student, “Somebody needs to bomb your country, and hey, somebody already did.” The filing also states a student asked a fifth grade girl if she was Israeli, then told her she hates Jews and Israelis and thinks they should all be killed. The complaint says a second grade teacher, who had two Israeli students in her class, told her students the war in Gaza was Israel’s fault. “It is not just that these acts of harassment and bullying were occurring in the district, but that the administrations and the district itself … failed to take action and did not appear to understand the seriousness of the issue,” Marci Miller, director of legal investigations at the Brandeis Center, said in an interview. “It really gave a green light to the kids — and the teachers in some cases — that were harassing the Jewish students … realizing that there really would be no consequences for their behavior, it just continues to increase.” The filing says that Jewish parents offered to arrange antisemitism training for teachers and administrators, but the district refused. The groups claim Fulton officials dismissed parents’ concerns, didn’t discipline students and teachers who engaged in antisemitism, and didn’t provide a safety plan for students. “Fulton County Schools recognizes the strong feelings that were generated by the tragedy of October 7 and the continuing war in the Middle East. School leadership has continually communicated with parents and students with the goal of respecting one another and maintaining a focus on learning.” The complaint doesn’t ask for monetary compensation. Instead, the organizations made some requests of Fulton, including: issuing a statement denouncing antisemitism, disciplining teachers and students who engage in antisemitic behaviors, creating a task force made up of Jewish students and faculty to advise the district on how to improve school culture for Jewish students. Feeling safe at school is the end goal, Miller said. “We’re hoping that some changes are made at the beginning of the school year, so that we don’t experience another year like we did last year, and that (Fulton is) prepared to handle what’s coming,” she said.
Washington, D.C. (August 13, 2024) – The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law, Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE) and the National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC), filed a Title VI complaint with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against the Fulton County School District (FCSD) over routine anti-Semitic bullying and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students since October 7th, in the hallways, classrooms, buses and schoolyards of elementary, middle and high schools located across the District. The complaint documents numerous incidents showing how FCSD has fostered a hostile climate that has allowed anti-Semitism to thrive in its schools. FCSD has ignored pleas from Jewish and Israeli parents whose children have faced increasing physical and verbal harassment that has led many of them to feel unsafe and unwelcome at school. Said Denise Katz-Prober, Director of Legal Initiatives for the Brandeis Center, “The numerous incidents of anti-Semitic bullying and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students by their peers and teachers in the Fulton County School District – some even targeting the most vulnerable students in elementary and middle schools – are a disturbing reminder that anti-Semitism is a problem that impacts students long before they step foot on a college campus. The families of these Jewish and Israeli students have been left to fend for themselves, by administrators who dismiss their complaints and refuse to act. It is long past due for FCSD to take swift corrective action against the anti-Semitism that pervades their schools.” Fulton County School District Fosters a Hostile Environment and Culture of Anti-Semitism Just one day after Hamas’ terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023, Jewish and Israeli students in FCSD were subject to other students yelling anti-Israel slogans and cursing at them. One Israeli middle school student was told by a classmate that “somebody needs to bomb your country, and hey, somebody already did.” A high school student approached a group of Jewish and Israeli girls and mimicked shooting them with a gun while making gunshot noises. Students have also burned “I stand with Israel” posters. Students have referred to Jews as “stinky.” In one particularly egregious instance, a student asked an Israeli 5th grade student if she was Israeli and then told her that she hates Jews and Israelis and they should all be killed. The same student kept approaching the Israeli student and happily describing all the atrocities that Hamas had committed in Israel, including beheading babies and butchering children. Further, some Jewish students, as young as six years old, have been told, during class and with teachers present, that Israel is entirely at fault for this war. The harassment is not limited to students, but tolerated and even conducted by teachers and other school officials. Just nine days after October 7th, a 2nd grade teacher told her class – which included two Israeli students – that the war was Israel’s fault. Further, educational materials used by FCSD teachers to indoctrinate students with one-sided history include maps that completely omit the State of Israel and erase the heritage of Jewish and Israeli students. In April, during cultural night at a District elementary school, five Israeli mothers of FCSD students were tabling with their children when they were verbally accosted and abused by a group of Palestinian parents. The Israeli mothers were yelled at and called “Nazis.” As the mothers began to shake and cry in fear for their children’s and their own safety, the leader of the Palestinian group – a father of another student – spat at them. After the victims complained to a school safety officer, the guard ultimately told the women that the man seemed nice, so he was not going to do anything. The harassment and bullying have been perpetrated and condoned not only by fellow students but also by teachers and administrators, who have fostered an intense climate of hostility and fear by teaching propaganda and by allowing students to harass their Jewish and Israeli peers before, during, and after class, mocking their pain and threatening their families. Parents reported the anti-Semitism to school administrators on numerous occasions. But instead of taking responsive action to address the anti-Jewish hostility, FCSD denied the anti-Semitic nature of the incidents or offered inadequate solutions. The cumulative effect of the anti-Semitic harassment and bullying by teachers and peers, anti-Semitic propaganda on schoolhouse walls, retaliation against those reporting anti-Semitism and a complete failure of FCSD to address the anti-Semitic climate, is the increased bullying, shunning and marginalization of Jewish and Israeli students. The hostile environment for Jewish students has become intolerable, and is ultimately denying Jewish students the full benefits of their federally-funded education and interfering with Jewish students’ ability to access their education. Said Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, “Since October 7, much of the discussion around anti-Semitism in educational institutions has focused, rightfully so given the scale of the problem, around colleges and universities. However, as FCSD has shown, anti-Semitism also is being taught in K-12 schools and at times perpetuated by teachers and staff. As students enter the new school year, FCSD must fulfill its moral and legal obligations to create a school climate free from anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination.” The complaint against FCSD follows a series of legal actions taken by the Brandeis Center to address the eruption of anti-Semitism in K-12 schools after the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel. The Brandeis Center has also filed a federal complaint against Berkeley Unified School District and is suing the New York Department of Education and the Santa Ana Unified School District for unaddressed anti-Semitism. The Brandeis Center also secured a recent win with respect to its complaint against the Community School of Davidson public charter school in North Carolina. About the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is an independent, unaffiliated, nonprofit corporation established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. LDB engages in research, education, and legal advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses, in the workplace, and elsewhere. It empowers students by training them to understand their legal rights and educates administrators and employers on best practices to combat racism and anti- Semitism. The Brandeis Center is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice. More at www.brandeiscenter.com.
Published by Jewish News Syndicate on 8/2/24 Senior counsel Robin Pick said the university “has the opportunity to be a leader and a model for other universities in the fight against antisemitism.” The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law announced a settlement with the school on Thursday, following an early mediation process through the U.S. Department of Education to address a complaint about campus antisemitism. The student who filed the complaint reported incidents of harassment the university failed to address, including a tunnel filled with swastikas and someone screaming at her “Death to Jews! Death to Zionists!” Brandeis reported that the academic institution will implement a non-discrimination policy aligning with the 2019 Executive Order 13899 and North Carolina’s House Bill 942 (also known as the Shalom Act) which utilizes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. North Carolina State will also revise training for students and staff, and conduct a campus survey to assess the depth of anti-Jewish sentiment. Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center, called the settlement “a significant step forward in our efforts to combat antisemitism on college campuses.” He said the agreement “paves the way for meaningful change on both NCSU’s campus and on college campuses throughout the country.” Robin Pick, senior counsel at the Brandeis Center, stated that “by committing to combat antisemitism in accordance with Executive Order 13899 and North Carolina House Bill 942, which apply to training, education, recognizing, identifying and combating antisemitic hate and discrimination, NC State has the opportunity to be a leader and a model for other universities in the fight against antisemitism.”
August 1, 2024, (Washington, D.C.): Brandeis Center lauds settlement under which North Carolina State University agrees to take meaningful action to combat anti-Semitism Washington, D.C., (August 1, 2024): Today, Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center, and Robin Pick, Senior Counsel at the Brandeis Center, issued the following statements in response to a recent settlement the Brandeis Center reached with North Carolina State University (NCSU) through the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Right’s (OCR) early mediation process. The settlement arises from a complaint filed with OCR alleging that NC State violated Title VI when it failed to address a hostile environment resulting from multiple incidents of harassment of a student based on her shared Jewish ancestry. Allegations by the complainant against NCSU include the following: During the complainant’s first week at school, she walked through a campus tunnel covered with swastikas. When she complained to the administration, they told her there was nothing they could do. The complainant was doxxed and harassed on social media for being Jewish and supporting Israel, with her name and face posted publicly. Classmates who knew that the complainant was Jewish, harassed and threatened her with violence as they sped past her, screaming out of a car window “Death to Jews! Death to Zionists!” In the face of a hostile anti-Semitic campus climate, the University has demonstrated a willingness to change course and combat anti-Semitism by implementing its non-discrimination policy in accordance with Executive Order 13899 and North Carolina General Statutes (including the new North Carolina House Bill 942 known as the SHALOM Act) which refer to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) definition and its contemporary examples for identifying and combating ant-Semitism. Said Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and Chairman of the Brandeis Center: The Brandeis Center’s settlement with NCSU represents a significant step forward in our efforts to combat anti-Semitism on college campuses. This settlement paves the way for meaningful change on both NCSU’s campus and on college campuses throughout the country. The settlement agreement includes a commitment to abide by Executive Order 13899 and North Carolina Statutes, including North Carolina House Bill 942, which explicitly reference the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and its contemporary examples for combating anti-Semitism. We commend the University for its commitment to include references to these important tools in the settlement agreement and in their revised anti-discrimination policy. Said Robin Pick, Senior Counsel at the Brandeis Center: By committing to combat anti-Semitism in accordance with Executive Order 13899 and North Carolina House Bill 942, which apply to training, education, recognizing, identifying and combating anti-Semitic hate and discrimination, NC State has the opportunity to be a leader and a model for other universities in the fight against anti-Semitism. The Resolution Agreement includes the following obligations: The University will revise, implement and disseminate its Non-Discrimination Policy in accordance with Title VI, Executive Order 13899, and North Carolina General Statutes (which include the newly passed SHALOM Act) and include language reflective thereof.Executive Order 13899 requires that both the IHRA definition and its contemporary examples be considered when identifying discrimination based on national origin and combating anti-Semitism; The SHALOM Act states that North Carolina adopts the Working Definition of Antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on May 26, 2016, including the contemporary examples of antisemitism set forth therein, as a tool and guide for training, education, recognizing, and combating antisemitic hate crimes or discrimination. The University will take a firm stand against anti-Semitism by issuing a non-discrimination statement to the campus community that includes links to Executive Order 13899, North Carolina House Bill 942, OCR’s May 7, 2024 Dear Colleague Letter which contains examples of anti-Semitic harassment, along with other resources to combat discrimination on campus. The University will revise its trainings for students, faculty and staff and include example(s) from Executive Order 13899 or OCR guidance of the different ways Jewish students may experience discrimination and harassment. The University will conduct a campus climate survey and assess whether additional engagement, communication, resources and/or training are needed to improve the campus climate, including for the University’s Jewish community. Additionally, NCSU leadership will meet with students and leaders of Jewish organizations each semester to discuss community needs and concerns for Jewish students.
Washington, D.C. (July 23, 2024) – The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) is pleased to announce the appointment of Kami Z. Barker as the organization’s newest senior litigator as part of its continued expansion. As anti-Semitism continues to surge throughout all aspects of the U.S. educational systems – from higher education to K-12 and campus bullying to faculty indoctrination – the Brandeis Center plans to further expand its capacity to advocate for Jewish American students, parents, and faculty. Ms. Barker is an accomplished trial attorney, disability policy advisor, and former intergovernmental lobbyist. She earned her business and law degrees from Emory University and her public administration degree from Harvard University. Ms. Barker joins LDB after spending most of her career representing the City of New York, advocating for legislation in the halls of Congress and defending high-profile and complex labor and employment discrimination cases in New York’s most esteemed courts. “As a wheelchair-user, observant Jew, and dual American Israeli citizen, I understand the importance of the Civil Rights Act and its progeny more than most,” stated Barker. “Human rights statutes like the Americans with Disabilities Act made it possible for me to achieve my dreams and become the first jurist in my family. But, today, Jews are regularly forced to endure hostile anti-Semitic environments under the guise of free speech tolerance. It’s my privilege to join the Brandeis Center’s fight to ensure that no one is forced to tolerate hate speech on campus or in the workforce.” “The Brandeis Center is happy to welcome Kami and looks forward to seeing her contributions to fighting the onslaught of anti-Semitism in our educational systems,” said Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “Kami is joining our team when the demand for our legal services is higher than ever,” said Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin. “Kami’s extensive litigation experience, professionalism, and passion for protecting civil rights, enhances our organization, benefits our clients, and expands our capacity to combat effectively the rising anti-Semitism on college campuses, in K-12, and in the workplace. It’s a pleasure to welcome Kami to our litigation team.” 2024 continues to be a momentous year for the Brandeis Center. The organization recently sued the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for wrongful dismissal of LDB’s complaint against the University of Pennsylvania – only weeks after it first opened an investigation. In its legal fight against anti-Semitism, LDB is also actively pursuing litigation against the University of California system, Harvard University, the New York City Department of Education, the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, and the Santa Ana Unified School District. OCR maintains ongoing investigations based on LDB complaints at numerous institutions, including the University of Southern California, SUNY New Paltz, Wellesley, and the Berkeley Unified School District. And a North Carolina charter school and Brooklyn College both recently agreed to settle OCR investigations based on LDB complaints. In response to the growing demand for our services, the Brandeis Center continues to expand its team, initiatives, and policy-driven work. LDB will continue to hire legal and other staff throughout 2024. Professionals passionate about these issues are encouraged to watch the opportunities section of LDB’s website – and subscribe to the organization’s mailing list. LDB continues to accept applications for attorney positions at all levels of experience, civil rights legal fellows, and law student clerkships, as well as internships. If you meet the qualifications and are passionate about our mission to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all, we want to hear from you.
Published 7/16/24 by Law360; Story by Jake Maher Jewish organizations suing the University of California, Berkeley, and its law school for allegedly tolerating an antisemitic culture on campus fought to keep their suit alive this week in the face of a motion to dismiss, maintaining their claims are ripe despite UC Berkeley’s “bold misreading” of the case. UC Berkeley argued in June that the case should be tossed because the university had not had time to internally address some of the incidents cited as evidence of antisemitism in the suit, such as a tent encampment and the blockade of a gate on campus protesting Israel’s military efforts in Gaza. But the Jewish organizations told a California federal court in an opposition brief Monday that Jewish students have long faced a “constant drumbeat” of connected hostile incidents that the school has failed to effectively address. “Defendants paint the suit as one alleging a series of discrete incidents. Wrong — it is a suit alleging defendants’ failure to respond in any meaningful way to a longstanding hostile environment,” the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education wrote in their opposition brief. “They got the facts and the law wrong,” added L. Rachel Lerman, general counsel for the Brandeis Center, in a Tuesday interview with Law360 Pulse. She said that, assuming all facts in the complaint are true, it is “abundantly clear” that the plaintiffs have stated a claim and that UC Berkeley is “mistaken” in its ripeness argument: The situation at UC Berkeley is continuing to get worse, with issues possibly on the horizon in the new school year, Lerman said, so the court cannot give the school even more time to pursue its ineffective strategies. Lerman pointed to comments made by University of California President Michael Drake in November 2023 stating that students have faced “outright violence.” “Usually you would expect an immediate response at that point,” Lerman said. In court papers, the plaintiffs also pushed back on UC Berkeley’s argument that handling the dispute in court would restrict free speech and effectively put the court in charge of administrative functions on campus. Antisemitic speech is not legally protected, the plaintiffs countered, and they are not demanding specific remedies but rather for the court to make UC Berkeley live up to its own antidiscrimination policies. “While the law protects universities from judicial interference with campus administration by allowing the university to select the means to curtail a hostile environment, it does not permit universities to select responses that are demonstrably ineffective,” the plaintiffs wrote in Monday’s opposition brief. The plaintiffs’ original complaint from November accused UC Berkeley of fostering the “long-standing, unchecked spread of antisemitism” by allowing student groups to use their bylaws to ban those who hold Zionist views — which they argued violates the U.S. Constitution and federal anti-discrimination laws. The plaintiff groups amended their complaint in May to include claims stemming from more recent events on campus, including a blockade of Sather Gate and what they described as a riot at an event featuring an Israeli Defense Force officer in February. They also alleged that a group known as Law Students for Justice in Palestine conducted an antisemitic harassment campaign against Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. UC Berkeley moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs were seeking to turn a dispute over student group bylaws into an “open forum for litigating incidents at UC Berkeley as they hit the news,” in many cases before the school had had a chance to respond to those incidents. UC Berkeley further claimed that the complaint did not manage to allege that the school had shown” deliberate indifference” in its response to the alleged antisemitism. The plaintiffs, however, countered that the question of deliberate indifference is normally decided on a full factual record at the summary judgment stage. Even if it were not too early to decide on that, they argued, the details in their complaint means that their allegations “go far beyond plausibility.” Representatives for UC Berkeley declined to comment on Tuesday. The plaintiffs are represented by John V. Coghlan and Tara Helfman of Torridon Law PLLC, Eric M. George and David J. Carroll of Ellis George LLP, and Kenneth L. Marcus and L. Rachel Lerman in-house at the Brandeis Center. UC Berkeley, its law school and the other defendants are represented by Hailyn J. Chen and Bryan H. Heckenlively ofMunger Tolles & Olson LLP. The case is Louis D. Brandeis Center Inc. et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al., case number 3:23-cv-06133, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Department of Education has opened 48 cases tied to antisemitism at colleges and universities since Oct. 7, most related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kenneth Marcus, Founder and Chairman of the Brandeis Center is at the forefront of many of these legal cases. AJU President Jeffrey Herbst will join in conversation with Marcus and explore the utility of using Title VI and other laws to fight antisemitism on campuses, the tension between free expression and safety, and how Jewish students and their families should approach the challenges they face. Reserve your spot for this free, virtual event here. Register Now
Published by New York Post on 7/9/24; Story by Carl Campanile A Jewish civil rights group is suing the union repping taxpayer-funded Legal Aid lawyers for allegedly retaliating against three members who objected to its antisemitic practices. The Association of Legal Aid Attorneys initiated proceedings to expel the three Nassau County members — Ilana Kopmar, Diane Clarke and Isaac Altman — after they filed a lawsuit last year to block the union from passing a one-sided pro-Hamas resolution that only condemned Israel for the war. The union’s hate-filled resolution also supported a boycott movement against Israel — which only invaded Gaza after the Palestinian terror group Hamas launched a sneak massacre on the Jewish state Oct. 7, killing more than 1,200 people, mostly innocent civilians. Both sides are still at war, with Israel unleashing devastating blows on the Gaza Strip, killing thousands of civilians and displacing hundreds of thousands more as Hamas refuses to surrender. The union approved the divisive resolution in December, with 1,067 votes in favor to 570 opposed. The move was condemned by the union’s main employer, the Legal Aid Society, which receives hundreds of millions of dollars in city and state funds to provide free legal services to poor criminal defendants and other needy New Yorkers. “Anti-Semitism in a union isn’t any less objectionable than anti-Semitism on a college campus, in a public school, or at a workplace,” said Ken Marcus, chairman of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, whose group Tuesday filed the lawsuit in Manhattan federal court against ALAA, Local 2325 of the United Auto Workers, and 28 individual union officers and members. The plaintiffs said the resolution approved by the union and statements and other messages on its internal email boards reeked of Jew-hatred, including “River to the Sea” posts construed as calling for destroying the state of Israel. The resolution and messages also included support for Hamas that ignored the terror group’s attack; antisemitic tropes such as saying “Jewish donations” caused the Legal Aid Society and other employers to denounced the resolution; claims that Jewish ALAA members have dual loyalty to Israel; questioning of the ability of Jewish lawyers to represent minority clients; and even blaming Israel for police misconduct in the United States. “Zionism is integral to Jewish identity, but plaintiffs — proud unionists who have dedicated their professional lives to serving poor and disadvantaged clients — didn’t need to be Zionists, or in one case, even Jewish, to understand that anti-Semitism is antithetical both to their obligations as lawyers and to the mission of a union responsible for representing the interests of all its members,” said Rory Lancman, senior counsel at the Brandeis Center and a former Queens councilman. One anti-Israel union member said in an email of the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis, “You keep talking about ‘Jewish babies being murdered,’ and women being raped, you’re simply spreading lies and misinformation. There is no proof or substantiation. There are no pictures…” Four ALAA members identified as defendants in the lawsuit filed union charges against the plaintiffs, putting in motion the disciplinary proceedings to oust them from the union, the suit said. That’s brazen retaliation of the plaintiffs’ rights to sue and violations under federal labor law and New York state and New York City anti-discrimination laws, the lawsuit claimed. The plaintiffs, whose lawyers also include Lieb at Law, called for the court to stop the union from punishing them, as well as unspecified damages. The UAW Local 2325, Legal Aid Attorneys union, did not respond to a Post request for comment.