Published 10/10/23 by Campus Reform. Story by William Biagini ‘These wrong-headed student voices are more pronounced in light of the administration’s failure to speak out quickly and firmly against the atrocities,’ said Brandeis Center founder Kenneth Marcus. Over 30 student organizations at Harvard University issued a joint statement on Sunday, asserting that Israel is “entirely responsible for all unfolding violence” following Hamas’ weekend attack. Kenneth Marcus—founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law—told Campus Reform in an Oct. 10 statement that “It is reprehensible, to say the least, that so many Harvard student organizations are taking the wrong side on this massacre.” “When so many people are being slaughtered, raped, and their corpses desecrated, it shouldn’t be difficult to decide whether you are on the side of the murderers or the victims,” he continued. “And yet all of these Harvard students are rushing to join the wrong side—the side of the perpetrators.” “These wrong-headed student voices are more pronounced in light of the administration’s failure to speak out quickly and firmly against the atrocities, just as they spoke out when Russian [sic] invaded Ukraine,” Marcus added. Marcus criticized the administration’s prioritization of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) prioritization, claiming that it has “allowed such bigotry to grow unchecked. It is also a sign of something rotten in Harvard’s admissions program, that they have admitted these people.” Campus Reform also contacted the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which pointed to an organizational statement released in an Oct. 8 X post. “With over 700 Israeli dead, many more wounded, and Hamas claiming 130 Israelis including children captive, the joint statement by Harvard student groups blaming Israel for these acts of a foreign terrorist organization is despicable,” it reads. ADL’s statement concluded with “@Harvard must disavow or be seen as complicit in this antisemitism that should have no place on campus.”
Washington, D.C. (October 6, 2023) – Today, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law responded to the growth of anti-Jewish hate crimes with an important new resource: a fact sheet on understanding hate crime laws in America. The Fact Sheet outlines what a hate crime is; who is most commonly targeted for hate crimes in America; why prohibiting hate crimes is important; and the distinction between punishing hate crimes and punishing hate speech or hateful thoughts. “Over the last couple of years, we’ve gotten an increasing number of calls about violent crimes against Jewish Americans, including physical assaults as well as vandalism,” said Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “We’re providing the new tool as part of our effort to support communities that are struggling with this issue. But the point is not merely to educate. It is to fight. And we will fight, when called upon to do so, to protect the rights of those who have been harmed and to hold wrongdoers accountable.” Crime data shows that members of certain groups face a greater threat of being the subject of a hate crime than others. Over the past five years for which the FBI has published hate crimes data, Jewish Americans were disproportionately targeted for hate crimes by more than 450%. Jewish Americans were targeted for about 11% of all hate crimes, despite being only 2.4% of the U.S. population. With anti-Semitic hate crimes at record levels, states like Florida are looking to prosecute perpetrators. The Brandeis Center provided constitutional and legal analysis to Florida’s Jewish community in support of HB 269, which provides law enforcement agencies with new enforcement mechanisms to punish perpetrators of anti-Semitic incidents. A recent study found that Illinois has experienced an 80% increase in hate crime incidents, leading to calls for additional reporting and enforcement mechanisms. “The Brandeis Center is committed to educating and empowering those who experience anti-Semitism by teaching them about their legal rights. Fact sheets like this one help educate and inform the public about the type of support the Brandeis Center provides,” stated Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin. A hate crime has two elements: a crime – a violation of criminal law – and a specific intention. Intention is defined under U.S. federal law as intentionally selecting the victim of the crime based on a protected characteristic of the victim, most commonly the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The new fact sheet explains how hate crimes against Jews are categorized. Jewish identity is both ethnic and religious, and those who commit hate crimes against Jews may do so due to hatred of Jews as a group and/or animosity against the Jewish religion. For recordkeeping purposes, the FBI categorizes anti-Semitic hate crimes as crimes motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived religion. Annually, it reports more anti-Semitic hate crimes have been committed than hate crimes against all other religious groups combined. Federal law enforcement must participate in the FBI’s hate crimes reporting program, and the FBI must collect data from local law enforcement. Colleges and universities must also publish reports about hate crimes and some other crimes committed on their campuses. They face significant financial penalties if they fail to do so. To learn more about hate crimes, access our new fact sheet here.
In this fact sheet, we outline what a hate crime is; who is most commonly targeted for hate crimes in America; why prohibiting hate crimes is important; and the distinction between punishing hate crimes and punishing hate speech or hateful thoughts. Understanding Hate CrimesDownload
Op-ed published by Jewish Journal on 10/4/23. Biden’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism gets it right. Last Thursday the Biden Administration announced that as part of implementing its National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, eight more federal agencies have now officially adopted the Marcus Policy under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and will be making use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of antisemitism in order to better protect the Jewish community. Also Thursday, the State Department re-affirmed that in order to fight antisemitism we must define it, and that IHRA is the right definition to help combat antisemitism. By way of background, in the United States, Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires all recipients of federal funding to ensure (and annually affirm) that their programs and activities are free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. Notably, the Act does not give the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) jurisdiction to investigate religious bias, and so until 2004, OCR typically did not investigate complaints about antisemitism. The problem with that is simple: Judaism is not just a religion, and Jewish identity in particular can be multifaceted, incorporating aspects of religion, race, culture, national origin and ethnicity. In a groundbreaking September 13, 2004 Dear Colleague letter, then Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for enforcement Kenneth L. Marcus issued a series of policy statements announcing that OCR would henceforth investigate antisemitism complaints, to the extent that they implicate ethnic or ancestral bias. The logic behind the policy clarification was clear: much of the hatred embodied in antisemitism (and the same is true for Islamophobia) has nothing to do with specific religious practices, and everything to do with ethnicity or ancestral bias. To put it in practical terms, people very rarely hate Jews because they do or do not light Shabbat candles on Friday evenings. They do, however, often hate them for their racial or national origin identity, especially when that involves a real or even just a perceived connection to the State of Israel. As the Marcus Policy directive explained, “[g]roups that face discrimination on the basis of shared ethnic characteristics may not be denied the protection of our civil rights laws on the ground that they also share a common faith.” The legality of the policy was obviously correct, and built on precedential application of other civil rights statutes. See, for example, Singer v. Denver Sch. Dist. No. 1 (D.Colo.1997), dealing with Section 1982 claims. Since that time, the Marcus Policy reasoning has been amplified by the U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, and confirmed in court both in regard to Title VI cases (See T.E. v. Pine Bush Cent. Sch. Dist., [S.D.N.Y. 2014]) and in the Title VII context as well (see Bonadona v. Louisiana Coll., [W.D. La. 2018]). While the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the specific issue, the Court has twice held that other statutes that were similarly intended to protect identifiable classes of persons who are subject to intentional discrimination “because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics” included Jewish people—whether or not they would be classified as a race in terms of modern scientific theory (see SAINT FRANCIS COLLEGE, et al., Petitioners, v. Majid Ghaidan AL–KHAZRAJI, etc., 481 U.S. 604 [1987] and Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 [1987]. Nor was this ever, in any way, a partisan issue. On October 26, 2010, the Obama Justice Department released an opinion letter confirming the legal correctness of the 2004 Policy. There was, however, one additional problem for OCR; because Jewish identity and the corresponding manifestations of antisemitism are so multifaceted, without a standard definition to use as a reference, it was still too easy for antisemites to hide behind this vagueness, commit horrible acts that targeted Jews, and then claim their actions were not antisemitic because they were not based on this or that particular characteristic. That led to an equal protection problem that still lingers to this day, and is a contributing factor in the high rates of antisemitic incidents we are currently seeing. In order to correct this problem, on December 11, 2019, the Trump Administration announced an executive order codifying the (now longstanding) Marcus Policy that, for the purposes of Title VI discrimination claims, Jewish students are protected against antisemitism. The Order also clarified that when evaluating these claims, the Department should consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of antisemitism. The United States had already been using IHRA for a while; the Definition was incorporated as a guide by the U.S. State Department as early as 2007, unofficially adopted in 2010, and formally adopted in 2016 after it was officially accepted by a plenary meeting of the then-3 countries in the IHRA (including the US).Over the last two decades, the IHRA definition has proven to be an essential definitional tool used to determine contemporary manifestations of antisemitism and is in use by dozens of countries and 1100+ other entities worldwide. While the Definition makes clear that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic, it also includes useful examples of discriminatory anti-Zionism that can cross the line into antisemitism. Again, none of this was partisan; there are very few things that the Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations all agree on, but the use of the Marcus Policy, and the IHRA definition, are two of them. The Executive Order on Antisemitism (reaffirmed by the Biden administration) already applied to any agency within the entire federal government that made use of Title VI. Until now, however, only the Department of Education had been explicit in how they intend to use Title VI to protect Jewish people who are targeted for their shared ancestry, race, national origin and ethnicity. As of September 28, however, the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Treasury, and Transportation have all committed to the same. Just a short while later that same morning, Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the Special Envoy on Antisemitism, released a report confirming that from the perspective of the United States government, combating antisemitism begins with doing what the U.S. and many others have already done: embracing and applying IHRA. When the National Strategy document was originally released, there was some legitimate concern that its very acknowledgement of the existence of other (unaccepted) definitions of antisemitism could lead to some confusion about the near-universal acceptance of IHRA. This was despite the fact that the plan was clear that the United States uses only IHRA, and that the other definitions were wrong on key points. The rollout, however, has been remarkably consistent, and it is a relief to see that with antisemitism surging to unprecedented levels across America, the Biden administration is serious about delivering the “most ambitious, comprehensive effort in our history to combat antisemitism in America,” and that instead of seeking to appease those who would undermine this effort by watering down what counts as antisemitism, it continues to unequivocally endorse the IHRA definition in a responsible, whole-of-government way.
Published by Algemeiner on 9/29/23; Story by Dion J. Pierre The Biden administration’s latest announcement on taking new steps to combat anti-Jewish discrimination is a major development in the right direction, but the US still has “unfinished business” when it comes to federal agencies adopting the world’s most widely accepted definition of antisemitism, according to a leading Jewish civil rights advocate. On Thursday, the White House announced that eight US federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, have for the first time formally recognized that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act — which prohibits discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance — also prohibits certain forms of antisemitism. The change in policy, which acknowledges that Jews are both a religious and ancestral group, is part of US President Joe Biden’s national strategy to counter antisemitism first unveiled in May. “Eight federal agencies clarified for the first time in writing that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits certain forms of antisemitic, Islamophobic, and related forms of discrimination in federally funded programs and activities,” the White House said in a statement. “These wide-ranging protections provide important tools to curb discrimination based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics and to better protect the civil rights of all Americans.” For decades, the American Jewish community was one of the only ancestral groups not covered by the law even as it expanded to provide protections for women and other minorities. However, as incidents of antisemitism increased in public institutions, change became vitally important, according to a former assistant secretary for civil rights at the US Department of Education. “This development is important because it reflects the acceptance by essentially the entire domestic wing of the federal government the notion that Jewish Americans are protected under Title VI, which was hotly contested for years and certainly had been rejected by the Department of Education prior to my tenure,” Kenneth Marcus — now the founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law — told The Algemeiner. “The reason the Education Department has been resistant to this approach prior to my tenure is that the Civil Right Act of 1964 does not include religion.” Marcus added that the law makes some mentions of religion but was aimed primarily at prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. “There was historically reluctance in the federal government to treat Jews as anything other than a religion, and for that reason, Jews were considered to be unprotected and had no federal civil rights protections when they were in elementary school, secondary school, or college and university,” he explained. The Department of Education became the first agency to declare that Title VI applies to Jewish Americans during the George W. Bush administration, when Marcus served as assistant secretary, in what has become known as the “Marcus Doctrine.” The policy, he told The Algemeiner, was controversial, with critics arguing that Jews are a White-adjacent people who either do not need or have transcended the need for federal protections safeguarding the civil rights of Americans of color. Marcus said that more work needs to be done, despite the Biden administration’s latest announcement. The key area that still needs to be addressed, he explained, concerns the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been embraced by dozens of governments and hundreds of civic institutions around the world. IHRA, an intergovernmental organization comprised of dozens of countries including the US and Israel, adopted a non-legally binding “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and well over 1,000 global entities, from countries to companies. The US State Department, the European Union, and the United Nations all use it. According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” IHRA provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state. The Biden administration’s national strategy to counter antisemitism, unveiled in May as the foundation of the federal government’s efforts to fight antisemitism, embraces elements of both the IHRA definition and the competing “Nexus Document.” The latter was written by a group of academics who argue that applying double standards to Israel and opposing Israel’s continuation as the nation-state of the Jewish people may not necessarily be antisemitic, creating tighter standards around when anti-Israel speech and activity is antisemitic. According to Marcus, the Biden administration remains in limbo when it comes to the IHRA definition. While he commended the administration’s efforts to implement its national strategy on combating antisemitism, he said that none of the eight agencies named in Thursday’s announcement have committed to using the IHRA definition. “There’s still unfinished business in terms of the administration’s approach to IHRA and making it applicable across the board,” he explained, defending the definition as a tool for standardizing the government’s approach to fighting antisemitism. “That’s the definition that really needs to be used across the board. It is incorporated into the executive order on combating antisemitism, and it’s really crucial that the agencies now recognize that it should be the basis on which they’re interpreting their newly recognized authority.” Marcus added that other areas also need to be addressed, especially concerning the US government including full recognition of Zionism as an inalienable element of the Jewish people. In 2019, former US President Donald Trump issued an executive order on combating antisemitism that affirmed civil rights protections for Jewish students and recognized Zionism’s centrality to Jewish identity. The Biden administration has for years now continuously delayed issuing new promised Title VI guidance from the Department of Education based on Trump’s executive order to protect Jewish students. Last month, the department issued separate guidance on how colleges and K-12 schools receiving federal funds should develop curricula that fosters “racially inclusive school communities.” At the time, Marcus described the guidance as a “mixed bag” when it came to how the guidance would impact the Jewish community. Thursday’s announcement from the White House comes amid rising antisemitic and anti-Zionist discrimination on college campuses across the US.
Story from Jewish Insider’s “Daily Kickoff” for September 22, 2023 Pressure is mounting on the University of Pennsylvania ahead of a conference featuring an array of anti-Israel speakers that is slated to begin today on the Philadelphia campus, Jewish Insider’s Matthew Kassel reports. Four attorneys at the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law are claiming in a detailed letter to the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Elizabeth Magill, that she has failed in her legal responsibilities to address a controversial Palestinian literature festival held on the school’s campus and featuring several speakers who have voiced antisemitic rhetoric and called for the destruction of Israel. “By tacitly condoning the inflammatory and false narratives about Israel and the denial of the Jews’ ancestral connection to the land of Israel — themes that speakers at this weekend’s festival repeatedly espouse — Penn is allowing the festival to create a hostile environment for Jewish students on its campus at a time when, even the university has acknowledged, antisemitic harassment, vandalism and assault are rising on college campuses,” the attorneys write in the letter, which was shared exclusively with JI. Brandeis-Center-letter-to-U-of-Penn-President-M.-Elizabeth-Magill-Sept-21-2023-1Download
Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2023) – The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) is pleased to announce the appointment of Alexandra Rindenow as the organization’s newest Civil Rights Legal Fellow. Ms. Rindenow, a graduate of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, will assist with an array of legal duties and policy matters. “The demand for Brandeis Center services is at an all-time high, reflecting both increasing campus anti-Semitism and wide recognition of our legal successes,” said Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “Adding Alexandra and other new lawyers to our staff allows the Brandeis Center to do more of what it does best – advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all.” “As the former Vice President of Cardozo’s LDB law student chapter, Alex is already familiar with the Brandeis Center’s work,” stated Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin. “It’s wonderful when students, like Alex, who become involved with LDB through their campus chapters choose to expand their connection with us as either law clerks or civil rights legal fellows. Alex’s background and experience combined with her passion and enthusiasm have enabled her to hit the ground running. We are delighted to have her as a new member of our team,” added Lewin. “I’m excited to begin my legal career at the Brandeis Center, empowering students to address the growing issue of contemporary anti-Semitism on campus and prompting school administrators to acknowledge its existence and associated risks,” proclaimed Ms. Rindenow. “In a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise, this mission is more important than ever. I’ve always aspired to work in the field of human rights, and I feel incredibly fortunate to have the opportunity to combine that passion with my identity as a Jewish individual dedicated to advancing human rights. I look forward to contributing to the center’s impactful work alongside its dedicated team.” Ms. Rindenow served as staff editor, articles editor and board member of the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. She spent her third year of law school working at the Cardozo Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic, focusing on atrocity prevention in both the legal and policy-based arena. During multiple legal internships for nonprofit organizations serving vulnerable populations, she assisted underserved communities, including Jewish victims of domestic violence. She has also volunteered for Jewish organizations serving terminally ill children living with cancer-related disabilities. The Brandeis Center continues to accept applications for civil rights legal fellows, as well as law student clerkships and undergraduate communications and policy internships.
Contact: Nicole Rosen 202-309-5724 Washington, D.C. (September 28, 2023): Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, issued the following statement today in response to the Biden Administration’s declaration that eight federal agencies will utilize Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to combat anti-Semitism, as Marcus first recommended in 2004 as head of President Bush’s U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights: “We are elated by this morning’s Biden White House announcement that eight federal agencies would acknowledge that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects Jewish Americans, as well as other ethno-religious groups, from certain ethnic or ancestral discrimination. Coupled with Ambassador Lipstadt’s new State Department report, issued in the same week, which recognizes the central role of the IHRA Working Definition in efforts to combat anti-Semitism, this is a major victory well worth celebrating. Nevertheless, it is only a partial victory, even if it is deeply satisfying. “With today’s announcement, virtually the entire federal government is now on board with the policy the Office for Civil Rights announced in 2004, but there’s a problem. The fact is that it’s one thing for the government to commit to addressing anti-Semitism and another for it to identify anti-Semitism properly. That is why it has always been critical that this policy be coupled with a proper, uniform definition of anti-Semitism. In our times, that definition is the IHRA Working Definition. “The Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism wisely provided explicitly for IHRA’s use, subsequent Education Department guidance has also done so, and the Biden State Department has just reiterated its commitment to IHRA in Ambassador Lipstadt’s new report. It is crucial that the domestic agencies do so as well.” Nearly twenty years ago, as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education under the Bush Administration, Marcus first established as Education Department policy that Title VI protects Jews and other groups from ethnic and ancestral discrimination. This policy is sometimes described as the Marcus Doctrine or Marcus Policy. It is important because Title VI, which applies to federally funded programs, does not prohibit religious discrimination. That is why it was critical to establish that anti-Semitism is not merely religious but also related to the peoplehood or shared ancestry of the Jewish people. This was initially a controversial approach and faced significant pushback over the years, as detailed in Marcus’ first book, Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America – a book written solely to protect this doctrine in the face of opposition. The bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights affirmed the correctness of the doctrine in 2006 and in 2010, the Obama Justice and Education Departments also affirmed the policy, but it remained a matter of informal guidance. In 2019, President Donald Trump incorporated this approach into the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, however, the policy was widely misunderstood by some who thought, incorrectly, that it implied Jews are a race. The Biden Administration today affirmed that Jews share a peoplehood, as well as a common religion, are often targeted based on spurious racial prejudices, and therefore deserve protection under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Marcus served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for both the Bush and Trump Administrations. To read this press release as a PDF, click here.
Lawsuit alleges significant violations of the Brown Act, California open meeting law. ADL Contact: Todd Gutnick, adlmedia@adl.org, 917-544-2342 Brandeis Center Contact: Nicole Rosen, nicole@rosencomm.com, 202-309-5724 AJC Contact: Steve Gosset, mediacomms@ajc.org, 212-891-1363 PLG Contact: Marlene E. Laro, mlaro@potomaclaw.com, 703-517-6449 StandWithUs Contact: Jennifer Kutner, jkutner@standwithus.org, 310-245-4109 (Santa Ana, Calif., September 11, 2023): ADL (the Anti-Defamation League), The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, the American Jewish Committee and Potomac Law Group announced today that they filed suit on behalf of the Brandeis Center and its membership arm, So-CUE (Southern Californians for Unbiased Education), comprised of Orange County and Santa Ana residents, against the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) for alleged violations of California’s open meetings law, including failing to provide proper public notice before approving multiple ethnic studies courses containing anti-Jewish bias and for refusing to protect the public, including members of the Jewish community, from intimidation and harassment at Board meetings. The suit is intended to prevent antisemitic material from being taught in Santa Ana schools while the Board goes through the process of approving courses in a lawful manner. The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court, State of California, Orange County, alleges that in March and April 2023, the SAUSD knowingly circumvented the law and was misleading in its effort to pass curricula with dangerously anti-Jewish teachings that violate state rules and ethical standards, all without community awareness. Documents responsive to a Public Records Act request revealed this lack of transparency was intentional, as those developing the curriculum questioned how to “address the Jewish question” and suggested collaborating with outside organizations with a history of controversial viewpoints, instead of with the Jewish community. When members of the community discovered the school board’s actions and appeared at a meeting to publicly comment following the controversial curriculum’s covert approval, they were harassed with antisemitic rhetoric. “It’s clear that the Santa Ana Unified School District violated the law in their rush to approve antisemitic content within their ethnic studies curriculum. Closed-door discussions prevented input from marginalized communities – in direct contrast to the goal of the ethnic studies program, which is to support marginalized communities,” said James Pasch, ADL Senior Director of National Litigation. “No school board should silence the families and students who have a vested interest in the lessons taught in public schools. We’re grateful to the members of the community who endured significant harassment to speak out against this hateful content and the school board’s actions.” “The Santa Ana School Board has allowed ethnic studies courses with substantial antisemitic content to slide through the approval process without giving the public legally required notice or a meaningful opportunity to comment,” said L. Rachel Lerman, General Counsel of the Brandeis Center. “Emails we have uncovered suggest the School Board knowingly tried to keep things under wraps so they wouldn’t have to address what the course developers called ‘the Jewish Question.’ As a persecuted minority, we know all too well the importance of a strong ethnic studies education, but antisemitism does not belong in ethnic studies or anywhere in our classrooms. Teaching kids to hate Jews is a recipe for disaster and must be addressed, particularly now at a time of rising levels of antisemitism.” Under the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, school boards are required to make the public aware of upcoming agendas and plans so community members can provide input. The lawsuit requests that the court recognize that SAUSD violated the law by being covert, and hold them accountable for failing to control disruptive, aggressive behavior that targeted Jewish community members. Additionally, the lawsuit calls on the court to bar the school district from teaching courses that include antisemitic content and were unlawfully approved, and ensure the community has an opportunity to comment and raise objections before those courses are taught. Finally, plaintiffs further ask the court to require SAUSD to follow open meeting laws moving forward, so new ethnic studies courses are not approved without community input. SAUSD’s illegal actions allowing antisemitic content to be taught in schools come at a time when antisemitic attitudes and antisemitic incidents are at historic levels. California saw a 51-percent increase in antisemitic harassment alone in 2022, and more than 500 incidents of harassment, vandalism and assault against Jews. And according to the FBI, Jews are the religious group most targeted by hate crimes. “Done right, ethnic studies prepare students to live in an increasingly diverse society. Done wrong, they can be divisive and discriminatory,” said Marc Stern, AJC Chief Legal Officer.“Public comment and debate are essential to devising a broadly acceptable ethnic studies curriculum. Community input is not just important, it is also the law, one the Santa Ana district has blatantly violated. The district must open up its curriculum for public examination so families can ensure their children are receiving instruction in ethnic studies that emphasizes diversity rather than discrimination.” “Ethnic studies has the power to foster inclusivity and cross-cultural understanding in California students during a time when antisemitism and other forms of hate are on the rise,” said Marci Lerner Miller, a partner at Potomac Law Group in the Education, Litigation and Government Investigation Practice Groups. “Through full transparency, we can ensure that ethnic studies courses are taught as lawmakers intended, without bias, bigotry, or discrimination.” “StandWithUs is proud to partner in this important litigation in support of the Jewish community. Students deserve a proper education about marginalized minorities, not indoctrination based on misinformation and hate. Community members are entitled to the opportunity to fully participate in the process of the adoption of ethnic studies curricula, including the right to voice their views and concerns to their local school boards during that adoption process—not after it has already concluded. We are grateful to our partner organizations spearheading the litigation efforts and trust that the court will take the necessary steps to ensure that the ethnic studies curriculum ultimately used within SAUSD schools is in full compliance with the law,” said Carly Gammill, Counsel for Litigation Strategy, StandWithUs Saidoff Legal Department. ADL, The Brandeis Center, AJC and Potomac Law Group serve as the plaintiffs’ counsel for this case. The StandWithUs Saidoff Legal Department is supporting the litigation as legal consultant. To read this press release as a PDF, click here. 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 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. 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. Potomac Law represents clients worldwide on a broad range of corporate matters, including public interest and high impact litigation. Headquartered in Washington, DC and with lawyers in 20 states, PLG is one of the fastest growing firms in the country. We serve as counsel to clients in a wide range of industries and developmental phases, from Fortune 100 companies to early-stage startups. Our value stems directly from the talent and commitment of our attorneys who have an average of seventeen years of experience at top national firms and/or in-house at major corporations. StandWithUs is an international, nonprofit, and non-partisan Israel education organization that works to inspire and educate people of all ages about Israel, as well as challenge misinformation and fight against antisemitism. Through university fellowships, high school internships, middle school curricula, conferences, materials, social media and missions to Israel, StandWithUs supports people around the world who want to educate their schools and communities about Israel. Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Los Angeles, the organization has chapters and programs throughout the U.S., Israel, the UK, Canada, South Africa, Brazil, Australia and the Netherlands. #####
On a call Thursday evening, September 14, with hundreds of rabbis, White House Domestic Policy Advisor Neera Tanden commented on the Brandeis Center’s milestone Resolution Agreement with the University of Vermont, the first time the Biden administration applied Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to anti-Zionist discrimination. Tanden is the administration official responsible for overseeing the implementation of the newly-released U.S. National Strategy to Counter antisemitism, and she delivered public remarks on the plan for the first time: “Obviously, there’s been a rising concern on campus on anti-Semitism, and the strategy really propels action on the part of the part of the [Department of Education] and the Office of Civil Rights to really be aggressive in addressing antisemitism as we look at and investigate other issues of discrimination,” said Tanden, who pointed to the settlement the Department of Education reached with the University of Vermont — based on a Brandeis Center legal complaint — in April that said the university had not adequately responded to anti-Semitism on its campus.