Alyza Lewin - Brandeis Center

Published 6/1/23 by Jewish Insider. Podcast hosted by Rich Goldberg and Jarrod Bernstein; Story by Tori Bergel

JFNA’s Elana Broitman, COP’s Stephanie Hausner and the Brandeis Center’s Ken Marcus discuss the White House’s recently released Strategy to Counter Antisemitism in an antisemitism roundtable

Last week, the White House released “The U.S. National Strategy To Counter Antisemitism,” a groundbreaking 60-page document that the Biden administration hopes will act as a catalyst to combat the nation’s rise in antisemitic attacks.

In a first for Jewish Insider’s podcast, co-hosts Rich Goldberg and Jarrod Bernstein are joined by three experts in the field of antisemitism policy — Elana Broitman, senior vice president for public affairs of the Jewish Federations of North America; Stephanie Hausner, chief operating officer of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; and Ken Marcus, the founder of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law — for a roundtable on the first-of-its-kind strategy, which takes whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches to fighting antisemitism.

Below are excerpts from the conversation.

Ken Marcus: The White House has created enough ambiguity so that major Jewish organizations are able to declare victory, but also strong anti-Zionist organizations, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, are able to declare victory as well. And both sides are able to find material within both the strategy and the associated documents that seem to support their point of view. I am pleased that the Biden administration, through the Office for Civil Rights, has issued a Dear Colleague letter to colleges, universities and other schools, reminding them of their obligations to protect the rights of Jewish students. That’s important. It is important for administrators to understand that antisemitism is something they need to address. It’s a real thing… The White House has been promising to issue a formal regulation implementing the executive order on combating antisemitism. And most recently, they’ve said that they would do it by December of 2023. If they meant it, if they really are going to do what they promised, if they’re really going to issue a major regulation on combating antisemitism by December 2023, wouldn’t they mention it in a 60-page strategy document that actually has a lot of fluff and filler, and very little that has the the power in the substance of an actual regulation? It seems to me that this is more than a missed opportunity, it’s a signal that they really aren’t, at this moment, planning to do what they promised to do, which is a real regulation. If what they’re substituting is this Dear Colleague letter that has maybe symbolic value, but no substance in it, that is a very weak substitute.

Stephanie Hausner: In the plan,[the White House talks] about this antisemitism awareness campaign within the Department of Education, and there are like 10 goals related to both [the] Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, but I think Ken’s right. Where are the specifics in it?…I think we’ve been engaged productively with the Department of Education, certainly our three organizations over the last several years, but how are we going to ensure that technical assistance in a Dear Colleague letter and saying that the universities treat antisemitism with the same seriousness as other forms of hate — how do we ensure that that happens, and that DEIA [diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility] offices on college campuses include Jewish students in mandatory training on discrimination and harassment? Is it up to us, as Jewish organizations, as activists in this field? Or are we going to see come the fall, greater recommendations on this particular piece of the plan, so we know what the roadmap and next steps are? Because without that, it seems like, you know, not as strong as maybe we would have hoped it would be.

Elana Broitman: In addition to what we’re all asking ourselves of, ‘How did the administration do with this strategy?’ I also look at it as an opportunity to have a real call to action that unites our community and all the various organizations. For the most part, we are quite united, and so it’s an opportunity to double down on everything that we’re talking about and to bring on the education piece. So glad that University of Vermont, where Ken did wonders, was mentioned. We know there are other campuses where there’s an enormous, enormous problem, and we also know that that has metastasized down to the high schools and even middle schools, and it is good that that is mentioned. And I see that, I’m not trying to be simply overly hopeful, but I see that as a real opportunity for all of us to use that to continue to press forward. Younger kids are even more vulnerable than college students, obviously, when they enter an environment where they feel unwelcome, and that can happen for so many different reasons: legislative reasons, leadership in the schools, a lack of action when something happens. There have been some horrific examples that I won’t go into detail on here, so I think that it’s really important that the strategy includes the younger-stage schools as well, so that we can leverage that in our advocacy.

Washington, D.C. (May 31, 2023) — In light of the anti-Semitic commencement ceremonies at CUNY Law, we are glad to see public officials taking action. U.S. Representative Mike Lawler has just introduced a new bill to prevent federal funding for anti-Semitic events. We hope that this provokes an important conversation about how we can prevent public institutions from promoting hatred of the Jewish people, or any group, while also ensuring full protection of the freedom of speech.

Published by Aish on 5/28/23; story by Kylie Ora Lobell

The human rights lawyer comes from a long line of fighters.

On December 6, 2017, the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Though the day was momentous, the work that went into this historic move started nearly two decades prior. Just ask Alyza Lewin, whose tireless efforts directly contributed to the decision.

Alyza Lewin outside the Supreme Court with Menachem and Ari Zivotofsky

Back in 2002, Lewin’s friend gave birth to a son named Menachem Zivotofsky in Jerusalem. She wanted to put “Jerusalem, Israel” as the birthplace on Menachem’s U.S. passport, but the State Department would not allow her to put Israel – even though there was a law, section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2003, on the books that said it was allowed. The State Department had simply refused to enforce it. Lewin, along with her father Nathan Lewin, who is also a prominent attorney, brought forward a suit to ensure the law would be upheld.

What came next felt like a failure to Lewin. The Supreme Court struck down the law saying Americans could list their birthplace as Israel, saying that the president of the U.S. has the exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereigns.

Lewin was disappointed, until years later when President Trump used that same law to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

“Our case paved the way for Trump to be able to do what he did,” Lewin said. “Now, no one, except for a future president, could undo it.”

Lewin said the case showed her that there is divine providence in the world.

“We never know why things happen the way they do or the ripple effect of our own actions, but if you are blessed to live long enough you might see the arc,” she said.

And when the decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital was finalized, Menachem Zivotofsky was the first person to receive a U.S. passport listing Israel as the birthplace.

“As a baby, he was our youngest client,” Lewin said.

Growing up with greatness

Alyza and her father, Nathan Lewin

When Lewin was a young child, she didn’t know that her father Nathan Lewin, grandson of the chief rabbi of Rzeszow, was famous. She wasn’t aware that Nathan, a Holocaust survivor who had gone to the Supreme Court many times to argue cases, was a staunch defender of the Jewish people. He argued for Jews to have the right to display a menorah in public places; he represented an Air Force psychologist who wanted to wear a yarmulke and his military uniform in a case that went to the Supreme Court; and he represented a Satmar Kiryat Joel school for handicapped children for another Supreme Court case.

One day, when Alyza was eight years old, she was walking with her father in New York City when someone stopped him on the street.

“They told him they’d seen him on TV,” she said. “I asked my dad who that was. He said, ‘I don’t know. It’s someone who wants to talk about my case.’ I thought, ‘Wow, that’s my father.’”

Lewin and the rest of her family would go and watch her father work at the Supreme Court. She found all of it fascinating.

“I always wanted to understand that he did better,” she said. “I didn’t know whether I wanted to practice the law, but I could see myself working with him at some point.”

Lewin comes from a long line of fighters. During the Holocaust, her grandmother, her father’s mother, came up with a plan to get her family out of Poland and then Lithuania. It involved getting a transit visa to go through Japan; at the age of four, Lewin’s father took the Trans-Siberian Railway and traveled across Russia and Japan. Eventually, he settled in the U.S with his family.

“As a teenager, I saw photos o the Łódź Ghetto and thought about how a miraculous twist of fate enabled me to be born in the U.S.,” Lewin said. “I’m very grateful for that.”

Lewin’s grandmother on her mother’s side was born in the Old City in Jerusalem when it was under Ottoman rule, so she’s always felt connected to Israel.

“I grew up with very strong feelings that the two most significant moments in recent Jewish history – the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel – are my personal history,” she said.

Continuing her family legacy

When it was time for Lewin to pick a career path, she was compelled to become a lawyer and continue her father’s legacy. She got her J.D. from New York University School of Law and co-founded Lewin & Lewin, LLP with her father. She also serves as president and general counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which is a non-profit that advances the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and combats rising antisemitism on college campuses.

Alyza talking with Ken Marcus, Founder and Chair of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and former Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights

Along with the passport case, Lewin has taken on a number of prominent cases. Recently, she represented Avi Zinger, the Israeli licensee of Ben & Jerry’s who was fighting to keep selling all throughout Israel and to the Palestinians after the ice cream company said it was ceasing sales in those areas.

“Avi was selling everywhere: to Jews, to Christians, to Arabs, and they said he had to stop selling in the territories,” Lewin said. “Avi said he couldn’t do it. It was a violation of Israeli law to discriminate based on where someone lives. And, it would have harmed the Palestinians, the largest consumers of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in the area.”

Did Lewin think the Ben & Jerry’s decision was antisemitic?

“There were antisemitic protestors in Vermont for years who put pressure on Ben and Jerry to end their relationship with Avi and Israel,” she said. “Also, anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. Zionism is not a viewpoint. It’s not a political opinion. It’s the celebration of our history and heritage and an integral part of what it means to us to be Jewish.”

Through her work at the Brandeis Center, Lewin deals with antisemitic incidences constantly. For instance, at the University of Southern California, Rose Ritch, the USC Undergraduate Student Government (USG) vice president, was targeted for being Jewish. Students there harassed her with antisemitic messages and tried to exclude her from participating on campus, going so far as to attempting to impeach her.

In response, the Brandeis Center sent a letter to USC reminding them of their legal obligations to protect Ritch under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which mandates that universities, and all entities that are receiving federal funding, discrimination and harassment based on color, race, or national origin. USC subsequently halted the impeachment.

“We’ve seen an increase in Jewish students who are being pushed out of clubs, student governments, and communities on campus because they are Jewish,” she said. “If they appear Jewish, it’s assumed they must believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish homeland, and if they believe that, they are considered pariahs.”

The Brandeis Center helps students articulate what they are experiencing on campus so that universities will recognize and put a stop to the antisemitism.

“Universities have a legal obligation to protect students on their campus from discrimination and harassment,” she said.

With all of Lewin’s work, she hopes to be a pivotal part of the civil rights movement she believes is happening for Jews right now.

“I grew up watching my father protect Jews’ religious rights,” she said. “What I realized is that it’s not enough anymore. We have to protect Jews based on ancestry and history as well.”

She continued, “We have every right to take pride in our Judaism and fully engage in society. My hope is to be able to give Jews the confidence to express their identity and help ensure the laws protect our ability to fully engage in society.”

This month, ahead of the Biden administration’s unveiling of its anti-Semitism plan, Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus made the case for the plan’s use of the one and only gold-standard definition of anti-Semitism, the IHRA working definition. In a series of op-eds, Marcus explained why “any inclusion of [the] Nexus [definition] will severely undermine Biden’s…plan.” Meanwhile, LDB General Counsel Rachel Lerman explained our public records act lawsuit against the University of California at Berkeley. Also this month, Marcus and LDB President Alyza D. Lewin spoke at a congressional breakfast to celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month.

Marcus Frames Importance of IHRA to Biden’s Upcoming Anti-Semitism Plan

News outlets published a trio of timely op-eds by Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus explaining why it is crucial that the Biden administration’s expected anti-Semitism plan include only one definition of anti-Semitism, that is, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all others. This point was made more urgent by reports indicating that the White House might embrace the controversial Nexus Document as well as the IHRA Definition.

Marcus responded to reports that the latest version of the White House anti-Semitism strategy “highlights” the IHRA Definition but still “favorably” mentions the diluted Nexus Document. As the Brandeis Center Chairman explained in if this account is true, it will put the Jewish community in a bind.”

Writing in the Jewish Journal, Marcus stated: “While many in the Jewish community may celebrate a Biden endorsement of IHRA, it will be regrettable if the price is that the White House recognizes a lesser standard [the Nexus Document] as well. Until the White House plan is officially released, it is not too late for the Biden administration to withdraw support for Nexus. If President Biden is sincere in his many statements of opposition to anti-Semitism, he should insist on this immediately.” eJewish Philanthropy and allIsraelnews amplified the JJ and JI pieces, respectively.

In another piece for the Washington Examiner, Marcus declared: “What the plan omits is even more important than what it includes. Look to see whether the Biden plan tries to legitimize the controversial definitions that have been offered as left-wing alternatives to the IHRA, such as the Jerusalem Declaration, the Nexus Definition, or any number of others. These diluted forms would frustrate effective enforcement, undermine international unity, and prevent meaningful comparisons among jurisdictions. While the IHRA definition has been adopted by dozens of U.S. allies, these counterfeits have, fortunately, garnered no significant support internationally. For the Biden administration to legitimize any of them would break the international consensus and undermine anti-discrimination efforts.”

The New York Sun – on the same day as the Examiner – published yet another op-ed by Marcus on this urgent subject: “To legitimize the [Nexus or Jerusalem] definitions meant to mask antisemitism from the left…would be viewed as a betrayal of the Jewish community, including Mr. Biden’s center-left supporters, and undermine his entire plan,” asserted Marcus.

In Newsweek, Marcus Slams UN’s One-Sided Criticism of Israel During Latest Terror Attacks

In a timely Newsweek op-ed, Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus addressed the illegalities under International Humanitarian Law of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIK’s) indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israel.

Responding to the one-sided condemnations of Israel issued by prominent U.N. officials, Marcus corrected misinformation about the concept of “proportionality” and the legality of military versus civilian targets.

“In international humanitarian law, the principle of proportionality bans any attack which will foreseeably cause incidental civilian injury, damage, or death which would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage,” wrote Marcus. “As the Louis D. Brandeis Center explained in a recent white paper on “International Humanitarian Law in Asymmetric Warfare,” this well-established principle doesn’t ban all military actions resulting in the incidental loss of civilian life, often referred to as “collateral damage.” In necessary military responses, collateral damage, while tragic, is often unavoidable. Moreover, under international law, collateral damage violates the proportionality principle only if it is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.”

Download the Brandeis Center’s essential white paper on this topic and comment or share our two-part Instagram reel to amplify its message on social media.

Brandeis Center Sues UC, Berkeley for Failing to Provide Public Records

The Brandeis Center filed a lawsuit against UC Berkeley for failing to satisfy its legal obligations, under California law, to provide public records on request. The documents at issue relate to the exclusionary bylaws at Berkeley Law that prevent most Jewish Americans from addressing many student organizations at Berkeley Law.

“We want a full understanding of what the situation is before we do anything about it,” stated Brandeis Center General Counsel L. Rachel Lerman to Berkeley student newspaper The Daily Californian. “It is part of civil rights to be able to get access to government documents and that’s what California promises us and has very strong rules about that….After we made three requests it reached a point where we felt we had to do something.”

Santa Barbara student newspaper Daily Nexus syndicated the story, and Lerman also spoke about the lawsuit with the top legal trade news source for California attorneys.

Rachel Lerman Explains why Brandeis Center is Investigating Santa Ana School District

Brandeis Center General Counsel L. Rachel Lerman explained to Jewish Journal why the Brandeis Center is investigating the Santa Ana Unified School District’s approval of two ethnic studies courses:

“We suspect that Santa Ana’s curricula embraces the discredited anti-Semitic ideologies that were contained in the rejected first draft of California’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum….If that turns out to be the case, then Santa Ana is taking a very ugly road and one which they may come to regret.”

Marcus and Alyza D. Lewin Address Congressional Breakfast for Jewish American Heritage Month

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus and President Alyza D. Lewin spoke at a Congressional Breakfast hosted by Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) in honor of Jewish American History Month.

In a panel titled “Implementing the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism: The Mainstream Tool to Combat Contemporary Antisemitism,” Marcus highlighted the importance of having an internationally recognized, gold-standard definition of anti-Semitism. “Where there’s a question of identifying what is and what is not anti-Semitism, there is no substitute for IHRA,” asserted the Brandeis Center Chairman.

President Lewin spoke about the challenges faced by Jewish Americans on campus. In a panel titled “Understanding Threats to Jewish-American Life: Challenges of Antisemitism Today,” Lewin explained how contemporary anti-Semitism has become pervasive on American university campuses, targeting Jewish students who receive little support from administrators. “What we really want is to make sure that Jews in America and around the world are able to celebrate our ancestral and ethnic heritage – freely and with pride,” professed Lewin. “We should be able to fully engage in society without having to hide who we are.”

Brandeis Center Director of Policy Education Emma Enig covered the event, which highlighted the accomplishments of the Jewish community – and the sharp rise in American anti-Semitism – in an insightful blog post. She detailed how more than a dozen elected officials came together to discuss Jewish American achievements, interfaith relations, and security threats against the Jewish community.

Chairman Marcus was a featured speaker at another CAM event, “A Winning Tool: How the IHRA Definition Has Transformed the Fight Against Antisemitism.” In his remarks, In his remarks Marcus pointed out that U.S. colleges and universities are bound by the IHRA Definition, whether or not they have formally adopted it. As Marcus further explained, higher education institutions that accept federal funding sign assurances that they will comply with applicable federal laws, regulations and executive orders, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 13899, which incorporates IHRA.

Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus spoke as part of CAM’s panel: “Implementing The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism: The Mainstream Tool to Combat Contemporary Antisemitism.”

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin spoke as part of CAM’s panel: “Understanding Threats to Jewish-American Life: Data & Security Challenges of Antisemitism Today.”

Lewin Introduces Honoree at American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists Awards Dinner

On May 10, 2023, LDB President Alyza D. Lewin, spoke at the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists’ (AAJLJ) Pursuit of Justice (“POJ”) awards dinner. Lewin presented the 2023 POJ award to Akiva Shapiro, a partner at Gibson Dunn, who has drafted several amicus briefs for the Brandeis Center defending the constitutionality of state anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) laws. In her remarks Lewin (who received the POJ award in 2020), described how she first met Shapiro when he (as a junior associate) reached out to Lewin to ask whether he might draft an amicus brief on behalf of members of Congress in the Zivotofsky Jerusalem passport case. Shapiro ended up drafting the amicus brief for members of Congress in the Zivotofsky case both times that the case came before the Supreme Court.

LDB Senior Counsel and AAJLJ Board member, Arthur Traldi, also spoke at the POJ event about the work of the AAJLJ’s Amicus Curiae Committee, which Traldi chairs.

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin and Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi speak at the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists’ Pursuit of Justice awards dinner

Brandeis Center 2021 Survey Displays Enduring Influence

A feature story in Commentary magazine’s June issue, titled “Campus Diversity Is Campus Jew-Hatred, “cited findings from a Brandeis Center survey that nearly 70% of “openly Jewish” college students “personally experienced or were familiar with an anti-Semitic attack in the past 120 days.”

The Brandeis Center’s landmark 2021 survey “Anti-Semitism @ College” examined rates of anti-Semitism among students who openly claim a strong sense of Jewish identity.

Brandeis Center Signs Letter Condemning ‘AnthroBoycott’

As noted in The Algemeiner, the Brandeis Center joined dozens of Jewish American organizations imploring members of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) to reject a resolution proposing an academic boycott of Israeli universities.

The measure, which accuses Israel of being an apartheid regime and committing crimes against humanity, will be considered via electronic ballot from June 15-30. If passed, AAA would become the first major academic professional association to endorse BDS since the Middle East Studies Association in 2022.

The Brandeis Center is Hiring

The Brandeis Center is hiring for the full-time position of Litigation Counsel.

Visit our website for the full job description and requirements. To apply or ask questions, email info@steadfast.us.

If you meet the qualifications and are passionate about our mission of advancing the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promoting justice for all, we want to hear from you.

Published by Inside Higher Ed on 5/26/23; Story by Katherine Knott

Jewish groups applauded the new federal policy, which they said embraced a controversial definition of antisemitism that includes criticism of Israel.

The Education Department is reminding colleges and universities about their responsibilities under federal civil rights law to protect students from antisemitic harassment.

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon wrote in a Dear Colleague letter released Thursday that a university violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “when it fails to take adequate steps to address discriminatory harassment, such as antisemitic harassment.” The office has already resolved one complaint against a university this year related to antisemitism.

The letter was one of several actions called for in the administration’s new strategy to counter antisemitism nationally and throughout society released Thursday during an event featuring Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff and Susan Rice, the president’s top domestic policy adviser.

“This plan will save lives,” Emhoff said.

The 60-page strategy document outlines a plan to raise awareness about antisemitism, protect Jewish communities and reverse the normalization of antisemitism, according to a fact sheet. The strategy includes 100 action items for different departments across the administration.

Jewish groups, such as Hillel International, praised the administration’s comprehensive strategy, which they hoped would have a positive impact on Jewish students. Hillel was one of many organizations that provided input on the plan.

Colleges and universities play a key role in the national strategy, particularly as more Jewish students report experiencing antisemitism on a college campus. One-third of Jewish students reported personally experiencing antisemitism, according to a 2021 study. A 2022 survey also cited in the report found that more than half of Jewish students worry that people make unfair judgments about them because they are Jewish.

The administration called on higher education institutions to condemn all forms of hate, have clear ways for students to report hate incidents, create task forces to combat hate and ensure that Jewish students are included in campus diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

“On college campuses, Jewish students, educators, and administrators have been derided, ostracized, and sometimes discriminated against because of their actual or perceived views on Israel,” the report states. “All students, educators, and administrators should feel safe and free from violence, harassment and intimidation on their campuses. Far too many do not have this sense of security because of their actual or perceived views on Israel.”

The report later added that all students have “a right to learn an environment free from antisemitic harassment. ED OCR will be watching to be sure these students are safe.”

The Education Department’s Antisemitism Awareness Campaign includes the Dear Colleague letter and site visits to institutions that have engaged in their own campaigns or experienced upticks in antisemitism.

“Antisemitism has no place in our society, and I am proud that the department will continue to use all available tools to prevent and address antisemitic discrimination in our nation’s schools,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement. “No student should have to face discrimination or harassment because of their race, color, national origin, shared ancestry, such as Jewish ancestry, or ethnic characteristics.”

Julia Jassey, co-founder of Jewish on Campus and a senior at the University of Chicago, said the national strategy was encouraging, particularly the efforts to improve education about antisemitism, the Holocaust and Jewish American heritage.

She appreciated that the report acknowledged the different forms of antisemitism from swastikas on a school desk to undue criticism of students or professors because of their real or perceived feelings toward Israel.

“We’re really encouraged to see how that can help universities, companies, administrators understand the breadth of antisemitism and take action,” she said.

Kenneth Marcus, who founded the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said the overall report shows that combating antisemitism is a priority, though he said he would’ve liked to see more substance in the document. Marcus led the Office for Civil Rights during the Trump administration.

“It is helpful whenever the president of the United States signals that a problem occupies the attention of the federal government,” he said. “We know that there are some colleges that are doing a better job of addressing antisemitic incidents. Today is a reminder that these incidents need to be taken just as seriously as any other form of violence.”

To Marcus, the report also shows that the administration is embracing a definition of antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. That definition says in part that “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” constitutes discriminatory speech.

“There are some college administrators who think that IHRA has been controversial and that they shouldn’t use it,” he said. “But this strategy document coupled with the new OCR Dear Colleague letter make very clear that IHRA is part and parcel of the laws of the United States and that it is a part of the evaluation process used by the Office for Civil Rights whenever there is an applicable case of antisemitism brought to federal investigators.”

Several groups have urged the administration to reject that definition, which they said is distorted and could lead to the censoring of Palestinians.

Lina Assi, an advocacy manager for Palestine Legal, an organization that supports those who speak out for Palestinian freedom, said that she reads the report as a rejection of that definition.

“The national strategy document removes IHRA from the center of the conversation, de-emphasizes the role of a definition and declines to make it law,” she said.

Assi later added that the Office for Civil Rights has had multiple opportunities to adopt the definition as a tool and “has repeatedly declined to do so, including today.”

“OCR is focused on addressing real cases of antisemitism,” she said. “OCR is also focused on context, and OCR is also focused on the ways that racism and the systems of oppression intersect.”

Published in the Algemeiner on 5/24/23; Story by Dion J. Pierre

As college students across California prepared to close the book on another academic year, a deluge of antisemitic incidents swept across the state’s campuses in May, with students celebrating the birthday of Adolf Hitler at UC Santa Cruz and graffiting swastikas on the walls of a bathroom at UC San Diego. But amid the darkness, students at UC Santa Barbara made the historic choice to elect the school’s first ever Shabbat observant student body president.

Tessa Veksler, a third year political science major, was elected on April 27 as president of UCSB Associated Students (AS) with 51 percent of the vote. She will begin her tenure on Wednesday and over the next year will act as a liaison between UC Santa Barbara Chancellor Henry T. Land and the school’s 23,000 undergraduates.

“I hope that students realize that they can advocate for themselves and that the more there are observant Jews in the workplace, the more changes there will be to accommodate people like us,” Veksler told The Algemeiner on Tuesday.

Veksler, 21, explained that becoming president had always been a “far-distant” goal of hers. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, from which her family emigrated in the 1990s, compelled her to run.

“When the conflict started, I was one of the only Ukrainian students within student government, and so many students turned to me for advice,” she said. “In working to help international students in Ukraine I realized how very few resources were available and that the ones that were available were not well known.”

Balancing school and religious obligations is a challenge for Jewish members of the academic community, and on multiple occasions, events organized by campus groups have been held on Shabbat to prevent their participation in important meetings. Jewish students have also been expelled from campus groups for supporting Israel, as happened at State University of New York-New Paltz in 2022, when Cassandra Blotner was forced out of a sexual assault awareness group she co-founded.

Veksler said she has prepared for any possible hiccups in advance, notifying her staff that her Shabbat observance is non-negotiable and that, starting sundown on Fridays, her powers and responsibilities will be delegated to other AS officers. She remains assured, however, that her commitment to the practice is supported by her peers.

“I think that people have, if anything, expressed admiration for my being able to observe on a college campus,” she said. “You know, it’s a college campus, everyone wants to be partying on a Friday night and using their phones to relax after a hard week. Both Jews and non-Jews have expressed very positive comments about this.”

Rabbi Evan Goodman of Santa Barbara Hillel, a nonprofit that provides resources and counsels to Jewish college students in the area, is also optimistic about Veksler’s upcoming administration, telling The Algemeiner that the student body widely supported her candidacy.

“That Tessa is who she is and is able to be proudly and unapologetically Jewish thrills me,” Goodman said. “UCSB is a great campus for Jewish students, and her election continues a recent history of Jewish students taking their place as leaders and getting elected as leaders. I’m looking forward to her next year in office and seeing her bring all of her talents, and skills and passions to university leadership.”

“Having a student body president who is in the position to be able to explain, for example, the need for Yom Kippur accommodations is immensely positive,” said Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. “When there’s an Orthodox Jewish Sabbath observer as a student body president, they are able to make sure that Jewish students do not miss out on club fairs or other student programming. They’re also able to explain to make sure that faculty are made aware of the need to accommodate students’ needs, and even to make sure that students are aware that they can request religious accommodations — for Yom Kippur, as well as Ramadan.”

Contact: Nicole Rosen

202-309-5724

Washington, D.C. (May 25, 2023): Kenneth L. Marcus, renowned anti-Semitism scholar and legal advocate, author of ‘The Definition of Anti-Semitism’ and ‘Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America’, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights for two presidents, and a distinguished senior fellow at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, issued the following statement:

“President Biden has invested significant attention addressing record levels of anti-Semitism, and importantly and appropriately recognizing that Jewish Americans are facing discrimination based not only on our religion but also our ethnic and ancestral background. This is to be commended. The Biden administration has also forcefully embraced IHRA, despite regretfully muddying the water by also acknowledging a lesser standard. Deeply troubling, however, is that the administration appears to be retreating from a longstanding commitment to issue regulations on combating anti-Semitism. Instead of issuing a new regulation that strengthens protections for Jewish students, the administration is promising only to issue informal guidance to remind institutions of their existing commitments. In short, the rhetoric is very strong and the intent is good, but the substance doesn’t always measure up There is a serious retreat from earlier commitments, and the implementation could be seriously flawed and rendered ineffective if this plan opens the door to using any definition of anti-Semitism other than IHRA.”

On behalf of his organization, the Brandeis Center, Marcus offered the following more detailed analysis:

Strengths:

“The White House listened to the Jewish community and rightly endorsed the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism – as administrations of both parties have done for many years – and explicitly acknowledged that federal civil rights law protects Jewish Americans based not only on their religion, but also on their ethnic and ancestral background. This is significant. The IHRA definition remains, as it is widely called, the gold standard for defining anti-Semitism. It is the only internationally-agreed upon anti-Semitism definition. The Biden administration was wise to reject misguided efforts to reduce the federal government’s support for this standard, which was well-entrenched within Executive Order 13899 as well as U.S. Education Department guidance. The Administration was also wise to reject efforts to elevate the more extreme so-called Jerusalem Declaration.

“In addition, the Biden strategy is impressively broad, providing for a large number of programs and policies to address anti-Semitism, such as increased support for education about Jewish heritage and the Holocaust. We also appreciate the commitment to include anti-Semitism within Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion programs and hope that this leadership inspires action among the states and within the private sector. The emphasis on physical security for synagogues and other Jewish institutions is also welcome and, sadly, much needed. We applaud the forceful reiteration of the protection of Jewish Americans against not only religious discrimination but also discrimination based on ethnic or ancestral background. And we commend the White House acknowledgement that, ‘When Jews are targeted because of their beliefs or their identity, when Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hatred, that is antisemitism. And that is unacceptable.’ We appreciate that the national strategy as described is intended to combat all manifestations of anti-Semitism including anti-Zionism. And we applaud the forceful reiteration of the protection of Jewish Americans against not only religious discrimination but also discrimination based on ethnic or ancestral background.”

Weaknesses:

“The new plan, however, retreats from the White House’s longstanding commitment to issue regulations strengthening the civil rights protections of Jewish students. Instead, the new strategy only proposes to remind institutions of their existing obligations. The Biden administration has repeatedly promised to issue Education Department regulations that apply the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. This rulemaking, which the White House recently postponed until December 2023, will be a much-needed response to anti-Semitism on college campuses. The White House’s failure to mention this crucial activity is deeply disappointing. Instead, the new strategy would apparently downgrade this important rulemaking to a Dear Colleague Letter with lesser legal status. This is an unfortunate reduction in the federal government’s commitment to admit Jewish students at a time when the White House acknowledges that they are under attack. It is not enough for the administration to remind institutions of their existing duties; instead, the administration should be moving the ball forward and strengthening these protections.

“In addition, the White House has unnecessarily muddied the waters by praising the Nexus Document, which is inconsistent with the national strategy’s stated goal of addressing all contemporary forms of anti-Semitism and which could undermine the proper and effective usage of of IHRA. Use of any definition other than IHRA will enable the continued normalization of anti-Semitic hate and prevent uniform and effective enforcement measures to combat it. Indeed, the third pillar of the national strategy – reversing the normalization of anti-Semitism and countering anti-Semitism discrimination – relies on the ability to recognize and identify anti-Semitism. To that extent, the definition used to label anti-Semitic conduct is essential.”

In the past week, Marcus published op-eds in the Washington Examiner, NY Sun and Jewish Journal warning that the inclusion of the Nexus definition would severely undermine Biden’s anti-Semitism plan, specifically noting that it provides cover to those that perpetrate in anti-Zionist forms of anti-Semitism.

The Department of Education recently resolved a Brandeis Center complaint against the University of Vermont, highlighted in the Biden anti-Semitism plan, that recognized that Jewish students must be given the same protections as any other group, including when they face harassment based on Zionist identity. The Department is also currently investigating complaints filed by the Brandeis Center against the University of Illinois, Brooklyn College, and University of Southern California (USC). And the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is investigating a Brandeis Center employment discrimination complaint of anti-Semitism in the DEI program at Stanford University.

Marcus is available for interviews to answer any questions about the Biden plan.

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.

On behalf of his organization, the Brandeis Center, Marcus offered the following more detailed analysis:

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

U.S.-National-Strategy-to-Counter-Antisemitism Download

Op-Ed by Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus, published in Jewish Journal on 5/22/23

In economics, it is an iron law that bad money drives out good. Known as Gresham’s Law, after sixteenth century English financier Sir Thomas Gresham, the rule is that when two currencies have similar face value, the more valuable will eventually disappear from circulation. This may be the fate of the gold-standard International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of anti-Semitism if President Joe Biden introduces the baser Nexus Document into public policy usage.

This week, President Biden is expected to issue his much-anticipated all-of-government White House anti-Semitism plan. Expectations are sky-high, since the White House has previewed the plan with considerable fanfare. The context is historically high levels of anti-Semitism, as the Anti-Defamation League has reported. Biden claims that he was motivated to run for president by his disgust for the anti-Semitic Charlottesville “United the Right” rally. And yet, of the of two hundred policy recommendations that the plan will apparently contain, the most important will be a fail.

The mainstream Jewish community has pushed Biden hard to embrace the IHRA Working Definition and to omit its counterfeit alternatives, i.e., the Nexus Document and the even-worse Jerusalem Declaration. IHRA has already been embraced by over thirty nations and more than half of U.S. states. The Biden State department has lauded it, as have prior administrations of both parties. No other definition has any such international or national support. To its credit, the Biden administration is said to be featuring the IHRA definition in its plan, although it is not yet clear whether it will do so with the same forcefulness as did President Trump in his Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism.

The problem is that reportedly the current Biden draft, as a compromise with Biden’s hard-left supporters, includes both IHRA and the Nexus Document as well. Highlighting a lesser standard jeopardizes international efforts to coalesce behind the uniform approach that IHRA provides. This could lessen the international prestige of the IHRA definition, which the Biden administration claims to support. This could also completely undermine efforts to combat anti-Semitism in Europe as well as in the United States. In fact, the inclusion of Nexus will do more harm than good.

While not as problematic as the so-called Jerusalem Declaration, the Nexus Document not only provides a weaker standard, it provides cover to those that perpetrate in anti-Zionist forms of anti-Semitism. Nexus was developed as an IHRA-Light by left-wing academics and activists under the aegis of the University of Southern California’s Knight Program in Media & Religion. The purpose of the Nexus Document is to completely insulate political anti-Zionism, even in some of its extreme forms, from being properly identified as an outgrowth of historical Jew-hatred. The definition provides, inaccurately, that most criticism of Israel and Zionism is not anti-Semitic.

There are real-life situations in which the IHRA definition would allow government officials to properly identify and address instances of anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment, whereas the Nexus definition would not. In the University of Vermont anti-Semitism case, for example, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights required the university to resolve a situation in which a Teaching Assistant boasted of a “serotonin rush of bullying zionists on the public domain.” The instructor had boasted that “its [sic] good and funny” “for me, a TA,” to “not give Zionists credit for participation” and otherwise to reduce their grades. Under IHRA, as well as the Executive Order, this is properly understood as anti-Semitic bullying by a university employee. By contrast, unless this bullying were accompanied by “physical harm” or “violence,” it would not be considered anti-Semitic under Nexus but instead as “criticism of Zionism and Israel, opposition to Israel’s policies, or nonviolent political action directed at the State of Israel and/or its policies.”

Federal officials, who have been bound to use IHRA in campus anti-Semitism cases since President Donald Trump signed the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism (E.O. 13899), should not be encouraged to use the Nexus Document. To the extent that the Nexus standard is intentionally weaker, it will be easier to satisfy the requirements of Nexus than those of IHRA.

It is as if the F.B.I. were to embrace both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Since the Chinese Constitution is more permissive of governmental authorities, agents would be empowered to disregard the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment when executing no-knock searches, provided that their encroachments satisfy Chinese requirements. By embracing two standards, the federal government would effectively be elevating the weaker one. The stronger standard would eventually be disregarded.

As with dual currencies, Gresham’s Law always spells trouble for the stronger standard when a weaker standard is introduced. While many in the Jewish community may celebrate a Biden endorsement of IHRA, it will be regrettable if the price is that the White House recognizes a lesser standard as well. Until the White House is officially released, it is not too late for the Biden administration to withdraw support for Nexus. If President Biden is sincere in his many statements of opposition to anti-Semitism, he should insist on this immediately.

Published by Jewish Insider on May 19, 2023

The latest version of the White House’s forthcoming national antisemitism strategy is expected to highlight the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism promoted by mainstream Jewish groups, but also reference the Nexus definition, an alternative promoted by progressives, individuals with knowledge of the strategy told Jewish Insider on Friday.

The development comes amid countervailing pressures on the White House: Mainstream Jewish groups are lobbying the Biden administration to include only the IHRA definition, and some left-wing groups — which argue that the IHRA definition is overbroad in characterizing some critiques of Israel as antisemitic — seek to either exclude IHRA or reference other definitions alongside it. Officials had also considered not mentioning any of the definitions, sources said.

One individual with knowledge of the strategy said that the IHRA definition is “highlighted” in the plan, which also “refers” to the alternative Nexus definition “as a resource” but “doesn’t stress it.” They also noted further changes are still possible.

Kenneth Marcus, the chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said he spoke to individuals who had discussed the strategy with White House officials on Thursday, and said they had provided a similar readout. Marcus said that he was told the White House is planning to include IHRA in a “significant” capacity, but “at least [mention]” the Nexus definition “in a positive way in the document.”

Marcus noted, however, that the individuals he had spoken to had not directly seen the plan itself, but rather were informed of its contents by individuals in the White House. Marcus served as an official in the Department of Education during the Trump administration.

Another individual with knowledge of the strategy said they expect it to be released by Wednesday, May 24. State Department antisemitism envoy Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt said last Wednesday that it would be released “in the few days” or “next week.”

The Nexus definition, authored by academics in response to the IHRA definition, pushes back on the idea that applying double standards to Israel is inherently antisemitic. Nexus argues that “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of anti-Semitism,” and that “there are numerous reasons for devoting special attention to Israel and treating Israel differently.”

Another alternative definition, the Jerusalem Declaration, which argues explicitly that boycotts of Israel are not inherently antisemitic, is not expected to be included, according to a source with knowledge of the strategy.

The White House did not comment.

The Nexus definition’s inclusion in the strategy is likely to be seen as at least a partial victory for progressive Jewish groups that had urged the White House not to endorse the IHRA definition alone. Mainstream Jewish groups and scholars have argued that alternative definitions to IHRA are unacceptable and undermine efforts to combat antisemitism, and that they would undercut the effect of including the IHRA definition.

In a letter to U.N. officials earlier this week regarding the U.N.’s own antisemitism plan, leading U.S. Jewish groups led a coalition of global Jewish organizations to argue that “any references to these alternative definitions would only introduce greater confusion into the UN Action Plan and undermine our common efforts to combat antisemitism.”

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a series of tweets that “no other definitions work,” describing them as the product of “a pasted-up process organized by activists.”

Marcus, for his part, said that including the Nexus definition will make it “that much harder to get widespread Jewish communal support” for the strategy, and will place many Jewish organizations in a bind as to whether and how strongly to support the White House plan.

Marcus pointed to his work with college students facing anti-Zionist attacks, which he said are frequently brushed off as not antisemitic by university administrators. “The IHRA definition is the best tool that we have available to demonstrate that, while not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, some of it is,” he said.